agility, assurance and capability - scaf · agility, assurance and capability ... urd, systems...

1Date/reference/classification

Agility, Assurance and Capability

SCAF Conference20th September 2007

Bob BartonBAE SystemsThe views expressed in this paper are the personal views of the author

and do not necessarily represent the official view of BAE SYSTEMS

2SCAF September 2007

Agility, assurance and Capability

– The role of the SRD – inputs vs outcomes?– Problem space vs Solution space – more agility?– Programme vs Project – scrutiny vs assurance?– What role the user - enough say?– Impact on risk – lessen or worsen?– More COTs – assurance?– Reduce costs – cost of acquisition?– Delivery accountability – to whom?– Why do UORs “work”? – focus?– Pace – why does it all take so long?

Opening thoughts…..

The User (they really did hate being called Customer 2!!)is totally frustrated at their lack of voice!!


National Capability Trade Offs

Defence Policy andNational requirements

Capability AreaPlan

Capability Management Plan

Through Life Management Plan

CM CapabilityTrade Offs

Equipment / LoDTrade Offs

DEC CapabilityTrade Offs LoDs

Budget & Aspirations

Reality and Costs

The importance of trades


The Acquisition environment has changed..

– There is now an accent on Capability – top down Defence policy– Contracting for Capability is much harder

– You can at least basically cost a solution….but you can’t cost a capability

– Skillbases have both eroded – and not kept pace– There are few “systems” experts in the DE&S– The desire for certainty - “fixed price” development - is unrealistic

– It purports to bound the cost – a certainty– In practice it just fuels the “conspiracy of optimism”

– Programme approval, phased scrutiny and iterative development would: – reveal cost drivers– Permit “trading”, recognise inevitability of the “unknowns”

Opening up the “trade space” is critical to achieving morewin-win answers.


Programmes, Projects and Process

– Military Capability is derived from a combination of projects:– across the DLoDs– including multiple equipments

………cohesively managed through readiness and in sustainment

– Who manages the whole?– How is it scrutinised and assured?– Does the current approach drive “premature certainty” ?

– Programmes should be approved– Projects should be scrutinised– Process should be assured

The key issues:


Programme Versus Project

Business Management –Change Mgt, Benefits, Affordability, TL Strategies, Business Plan

Programme Coherency & Enterprise Integration

Capability Acquisition – Programme Management, TLMP, WLC/COO, Risk/benefit mgt

Capability Requirements & Assurance– OA, URD, Systems Specifications, Trade offs,

Programm

e O

utcomes

Manpow

er

Infrastructure

Mission system

s

Weapons

Platform

Project Delivery Outputs

Through life managem

ent

Integration

Trade Offs

Source:FSM IPT

Trade – offs in aProgramme outcome context

not in a project delivery context

Issues: culture, incentives?


Capability Planning - Governance Control & AssuranceFully Understand Stakeholder Objectives

Establish and sustain right cultural environment

Create clear structures and boundaries

Measure progress and make risk-aware decisions focussed on successful project delivery

Report to enable risk-aware strategic decisions

Deliver Programme Outcomes to meet Stakeholder Needs

Governance C

ontrol Assurance

(Government and Supply Chain)

Mod & Industry Relationship Mgt, Supply, Partnering & Incentivisation

Project objectives, Scope, OBS, WBS, CBS

EVM & Risk Analysis, Engineering, Transversal & Quality processes etc.

Programme Review Structure

(Government and Supply Chain)

Source:FSM IPT


Programme Management Framework

TopLevel

Logic Network

Up to c.50 Programme Objectives- Stakeholder Goals- Other project interdependencies- Key decisions & approvals etc.

