Whats New in Acquisition, Technology & Logistics (AT&L) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

What’s New in Acquisition, Technology & Logistics (AT&L) October 4, 2006 Diane Wright Deputy Director, Air Warfare OUSD(AT&L) 1 rev Sep 30 0900

USD(AT&L) Imperatives • “Provide a context within which I can make decisions about individual programs.” • “Achieve credibility and effectiveness in the acquisition and logistics support processes.” • “Help drive good systems engineering practice back into the way we do business.” 2

AT&L Organization Changes • DUSD(A&T) – Dr. Jim Finley • Flattened the structure – Disassembled Defense Systems • Portfolio Systems Acquisition – “Warfare” offices • Systems Engineering • System-of-Systems Management • New faces 3

Areas for Improvement What We Need to Do Better Requirements Acquisition • Adapting to changing conditions • Acquiring systems-of-systems • Matching operational needs with • Making system decisions in a joint, systems solutions mission context • Overcoming biases of Services and • Transitioning technology others • Assessing complexity of new work • Moving to transform military and ability to perform it • Controlling schedule and cost • Passing operational tests PPBES • Ensuring a robust industrial base • Laying analytical foundation for budget • Aligning budgets with acquisition decisions Sustainment • Controlling O&S costs Personnel and Readiness 4 • Reducing logistics tails • Treating people as a resource

Focus on Initiatives • Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) Re-engineering • DAB/OIPT Review Optimization • Capability Area Review • Concept Decision/Time-Defined Acquisition • Capital Accounts • Portfolio Management and Investment Balance Reviews • Risk-Based Source Selection • Award and Incentive Fees 5

6 Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) Re-engineering

Why Re-engineer DAES? • Purpose – Program execution oversight of MDAP programs – Help programs succeed – Serves as the tool for statutory quarterly cost reporting • USD(AT&L) will assign DUSD(A&T) as responsible for DAES • DUSD(A&T) expressed concerns over old process – Not effective for oversight; insufficient accountability for program management – Not treated as a decision forum 7

What changed? • Re-engineered to make process more effective – Streamline and improve program execution oversight of MDAP programs – Enhance effectiveness of the process – Process based on trust and accountability – Sets stage for transparent, accurate, timely data input – Tightens up the focus on compliance with contract and baseline requirements – Risk-based assessments to identify trends early when the PM (or DoD, if needed) can engage – Increases discipline over cost 8

Data Input & New Meeting Format • Improved data input – Hyperlink to Service databases for transparent, accurate, timely data • Monthly, PM assesses program in 3-chart format – Compliance with contract(s) and approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) • Current status and looking forward (+8 months) • Color-codes clearly defined – Issues, with closure plans (30/60/90 days, inchstones) – Risk cube, with mitigation plans • Based on Risk Guide • Meeting – Attendance: SAEs, CAEs, 3-star, and Director-level – Sit down discussion vs. briefing style – Review programs by exception 9

3-Charts for PM Assessment Date: ________ Program Name: ________ Program Status (Chart 1) + 1 months + 1 months + 1 months + 2 months + 2 months + 2 months + 3 months + 3 months + 3 months + 4 months + 4 months + 4 months + 5 months + 5 months + 5 months + 6 months + 6 months + 6 months + 7 months + 7 months + 7 months + 8 months + 8 months + 8 months - 3 months - 3 months - 3 months - 2 months - 2 months - 2 months - 1 months - 1 months - 1 months current current current • Cost • Schedule • Performance • Funding Comments: Program Name: ________ Date: ________ Issue Summary (Chart 2) Issue/Problem Action Closure No. Description Plan Date 1 Example: Test Failure Failure investigation board complete Sep 20 Tailor test objectives for next test Sep 20 Redesign wing, as necessary Nov 20 2 3 Program Name: ________ Date: ________ Risk Summary (Chart 3) 4 5 Example: • Risk: 5 5 • Risk: Engine components may not • Driver: … withstand projected heat • Mitigation: 4 4 Likelihood • Driver: High exhaust temperature n • Date: • Mitigation: Measure temperatures at 3 3 key locations. Test components at higher temperatures. Invest in 2 2 • Risk: technology to reduce engine • Driver: temperature 1 1 • Mitigation: • Date: Sep 30, Nov 10, Feb 20 • Date: 1 2 3 4 5 10 Consequence

