1

NDIA SE Division

Development Planning Working Group/Mission Analysis Committee

Meeting

13 February 2013

2

Agenda

• Introduction• MA Committee Overview• NDIA Systems Engineering Conference• MA Committee 2013 Task Plan• MA Committee 2013 Tasks and Discussion• Final Comments and Adjourn

NDIA SE Division Organization

3

DPWG/Mission Analysis Committee

• Tentative Meeting Dates for 2012 in the Washington, DC area– Wednesday, February 13 (today)– Wednesday, April 17– Wednesday, June 19– Wednesday, August 21

• NDIA SE Conference– October 28 – 31 in Arlington, VA

4

MA Committee Website

• The MA Committee website has been updated– Includes all meetings since the inception of

the committee and support documentation

• NDIA.org–Divisions

• Systems Engineering Division–Mission Analysis

5

NDIA Systems Engineering Conference

• October 28 – 31, 2013• Hyatt Regency Crystal City• Arlington, VA

• Early Systems Engineering Track– Abstracts due May 31, 2013– http://application.ndia.org/

abstracts/48706

Mission Analysis Committee - 2013 Task PlanProjects Working Group

Proposed 2013 Tasks:

• Support NDIA SED DPWG activities Complete S&T/IRAD Final Report OCI Discussion Forum ASD R&E Defense Marketplace

Innovation Engagement WG Lab Engagement WG

• Pre-MDD Architecture Tradespace• Pre-Milestone A Program Protection Planning

Deliverables/Products

• Final report on the Integration of S&T/IRAD to support Development Planning

• Final report Addendums following 2013 follow-on WGs/Forums

Schedule / Resources

• Working Groups/Forums ASD R&E Defense Marketplace Innovation

Engagement WG – April ‘13 OCI Discussion Forum – June ‘13 Lab Engagement WG – August ‘13

• Reports Complete S&T/IRAD Final Report –

February ’13Addendums – 60 days after WG/Forum

Completion

Issues / Concerns:

• Diminishing number of contributing committee members

• Inadequate resources to work both DPWG and assigned committee efforts

DPWG Workshop Action Items

Action ActionTeam

ActionLead

Status

1. Generate the DPWG Workshop Formal Report NDIA Lohse Draft report in work

2. Address the Issue of OCI (as a barrier to collaboration) NDIA RosenbluthRoedler

Identifying “genuine” OCI requirements and key language

3. Address the Issue of IP (as a barrier to collaboration) NDIA RosenbluthRoedler

DPWG Industry team collecting Industry input

4. Improve and Communicate the Systems Engineering Process in the Development Planning Timeframe (including SE as a part of S&T/IR&D)

NDIA Lohse Applying NDIA DPWG Development Planning Analytics Table

5. Identify Methods to Better Leverage Tactical and Strategic S&T/IR&D in Development Planning

NDIA LohseGuise

Initial efforts in work

6. Identify Methods of Collaboration and Communication Mechanisms

NDIA/Gov’t LohseGuiseAFRL

Partnering with AFRL for 2013 continued efforts

7. Provide Suggestions for Improving the 6.1/6.2 Investment Strategy

NDIA/Gov’t LohseOASD R&E

Partnering with OASD R&E for 2013 continued efforts

8. Collaborate Across Government and NDIA DPWGs NDIA/Gov’t LohseMichealson

Sedmak

Partnering with the Gov’t DPWG for 2013 continued efforts

All Efforts To Be Coordinated Across Government and Industry

OCI Discussion Forum

• Hold discussion forum with OSD and Service acquisition agents to understand their respective Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI) perspectives

9April 19, 2010

NDIA DPWG Action ListASD R&E Defense Marketplace Innovation Engagement WG

• Action: Provide Suggestions for Improving the 6.1/6.2 Investment Strategy

• Action Lead: John Lohse and Gov’t S&T Representative (OASD R&E)• Objectives:

– Increase Industry involvement in the MURI (Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative) process

• Enable Industry to be a submitter of 6.1 topics as an input to the Gov’t S&T planning effort• Provide methods of facilitation (e.g. NDIA SE Division forums, Industry days, etc.)• Understand the 6.1/6.2 funding model

– Increase Industry awareness and use of Defense Innovation Marketplace• Provide methods of communication (e.g. NDIA SE Division meeting and conference briefings)

– Identify methods/framework for increased Industry involvement with universities in the Gov’t 6.1 to 6.2 environment to expedite the technology maturation timeline

• This was a statement made that earlier Industry involvement would help expedite tech maturity. It seems to be a big change to the S&T funding process. Some comments:

– Is this something we want to pursue?– Is more “alignment” sufficient, or do we really want “involvement”?– If there is something that prevents us from doing this, we can just state that in our formal report.

– Include connections to UARCs and the SERC (Request from Mr. Nic Torelli who suggested involving Mr. Scott Lucero in this effort.)

• Method:– Joint Industry/Gov’t Working Group comprised of Industry and Gov’t S&T representatives to meet

the above objectives– Due date: TBD

• Action: Identify Methods of Collaboration and Communication Mechanisms

• Action Leaders: John Lohse, Garry Roedler, and Louisa Guise• Objectives:

– Identify methods of collaboration• Investigate and report on the concept of having mission focused consortiums (collaborative

mission analysis)• Understand and report on the USAF Model for Industry engagement

– Form a joint team to work with AFRL to mature collaboration and publicize their model– Address the timing of information exchange to support IR&D planning cycles

– Identify better methods to communicate collaboration opportunities• Identify communication opportunities and work with the Gov’t to implement them

– Specific opportunities currently exist with AFRL and Defense Marketplace Innovation (under Mr. Kurjanowicz)

• Determine methods to “push” the communication to the right audience– Need to define the “correct” audience and then define the methods to push the communication. This may

tie into the AFRL action above.

