capability life cycle management · capability life cycle (clc) management professor mike ryan...
TRANSCRIPT
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 1 ‐
Capability Life Cycle (CLC)Management
Professor Mike Ryan
Dr Shari Soutberg
Capability Life Cycle (CLC)
The aim of this course is to:
• explain the intent and features of CLC policy including context, behaviours, principles and management arrangements;
• provide an overview of the CLC process;
• identify the capability management practices necessary to deliver the CLC;
• describe the CLC artefacts and their development; and
• understand the pathways for an Approval Submission through Defence and Government.
2
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 2 ‐
Course Program
• Background to FPR and CLC.
• Context and Behaviours.
• CLC Process in overview.
• Frameworks, roles, management, practices, documents, and artefacts.
• Capability Management Practices:
– Systems Engineering.
– Project and Program Management.
– Integrated Logistics Support.
– Procurement and Contracting.
– Governance, Risk Management, and Assurance.
• CLC Documents and Artefacts, including examples.
• Submissions and their pathways.
3
Background to CLC
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 3 ‐
FPR: How Did We Get Here?
1973 – Tange Review
2003 – Defence Procurement Review
2008 – Mortimer Review
2011 – Black Review
2014 – First Principles Review
Numerous Senate Reviews and Audits
Source: First Principles Review: Creating One Defence, 2014.
Reason for First Principles Review (FPR)
• Defence needs to work more effectively to meet future challenges.
• For capability development FPR found (inter alia):
– processes: complicated, slow, inefficient, unclear accountabilities;
– evidence of waste, inefficiency and rework;
– delayed decisions; and
– over‐escalation of issues for decision.
• So ... FPR report identified the need for:
– simplicity,
– greater agility, and
– timely delivery.
6
Source: First Principles Review: Creating One Defence, 2014.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 4 ‐
FPR Recommendations
Six core recommendations:
1. Strong strategic centre, stronger accountability and decision making.
2. Single end‐to‐end capability development function.
3. Enterprise approach.
4. Right skills in appropriate jobs.
5. Manage staff resources for optimal use of funds.
6. Commence implementation immediately.
7
First Principles• Clear authorities and accountabilities aligned with
resources• Outcome orientation• Simplicity
• Focus on core business• Professionalism• Timely, contestable advice• Transparency
FPR – Key Messages 8
“The strengthening of the strategic centre and the
establishment of a single end‐to‐end capability development function is reshaping how we
think and act.”
“… in conceiving of the future force, we need to talk about
the integrated force, integrated at an organisational
level and integrated technically and culturally”
“…If you follow the integration logic, we are moving, inexorably, towards a single war‐fighting domain. Our ability to operate effectively across this ‘One Domain’ will depend on our ability to build an Integrated Joint
Force by design”.
Source: VADM Ray Griggs, VCDF, ASPI Building the Integrated Joint Force Seminar, 7 June 2017
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 5 ‐
One Defence is Key 9
“Intent of the First Principles Review, to transition to a One Defence model and focus on achieving a truly
integrated joint force by design.”
Source: AVM Mel Hupfeld, Head Force Design, INCOSE IS 17 July 2017
Relationship between FPR and the CLC 10
“At the heart of the FPR implementation has been the Capability Life Cycle redesign, which is heavily focused on tailoring, streamlining and better integrating our capability solutions. It is equipping us to take that conceptual journey towards a single domain.”
Source: VADM Ray Griggs, VCDF, ASPI Building the Integrated Joint Force Seminar, 7 June 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 6 ‐
Capability Life Cycle
11
What is a Capability Life Cycle?
• ‘Capability’: capacity or ability of an organisation to achieve outcomes or meet core functions.
• Capability realised through Assets which:
– enable that capability, and
– bring value to organisation.
• Assets have a ‘life cycle’.
12
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 7 ‐
Asset Management Life Cycle13
PlanningAcquisition/ Construction
Operation (use) and Sustainment
Retirement/Disposal
Task 1Task 2
Task 3
Asset Management Life Cycle14
PlanningAcquisition/ Construction
Operation (use) and Sustainment
Retirement/Disposal
Task 1Task 2
Task 3
ImplementationPlanning Analysis Design Maintenance Disposal
System Development
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 8 ‐
Asset Management Life Cycle15
PlanningAcquisition/ Construction
Operation (use) and Sustainment
Retirement/Disposal
Task 1Task 2
Task 3
ImplementationPlanning Analysis Design Maintenance Disposal
Service OperationService Strategy
Service Design
Service Transition
Continual Service Improvement
ITIL (Cycle)
System Development
Capability Life Cycle
Defence CLC
16
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 9 ‐
What is Defence Capability?
• Defence capability:
– capacity or ability of the ADF to achieve a particular operational effect.
• Defence capability systems:
– deliver the operational effect, and
– also have a life cycle.
• Defence approach to life cycle …
17
Defence Capability Life Cycle (CLC)18
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
What is the Need? What is the Solution? Acquire Solution Use the Solution (then dispose)
1. http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific‐topics/marine/jurisdiction/map‐series2. http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships‐boats‐craft/future/opv3. https://www.sitecraft.net.au/news/defence‐minister‐announces‐commencement‐of‐opv‐construction/4. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/opvs‐will‐give‐fleet‐a‐bigger‐picture/news‐story/6729b38f69823a32866af390e05efcac
Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 10 ‐
Defence Capability Lifecycle (CLC)
Four‐phase process which:
1. Identifies capability needs.
2. Defines and decides capability solutions.
3. Acquires the capability and introduces it into service.
4. Supports the capability through its life including disposal.
19
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Key Features of Defence CLC
• Policy in Interim CLC Manual.
• Applies to:
– major capital equipment (military equipment);
– ICT; and
– facilities.
• Tailored to suit circumstances.
• Supports integrated joint force by design.
20
http://www.defence.gov.au/CIOG/Careers.asphttps://images.defence.gov.au/assets/archives (M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier & C17‐A RAAF Base Amberley)Source: Architecture Development as a Mission System Integrator, Steven J. Saunders Raytheon Australia, SETE 2008 Canberra
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 11 ‐
CLC – Principles
• Joint and integrated capability outcomes.
• Integrated planning.
• Flexible, risk‐based, tailored.
• Contestability.
• Discouraging risk aversion.
• Defence focus on core business.
• Default to fastest and simplest.
• Transparency.
• Clear responsibilities and accountabilities.
• Early and transparent industry involvement.
21
Source: Updated Interim CLC Manual
Applied throughout
the CLC
So ….
• What has changed as a result of CLC?
• What hasn’t changed?
22
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 12 ‐
What has Changed as a Result of CLC?
• Emphasis on Behaviours.
• Modified Process.
• Additional Frameworks: such as Force Design, Smart Buyer.
• Modified Management ‘structures’.
• Approach: default to simplest, tailored, risk‐based, sufficient.
• New Artefacts.
• Modified Industry role.
23
Modified Process and Decision Points up to Acquisition Phase
Snapshot of Key Changes Post‐CLC 24
Industry: Engage early, part of FIC, IPT, and ‘above-the-line’ support
Additional Frameworks
New Management Roles and ‘Structures’
AcquisitionStrategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Behaviours and Approach
New Artefacts:
• One Defence
• Joint/integrated
• Transparency
• Tailored
• Sufficiency
• Risk-based
• Force Design (incl DCAP)
• Contestability
• Smart Buyer
• Integration and Interoperability
• Investment Committee (IC)
• Integrated Investment Program (IIP)
• Management layers: Portfolio (Capability Streams), Program, Product, Project
• CLC Accountability Model: roles, responsibilities and relationships
Program: CPN, Program Strategy, PIOC
Proposal: JCN, JCNS, PES, Business Case, IPMP
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 13 ‐
What hasn’t Changed as a Result of CLC?
• Traceability to government direction.
• Requirements to be defined.
• Enabling Practices to be applied, including:
– Project Management,
– Systems Engineering,
– Integrated Logistics Support, and
– Procurement and Contracting.
• Compliance with legislation and regulations.
• Accountability for proper use of Commonwealth resources.
25
FPR and CLC: Recap
• One Defence: enterprise approach.
• Single warfighting domain: Joint Force by Design.
• Strategy‐led: traceable to Government Direction.
• Single end‐to‐end capability development.
• Tailored, risk‐based, simple, sufficient.
• Contested: test and improve proposals.
26
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 14 ‐
CLC – Implementation
• Full description:
– CLC Manual on VCDF CLC website; and
– DRN CLC Website – Modelpedia.
27
Summary
The six core recommendations of FPR:
1. Strong strategic centre, stronger accountability and decision‐making.
2. Single end‐to‐end capability development function.
3. Enterprise approach.
4. Right skills in appropriate jobs.
5. Manage staff resources for optimal use of funds.
6. Commence implementation immediately.
28
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 15 ‐
Summary
The ten CLC Principles:
1. Joint and integrated capability outcomes.
2. Integrated planning.
3. Flexible, risk‐based, tailored.
4. Contestability.
5. Discouraging risk aversion.
6. Defence focus on core business.
7. Default to fastest and simplest.
8. Transparency.
9. Clear responsibilities and accountabilities.
10.Early and transparent industry involvement.
29
Applying the CLC
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 16 ‐
Defence CLC Challenge31
+Technical endeavour to deliver and
support capability Precision and rigour
Complexity
Engineered systems
Management of Public Resources
Accountability
Performance
Governance/ Legal
+Many Stakeholders
Defence CLC Challenge
Capability Development is at intersection of:
• Stringent Public Sector obligations.
• Complex technical endeavour.
• Significant stakeholder interaction.
https://images.defence.gov.au
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 17 ‐
Defence CLC Challenge
Implementing the CLC is not an administrative process … it involves:
• Many skill sets: military, technical, business.
• Many considerations: strategic, legal, engineering, support.
• Many stakeholders: Defence, industry, government, civil.
33
Delivering Capability is the Goal
• The goal is to field the right capability in a timely manner.
• From a concept to a leading‐edge engineered system used in theatre.
34
https://images.defence.gov.au/assets/archives (M113 Armoured Personnel Carrierhttps://images.defence.gov.au/assets/archives/5003‐All‐Defence‐Imagery/?q=cyber
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 18 ‐
Introduction to CLC: Course Coverage
• An overview of:
– What needs to happen (and be produced).
– When it needs to happen.
– Why it is done.
– Who is involved.
• Provide an understanding of how capability development actions fit together …
35
Course Coverage
• Course will emphasise the CLC Process and supporting Methods so that you have Information to take Actionsincluding Decisions.
36
Process & Methods
Information Documents
OCDBusiness
Case
yx
4a5
aa d
yx
4a5
avpqa
dyx
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
Actions/Decisions
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 19 ‐
Introduction to CLC: Course Coverage
• Context: Legal, Policy, Regulatory.
• Behaviours: existing and CLC.
• Process (Frameworks and Artefacts).
• Practices (supporting methods and techniques).
• Artefacts/Documents.
• Methods.
• Submissions.
37
Capability Management Practices
CLC Process (Artefacts and Frameworks)
Course Topic ‘Map’—Applying the CLC 38
Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Context
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Behaviours
Systems EngineeringProgram, Product and Project Management
Risk Management and Assurance
Logistics / ILS
Commercial / Procurement and Contracting
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 20 ‐
CLC Examples
• In this course we use a number of examples in the context of the CLC to consider how CLC might be applied to real situations.
• Examples illustrate through a mix of actual and hypothetical elements.
• Examples:
– Program: Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD).
– Project: Electronic Support (ES) system.
39
IAMD: Program Example
• Relevant to CLC discussion on:
– Programs.
– System of Systems (SoS).
– Joint Force by Design.
– Integration and Interoperability (I2).
– Program‐level documents and artefacts.
40
Source: http://www.anzidlsoc.com.au/1600_AIR6500_Brief_to_TDL_Interoperability_Summit_2017.pdf
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 21 ‐
SEA 1448 Ph4A: Project Example
Relevant to CLC discussion on:
• CLC process, frameworks and management constructs such as Smart Buyer and Risk Mitigation.
• Enabling Practices:
– Systems Engineering.
– Project Management.
– ILS.
– Procurement and Contracting.
– Risk Management and Assurance.
• Artefacts and documents to be developed.
41
CLC Context
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 22 ‐
Capability Management Practices
CLC Process (Artefacts and Frameworks)
Applying the CLC 43
Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Context
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Behaviours
Systems EngineeringProgram, Product and Project Management
Risk Management and Assurance
Logistics / ILS
Commercial / Procurement and Contracting
Legislative, Regulatory and Policy Context 44
Commonwealth Legislation
Commonwealth Policy
Defence Policy
Defence Regulation
Defence and its officials must comply with applicable Legislation, Policy, and Regulation.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 23 ‐
Key Commonwealth Legislation Including but not limited to …
• Public Governance Performance and Accountability (PGPA) Act
2013
• Public Service Act 1999
• Defence Force Discipline Act 1982
• Work Health and Safety Act 2011
• Crimes Act 1914
• Defence Act 1903
• Archives Act 1983
• Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Commonwealth Legislation
Commonwealth Policy
Defence Policy
Defence Regulation
Key Commonwealth Legislation Including but not limited to …
• Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act (PGPA)
2013
• Public Service Act 1999
• Defence Force Discipline Act 1982
• Work Health and Safety Act 2011
• Crimes Act 1914
• Defence Act 1903
• Archives Act 1983
• Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Commonwealth Legislation
Commonwealth Policy
Defence Policy
Defence Regulation
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 24 ‐
PGPA Act 2013
• The PGPA Framework requires Defence officials to:
– be consistent with Australian Government policies;
– use and manage public resources in an:
• efficient,
• effective,
• economical and
• ethical manner;
– exercise ‘care and diligence’;
– “act honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose”;
– not improperly use their position or information; and
– disclose interests.
47
Source: DPPM April 2017, Paragraph 21
Key Commonwealth Policies
• Including but not limited to:
– Commonwealth Procurement Rules;
– Indigenous Procurement Policy; and
– Commonwealth Risk Management Policy.
48
Commonwealth Legislation
Commonwealth Policy
Defence Policy
Defence Regulation
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 25 ‐
Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs)
• Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPR) have effect under the PGPA Act 2013.
• CPR:
– set out rules for procuring goods and services;
– indicate good practice;
– keystone of Government’s procurement policy framework; and
– fundamentally focused on achieving value for money.
49
Commonwealth Legislation
Commonwealth Policy
Defence Policy
Defence Regulation
Key Defence Policies
• Including but not limited to …
– Defence Environment Policy;
– Defence Industry Policy Statement 2016;
– Defence Procurement Policy Manual (DPPM); and
– Joint Directive on Management of Risk in Defence(30/2015).
50
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 26 ‐
Key Defence Policies
• Including but not limited to …
– Defence Environment Policy;
– Defence Industry Policy Statement 2016;
– Defence Procurement Policy Manual (DPPM); and
– Joint Directive on Management of Risk in Defence(30/2015).
51
Commonwealth Legislation
Commonwealth Policy
Defence Policy
Defence Regulation
Defence Procurement Policy
• Defence Procurement Policy Manual (DPPM) incorporates:
– CPR, and
– Defence Procurement Policy Directives.
• Must be complied with by Defence officials.
• Promotes responsible and accountable spending.
• Supports proactive management of risks.
52
Source: DPPM April 2017
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 27 ‐
Key Regulations Including but not limited to …
Defence Regulation: Technical aspects:• Provides confidence to users about the safety and technical
integrity of their systems and equipment.• Ensures:
– fitness for service,– safety, and– environmental compliance.
53
Technical Regulation
• Seaworthiness: Defence Seaworthiness Management System Manual (DSwMS).
• Airworthiness: Defence Aviation Safety Regulation (DASR).
• Land Technical Regulation: ADF Materiel Manual ‐ Land (TRAMM‐L)*.
• Explosive Ordnance Regulation: eDEOP 101 ‐ Department of Defence Explosives Regulations.
• ICT: CIOG ICT Technical Regulatory Framework.
54
* Will be replaced by Landworthiness Manual
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 28 ‐
Commonwealth Resource Management
Commonwealth Performance Framework
• Government Outcomes: intended results of actions by the Government on the Australian community.
• Commonwealth Programs: primary vehicle by which results are achieved.
• Entities are required to identify the Programs which contribute to government Outcomes over the Budget and forward years.
56
Source: https://www.finance.gov.au/ and defence.gov.au
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 29 ‐
Commonwealth Programs
• A program is defined in:
– Appropriation Acts, and
– Portfolio Budget Statements,
57
Source: https://www.finance.gov.au/resource‐management/pgpa‐glossary/programme/
Defence Example 58
Corporate Plan
Plan
Purpose: Defence’s role, objectives and functions
Defence’s Purpose is to:
Defend and protect Australia and its strategic interests
Source: https://www.defence.gov.au/
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 30 ‐
Outcomes Delivered Through Programs59
Source: https://www.defence.gov.au/
Budget Programs
Outcome Statements
$
Purpose
Outcome 2: Protect and advance
Australia’s strategic interests
Outcome 1: Defend Australia and its
national interestsDefend and protect Australia and its strategic interests
Programs 1.1 – 1.3 (Operational)
Programs 2.1 – 2.17 (Departmental and Administered)
Two Defence Outcomes60
Outcome 2: Protect and advance Australia’s strategic
interests
Outcome 1: Defend Australia and its
national interests
Programs 1.1 – 1.3
Departmental Budget Programs
Outcomes
Program 1.3: Defence contribution to National Support Tasks in Australia
Outcomes 1.1‐1.3
Outcomes 2.1‐2.17
Programs 2.1 – 2.17
Program 2.1 Strategic Policy and Intelligence
Examples
Program 2.9 Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Program 2.6 Army Capabilities
$
Source: https://www.defence.gov.au/
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 31 ‐
Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS)61
Portfolio Budget Statements
• Informs Senators and Members of Parliament of proposedallocation of resources to entities in each portfolio.
• Entities receive resources from the annual appropriations acts such as Appropriation Bills (No. 1 and No. 2) 2018‐19.
Budget$
Source: https://www.finance.gov.au/ and defence.gov.au
Defence Annual Report62
Source: https://www.finance.gov.au/ and defence.gov.au
• SecDef andCDF’s performance report (for FY) to:• Minister for Defence, • Parliament of Australia, and • Australian public.
• Prepared IAW parliamentary reporting and legislative requirements (especially PGPA Act).
Defence Annual Report:Annual Performance
Statement
• Against Outcomesand individual Programs
• Value of Outputs
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 32 ‐
Five Principal Defence Outputs to Government
1. The Joint Force-in-Being
2. Joint Force Operations
3. National intelligence products
4. Engagement and advice to Government
5. Obligations to Government
63
Source: https://www.defence.gov.au/ (PBS)
Commonwealth Performance Framework 64
Source: https://www.finance.gov.au/
Corporate Plan
Defence Annual Report:Annual Performance
Statement
Plan
How we went X 9/10
Portfolio Budget Statements
Budget $
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 33 ‐
Bottom Line on Context
• CLC practitioners must comply with applicable legislation, policy, and regulation.
• Compliance with Government direction and traceability of effort to that at all times (mission or capability engineering is relevant.
• ONLY use resources (do work) for Government‐directedactivities.
65
CLC Behaviours
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 34 ‐
Capability Management Practices
CLC Process (Artefacts and Frameworks)
Applying the CLC67
Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Context
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Behaviours
Systems EngineeringProgram, Product and Project Management
Risk Management and Assurance
Logistics / ILS
Commercial / Procurement and Contracting
Importance of Behaviours
• CLC changes have introduced new work context:
– more flexibility in how work is conducted;
– more integration of activities;
– more interdependencies between stakeholders;
– greater need for collaboration; and
– less strictly defined boundaries.
• Sound Behaviours are critical to making this work.
68
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 35 ‐
CLC Behaviours
• Acceptance of Accountability at all levels.
• Embracing Contestability.
• Discipline in documentation.
• One Defence: Partnership, cooperation and collaboration.
• Strong behavioural leadership at all levels.
• Deliver on Government direction.
• Improved relationships: in Defence and with Central Agencies.
• Manage risk: Deal with ambiguity and don’t be risk averse.
69
Key Behaviour: Embrace Contestability
• Culture of wanting ideas, proposals and agendas ‘tested’.
• Makes proposals robust.
• Helps improve decisions.
• Establish trust with Government and Central Agencies.
• Engage early with Contestability so can be ‘built into’ brief.
70
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 36 ‐
Key Behaviour: One Defence
• Collegiate approach: open, transparent and collaborative.
• From working level through to senior committees.
• Critical to development of the Joint Force.
71
Key Behaviour: Tailoring and Sufficiency
• Tailor:
– commensurate with complexity, risk;
– no prescribed approaches; and
– not a ‘cookie cutter’ approach.
• Sufficiency: Work, documents only to extent necessary.
• Discipline in Documentation: limit detail to that needed.
• Define and argue the tailored approach.
Tailor work and documents to what is needed.
72
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 37 ‐
Key Behaviour: Discipline in Documentation
• Proposals and Briefs must reflect discipline:
– simple, readable, plain English;
– ‘tell the story’;
– not excessive technical language;
– write for final audience—Ministers;
– clearly link effort to Government priorities ;
• Capability Streams,
• Show support for Government’s broader view,
– evidence‐based, identify risks, identify unknowns; and
– include Contestability.
73
Source: Defence CLC Seminar, Feb 2107.
Key Behaviour: Manage Risk
• Manage risk:
– deal with ambiguity, and
– discourage risk aversion.
• Conscious risk reduction mindset throughout CLC.
• Use risk management techniques to:
– identify risks,
– develop risk profile, and
– determine risk mitigation/control.
74
Identify
Assess
Control
ReviewRisk
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 38 ‐
CLC Behaviours add to Extant Values
• APS Values (ICARE: Impartial, Committed to service, Accountable, Respectful, Ethical).
• APS Code of Conduct.
• Defence‐wide Values (PLICIT: Professionalism, Loyalty, Integrity, Courage, Innovation, Teamwork).
• Single‐Service Values.
• One Defence Leadership Behaviours (CLARITI: Contributor, Learner, Accountable, Risk Manager, Inclusive, Team Builder, and Innovator).
• Professional Codes of Ethics.
75
Source: https://resources.apsc.gov.au/
Practices: Codes of Ethics
Specialist practitioners are also subject to Codes of Ethics, including:
• Project Management:
– Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM) Code of Ethics.
• Engineering:
– Engineers Australia (EA) Code of Practice.
76
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 39 ‐
Specialist Practitioners: Common Features
• Professionalism.
• Integrity.
• Competence.
• Act on basis of a well‐informed conscience.
• Act on basis of adequate knowledge.
77
Implications for Defence Managers
Defence officials:
• will employ specialist (non‐core) skills sets;
• must assure they have:
– appropriate competencies, and
– comply with applicable codes of ethics.
78
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 40 ‐
CLC Process – High‐level Overview
Capability Management Practices
CLC Process (Artefacts and Frameworks)
Applying the CLC80
Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Context
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Behaviours
Systems EngineeringProgram, Product and Project Management
Risk Management and Assurance
Logistics / ILS
Commercial / Procurement and Contracting
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 41 ‐
Defence Capability Life Cycle (CLC)81
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
What is the Need? What is the Solution? Acquire Solution Use the Solution (then dispose)
1. http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific‐topics/marine/jurisdiction/map‐series2. http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships‐boats‐craft/future/opv3. https://www.sitecraft.net.au/news/defence‐minister‐announces‐commencement‐of‐opv‐construction/4. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/opvs‐will‐give‐fleet‐a‐bigger‐picture/news‐story/6729b38f69823a32866af390e05efcac
Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV)
CLC Process Overview
• This will be your high‐level process ‘map’.
• There are layers of effort and outcomes that we will address over the three days.
82
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 42 ‐
CLC Process Overview83
Decide Need Define Solution Acquire Solution Use the Solution (then dispose)
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Four PhasesThree Decision Gates
Overview: Phases of the CLC
The CLC is a four‐phase, risk‐based decision‐making process which:
1. Identifies capability needs.
2. Defines and decides capability solutions.
3. Acquires the capability and introduces it into service.
4. Supports the capability through its life including disposal.
84
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 43 ‐
CLC Gates
There are three decision gates:
– Gate 0: Defence decision to progress to next Gate. All proposals go through Gate 0.
– Gate 1: Government decision to progress proposals to Gate 2 including specific option(s).
– Gate 2: Government decision to acquire a fully defined and costed capability.
85
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Investment Approval Pathway
CLC Process Overview86
Decide Need Define Solution Acquire Solution Use the Solution (then dispose)
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Strategy to acquire and
support solution agreed
Needs defined
Reduce risky aspects and
specify requirements
Undertake Tendering based on
requirements
Contract for Acquisition and initial support
Manage Project
Deliver Capability System
Support Capability System
DisposeCapability System
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 44 ‐
CLC Process Overview87
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
At the highest level CLC Process is punctuated by: • Approvals: internal and external.• Acceptance by ‘User’ (Capability Manager).
CLC Process Overview88
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
• Submissions proposed to authorities for ‘approval’ and ‘acceptance’. • Authorities generally provide ‘approval’ and ‘direction’.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 45 ‐
CLC Process Overview89
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
The submissions or proposals are checked on the way to the authorities e.g. Contestability (we will come back to this).
CLC Process Overview90
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
• Many activities are undertaken to:• develop these submissions; • progress the proposal; and• implement all aspects of the investment (including use the
solution).
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 46 ‐
CLC Process Overview91
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities A
ppro
val &
D
irect
ion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Strategy to acquire and
support agreed
Needs defined
Reduce risky aspects and
specify requirements
Undertake Tendering
Contract for Acquisition and initial support
Manage Project
Deliver Capability System
Support Capability System
DisposeCapability System
The activities support the enable progress through the CLC.
CLC Process Overview92
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Numerous documents/artefacts are developed to provide basis for agreement, understanding and to provide a record.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 47 ‐
CLC Process Overview93
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
CLC Process Overview94
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Many practices and disciplines are needed to help:• Undertake the capability development activities
such as Systems Engineering, Procurement and Contracting.
• Support analysis and decision‐making.• Develop the documents.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 48 ‐
CLC Process Overview95
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
CLC Artefacts and Relationships96
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 49 ‐
Why this work needs to be done …97
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
• Responsible use of taxpayer dollars
• Reliable provision of Defence capability
Why this work needs to be done well …98
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
• What is done poorly ‘upstream’ will have a significant adverse impact ‘downstream’.
• Fixing can be costly or impossible.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 50 ‐
Defence Frameworks, Roles, and Management Structures
CLC Process Overview: Frameworks100
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 51 ‐
CLC: Relies on Several New Frameworks 101
Definition of Framework
A framework is a particular set of rules, ideas, or beliefs which you use in order to deal with problems or to decide what to do.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/framework
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
To implement the CLC a number of frameworks have been introduced that guide the activities.
CLC: Relies on Several New Frameworks 102
Portfolio
Program
Product / Project
Capability Stream
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 52 ‐
CLC: Relies on Several New Frameworks 103
• CLC Management Layers
• CLC Accountability Model
• Force Design Framework
• Smart Buyer Framework
• Contestability Framework
• Fundamental Inputs Capability (FIC)
• Integration and Interoperability (I2F)
• Procurement and Contracting Framework
Portfolio
Program
Product / Project
Capability Stream
Planning Sourcing Managing
CLC Management Layers
Portfolio
Program
Product / Project
Capability StreamPortfolio
Program
Product / Project
Interim CLC Manual This Course
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 53 ‐
CLC Management Layers
1. Portfolio: whole view of Defence capability investment.
2. Capability Stream: ties investment to strategic outcomes.
3. Program: Groups of related Projects, Products, activities.
4. Product: capability system delivered by a Project.
105
Source: Updated Interim CLC Manual
Portfolio
Program
Product / Project
Capability Stream
Portfolio
106
Portfolio
Program
Product / Project
Capability Stream
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 54 ‐
Portfolio107
Proposed Investment (Program or Project)
Whole Defence Capability Portfolio
https://images.defence.gov.au/assets/archives (M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier
Portfolio: Benefits
• Comprehensive view of Defence capability investment:
– all capability investments deliver Defence’s strategic goals;
– optimise resources;
– manage risks at Portfolio level; and
– adjust investment actions as necessary.
108
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 55 ‐
Strategic Goals = Investment Portfolio109
Integrated Investment Program (IIP) Defence White Paper
Defence capability investment Portfolio managed through Integrated Investment Program (IIP).
Integrated Investment Program (IIP)
• Rolling ten‐year expenditure plan
– Approved annually as part of Budget.
– Bi‐annual IIP updates to the Minister.
• Includes activities and projects approved via:
– Defence White Paper (DWP).
– Program update.
– Gate 1.
110
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 56 ‐
Integrated Investment Program (IIP)
• Managed through Investment Committee (IC) and Defence Committee (DC).
• Spans all capability investment (over whole CLC):
– Major Capital Equipment.
– Enterprise ICT.
– Estate initiatives.
111
http://www.defence.gov.au/CIOG/Careers.asphttps://images.defence.gov.au/assets/archives (M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier & C17‐A RAAF Base Amberley)
Portfolio: Managing Investment
• ‘Managing the Portfolio’ means balancing:
– prioritised strategic capability needs;
– resources; and
– risk.
112
Strategic needs
RiskResources
Managing Portfolio
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 57 ‐
Capability Streams
113
Portfolio
Program
Product / Project
Capability Stream
Capability Streams
• Six Capability Streams taken from Defence White Paper.
• Helps communicate Defence priorities.
114
Six Capability Streams
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 58 ‐
Six Capability Streams
• ISREW*, Space and Cyber.
• Air and Sea Lift.
• Land Combat and Amphibious Warfare.
• Strike and Air Combat.
• Maritime and Anti‐Sub Warfare.
• Key Enablers.
115
* ISREW: Intelligence Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Electronic Warfare
https://images.defence.gov.au
CLC Capability Streams 116
Defence Capability Portfolio
ISREW, Space and Cyber
Air and Sea Lift Land Combat
and Amphibious Warfare.
Strike and Air Combat.
Maritime and Anti‐Sub Warfare.
Key Enablers.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 59 ‐
Capability Streams
• Used for:
– Structuring the IIP;
– Seeking innovation proposals (Defence Innovation Hub);
– Defence Industrial Capability Plan; and
– Australian industrial strategies (from mid‐2019).
117
CLC Programs
118
Portfolio
Program
Product / Project
Capability Stream
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 60 ‐
CLC Programs
• CLC introduced Programs.
• Programs deliver capability outcomes.
• Multiple Programs in each Capability Stream.
– Currently 40 Programs in Portfolio.
– Number will change.
• Programs made up of Projects and Products.
119
Capability Stream to Programs Matrix 120
Source: Interim CLC Manual
Capability Streams (to prioritise over multiple domains)
Cap
abili
ty M
anag
er D
omai
ns
ISREW, Space and Cyber
Air & Sea Lift Land Combat & Amphib Warfare
Strike & Air Combat Maritime & Anti-Sub Warfare
Key Enablers
Chief Joint Capabilities
Chief Joint Capabilities
Assoc Secretary *
Chief of NavyChief of Army Chief of Air ForceChief of Air Force
Chief Joint Capabilities
Chief of Navy
Chief of Army
Chief of Air Force
DepSec SPI
Joint Integration
Maritime
Land
Air & Space
Intelligence & Cyber
C4I and Joint BattleManagement Systems
Joint ISR and EW
Warfighting Innovation(inc Cyber)
Asymmetric Response
Maritime Tactical C4I
Land ISREW
Land C3
Air and Space Awareness
Strategic Intelligence
Strategic Cyber
Geospatial Information and Intelligence
Battlefield Aviation
Sea Lift Amphibious Combat
Maritime Patrol andResponse
Major Surface Combatants
Submarines
Naval Aviation
Maritime Logistics
Minor Combatants
Health Services
Fuel
Explosive Ordnance
Training Support andSimulation
Maritime Infrastructure
and Ranges
Combat Service Support
Systems
Base Operations
Aircrew Training
Airborne Electronic Attack
Integrated Air and Missile
Defence
Air Combat
Combat Vehicles
Soldier Systems
Non-combat Vehicles
Combat Support
Special Operations
Air Mobility
* Associate S
ecretary plays a CM
-like role for 3 corporate enabler Program
s:In
frastructu
re&
Estate / E
nterp
rise ICT
/ W
orkfo
rce
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 61 ‐
CLC Programs121
Battlefield Aviation
Sea Lift
Air Mobility
Major Surface Combatants
Submarines
Naval Aviation
Maritime Logistics
Minor Combatants
Portfolio
Programs
Capability Streams
Defence Capability Portfolio
ISREW, Space and Cyber
Air and Sea Lift Land Combat
and Amphibious Warfare.