September Meeting – First Run • Programs were challenging; good stress-test for the process – C-130 Avionic Modernization Plan – VH-71 Presidential Helicopter – Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter was deferred until October meeting • Good feedback – High-level attendance – Face-to-face, tabletop discussion with PM – PEO and SAE also contributed – Excellent discussion, positive give-and-take, no tension • Actions assigned 11

Working with the New DAES Process • Advice to Program Managers and contractors – Establish programs with sufficient trade space (performance, schedule, and cost) • Trade space is important since most programs are complex with considerable risk – Look forward; forecast risks and work on them early – Establish and track risk mitigation and issue closure plans – Learn how to use the risk cube • New Risk Guide – Be alert to leading indicators and trends – Use your Earned Value Management Systems – Communicate, Communicate, Communicate 12

13 DAB/OIPT Review Optimization

DAB/OIPT Review Optimization • Streamlining DAB Reviews – Several programs identified as not requiring DAB meetings – We are working on consistency of DAB presentation to focus on what has already been resolved, less charts, more opportunity for discussion • PSA Deputy Directors will remain as OIPT leads – Service staff engage with OSD; specifically, PSA Warfare office and JS – For Milestones, recommend engaging 9-12 months ahead of required DAB date. Gain DoD agreement early on list of Milestone documents to be prepared – Program Managers (PM) should use Service and DoD staff as facilitators • OIPT timing based on desired DAB schedule date – IIPTs not mandatory; focused team meetings at PM’s request – Need to address exit criteria, Acquisition Decision Memorandum guidance, compliance with requirements 14

15 Capability Area Reviews (CAR)

Why Capability Area Reviews? • Dealing with limited budgets – Shape the Department’s acquisition vision with an overall context and understanding of a mission area – Align portfolio decisions with requirements focus • Explore portfolio to address where we are, where do we want to be, what do we need to get there • What is the best use of taxpayer dollar? • What gaps or overages exist in capability? 16

Land Attack Weapons CAR • Land Attack Weapons Portfolio – Collaborate with Services, OSD Offices, Joint Staff, Defense Agencies, COCOM Reps – Lay foundation for Conventional Weapons Engagement Capabilities Roadmap and the shared munitions database • Weapon design/performance not the primary issue – First order assessment of gaps/redundancies for • Moving/flexible targets? • Area targets? 17

Land Attack Weapons CAR (cont’d) • Explored cross-weapon programmatic issue, both current and projected – Unexploded ordnance – GPS upgrades – Weapons datalinks – Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing – Targeting; Battle Damage Module (SAASM) Assessment (BDA) – Fuzes – Weapons Operational Test – Anti-tamper assessments – Sustainment and logistics; identification tags – Universal Armament Interface (UAI) – Thermal batteries – Test and training ranges – Insensitive Munitions (IM) – Industrial base/production strategies – Variable warhead/energetics – Battlespace awareness • Endorsed framework for commonality/jointness 18

Capability Area Reviews • Expect CARs and Roadmaps to be refined as we branch into portfolios • Still evolving what constitutes a portfolio – Capability focused, product focused, etc. • Multi-program looks are important – Shapes vision – Focuses technologies investments – Enhances commonality across programs 19

Please Stay Tuned… • Other initiatives are also evolving – A number of “pilots” are underway for strategic governance and process improvements • Concept Decision/Time-Defined Acquisition/Capital Accounts/Portfolio Management/Investment Balance Reviews/Risk-Based Source Selection/Award and Incentive Fees • Strategic governance is bigger than AT&L – Shapes investments – Underpins budget decisions – Improves stability through early support – Prioritizes requirements across portfolios – Restores acquisition system credibility Be a part of making the system better 20