• Use Industry Associations to help get the word out– Identify appropriate Industry associations and develop an implementation plan. This may tie into the AFRL

action above.

• Methods:– Joint NDIA/AFRL/Government DPWG collaborative engagement to meet the above

objectives– Due Date: TBD

11

NDIA DPWG Action ListLab Engagement WG

Pre-MDD Architecture Tradespace

Enablers Analytics

Threat IntelligenceScenario Databases and Development Identify the Problem (e.g. Integrated Security Constructs)Mission Task Breakdown Threat Set DefinitionService Task Lists Political Impact Joint Capability Areas (e.g. DIME - Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic)Mission Architecture Mission Capability NeedsConcept of Employment (existing) Measures of EffectivenessWargaming Activities Performance Standards and ConditionsGovernment Documentation Current State and Programmed State of Capability (e.g. QDR, NSS, NDS, NMS, Joint and Service Pubs,

Mission Capability Gaps UONs, Risk Assessments, etc) Red Team AssessmentsMilitary Exercises and Experimentation Stakeholder AnalysisWarfighting Lessons Learned

Identify/Reduce Potential Candidate Solutions

DOTMLPF AssessmentConcept Feasibility AssessmentSolution Space Constraints

Mission Capability Needs Technology Needs AssessmentMission Capability Gaps Technology Gaps AssessmentMeasures of Effectiveness Technology Realism AssessmentCurrent State of Technology Solution BoundariesTechnology Roadmaps Key/Critical Measures (i.e. MoPs, COIs, KPPs, KSAs)SoS Architecture Concept of Employment (per candidate) Rules of Engagement Affordability AnalysisConcept of Operations Service Budget Portfolio AnalysisPlanning and Budgeting Cost, Schedule, Risk Assessment

Tradespace AnalysisSolution Capability Assessment (per candidate) Red Team AssessmentsStakeholder Analysis

Mission Capability Needs Analysis

Capability Solution Analysis

Phase

Pre-MDD

Pre-MDDEnablers and Analytics

Pre-MDDActivities

Activities Techniques, Methodologies, and Tools

Analysis of Future Threats, Strategy, & NeedsIdentify threatsIdentify range of missions/mission areas/use casesIdentify strategic/political interests BOGSATIdentify mission areas of interest Back of the Envelope

Advanced Concept Engineering Spreadsheet analysisDefine representative scenarios (including operating environments and conditions) Math ModelsUnderstand current Mission Architecture First Principal AnalysisIdentify Mission Measures of Efectiveness (MOEs) Monte Carlo AnalysisSolicit advanced concepts from S&T Base Analytic Hierarch Process (AHP)Solicit advanced concepts from Industry Discrete Event Simulation

Capability Analysis & Gap Identifiction Architecture (DoDAF, Zachman, etc.)Identify current capabilities (of mission area(s) of interest) Concept of Employment (ConEmp)Identify current Concepts of Employment (ConEMPs)Evaluate current capabilties based on MOEs M&S: EADSIM, ESAMS, STORM, SUPPRESSOR,

etc.Identify capability gapsRank gaps relative to the importance to the mission and the severity of the gap

Bound the Solution SpacePerform or incorporate JCIDS DOTMLPF Study (Verify need for a materiel solution)Understand current SoS ArchitectureIdentify conceptual solution space constraints (physical, doctrinal, technology, schedule, and budget)Provide a timeline projection for the availability of critical needsDefine/bound the conceptual solution space BOGSATIdentify Mission Measures of Peformance (MOPs) and Critical Operating Issues (COIs) Spreadsheet analysis

Solution Identification Math ModelsExplore potential technologies from S&T and Industry Base (e.g. JCTDs, CRADAs, CRAD, IRAD, etc.) First Principal AnalysisIdentify "potential" conceptual solution candidates (including disruptive and late blooming technologies) Monte Carlo AnalysisProvide technology assessment of conceptual solution space (current vs future, practical vs plausible, TRL, MRL, etc.) Analytic Hierarch Process (AHP)Understand technology, cost, and schedule realism Discrete Event SimulationDownselect conceptual solution candidates Architecture (DoDAF, Zachman, etc.)Generate ConEmps for each candidate Concept of Employment (ConEmp)Integrate ConEmps into SoS Architecture for each candidate (i.e. system integration assessment) Constrained Opitimization FrameworkEvaluate conceptual solution candidates against "programmatics" (e.g. cost, schedule, risk, etc.) 3DoF to 6DoF SimulationsEvaluate conceptual solution candidates against the MOPs (i.e. how well does the solution meet performance requirements?)Evaluate conceptual solution candidates against capability gaps using MOEs (i.e. how well does the solution concept fill the gap?) M&S: EADSIM, ESAMS, STORM, SUPPRESSOR,

etc.Evaluate conceptual solution candidates for compliance to the "ilities" Rank the conceptual solution candidatesWrite a "draft" Initial Capabilties Document Influence the writing of the AoA Study Guidance

Phase

Pre-MDD

Mission Capability Needs Analysis

Capability Solution Analysis

Pre-Milestone AProgram Protection Planning (PPP)

• Identify PPP Enablers, Analytics, and Activities in the Pre-Milestone A timeframe– Defense Acquisition Guidebook 13.14.2.

Systems Security Engineering (SSE) Process (page 1150)

15

SSE

SwA

SCRM

IA

AT

OPSEC

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE

MDD A B C MSA TECH DEV EMD PRODUCTION O&S

New Business

And

Adjourn

16