Strike and Air Combat.
Maritime and Anti‐Sub Warfare.
Key Enablers.
Program
Program is made up of Products, Projects, and Activities which:
– deliver a capability outcome,
– have relationships, and
– likely need to be synchronised or coordinated.
122
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 62 ‐
CLC and Programs123
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
One system…
CLC: usually shown for one system/project.
CLC and Programs124
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
One system…
Several systems…
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 63 ‐
CLC and Programs125
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
One system…
Several systems…
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
CLC and Programs126
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
One system…
Several related systems…
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 64 ‐
CLC and Programs127
Program
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
One system…
Several related systems…
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
CLC and Programs128
Program
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
One system…
Several related systems…
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 65 ‐
Program: Delivers Capability over Time(enduring capability from multiple systems)
129
Current System
2019 2025 2030
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
System 1
+
System 2
+
+
+
Technology Obsolescence and replacement
System 3
System 2
System 6
+
Required Capability ‘level’ delivered by several systems
+
System 2
System 6
+System 7
Respond to threat changes
2035
Program: Delivers Capability over Time(enduring capability from multiple systems)
130
Current System
2019 2025 2030
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
System 1
+
System 2
+
+
+
Technology Obsolescence and replacement
System 3
System 2
System 6
+
Required Capability ‘level’ delivered by several systems
+
System 2
System 6
+System 7
Respond to threat changes
2035
Project
Project
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 66 ‐
Program: Lifestyle ‘Capability’ over Time (housing, transport, recreation)
131
2019 2025 2030
2 BR Apartment
3 BR House
Carport
+
Car: 4 cyl Hatch
+
+
+
Changing circumstances, Technology changes, Obsolescence and replacement
4 BR House
6 car garage
Car 4WD
+
Required lifestyle ‘capability’ : aspirations…
+Car: Electric
Townhouse
2035
2 BR Apartment
+
Solar incl car charging/ battery
Car: 4 cyl Hatch
Program Features
• A Program is:
– a group of related Projects, Products and activities;
– an enduring capability outcome;
– supports joint capability outcomes;
– managed by a Program Sponsor; and
– helps optimise capability outcomes within resources.
132
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 67 ‐
CLC Products and Projects
133
Portfolio
Program
Product / Project
Capability Stream
Asset Management Life Cycle 134
PlanningAcquisition/ Construction
Operation (use) and Sustainment
Retirement/Disposal
Asset Management
Task 1Task 2
Task 3
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 68 ‐
CLC Product Life Cycle 135
AcquisitionStrategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
PlanningAcquisition/ Construction
Operation (use) and Sustainment
Retirement/Disposal
CLC
Asset Management
CLC Product Life Cycle 136
AcquisitionStrategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
PlanningAcquisition/ Construction
Operation (use) and Sustainment
Retirement/Disposal
CLC
Asset Management
Product life cycle
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 69 ‐
CLC Product Life Cycle
• Product:
– Capability system (platform, equipment, commodity).
– Includes all Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC).
– Whole of life cycle (concept to disposal).
– Delivers capability effect.
137
AcquisitionStrategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Product life cycle
Project
A Project is:
• A temporary, multidisciplinary and organised endeavour to create a unique product, service or result.
138
AcquisitionStrategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Product life cycle
Project life cycle
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 70 ‐
CLC Project
A CLC Project is:
• The means by which a Product/s are delivered.
• Project delivers all (FIC).
• Requires Integrated Project Management.
• Part of a Program.
139
Project life cycle
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Product life cycle
CLC Programs140
Air Mobility
Products/Projects
https://images.defence.gov.au
Battlefield Aviation
Sea Lift
Air Mobility
Major Surface Combatants
Submarines
Naval Aviation
Maritime Logistics
Minor Combatants
Portfolio
Programs
Capability Streams
Defence Capability Portfolio
ISREW, Space and Cyber
Air and Sea Lift Land Combat
and Amphibious Warfare.
Strike and Air Combat.
Maritime and Anti‐Sub Warfare.
Key Enablers.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 71 ‐
Portfolio/Program/Product/Project 141
Activity: eg preparedness analysis Activity: eg modelling
Program
Portfolio Capability Streams
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Project
Product
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Summary
The four CLC management layers.
142
Portfolio
Program
Product / Project
Capability Stream
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 72 ‐
Roles in the CLC
CLC Leadership
Two types of CLC leadership:
1. Governance of the CLC Policy and Process:
– VCDF: CLC Policy
– Associate Secretary: Contestability.
– DEPSEC CASG: Smart Buyer.
2. Implementing the CLC:
– As per CLC Accountability Model.
144
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 73 ‐
CLC Accountability Model 145
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
Government
Delivery Group Head
Program Manager
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Industry Representative
FIC SMEAcquisition or
Asset Mgt Specialist
Government Submission
SME
Requirements SME
Contestability
IPT
IPT: Integrated Project/Product TeamSME: Subject Matter Expert FIC: Fundamental Input to Capability
Joint Team
Enablers
Delivery Group
Strategy Policy Intelligence
Sponsor
Partnership
Partnership
Source: Interim CLC Manual
Accountability: Meaning
• An accountable person:
• ultimately answerable for the correct and thorough completion of the task, deliverable or outcome.
• A person is held accountable and is accountable to someone.
• Accountability cannot be delegated.
146
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 74 ‐
CLC Accountability Model
• Customer and Supplier ‘sides’.
• Integrated teams drawn from both ‘sides’.
• Partnerships are key.
147
Customer Supplier
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
Government
Delivery Group Head
Program Manager
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Industry Representative
FIC SMEAcquisition or
Asset Mgt Specialist
Government Submission
SME
Requirements SME
Co
ntesta
bility
IPT
IPT: Integrated Project/Product TeamSME: Subject Matter Expert FIC: Fundamental Input to Capability
Joint Team
Enablers
Delivery Group
Strategy Policy Intelligence
Sponsor
Partnership
Partnership
Customer
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 75 ‐
Customer: Defence Committees
Defence Committee (DC):
– Chaired by Secretary.
– Primary decision committee for Defence.
Investment Committee:
– Chaired by VCDF.
– Supports DC on capability investment.
Enterprise Business Committee:
– Chaired by Associate Secretary.
– Ensures effective running of Defence.
– In‐year sustainment allocations for capability systems that are in‐service.
149
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
Government
Investment Committee (IC)
• Subsidiary of Defence Committee.
• Ensures resourcing consistent with Defence’s strategic priorities.
• Makes Gate 0 decisions for majority of proposals.
• Oversees implementation and integrity of IIP.
• VCDF (Chair):
– Assoc Sec,
– CJC,
– DEPSEC SP&I,
– CFO,
– CN, CA, CAF,
150
Government
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
– DEPSEC CAS, CDS,
– FAS Contestability,
– Central Agencies (Finance, PM&C).
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 76 ‐
Capability Managers (CM)
• Accountable to:
– raise, train and sustain capabilities as directed by Secretary and CDF; and
– Secretary and CDF, through the IC, for management of their Programs.
• Accountable for (inter alia):
– Appropriate allocation of resources.
– Setting and managing requirements incl FIC.
– Execution of budgets and financial delegations for relevant Program activities.
151
Government
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
Capability Managers (CM)
• CMs are:
– Chief Joint Capabilities: Joint Integration
– DEPSEC Strategic Policy and Intelligence: Intelligence and Cyber.
– Chief of Navy: Maritime.
– Chief of Army: Land.
– Chief of Air Force: Air and Space.
– Chief Joint Capabilities/ Associate Sec: Key Enablers.
152
Government
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 77 ‐
Capability Manager (CM)
• Develops the capability needs as tasked by VCDF.
• Sponsors Gate proposals to the Investment Committee
• Makes funding available to Delivery Groups.
153
Capability Stream to Program Matrix 154
Source: Interim CLC Manual
Capability Streams (to prioritise over multiple domains)
Cap
abili
ty M
anag
er D
omai
ns
ISREW, Space and Cyber
Air & Sea Lift Land Combat & Amphib Warfare
Strike & Air Combat Maritime & Anti-Sub Warfare
Key Enablers
Chief Joint Capabilities
Chief Joint Capabilities
Assoc Secretary *
Chief of NavyChief of Army Chief of Air ForceChief of Air Force
Chief Joint Capabilities
Chief of Navy
Chief of Army
Chief of Air Force
DepSec SPI
Joint Integration
Maritime
Land
Air & Space
Intelligence & Cyber
C4I and Joint BattleManagement Systems
Joint ISR and EW
Warfighting Innovation(inc Cyber)
Asymmetric Response
Maritime Tactical C4I
Land ISREW
Land C3
Air and Space Awareness
Strategic Intelligence
Strategic Cyber
Geospatial Information and Intelligence
Battlefield Aviation
Sea Lift Amphibious Combat
Maritime Patrol andResponse
Major Surface Combatants
Submarines
Naval Aviation
Maritime Logistics
Minor Combatants
Health Services
Fuel
Explosive Ordnance
Training Support andSimulation
Maritime Infrastructureand Ranges
Combat Service Support
Systems
Base Operations
Aircrew Training
Airborne Electronic Attack
Integrated Air and MissileDefence
Air Combat
Combat Vehicles
Soldier Systems
Non-combat Vehicles
Combat Support
Special Operations
Air Mobility
* Associate S
ecretary plays a CM
-like role for 3 corporate enabler Program
s:In
frastructu
re & E
state / En
terprise IC
T /
Wo
rkforce
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 78 ‐
Program Sponsor
• Accountable to the Capability Manager.
• Accountable for (inter alia):
– managing Programs;
– delivering within resources;
– Program aligning with strategic objectives;
– developing JCNS, Program Strategy;
– Project and Product outcomes;
– ensuring all I2 directives identified and managed;
– leading Test & Evaluation; and
– capability performance, availability, readinessand preparedness.
155
Government
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
Source: Interim CLC Manual
Project Sponsor
• Accountable to Capability Manager and Program Sponsor for delivery of the Product. *
• Accountable for (inter alia):
– development of capability needs incl FIC and I2;
– Business Case;
– setting direction for the Project; and
– approving the overall risk profile.
156
Government
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
* Para 7.11 Interim CLC Manual
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 79 ‐
Project/Product Sponsor
• Product Sponsor is accountable to CM and Program Sponsor for:
– Product outcomes; and
– preparedness levels in alignment with strategic priorities.*
157
Government
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
* Interim CLC Manual, p. 92.
Supplier
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 80 ‐
Delivery Groups
• Support Capability Manager (CM).
• Develops Project Execution Strategy (PES).
• Conduct Independent Assurance Reviews (IAR).
• Coordinate early Industry involvement.
• Execute Integrated Project Management Plan (IPMP).
• Sustain and dispose capability as directed and resourced by CM.
159
Delivery Group Head
Program Manager
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Delivery Groups
• Includes:
– CASG (materiel);
– CIOG (ICT);
– SP&I (classified projects); and
– E&IG (facilities).
160
Delivery Group Head
Program Manager
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 81 ‐
Program Manager
• Appointed in Delivery or Enabler Group.
• Pivotal to:
– coordinating related Projects, Products, activities; and
– optimisation of available resources.
• Program Management related policies and practices under development.
161
Delivery Group Head
Program Manager
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Integrated Project Manager (IPM)
• Responsible to plan and deliver the Project:
– inclusive of all agreed FIC; and
– to specified:
• scope,
• schedule, and
• budget.
• Coordinate delivery and integration of FIC and other enabler elements.
162
Delivery Group Head
Program Manager
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 82 ‐
Integrated Product Manager
• Responsible (to SPO Director and Product Sponsor) to:
– ensure all FIC identified and available to sustain the Product;
– plan and coordinate inputs from FIC providers including industry; and
– coordinate development, management of delivery agreement including the Product Schedule.
163
Delivery Group Head
Program Manager
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Contestability Division
• Independent assurance to VCDF, Secretary, CDF, Central Agencies, Ministers and Government.
• Ensures Defence’s capability needs aligned with strategy and resources.
• Ensures proposals can be delivered.
164
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
Delivery Group Head
Program Manager
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Partnership
Contestability
Partnership
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 83 ‐
Enabler Groups
• Accountable for providing assets and resources to IPT.
• Deliver and manage FIC and enabler components:
– coordinated by the Delivery Group (lead);
– IAW the Integrated Project Management Plan (IPMP).
• Contribute to:
– CM’s Program strategies, and
– Project planning.
165
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
Government
Delivery Group Head
Program Manager
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Industry Representative
FIC SMEAcquisition or
Asset Mgt Specialist
Government Submission SME
Requirements SME
Partnership
Co
nte
stab
ility
IPT
IPT: Integrated Project/Product TeamSME: Subject Matter Expert FIC: Fundamental Input to Capability
Partnership
Joint Team Enablers
Delivery Group
Strategy Policy Intelligence
Sponsor
Integrated Project/ Product Teams
• In both Project and Product cases:
– customer and supplier sides share a partnership; and
– comprise representatives from all relevant stakeholders.
166
Project/Product Sponsor
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Industry Representative
FIC SMEAcquisition or
Asset Mgt Specialist
Government Submission
SME
Requirements SME
IPT/ IPdT
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 84 ‐
Integrated Project/ Product Teams
• IPT: manage Project functions to end of Acquisition Phase.
• IPdT: established before end of Acquisition Phase, as appropriate, to commence Product Management activities.
167
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Project life cycle
Product life cycle
Initial IPT established
IPdT established(in this period)
IPT closed
IPdT closed
Summary of CLC Accountability Model
• Partnerships and close coordination are core.
• Program Sponsor and Program Manager relationship is integral especially for realising joint capability.
• Integrated Project/Product Teams comprise representatives from relevant Defence stakeholders and Industry.
• IPM coordinates delivery and integration of FIC
• IPdM coordinates ongoing delivery of FIC.
168
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 85 ‐
Summary of CLC Accountability Model
• Customer and Supplier ‘sides’.
• Integrated teams drawn from both ‘sides’.
• Partnerships are key.
169
Customer Supplier
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
Government
Delivery Group Head
Program Manager
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Industry Representative
FIC SMEAcquisition or
Asset Mgt Specialist
Government Submission
SME
Requirements SME
Co
ntesta
bility
IPT
IPT: Integrated Project/Product TeamSME: Subject Matter Expert FIC: Fundamental Input to Capability
Joint Team
Enablers
Delivery Group
Strategy Policy Intelligence
Sponsor
Partnership
Partnership
Force Design Framework
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 86 ‐
CLC Process Overview171
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Force Design Framework172
Force DesignFramework(DCAP)
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 87 ‐
Force Design Framework173
Force DesignFramework(DCAP)
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Defence Capability Assessment Program (DCAP)
• ‘front‐end’ to the CLC;
• core function of Strategy and Concepts phase;
• identifies capability needs; and
• ‘joint force by design’ is key.
DCAP174
• DCAP outcomes:
– prioritised investment recommendations;
– traceable to strategic guidance; and
– potential inclusion in Integrated Investment Program (IIP).
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 88 ‐
DCAP: Annual Cycle175
Often shown as annual program of activities supporting the Force Design Cycle.
Determine Gaps and Opportunities
Prioritise and identify possible options
Recommend response
Approve recommended response
Assess current force
DCAP: Modes of Operation
• Annual:
– gaps and opportunities
– inputs from:
• Force Design analyses, and
• Capability Managers.
• Agile: rapid assessment and resolution inside annual cycle:
• urgent operational requirement, and
• Government direction.
• Fundamental: approximately every four years as basis of Force Design Update.
176
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 89 ‐
Fundamental Mode
• Addresses gaps and opportunities in greater depth.
• Provides options for fundamental change to force structure.
• Basis for:
– review of force structure,
– update to strategic guidance,
– Defence White Paper, and
– new Integrated Investment Program (IIP).
177
Smart Buyer Framework
Approvals Strategy
Asset Management
Strategy
Governance & Management
Strategy
Commercial Strategy
PES
JCNS
Needs
Strategic
Security
Technology
Industry Capability
Commercial
Financial
Schedule
Project, FIC Integration
Defence Integration
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 90 ‐
CLC Process Overview179
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
What is Smart Buyer?
• Decision‐making framework that helps :
– analyse circumstances for :
• capability gap or
• opportunity;
– determine how to best progress the capability need; and
– ensure strategy tailored to circumstances.
• Basis for the Project Execution Strategy (PES).
180
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 91 ‐
What is Smart Buyer?
• Addresses:
– risks, opportunities and drivers;
– all relevant factors (technical, commercial, financial);
– whole of capability life cycle;
– total cost of ownership; and
– securing capability outcomes and value for money.
181
‘Drivers’ Categories• Acquisition
– Needs
– Strategic
– Security
– Technology
– Industry Capability
– Commercial
– Financial
– Schedule
– Project Internal Dependencies and FIC Integration
– Defence and Cross‐Program Integration
– Management and Governance
• Sustainment
– In‐Service Considerations
– Industry Capability
– Commercial
– Financial
– Support on Operations
– Product Dependencies and FIC Integration
182
For each Project/Proposal these are rated as: High, Medium-High, Medium-Low or Low.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 92 ‐
Smart Buyer: Main Steps
• Understand circumstances:
– such as capability need, strategic factors, industry capability, finance constraints.
• Identify drivers: ‘drivers profile’ (risk, opportunities).
• Develop a tailored strategy: PES based on four subordinate strategies …
• Approval Strategy.
• Asset Management Strategy.
• Governance and Management Strategy.
• Commercial Strategy.
183
PES: Tailored Strategy
• Approval Strategy:
– intended path to approval (two pass, one pass, NSC, Ministers), and the reasons for that decision.
• Authorities such as National Security Committee (NSC), One/Two Ministers.
• Pathway:– fast track from Gate 0 to Gate 2; and
– significant risk reduction studies Gate 0 to Gate 1. • Asset Management Strategy
– FIC Management.
– Capability Relevance.
– System(s) Maintenance, Changes and Tech Regulation.
184
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 93 ‐
PES: Tailored Strategy
• Governance and Management Strategy
– Single or Multi‐layer Governance
– Change Management
– Communications Strategies
– PMO (Program/Project) Structure and Approach
• Commercial Strategy
– Business Intelligence
– Relationships
– Strategic Agreements
– Contractual Provisions.
185
Smart Buyer Workshops
• Core to Smart Buyer are structured workshops:
1. Risk and drivers analysis.
2. Tailored strategy development.
• Uses CASG Independent Assurance Review (IAR) team.
• Develops a tailored approach captured in the PES.
• First Smart Buyer workshop conducted prior to Gate 0.
186
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 94 ‐
Smart Buyer – Implementation Steps
• Process steps (scalable):
– Kick‐Off meeting (1.5 hrs).
– Risk and Drivers workshop (1 day).
– Strategy Development workshop (1 day).
– Project team drafts the PES.
– Red Team Review (1.5 hrs).
– Approval by Delivery Group Division or Branch Head.
• Facilitated and supported using members of the CASG IAR team who are independent and possess significant experience.
187
Source: Smart Buyer Kick-off Meeting Pack
Strategy and Concepts Phase: Lead‐times to G0188
Source: Smart Buyer presentation pack June 2018
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 95 ‐
Smart Buyer: Flexible Application
• Smart Buyer method can be used across the CLC:
• analysis, and
• strategy development.
• Smart Buyer can be applied for different purposes:
– early definition of a Project—that is, pre‐Gate 0;
– during the In‐Service and Disposal Phase;
• changes to sustainment activities; or
• upgrade Projects within the In‐Service Phase.
189
Smart Buyer Framework190
Approvals Strategy
Asset Management
Strategy
Governance & Management
Strategy
Commercial Strategy
PES
JCNS
Drivers Profile Analysis/Tailoring Capability Need
Strategy
Needs
Strategic
Security
Technology
Industry Capability
Commercial
Financial
Schedule
Project, FIC Integration
Defence Integration
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 96 ‐
Summary
The Smart Buyer framework.
• Decision‐making framework that helps:
– analyse circumstances for capability gap or opportunity identified through DCAP;
– define how to best progress the capability need;
– Determines how to best progress the capability need; and
– ensures strategy tailored to circumstances.
• Explicitly addresses:
– risks, opportunities and drivers;
– all relevant factors (technical, commercial, financial);
– whole of capability life cycle; and
– securing required capability outcomes and value for money.
• Develops the Project Execution Strategy (PES).
191
Contestability Framework
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 97 ‐
CLC Process Overview193
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Contestability Framework
• Key assurance function.
• Function complements the behaviours
• Function performed by Contestability Division.
• Contestability Division structure: environmental domains.
194
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 98 ‐
Contestability across the CLC
• Assesses:
– Force Design outputs.
– Key CLC artefacts such as Joint Concepts, CPN, JCNS.
– Gates or other major decisions/approvals.
– Programs as they change strategy.
– Changes to Sustainment Strategies.
– Contract renewals.
195
Strategic
Product
Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirement
SettingAcquisition
In‐service and Disposal
Contestability
Project
Contestability Framework
• Contestability checks:
– alignment with:
• strategic capability and
• resource guidance;
– acceptable basis for decision‐making;
– plans can be executed;
– risk assessments and treatment strategies appropriate; and
– cost and schedule estimates are acceptable.
196
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 99 ‐
Contestability
• Is this the right thing to do?
• Will we receive the outcome we expect?
• Have things been done right?
197
Strategic
Product
Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirement
SettingAcquisition
In‐service and Disposal
Contestability
Project
Benefits of Contestability
• Makes submissions robust.
• Helps improve decisions (not make them).
• Checks key content:
– needs statement before Smart Buyer workshops; and
– needs and strategy before Gates.
• Trust with Government and Central Agencies.
• Supports a strengthened Defence strategic centre.
198
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 100 ‐
Contestability Model across the CLC199
• Current focus on Gate considerations
• Will be conducted across CLC
Source: Department of Defence
Summary
The role of Contestability.
Key assurance function used to assess:
• Force Design outputs.
• Key artefacts.
• Gates and other major decisions.
• Changes to Strategies and Contracts.
Benefits:
• Makes submissions robust.
• Helps improve decisions (not make them).
• Checks key content:
• Helps establish and maintain trust with Government and Central Agencies.
• Supports a strengthened Defence strategic centre.
200
Strategic
Product
Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirement
SettingAcquisition
In‐service and Disposal
Contestability
Project
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 101 ‐
CLC Funding Framework
Integrated Investment Program (IIP)
• Single integrated program: all investment needed to deliver and sustain Australia’s defence capabilities.
• Includes equipment, infrastructure, ICT, science and technology, and workforce.
202
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 102 ‐
Capability Development Investment Fund (CDIF)
• Funding line in IIP.
• Governance principles for access and management of CDIF.
• Primarily for:
– high‐level strategy development and
– early risk reduction activities for current & future IIP Programs and Projects.
• Allocation:
– Up to Gate 0 Program level CDIF allocated annually to CMs by IC.
– Post Gate 0 CDIF allocated by IC on case‐by‐case basis.
• CMs bid (Oct) for pre‐Gate 0 Program CDIF for coming FY.
203
Capability Development Investment Fund (CDIF)
• CDIF is for:
– early investigation activities to identify and research options;
– development of PES and Gate 0 Business Case;
– Smart Buyer workshops; and
– concept demonstrators.
• Early access to IIP funding should be sought before CDIF.
• Where IIP funding not available, additional CDIF can be requested.
• Consult with IPMB to discuss optimal funding mix between CDIF and early access to IIP provision.
204
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 103 ‐
Frameworks to Understand Components of Capability
Capability Perspectives 206
Support System: SSCC
Mission System
FIC
• Personnel • Organisation• Collective Training• Supplies• Major Systems• Facilities • Support • Command and
Management • Industry
• Operating Support• Engineering Support • Maintenance Support • Supply Support • Training Support
• Australian Industry• ADO• Overseas Industry• Allies/Partners
Sources of SupplyCapabilitySystem
• truck• radar• ship
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 104 ‐
Preparedness Force Structure
Force elements capable of delivering specific
effects and countering threats
Maintaining the force structure at an appropriate state of
preparedness for a range of potential operations
Defence Capability 207
Readiness Sustainability
Being ready to deploy on
military operations.
Being able to continue operating
Deploy and Operate Force Element
Defence Capability System 208
(Sustain, In-Service)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 105 ‐
Deploy and Operate Force Element
Defence Capability System 209
Mission System Support System
Supporting it In‐ServiceEquipment
Mission and Support Systems
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 106 ‐
Mission and Support System Perspective211
Capability System
Mission System Support System
Used to focus on bringing the system into being
(equipment and its use)
What is needed to support it during the In‐service Phase
Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 107 ‐
Defence Capability
• Capacity or ability to achieve an operational effect.
• Operational effect relies on a combination of contributions or inputs:
– Fundamental Inputs to Capability,
– not just the equipment, and
– all inputs must be in place to deliver operational effect.
• A deficiency in any one adversely impacts the whole.
213
Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC)214
Organisation
Command and Management
SupportFacilities
PersonnelCollective Training
Major Systems
Industry
Supplies
Capability (System)
Comprehensive, Structured
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 108 ‐
Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC)
• Framework enables:
– comprehensive analysis and planning of capability;
– consideration of all inputs; and
– focus on combination and integration of inputs (not individual inputs separately).
• Makes sure nothing is forgotten for operational effect.
• Everything for the capability is covered to ensure continued and assured lethality and preparedness.
215
Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/docs/Capability‐Life‐Cycle‐Detailed‐Design.pdf
Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC)
• Organisation: capability employed within functional groupings with appropriate balance of competency, structure, and command and control.
• Command and Management: effective command and management arrangements at all levels to safely and effectively employ the capability.
• Personnel: a competent workforce, including ADF, APS and contractors, for delivery, operation, sustainment and disposal of capability.
216
Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/docs/Capability‐Life‐Cycle‐Detailed‐Design.pdf
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 109 ‐
Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC)
• Collective Training: capability supported by a collective training regime.
• Major Systems: includes significant platforms, fleets of equipment and operating systems that enable the effective generation of Defence capabilities.
• Facilities and Training areas: infrastructure necessary to support the delivery, sustainment and operation of a capability system, including training areas.
• Supplies: include managing all classes of supply to maintain a capability at the designated readiness state, including sustainment funding and fleet management.
217
Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/docs/Capability‐Life‐Cycle‐Detailed‐Design.pdf
Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC)
• Support: engineering support; maintenance support; supply support; training support; packaging handling, storage and transportation; facilities; support and test equipment; personnel; technical data and computer support.
• Industry: consideration of the resilience and capacity of industry, such as the reliability and health of supply chains.
218
Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/docs/Capability‐Life‐Cycle‐Detailed‐Design.pdf
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 110 ‐
Summary
The nine Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC).
• Organisation.
• Command and Management.
• Personnel.
• Collective Training.
• Major Systems.
• Facilities and Training areas.
• Supplies.
• Support.
• Industry.
219
Support System Constituent Capabilities (SSCC)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 111 ‐
Support System Constituent Capabilities
• Defence groups support elements that comprise Support System through five functional categories:
– Operating Support.
– Engineering Support.
– Maintenance Support.
– Supply Support.
– Training Support.
221
SSCC Elements
1. Operating Support Capability.
– operating facilities system operators,
– support equipment,
– operator manuals and technical data,
– operating support procedures, and
– operating support information systems.
222
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 112 ‐
SSCC Elements
2. Engineering Support Capability.
– engineering facilities,
– engineering personnel,
– engineering support and test equipment,
– engineering technical data,
– engineering processes,
– engineering information management system, and
– software support.
223
SSCC Elements
3. Maintenance Support Capability.
– develop, establish and integrate a maintenance support system capable of sustaining a system throughout its life
• maintenance facilities,
• maintenance personnel,
• maintenance support and test equipment,
• maintenance technical data,
• maintenance processes, and
• maintenance information management system.
224
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 113 ‐
SSCC Elements
4. Supply Support Capability.
– supply facilities,
– supply personnel,
– supply support equipment,
– supply technical data,
– supply processes,
– supply information management system,
– spares, and
– packaging.
225
SSCC Elements
5. Training Support Capability.
– training facilities
– training personnel,
– training equipment,
– training materials and other technical data,
– training processes, and
– training information management system.
226
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 114 ‐
Mission and Support System Perspective
Training for operators Training facilities …
Capability System
Mission System Support System
227
Maintenance GaragingSupplies (such as fuel)Spares…
Support System Perspective228
Capability System
Mission System Support System
Support System Constituent Capabilities (SSCC) framework helps break down Support requirements for in‐service phase.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 115 ‐
Mission and Support System Perspective229
Capability System
Mission System Support System
Support System Constituent Capabilities (SSCC)
Operating SupportEngineering Support Maintenance SupportSupply Support Training Support
FIC Perspective230
Mission System Support System
Capability System
Organisation
Command &Management
SupportFacilities
PersonnelCollective Training
Major Systems
Industry
Supplies
Capability
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 116 ‐
Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC)231
Organisation
Command and Management
SupportFacilities
PersonnelCollective Training
Major Systems
Industry
Supplies
Capability (System)
Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC)232
Facilities
Training FacilitiesGaraging Facilities
Permanent Maintenance Facilities
Estate and Infrastructure Group (E&IG) organises
Deployable Mission System Facilities
CASG organises
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 117 ‐
Supplier Perspective233
Capability System
Mission System Support System
Department of DefenceAustralian Industry Overseas Industry Other Defence organisations (such as US DoD)
Supplier Perspective234
Facilities
Training Facilities
Garaging Facilities
Permanent Maintenance Facilities
Department of Defence
Australian Industry
Overseas Industry
Deployable Mission System Facilities
Australian Industry
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 118 ‐
Capability System235
Personnel
Collective Training
Facilities and Training Areas
Supplies
Support
Organisation
Command and Management
Industry
Operating Support
Engineering Support
Maintenance Support
Supply Support
Training Support
Mission System
Support System
Effect / Outcome
SSCC
FIC
(Materiel System)
Capability Perspectives
These structures help:
• ensure everything is covered;
• define requirements of the mission system and its support system;
• delineate what each party (CM, CASG, E&IG, CIO etc organises);
• define who supplies the different elements; and
• define elements for which industry is contracted.
236
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 119 ‐
SummaryThe nine FIC.
• Organisation.
• Command and Management.
• Personnel.
• Collective Training.
• Major Systems.
• Facilities and Training areas.
• Supplies.
• Support.
• Industry.
The five SSCC.
• Operating Support.
• Engineering Support.
• Maintenance Support.
• Supply Support.
• Training Support
237
Joint Force by Design
CLC Principle: Joint and integrated capability outcomes
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 120 ‐
CLC Process Overview: Your Process Map239
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
I2 Framework (I2F)240
• Supports Joint Force outcomes:
– Integration between ADF force elements.
– Interoperability with Allies, Coalition, civil/government elements.
Source: Architecture Development as a Mission System Integrator, Steven J. Saunders Raytheon Australia, SETE 2008 Canberra
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 121 ‐
CLC Process Overview: Your Process Map241
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Joint Force by design… Integration and Interoperability outcomes
Integration and Interoperability Actions
• define interdependencies and interfaces between related systems;
• keep interfaces in ‘lock step’; and
• ensure system/interface changes are managed.
Information Exchange
Eg HF, VHF
IAMDAirborne Sensors
Joint Battle Management System Deployable
Ground Weapons
Mobile Ground Sensors
Eg Frigates
Airborne Relay
242
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 122 ‐
What is Needed
• Single source of truth
• Authoritative reference:
– assigned authorities;
– overarching design (such as design patterns and standards); and
– ‘living’ information source and configuration controlled.
243
Inputs to Integration and Interoperability
• Australia’s Joint Operating Concept
• Integrating Operational Concept Document V2.1
• Capability Program Narrative (potentially replaced by Program Directives)
• Plan AURORA
• C4ISR Design Operational Design Patterns
• Joint Concepts
• Project OCDs/JCNS
• Whole of Government
• Allies
• Industry
244
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 123 ‐
Assess Program compliance with I2 Reference Set Requirements
Assess Project compliance with I2 Reference Set Requirements
Assess ongoing in‐service I2 compliance of Products against approved I2 requirements
I2 Assurance, Approval
Joint Force Guidance STRATEGIC
&OPERATIONAL GUIDANCEEXTERNAL OBLIGATIONS AND
AGREEMENTSDCAP OUTCOMES
PROGRAM Drives Project/Product I2 requirements
PRODUCTProduct Baseline
I2 Implementation
AUTHORISED I2 REQUIREMENTS • Joint Force Outcomes • Supporting Joint Concepts• Integrating (I2) Objectives • Directed I2 requirements
I2 Reference Set
AUTHORISED REFERENCE DESIGNS
REQUIRED I2 PRACTICES:• Demonstrated Traceability • Use of SCMILE • Consultation • Established I2 Agreements• Tailored Assurance Pathways• Configuration Control of I2 info
Compliant with
Compliant with
C4ISR DESIGN STANDARDS
PROGRAM ARCHITECTURES
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURES
PRODUCT BASELINES
PROJECTDecide Project I2 requirements
Systems incl Interface Specifications
I2 Framework (I2F)245
C4ISR Design
• C4ISR Design Authority accountable for :
– defining and assuring the joint war‐fighting environment, architecture, and
– setting military I2 requirements.
