6/20/2005rbg brief to qdr1 presentation of recommendations from the it acquisition management...
TRANSCRIPT
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 1
Presentation of Recommendations from the
IT Acquisition Management Transformation Rapid Improvement Team (RIT) Pilot Report
Blueprint for Establishing Risk-based Governance of IT Investments in a Net-centric Department of Defense
Presented to:
COTS IT Acquisition Barrier WG
2005 QDR
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 2
Purpose
• Present recommendations of the IT Acquisition Management Transformation Rapid Improvement Team (RIT) Pilot
• Determine if the recommendations are appropriate for the 2005 QDR IT Working Group or should be referred to another QDR IPT
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 3
Issue and Recommendations
• It takes too long to implement IT solutions needed by the warfighters. How can we shorten the time?
– Restructure the PPBE process to finance IT solutions through working capital funds and avoid the current POM process
– Enable self-organization of the IT/NSS investment community
– Institute Risk-based Governance
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 4
RIT Pilot Summary
PHASE I: RIT
2001
RIT Recommendations:Reduce the Cycle Time
Improve the Product
2002 - 2003
RIT PilotExperimentation
PHASE II: RIT Pilots
2003 - 2004
Synthesis ofFindings &
Recommendations
PHASE III: Blueprint
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 5
Restructure the PPBE process to finance IT solutions through working capital funds
• Recommended by the RIT but not employed by the pilot programs
because each had already gone through the POM process
• Comptroller agreed to take for action
• Remains unresolved
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 6
Enable self-organization of the IT investment community
• What is self organization?– Originated from observation of biological systems– Just as the warfighters’ exploitation of net-centricity achieved
information superiority and in turn enabled self-synchronization, exploitation of net-centricity by the business community can achieve business information superiority and enable self-organization.
• Why does the business community need self-organization?– US industry leaders are already exploiting self-organization to maintain
agility in a global marketplace – Since 9-11, the Department has not adequately met the warfighter’s
need for information superiority. – GAO Comptroller General gives warfighter support poor grades
• Can self-organization work in DoD?– Observed in high performance IT investment organizations such as
GCSS-AF and GCSS CC/JTF– DoD Data Strategy Communities of Interest (COI) is an example
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 7
Institute Risk-based Governance
• What is Risk-based Governance?– It is the extension of the current 5000.1 policy that states:
• Responsibility for the acquisition of systems shall be decentralized to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the risk of the investment and the capability of the investing organization to manage the risk.
• How is Risk-based Governance different from delegation?– The covenant between the Sponsor, the Acquiring Agency headquarters
and the subordinate acquiring echelon is that the delegation of milestone decision authority to the subordinate echelon will add no unacceptable risk to the investment.
– Enables fast track initiation of IT solutions to warfighter needs
• What are the prerequisites for Risk-based Governance?– The same as for self-organization
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 8
Model of Risk-based Oversight
Low
Med
High
Low Medium High
Insight Oversight Continuum
Organizational
Investment
Capability
Aggregated Risk AssessmentProbability x Consequences
The hypothesis for the Insight element of RBG is:Headquarters staff due diligence can be accomplished through timely and transparent insight into JCIDS & PMO work products.
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 9
Basis for Risk-based Governance
• Observation of high performance RIT Pilots revealed five common traits:
– Full awareness of the program’s objectives within all levels of the Sponsor, PEO and PMO organizations
– A thorough understanding of the ultimate users’ (changing) needs– Direct communications with the ultimate users and user surrogates– A leadership climate that valued innovation and aggressive management– Maximum employment of available net-centric management tools
• Compares with Alberts and Hayes assumptions for self-synchronization
– Clear and consistent understanding of command intent– High quality information and shared situational awareness– Competence at all levels of the force– Trust in the information, subordinates, superiors, peers, and equipment
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 10
Attributes of Risk-based Governance
1. A clear understanding of desired investment outcomes2. Institutionalized risk assessment and management3. A collaborative environment with provision for insight into selected
investment information sets4. Process for assessing organizational investment capability5. Organizational support for capability improvement6. A trusting relationship between corresponding headquarters and
subordinate oversight actors
Correlating the RIT Pilot observations with Alberts’ self-synchronization assumptions leads to six attributes essential for creating a self-organizing environment we call Risk-based Governance:
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 11
Recommendations for consideration by the QDR IT Working Group for achieving the six attributes of