ReportingCommunicationsCapability trade-off analysis

Detailed Project and Stage Plans

High LevelProgramme Network

c.250-350 Activities- detail reflects risk areas- Timescale risk analysis

modelling

Risk AnalysisConfidence LevelsProject-level ‘What-ifs’

c. 3000 activitiesIntegrated Master Schedule

Source:FSM IPT


Straightforwardprojects

Intri

cacy

Uncertainty

Programmes vs Projects – a different game

Waterfall model

non-repetitive

repetitivephysical

intellectual

Source: PA Consulting


Complicated projects


Intri

cacy

Uncertainty

Veemodel

V

Waterfall model

non-repetitive

repetitivephysical

intellectual




Volatile projects



Intri

cacy

Uncertainty

Veemodel

V

Option modelWaterfall

model

non-repetitive

repetitivephysical

intellectual




Strategic creativity

Volatile projects



Coordination

Communication

Intri

cacy

Uncertainty

Veemodel

V

Waterfall model

Option model

Emergence model

Planning for capability requires a whole diffe

rent way

of thinking fro

m conventional equipment delivery




Programmes vs Projects

– The key issues:– Programme offices which force accountability

– Of IPTs– DLoD owners– Industry role– The focus on Military Capability

– Approvals and accountability at the Programme level– Put the degrees of freedom where they count– Scrutinise at the right time– Greater USER assurance, accountability to USER– Reduce the “nay sayers” and signatories– Accountabilty/governance of DECs

– Keep scrutiny for the proposed solutions at project level


Value for Money

– A major issue to resolve– But do the assurance and scrutiny processes help achieve it?

– DIS (1) said – “value for money, better Military Capability, better shareholder value”– It’s essential all parties are considered– Too often the VfM considerations are one –sided

– We need more balance

– How can we ensure that the user and Industrial views are considered?


Value for Money – a different perspective?– VfM is currently one-dimensional – it needs to reflect a broader base– Only in this way will we break the “VfM = competition” mindset

FinanceTotal Acquisition Cost

Through Life CostBalance of Payments

Use of EP/STPCost of MoD

R+T maturity and utilisation

IndustryCapacity Plan’g/UtilisationKey skills retentionShareholder ValueReturn on InvestmentCost of BiddingTake up of R+TValue of Exports

MilitaryAchieved In-service date

Capability GrowthAvailability

Adaptability/FlexibilityOperational Effectiveness

Manpower improvementMilitary tempo

Innovation + ChangeLoD synchronisationAcquisition paceMoD-Industry relationshipR+T investment levelCommercial flexibilitySME utilisation

The Value for Money Balanced Scorecard?


Chasing the certainty – agility = degrees of freedom!!

- Detail creates work- Makes the whole process unnecessarily complex!


Some considerations in the assurance and scrutiny debate– The complexity of major systems is accelerating faster than our ability to

learn, and adapt our approach (realisation needed)

– Decisions in the MoD environment are long in the gestation and generally bogged down by the “system” (diffuse decision bodies?)

– The inertia (or “immune system”) is substantive and usually underestimated from a response perspective (culture change?)

– Managing at the project level will not deliver Military Capability (a programmes and pan – DLoD approach will help?)

– A requirements driven approach is not compatible with TLCM (Outcomes - acceptance needed)

Scrutiny could help achieve the DIS balance?


Summary conclusions

– You cannot touch a Capability – we need to think differently!!!

– Assurance is easy - its all about the results– Agility starts with agility in the prime requirement

– Stay high, think capability where possible– Adopt a clear Programme management approach– A programme only needs approval, accept the ambiguity, not solution!

– Scrutiny is difficult– There’s too much “soft scrutiny” – interested, unaccountable signatories– It should be replaced by simpler approval of a problem solving approach– Hard scrutiny is often applied too late– Over scrutiny wastes time and resource

– The answer lies in incremental, embedded scrutiny, no surprises– But not so inclusive it goes native!!

– And what role the OA? Main Gate approval? What then?

19Date/reference/classification

Agility, Assurance and Capability

- Questions?

SCAF Conference20th September 2007

Bob BartonBAE SystemsThe views expressed in this paper are the personal views of the author

and do not necessarily represent the official view of BAE SYSTEMS

agility, assurance and capability - scaf · agility, assurance and capability ... urd, systems...

Documents