• C4ISR Design 2025 v0.6 endorsed by Joint Warfare Council.
• Defines I2 for Networked Joint Force (NJF) C4ISR functions.
246
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 124 ‐
Joint Force Integration Advice
• Change in names of organisation and I2 Framework.
• Force Integration Assurance (FIA) performs the previous role of Joint Force integration advice and assurance.
• Force Development and Validation (FDV) addresses strategic and operational levels of interoperability including:
– Plan AURORA;
– FIDAS; and
– Joint Capability Realisation System (JCRS) (previous known as I2F).
247
I2 is Addressed Across the CLC248
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 125 ‐
CLC Process Overview249
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
High Level I2 Needs
More specific I2 requirements
Solicitation‐ready I2
Requirements
Negotiation‐Ready I2
Requirements
Contracted I2 Requirements
I2 Design I2 T&E I2 Configuration Management
Integration and Interoperability
Procurement and Contracting Framework
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 126 ‐
CLC Process Overview: Your Process Map251
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
CLC: Acquisition and Sustainment
• Key outcomes of CLC: acquire and sustain capability assets.
• Defence enters into contracts of $12 billion per annum.
• Good CLC outcomes depends on sound Procurement and contracting.
• Centres around:
– ‘Solicitation’ (requesting offers or tenders);
– Contracting; and
– Contract Management.
Source: Contract Template Selection and Tailoring Guide, Version 2.1 April 2016.
252
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 127 ‐
CLC: Acquisition and Sustainment
• Major focus for CLC:
• Solicitation between Gates 1 and 2.
• Contract/s establishment (just after Gate 2).
• Contract management for Acquisition and Sustainment.
253
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Solicitation &Source Selection
Contract Management
Contract Established
Contracting
Solicitation and Source Selection
• Form of risk mitigation:
– understanding possible solutions,
– narrowing options,
– choosing best solution, and
– defining contracted requirements.
254
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 128 ‐
Procurement Life Cycle
• Planning
1. Plan the procurement.
2. Develop ‘Request documentation’ such as RFT.
• Sourcing
3. Approach the market.
4. Evaluation.
5. Negotiation and contract signature.
• Managing
6. Contract management.
7. Disposal.
255
Planning Sourcing Managing
Relationship to CLC
• CLC Solicitation and Contracting based on the ‘Procurement Life Cycle’.
• Understanding the Procurement Life Cycle is pivotal to deciding the best strategy in the PES for a major acquisition.
256
Planning Sourcing Managing
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Solicitation &Source Selection
Contracting and Contract Management
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 129 ‐
Relationship to CLC
• The Procurement Life Cycle can also be nested within the CLC for example, acquiring risk mitigation studies or other services.
257
Pla
nn
ing
So
urc
ing
Ma
na
gin
g
Risk Reduction
activity
Pla
nn
ing
So
urc
ing
Ma
na
gin
g
Upgrade activity
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Why should I know about Proc & Contract?
• All involved in the CLC should know about procurement and contracting rules because, depending on their roles:
– Capability Manager and representatives are accountable;
– Delivery groups (such as CASG, CIOG) are responsible; and
– Enabler groups (such as E&IG) are responsible.
• Defence major capital, ICT and Facilities procurements under increasing scrutiny by:
– tenderers,
– ANAO,
– Senate Estimates and other Parliamentary Committees, and
– media.
258
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 130 ‐
CLC Process Overview259
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Sound Requirements are Critical
• Sound Requirements are critical to:
– Solicitation
– Tender Evaluation and
– Contracting.
• Solicitation generally based on:
– Operational Concept Document (OCD) (as guidance) and
– Function and Performance Specification (FPS).
260
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 131 ‐
Requirements Must be Traceable
• Requirements must always be traceable to government direction via CLC artefacts, such as:
– Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC).
– Joint Capability Narrative (JCN).
– Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS).
– Operational Concept Document (OCD).
261
Requirements Underpin Proc & Contracting
Sound Requirements underpin:
• What is to be acquired.
• Work to be done to achieve acquisition and sustainment outcomes.
• Basis for contract and estimates: work, cost, schedule.
• Confirming that deliverables are satisfactory.
262
Verification Cross
Reference Matrix
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 132 ‐
Solicitation and Source Selection Documents 263
Defence Documents
ASDEFCON Suite including:
• Conditions of Tender.
• Conditions of Contract.
• SOW.
• OCD, FPS, TEMP.
• Data Item Descriptions (DIDs).
Tenderer Responses
Tender documents which detail the offer includes:
• Compliance Matrix.
• Specifications.
• Plans.
• Costs.
• Schedules.
Source Evaluation
•Tender Evaluation
•Source Evaluation Report
Must be robust and fully defendable
Risk Mitigation
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 133 ‐
Risk Mitigation in the CLC265
Managing risk is an absolutely crucial part of the redesigned CLC.
“We often think that having a 6,000 line item risk register will solve all our problems; it doesn't. So where our focus is now on identifying the risk at that point of the life cycle that is appropriate, and then working out the controls, making sure those controls are effective and monitoring the outcomes. We really need to rethink what we think risk management is all about”.
VADM Ray Griggs, VCDF 2016
Risk in the Context of the CLC
• CLC‐related risk is that capability investment (Project) will fail:
– delivered capability will not meet the need,
– costs become unaffordable,
– will be too late to address capability gap,
– can’t be maintained, and
– unsafe.
• Impact is that Defence:
– capability is deficient, and
– taxpayer money is wasted.
266
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 134 ‐
Risk Reduction Mindset and Actions
• Risk reduction needed so that:
– approvals to spend public monies:
• based on confidence, and
• are defendable; and
– less likelihood that the Project will fail.
267
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Risk Reduction
Risk ReductionForce
Design
Reducing level of risk as risky aspects are treated/
Risk Mitigation and Smart Buyer
Smart Buyer is a structured approach for this process:
1. Define risk and drivers categories for Project and Product.
2. Identify risk events and impacts (analysis, workshops).
3. Capture drivers profile:
– risk rating;
– ranking.
4. Plan risk reduction (PES and IPMP).
5. Get approval and funding for risk reduction work.
268
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 135 ‐
Implementing Risk Mitigation269
Risk Reduction Studies(technical and
implementation risks) Further Requirements Definition
RFT + ODA(commercial risk)
Modelling and Simulation
Eg RFI(commercial risk)
System Reviews
Smart Buyer Risk
Profile
System Engineering Activities
Trade‐off studies
Trade‐off studies
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation andRequirements Setting
In‐Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
PES
Risk Reduction Activities
Risk Reduction Activities
CLC Artefacts
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 136 ‐
CLC Process Overview: Your Process Map271
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
CLC Artefacts / Documents
• The CLC process produces and uses numerous artefacts or documents to provide the basis for:
– Decision making;
– agreement on plans and actions; and
– provide evidence and a record for management and assurance.
• Generally of three types:
– Needs and Requirements.
– Strategy and Plans.
– Contracts and Agreements.
272
What and Why
How (and when)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 137 ‐
Artefacts Over the CLC273
Risk Reduction Studies
(technical, commercial risks)
Risk Reduction,
Requirements DefinitionOCD, FPS, TEMP
Solicitation RFT, SER
Requirements Definition
OCD, FPS, TEMP
Planning definition: IPMP, IMS
Contract Mgt Force Design: JCN Contract Mgt
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Define Need:JCNS
Smart Buyer Risk
Profile and Strategy definition:
PES
SE Review
Risk Mgt
Assurance Reports
Risk and Assurance Mgt
Contesta‐bility
What and Why
How (and When)
The following is a structure which shows:
• Traceability to government direction
• Traceability between artefacts
• Different levels of artefacts reflecting the CLC Management Layers
CLC Artefacts and Relationships274
Portfolio
Program
Product / Project
Capability Stream
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 138 ‐
CLC Artefacts and Relationships275
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
What and Why276
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 139 ‐
How277
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
CLC Artefacts Divided into Two Levels
• Key CLC artefacts can be divided into two levels:
– Program for proposals or as common references for subordinate projects/products.
– Project/Product for proposals.
278
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 140 ‐
Program‐level Artefacts279
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
Key Enablers for Program Management
• CPN and JCN: narratives on the expected operational effects of the group of capability systems.
• PIOC:more detailed description of operational relationships between capability systems both within the Program and with other Programs.
• Program Strategy: description of the activities, management arrangements, including integrated schedule across Projects and Products.
• ...
280
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 141 ‐
Prior to CLC Redesign281
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Project 1
FPSs
TCD
• Projects and their needs and requirements frequently:– un‐aligned and – not well coordinated (if
at all)
• Needs and Requirements development started at Project layer
Project 2 Product 3
FPSs
TCD
OCD 3
FPSs
TCD
OCD 1 OCD 2
Program Layer as ‘Umbrella’ Reference282
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
FPSs
IPMP 1
JCNS 1
Project 2 Product 3
OCD 1
• Common ‘umbrella’ reference
• Aligning Project and Product requirements
• Supports integration and interoperability
• ‘Town Plan’
JCN 1
PES 1
FPSs
IPdMP
JCNS 3
OCD 3
JCN 3
PES 3
FPSs
IPMP 2
JCNS 2
OCD 2
JCN 2
PES 2
TCD 1 TCD 2 TCD 3
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 142 ‐
Proposal‐level Artefacts283
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
Proposal Artefacts
• Proposal Artefacts at Project or Product level:
– Joint Capability Narrative (JCN).
– Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS).
– Project Execution Strategy (PES).
– Business Case which supports Proposals and Submissions
– Integrated Project Management Plan (IPMP).
– Capability Definition Documents (CDD):
• Operational Concept Document (OCD).
• Function and Performance Specification (FPS).
• Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP).
284
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 143 ‐
CLC Tendering and Contracting Documents285
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
Sound Artefacts Essential to Good Capability
• Sound artefacts are needed for:
– CLC approvals
– Solicitation and contracting
– Contract management
– Handover to customer (Capability Manager)
– Maintaining capability
• Must be developed in a rigorous manner using proven Practices such as:
– Systems and Requirements Engineering.
– Program and Project Management structures and techniques.
– Procurement and Contracting methods.
286
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 144 ‐
Artefacts
• We will go through the Artefacts in more detail on Day 3
287
Summary
The principal CLC proposal artefacts.
288
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 145 ‐
Capability Management Practices
Defence CLC Challenge290
Management of Public Resources
Accountability
Technical endeavour to deliver and support capability
Performance
Precision and rigour
Complexity
Governance/ Legal
Engineered systems
+
+Many Stakeholders
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 146 ‐
CLC, Capability Development Context
• Context:
– Significant complexity, scale and cost.
– Interdependencies.
– Many stakeholders.
– High cost.
– Leading edge technologies.
– Changing environment.
291
Successful Capability Outcomes Depend on:
• Activities based on proven professional Practices:
– Beyond administrative organisational processes
– Adapted to Defence context
– Reflecting world’s best practice and
– Using proven methods and techniques
• Sound artefacts developed in a rigorous manner using proven Practices
292
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 147 ‐
Capability Development Practices
• Developed by experts in each field.
• Based on best practice.
• Captured in:
– International and Australian standards; and
– Bodies of Knowledge (BoK).
• Proven techniques, methodologies.
• Flexible: can be tailored to specific circumstances.
293
Capability Development Practices
• ‘Toolkit’ for implementing CLC.
• Core CLC Practices are:
– Program, Product and Project Management.
– Systems Engineering (SE).
– Integrated Logistics Support (ILS).
– Procurement and Contracting.
– Assurance and Risk Management.
• There are more, such as Financial Management.
• Each Practice provides a different ‘lens’ and role for capability developers.
294
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 148 ‐
Practices: Level of Effort over CLC 295
Practices applied:
• throughout the CLC,
• at different levels of intensity and depth, and
• depending on the phase and the nature of the effort.
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Practices: Level of Effort over CLC 296
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Product Management Project Management
Systems Engineering
Procurement and Contracting
ILS
Assurance and Risk Management
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 149 ‐
Capability Development Practices 297
Applied throughout the CLC at different levels of intensity and
depth depending on the phase and the nature of the effortAssurance and Risk Management
ILS
Procurement and Contracting
Systems Engineering
Program, Product and Project Management
Practices (‘Toolkit’)
Practices are applied throughout the CLC Process tailored to the CLC Phase and the nature of effort.
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Capability Development Practices 298
Practices are not separate activities rather need to be managed as inter‐related streams of work throughout the CLC.
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 150 ‐
Practices: Life Cycles299
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Practices:
• Often described in terms of specific life cycles.
• Generic Practice life cycles can be adapted/ tailored.
Life‐cycle Views of CLC Practices 300
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle
Acquisition Utilization RetirementPre-acquisition
System Engineering Life Cycle
Procurement Life Cycle
Project Life Cycle
Sustainment Disposal
Te
rmin
ate
Product Life Cycle
Sourcing Planning Managing
ImplementDevelopConceive
Planning
Sourcing
Managing
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 151 ‐
Capability Development Practices
• The next sessions will take you through the Practices so you can see:
– what work is done during the CLC (ie Activities);
– how to define this work; and
– what is done to develop the Artefacts.
301
CLC Process Overview: Your Process Map302
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 152 ‐
Systems Engineering
Context
• Defence materiel or equipment is the result of highly sophisticated engineering effort:
– Leading‐edge technology
– novel adaptation of technology
– significant integration
– electronics‐based and software intensive
– particular focus on availability, redundancy, endurance, security, and safety
– integrates a range engineering disciplines such as mechanical, civil, electrical, aerospace.
• These systems must be defined, developed and supported through rigorous formalised methods.
304
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 153 ‐
Systems Engineering
Systems Engineering is a technical management framework:
• integrates engineering disciplines
• provides proven structured processes
• enables development and control of a product including:
– requirements definition,
– design,
– verification and validation,
– maintenance and modification of a Product, and
– conduct of technical investigations, reviews
• addresses all life cycle considerations.
305
Systems Engineering and the CLC
Systems Engineering is valuable to the CLC and obligations of Defence officials:
• trusted method for deriving needs and requirements which are demonstrably traceable to approved guidance
• rigorous consideration of all feasible alternatives to select the best solution
• ensures holistic consideration of all factors
• provides structured assurance approach (e.g. System Review process)
• enables structured identification of system development and technical risks to target risk reduction.
306
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 154 ‐
Use of the word ‘system’
• The word ‘system’ has many contexts:
– Physical systems such as solar systems, river systems, railway systems, satellite systems, communication systems, information systems, pulley systems, and nervous systems.
– Philosophical systems, social systems, religious systems, gambling systems, banking systems, and systems of government.
– More‐esoteric examples, such as the consideration of individual and social behaviour as a system of purposeful events.
307
Use of the Word ‘System’
• The common aspect of ‘system’ stems from its early use to refer to:
the whole (or the set) that results:
when a number of things have been grouped,
in a particular manner,
for a particular reason.
• So, what is a ‘system’ in the context of ‘systems engineering’?
308
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 155 ‐
Definition of a System
• In systems engineering, ISO/IEC 15288 therefore defines a system as:
a combination of interacting elements organized to achieve one or more stated purposes*
* ISO/IEC 15288‐2015, Systems and Software Engineering—System Life Cycle Processes, 2015.
309
Definition of a System
• So, a system comprises:
– system elements,
– interconnections (interactions) between elements, and
– an external system boundary.
System of interest(SOI)
System element
Interconnection/interaction
System boundary
310
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 156 ‐
Definition of a System
• Narrowing the definition of a system has two major implications:
– The systems elements, interconnections and boundary are not accidental but result from deliberate design (engineering).
– A system must be managerially and operationally independent (and may well have been procured independently).
311
A System and its Environment312
System of interest(SOI)
External element
System element
Interconnection/interaction
External Interface (input/output)
OperatingEnvironment
Boundary
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 157 ‐
A System and its Environment313
System of interest
Widersystem of interest
Operating environment
Wider environment
System as a Product
• In a physical sense, the term system is sometimes considered to be synonymous with product—that is, we say that the project is delivering a system, or is delivering a product.
314
System
Operational products Enabling products
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
ANSI/EIA‐632‐1998, Processes for Engineering a System, Washington, D.C.: Electronic Industries Association (EIA), 1999.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 158 ‐
A System as a Capability
• Systems are much more than an aggregation of hardware or software products and also include: organisation, personnel, collective training systems, facilities, data, support, and operating procedures and organisational policies.
• A system therefore delivers an operational capability, not just products.
315
Capability System
• It is common, therefore, particularly in defence environments, to refer to the system at this level as a capability system.
• Each of the elements of a capability system will probably have a different acquisition cycle, since each represents a different type of acquisition.
• Here we focus on the major equipment element so that the descriptions are less cluttered.
• We must remember, however, that all elements are acquired in parallel and must be brought back together prior to introduction into service in order to field an operational capability.
316
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 159 ‐
Logical and Physical Descriptions
• A system can be described in two broad ways:
– Logical (or functional)—what the system will do, how well it will do it, how it will be tested, under what conditions it will perform, and what other systems will be involved with its operation.
– Physical—what the system elements are, how they look, and how they are to be manufactured, integrated, and tested.
• Both the logical and physical descriptions of a system comprise a series of statements called requirements.
317
Logical and Physical Descriptions
• The two descriptions are valid independent descriptions of a system:
– We develop the logical description first.
– How we implement current physical systems should not colour unnecessarily the way in which we might describe future systems.
– Upper‐level trade‐offs and feasibility analyses must be conducted at the logical level before deciding on the physical implementation.
– A logical description is ideally suited to the interface between systems engineering and the business case.
– The logical description changes slowly; the physical description changes much faster.
318
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 160 ‐
Logical and Physical Descriptions
• In the development of a system, therefore, there are at least two architectural views: a system logical architecture, and a system physical architecture.
• Of course, these two descriptions are of the same system so they must be related.
• We will see later how the logical architecture, as outlined in the requirements breakdown structure (RBS), is mapped onto the physical architecture as represented by the configuration items contained in the work breakdown structure (WBS).
319
System
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
A system
comprises
a set of interacting
system elements
Hierarchical descriptions of a system
• We can consider the system to be a hierarchical composition of system elements (either logical or physical).
320
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 161 ‐
Mission
Function1
Function2
Function1.1
Function1.2
Function1.3
Function2.1
Function2.1
Logical (Functional) Hierarchy
• In a logical description of a system, the system’s mission is broken down into a hierarchical structure of its major functions—to form a functional hierarchy, or a functional architecture.
321
Physical Hierarchy
• We use a simple four‐layer representation (system, subsystem, assembly, component) which can be more elaborate.
322
System
Products
Subsystems
Assemblies
Components
Subcomponents
Parts Subcomponents
Subassemblies
Parts
IEEE‐STD‐1220, IEEE Standard for Application and Management of the Systems Engineering Process, New York: IEEE Computer Society, 2005.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 162 ‐
Physical Hierarchy
• It is common to allow the hierarchical terms to be relative. For example, an aircraft system contains, among others, the engine subsystem, which may consist of assemblies such as fuel tanks, pumps and lines, turbines, compressors, gear boxes, and hydraulic pumps.
• The engine manufacturer may consider the engine to be the system, comprising fuel, power plant, and hydraulic subsystems, and so on.
• However, an implicit part of the definition of a system is that it must be able to stand alone in its own right. An engine is therefore not a system—it is only useful as an element of a system (that is, as a subsystem).
323
Hierarchy of an SOI
• It is probably better, therefore, to consider an SOI to comprise a combination of interacting system elements, some of which may be systems in their own right.
324
System-of-Interest
SystemElement
SystemElement
System System
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
System System
ISO/IEC 15288‐2015, Systems and Software Engineering—System Life Cycle Processes, 2015.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 163 ‐
SOI: System or System‐of‐Systems325
System-of-Interest
System System System
System System System
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
System-of-Systems
System
SystemSystem-of-Systems
Three Types of Collections of Systems
• System of Systems (SoS)—integrated capability.
• Family of Systems (FoS)—common‐use systems.
• Portfolio of Systems (PoS)—management grouping.
We will later call these collections: Programs.
326
Source: M.W. Maier, Architecting a portfolio of systems, Systems Engineering. 2019;1‐13, wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sys
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 164 ‐
System or System‐of‐systems (SoS)?327
System
Subsystem Subsystem
Subsystem Subsystem
System-of-Systems
System System
System System
System or System‐of‐systems (SoS)?328
System
Subsystem Subsystem
Subsystem Subsystem
System-of-Systems
System System
System System
A system is an integration of a number of co‐dependent subsystemsthat are interconnected
permanentlyto achieve a common purpose.
An SoS is an integration of a number of independent systems that are interconnected for a period of time
to achieve a common purpose.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 165 ‐
System Life Cycle
Generic System Life Cycle
• Throughout the life of a system there are a number of phases and activities, each of which builds on the results of the preceding phase or activity.
• The sum all these activities is called a system life cycle.
• A generic system life cycle can be divided into four very broad phases.
330
AcquisitionPhase
UtilizationPhase
RetirementPhase
Pre-acquisitionPhase
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 166 ‐
Pre‐acquisition Phase
• The life cycle begins in the Pre‐acquisition Phase with an idea for a system being generated as a result of business planning.
• Business needs are confirmed and supported by a business case.
• Ensures that only feasible, cost‐effective projects are taken forward to acquisition.
331
AcquisitionPhase
UtilizationPhase
RetirementPhase
Pre-acquisitionPhase
Acquisition Phase
• The Acquisition Phase is focused on bringing the system into being and into service in the organisation.
• The system is defined in terms of:
– business requirements,
– stakeholder requirements, and
– system requirements.
• A contractor is then normally engaged to develop/deliver the system.
332
AcquisitionPhase
UtilizationPhase
RetirementPhase
Pre-acquisitionPhase
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 167 ‐
Utilization Phase
• The system is operated and supported during the Utilization Phase
• During utilization, the system may undergo a number of modifications and upgrades to:
– rectify performance shortfalls,
– meet changing operational requirements or external environments to enable ongoing support for the system to be maintained, or
– enhance current performance or reliability.
333
AcquisitionPhase
UtilizationPhase
RetirementPhase
Pre-acquisitionPhase
Retirement Phase
• The system is in service during the Utilization Phase until:
– the business has no further need for the system, or
– it no longer can meet the functions required of it by the organisation, or
– it is no longer cost‐effective to keep it in service.
• If the business need for the capability still exists in the organisation, the conclusion of one system life cycle marks the start of another and the process begins again.
334
AcquisitionPhase
UtilizationPhase
RetirementPhase
Pre-acquisitionPhase
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 168 ‐
Parties Involved
• Throughout the system life cycle, there are a number of parties involved.
• The customer organization is managed by:
– enterprise management who set the direction for the organisation and for
– business management who are responsible for the activities conducted by
– the operations element of the organisation which is run by
– the operators—sometimes called the users.
335
Parties Involved
• The systems used within the organisation are acquired by:
– the acquisition element (also called the acquirer, or tasking activity) of the organisation under the auspices of
– a project, which is typically managed by
– a project manager.
• Project managers are supported by a number of related disciplines including:
– systems engineering,
– requirements engineering,
– specialist engineering disciplines,
– quality assurance, and
– integrated logistic support.
336
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 169 ‐
Parties Involved
• Operators are supported in their operation of the system by the support element of the organisation, which supports, sustains, and maintains the system throughout its life.
• In addition to the operational, acquisition, and support staff, there are many others within the customer organization who have a stake in the successful implementation of the project.
• These stakeholders can include representatives from the management, financial, operations, supply, maintenance, and facilities areas of the organisation.
337
Parties Involved
• The system is obtained from a supplier (also called the performing activity) who may deliver the system off‐the‐shelf or may develop it, in which case they are often called the developer.
• The supplier (developer) may be an internal part of the customer (acquirer) organisation.
• It is increasingly common these days for the supply or development to be undertaken by an outside organisation called a contractor.
• The relationship between the customer and the contractor is defined by the terms and conditions of the contract.
• Often the contractor is not able to perform all of the work required and devolves packages of work to a number of subcontractors through a number of subcontracts.
338
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 170 ‐
Acquisition Phase Utilization Phase Retirement PhasePre-acquisition Phase
ProjectManagement
Enterprise/Business
Management
SystemsEngineering
Operations
Responsibilities of the Parties Involved
• Responsibility for the various phases of the system life cycle is spread across the enterprise (or organisation) within which the eventual system will operate.
• Note that all parties are involved at all stages in the life cycle, with the roles and responsibilities of each party shifting in emphasis between stages.
339
Activities in Acquisition and Utilization Phases
• Systems engineering is predominantly related to the Acquisition Phase of the system life cycle and, to a lesser extent, the Utilization Phase.
• For these two major phases, we use the life‐cycle activities based on those defined by Blanchard and Fabrycky.
340
AcquisitionPhase
PreliminaryDesign
DetailedDesign and
Development
UtilizationPhase
RetirementPhase
Pre-acquisitionPhase
ConceptualDesign
Constructionand/or
Production
Operational Useand
System Support
Blanchard, B. and W. Fabrycky, Systems Engineering and Analysis, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1998.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 171 ‐
Acquisition Phase
• The Acquisition Phase comprises the four main activities of Conceptual Design, Preliminary Design, Detailed Design and Development, and Construction and/or Production.
• Here we look at each of these activities in a little more detail—we will examine them in much more detail in later weeks.
341
PreliminaryDesign
DetailedDesign and
Development
Constructionand/or
Production
ConceptualDesign
Acquisition Phase
Conceptual Design
• Formal transition from the business world to the project world—from the mission statement to complete logical description of the system‐of‐interest.
• Ensures proper definition of the system requirements.
• Ensures appropriate engagement with business managers and upper‐level stakeholders.
342
PreliminaryDesign
DetailedDesign and
Development
Constructionand/or
Production
ConceptualDesign
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 172 ‐
Conceptual Design
• Business Needs and Requirements (BNR) are articulated and confirmed by business management.
• BNR are elaborated by stakeholders at the business operations level into a set of Stakeholder Needs and Requirements (SNR).
• SNR are elaborated by requirements engineers into system requirements in the System Requirement Specification (SyRS).
343
PreliminaryDesign
DetailedDesign and
Development
Constructionand/or
Production
ConceptualDesign
System Requirement Specification (SyRS)
StakeholderNeeds and
Requirements(SNR)
BusinessNeeds and
Requirements(BNR)
Conceptual Design
• The BNR, SNR and the SyRS are key elements of what is called the Functional Baseline (FBL).
• Conceptual Design ends with the System Design Review (SDR), which finalizes the initial FBL.
• SDR confirms the BNR, SNR and the SyRS, and provides a formal record of design decisions and design acceptance.
344
PreliminaryDesign
DetailedDesign and
Development
Constructionand/or
Production
ConceptualDesign
Functional Baseline
System Design Review (SDR)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 173 ‐
Preliminary Design
• Converts the logical architecture in initial FBL into description of the physical subsystems (the upper‐level physical architecture) that will meet the system requirements.
• Results in the Allocated Baseline (ABL), so‐called because the functionality of the system is now allocated to physical building blocks called configuration items (CI), which are described in Development Specifications.
• Ends with a Preliminary Design Review (PDR).
345
PreliminaryDesign
DetailedDesign and
Development
Constructionand/or
Production
ConceptualDesign
Allocated Baseline(Development Specifications)
Preliminary Design Review(PDR)
Functional Baseline(System Requirement Specification (SyRS))
System Design Review(SDR)
StakeholderNeeds and
Requirements(SNR)
BusinessNeeds and
Requirements(BNR)
Detailed Design and Development
• Uses engineering disciplines to develop the individual subsystems, assemblies, and components in the system.
• Results in the Product Baseline (PBL) as the system is now defined by the numerous products (subsystems, assemblies, and components) as well as the materials and processes for manufacturing and construction.
• Ends with Critical Design Review (CDR).
346
PreliminaryDesign
DetailedDesign and
Development
Constructionand/or
Production
ConceptualDesign
Functional Baseline(System Requirement Specification (SyRS))
System Design Review(SDR)
Allocated Baseline(Development Specifications)Preliminary Design Review
(PDR)
Product Baseline(Product Specifications)Critical Design Review
(CDR)
StakeholderNeeds and
Requirements(SNR)
BusinessNeeds and
Requirements(BNR)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 174 ‐
Construction and/or Development
• Components are produced in accordance with the PBL specifications and the system is ultimately constructed.
• Ends with Formal Qualification Review (FQR), which provides the basis upon which the customer accepts the system from the contractor.
• FQR is informed by the results of acceptance test and evaluation (AT&E)
347
PreliminaryDesign
DetailedDesign and
Development
Constructionand/or
Production
ConceptualDesign
Functional Baseline(System Requirement Specification (SyRS))
System Design Review(SDR)
Allocated Baseline(Development Specifications)Preliminary Design Review
(PDR)
Product Baseline(Product Specifications)Critical Design Review
(CDR)
StakeholderNeeds and
Requirements(SNR)
System AcceptanceFormal Qualification Review
(FQR)
BusinessNeeds and
Requirements(BNR)
Utilization and Retirement Phases
• Major activities in Utilization Phase are:
– Operational Use
– System Support
• Modifications may be necessary.
• The system life cycle ends with the Retirement Phase.
348
AcquisitionPhase
UtilizationPhase
RetirementPhase
Pre-acquisitionPhase
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 175 ‐
Development Approaches
• We have presented the life‐cycle phases and activities in sequence.
• This assumes the waterfall approach to development.
• There other approaches such as incremental, spiral, and evolutionary acquisition, each of which has strengths and weaknesses.
• For simplicity, we continue to assume the waterfall approach for the majority of the course—a solid understanding of the approach is useful because it helps understand the others, and the others all have the waterfall approach as a fundamental building block.
• We return to the other approaches later.
349
Introduction toSystems Engineering
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 176 ‐
What is Systems Engineering?
• Each definition tends to reflect the particular focus of its source.
• There are, however, a number of common themes which indicate the key tenets of systems engineering:
– Top‐down approach
– Requirements engineering
– Life‐cycle focus
– System optimization and balance
– Integration of specialisations and disciplines
– Management
351
Top‐down Approach
• Traditional engineering disciplines are based on bottom‐up approach:
– We design and build components, integrate them into the next higher level element and so on until we have the system.
– This is very effective so long as we are trying to solve a particular, well‐defined problem.
• Complex problems with many inter‐relationships tend not to be suited to bottom‐up solutions.
352
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 177 ‐
Top‐down Approach
• Start by looking at the system as a whole to provide a thorough understanding of the system and its environment and interfaces.
• System‐level requirements are developed.
• Likely subsystems can then be considered and requirements assigned to individual subsystems, the subsystems further broken down into assemblies, and then into components
• This process continues until a complete understanding is achieved of the system from top to bottom which allows:
– Additional (derived requirements) to be developed.
– Interfaces between subsystems to be identified.
• This approach is well documented in process standards such as ANSI/EIA‐632.
353
Top‐down Development354
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
System
Operational products Enabling products
Subsystem Subsystem
Testproduct
Trainingproduct
Disposalproduct
Developmentproduct
Deploymentproduct
Supportproduct
Productionproduct
Endproduct
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 178 ‐
Bottom‐up Integration
• While design is top‐down, integration is bottom‐up.
• At each stage of the integration, some form of integration testing will be conducted to verify the successful integration.
355
Subsystem
Component Component
Subsystem
Integration testing
Assembly Assembly
SystemSystem
Development Integration
Design Solution
Requirements Engineering
• Complete and accurate definition of requirements is fundamental to project success.
• Original need translates into statements of requirement which form the basis of functional and (eventually) physical design.
• These transitions must be managed by a rigorous process called requirements engineering.
• Once requirements have been collected, the systems engineering process then focuses on the derivation and decomposition of these requirements from the system level right down to the lowest constituent component (sometimes referred to as requirements flowdown).
356
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 179 ‐
Requirements Engineering
• Requirements traceability is essential:
– Forward traceability allows design decisions to be traced from any requirement down to a lower level.
– Backward traceability means that any lower‐level requirement is associated with at least one higher‐level requirement.