Risk-based Governance and Self-organization
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 12
General Recommendations
1. Change DODD 5000.1 paragraph 4.3.5. Streamlined and Effective Management.
• From,
– “Responsibility for the acquisition of systems shall be decentralized to the maximum extent practicable.”
• To,
– “Responsibility for the investment in systems shall be decentralized to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the risk of the investment and the capability of the investing organization to manage the risk.”
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 13
General Recommendations (con’t)
2. Legislative recommendation:
Propose that Congress change the definition of a major program from solely a cost threshold basis to one that includes both cost and the risk of achieving a needed capability or transformation.
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 14
A clear understanding of desired investment outcomes
1. That the instruction governing warfighter functional capability boards, CJCSI 3170.01 and CJCSI 3137.01, include as part of FCB responsibilities the articulation of outcome measures of effectiveness as exit criteria for a functional needs analysis, and a commitment to conduct a post implementation review against those measures at appropriate points after the system is fielded.
2. That the portfolio management directives and instructions now being developed by OASD(NII) include provisions for Business Domain Owners to conduct functional area, needs and solutions analyses such as required by CJCSI 3170.01, and that those analyses result in the establishment of outcome measures of effectiveness and the commitment to conduct post implementation reviews against those measures
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 15
A clear understanding of desired investment outcomes (cont)
3. That the DoD Enterprise Architecture Performance Reference Model include a process for developing measures of effectiveness (MOEs) and a requirement for an assessment of the MOEs after implementation in a post implementation review (PIR).
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 16
Institutionalized Risk Assessment and Management
1. OSD implement risk-based governance and resource an OSD organization to assess OSD and Component IT investment capability.
2. Adopt a generic set of IT acquisition project risk factors, such as is currently being piloted by the US Army, or as has been adopted by the State of Texas Department of Information Resources. Such an inventory of risk factors would be initiated during the Functional Solution Analysis phase and updated as the program evolved
3. Require, as part of Milestone and Decision Reviews, a uniform presentation of investment risk assessment and management using the probability-consequence display format of the DAU Risk Guide
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 17
Institutionalized Risk Assessment and Management (cont)
4. Update the DoD Chief Information Officer October 24, 2001 Memorandum, Subject: Policy and Procedures for the Fast Track Deployment of Information Technology, to reflect Risk-based Governance, and urgent program initiation
5. Charter an IPT of OSD and JS gatekeepers and Component representatives to reach agreement about the minimum content and approval process for consolidated acquisition information for Fast Track IT programs
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 18
A collaborative environment with provision for insight into selected investment information sets
The hypothesis for the Insight element of RBG is:– Headquarters staff due diligence can be accomplished through
timely and transparent insight into JCIDS & PMO work products.
1. Form an IT investment COI that includes JS, OSD and Component investment actors and exploits NCES
2. Charter an IPT to identify investment information objects needed to conduct insight in a Net-centric investment environment and develop a plan for implementation
3. Identify NCES compatible applications to provide the desired investment insight
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 19
Process for Assessing Organizational Investment Capability
1. Integrate RBG capability assessment appraisals with the requirement of the FY 03 National Defense Authorization Act for the Defense Services and specified Agencies to establish Software Acquisition Process Improvement Programs and associated assessments
2. Validate and adopt the Software Engineering Institute CMMI-AM be as the standard IT acquisition capability assessment model for PEO and PM organizations.