• Traceability assures the customer that all requirements can be accounted for in the design at any stage and that no unnecessary requirements are included.
• Traceability also supports the configuration control (change management) process.
• Requirements traceability is a feature of top‐down design, which guarantees that requirements can be satisfied at any stage.
357
Life‐cycle Focus
• Systems engineering maintains a life‐cycle focus as decisions are made.
• Often, the temptation is to focus on acquisition issues in order to minimise acquisition costs and schedules.
• Given that a system spends a majority of its life in utilisation the full life‐cycle cost (LCC) must be considered.
• As a simple example, it is false economy to buy a cheaper car that has very high running costs, if a slightly more expensive car can be acquired which has lower through‐life costs (and therefore a lower LCC).
358
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 180 ‐
Reduction in Overall Acquisition Schedule
• A reduction in overall acquisition time is possible through solid requirements engineering efforts.
• By getting the requirements right early and then monitor their inclusion into the subsequent design, we can reduce the potential for costly and time‐consuming changes later.
High
Low
Conceptual &Preliminary
Design
DetailedDesign and
Development
Constructionand/or
Development
Utilization
Ease of making changes
Cost of making changes
359
System Optimisation and Balance
• We cover this issue in detail later but basically a collection of optimally‐designed subsystems do not necessarily lead to an optimal system.
• Systems engineering is looking for optimal system‐level performance.
• This sometimes must force subsystem and component designers down sub‐optimal paths.
• Also system engineering recognises that the system must be designed with balance in mind.
– For example we must balance system performance with other factors such as social, ethical, cultural and psychological effects (and others).
360
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 181 ‐
Integration of Specializations / Disciplines
• Systems engineering integrates a diverse range of technical disciplines and specializations.
• Our aircraft example illustrates this point because it involves more than just engineering disciplines—must also involve finance, legal, environmental specialists and so on.
• Systems engineering defines the tasks that can be completed by these disparate disciplines and specialties and then provides the management to integrate their efforts to produce a system.
• This function is essential because of the complexity of large projects and their contracting mechanisms, and the geographic dispersion of contractor and subcontractor personnel across the country and around the world.
361
Management
• Systems engineering clearly has a technical role to play but it also has a very important management role.
• There is a very strong link between the necessary functions of project management and systems engineering.
• Systems engineering products ensure project management decisions are informed.
362
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 182 ‐
Systems Engineering Management
Technical Reviews and Audits
• Technical reviews and audits measure progress and reduce technical risk by:
– providing a formal evaluation of design maturity
– measuring and reporting on planned and actual performance
– clarifying and prioritising design requirements
– evaluating and establishing the system baseline at discrete points in the design process
– providing an effective means of formal communication between stakeholders
– recording design decisions and rationales for later reference
364
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 183 ‐
Technical Reviews and Audits
• Work for both customer and contractor.
• Vital part of systems engineering.
• Range from very informal discussions to formal meetings.
• Aim to determine the ability of the design to meet the necessary requirements.
• Reviews will tend to become more detailed as the design progresses.
• Normally specified (number, content and timing) in contractual documentation.
365
Technical Reviews and Audits
• Number of reviews required will depend on:
– Complexity
– Size
– Technical risk
• Reviews must be scheduled at the correct stage in the development:
– Too early = immature design, unable to determine adequacy
– Too later = miss opportunities to rectify problems
• Normally relate reviews and audits to documentation release in early stages.
• Seen as a major technical risk monitoring tool.
366
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 184 ‐
Technical Reviews and Audits
• We have already discussed the following reviews and audits discussed in MIL‐STD‐499B:
– System Requirements Review
– System Design Review
– Preliminary Design Review
– Critical Design Review
– Test Readiness Review
– Functional Configuration Audit
– Physical Configuration Audit
– Formal Qualification Review
Conceptual Design
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design & Development
Construction and/or Production
367
Technical Reviews and Audits368
ConceptualDesign
DetailedDesign &
Development
PreliminaryDesign
Constructionand/or
Production
Operational Useand
System Support
MISSION
DISPOSAL
•Feasibility Analysis•System RequirementsAnalysis•System Synthesis &Evaluation
•Subsystem FunctionalAnalysis•Requirements Allocation•Sub‐system Synthesis &Evaluation
•Detailed DesignRequirements•Designing & IntegratingSystem Elements•System PrototypeDevelopment
System Level Subsystem Level Component Level Modifications Modifications
System Design ReviewPreliminary Design Review
Critical Design Review
Functional Baseline•SyRS
Allocated Baseline•Development Specifications
Product Baseline•Product Specifications•Process Specifications•Material Specifications
Formal Qualification Review
Functional Configuration Audit
Physical Configuration Audit
Test Readiness Review
System Requirements Review
BNR/SNR
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 185 ‐
Technical Review and Audit Management
• Review and audit requirements can be extensive so management required.
• Requirements must be specified in contract.
• However, requirements must be proportional to size and complexity of the project:
– Under‐reviewing will expose the project to risk.
– Over‐reviewing will needlessly increase cost and schedule without additional benefit.
• Both customer and contractor need to be involved as both parties can add value.
• Results must be documented and action items must be assigned to an individual (unassigned action items = unactioned action items).
369
Technical Review and Audit Plan (TRAP)
• The principal way of managing the technical review and audit effort is via a Technical Reviews and Audits Plan (TRAP).
• The TRAP documents all formal reviews, detailing the entry criteria that must be met prior to the commencement of the review or audit and the exit criteria that must be demonstrated prior to approval of the review or audit.
• The TRAP is normally drafted and approved during Conceptual Design.
370
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 186 ‐
Test and Evaluation
System T&E
• Ensures consistent and coordinated approach to system testing.
• Directs the focus of Test and Evaluation (T&E) effort at different life‐cycle stages.
• Aims to progressively test and evaluate the system as it passes through the life cycle.
• Aims to identify problems early to avoid costly and time consuming rectifications later.
• T&E is a major technical risk mitigation measure.
372
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 187 ‐
System T&E
• Testing can be expensive and time‐consuming:
– Specialised test equipment.
– Highly trained personnel.
– Expensive operating costs.
– Facilities.
• A formal plan is usually required to manage the entire T&E effort: Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP).
373
Verification and Validation (V&V)
• The entire systems engineering process aims to produce a system that is:
– verified against the documentation produced, and
– validated against the original needs, goals and objectives.
• V&V ensures that we have both:
– built the system right (verification); and
– built the right system (validation).
• The T&E effort supports V&V.
374
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 188 ‐
T&E categories
• Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E):– Largely undertaken in the Acquisition Phase.– Support design and development effort.– Generally undertaken by contractors.
• Acceptance Test and Evaluation (AT&E):– Formal acceptance testing on behalf of customer.– Between the Acquisition and Utilisation Phases.
• Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E):– Focuses on functional or operational testing of the system.– Generally undertaken by users following acceptance.– Some OT&E—called Preview T&E (PT&E)—can occur earlier during Acquisition Phase, particularly for large, phased projects.
375
T&E Categories
PreliminaryDesign
DetailedDesign and
Development
Operational Useand
System Support
Constructionand/or
Production
ACQUISITIONPHASE
UTILIZATIONPHASE
ConceptualDesign
AT&E
OT&E
DT&E
PT&E
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 189 ‐
Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E)
• Takes place throughout the Acquisition Phase.
• Aims to highlight design deficiencies early—the earlier a deficiency is noted, the cheaper and easier it is to rectify.
• Used to validate designs and to monitor and minimise design‐related risks.
• Covers a broad range of testing from lowest level components to system prototypes very close to final system configuration
• Responsibility normally lies with the contractor.
• Although a contractor responsibility, customer will normally want visibility into DT&E progress (perhaps through the Technical Review and Audit process).
377
Acceptance Test and Evaluation (AT&E)
• Normally shared by contractor and customer:
– customer approves procedures
– customer and/or contractor conduct testing
– customer will always observe if not conducting
• Focused on confirming that delivered system meets the system‐level requirements contained in the System Specification and the contract (back to the Functional Baseline).
• Discrepancies are documented and rectified.
• On successful conclusion, system is accepted and will formally enter Utilization Phase.
378
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 190 ‐
Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E)
• After AT&E, OT&E is used by the customer to assess the ability of the system to meet the original needs.
• Can be conducted early in Conceptual Design, in which case it is called Preview T&E (PT&E).
• Testing focused on operational functionality rather than design issues.
• Normally, testing agency within the customer’s organisation will be independent from the procuring agency within the customer’s organisation.
• Independence is important to gain an unbiased assessment (sometimes the procuring agency will feel some ownership and responsibility for system performance).
379
OT&E
• Modifications may be suggested as a result of OT&E.
• OT&E may also be used to assist operators to fine‐tune operational procedures relating to system use.
• Must be conducted in as realistic conditions as possible.
• Responsibility of the customer organisation.
380
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 191 ‐
OT&E
AT&E
AT&E
AT&E
AT&E
AT&E
AT&E
Facilities
Training
Support
Supplies
Personnel
SyRS
Requirements Engineering
Capability System Development
Acquisition Phase Utilization Phase
In-service
DeliveredCapabilitySystem
StRSOrganisation
Major System AT&E
OT&E
Validation
Verification
Test Management
• To allow a coordinated approach to testing, DT&E, AT&E and OT&E will normally be managed by the contractor.
• Coordination ensures minimal impact on schedule and maximum effectiveness.
• Coordination may also save on T&E resources and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
382
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 192 ‐
Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)
• Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) is the major plan for entire T&E effort.
• Required by contract, prepared by contractor and approved by customer.
• Drafted during Conceptual Design and approved by the end of Preliminary Design.
• Should be reviewed at each formal review to ensure that any design changes are reflected in the testing program.
383
Specifications & Standards
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 193 ‐
Specification Tree
System RequirementSpecification
InterfaceControl
Document
HardwareDevelopmentSpecification
Hardwarerequirementsspecification
Interfacerequirementsspecification
HardwareProduct
Specification
Interfacedesign
document
ProcessSpecification
MaterialSpecification
COTSProduct
Specification
SoftwareProduct
Specification
SoftwareDevelopmentSpecification
Softwarerequirementsspecification
Interfacerequirementsspecification
Softwaredesign
document
Interfacedesign
document
Databasedesign
document
Hardwaredesign
document
SE Standards Evolution
MIL-STD-499
(1969)
MIL-STD-499A(1974)
MIL-STD-499B(1994)
EIA/IS 632(1994)
IEEE 1220(Trial Use)
(1994)
EIA 632(1999)
IEEE 1220(1998)
MIL-STD-499C(Draft 2005)
ISO/IEC 15288(2008)
IEEE 1220(2005)
ISO/IEC 15288(2003)
ISO/IEC 15288(2015)
EIA 632(2003)
386
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 194 ‐
Integration & Planning
Integration Management
• The Interface Control Document (ICD) will completely define the interfaces between two CIs.
• Interface types include: physical, electronic, electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, software, and environmental.
• Integration management is all about communications.
• Interface problems are usually blamed on technical difficulties but often result from poor communications between two teams.
• ICD needs to be reviewed regularly if for no other reason than to ensure communications.
• Customer should review ICDs at design reviews.
388
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 195 ‐
SE Management Plan (SEMP)
• Systems engineering is such a broad subject area that an overall management plan or approach needs to be developed.
• This plan is called the Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP).
• SEMP details:
– Normally prepared by the contractor.
– Reviewed and approved by the customer.
• There may be more than one SEMP per system development:
– Customer.
– Contractor.
– Major sub‐contractors.
389
Major Plans390
ConceptualDesign
DetailedDesign &
Development
PreliminaryDesign
Constructionand/or
Production
Operational Useand
System Support
MISSION
DISPOSAL
•Feasibility Analysis•System RequirementsAnalysis•System Synthesis &Evaluation
•Subsystem FunctionalAnalysis•Requirements Allocation•Sub‐system Synthesis &Evaluation
•Detailed DesignRequirements•Designing & IntegratingSystem Elements•System PrototypeDevelopment
System Level Subsystem Level Component Level Modifications Modifications
System Design ReviewPreliminary Design Review
Critical Design Review
Functional Baseline•SyRS
Allocated Baseline•Development Specifications
Product Baseline•Product Specifications•Process Specifications•Material Specifications
Formal Qualification Review
Functional Configuration Audit
Physical Configuration Audit
Test Readiness Review
System Requirements Review
BNR/SNR
Technical Review and Audit Plan (TRAP)
Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)
Risk Management Plan (RMP)
Configuration Management Plan (CMP)
Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 196 ‐
Introduction toProject Management
Introduction
• Project management is still a relatively young, emerging profession.
• While there is some considerable agreement to the tasks that should be conducted, many of the terms are still not standardised.
• We will highlight the major practices and use the most commonly accepted terms.
• In particular, we discuss project management within the framework adopted in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK©)*.
392
* A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 197 ‐
CLC Project
• A Project is a unique, finite, multidisciplinary and organised endeavour to deliver a Product or Products.
• A Project generally occurs in the early part of the Product Life cycle although Projects can be established later (for Product upgrades, for example).
• A Project has its own life cycle which delivers the Product.
393
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Product life cycle
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Project life cycle
Conceive Develop Implement Terminate
What is Project Management?
• Project Management provides a structured and reliable means to realise the Product.
• Project management is:
the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet project requirements.*
• Project management is the management effort to deliver the best balance across these requirements.
394
* A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 198 ‐
What is Project Management?
Project Management (PM) is achieved through a number of well‐defined and proven processes across ten project management knowledge (PMBOK) areas*:
• Integration Management
• Scope Management
• Schedule Management
• Cost Management
• Quality Management
395
• Resource Management
• Communications Management
• Risk Management
• Procurement Management
• Stakeholder Management
* A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Defence Project Management
• Structured and reliable means to deliver a Product
• CASG Project Management policy and guidance follows the principles from a number of standards namely:
– Project Management Institute (PMI) Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®);
– AS ISO 55000‐55002:2014;
– Managing Successful Programs (MSP); and
– AS ISO 21500:2016 Guidance on Project Management. AS21000.
396
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 199 ‐
IPM Roles in the CLC
• Delivery Group:
– appoints IPM
– establishes IPMT before Gate 0
• IPM responsible for:
– developing PES, IPMP
– undertaking initial project planning and coordination
– managing ‘program’ of risk reduction activities
– coordinates early industry involvement
– implements integrated planning across FIC
– integrate and coordinate delivery of FIC
397
Integrated Project Management: Dimensions
Consistent with ISO 55000 and PMBOK, Project Management is an integrating discipline which ensures:
• whole‐of‐life, Joint Force Integration, legislative and regulatory obligations;
• coordinating and integrating FIC; and
• integrate the supporting Practices.
398
* A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 200 ‐
What is a Project?
• Normally within an organisation there are the people who conduct the normal operations of an organisation (the tellers in bank, for example) and those that perform projectsundertaken to improve the organisation and its services (the project managers who roll out the new ATM network, for example).
• While the distinction between the two is occasionally blurred, operations tend to be ongoing and repetitive, while a project is:
a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service or result.*
399
* A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
What is a Project?
• Temporary:
– A project has an identifiable start and end date.
– Temporary relates to the activity, not the product.
– Temporary does not indicate any particular duration—some projects are very short (of the matter of days), others can take decades.
• Unique:
– The unique nature of a project arises because there is always something different about the activities undertaken during a project.
– For example, building a new house is unique because of different owners, block of land, design, timeframe, etc.
400
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 201 ‐
Project Size
• A project therefore applies to a wide range of activities undertaken by an organisation over and above its normal operational activities.
• Notice that nothing we have said refers to the size of a project—a project may only involve a few people and a small number of resources, or thousands of people and billions of dollars.
• A project can be of any size—from baking a cake to building the Channel Tunnel—whatever the size, the principles we discuss here are applicable.
• We do need, however, to consider the size of a project (and therefore the amount of management required) at the beginning when we are establishing project processes and procedures.
401
What is a Project?
• Typical projects may be:
– Developing a new product or service
– Changing the organisational structure, staffing levels or culture
– Introducing a new operating procedure into an organisation
– Designing a new city
– Modifying an engine to provide greater power
– Constructing a building or a complex
– Drilling a well in a third‐world village
– Running for local office
• In short, a project may be any unique, temporary endeavour.
402
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 202 ‐
What is a Project?
• A project is distinctive because it has:
– A distinct start and finish
– A life cycle ( a number of distinct phases between the start and end)
– A budget and an associated cash flow
– Unique activities
– Use of resources
– A single point of responsibility (the project manager)
– Team roles
* R. Burke, Project Management: Planning and Control Techniques, Burke Publishing, 2003.
403
What is Project Management?
• Project management is:
the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements.*
• Note: “meet”, not “meet or exceed”.
• We achieve project management through a number of well‐defined processes (the ten PMBOK knowledge areas*) that we discuss in more detail throughout this course.
• They are introduced here to provide an overview of project management.
* A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
404
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 203 ‐
What is Project Management?405
SCOPE
CUSTOMERSATISFACTION
TIME COST
Program and Portfolio Management
• A program is defined as a group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control not available from managing them individually.
• A portfolio is a collection of projects or programs and other work that are grouped together to facilitate effective management of that work to meet strategic business objectives.
406
* A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 204 ‐
Who is the Project Manager?
• The project manager is the single point of responsibility for a project.
• The project manager integrates and coordinates all the contributions of the project team and guides them successfully to completion.
• Project managers need good:
– General management and administration skills
– Leadership skills
– Planning, problem‐solving and decision‐making ability
– Communications (written and verbal) skills
– Negotiation skills
– Technical skills
407
PMBOK Knowledge Areas
• Project Integration Management
• Project Scope Management
• Project Schedule Management
• Project Cost Management
• Project Quality Management
• Project Resource Management
• Project Communications Management
• Project Risk Management
• Project Procurement Management
• Project Stakeholder Management
408
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 205 ‐
Project Integration Management
• Ensures all project elements are integrated and coordinated and conflicting alternatives and expectations are managed.
• Key is development of the Project Plan.
• Once the plan is in place, the project must be executed in accordance with the plan.
• Since the Project Plan will be subject to changes from time to time and some form of change control is required.
409
Project Integration Management410
1.1 Develop Project Charter
.1 Inputs.1 Business documents.2 Agreements.3 Enterprise environmental
considerations.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Data gathering.3 Interpersonal and team skills.4 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Project charter.2 Assumption log
1.2 Develop Project Management Plan
.1 Inputs.1 Project charter.2 Outputs from other processes.3 Enterprise environmental
considerations.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Data gathering.3 Interpersonal and team skills.4 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Project management plan
1.3 Direct and ManageProject Execution
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Approved change requests.4 Enterprise environmental
considerations.5 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 PMIS.3 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Deliverables.2 Work performance data.3 Issue log.4 Change requests.5 PMP updates.6 Project documentation updates.7 Organisational process assets
updates
ProjectIntegration Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 206 ‐
Project Integration Management411
1.4 Manage Project Information
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project Documents.3 Deliverables.4 Enterprise environmental
considerations.5 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Knowledge management.3 Information management.4 Interpersonal and team skills
.3 Outputs.1 Lessons learned register.2 Project management plan updates.3 Organisational process assets
updates
ProjectIntegration Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
1.5 Monitor and ControlProject Work
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Work performance documentation.4 Agreements.5 Enterprise environmental
factors.6 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Data analysis.3 Decision making.4 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Work performance reports .2 Change requests.3 Project management plan updates.4 Project document updates
Project Integration Management412
1.6 Perform IntegratedChange Control
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Work performance reports.4 Change requests.5 Enterprise environmental
factors.6 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Change control tools.3 Data analysis.4 Decision making.5 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Approved change requests.2 Project management plan updates.3 Project document updates
1.7 Close Project or Phase
.1 Inputs.1 Project charter.2 Project management plan.3 Project documents.4 Accepted deliverables.5 Business documents.6 Agreements.7 Procurement documentation.8 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Data analysis.3 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Project document updates.2 Final product, service, or result
transition.3 Final report.4 Organisational process assets
updates
ProjectIntegration Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 207 ‐
Project Scope Management
• Ensures all work necessary to complete the project is included in scope.
• Unnecessary work is omitted.
• Scope planning and definition are an important part of scope management.
• Makes use of well known SE tools such as RBS/WBS.
• As with Integration, once plans have been established, they need to be verified.
• This represents formalised approval of the project and its scope by all stakeholders.
• Changes must be managed following approval.
• Remember:
– Change isn’t necessarily bad but uncontrolled change is.
413
Project Scope Management414
2.2 Collect Requirements
.1 Inputs.1 Project charter.2 Project management plan.3 Project documents.4 Business documents.5 Agreements.6 Enterprise environmental factors.7 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Data gathering.3 Data analysis.4 Decision making.5 Data representation.6 Interpersonal and team skills.7 Context diagram.8 Prototypes
.3 Outputs.1 Requirements documentation.2 Requirements traceability matrix
2.3 Define Scope
.1 Inputs.1 Project charter.2 Project management plan.3 Project documents.4 Enterprise environmental factors.5 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Data analysis.3 Decision making.4 Interpersonal and team skills.5 Product analysis
.3 Outputs.1 Project scope statement.2 Project documentation updates
ProjectScope Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
2.1 Plan Scope Management
.1 Inputs.1 Project charter .2 Project management plan.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Data analysis.3 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Scope management plan.2 Requirements management plan
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 208 ‐
Project Scope Management415
2.5 Validate Scope
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Verified deliverables.4 Work performance data
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Inspection.2 Decision making
.3 Outputs.1 Accepted deliverables.2 Work performance information.3 Change requests .4 Project document updates
2.6 Control Scope
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Work performance data.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Data analysis
.3 Outputs.1 Work performance information.2 Change requests.3 Project management plan updates.4 Project document updates
ProjectScope Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
2.4 Create WBS
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Enterprise environmental
factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Decomposition
.3 Outputs.1 Scope baseline.2 Project documentation updates
Work Breakdown Structures (WBS)
• A WBS is a deliverable‐oriented grouping of project components that provides a hierarchical description of the whole project—if it isn’t in the WBS, it isn’t in the project’s scope.
• The WBS is therefore a graphical overview of the project that helps verify as well as communicate the project scope.
• The WBS is normally presented in chart form—each item is uniquely identified.
• The lowest level of the WBS contains what are normally called work packages.
416
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 209 ‐
Work Breakdown Structures (WBS)417
An example WBS—US DoD MIL-HDBK-881 format
Aircraft system
Systems engineering/project management
Air vehicle
Systems test &evaluation
Training
Data
Operationalactivation
Supportequipment
Spares
Facilities
•Undercarriage CI•Wings/fuselage CI•Fuel system CI•Hydraulic system CI•Flight controls CI•Engine CI•Avionics CI•Interior CI•Design, integration, assembly, test
•Developmental test & evaluation•Acceptance test & evaluation•Operational test & evaluation•T&E support•Test facilities
•Aircraft equipment•Support services•Facilities
•Technical publications•Engineering data•Management data•Support data•Data repository
•Test & measurement equipment•Support & handling equipment
•System-level assembly,installation & checkout
•Technical support•Site construction
Work Breakdown Structures (WBS)418
WBS numbering system
COMPLETE PROJECT
1234 01 01 001
Main assemblies
Sub-assemblies
Parts and components
Work package number
R. Burke, Project Management: Planning and Control Techniques, Burke Publishing, 2003.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 210 ‐
Project Schedule Management
• Includes processes required to ensure the timely completion of the project.
• Also called time management:
– Starts with activity definition where all project activities are identified.
– The sequence that these activities will be conducted is then identified (including parallel).
– The duration of each activity is estimated.
– The schedule results.
• SE is heavily involved with schedule management.
419
Project Schedule Management
• The schedule then needs to be managed and controlled throughout the project.
• Many computer‐aided tools are available to assist (for example, PERT and CPM software).
• Tools don’t manage the schedule, they merely assist the project manager.
• Experience and judgement remain the premier time management tools.
420
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 211 ‐
Project Schedule Management421
3.2 Define Activities
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Enterprise environmental factors.3 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Decomposition.3 Rolling wave planning.4 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Activity list.2 Activity attributes.3 Milestone list.4 Change requests.5 Project management plan
updates
3.3 Sequence Activities
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Precedence diagramming method.2 Dependency determination and
integration.3 Leads and lags.4 PMIS
.3 Outputs.1 Project schedule network
diagrams.2 Project documentation updates
ProjectSchedule Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
3.1 Plan Schedule Management
.1 Inputs.1 Project charter.2 Project management plan.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Data analysis.3 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Schedule management plan
Project Schedule Management422
3.4 Estimate Activity Durations
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Analogous estimating.3 Parametric estimating.4 Three-point estimating.5 Bottom-up estimating.6 Data analysis.7 Decision making.8 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Duration estimates.2 Basis of estimates.3 Project document updates
3.5 Develop Schedule
.1 Inputs.1 PMP .2 Project documents.3 Agreements.4 Enterprise environmental factors.5 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Schedule network analysis.2 Critical path method.3 Resource optimization technique.4 Data analysis.5 Leads and lags.6 Schedule compression.7 PMIS.8 Agile release planning
.3 Outputs.1 Schedule baseline.2 Project schedule.3 Schedule data.4 Project calendars.5 Change requests.6/.7 Project plan/document updates
ProjectSchedule Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
3.6 Control Schedule.1 Inputs
.1 Project management plan
.2 Project documents
.3 Work performance data
.4 Organizational process assets.2 Tools and Techniques
.1 Data analysis
.2 Critical path method
.3 PMIS
.4 Resource optimization
.5 Leads and lags
.6 Schedule compression.3 Outputs
.1 Work performance information
.2 Schedule forecasts
.3 Change requests
.4 Project management plan updates
.5 Project document updates
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 212 ‐
Project Cost Management
• Responsible for ensuring that the project is delivered within the prescribed budget.
• The next step to estimate the costs associated with each of the activities making up the project.
• Can use previous experience, tools, and modelling to assist.
• Cost budgeting involves allocating the budget to individual project activities.
• Cost control then ensures that changes to the cost baseline is positive.
423
Total Cost of Ownership
• Costing approaches: bottom‐up; top‐down; or a combination
• Bottom‐up:
– utilises WBS (based on the requirements set).
• Top‐down:
– exemplar solution (such as cost estimate based on existing similar system/s);
– Parametric (use a known attribute such as weight of ship, SLOC to develop estimates);
– Analytical techniques using historical data and application of factors for projections; and
– Indexing.
424
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 213 ‐
Importance of Good Costing Practice
• Supports consideration of Options for Gate decisions.
• Fundamental part of the Business Case and Government submissions.
• Budgeting.
• Particular aspects have proven to be difficult, such as estimating developmental and/or integration projects.
425
Costing Activities across CLC
• Costing activities and techniques change in type and focus dependent on the phase of the CLC:
– Pre‐Gate 0, 1, 2 activities including risk reduction efforts.
– Acquisition Costs:
• includes Introduction into Service. – Operating Costs:
• Most difficult to estimate.
• Required over LOT of capability.• Techniques include:
–Use of historical data.–Factor against acquisition costs.
– Disposal.
426
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 214 ‐
Project Cost Management427
4.1 Plan cost management.1 Inputs
.1 Project charter
.2 Project management plan
.3 Enterprise environmental factors
.4 Organisational process assets.2 Tools and Techniques
.1 Expert judgement
.2 Data analysis
.3 Meetings.3 Outputs
.1 Cost management plan
ProjectCost Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
4.2 Estimate Costs.1 Inputs
.1 Project management plan
.2 Project documents
.3 Enterprise environmental factors
.4 Organisational process assets.2 Tools and Techniques
.1 Expert judgement
.2/3 Analogous/parametric estimating
.4 Bottom-up estimating
.5 Three-point estimating
.6 Data analysis
.7 PMIS
.8 Decision making.3 Outputs
.1 Cost estimates
.2 Basis of estimates
.3 Project document updates
Project Cost Management428
4.3 Determine Budget
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Business documents.4 Agreements.5 Enterprise environmental factors.6 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement .2 Cost aggregation.3 Data analysis.4 Historical information review.5 Funding limit reconciliation.6 Financing
.3 Outputs.1 Cost baseline.2 Project funding requirements.3 Project document updates
4.4 Control Costs
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Project funding requirements.4 Work performance data.5 Organizational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Data analysis.3 To-complete performance index.4 PMIS
.3 Outputs.1 Work performance information.2 Cost forecasts.3 Change requests .4 Project management plan updates.5 Project document updates
ProjectCost Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 215 ‐
Project Quality Management
• Aims to ensure that the project will satisfy its needs.
• Quality assurance will be dealt with separately later.
• Project Management has an important role to play with respect to quality management.
• Quality planning requires management to determine which quality standards will be applied to the project—for example, the ISO 9000 series (more on this later).
• Once the quality standards have been selected, quality planning against those standards is required.
• Quality assurance (in accordance with the plan) involves planned and systematic activities aimed at enhancing confidence in project quality.
• Quality control is also used to check specific project results.
429
Project Quality Management430
5.1 Plan Quality Management
.1 Inputs.1 Project charter.2 Project management plan.3 Project documents.4 Enterprise environmental factors.5 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Data gathering.3 Data analysis.4 Decision making.5 Data representation.6 Test and inspection planning.7 Meetings
3 Outputs.1 Quality management plan.2 Quality metrics.3 Project management plan updates.4 Project documentation updates
5.2 Manage Quality
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Data gathering.2 Data analysis.3 Decision making.4 Data representation.5 Audits .6 Design for X.7 Problem solving.8 Quality improvement methods
.3 Outputs.1 Quality reports.2 Test and evaluation documents.3 Change requests.4 Project management plan updates.5 Project document updates
5.3 Control Quality
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Approved change requests.4 Deliverables.5 Work performance data.6 Enterprise environmental factors.7 Organizational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Data gathering .2 Data analysis.3 Inspection.4 Testing/product evaluations.5 Data representation.6 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Quality control measurements.2 Verified deliverables.3 Work performance information.4 Change requests.5 Project management plan updates.6 Project document updates
ProjectQuality Management
* A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 216 ‐
Project Resource Management
• Aims to make the most effective use of resources involved in the project, particularly people.
• Organisational planning is the initial activity involving:
– Identifying requirements.
– Documenting and assigning project roles and responsibilities.
– Reporting relationships.
• Once the resource requirements have been identified, the staff must be acquired.
• Finally, the team must be developed to enhance the performance of the individual and team.
431
Project Resource Management432
6.1 Plan Resource Management
.1 Inputs.1 Project charter.2 Project management plan.3 Project documents.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgment.2 Data representation.3 Organizational theory.4 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Resource management plan.2 Team charter.3 Project documents updates
6.2 Estimate Activity Resources
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Bottom-up estimating.3 Analogous estimating.4 Parametric estimating.5 Data analysis.6 PMIS.7 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Resource requirements.2 Basis of estimates.3 Resource breakdown structure.4 Project management plan updates
ProjectResource Management
6.3 Acquire Resources
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Decision making.2 Interpersonal and team skills.3 Pre-assignment.4 Virtual teams
.3 Outputs.1 Physical resource assignments.2 Project team assignments.3 Resource calendars.4 Change requests.5 Project management plan updates.6 Project documents updates.7 Enterprise environmental factors
updates.8 Organisational process assets
updates
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 217 ‐
Project Resource Management433
6.4 Develop Team
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Co-location.2 Virtual teams.3 Communication technology.4 Interpersonal and team skills.5 Recognition and rewards.6 Training.7 Individual and team assessments.8 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Team performance assessments.2 Change requests.3 Project management plan updates.4 Project document updates.5 Enterprise environmental factors
updates.6 Organisational process assets
updates
6.5 Manage Team
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Work performance reports.4 Team performance assessments.5 Enterprise environmental factors.6 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Interpersonal and team skills.2 PMIS
.3 Outputs.1 Change requests.2 Project management plan updates.3 Project documents updates.4 Enterprise environmental factors
updates
ProjectResource Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
6.6 Control Resources
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Work performance data.4 Agreements.5 Organizational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Data analysis.2 Problem solving.3 Interpersonal and team skills.4 PMIS
.3 Outputs.1 Work performance information.2 Change requests.3 Project management plan updates.4 Project documents updates
Communications Management
• Starts with communications planning to determine the overall communications requirements—who needs what, when and how.
• Information is then disseminated in accordance with the findings of the first step.
• Must be done in a timely manner.
• Reporting the performance and status of the project is an important part of communications.
• An important communications aspect is reporting the closure of project phases or the project itself.
434
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 218 ‐
Project Communications Management 435
7.1 Plan Communications Management
.1 Inputs.1 Project charter.2 Project management plan.3 Project documents.4 Enterprise environmental factors.5 Organizational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Comms requirements analysis.3 Communications technology.4 Communication models.5 Communication methods.6 Interpersonal and team skills.7 Data representation.8 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Comms management plan.2 Project management plan
updates.3 Project documentation updates
7.3 Monitor Communications
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Work performance data.4 Enterprise environmental factors.5 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgment.2 PIMS.3 Data representation.4 Interpersonal and team skills.3 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Work performance information.2 Change requests.3 Project management plan
updates.4 Project documentation updates
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
ProjectCommunications Management
7.2 Manage Communications
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Work performance reports.4 Enterprise environmental factors.5 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Communications technology.2 Communications models.3 Communications skills.4 PIMS.5 Project reporting.6 Interpersonal and team skills.7 Data representation
.3 Outputs.1 Project communications.2 Project management plan
updates.3 Project documentation updates.4 Organizational process assets
updates
Risk Management
• Risk identification:
– Determine possible risks
– Document risk characteristics
– Needs to be performed on a continual basis
• Risk quantification:
– Evaluates risks and determines interactions
– Determines likely impact of the risk on the project
• Risk response development:
– Take advantage of the opportunities
– Manage the risks to project performance
• Risk response control:
– responding to changes to the risks
436
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 219 ‐
Project Risk Management437
8.1 Plan Risk Management
.1 Inputs.1 Project scope.2 Project management plan.3 Project documents.4 Enterprise environmental factors.5 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgment.2 Data analysis.3 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Risk management plan
8.2 Identify Risks
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Agreements.4 Procurement documentation.5 Enterprise environmental factors.6 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgment.2 Data gathering.3 Data analysis.4 Interpersonal and team skills.5 Prompt lists.6 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Risk register.2 Risk reports.3 Project documents updates
8.3 Perform QualitativeRisk Analysis
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan .2 Project documents.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgment.2 Data gathering.3 Data analysis.4 Interpersonal and team skills .5 Risk categorisation.6 Data representation.7 Meeting
.3 Outputs.1 Project documents updates
ProjectRisk Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Project Risk Management438
8.4 Perform Quantitative Risk Analysis
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan .2 Project documents.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgment.2 Data gathering.3 Interpersonal and team skills .4 Representation of uncertainty.5 Data analysis
.3 Outputs.1 Project documents updates
8.5 Plan Risk Responses
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgment.2 Data gathering.3 Interpersonal and team skills .4 Strategies for threats.5 Strategies for opportunities.6 Contingent response strategies.7 Strategies for overall project risk.8 Data analysis.9 Decision making
.3 Outputs.1 Change requests.2 Project management plan updates.3 Project document updates
ProjectRisk Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 220 ‐
Project Risk Management439
8.7 Monitor Risks
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Work performance data.4 Work performance reports
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Data analysis.2 Audits.3 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Work performance information.2 Change requests .3 Project management plan updates.4 Project documents updates.5 Organisational process assets
updates
ProjectRisk Management
8.6 Implement Risk Responses
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Interpersonal and team skills.3 PMIS
.3 Outputs.1 Change requests .2 Project documents updates
Procurement Management
• Responsible for obtaining materials and services for the project from outside the organisation.
• Planning must be conducted to determine what is required and when.
• Solicitation planning—these requirements must be documented and potential sources identified.
• Solicitation involves obtaining quotes and offers etc.
• Source selection determines the best offer.
• Contract administration—put in place to manage the procurement contract with the source.
• Contract close‐out—completion and settlement of the contract.
440
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 221 ‐
Project Procurement Management441
9.1 Plan Procurements.1 Inputs
.1 Project charter
.2 Business documents
.3 Project management plan
.4 Project documents
.5 Enterprise environmental factors
.6 Organisational process assets.2 Tools and Techniques
.1 Expert judgment
.2 Data gathering
.3 Data analysis
.4 Source selection analysis
.5 Meetings.3 Outputs
.1 Procurement management plan
.2 Procurement strategy
.3 Bid documents
.4 Procurement SOW
.5 Source selection criteria
.6 Make-or-buy decisions
.7 Independent cost estimates
.8 Change requests
.9 Project documents updates
.10 Org process assets updates
9.2 Conduct Procurements.1 Inputs
.1 Project management plan
.2 Project documents
.3 Procurement documents
.4 Seller proposals
.5 Enterprise environmental factors
.6 Organizational process assets.2 Tools and Techniques
.1 Expert judgement
.2 Advertising
.3 Bidder conferences
.4 Data analysis
.5 Interpersonal and team skills.3 Outputs
.1 Selected sellers
.2 Agreements
.3 Resource calendars
.4 Change requests
.5 Project management plan updates
.6 Project documents updates
.7 Organisational process assets updates
ProjectProcurement Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
9.3 Control Procurements
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Agreements.4 Procurement documentation.5 Approved change requests .6 Work performance data.7 Enterprise environmental factors.8 Organizational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Claims administration.3 Data analysis.4 Inspection.5 Audits
.3 Outputs.1 Closed procurements.2 Work performance information.3 Procurement documents updates .4 Change requests .5 Project management plan updates .6 project documents updates.7 Org process assets updates
Stakeholder Management
• The PMBOK says that stakeholder management involves the processes required to:
– identify the people, groups, or organizations (the stakeholders) that could impact or be impacted by the project;
– analyse stakeholder expectations and their impact in the project; and
– develop appropriate stakeholder management strategies.
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
442
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 222 ‐
Project Stakeholder Management 443
10.1 Identify Stakeholders
.1 Inputs.1 Project charter.2 Procurement documents.3 Project management plan.4 Project documents.5 Agreements.6 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organizational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgment.2 Data gathering.3 Data analysis.4 Data representation.5 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Stakeholder register.2 Change requests.3 Project management plan updates.4 Project documents updates
10.2 Plan Stakeholder Engagement
.1 Inputs.1 Project charter.2 Project management plan.3 Project documents.4 Agreements.5 Enterprise environmental factors.6 Organizational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgment.2 Data gathering.3 Data gathering.4 Decision making.5 Data representation.6 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Stakeholder engagement plan
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
ProjectStakeholder Management
Project Stakeholder Management 444
10.3 Manage Stakeholder Engagement
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Enterprise environmental factors.4 Organizational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Expert judgement.2 Communications skills.3 Interpersonal and team skills.4 Ground rules.5 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Change requests.2 Project management plan updates.3 Project documents updates
10.4 Monitor Stakeholder Engagement
.1 Inputs.1 Project management plan.2 Project documents.3 Work performance data.4 Enterprise environmental factors.5 Organisational process assets
.2 Tools and Techniques.1 Data analysis.2 Decision making .3 Data representation.4 Communications skills.5 Interpersonal and team skills.6 Meetings
.3 Outputs.1 Work performance information.2 Change requests.3 Project management plan updates.4 Project documentation updates
ProjectStakeholder Management
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 223 ‐
Project Life Cycle
• Because each project is unique we must be careful to manage it since there is always at least some part of the project that we have never done before.
• To assist in managing projects we normally break the activities up into a number of phases.
• Phases are important because:
– They allow for finer control and management.
– Projects are easier to describe and communicate.
– Decision points at the end of phases allow us the opportunity to review progress and make decisions about future work.
– Phases of activity can be associated with broader organisational financing and scheduling arrangements.
445
Project Life Cycle
• Phases normally end with some form of deliverable.
• In some respects, then, we can consider a phase as a mini‐project that has resources, a beginning and an end, and so on—we can therefore manage it properly.
• The set of all phases is called the project life cycle.
• There are a number of project life‐cycle models adopted by different organisations. While they are largely very similar, they have slightly different phases, end points, reviews, and so on, depending on the unique needs of the industry and the organisation.
• All project life cycles have a number of common elements.
446
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 224 ‐
Project Life Cycle
• Resource usage. At the start, the levels of staffing, finance and other resources are relatively low. As the project progresses, the utilisation increases and then diminishes rapidly as the product is completed and delivered.
447
Initial Phase Final PhaseIntermediate Phases
Start FinishTime
Res
ou
rce
Lev
els
Rate of effort
Accumulative effort
Project Life Cycle448
fast
fast
slow
slowslow
slow
Time
100%
0%
Per
cent
age
Com
plet
e
A
B
0
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 225 ‐
The Importance of Project Definition449
65%
5% 10%
25% 10%
85%
% of Potential Cost or Efficiency Gains Achieved or Lost
% of Total Project Cost for Typical Project
Requirements Identification, Strategy Development, and Initial Risk Assessment
Build and Introduction Into Service
The Importance of Project Definition450
High
Low
Impact of problem definition(ease of making changes)
Resource levels(cost of making changes)
Time
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 226 ‐
Typical Project Life Cycles451
Conceive Develop Implement Terminate
Gather dataIdentify needEstablish:
Goals, objectivesBasic economicsFeasibilityStakeholdersRisk levelStrategyTeam
Estimate resourcesIdentify alternativesPresent proposalGain approval
Appoint teamConduct studiesDevelop scopeEstablish:
Master planBudgetCash flowWBSPolicesProcedures
Assess risksConfirm justificationPresent brief
Set up organisationSet up communicationsMotivate teamDetail technical requirementsEstablish
Work packagesDetailed scheduleInformation control systems
Procure goods and servicesExecute work packagesDirect/monitor/forecast/control:
ScopeQualityTimeCost
Resolve problems
Finalise productsReview and acceptTransfer responsibilityEvaluate productDocument resultsRelease/redirect resourcesReassign project team
Simple Project Life-cycle Phases
Typical Project Life Cycles452
Implementation
Leve
l of E
ffort
Time
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 227 ‐
Typical Project Life Cycles453
NEED
DISPOSAL
PreliminaryDesign
DetailedDesign and
Development
Operational Useand
System Support
Constructionand/or
Production
ACQUISITIONPHASE
UTILISATIONPHASE
ConceptualDesign
NEED
DISPOSAL
PreliminaryDesign
DetailedDesign and
Development
Operational Useand
System Support
Constructionand/or
Production
ACQUISITIONPHASE
UTILISATIONPHASE
ConceptualDesign
NEED
DISPOSAL
System Design and AnalysisOperational Use
andSystem Support
Constructionand/or
Production
ACQUISITIONPHASE
UTILISATIONPHASE
Systems Engineering—Blanchard, et al
Typical Project Life Cycles454
Australian Department of Defence
Need Requirements Acquisition In Service Disposal
Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigationand RequirementsSetting
Acquisition In Service &Disposal
Pre-FPR
Post-FPR
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 228 ‐
Typical Project Life Cycles455
US Department of Defense
Concept and
Technology
Development
System Development
and Demonstration
Production and
DeploymentSupport
Sustainment andMaintenance
Systems Acquisition(Engineering Development,
Demonstration,Production, and Deployment)
Pre-SystemsAcquisition
Typical Project Life Cycles456
Software Development—Waterfall Model
REQTSANALYSIS
SYSTEMDESIGN
PROGRAMDESIGN
CODING
TESTING(Unit, Integration
System, Acceptance)
OPERATION& MAINT
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 229 ‐
Incremental Development457
Increment 1 Increment 2 Increment n
Final system scope
Kernel
Increment 1 scope
Increment 1 Increment 2 Increment n
Kernel Kernel
ReqSet
Evolutionary Development458
Build 1 Build 2 Build n
Final system scope
Build 1 Build 2 Build n
Build 1 scope
InitialReqs
FurtherReqs
FurtherReqs
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 230 ‐
Overlapping Incremental Builds459
Build 2
Build n
Time
RBL1 RBL2 RBLn
Build 1
Build nfielded
Build 2fielded
Build 1fielded
ReqSet
Overlapping Evolutionary Builds460
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 231 ‐
Spiral Development461
Cumulative cost
Evaluate alternativesidentify, resolve risks
Determine objectives,alternatives, constraints
Develop andverify next-level product
Plan next phases
RiskanalysisRisk
analysisRiskanalysis
Riskanalysis
Prototype1
Prototype2
Prototype3
Operationalprototype
Simulations, models, benchmarks
Concept ofoperation Sof tware
requirements Sof tware productdesign
Detaileddesign
Requirementsvalidation
Design validationand verif ication
Implementation Acceptancetest
Integrationand test
Unittest
Code
Developmentplan
Integrationand test plan
Requirements planLife-cycle plan
Review
Other Project Life Cycles462
Representative Life Cycle of a Pharmaceuticals Project
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA, 2017.
Drug Sourcing
ScreeningLeadIdentified
PreclinicalINDWorkup
FileIND
Patent Process
Discovery ScreeningPreclinicalDevelopment
Ten Plus Years
Registration Workup Post-submission Activity
Phase IClinicalTests
Phase IIClinicalTests
Phase IIIClinicalTests
Formulation Stability
Process Development
FileNDA Post-registration Activity
APPROVAL
Toxicology
Metabolism
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 232 ‐
463Project Managementand
Systems EngineeringP
MB
OK
Kn
ow
led
ge
Are
a
IEE
E 1
220
EIA
/IS
63
2
AN
SI/
EIA
63
2IS
O/I
EC
152
88
Integration Management
Scope Management
Time Management
Cost Management
Quality Management
Resource Management
Communications Management
Risk Management
Procurement Management
Stakeholder Management
SEStandard
PM and SE464
Construction&/or Production
Utilization Phase
RetirementPhase
Pre-acquisitionPhase
Project Management
ISO/IEC 15288
ConceptualDesign
IEEE 1220
Detailed Design& Development
PreliminaryDesign
AcquisitionPhase
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 233 ‐
Summary
The ten knowledge areas of the PMBOK.
• Integration Management
• Scope Management
• Schedule Management
• Cost Management
• Quality Management
• Resource Management
• Communications Management
• Risk Management
• Procurement Management
• Stakeholder Management
465
Introduction toProgram Management
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 234 ‐
Program Management
A program is a group of related projects managed in a coordinated manner to obtain benefits not available from managing them individually.
Program management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to meet program requirements.
Source: PMI website
467
CLC Programs: Optimise Capability468
“A group of related Projects, Products, and Program
activities that are managed in a coordinated way to optimise
the capability outcome within allocated resources.”
Source: Interim CLC Manual
ProgramAcquisition
Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 235 ‐
CLC Programs and Systems469
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
One system … Main Battle Tank, for example.
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
CLC Programs and Systems470
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
One system … Main Battle Tank, for example.
Multiple related systems…Combat Vehicles Program eg
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
ProgramProject 1: System 1
Project 2: System 2
Project 3: System 3
Pre-Project 4:System 4
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 236 ‐
Program Management
• Who needs to know how Programs work:
– those responsible for Programs )Program Sponsors and Managers); and
– those who are part of a Program (Project and Product Managers).
471
CLC Programs
• The common features of Programs:
– Group of related interdependent Projects, Products and activities that are expected to contribute to an overarching objective.
– Constituent Products, Projects, and activities are managed mostly separately and will likely be at different phases of the capability life cycle.
– The Program authority (Sponsor or Manager) is accountable for the combined outcomes.
472
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 237 ‐
Benefits of Programs
• Support integrated capability.
• Deliver efficiencies.
• Governance and management layer:
– coordinate and synchronise related activities;
– reconcile conflicts between related efforts; and
– umbrella reference for Projects and Products.
• Traceability from Projects/Products to strategic outcomes.
473
Program Features
• A Program is:
– a group of related Projects, Products and activities;
– an enduring capability outcome;
– supports joint capability outcomes;
– managed by a Program Sponsor; and
– helps optimise capability outcomes within resources.
474
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 238 ‐
Program: Delivers Capability Over Time(enduring capability from multiple systems)
475
Current Systems
2019 2025 2030
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
System 1
+
System 2
+
+
+
Technology Obsolescence and replacement
System 3
System 2
System 6
+
Required Capability ‘level’ delivered by several systems
+
System 2
System 6
+System 7
Respond to threat changes
2035
Program: Delivers Capability Over Time(enduring capability from multiple projects)
476
Current Systems
2019 2025 2030
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
System 1
+
System 2
+
+
+
Technology Obsolescence and replacement
System 3
System 2
System 6
+
Required Capability ‘level’ delivered by several systems
+
System 2
System 6
+System 7
Respond to threat changes
2035
Project
Project
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 239 ‐
Program: Delivers Capability Over Time(housing, transport, recreation)
477
2019 2025 2030
2 BR Apartment
3 BR House
Carport
+
Car: 4 cyl Hatch
+
+
+
Changing circumstances, Technology changes, Obsolescence and replacement
4 BR House
4 car garage
Car 4WD
+
Required lifestyle ‘capability’: aspirations…
+Car: Electric
Townhouse
2035
2 BR Apartment
+
Solar incl car charging/ battery
Car: 4 cyl Hatch
Defence Challenge: Different Types of Programs478
• IIP Capability Program
• IIP Corporate Enabler Programs
• Delivery Programs, such as Active Electronically Scanned
Array (AESA) Radar SPO
• ‘Sub-Programs’ such as Space Situational Awareness
IAMD
Cyber (common
technology)
Fuel (common-use commodity)
Facilities(management)
IAMD (integrated capability)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 240 ‐
Three Types of Defence Programs
• System of Systems (SoS)—integrated capability.
• Family of Systems (FoS)—common‐use systems.
• Portfolio of Systems (PoS)—management grouping.
479
Source: M.W. Maier, Architecting a portfolio of systems, Systems Engineering. 2019;1‐13, wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sys
Defence Programs: Three Grouping Types480
Defence Programs
System of Systems (SoS)
Family of Systems (FoS)
Portfolio of Systems (PoS)
• Joint capability • operationally related • e.g. IAMD Program
• common-use systems• common requirements and
design• efficiencies (economies of
scale in production, acquisition, support)
• e.g. radar program
• operationally independent• managerially convenient• largely unrelated attributes • related by budget and mgt• e.g. infrastructure program
(E&IG)
Source: M.W. Maier, Architecting a portfolio of systems, Systems Engineering. 2019;1‐13, wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sys
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 241 ‐
Relationships Dictated by Type of Group481
System of Systems
• Operationally related• can be common budget
Operational
Technical
Management
Program Relationships
Family of Systems
• Related technical reqs• economies of scale• can be common budget
Portfolio of Systems
• related budget and management
• Administrative convenience
Define operational dependencies (eg CONOPS, IERs) between constituent systems/elements within and across Programs.
Based on operational dependencies define technical interdependencies, shared requirements (eg interface), impacted system requirements, and standards
Manage all aspects of the SoS: CONOPS definition, stakeholder relationships, technical alignment (CM), funding, scheduling of system development, upgrades, coordination of contracting etc
Define technical commonality or relationships ie common, shared requirements and standards
Manage stakeholder relationships (incl international) , technical alignment (CM), funding, coordination of system development and upgrades, coordination of contracting etc
Manage stakeholder relationships, funding, resourcing, contracting
Type of Grouping
Constituent systems related in terms of …
Defence Programs: Three Grouping Types482
Defence Programs
System of Systems (SoS)
Family of Systems (FoS)
Portfolio of Systems (PoS)
• Joint capability • operationally related • e.g. IAMD Program
• common-use systems• common requirements and
design• efficiencies (economies of
scale in production, acquisition, support)
• e.g. radar program
• operationally independent• managerially convenient• largely unrelated attributes • Related by budget and mgt• e.g. infrastructure program
(E&IG)
Source: M.W. Maier, Architecting a portfolio of systems, Systems Engineering. 2019;1-13, wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sys
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 242 ‐
Relationships Dictated by Type of Group483
System of Systems
• Operationally related• can be common budget
Operational
Technical
Management
Program Relationships
Family of Systems
• Related technical reqs• economies of scale• can be common budget
Portfolio of Systems
• related budget and management
• Administrative convenience
Define operational dependencies (eg CONOPS, IERs) between constituent systems/elements within and across Programs.
Based on operational dependencies define technical interdependencies, shared requirements (eg interface), impacted system requirements, and standards
Manage all aspects of the SoS: CONOPS definition, stakeholder relationships, technical alignment (CM), funding, scheduling of system development, upgrades, coordination of contracting etc
Define technical commonality or relationships ie common, shared requirements and standards
Manage stakeholder relationships (incl international) , technical alignment (CM), funding, coordination of system development and upgrades, coordination of contracting etc
Manage stakeholder relationships, funding, resourcing, contracting
Type of Grouping
Constituent systems related in terms of …
Program (SoS) T&E is also Important484
Program OT&E
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 243 ‐
Program/SoS Perspectives485
• Operational Interdependencies: – CONOPS (operational, performance
objectives) for SoS.
– Derived Operational Needs, Reqs for each Node/ system.
– IERs, Interface type (options) such as voice, TDL, fuel appropriate to scenarios.
• ‘Technical’ Interdependencies: – Individual overarching system
operational needs (OCD), functionality and performance requirements Functional dependencies between systems.
– Interface Requirements incl Standards.
• Management Interdependencies: – e.g. Schedule coordination across CLC
phase and event for each system.
– Interface Control Board.
Effective Program Management
• SoS Operational effects and CONOPS: What are expected operational effects and contribution of each constituent system.
• SoS Architectures: definition and maintenance.
• SoS/Program Planning: e.g. plan (incl schedule) alignment.
• SoS Needs and Requirements development: defining common requirements, reconciling conflicts, aligning system and interoperability requirements.
• Program/SoS Governance: configuration control, decision‐making, deconfliction, ICWGs.
• ...
486
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 244 ‐
Effective Program Management
• …
• Program Risk reduction: e.g. SoS modelling and simulation, analyses
• Multi‐Project Solicitation and Contracting: aligning, leveraging tendering and contracting activities across constituent activities
• SoS and system Design and Development: aligning, coordinating information exchange and design decisions across Projects
• Multi‐Product FIC: aligning, leveraging synergies across Projects/Products
• Program V&V/T&E: delivering interoperable outcomes
487
System of Systems Engineering
• Program Management can be aided by System‐of‐Systems thinking
• System‐of‐Systems problems have been described (by DeLaurentisand Maier) as problems which exhibit a number of the following traits :
– Operational Independence of Elements
– Managerial Independence of Elements
– Evolutionary Development
– Emergent Behaviour
– Geographical Distribution of Elements
– Interdisciplinary Study
– Heterogeneity of Systems
– Networks of Systems
488
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 245 ‐
System or System‐of‐Systems (SoS)?489
System
Subsystem Subsystem
Subsystem Subsystem
System-of-Systems
System System
System System
A system is an integration of a number of co‐dependent subsystemsthat are interconnected
permanentlyto achieve a common purpose.
An SoS is an integration of a number of independent systems that are interconnected for a period of time
to achieve a common purpose.
Hierarchy of SoS / System / Sub‐system490
System: Constituent
SystemElement
SystemElement
Sub-System Sub-System
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
Sub-System Sub-System
SoS: System-of-Interest
System: Constituent System: ConstituentSystem: Constituent
Independent Systems Integrated for a period of time
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 246 ‐
SoS Engineering (SoSE)
• The aims of the Systems Approach and SoSE are to:
– optimise the outcomes delivered through the new systems (Projects) and legacy (Products) which together satisfy the Program objectives;
– provide techniques that enable decision‐makers to make informed decisions on architectural solutions for System‐of‐Systems problems across technical performance and costs; and
– provide a deliberately managed approach to the definition, design and delivery of capability systems in a Program across Projects and Products.
491
OCD Approach for Programs 492
POCD Sections 1‐3: What do we need?
POCD Section 4: What do we have?
POCD Sections 5/6: What can we do to resolve?
SoS SoSe.g. SoS SoS POCD/Architecture
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 247 ‐
Developing SoS Needs and Requirements 493
System
SystemElement
SystemElement
Sub‐System Sub‐System
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
Sub‐System Sub‐System
System of Systems
System SystemSystem
Independent Systems Integrated for a period
of time Program
Hierarchy of a SoS to System 494
System
SystemElement
SystemElement
Sub‐System Sub‐System
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
SystemElement
Sub‐System Sub‐System
System of Systems
System SystemSystem
Independent Systems Integrated for a period
of time
What does the system have to do (function) and what other functions does it interact with (interface)?
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 248 ‐
Individual Systems Needs Hierarchy (OCD) 495
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
Functions Interfaces
The functionality is a property of the system or component, independent from whom the system or component is intended to interactwith.
Hierarchy of a SoS to System 496
System
System of Systems
System SystemSystem
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
SoS Mission
SoS Level 1
SoS Level 2
1 2 n…
1.1 1.n…1.2 2.1 2.n…2.2 n.1
n.n…n.2
Functions (and their performance)
Interfaces
Overarching Operational Effect
POCD(based on logical architecture)
Individual OCDs
SoS functions
Allocation of functions to
nodes/systems
SoS functions
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 249 ‐
Hierarchy of a SoS to System 497
System
System of Systems
System SystemSystem
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
SoS Mission
SoS Level 1
SoS Level 2
1 2 n…
1.1 1.n…1.2 2.1 2.n…2.2 n.1
n.n…n.2
Functions (and their performance)
Interfaces
Overarching Operational Effect
POCD(based on logical architecture)
Individual OCDs
SoS functions
Allocation of functions to
nodes/systems
SoS functions
Common operational context
Operational, functional and performance drivers
Prior to CLC Redesign498
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Project 1
FPSs
TCD
• Projects and their needs and requirements frequently:– un‐aligned and – not well coordinated (if
at all)
• Needs and Requirements development started at Project layer
Project 2 Product 3
FPSs
TCD
OCD 3
FPSs
TCD
OCD 1 OCD 2
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 250 ‐
Program Layer as ‘Umbrella’ Reference499
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
FPSs
IPMP 1
JCNS 1
Project 2 Product 3
OCD 1
• Common ‘umbrella’ reference
• Aligning Project and Product requirements
• Supports integration and interoperability
• ‘Town Plan’
JCN 1
PES 1
FPSs
IPdMP
JCNS 3
OCD 3
JCN 3
PES 3
FPSs
IPMP 2
JCNS 2
OCD 2
JCN 2
PES 2
TCD 1 TCD 2 TCD 3
Re‐use/ reference content
Program Documents: Ref for Requirements500
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
Sect 1-4
FPSs
TCD
PES/IPMP
Efficient: leverage common content in ‘parent’
Aligned: Related Projects and Products have common reference
Coordinated: Related Projects, Products and activities are managed together
JCN/
JCNS 1
PES/ IPMP
JCN/ JCNS 2
PES/IPMP
JCN/
JCNS 3
Project 2 Product 3
FPSs
TCD
OCD
FPSs
TCD
Sect 5-7
OCD 1
Re‐used/ referenced content
New content
Sect 1-4
Sect 5-7
OCD 2
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 251 ‐
SoS Architecture Practice for Programs
• “An architecture is the structure of components, their relationships, and the principles and guidelines governing their design evolution over time” (IEEE 610.12‐1990).
• SoS (and therefore Program) architectures provide:
– details on how constituent systems will be used (CONOPS);
– internal and external operational, functional and technical relationships and dependencies among the constituent systems;
– end‐to‐end functionality and flows of information and data (and other resources); and
– provides a common and enduring reference for decisions for Proposals, Projects and Products.
Source: Based on SEBoK Architecting approaches for SoS
501
Architectures 502
Operational View
Warfighter Relationships and Information Needs
Technical View
Prescribes Standards and Conventions
Systems View
Relates Capabilities and Characteristics to Operational
Requirements
Technical Criteria for implementing interoperability
Processing and Levels of Information Exchange Requirements
Systems Associations to Nodes, Activities, Needlines, and Requirements
Processing and Levels of Information Exchange Requirements
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 252 ‐
SoS/Program Architectures
• Provides a common and enduring reference for decisions for Proposals, Projects and Products.
• “From the single‐system community's perspective, its part of the SoS capability represents additional obligations, constraints and complexities. Rarely is participation in an SoS seen as a net gain from the viewpoint of single‐system stakeholders”
(Source: Rebovich 2009)
• SEBoK raises the practical problems and potential solutions for situations in which the SoS architecture may be constrained by a reluctance to make changes or invest in the constituent systems, which could be very mature (e.g. in sustainment) or currently productively supporting other uses. (Source: SEBoK Architecting approaches for SoS)
503
Introduction to Support Concepts and ILS
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 253 ‐
Key Points
• Defence frameworks in this area are not ‘orthogonal’.
• ILS is a pivotal practice to realise Mission and Supportsystem ‘balance’ to optimise costs (LCC).
• Progressive ‘build’ of definition of the Support Concept(Initial, Final) realised through ILS plans.
• Support Concept can be viewed as being made up of fiveconstituent capability concepts corresponding to:
505
Operating Support
Engineering Support
Maintenance Support
Supply Support
Training Support
Support System Constituent
Capabilities (SSCC)
Capability Perspectives—Recap 506
Support System: SSCC
Mission System
FIC
• Personnel • Organisation• Collective Training• Supplies• Major Systems• Facilities • Support • Command and
Management • Industry
• Operating Support• Engineering Support • Maintenance Support • Supply Support • Training Support
• Australian Industry• ADO• Overseas Industry• Allies/Partners
Sources of SupplyCapabilitySystem
• truck• radar• ship
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 254 ‐
Preparedness Force Structure
Force elements capable of delivering specific
effects and countering threats
Maintaining the force structure at an appropriate state of
preparedness for a range of potential operations
Defence Capability 507
Readiness Sustainability
Being ready to deploy on
military operations.
Being able to continue operating
Deploy and Operate Force Element
Defence Capability System 508
(Sustain, In-Service)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 255 ‐
Deploy and Operate Force Element
Defence Capability System 509
Mission System Support System
Supporting it In‐ServiceEquipment
Mission and Support Systems
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 256 ‐
Mission and Support System Perspective511
Capability System
Mission System Support System
Used to focus on bringing the system into being
(equipment and its use)
What is needed to support it during the In‐service Phase
Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 257 ‐
Defence Capability
• Capacity or ability to achieve an operational effect.
• Operational effect relies on a combination of contributions or inputs:
– Fundamental Inputs to Capability,
– not just the equipment, and
– all inputs must be in place to deliver operational effect.
• A deficiency in any one adversely impacts the whole.
513
Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC)514
Organisation
Command and Management
SupportFacilities
PersonnelCollective Training
Major Systems
Industry
Supplies
Capability (System)
Comprehensive, Structured
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 258 ‐
Support System Constituent Capabilities (SSCC)
Support System Constituent Capabilities
• Defence groups support elements that comprise Support System through five functional constituent capabilities:
– Operating Support.
– Engineering Support.
– Maintenance Support.
– Supply Support.
– Training Support.
516
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 259 ‐
Capability System517
Personnel
Collective Training
Facilities and Training Areas
Supplies
Support
Organisation
Command and Management
Industry
Operating Support
Engineering Support
Maintenance Support
Supply Support
Training Support
Mission System
Support System
Effect / Outcome
SSCC
FIC
(Materiel System)
Capability Perspectives 518
Support System: SSCC
Mission System
FIC
• Personnel • Organisation• Collective Training• Supplies• Major Systems• Facilities • Support • Command and
Management • Industry
• Operating Support• Engineering Support • Maintenance Support • Supply Support • Training Support
• Australian Industry• ADO• Overseas Industry• Allies/Partners
Sources of SupplyCapabilitySystem
• truck• radar• ship
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 260 ‐
Capability Perspectives
These structures help:
• ensure everything is covered;
• define requirements of the mission system and its support system;
• delineate what each party (CM, CASG, E&IG, CIO etc organises);
• define who supplies the different elements; and
• define elements for which industry is contracted.
519
Logistics Terminology and Activities
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 261 ‐
Defence Logistics Terminology
ADDP4.0 Defence Logistics: logistics is described as
“the science of planning and carrying out the movement and maintenance of forces”.
Logistics provides resources that:
• underpin combat power,
• positions those resources in the battle space,
• sustains them throughout the operation, and
• redeploys and regenerates them.*
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Logistics
Logistics Context
• Contributing to the preparedness of the Australian Defence Organisation (ADO) through:
– Acquisition; and
– Support (through‐life) of military equipment and supplies.
Logistics
Source: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Preparedness
Maintaining the force structure at an appropriate state of preparedness for a range of potential
operations
Readiness Sustainability
Being ready to deploy on military operations
Being able to continue operating
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 262 ‐
• Materiel:
– design and development,
– acquisition,
– storage,
– movement,
– distribution,
– maintenance,
– evacuation and disposition of materiel;
• Personnel transportation;
• Facilities acquisition/construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition;
• Services acquisition or furnishing; and
• Medical and health support.
Logistics: Comprehensive View
Source: ADDP4.0 Defence Logistics
Logistics
• Materiel:
– design and development,
– acquisition,
– storage,
– movement,
– distribution,
– maintenance,
– evacuation and disposition of materiel;
• Personnel transportation;
• Facilities acquisition/construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition;
• Services acquisition of furnishing; and
• Medical and health support.