3. Each OSD investment gatekeeper develop a process for appraising their Component counterpart organizational capability
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 20
Organizational Support for Capability Improvement
1. Adopt a proactive posture for quality management that includes continuous capability improvement throughout the Department and articulate it within the directive system
2. Identify the Quality Management Office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to serve as the focal point for investment performance excellence
3. Establish a Quality Management Community of Practice
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 21
Engender a Trusting Relationship Between Corresponding OSD, JS and Component
IT Investment Gatekeepers1. Implementation of the preceding recommendations supports a trust
but verify relationship amongst gatekeeper counterparts– The culture of the Department is one of information hoarding rather
than sharing.
– Changes in the JCIDS and Acquisition processes that enable decentralization of responsibility engender trust
– The RIT Pilot undertook a trust building exercise with capability assessments that resulted in broad publication of the reports
– Transformation to a net-centric data sharing environment creates transparency that engenders trust
– Component portals are providing investment decision and progress transparency
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 22
The full report of the
IT Acquisition Management Transformation Rapid Improvement Team (RIT) Pilot Report
Blueprint for Establishing Risk-based Governance of IT Investments in a Net-centric Department of Defense
is available electronically in the IT Community of Practice
at URL: https://acc.dau.mil/simplify/ev.php?ID=16223_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 23
BACK UP
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 24
Making Fast Track Feasible by Calibrating RBG with Outcomes
PIR
ICD(MOEs)
CDD(KPPs)
CPD
DeploymentIOC-FOC
OT&E
JCIDSAnalysis
FAA*FNA*FSA
RBG
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 25
Overlay of CCA on JCIDS
Existing and Proposed JCIDS Processes for Satisfying CCA
JCD Joint Capabilities DocumentDCR DOTMLPF Change RecommendationICD Initial Capabilities Document
CDD Capability Development DocumentCPD Capability Production DocumentPIRD Post Implementation Review Document
CPDPIRD
Functional Area Analysis
Functional Needs
Analysis
Alternative NAlternative 2
DCRFunctional Solution Analysis
CDD
CPD
Alternative 1
Joint Operations Concepts
DOTMLPFAnalysis
(non -materielApproaches)
JCD ICD
Joint Operating ConceptsJoint Functional ConceptsJoint Integrating Concepts
Functional Area Analysis
Functional Needs
Analysis
Ideas forMateriel
Approaches
Analysisof Materiel/
Non-Materiel Approaches
Alternative NAlternative 2
DCRFunctional Solution Analysis
DOD Strategic Guidance
CDD
CPD
Alternative 1
Joint Operations Concepts
DOTMLPFAnalysis
(non -materielApproaches)
JCD ICD
IntegratedArchitectures
PostIndependent
Analysis
Facilitates development of
measures of effectiveness (MOEs)
Contains MOEs
BPR Analysis
No private or other government organization better performs function
Core function need to be performed by
government
Identifies functional area metrics and submits MOEs
Output is capabilities and their associated
tasks & attributes
IT Architecture
PROPOSEDAssessment of
Outcomes
Provides fundamental tasks and measures
required for CBA
Prioritized COCOM Needs
May satisfy MAIS
A of Alternatives
MISSINGMeasurement of
the MOEs
Initiates non-materiel BPR
Execution
6/20/2005 RBG Brief to QDR 26
Post Implementation Review (PIR) in the JCIDS ICD Life Cycle
ICD
MS A MS B
CPD
DT&E
OT&E
MS C
TEMP
TEMP
MISSION PERFORMANCE MEASURES PLAN
CandidatePIR Information Sources•FOT&E•Platform Readiness Assessments•COCOM Exercise results•User Satisfaction Surveys•Annual CFO Report Input•Mission Readiness Assessments•ROI Computation
PIR
SEPIntegration& Test
Contract
IOC
FCB/PSA MOE
PIR
Build
FCB: Functional Capabilities BoardICD: Initial Capabilities DocumentCDD: Capability Development DocumentCPD: Capability Production DocumentCDD