Logistics: Comprehensive View
Source: ADDP4.0 Defence Logistics
Logistics
Materiel Logistics
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 263 ‐
• Materiel:
– design and development,
– acquisition,
– storage,
– movement,
– distribution,
– maintenance,
– evacuation and disposition of materiel;
• Personnel transportation;
• Facilities acquisition/construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition;
• Services acquisition of furnishing; and
• Medical and health support.
Logistics: Comprehensive View Logistics
Materiel Logistics
Source: ADDP4.0 Defence Logistics
Support Concept/s
ILS Plan
Materiel Logistics
Covers:
• Acquisition and sustainment of materiel.
• Includes the actions of:
– defining supportability requirements (see definition);
– monitoring sustainment outcomes;
– establishing and managing: repair pipeline, facilities, contracts; and
– defining stockholding policy, usage rates, demand management, performance management and disposal approach.
• Includes development of Materiel Logistics plans.
Logistics
Materiel Logistics
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 264 ‐
Materiel Logistics
• Materiel Logistics brings together:
– discipline of Integrated Logistics Support (ILS); and
– planning and managing delivery of In‐Service Support (ISS).
• Where..
– In‐Service Support (ISS) involves:
• management; and
• execution of support activities.
Logistics
Materiel Logistics
ILS ISS
DEFLOGMAN Part 2, Volume 10, Chapter 3, Defence Policy on Integrated Logistic Support
Figuring out what
to do
Materiel Logistics
• Materiel Logistics brings together:
– discipline of Integrated Logistics Support (ILS); and
– planning and managing delivery of In‐Service Support (ISS).
• Where..
– In‐Service Support (ISS) involves:
• management; and
• execution of support activities.
Logistics
Materiel Logistics
ILS ISS
DEFLOGMAN Part 2, Volume 10, Chapter 3, Defence Policy on Integrated Logistic Support
Figuring out what
to do Doing it
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 265 ‐
Integrated Logistics Support (ILS)
DEFLOGMAN* calls for ADO to apply principles and practices of ILS:
• during all phases of CLC;
• ensure that required Supportability and Materiel Sustainment outcomes achieved;
• ensure optimised LCC; and
• within operational, regulatory, legislative and contractual requirements and constraints.
*DEFLOGMAN Part 2, Volume 10, Chapter 3, Defence Policy on Integrated Logistic Support (Check)
Logistics
Materiel Logistics
ILS
Integrated Logistics Support (ILS)
ILS enables:
1. improved supportability* of Mission and Support Systems
2. to meet operation and preparedness requirements
3. while minimising Life‐Cycle Cost.
530
* Supportability: The degree to which Capability System design characteristics andplanned logistics support resources meet System operational and utilisationrequirements.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 266 ‐
Integrated Logistics Support 531
MissionSystem design
Acquisition Costs
Support System design
Sustainment Costs
1. 2.
For many years Defence focuson acquisition and acquisition
costs
Integrated Logistics Support 532
MissionSystem design
Acquisition Costs
Support System design
Sustainment Costs
1. 2.
Support and associated costs were often treated separately
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 267 ‐
Integrated Logistics Support
• ILS drives recognition of the relationship between missionand support systems…
MissionSystem design
Acquisition Costs
Support System design
Sustainment Costs
1. 2.
Integrated Logistics Support 534
• … and the need for their definition and development to be addressed together.
3.
MissionSystem design
Acquisition Costs
Support System design
Sustainment Costs
1. 2. ILS
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 268 ‐
Integrated Logistics Support 535
3.
MissionSystem
design/reqs
Acquisition Costs
Support System
design/reqs
Sustainment Costs
1. 2.
Mission system design drives support system requirements
Integrated Logistics Support 536
3.
MissionSystem design
Acquisition Costs
Support System design
Sustainment Costs
1. 2.
Mission system design drives support system requirements
TCO across acquisition and support costs drives Mission System design
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 269 ‐
Integrated Logistics Support
• ILS assists in:
– design and modification of supportable Mission Systems;and
– ensures Support System established and maintained.
537
Capability System
Mission System Support System
design and modification
established and maintained
Integrated Logistics Support
• ILS is a disciplined approach to logistics planning and management throughout life‐cycle.
538
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Logistics Planning Logistics Planning and Management
Logistics Management
ILS
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 270 ‐
Integrated Logistics Support
All activities for Supportability of Mission and its SupportSystem including:
• management,
• needs analysis and requirements determination,
• design and development,
• acquisition and procurement,
• Verification and Validation (V&V),
• Introduction Into Service,
• In‐Service Support,
• performance management, and
• Disposal.
539
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
ILS: Summary
• What: life‐cycle discipline for Supportability of a Materiel System.
• Why: to ensure operational and preparedness objectives are met at optimised LCC.
• When: throughout the materiel life cycle.
• How: through materiel management methodology which is:
– disciplined,
– controlled,
– methodical, and
– iterative.
540
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 271 ‐
In‐Service Support (ISS)Logistics
Materiel Logistics
Logistics
ILS ISS
In‐Service Support (ISS)
• Management and execution of support activities to ensure continued attainment of the intended operational capabilities of the system or equipment during the In‐Service phase.
542
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
ISS
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 272 ‐
In‐Service Support (ISS)
• Delivered by integrated arrangement of Defence agencies and industry—that is, Support Service Providers (SSPs).
• Defence Delivery Group responsible for coordinating effort of these providers.
543
DSS Panel (79 Skill Sets at five Skill Levels) for:• Program Management Services;• Engineering and Technical Services;• Materiel Logistics Services;• Commercial Services;• Corporate Performance Services; and• Authoring and Writing Services.
Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
ISS delivered through Support System comprisingfive Support System Constituent Capabilities(SSCCs):
In‐Service Support (ISS)
Materiel Logistics
Logistics
ILS ISS
SSCC
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 273 ‐
ISS delivered through Support System comprisingfive Support System Constituent Capabilities(SSCCs):
Support System Constituent Capabilities
Materiel Logistics
Logistics
ILS ISS
SSCC
Operating Support
Engineering Support
Maintenance Support
Supply Support
Training Support
Support System Constituent
Capabilities (SSCC)
ISS delivered through Support System comprisingfive Support System Constituent Capabilities(SSCCs):
Support System Constituent Capabilities
Materiel Logistics
Logistics
ILS ISS
SSCC
Operating Support
Engineering Support
Maintenance Support
Supply Support
Training Support
Support System Constituent
Capabilities (SSCC)
Mission System
Support System
(Materiel System)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 274 ‐
Support System Constituent Capabilities
• Defence groups support elements that comprise Support System through five functional categories:
– Operating Support.
– Engineering Support.
– Maintenance Support.
– Supply Support.
– Training Support.
547
SSCC Elements
1. Operating Support Capability.
– operating facilities system operators,
– support equipment,
– operator manuals and technical data,
– operating support procedures, and
– operating support information systems.
548
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 275 ‐
SSCC Elements 549
1. Operating Support Capability. – operating facilities system operators,
– support equipment,
– operator manuals and technical data,
– operating support procedures, and
– operating support information systems.
Helicopter:
• Facilities system operators:
• Facilities to support helicopter operations (landing pad, hangar)• People needed to support these facilities? (groundcrew: aircraft marshallers)
• Support Equipment:
• Communications system between landing pad and pilot
• PPE (ear protection) • Specialist clothing (Hi‐Viz), PP
Landing crew manuals, SOPs
• Protocols and Interlocks to prevent hazards. Landing equipment (Recovery Assist, Secure, Traverse (RAST)
SSCC Elements
2. Engineering Support Capability.
– engineering facilities,
– engineering personnel,
– engineering support and test equipment,
– engineering technical data,
– engineering processes,
– engineering information management system, and
– software support.
550
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 276 ‐
SSCC Elements
2. Engineering Support Capability. – engineering facilities,
– engineering personnel,
– engineering support and test equipment,
– engineering technical data,
– engineering processes,
– engineering information management system, and
– software support.
551
Scenario:
1. Faulty system (design oversight, maintenance lapse, operating outside the use
envelope) e.g. overseas system not designed to Australian conditions
2. Needs an investigation and remedy
3. Technical undertaking to determine a way forward
4. Implement it
SSCC Elements
2. Engineering Support Capability. – engineering facilities,
– engineering personnel,
– engineering support and test equipment,
– engineering technical data,
– engineering processes,
– engineering information management system, and
– software support.
552
FFG example:• Evidence of fatigue: cracks superstructure, across the side of the ship• Investigation: Naval Architect, SE, Specialists engineering (materials) • Remedy: Saddle strip along the side of the hull piece of steel to stiffen up the
side of hull.• Engineering Support processes:
• Levels of engineering ‘sign off’: Chief Engineer (regulatory authority approved)
• Judgement of Significance
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 277 ‐
SSCC Elements
3. Maintenance Support Capability.
– develop, establish and integrate a maintenance support system capable of sustaining a system throughout its life
• maintenance facilities,
• maintenance personnel,
• maintenance support and test equipment,
• maintenance technical data,
• maintenance processes, and
• maintenance information management system.
553
SSCC Elements
3. Maintenance Support Capability. – develop, establish and integrate a maintenance support system capable of sustaining a system
throughout its life
• maintenance facilities,
• maintenance personnel,
• maintenance support and test equipment,
• maintenance technical data,
• maintenance processes, and
• maintenance information management system.
554
CEAFAR Radar ‘Faces’
1. High reliability, only OEM can touch (except some modules below)
2. Timing for removal of faces progressed due to design and evidence:
• 18 months
• 3 years
• 8 years
3. Impact on cost, availability, maintenance regime
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 278 ‐
SSCC Elements
4. Supply Support Capability.
– supply facilities,
– supply personnel,
– supply support equipment,
– supply technical data,
– supply processes,
– supply information management system,
– spares, and
– packaging.
555
SSCC Elements
4. Supply Support Capability. – supply facilities,
– supply personnel,
– supply support equipment,
– supply technical data,
– supply processes,
– supply information management system,
– spares, and
– packaging.
556
Defence (incl warehousing, MILIS) Commonwealth Funded Contractor Managed (CFCM) of a specific system
(ESM) Contracted out services: CFCM and distribution services (Linfox) Global Supply Chain: F35 Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) The F 35 program's maintenance concept is:
any F-35 to be maintained in any F-35 maintenance facility, and all F-35 parts in all bases to be globally tracked and shared as needed.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 279 ‐
SSCC Elements
5. Training Support Capability.
– training facilities
– training personnel,
– training equipment,
– training materials and other technical data,
– training processes, and
– training information management system.
557
SSCC Elements
5. Training Support Capability. – training facilities
– training personnel,
– training equipment,
– training materials and other technical data,
– training processes, and
– training information management system.
558
Combat System training method:
Part‐task trainer:
o e.g. keyboard
o e.g. combat system
o e.g. radar system…
Command team trainer
Real ship: real and simulated inputs
At sea
Vehicle training method :
a. Car
b. Truck
c. Armoured vehicle
Formula 1:
a. Go carts
b. 500 series /open wheelers
c. F1
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 280 ‐
Logistics Support actions across the CLC
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
• Develop Support Concept (draft In-Service Support Concept (ISS) for input into P/OCD)
• ILSP Analysis Support Options Analysis and Costing
• Draft Support Concept for input into PES
• Conduct early Support Options Analysis and Costing
• Conduct ILS Analysis
• Develop ILSP• Develop
LSAR • LCC Baseline
• Finalise ILS Analysis • Produce complete LSAR • ISS arrangements
• Spares• Support equipment• Logistics data
• Organisational responsibilities defined in LSC for:
• CASG• Services• Support Groups• Contractors • Foreign Military
• Initial MSA drafted• Engineering,
Maintenance, Supply Support and Technical Management Plans
• Draft Disposal Plan• AIS Documentation• Transition Plan
• Multi-Agency support defined by LSC and Detailed ILS Plans
• ISS delivery covering engineering, maintenance, supply, operating and training support
• ISS management including annual support planning, performance management, quality management and contracting
• Regulatory compliance• Budgetary and Financial
incl LCC review• Risk Management• Annual Review of ILSP• MSA negotiation• Through Life Support
Review Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Designing the Support System (all SSCCs)
• Design of Support System is largely the responsibility of the ILS program based on:
• Support Concept/s,
• Support processes, procedures,
• Resource requirements
• Ability to integrate with engineering efforts
560
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Support SystemDesign
Support Concept/s
SSCCs
ILSP
ISS
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 281 ‐
Role of a Support Concept
Support Concept
• Support Concept: A broad statement of the type and extentof support that will be established to support the plannedoperational use of the Capability System
• Materiel Systems must meet performance requirementsspecified in the Capability Definition Documents’ (CDDs’)Support Concept (SC) at the optimal LCC.
562
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 282 ‐
Support Concept563
Support Concept
Operating Support Concept
Engineering Support Concept
Maintenance Support Concept
Supply Support Concept
Training Support Concept
SSCC
Support Concept: Made up of support concepts for each of the SSCC
(Of the Capability)
Ten Support Elements (old approach)
• Engineering Support;
• Maintenance Support;
• Supply Support;
• Training Support;
• Packaging, Handling, Storage and Transportation;
• Facilities;
• Support and Test Equipment;
• Personnel;
• Technical Data; and
• Computer Support.
564
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 283 ‐
ILS: Delivering the Support Concept
ILS principles and practices are the means by which the Support Concept is realised and maintained:
• supportability achieved;
• support requirements defined that match Support Concept;
• support resources are acquired and implemented; and
• support provided In‐Service phase; and
• support requirements addressed for Disposal phase.
565
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
ILS Objectives During In‐Service Phase
• ILS Objectives During In‐Service Phase:
– maintaining or improving performance and preparedness,
– limit increases to or reducing LCC, and
– managing the logistics support implications of changes to the Materiel System.
• Logistic Support Analysis (LSA), is:
– structured process;
– defines, analyses and quantifies logistics support requirements throughout life‐cycle; and
– principal analytical tool of ILS.
566
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 284 ‐
Developing a Support Concept
Support Concept
• A Support Concept describes a Support System including:
– goals,
– functions,
– organisations,
– processes, and
– resources.
568
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Support SystemDesign
Support Concept/s
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 285 ‐
Support Concept
• A Support Concept may describe:
– a perceived future Support System, or
– high-level view of an existing SupportSystem.
• Used to define Support System requirements.
• Used as a basis to develop the ProjectIntegrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP).
569
Support SystemDesign
Support Concept/s
SSCC
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Support Concept
• Used as a basis to develop the ProjectIntegrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP).
• The ILSP details:
– how Support Concepts are to be realised;and
– details responsibilities for implementingaspects of the proposed Support System.
570
Support SystemDesign
Support Concept/s
SSCC
ILSP
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 286 ‐
Support Concept
• Support Concept documented as part of:
– Operational Concept Document(OCD); or
– Description of Requirement (DOR)*.
• Support Concept may be:
– annex to OCD, or
– separately documented and approved.
• Support Concepts must be integrated intothe OCD for Solicitation and Gateapprovals.
571
*Ref: DEFLOGMAN Part 2, Volume 10, Chapter 3, Defence Policy on Integrated Logistic Support,
Annex
Support Concept
OCD
DOR
OSI ?
Support Concept
• Developed progressively in support of the capability‐definition and acquisition processes, and is required:
– prior to Gate 1 Approval;
– for inclusion in each materiel acquisition solicitation package;
– for inclusion in each contract; and
– prior to Gate 2 Approval.
572
*Ref: DEFLOGMAN Part 2, Volume 10, Chapter 3, Defence Policy on Integrated Logistic Support
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 287 ‐
Support Concept573
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Initial Support Concept:
Pre-Gate 0,1
Support Concepts for
each potential Mission System solution-class
Support Concepts for
single-solution class
Final Support Concept: Pre-
Solicitation
Acquisition Support Concept
Updated Support Concept for preferred tendered solution.
Updated Support Concept during
Acquisition
Updated Acquisition
Support Concept
*Ref: DEFLOGMAN Part 2, Volume 10, Chapter 3, Defence Policy on Integrated Logistic Support
Support Concept574
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Initial Support Concept:
Pre-Gate 0,1
Support Concepts for
each potential Mission System solution-class
Support Concepts for
single-solution class
Final Support Concept: Pre-
Solicitation
Acquisition Support Concept
Updated Support Concept for preferred tendered solution.
Updated Support Concept during
Acquisition
Updated Acquisition
Support Concept
*Ref: DEFLOGMAN Part 2, Volume 10, Chapter 3, Defence Policy on Integrated Logistic Support
Support concepts will likely be difference for each solution-class
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 288 ‐
Support Concept575
Support Concept
Operating Support
Engineering Support
Maintenance Support
Supply Support
Training Support
SSCC
Support Concept: Made up of support concepts for each of the SSCC
Support Concept
Define for each SSCC:
• Concepts
• Requirements
• Constraints
For: Mission and Support System
Consistent with:
• Key Policies and Standards
• Future Joint Logistic Concept (FJLC)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 289 ‐
Example: Maintenance Support Concept577
Operational Level Maintenance
Intermediate Level
Maintenance
Deeper (Depot) Level
Maintenance
• Organisation• Location• Customer• Key
Performance Indicators
• Organisation• Location• Customer• Key
Performance Indicators
• Organisation• Location• Customer• Key
Performance Indicators
Intellectual Property / Technical Data
Three key considerations:
1. IP (Practical view): Technical Data + Legal Rights
2. Seek IP and TD (for a system) that you need to:
a) Use,
b) Maintain, and
c) Integrate the system
3. Make sure that the necessary IP rights are sought from Prime Contractors and their Subcontractors.
578
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 290 ‐
Logistics‐related Terminology
Definitions
• Supportability: The degree to which Capability System design characteristics and planned logistics support resources meet System operational and utilisation requirements.
• Life‐Cycle Costs: The total costs (both direct and indirect) of a capability system over its entire life‐cycle, including costs associated with concept development, acquisition, operations, logistics support, and disposal.
• Sustainability: A force’s ability to continue to conduct operations, measured in terms of the personnel, equipment, facilities and consumables necessary for the force to complete its assigned operational tasks.
580
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 291 ‐
Definitions
• Support Concept: A broad statement of the type and extent of support that will be established to support the planned operational use of the Capability System
• Integrated Logistic Support Plan: The ILSP is the primary logistics support management document that identifies all logistics support requirements and activities during the Acquisition, In‐Service and Disposal phases of the Capability life‐cycle. The In‐Service ILSP is used to denote that Plan used once the Capability has been accepted into service.
581
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Definitions
• Capability System: This is a specific combination of the FIC, and is used as the primary management framework for the development and delivery of an endorsed level of operational capability.
• Materiel: All items of military equipment and related spares, repair parts and support equipment, (excluding real property, installations and utilities), necessary to equip, operate, maintain and support military activities without distinction as to its application for administrative or combat purposes.
582
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 292 ‐
Definitions
• Mission System: The hardware and software used to accomplish the primary mission of the Defence materiel item. This element includes all integration, assembly, test and check‐out, as well as all technical and management activities associated with individual hardware/software elements.
• Support System: The organisation of hardware, software, materiel, facilities, personnel, data, processes and services required to enable the Mission System to be effectively operated and supported to meet its operational requirements.
583
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Definitions
• Sustainment: The management and provision of products and services needed to meet the preparedness and performance requirements of a Materiel System, from the time of acceptance into operational service until disposal at an optimised life‐cycle cost.
• Materiel Sustainment Agreement: An agreement between a Capability Manager and DMO, which states in concise terms what In‐Service Support services and products the DMO (as supplier) will deliver, for how much and when.
584
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 293 ‐
Definitions
• Logistic Support Analysis: The selective application of analytical techniques to: cause logistics support considerations to influence the design requirements and design processes of Capability Systems; and define logistics support requirements that are optimally related to the design, and optimise the logistics support required by the design, consistent with specified preparedness requirements.
• Logistic Support Analysis Record: That portion of Logistic Support Analysis documentation consisting of detailed data pertaining to the identification of logistics support resource requirements of a Capability System.
585
*Ref: Defence Materiel Manual (Logistics) DMM (LOG) 04‐0‐001
Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 294 ‐
Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP)
Purpose of ILSP:
• Describe PO activities to implement Support Concept.
• Document Support Element Products and Services.
• Provide tasking and responsibility information for contractors and Commonwealth agencies.
• Inform subordinate ILSP plans.
587
Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP)588
Project ILSP considerations Guidance
Project ILSP Template
Source: CASG Directorate of Materiel Logistics
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 295 ‐
Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP)589
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction2. Capability system description overview3. Project stakeholders4. Logistics support analysis5. ILS management6. Support system7. Operating support constituent capability8. Engineering support constituent capability9. Maintenance support constituent capability10. Supply support constituent capability11. Training support constituent capability12. Support system validation and verification13. Specialist programs14. Planned obsolescence and disposal15. Post-production support16. Transition into operational service
Source: CASG Directorate of Materiel Logistics
ILS Analyses
590
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 296 ‐
Supportability Analysis (SA)
• The principal analytical tool of ILS, is Supportability Analysis (SA) which is a structured and tailored process of defining Supportability requirements throughout the Materiel System life cycle.
• Supportability significantly influences both Materiel System preparedness, operational and support requirements, and LCC/TCO.
• SA addresses the inter‐related issues of Mission System design, Support System development and optimising resources.
• SA provides interaction between the engineering and logistic support processes.
Source: DEFLOGMAN Volume 2 Volume 10 Chapter 15
591
Logistics Support Analysis (LSA)
• In more detailed and structured applications of SA, the tailored application of DEF(AUST) 5691 is required.
• LSA provides an analytical foundation to achieve Supportability and ILS objectives.
• LSA is the analytical tool that integrates ILS and the engineering functions to ensure that the system design and operational requirements have been properly applied through a single analytical approach.
• LSA is used to optimise LCC and system performance (including reliability and availability) therefore related analyses are RAM and LCCA.
Source: DMH (LOG) 04‐01‐002
592
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 297 ‐
Analyses Related to LSA
• Early LSA is referred to as Front End Logistic Support Analysis (FELSA), which provides analytical support for the investigation of alternate support concepts in the early phases of the CLC.
• LSA has a close relationship with Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) and Life Cycle Costing Analysis (LCCA).
Source: DMH (LOG) 04‐01‐002 & DMSP (LOG) 04‐0‐004
593
Life Cycle Costing Analysis (LCCA)
• LCCA is the identification and analysis of all costs incurred in acquiring, operating and supporting, and disposing of a Materiel System.
• LCCA is used to identify the budget implications of capital investment decisions and the cost impact of various design and support options for Materiel Systems.
• LCCA is a key analytical tool used by ILS personnel, In‐Service Support staff, and engineers in the development, production, and through‐life support of Materiel Systems.
594
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 298 ‐
LCCA
• LCCA is used to identify LCC estimates and cost drivers.
• Each LCC estimate represents a range of plausible costs for an asset (or Materiel System), where the range is influenced by the possible variations of the key cost drivers.
• LCC can be used for comparative assessment of alternative design and support options as part of SE and LSA processes.
• LCCA can be used to improve sustainment by conducting trade‐off and sensitivity analysis.
Source: DMH (LOG) 04‐01‐002
595
Procurement and Contracting
596
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 299 ‐
CLC Process Overview597
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
CLC: Acquisition and Sustainment
• Key outcomes of CLC: acquire and sustain capability assets.
• Defence enters into contracts of $12 bn p.a..
• Good CLC outcomes depends on sound Procurement and contracting
• Centres around:
– ‘Solicitation’ (requesting offers or tenders)
– Contracting and
– Contract Management.
Source: Contract Template Selection and Tailoring Guide Version 2.1 April 2016
598
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 300 ‐
CLC: Procurement and Contracting
• Major focus for CLC:
• Solicitation between Gates 1 and 2.
• Contract/s establishment (just after Gate 2).
• Contract management for Acquisition and Sustainment.
599
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Solicitation &Source Selection
Contract Management
Contract Established
Contracting
Solicitation and Source Selection
• Form of risk mitigation:
– understanding possible solutions,
– narrowing options,
– choosing best solution, and
– defining contracted requirements.
600
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 301 ‐
Procurement Life Cycle
• Planning
1. Plan the procurement.
2. Develop ‘Request documentation’ such as RFT.
• Sourcing
3. Approach the market.
4. Evaluation.
5. Negotiation and contract signature.
• Managing
6. Contract management.
7. Disposal.
601
Planning Sourcing Managing
Relationship to CLC
• CLC Solicitation and Contracting based on the ‘Procurement Life Cycle’.
• Understanding Procurement Life Cycle is pivotal to deciding the best strategy in the PES for a major acquisition.
602
Planning Sourcing Managing
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Solicitation &Source Selection
Contracting and Contract Management
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 302 ‐
Relationship to CLC
• The Procurement Life Cycle can also be nested within the CLC for example, acquiring risk mitigation studies or other services.
603
Pla
nn
ing
So
urc
ing
Ma
na
gin
g
Risk Reduction
activity
Pla
nn
ing
So
urc
ing
Ma
na
gin
g
Upgrade activity
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Why should I know about Proc & Contract?
• All involved in the CLC should know about procurement and contracting rules because, depending on their roles:
– Capability Manager and representatives are accountable,
– Delivery groups e.g. CASG, CIOG are responsible, and
– Enabler groups e.g. E&IG are responsible.
• Defence major capital, ICT and Facilities procurements under increasing scrutiny by:
– tenderers,
– ANAO,
– Senate Estimates and other Parliamentary Committees, and
– media.
604
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 303 ‐
CLC Tender and Contracting Documents605
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
Key Topics for Procurement & Contracting 606
Legislative and Policy Context
Core Principles
Designing the Procurement• Method of Procurement• Approach to Market• Delivery Model
• Value for Money • Competition etc
• CPRs• DPPM
Procurement Life Cycle
Contracting Templates
• Planning • Sourcing • Managing
• ASDEFCON Templates
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 304 ‐
Legislative and Policy Context
607
Resource Management Framework
• The Commonwealth Resource Management Framework governs:
– how Defence uses and manage public resources;
– consists of legislation and policy; and
– cornerstone is PGPA Act.
608
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 305 ‐
Defence Proc & Contracting Policy Context
• Defence and its officials operate in an environment of legislation and policy:
– Commonwealth, State and Territory Legislation: such ssPGPA Act.
– Commonwealth Policy: such as Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs).
– Defence Policy: Defence Procurement Policy Manual (DPPM) and Defence Procurement Policy Directives.
609
Source: DPPM April 2017
Hierarchy of Commonwealth Legislation & Policy Relevant to Procurement & Contracting
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act 2013) (+ PGPA Rule 2014)
Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs)
Defence Accountable Authority Instructions (AIIs)
Mandatory Defence Policy
Defence Procurement Policy Manual (DPPM)
CPRs Defence Directives
Defence Complex Procurement Guide
Guides and Tools
Defence Simple Procurement Process
Better Practice Guides
Contracting Handbook
Templates, tools and resources
Source: DPPM
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 306 ‐
Defence Proc & Contracting Policy Context
Legislation and policy can affect Defence procurement through contract, for example:
• Commonwealth legislation such as Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
• State‐based legislation:
– Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic).
– Professional Engineers Act 2002 (Qld).
611
Source: DPPM April 2017
Legislation: PGPA Act 2013
• PGPA Act contains provisions dealing with:
– commitment of relevant money and officials entering into contracts; and
– ‘contingent liabilities’ such as indemnities, warranties and guarantees.
• Sections 23 and 60 of the PGPA Act are key sections relating to Defence procurement.
612
Sources:
DPPM April 2017 Paragraph 21 and
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00317 (PGPA Act)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 307 ‐
Commonwealth Procurement Rules
• Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs):
– have effect under the PGPA Act 2013;
– set out rules that officials must comply with when they procure goods and services;
– indicate good practice;
– keystone of Government’s procurement policy framework; and
– achieving value for money is the core rule.
613
https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/CPRs
Defence Procurement Policy Manual(DPPM)
• promotes responsible and accountable spending by Defence officials;
• assists Defence officials make proper use of public resources (also known as ‘public money’);
• primary operational instructions to Defence officials tailored to Defence’s particular circumstances;
• supports proactive management of procurement risks
Source: DPPM April 2017
614
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 308 ‐
Defence Procurement Policy Manual
Incorporates:
• specific CPRs, and
• additional Defence Procurement Policy Directives.
Source: DPPM April 2017
Defence Procurement Policy Manual (DPPM)
CPRs Defence Directives
615
DPPM applicability
• Applies to and must be complied with by all Defence officials.
• Defence Contractor application:
– may be extended through provisions in contracts, or
– a Contractor may be prescribed to be a Defence official
• Compliance—see paragraph 4.15 of CPR and related Note.
• Defence always under obligation to ensure that its procurement activities deliver VFM to Commonwealth.
Source: DPPM April 2017
616
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 309 ‐
Compliance with DPPM, CPRs, Directives
• Officials are not permitted to depart from mandatory requirements of:
– PGPA Act,
– CPR,
– AAI, and
– FINMAN 2.
• If a Defence official departs from the DPPM in a way that results in departure from CPR, then the official will have contravened the law.
617
Procurement : Core Principles
618
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 310 ‐
CPR Core Principles
• CPRs have core principles that Defence officials need to consider when planning and undertaking procurement :
– Value for Money.
– Competition.
– Non‐discrimination.
– Ethical Behaviour: balance between probity and industry engagement.
– Risk Management.
619
Value for Money
• ‘Value for Money’ is core requirement of Commonwealth procurement.
• Procurements should:
– encourage competition;
– non‐discriminatory;
– use public resources in an efficient, effective, economical and ethical manner;
– facilitate accountable and transparent decision making;
– encourage appropriate engagement with risk; and
– be commensurate with scale and scope of business requirement.
Source: DPPM Chapter 2
620
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 311 ‐
Value for Money
• Does not mean lowest price goods or services.
• Must consider:
– quality;
– fitness for purpose;
– supplier’s experience and performance history;
– flexibility of proposal (such as innovation and adaptability);
– environmental sustainability; and
– whole‐of life perspective including costs.
621
Source: DPPM Chapter 2
Capability$
Competition
• Competitive procurement is normally means by which Defence ensures that it is receiving VFM.
• Competition considered most effective motivator for industry to reduce costs and improve performance.
622
Competitive Procurement
Industry:• Reduce costs • Improve
performance
Value for Money (VFM)
Capability$Source: DPPM Chapter 2
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 312 ‐
Competition
• Competition does not necessarily mean open tender
• More than one supplier can be competitive.
• If open competition not feasible, can explore limited competition subject to relevant CPR.
623
Source: DPPM Chapter 2
Non‐discrimination
All potential suppliers to government must, subject to CPRs:
• be treated equitably based on:
– commercial,
– legal,
– technical, and
– financial abilities; and
• not be discriminated against due to their:
– size,
– degree of foreign affiliation or ownership,
– location, or
– origin of their goods and services.
624
Source: DPPM Chapter 2
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 313 ‐
Non‐discrimination: Exemptions
• Exemptions can be sought:
– through measures under para 2.6 of CPR (such as protection of essential security interests);
– Australian Industry Capability (AIC) policy;
– specific Government policy decisions; and
– free‐trade agreement exemptions.
625
Source: • DPPM Chapter 2 • https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/trade-investment/australia-united-states-free-trade-agreement-
guide-to-the-agreement/Documents/ausfta_guide.pdf
Proper Use of Public Resources
• Section 6 of the CPRs sets out the requirement for Defenceofficials to properly use and manage public resources.
• ‘Proper’ means:
– Efficient: maximum value for resources used.
– Effective: achieving intended outcomes incl price, quality and quantity.
– Economical: minimising cost, avoiding waste.
– Ethical: honesty, integrity, probity, diligence, fairness and consistency.
626
Source: DPPM Chapters 2 and 4, Source: CPRs 6.1‐6.5
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 314 ‐
Ethical Behaviour
Officials undertaking procurement must act ethically :
• recognise and deal with actual, potential and perceived conflicts of interest;
• deal with potential suppliers, tenderers and suppliers equitably:
– seek internal or external advice when probity issues arise, and
– not accepting inappropriate gifts or hospitality;
• carefully consider use of public resources; and
• comply with all directions incl Privacy Act 1988 and Crimes Act 1914.
Source: CPR 6.6
627
Probity
• Probity is evidence of ethical behaviour:
– Complete/confirmed integrity, uprightness and honesty in a process.
– Dept of Finance website lists principles which underpin ethics and probity in Government procurement.
• Many legislative and policy documents refer to probity:
– PGPA Act (s25‐29);
– Public Service Act 1999;
– DI(G) PERS 25‐4 ‐ Post Separation Employment;
– DI(G) PERS 25‐6 – Conflicts/ declarations of interests; and
– DI(G) PERS 25‐7 ‐ Gifts, Hospitality and Sponsorship.
628
Source: DPPM para 66 and 67
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 315 ‐
Commercial Acumen
• Understanding:
– how industry is/can be used for Defence business;
– commercial drivers of industry;
– how to engage with industry and manage commercial relationships; and
– dealing appropriately with potential suppliers, tenderers.
• Critical aspect of capability management.
629
$
Consistency with Government Policies
PGPA Act s21 requires:
• Defence actions that are “not inconsistent with the policies of the Australian Government”, for example:
– Cabinet decisions; and
– other Government approvals (decision or approval establishes a course or line of action).
• Defence officials exercising delegations (especially PGPA Act s23).
630
Source: DPPM p6
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 316 ‐
Implementing Defence Procurement and Contracting
631
Procurement and Contracting 632
Planning Sourcing Managing
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Procurement Life Cycle
3. Approach the Market
4. Evaluation
3. Negotiation and Signature
6. Contract Management
7. Disposal
1. Procurement Plan
2. Request Documentation
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 317 ‐
Planning the Procurement:
Method of Procurement, Approach to Market and Delivery Model
Considerations for Procurement
Three considerations when deciding how to proceed with a procurement:
1. Method of Procurement – open or limited tender.
2. Approach to Market – which tendering documents to use.
3. Delivery Model – type of contract arrangement with supplier.
634
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 318 ‐
1. Method of Procurement
• Under the CPRs, there are two main procurement methods:
– Open tender: approach open market and invite submissions.
– Limited tender: approach only one or more potential suppliers to make submissions.
• Default position is open tender.
• Limited tender includes only one supplier (often called a ‘sole source’ procurement).
635
1. Method of Procurement
Selecting open or limited tender, dependent on:
• nature and structure of the market;
• extent of competition (number of competitive suppliers); and
• schedule, cost or other constraints (such as intellectual property, security, etc).
636
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 319 ‐
1. Method of Procurement
Very limited circumstances for limited tender (CPR 10.3):
• extreme urgency;
• unsolicited innovative proposals;
• no real alternative (such as no competition technical solution); and
• additional deliveries of goods and services.
637
https://images.defence.gov.au
2. Approach to Market
• The type of approach to market includes:
– request for tender (RFT);
– request for proposal (RFP);
– request for quote (RFQ) under a standing offer panel;
– competitive evaluation;
– some other form of iterative engagement process; and
– other form of documentation.
• Not determined by open or limited tender.
638
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 320 ‐
3. Project Delivery Model
• Type of contracting arrangement:
– Prime contract,
– Managing Contractor,
– Design and Construct contract, or
– Alliance contract.
639
Design Each Procurement Appropriately
1. Method of Procurement – open or limited tender.
2. Approach to Market – which tendering approach (and templates) to use.
3. Delivery Model – type of contract arrangement with supplier.
640
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 321 ‐
Tendering and Contracting Templates
Contracting Templates
• Contracting templates to meet:
– different procurement needs and profiles; and
– size, complexity and nature of the procurement activity.
• Means you don’t have to start from scratch to contract.
• Templates include:
– Commonwealth Contracting Suite.
– The Australian Standard for Defence Contracting (ASDEFCON).
– Defence Suite of Facilities Contracts.
ASDEFCON used for CLC.
642
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 322 ‐
Contracting Templates
• Defence contracting templates are:
– drafted and regularly updated; and
– reflect applicable:
• Commonwealth legislation;
• Commonwealth policy (including the CPR); and
• Defence policy.
• Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation and policy affecting procurement must be addressed e.g.:
– Environment.
– Work Health and Safety.
– Security.
643
Source: DPPM: p35, 36
ASDEFCON Templates
• Defence procurement:
– ASDEFCON suite; and
– 20 different templates for tendering and contracting.
• Handbooks and related training available for some templates.
Source: Department of Defence Website: Doing Business with Defence
644
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 323 ‐
ASDEFCON Templates
• Defence procurement supported by ASDEFCON suite which is made up of 20 different templates for tendering and contracting.
• Associated handbooks and related training are available for some templates.
645
Source: Department of Defence Website: Doing Business with Defence
ASDEFCON (Strategic Materiel)ASDEFCON (Complex Materiel) Volume 2ASDEFCON (Complex Materiel) Volume 1ASDEFCON (Support)ASDEFCON (Support Short)ASDEFCON Linkages ModulesASDEFCON (Services)ASDEFCON (Standing Offer for Services)ASDEFCON (Standing Offer for Goods)ASDEFCON (Standing Offer for Goods & Maintenance Services)ASDEFCON (Shortform Goods)
ASDEFCON (Shortform Services)Request for Quotation and Purchase Order and Contract (Form SP020)ASDEFCON (Request for Information)Template Letter for Release of Draft Documents to IndustryASDEFCON (Invitation to Register)ASDEFCON (Request for Proposal)ASDEFCON Defence Asset TemplatesGovernment Furnished Facilities LicenceASDEFCON Toolbar, Style Set and User Guide
Materiel Acquisition Contracting Spectrum 646
Source: Contract Template Selection and Tailoring Guide Version 2.1 April 2016
ASDEFCON (Strategic Materiel)
ASDEFCON (Complex Materiel)
Volume 2
ASDEFCON (Complex Materiel)
Volume 1
ASDEFCON Standing Offers
Simple Procurement
Com
plex
ity
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 324 ‐
ASDEFCON Template Selection
• Level of contract management and assurance is commensurate with risk and complexity.
• Nature of technical requirement (complexity) is key driver.
• Failure to relate tendering contacting effort to technical requirement can result in:
– excessive unnecessary work; and
– increased risk.
647
Source: Contract Template Selection and Tailoring Guide, Version 2.1 April 2016
ASDEFCON Template Selection 648
Nature of technical
endeavour
Level of acquisition
risk and complexity
Best fit ASDEFCON
Template
• Documentation• Contract Mgt• Assurance
Extent of system design and development
Risk of system development success
Requires different levels of:• Documents• Reviews• Evidence
If risk is high then significant management:• Plans • System Reviews• Reporting requirements• Assurance activities
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 325 ‐
ASDEFCON Template Selection
Nature of technical
endeavour
Level of acquisition
risk and complexity
Best fit ASDEFCON
Template
• Documentation• Contract Mgt• Assurance
649
Technical complexity and risk DRIVES Project work effort and cost
Extent of system design and development
Risk of system development success
Requires different levels of:• Documents• Reviews• Evidence
If risk is high then significant management:• Plans • System Reviews• Reporting requirements• Assurance activities
ASDEFCON Templates
• Most ASDEFCON templates for tendering are structured to include:
– a covering letter to tenderers;
– conditions of tender with response volumes;
– a draft contract and where appropriate; and
– a draft statement of work (SOW).
650
Source: Department of Defence Website: Doing Business with Defence
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 326 ‐
ASDEFCON Template Selection: SOW
• SOW captures scope and nature of work incl technical requirements.
• ‘Technical requirements’ are significant drivers of the complexity and risks of the procurement.
SOW drives template selection.
651
Source: Contract Template Selection and Tailoring Guide Version 2.1 April 2016
Pivotal Role of SOW
• SOW details work to be done during contract:
– Supplier, such as produce documents; and
– Customer, such as review documents.
• SOW needs to be accurate:
– Unnecessary work requirements increases cost without commensurate increase in value.
– Insufficient work requirements (esp technical) can jeopardise outcomes.
652
Source: Contract Template Selection and Tailoring Guide Version 2.1 April 2016
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 327 ‐
Pivotal Role of SOW
Before selecting a contracting template it is essential to:
• understand the technical nature of the activity;
• be clear about goods and/or services to be acquired;
• develop a sound SOW:
– work to be done, and
– who does the work.
SOW drives VFM.
653
Understand Technical Risk and Complexity 654
Assurance level
Technical Risk,
Complexity
Project and Supplier effort, $
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 328 ‐
Understand Technical Risk and Complexity 655
Captured in:• SOW• Specifications
Extent of tender and contract:• Documentation (e.g. DIDs)• Assurance activities (e.g System
Reviews)• Effort by staff
Assurance level
Technical Risk,
Complexity
Project and Supplier effort, $
Understand Technical Risk and Complexity 656
Technical Risk,
Complexity
Project and Supplier effort, $
$DID 200
DID 100
DID 200DID 100
DID 100
DID 100 $$$DID 100
Assurance level
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 329 ‐
ASDEFCON Strategic Materiel
Preliminary Pages
Part 1 ‐ Conditions of Tender
Part 1 ‐ Annexes to the Conditions of Tender
Part 2 ‐ Draft Conditions of Contract
Part 2 ‐ Attachments to Draft Conditions of Contract
Part 3 ‐ Draft Statement of Work
Part 3 ‐ Annexes to the Draft Statement of Work
Part 3 ‐ Data Item Descriptions
Part 3 ‐MSR Checklists
657
Part 3 ‐ Statement of Work
Purpose:
• communicate Commonwealth requirements and standardsfor work to be carried out under the Contract and
• allocate work responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the Contractor.
658
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 330 ‐
Part 3 ‐ Statement of Work
Brings together all ‘technical’ aspects (requirements and Practices) relevant to the CLC into a contract including:
• Project Management.
• Systems Engineering.
• Integrated Logistics Support.
• Configuration Management.
• Verification and Validation.
• Health, Safety and
• Environment.
659
Part 3 ‐ Statement of Work
SOW makes statements such as:
“The Contractor shall perform all activities necessary to manage, design, develop, construct, integrate, test, deliver, install and obtain Certification and Acceptance of the Supplies by the Commonwealth in accordance with the Contract.”
“The Contractor shall allocate the requirements for the Materiel System defined in the FPS at Annex A to the SOW into a System Specification (SS) for the Mission System and a Support System Specification (SSSPEC) for the Support System.”
660
Source: ASDEFCON (Strategic Materiel) template Section 2
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 331 ‐
Part 3 ‐ Data Item Descriptions (DID)
• A Data Item Description (DID) is a document defining the information or data deliverables required of a tenderer or contractor.
• DIDs detailed as Annex to SOW.
661
Source: ASDEFCON (Strategic Materiel)
Part 3 ‐ Data Item Descriptions (DID)
• A Data Item Description (DID) is a document defining the information or data deliverables required of a tenderer or contractor.
• What the Tenderer or Contractor has to produce.
• DIDs detailed in Annex to SOW.
662
Source: ASDEFCON (Strategic Materiel)
Tender Life Cycle Cost Model (TLCCM)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 332 ‐
Part 3 ‐ Data Item Descriptions (DID)
• Within a solicitation or contract:
– Each DID is uniquely numbered to identify the ‘data item’.
– Format is defined eg DID preparation instructions including a table of contents and descriptions of each section.
– Specific required content, for example:
“the Tender Life Cycle Cost Model shall provide sufficient detail to enable the Commonwealth to understand the LCC model developed by the tenderer”
663
Source: ASDEFCON (Strategic Materiel)
Part 3 ‐ Data Item Descriptions (DID)
• DIDs are selected from ‘superset’:
– Tender Document Requirements List (TDRL); or
– Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).
• Tender or Contract Data requirements are determined to be core or optional.
• Annex C to the Draft Statement of Work (V3.1) provides the comprehensive list of possible Data Items.
664
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 333 ‐
Part 3: Mandated System Review Checklists
• System reviews are an important form of assurance.
• MSR defines Commonwealth’s requirements and minimum expectations for reviews during Contract.
• Includes ‘exit criteria’ for assessing successful completion of review.
• Extent of assurance through system reviews (number, depth, type) depends on the nature of the work (SOW: risk, complexity).
• Examples of MSR during system development:
– Integrated Baseline Review (IBR).
– System Requirements Review (SRR).
– System Definition Review (SDR).
665
Source: ASDEFCON (Strategic Materiel)
Tailoring the ASDEFCON Template666
Template
Information to be provided by
Tenderer/Contractor
Work to be done
SOW MSR
Reviews to be conducted during
contract
TDRL/CDRL
List of Data Requirements:
Data Items
Mandated, Highly Desirable
• CoA requirements standards for work
• allocate work responsibilities to CoA & Contractor
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 334 ‐
Risk Management and Assurance
Duties with Respect to Risk Management
• PGPA Act requires Commonwealth entities to manage risk.
• Officers of the Commonwealth must observe their obligations on risk management and risk control.
• Defence must establish and maintain:
– system of risk oversight and management; and
– system of internal control for the entity.
668
Source: PGPA Section 16
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 335 ‐
Assurance in Capability Management
• Assurance provides confidence to decision‐makers and managers:
– arguments presented are sound and based on evidence;
– claimed status is accurate; and
– outcomes satisfy organisational objectives.
• Assurance conducted across the entire CLC.
• Assurance across all dimensions of capability management including:
– technical,
– safety,
– financial, and
– seaworthiness.
669
Risk Management
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 336 ‐
Duties with Respect to Risk Management
• PGPA Act seeks to improve the high level accountability of all Commonwealth entities through focusing on:
– their duties,
– internal controls, and
– the way they engage with, and manage, risk.
Source: PGPA Section 16
671
Duties with Respect to Risk Management
So…
The accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity must establish and maintain:
– an appropriate system of risk oversight and management for the entity; and
– an appropriate system of internal control for the entity.
672
Source: PGPA Section 16
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 337 ‐
Defence Risk Management
“Risk management is to be integrated into all planning, approval, review and implementation processes, at all levels, to ensure that risk is one of the major considerations in decision‐
making. Risk assessments are to be conducted in all new activities and functions.”
30/2015 CDF/OUT/2015/682 The Joint Directive by CDF and Secretary of Department of Defence on the Management of Risk in Defence
Defence Risk Management: evidence
The Joint Directive emphasises that a key principle applying to all decisions is to accept and treat individual risks based on evidence.
674
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 338 ‐
Definitions
• Risk: effect of uncertainty on objectives.
• Risk Management: coordinated activities to direct and control an organisation with regard to risk.
• Risk Control: action to reduce or eliminate threats to organisational objectives
675
Source: AS/NZS ISO 31000 Risk Management pp 1‐2
Risk Management Process 676
Risk Assessment
Monitoring and Review
Communication and
Consultation
Establishing the Context
Risk Identification
Risk Analysis
Risk Evaluation
Risk Treatment
Source: AS/NZS ISO 31000:2018
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 339 ‐
Risk Management and the CLC
• Core requirement of CLC is a deliberate approach to risk:
– Must understand and assess risks.
– Must have targeted approach to risk management and control.
– Decisions are made with understanding of risks.
– Must not be risk averse in decision‐making.
677
Risk Management in the CLC
General risk management process:
1. Identify the risk ‘events’ or occurrences.
2. Estimate the likelihood of these happening (probability).
3. Estimate what the impact will be.
4. Figure out the level of risk and ranking between risk events.
5. Plan what to do to control, reduce, eliminate the risk events.
6. Implement risk mitigation, reduction.
678
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 340 ‐
Risk Management and the CLC
Multiple risk frameworks in Defence relevant to CLC include but are not limited to:
• CLC Risk Mitigation Phase emphasising risk treatment.
• Smart Buyer Risk Framework.
• Technical Risk Assessment (TRA),
• Technical Implementation Risk Assessments (TIRA),
• Schedule Compliance Risk Assessment (SCRAM).
• Technical Risk Management.
679
Smart Buyer Framework680
Approvals Strategy
Governance & Management
Strategy
Commercial Strategy
PES
JCNS
Risk/Driver Profile Analysis/Tailoring Capability Need
Strategy
Needs
Strategic
Security
Technology
Industry Capability
Commercial
Financial
Schedule
Project, FIC Integration
Defence Integration
Technology
Industry
Capability
Schedule
Commercial
Project & FIC
Context
Asset Management
Strategy
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 341 ‐
CLC Risk Management: Acquisition Categories 681
Risk Category Risk Event Treatment/ Mitigation
Requirements Requirements incompleteNot verifiableAmbiguous
Additional requirements development Technical trial to determine constraintsPeer review
Technology Not matureUnproven
Develop technology further, trialField in increments
Schedule Schedule not achievable Redevelop WBS and schedule
Commercial Limited competition in market Contract with appropriate performance incentives
Project Integration Related Projects misaligned Establish Prime System Integrator to manage interdependencies
Defence Integration FIC delivery misaligned Establish Steering and review group
Financial Schedule slippage affects milestone achievement
Establish Program level so that flexibility to accommodate changes
Strategic Changing threat situation Ensure growth in system requirements and capabilities
Industry Industry not investing in field Funding to establish industry capability
CLC Risk Management: Acquisition Categories 682
Risk Category Risk Event Treatment/ Mitigation
Requirements Requirements incompleteNot verifiableAmbiguous
Additional requirements development Technical trial to determine constraintsPeer review
Technology Not matureUnproven
Develop technology further, trialField in increments
Schedule Schedule not achievable Redevelop WBS and schedule
Commercial Limited competition in market Contract with appropriate performance incentives
Project Integration Related Projects misaligned Establish Prime System Integrator to manage interdependencies
Defence Integration FIC delivery misaligned Establish Steering and review group
Financial Schedule slippage affects milestone achievement
Establish Program level so that flexibility to accommodate changes
Strategic Changing threat situation Ensure growth in system requirements and capabilities
Industry Industry not investing in field Funding to establish industry capability
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 342 ‐
Implementing Risk Mitigation683
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation andRequirementsSetting
In-Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Risk Reduction
Risk ReductionForce
Design
Implementing Risk Mitigation684
Risk Reduction Studies(technical and
implementation risks) Further Requirements Definition
RFT + ODA(commercial risk)
Modelling and Simulation
Eg RFI(commercial risk)
Smart Buyer Risk
Profile
Trade‐off studies
Trade‐off studies
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation andRequirements Setting
In‐Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
PES
Risk Reduction Activities
Risk Reduction Activities
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 343 ‐
Implementing Risk Mitigation685
Risk Reduction Studies(technical and
implementation risks) Further Requirements Definition
RFT + ODA(commercial risk)
Modelling and Simulation
Eg RFI(commercial risk)
System Reviews
Smart Buyer Risk
Profile
System Engineering Activities
Trade‐off studies
Trade‐off studies
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation andRequirements Setting
In‐Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
PES
Risk Reduction Activities
Risk Reduction Activities
Risk Reduction Activities
Risk Reduction Activities
Risk Reduction continues after Gate 2 through System Engineering and other practices including System Review activities
Expectations of Risk Approach to CLC
• A structured and deliberate approach to risk management processes supports PGPA duties through:
• reducing and controlling risk; and
• clear consideration of risks in decision‐making.
• Conscious risk reduction mindset:
– throughout the CLC (not just to Gate 2); and
– targeted risk control actions focused on identified risks.
686
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 344 ‐
Assurance
Meaning of Assurance
• Assurance:
– a positive declaration intended to give confidence; a promise. Source: Oxford Dictionary
– grounds for justified confidence that a claim has been or will be achieved. Source: ISO/IEC15026‐1:2013
• Compliance Assurance: measures instituted by a government agency to ensure that the provisions of its regulations are being met. Source: http://www.businessdictionary.com
• Technical Assurance: process by which the technical integrityof a product, process, or system is monitored and maintained. Source: http://www.businessdictionary.com
688
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 345 ‐
Assurance Cases689
“Reasoned, auditable artefact created that supports the contention that its top-level claim (or set of claims), is satisfied, including systematic argumentation and its underlying evidence and explicit assumptions that support the claim(s)”
AS4360 (Risk Management)
Claims Evidence Arguments
that support the…
Assurance Cases
Assurance Cases contain the following:
• one or more claims about properties;
• arguments that logically link the evidence and any assumptions to the claim(s);
• a body of evidence and possibly assumptions supporting the arguments for the claim(s); and
• justification of the choice of top‐level claim and the methodof reasoning.
690
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 346 ‐
Assurance in Capability Management
• CLC assurance activities are conducted:
– across the whole CLC;
– across various dimensions of capability management (egtechnical, safety, financial, seaworthiness);
– to provide confidence to decision‐makers and managers; and
– to assure compliance with legislative and regulatory obligations.
691
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Program of Assurance Activities
• Many different assurance activities across the CLC.
• Program, Product and Project Sponsors need to:
– plan assurance ie schedule and allocate resources;
– ensure necessary evidence is being collected to support assurance cases; and
– achieve efficiencies through leveraging activities.
• Assurance activities should be tailored to circumstances.
• Should establish a clear view of Assurance Program and capture this in the IPMP and appropriate subordinate plans.
692
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 347 ‐
Types of Assurance across the CLC
• Contestability. • Gate Reviews • Independent Assurance Reviews (IARs).• Deep Dive Reviews. • Schedule Compliance Risk Assessment Method (SCRAM).• Mandated System Reviews. • Audit. • Reporting. • Validation and Verification (V&V).• Test and Evaluation (T&E).• Certification. • QA: Supplier and Product Assurance.• Engineering Assurance.
693
Examples of Assurance across the CLC694
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 348 ‐
Contestability Framework
• Key assurance activity during Investment Approval Pathway.
• Reviews force design outputs and all Gate submissions.
• Ensures:
– alignment with strategic and resource guidance;
– an acceptable basis for decision‐making; and
– plans can be executed.
• Reviews risk assessments and treatment strategies.
• Reviews cost and schedule estimates.
• Independent assurance reviews and ‘deep dives’.
695
Review Panels
• Independent assurance that augments reporting.
• Reviews health of Program, Product or Project:
– Gate Reviews.
• Capability Manager or Program Sponsor and/or the Delivery Group initiates.
• Independently chaired panel before all Gates and critical milestones.
– In‐Depth Reviews.
• Program Sponsor, VCDF or DepSec Strategic Policy and Intelligence or Delivery Group Head initiates.
• Independently chaired.
• As a result of a significant trigger or particular concern.
696
Source: Interim CLC Manual 2017
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 349 ‐
Program‐level Health Checks
• Responsibility of Program Sponsor.
• Conducted on regular basis: typically tri‐annual basis
• Supports progress reporting to Capability Manager, members of Program Steering Group and other key stakeholders.
• Standardised across IIP.
• Reduces need for additional performance reporting.
697
Source: Interim CLC Manual 2017
Independent Assurance Reviews (IAR)
• CASG’s assurance framework.
• Provides reliable advice on:
– continuing viability of capability investment decisions; and
– health and outlook of Programs, Projects, Products.
• Chartered Board with skills and experience.
• Lead up to key Project milestones or annually.
• Sustainment reviews in lead up to major events in Product Life Cycle:
– such as mid‐life upgrades; or
– periodically, one to three years.
698
Source: CASG Business Framework 2017Source: Interim CLC Manual 2017
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 350 ‐
Strategy and Concepts Phase: Lead Times to Gate 0699
Source: Smart Buyer presentation pack June 2018
Capability Manager Gate Review (CMGR)
• Capability Manager‐led governance forum.
• Not compulsory (choice of CM).
• Quality control point for Projects/Programs prior to IC.
• Opportunity for:
– high level consultation; and
– identify and resolve key concerns.
• Contestability advice either:
– Stand‐alone Contestability Brief; or
– Sponsor’s Paper/Business Case with embedded Contestability advice.
700
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 351 ‐
Deep Dive Reviews
• Led by Force Design Division:
– supported by Program Sponsor and Contestability Division (as appropriate);
– scheduled in Force Design Forward Work Plan; and
– focuses on a Program, cross‐Program or Capability Stream.
701
Source: Interim CLC Manual 2017
SCRAM
• The Schedule Compliance Risk Methodology (SCRAM):
– structured approach to identifying Project risks and issues with technical or engineering origin;
– understand impact on Project schedule outcomes; and
– evidence and recommendations for treatment of risks and issues.
• Considers:
– requirements definition;
– system design, development, production;
– system integration and test; and
– software development.
702
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 352 ‐
When Can SCRAM be Applied?
• Projections of schedule outcomes at any point in CLC e.g.:
– for Smart Buyer up to Gate 2.
– assess Project health from Gate 0 to Acceptance.
• ‘Due diligence’ assessments during for handovers.
• Identify sources of technical implementation risk.
• Determine practical risk mitigation actions.
• Focus on:
– system development,
– software development, and
– system integration.
703
Technical Regulation
• Technical Regulation:
– Confidence to Capability Managers.
– Safety and technical integrity of systems and equipment.
– Fitness for service, safety and environmental compliance.
704
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 353 ‐
Technical Regulation
• Seaworthiness:
– Defence Seaworthiness Management System Manual (DSwMS) (Jun 17).
• Airworthiness:
– Defence Aviation Safety Regulation (DASR) introduced in 2016 and replaced the Military Operational and Technical Airworthiness Regulations.
• Land Technical Regulation (Landworthiness):
– Technical Regulation of ADF Materiel Manual – Land.
• Explosive Ordnance Regulation:
– DI (G) LOG 4‐1‐006 ‐ Safety of Explosive Ordnance.
705
Audit
• Cornerstone of good public sector governance.
• Objective assessments of whether public resources are managed responsibly and effectively to achieve intended results.
• Audit helps:
– public sector organizations achieve accountability and integrity,
– improve operations, and
– instill confidence among citizens and stakeholders.
706
Source: The Role of Auditing in Public Sector Governance 2nd edition Jan 2012
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 354 ‐
Range of Audits
• Three main categories of audits: dependent on relationship between auditor and the person being audited:
– first‐party,
– second‐party, and
– third‐party audits.
707
Source: https://advisera.com
Range of Audits
• Third‐Party Audits:
– Organisation engages an independent party to perform an audit.
– Organisation wants to create a quality management system (QMS) that conforms to a standard set of requirements (eg ISO 9001).
• …
708
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 355 ‐
Range of Audits
• …
• Second‐party audit:
– Audit of a supplier to ensure that they are meeting requirements in contract or other agreement.
– All or part of the contract or agreement can be audited.
– On‐site reviewing of processes or off‐site review of documents.
– Not relevant to certification.
709
Range of Audits
• …
• First‐Party Audits:
– Often called internal audits.
– Organisation audits processes in the quality management system.
– Audit assesses if processes as conducted:
• meet standard, and
• rules the organisation has set itself.
710
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 356 ‐
ANAO
• Relevant activities of ANAO:
– Performance audits of Australian Government programs and entities; and
– Assurance reviews of Australian Government entities.– Source: https://www.anao.gov.au/about/legislation‐and‐standards
711
ANAO
• Relevant activities of ANAO:
– Performance audits of Australian Government programs and entities;
– Assurance reviews of Australian Government entities.– Source: https://www.anao.gov.au/about/legislation‐and‐standards
• ANAO Auditors use:
– financial audits,
– performance audits,
– investigations, and
– advisory services.
712
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 357 ‐
Implementing Risk Mitigation713
Risk Reduction Studies(technical and
implementation risks) Further Requirements Definition
RFT + ODA(commercial risk)
Modelling and Simulation
Eg RFI(commercial risk)
System Reviews
Smart Buyer Risk
Profile
System Engineering Activities
Trade‐off studies
Trade‐off studies
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation andRequirements Setting
In‐Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
PES
Risk Reduction Activities
Risk Reduction Activities
Risk Reduction Activities
Mandated System Reviews provide assurance for satisfaction of acquisition activities
Mandated System Reviews
• Based on System Engineering
• Provides assurance on achievement of progress for contracted work.
• Form of Assurance Case for each step in system development, production and delivery.
714
Source: ASDEFCON (Strategic Materiel)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 358 ‐
Mandated System Reviews
• Pivotal System Reviews (most materiel acquisitions) include:
– Integrated Baseline Review (IBR).
– System Requirements Review (SRR).
– System Definition Review (SDR).
– Preliminary Design Review (PDR).
– Detailed Design Review (DDR).
– Support System Detailed Design Review (SSDDR).
715
Source: ASDEFCON (Strategic Materiel)
T&E Categories
• Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E)
– Largely undertaken in the Acquisition Phase.
– Support design and development effort.
– Generally undertaken by contractors.
• Acceptance Test and Evaluation (AT&E)
– Formal acceptance testing on behalf of customer.
– Between the Acquisition and Utilisation Phases.
• Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E)
– Focuses on functional or operational testing of the system
– Generally undertaken by users following acceptance.
– Some OT&E (called Preview T&E) can occur earlier during Acquisition Phase, particularly for large, phased projects.
716
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 359 ‐
Verification and Validation (V&V)
• Systems engineering process aims for a system that is:
– verified against the documentation produced (MOPs); and
– validated against the original needs, goals and objectives (MOEs).
• V&V ensures that we have both:
– built the system right (verification); and
– built the right system (validation).
• T&E supports V&V.
717
Methods of V&V
• T&E
• Demonstration
• Experiment
• Analysis
• Modelling
• Simulation
• Inspection/examination
• Similarity
• Certification
• Implication
718
Decreasing cost and time
Decreasing rigour and credibility
Source: Don Greenlee, “T&E As An Element of SE and Vice Versa: It’s Only Fair Play”, SETE Conference, 8 Nov 2004.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 360 ‐
Methods of V&V719
AT&E
AT&E
AT&E
AT&E
AT&E
AT&E
Facilities
Training
Support
Supplies
Personnel
SyRS
Requirements Engineering
Capability System Development
Acquisition Phase Utilization Phase
In-service
DeliveredCapabilitySystem
StRSOrganisation
Major System AT&E
OT&E
Validation
Verification
Phases of the CLC
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 361 ‐
Overview: Phases of the CLC
The CLC is a four‐phase, risk‐based decision‐making process which:
1. Identifies capability needs.
2. Defines and decides capability solutions.
3. Acquires the capability and introduces it into service.
4. Supports the capability through its life including disposal.
721
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
CLC Gates
There are three decision gates:
– Gate 0: Defence decision to progress to next Gate. All proposals go through Gate 0.
– Gate 1: Government decision to progress proposals to Gate 2 including specific option(s).
– Gate 2: Government decision to acquire a fully defined and costed capability.
722
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Investment Approval Pathway
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 362 ‐
CLC Process Overview: Your Process Map723
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Strategy and Concepts
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 363 ‐
CLC Process Overview: Your Process Map725
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Strategy and Concepts Phase
• Draws on force design cycle (DCAP) to:
– evolve joint capability concepts, and
– identify capability needs.
• Identifies current, forecast or potential:
– capability gaps,
– risks,
– issues, and
– opportunities that may need further investment.
• Develops capability options.
• Basis for a CM to develop the Gate 0 Proposal.
• Emphasis on ‘Joint force by Design’.
726
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 364 ‐
Strategy and Concepts: Force Design727
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Force Design Framework (DCAP)
• Force Design:
– Centralised.
– Core function of Strategy & Concepts.
– ‘Joint Force by Design’: integration and interoperability.
• Defence Capability Assessment Program (DCAP):
– Annual, Agile, Fundamental modes.
– Prioritised capability investment recommendations for IIP.
Force Design
• Identifies force design options.
• Force Design Division uses combination of activities:
– experimentation,
– war‐gaming,
– simulation and modelling,
– operations analysis, and
– options development and analysis.
728
Source: Adeladian (Researchers working in the Defence, Science & Technology Organisation's (DSTO) Future Operations Centre Analysis Laboratory (FOCAL) Photo courtesy of DSTO
Source: https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/research‐area/operations‐analysis
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 365 ‐
Strategy and Concepts: Force Design729
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Force Design Framework (DCAP)
• Output: Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)• Capability Manager (CM) assigned • Output: Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Need defined: What?
Strategy and Concepts: Smart Buyer730
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Force Design Framework (DCAP)
• Output: Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)• Capability Manager (CM) assigned • Output: Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Smart Buyer Framework
Approvals Strategy
Governance & Management
Strategy
Commercial Strategy
PES
JCNS
Needs
Strategic
Security
Technology
Industry Capability
Commercial
Financial
Schedule
Project, FIC Integration
Defence Integration
Asset Management
Strategy
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 366 ‐
Smart Buyer Framework731
Approvals Strategy
Governance & Management
Strategy
Commercial Strategy
PES
JCNS
Risk/Driver Profile Analysis/Tailoring Capability Need
Strategy
Needs
Strategic
Security
Technology
Industry Capability
Commercial
Financial
Schedule
Project, FIC Integration
Defence Integration
Asset Management
Strategy
PES: Tailored Strategy
• Approval Strategy:
– intended path to approval (two pass, one pass, NSC, Ministers etc.), and the reasons for that decision.
• Authorities such as National Security Committee (NSC), One/Two Ministers.
• Pathway, such as:– fast track from Gate 0 to Gate 2; and
– significant risk reduction studies Gate 0 to Gate 1. • Asset Management Strategy
– FIC Management.
– Capability Relevance.
– System(s) Maintenance, Changes and Tech Regulation.
732
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 367 ‐
PES: Tailored Strategy
• Governance and Management Strategy:
– Single or Multi‐layer Governance.
– Change Management.
– Communications Strategies.
– PMO (Program/Project) Structure and Approach.
• Commercial Strategy:
– Business Intelligence.
– Relationships.
– Strategic Agreements.
– Contractual Provisions.
733
Strategy and Concepts: Smart Buyer734
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Force Design Framework (DCAP)
• Output: Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)• Capability Manager (CM) assigned • Output: Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Smart Buyer Framework
• Delivery Group assigned• IPM assigned and IPMT initiated • Output: Project Execution Strategy
Strategy defined: How?
Approvals Strategy
Governance & Management
Strategy
Commercial Strategy
PES
JCNS
Needs
Strategic
Security
Technology
Industry Capability
Commercial
Financial
Schedule
Project, FIC Integration
Defence Integration
Asset Management
Strategy
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 368 ‐
Strategy and Concepts: Contestability735
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Force Design Framework (DCAP)
• Output: Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)• Capability Manager (CM) assigned • Output: Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Smart Buyer Framework
• Delivery Group assigned• IPM assigned and IPMT initiated • Output: Project Execution Strategy
ContestabilityFramework
Approvals Strategy
Governance & Management
Strategy
Commercial Strategy
PES
JCNS
Needs
Strategic
Security
Technology
Industry Capability
Commercial
Financial
Schedule
Project, FIC Integration
Defence Integration
Asset Management
Strategy
Contestability Model across the CLC736
• Current focus on Gate considerations.• Will be conducted across CLC.
Source: Department of Defence
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 369 ‐
Strategy and Concepts: Contestability737
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Force Design Framework (DCAP)
• Output: Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)• Capability Manager (CM) assigned • Output: Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Smart Buyer Framework
• Delivery Group assigned• IPM assigned and IPMT initiated • Output: Project Execution Strategy
ContestabilityFramework
• Contestability Division engaged • Output: Assurance statement
Assurance: Is proposal OK?
Approvals Strategy
Governance & Management
Strategy
Commercial Strategy
PES
JCNS
Needs
Strategic
Security
Technology
Industry Capability
Commercial
Financial
Schedule
Project, FIC Integration
Defence Integration
Asset Management
Strategy
Strategy and Concepts: Gate 0738
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Force Design Framework (DCAP)
• Output: Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)• Capability Manager (CM) assigned • Output: Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Smart Buyer Framework
• Delivery Group assigned• IPM assigned and IPMT initiated • Output: Project Execution Strategy
ContestabilityFramework
• Contestability Division engaged • Output: Assurance statement
Gate 0 ProposalProject Proposal
Approvals Strategy
Governance & Management
Strategy
Commercial Strategy
PES
JCNS
Needs
Strategic
Security
Technology
Industry Capability
Commercial
Financial
Schedule
Project, FIC Integration
Defence Integration
Asset Management
Strategy
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 370 ‐
Gate 0 Proposal: Features
• Sufficiency: sufficient argument to make a decision.
• Discipline in Documentation: appropriate level of detail.
• Tailored: approach appropriate to risk, complexity.
739
Gate 0 Proposal: Components740
Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Project Execution Strategy (PES)
Sponsor Paper
+
+
What?
How?
Why?
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 371 ‐
Gate 0 Proposal: Components741
Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Project Execution Strategy (PES)
Sponsor Paper
+
+
Overarching business argument for investment
What?
How?
Why?
Gate 0 Proposal: Components742
What?
How?
Why?
Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)What is the capability need (gap)
Project Execution Strategy (PES)
Sponsor Paper
+
+
Overarching business argument for investment
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 372 ‐
Gate 0 Proposal: Components743
What?
How?
Why?
Project Execution Strategy (PES)How will investment (Project) be undertaken
Sponsor Paper
+
+
Overarching business argument for investment
Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)What is the capability need (gap)
Gate 0 Proposal: Elements
• Sponsor Paper:
– Business Case argument.
– Contestability Statement.
– Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).
– Industry considerations.
• Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS).
• Project Execution Strategy (PES):
– must be based on Smart Buyer analysis;
– must not use templated content; and
– must not be a ‘cookie cutter’ application of other efforts.
744
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 373 ‐
Gate 0 Proposal: Intent
Proposes activities and outcomes to next Gate including:
• Risk reduction activities.
• Funding requirements.
• Expected outcomes, such as:
– requirements definition,
– down‐selection of options,
– risk profile, and
– costings.
• Industry engagement.
745
Industry Engagement
• Prior to Gate 0, CM and Delivery Groups are expected to engage with industry to:
– support analysis,
– promote innovation,
– procure industry services, and
– test concepts.
746
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 374 ‐
Strategy and Concepts: Gate 0747
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Force Design Framework (DCAP)
• Output: Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)• Capability Manager (CM) assigned • Output: Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Smart Buyer Framework
• Delivery Group assigned• IPM assigned and IPMT initiated • Output: Project Execution Strategy
ContestabilityFramework
• Contestability Division engaged • Output: Assurance statement
Gate 0 ProposalProject Proposal
Proposal submitted: Business Case
• Output: Gate 0 Proposal comprising: Submission; JCNS; PES
Strategy and Concepts: IC Consideration748
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Force Design Framework (DCAP)
• Output: Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)• Capability Manager (CM) assigned • Output: Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Smart Buyer Framework
• Delivery Group assigned• IPM assigned and IPMT initiated • Output: Project Execution Strategy
ContestabilityFramework
• Contestability Division engaged • Output: Assurance statement
Gate 0 ProposalProject Proposal
• Output: Gate 0 Proposal comprising: Submission; JCNS; PES
Investment Committee
Investment Committee consideration
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 375 ‐
Gate 0 – Overview
• Internal Defence decision.
• Proposal sponsored by Capability Manager (CM)
• Approves further development of feasible and achievableoptions with agreed requirements, timeframes, and funding:
– to Gate 1; or
– directly to Gate 2.
• Gate 0 approval is issued by the VCDF.
• Gate 0 Proposal evolves for Gate 1 and Gate 2.
749
Gate 0 ‐ Outcomes
• Project Direction:
– Expected outcomes for next Gate.
– Resources allocated.
– Key issues and risks for next business case/proposal.
• Formal endorsement of PES,
• If going straight to Gate 2 can initiate entry into IIP through higher delegation.
750
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 376 ‐
Strategy and Concepts: IC Consideration751
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Force Design Framework (DCAP)
• Output: Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)• Capability Manager (CM) assigned • Output: Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Smart Buyer Framework
• Delivery Group assigned• IPM assigned and IPMT initiated • Output: Project Execution Strategy
ContestabilityFramework
• Contestability Division engaged • Output: Assurance statement
Gate 0 ProposalProject Proposal
• Output: Gate 0 Proposal comprising: Submission; JCNS; PES
Investment Committee
IC consideration • Output: Project Direction• Output: Product Delivery
Agreement
Approved/Not Approved
Risk Mitigation andRequirements Setting
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 377 ‐
CLC Process Overview: Your Process Map753
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
Two aspects:
• Reducing the risk to the Commonwealth of:
– Failure:
• capability not provided, and
• excessive cost and unacceptable delays.
– Waste of taxpayer funds.
– Other adverse outcomes such as safety.
• Defining requirements sufficiently:
– Certainty of what is being acquired (legal obligation).
– Basis for accepting suppliers (and paying supplier).
754
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 378 ‐
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
• Objective of Phase:
– reduce risk and define requirements:
• sufficient basis for government approval to acquire;
• establish a firm contractable position for acquisition; and
• Project prepared for Acquisition Phase.
755
Risk Mitigation
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 379 ‐
Risk Mitigation in the CLC
Managing risk is an absolutely crucial part of the redesigned CLC.
“We often think that having a 6,000 line item risk register will solve all our problems; it doesn't. So where our focus is now on
identifying the risk at that point of the life cycle that is appropriate, and then working out the controls, making sure those controls are effective and monitoring the outcomes. We really need to rethink what we think risk management is all
about”.
VADM Ray Griggs, VCDF 2016
757
What is Risk in the Context of the CLC?
• CLC‐related risk is that capability investment (Project) will fail:
– delivered capability will not meet the need,
– costs become unaffordable,
– will be too late to address capability gap,
– can’t be maintained, and
– unsafe.
• Impact is that:
– Defence capability is deficient, and
– taxpayer money is wasted.
758
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 380 ‐
Risk Reduction Mindset and Actions
• Risk reduction needed so that:
– approvals to spend public monies:
• based on confidence, and
• are defendable; and
– less likelihood that the Project will fail.
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Risk Reduction
Risk ReductionForce
Design
Reducing level of risk as risky aspects are treated/
Risk Mitigation and Smart Buyer
Smart Buyer is a structured approach for this process:
1. Define risk and drivers categories for Project and Product.
2. Identify risk events and impacts (analysis, workshops).
3. Capture drivers profile:
– risk rating;
– ranking.
4. Plan risk reduction (PES and IPMP).
5. Get approval and funding for risk reduction work.
760
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 381 ‐
Implementing Risk Mitigation761
Risk Reduction Studies(technical and
implementation risks) Further Requirements Definition
RFT + ODA(commercial risk)
Modelling and Simulation
Eg RFI(commercial risk)
System Reviews
Smart Buyer Risk
Profile
System Engineering Activities
Trade‐off studies
Trade‐off studies
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation andRequirements Setting
In‐Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
PES
Risk Reduction Activities
Risk Reduction Activities
Requirements Setting
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 382 ‐
RM and RS Activities ‐ Purpose
• Requirements definition needed so that there is:
– clear understanding of what is being acquired; and
– sound basis to seek tenders and contract.
763
Requirements documents
Contract
Requirements Setting Overview
• Purpose: Define what is to be acquired:
– clear basis (legal obligation) for spending public monies;
– need it to enter into a contract; and
– can confirm that what has been delivered is acceptable.
764
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Risk Reduction
Risk ReductionForce
Design
Increasingly specific requirements which become ‘contract-ready’ specifications.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 383 ‐
Requirements Setting Overview
• Activity: Convert approved high level needs (JCN, JCNS) into contractable requirement—that is, contract documents.
• Method: Structured Systems (Requirements) Engineering.
• How much is to be done?: Sufficient to:
– provide adequate certainty about requirements;
– meet risk appetite of decision‐makers; and
– be used to seek tenders and contract.
• Who is involved?: CM, Systems Engineer / Requirements SME, FIC providers, and Delivery Group/s.
765
Source: Interim CLC Manual, Para 2.69
Sufficiency of Requirements
“Requirements need to be developed to a sufficient level of specificity to support industry engagements, capability
acceptance, and detailed analysis (particularly of implications for the fundamental inputs to capability) to understand the full
scope and broad feasibility and risks of the proposal.”
766
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 384 ‐
Requirements Traceability767
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Requirements: Program to Proposal‐level 768
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 385 ‐
Program Layer as ‘Umbrella’ Reference769
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
FPSs
TCD
IPMP
Efficient: leverage common content in ‘parent’
Aligned: Related Projects and Products have common reference
JCNS 1
IPMP
JCNS 2
IPMP
JCNS 3
Project 2 Product 3
OCD
FPSs
TCD
OCD
FPSs
TCD
OCD
Program Layer as ‘Umbrella’ Reference770
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
Sect 1-4
FPSs
TCD
IPMP
Efficient: leverage common content in ‘parent’
Aligned: Related Projects and Products have common reference JCNS 1
IPMP
JCNS 2
IPMP
JCNS 3
Project 2 Product 3
OCD
FPSs
TCD
OCD
FPSs
TCD
Sect 5-7
OCD
Re‐used/ referenced content
New content
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 386 ‐
Proposal‐level Artefacts771
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Requirements: Core documents772
Functions and Performance Specifications: • What each systems’ functions are • How well they must perform them • Any constraints
Test Concept Document: • How the capability will be tested/proven
FPS 2
JCN
JCNS
OCD
FPS 1
TCD
Operational Concept Document: • Operational Needs of the whole Capability • All FIC
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 387 ‐
Requirements Scope
• All FIC.
• Joint Force: Integration and Interoperability.
• Legislative and Regulatory Requirements.
• Whole of Product Lifecycle.
• Must be unambiguous and verifiable.
773
Mission System
Support System
Capability System
FPS 2
FPS 1
FPS 1
Organisation
Command and Management
SupportFacilities
PersonnelCollective Training
Major Systems
Industry
Supplies
Capability (System)
Requirements for Mission System774
Mission System Support System
Capability System FPS 1
Systems engineering, requirements engineering, Integrated Logistics Support Practices apply.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 388 ‐
Requirements for Mission System
• Capability: operational, function, and performance.• Integration, Interoperability:
– C4ISR Interfaces.– Physical integration on platforms.
• Installation• Materiel Safety (such as WHS, Hazardous Chemicals).• Security.• Human factors.• Reliability, Maintainability, Obsolescence, Supportability.• Software. • Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3).• Environmental factors.
775
Requirements for Support System776
Mission System Support System
Capability System FPS 1
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 389 ‐
Requirements for Support System
• Personnel requirements for maintenance activities.
• Sovereign support capability requirements.
• Technical data requirements (maintenance manuals).
• Location constraints.
• Component packaging.
• Transportability.
• Deployability, fault isolation and maintainability.
• Disposal requirements.
Systems engineering, requirements engineering, Integrated Logistics Support Practices apply.
777
Requirements Effort Across the CLC778
Use of Requirements
•Down-select solution classes
•Cost, Schedule Estimates
•Value Proposition
•Down Select to a solution class Cost/Capability tradeoffs
•Analysis of alternatives
•Down Select solution options
•Discriminate between vendor solutions
•Cost/Capability tradeoffs
•Government endorsed requirements as reference for upgrades etc
Level of effort
• Requirements monitoring throughout
•Refinement as a result of SRR
• Test and Trials design
JCN JCNS POCD PFPS
OCD FPS
• System Specification • Support System Specification• Functional Baseline• Product Baseline
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 390 ‐
Requirements Expertise779
Project/Product Sponsor
Delivery Group Head
Program Manager
Integrated Project/Product
Manager
Industry Representative
FIC SMEAcquisition or
Asset Mgt Specialist
Government Submission
SME
Requirements SME
IPT
Source: Interim CLC Manual
Engineering Function
• Policy and Practice• Requirements Advice • Engagement of Industry support• Requirements Service
Risk Mitigationand
Requirement Setting
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 391 ‐
RM and RS Activities are Interdependent
• Interdependent activities (broadly a cycle):
– improve understanding of what is needed;
– reduce or eliminate risky aspects;
– make choices (such as ‘design’ decisions, down‐select options); and
– define requirements ready for contract.
781
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Risk Reduction
Risk ReductionForce
Design
RM and RS Activities are Interdependent 782
Make requirements/
‘design’ decisions
Reduce/treat risk factors
Understand needs/ context
Options
Reduce/treat risk factors
Make requirements
/ ‘design’ decisions
Options
Define more detail
Define more detail
$
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 392 ‐
RM and RS Activities are Interdependent 783
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Risk Reduction
Risk ReductionForce
Design
LowerRisk
More‐specific requirements
+ • Authorities confident to spend• Defendable decisions
RM and RS – Incremental Commitment
• Progress achieved as more definitive proposals are presented at each decision point (Gates 0, 1, 2).
• Level of risk and definition of requirements corresponds to level of commitment (spending) by Defence.
784
Risk Reduction
Risk Reduction
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 393 ‐
RM and RS – Incremental Commitment
• Gate 0: higher uncertainty is acceptable when low levels of funding is being committed (eg just for risk reduction activities).
785
Risk Reduction
Risk Reduction
Commit funds for risk reduction activities
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation andRequirementsSetting
In-Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
RM and RS – Incremental Commitment
• Gate 1: risk or uncertainty must be reduced so that there is confidence to approve funds in IIP.
786
Risk Reduction
Risk Reduction
Commit funds for risk reduction activities
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation andRequirementsSetting
In-Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Commit funds for Project (IIP)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 394 ‐
RM and RS – Incremental Commitment
• Gate 2: risk or uncertainty must be low enough that the Commonwealth is prepared to enter into a contract.
787
Risk Reduction
Risk Reduction
Commit funds for risk reduction activities
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation andRequirementsSetting
In-Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Commit funds for Project (IIP)
Enter into major acquisition contract/s
RM and RS – Sufficient Definition to Contract
• Requirements derived so tenders can be sought and contract established
788
Risk Reduction
Risk Reduction
Commit funds for risk reduction activities
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation andRequirementsSetting
In-Service andDisposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Commit funds for Project (IIP)
Enter into major acquisition contract/s
FPS 2
JCN
JCNS
OCD
FPS 1
TCD
Operational Concept Document
Function and Performance Specifications
Test Concept Document
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 395 ‐
Risk Mitigation andRequirements Setting
(Gate 1)
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
RM and RS
• Reduced risk profile
• Better defined requirements
• Options selected
790
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Risk Reduction
Risk ReductionForce
Design
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 396 ‐
RM and RS
• Reduced risk profile
• Better defined requirements
• Options selected
791
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Risk Reduction
Risk ReductionForce
Design
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Preliminary OCD, FPS, TCD
Gate 1 ‐ Purpose
• Gate 1 used:
– complex and high risk proposals
– government decision required to narrow field of options
• Approve proposals to proceed to Gate 2.
• CM is responsible for Gate 1 Proposal.
792
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 397 ‐
Gate 1 Proposal: Components May Include793
What?
How?
Requirements Statement
Updated PES
Integrated Project Management Plan (IPMP) to Gate 2
Why? Sponsor Paper
+
+
+
Draft Submission to Government Why?
+
Gate 1 Proposal
Gate 1 Proposal describes:
• results of risk reduction activities since Gate 0;
• progress in reducing options;
• progress in requirements definition,
• progress in cost estimation;
• plans (incl risk mitigation work) to proceed to Gate 2; and
• Industry engagement outcomes.
794
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 398 ‐
Gate 1 Outcomes
• Government decision to:
– select specific option or options; and
– proceed with proposal to Gate 2 against agreed plan:
• timeframes,
• technical requirements, and
• financial commitments.
• Approval to engage industry through solicitation activities.
• Update to Project Direction.
• Gate 1 approval not a commitment to acquire.
795
Gate 0 to Gate 1: Summary 796
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
• Output: Achieved reduced risk profile
• Output: - Project in IIP - approval to conduct solicitation
• Output: Contestability statement
Gate 1 Proposal
• Output: Gate 1 Proposal including: - draft Approval Submission to Govt- proposed option/s- updated PES - cost, schedule estimates- IPMP
Investment Committee
Risk Reduction Activities
Requirements Definition
• Output: Requirements Documentation eg Preliminary OCD, FPS, TEMP
GovernmentApproval
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 399 ‐
Solicitation and Source Selection
Solicitation and
Source Selection
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Solicitation and Source Selection Documents 798
Defence Documents
ASDEFCON Suite including:
• Conditions of Tender
• Conditions of Contract
• SOW
• OCD, FPS, TEMP
• Data Item Descriptions (DIDs)
Tenderer Responses
Tender documents which details the offer includes:
• Compliance Matrix
• Specifications
• Plans
• Costs
• Schedules
Source Evaluation
•Tender Evaluation
•Source Evaluation Report Must be robust and fully defendable
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 400 ‐
Risk Mitigation and Requirement Setting (Gate 2)
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Summary of pre‐Gate 2 Activities
• Risk Reduction.
• Requirements development.
• Options Refinement.
• Cost and Schedule Estimation.
• Industry Solicitation and Evaluation.
• Source Selection report development.
• Initial negotiations (if appropriate).
• Update PES.
• Project Management and Sustainment Planning.
800
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 401 ‐
Gate 2 Proposal
• Proposal:
– Final PES.
– Draft Government Submission.
– Contestability Statement.
– Solicitation outcomes: Preferred Contractor.
• IC considers the proposal before Government.
801
Gate 2 Outcomes
• Government decision to acquire a fully defined and costed capability including:
– acceptance of risks;
– authority to conduct acquisition and sustainment; and
– assignment of budget, schedule, scope.
• Government approval:
– Allows commencement of the Acquisition Phase.
– Defence has authority, budget and timeframe to acquire a selected Product.
802
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 402 ‐
Gate 1 to Gate 2: Summary 803
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
• Output: - reduced risk profile including options- final requirements docs (OCD, FPS, TEMP)
Risk Reduction /Requirements
Definition
Gate 1 to Gate 2: Summary 804
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
• Output: - reduced risk profile including options- final requirements docs (OCD, FPS, TEMP)
Risk Reduction /Requirements
Definition
Solicitation
• Output:- Source Evaluation Report: preferred
solution / tenderer- Negotiating position
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 403 ‐
Gate 1 to Gate 2: Summary 805
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
• Output: - reduced risk profile including options- final requirements docs (OCD, FPS, TEMP)
• Output: Contestability statement
Risk Reduction /Requirements
Definition
Solicitation
• Output:- Source Evaluation Report: preferred
solution / tenderer- Negotiating position
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 1 to Gate 2: Summary 806
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
• Output: - reduced risk profile including options- final requirements docs (OCD, FPS, TEMP)
• Output: Contestability statement
Gate 2 Proposal
• Output: Gate 2 Proposal including: - draft Approval Submission to Govt- final PES- preferred contractor - updated PES - cost, schedule estimates
Risk Reduction /Requirements
Definition
Solicitation
• Output:- Source Evaluation Report: preferred
solution / tenderer- Negotiating position
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 404 ‐
Gate 1 to Gate 2: Summary 807
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
• Output: - reduced risk profile including options- final requirements docs (OCD, FPS, TEMP)
• Output: approval to acquire
• Output: Contestability statement
Gate 2 Proposal
• Output: Gate 2 Proposal including: - draft Approval Submission to Govt- final PES- preferred contractor - updated PES - cost, schedule estimates
Investment Committee
Risk Reduction /Requirements
Definition
Solicitation
• Output:- Source Evaluation Report: preferred
solution / tenderer- Negotiating position
GovernmentApproval
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 1 to Gate 2: Summary 808
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
• Output: - reduced risk profile including options- final requirements docs (OCD, FPS, TEMP)
• Output: approval to acquire
• Output: Contestability statement
Gate 2 Proposal
• Output: Gate 2 Proposal including: - draft Approval Submission to Govt- final PES- preferred contractor - updated PES - cost, schedule estimates
Investment Committee
Risk Reduction /Requirements
Definition
Solicitation
• Output:- Source Evaluation Report: preferred
solution / tenderer- Negotiating position
GovernmentApproval
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 405 ‐
Summary of What to Take to the IC809
Use Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2Government CabSub or MinSub CabSub or MinSub
Investment Committee
• IC Synopsis • Sponsor Paper:
- Business Case argument
- Contestability Statement
- Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
- Industry considerations
• JCNS
• PES
• IC Synopsis • Sponsor Paper- no
longer than 3 pages • Draft Approval
Submission to Government either Ministerial submission or Cabinet Submission
• Draft Approval Submission to Government either Ministerial submission or Cabinet Submission
Key Considerations
Business Case, RiskAssessment and mitigation actions, Acquisition and Sustainment Strategies, IPMP, Cost Estimates, Workforce Estimates, Whole FIC
Business Case, Risk Assessment and mitigation actions, costs and schedule estimates, IPMP, Requirements (OCD, FPS, TEMP)
Business Case, Risk Assessment and mitigation actions, costs and schedule estimates,IPMP, Requirements (OCD, FPS, TEMP), Source Evaluation
Acquisition
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 406 ‐
Acquisition
• Objective: acquire Capability:
– inclusive of FIC; and
– introduce it into service.
• Activity:
– Delivery Group formally transitions systems to CM.
• Primary task: IPM manages Project in accordance with:
– Gate 2 approval; and
– corresponding documents and agreements.
811
Acquisition Key Documents 812
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
IMSIPMP
Product Delivery
Agreement
Key Points
• IPM conducts acquisition in accordance with:• Gate 2 outcomes• Approved PES• Approved PDA• Approved IPMP including IMS• Contracts• Other approved agreements such as
strategic partnership agreements
Gate 2 Outcomes
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
PES
Contracts
Other approved agreements
Integrated Project Management Plan (IPMP)
Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 407 ‐
Acquisition: FIC
• IPM is responsible for delivery of FIC in two ways:
– Delivers FIC for which lead Delivery Group is responsible.
– Coordinates and integrates all FIC.
• Respective FIC delivery groups accountable for delivering their elements as agreed in plans/agreements (IPMP, PDA).
813
FIC
Materiel (CASG)
ICT (CIOG)
Facilities (E&IG)
Training (CM)
Integrated Project
Organisation
Command &Management
SupportFacilities
PersonnelCollective Training
Major Systems
Industry
Supplies
Capability
Acquisition – Transition to In‐Service Phase 814
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
• Transition from Acquisition key milestones:– Initial Operational Capability (IOC).
– Final Operational Capability (FOC).
• At FOC the Project is closed and IPMT stood down.
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
IOC/OC (2)
FOCIOC/OC (3)
IOC (1)
Sustainment
Acquisition
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 408 ‐
Acquisition – Transition to In‐Service Phase 815
• Transition progressed through:
• Initial Operational Capability (IOC) releases.
• Final Operational Capability (FOC).
IOC (2)
FOC
IOC (3)
IOC (1)
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Initial Operational Capability (IOC)
• IOC is the capability state relating to the in‐service realisationof the first subset of a capability system that can be employed operationally.
• Declaration of IOC is made by the Capability Manager, supported by the results of OT&E and declaration by the Delivery Group that the FIC have been delivered.
• IOC can be declared when one or more subsets of the capability can be deployed on operations.
• IOC considers all FIC required to deliver the subset of capability required.
816
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 409 ‐
Final Operational Capability (FOC)
• FOC is the capability state relating to the in‐service realisation of the final subset of a capability system that can be employed operationally.
• Declaration of FOC is made by the Capability Manager, supported by the results of OT&E and declaration by the Delivery Groups that the FIC have been delivered.
• FOC is declared when the entire capability can be deployed on operations.
• FOC considers all FIC required to deliver the full capability
817
Acquisition – Transition to In‐Service Phase 818
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
IOC (2)
FOC
IOC (3)
IOC (1)
• At FOC:
• Project closed.
• IPMT stood down.
• Integrated Product Manager IPdM assumes responsibility.
• IPMT transitioned to IPdMT and populated for sustainment effort.
• Sustainment conducted during Acquisition Phase from IOC.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 410 ‐
In‐service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
In‐Service and Disposal Phase
• In‐Service and Disposal Phase:
– operates capability;
– sustains Products that form the capability throughout their operational life; and
– withdraws the Products from service before disposed of or sold.
820
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 411 ‐
IOC
IOC
In‐Service and Disposal Phase 821
• In‐Service and Disposal Phase commences when:
– Products accepted by CM from Delivery Group; and
– declaration of IOC.
• Acquisition and Sustainment can occur concurrently between IOC and FOC.
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Sustainment
Disposal
Acquisition
IOC FOC…
In‐Service and Disposal Phase
Acceptance of capability by CM is key objective based on:
• compliance:
– legislative requirements (such as environment andsafety); and
– regulatory requirements (such as seaworthiness);
• appropriate transition into in-service phase; and
• acceptable sustainment arrangements.
822
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 412 ‐
In‐Service and Disposal: Key Documents823
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
PDA
IPdMP
• Integrated Product Manager (IPdM) appointed.
• Integrated Product Management Team (IPdMT) established.
• Product Delivery Agreement / Materiel Support Agreement.
• Product Delivery Schedules.
• Integrated Product Management Plan.
PdS
IPdM
IPdMT
Can be established earlier if appropriate
Must be established before IOC, FOC
Evolved from IPMP during the Acquisition Phase
In‐Service and Disposal: Sustainment is Core824
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
• Sustainment: in‐service support activities. • Focus: meeting specified preparedness requirements at minimised life‐cycle cost.
• Successful sustainment outcomes rely on good Product Management from earliest stages of CLC.
Sustainment
Product life cycle
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 413 ‐
Sustainment
• Defence defines sustainment as provision of:
– personnel, logistics and other support required tomaintain and prolong operations or combat; and
– goods and services required to achievepreparedness (readiness and sustainability) goals forlife of Defence element.
825
Sustainment
• Sustainment activities include:• routine sustainment work
– Maintenance; and– provision of spares, supplies.
• managing changes to:– preparedness levels; and– operating concept.
• managing:– obsolescence,– incorporating planned technology refresh,– upgrades to maintain capability, and– OEM recalls.
826
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 414 ‐
Sustainment Business Cycle827
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Sustainment
• Meet specified preparedness requirements at minimised life‐cycle cost.
• PDA/MSA:
– reviewed, updated at least annually:
– ensure resources match agreed performance levels,
– basis for budget allocations, and
– basis for sustainment performance management and reporting.
Sustainment Business Cycle828
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Sustainment
• PGPA Act requires all Commonwealth entities to report results against plans in an annual performance statement.
• “Parliamentary committees over several years have stated an interest in Defence’s reporting of its sustainment performance and, in particular, obtaining greater insight into that performance”.
Source: ANAO Report No. 2 2017–18 Defence’s Management of Materiel Sustainment, Para 1.4
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 415 ‐
Sustainment Business Cycle: Annual Review829
Planned vs ActualPerformance
PDA
PdS
Sustainment Performance Measurement System (SPMS)
Time
Ava
ilabi
lity
Agreement
Product Delivery Agreement
Product Schedules
Re-prioritised sustainment funds
Time
Ava
ilabi
lity
CM revises annual bid to Defence Enterprise Business Committee (EBC)
Sustainment Data
SPMS
Sustainment Planning and Management830
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Sustainment
• IPdMs manage updates to PDAs/PdSs and budget estimates including:
– Sustainment Plans and Schedules.
– Cost Estimates.
– Risks and emergent changes.
– Communicating impacts.
– Cost‐capability trade‐offs.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 416 ‐
Projects Within the In‐Service Phase
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1Upgrade Project
• Projects can be established during In‐Service and Disposal Phase.
• Project construct and Project Management principles apply including:
– Project Sponsor appointed.
– IPM appointed.
– IPMT established.
831
Product Management/ Sustainment/ ILS 832
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Sustainment
• Successful sustainment relies on Materiel Logistics/ Integrated Logistics Support practice early in CLC.
• Analyses such as:
• Supportability Analysis.
• Logistics Support Analysis (LSA).
• Reliability Availability Maintainability (RAM).
• Life Cycle Costing Analysis (LCCA).
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 417 ‐
ILS
• Ensures that availability, supportability, and lifecycle cost of capability is considered during design and development of mission and support system.
• ILS practitioners:
– influence system requirements and design;
– define support elements for capability lifecycle; and
– contribute to planning and management of support system.
833
Disposal / Retirement
• Process of removing systems from service:
– unsuitable, or
– surplus.
• Must be approved by appropriate CM.
• Materiel Logistics Disposal and Sales (MLDS) responsible for planning and implementation.
• Divided into minor and major disposals:
– Sale
– Scrap
– Transfer
834
– Gifting
– Conversion/re‐use
– Destruction
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 418 ‐
Disposal / Retirement
• Directorate of Military Disposals:
– responsible for disposal of major Defence equipment and capability platforms.
• The role of the directorate is to:
– plan and facilitate disposals of major items;
– provide a centre of expertise in disposals; and
– maintain a register of interest from public organisationsfor disposal of Defence major items.
• Governed by both Australian and foreign government legislation and policy.
• You can register your interest in the disposal of a Defenceasset such as an Army vehicle.
835
https://www.defence.gov.au/CASG/DoingBusiness/Internationalengagementandexportsupport/Military%20disposals.asp
CLC Artefacts and Documents
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 419 ‐
Meaning of Artefact
• We will use artefact as any means of communicating information associated with the CLC including documents, models, plans, architectures, and proposals.
837
CLC Process Overview: Your Process Map838
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 420 ‐
Implementing the CLC (Example) 839
Risk Reduction Studies
(technical, commercial risks)
Risk Reduction,
Requirements DefinitionOCD, FPS,
TCD
Solicitation RFT, SER
Requirements Definition
POCD, PFPS, PTCD
Planning definition: IPMP, IMS
Contract Mgt Force Design:
JCNContract Mgt
Define Need:JCNS
Smart Buyer Risk
Profile and
Strategy definition:
PES
SE Review
Risk Mgt
Assurance Reports
Product MgtProject Mgt
Risk and Assurance Mgt
Contesta-bility
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Scope of Artefacts Being Covered
• Key CLC artefacts can be divided into two broad categories:
– Program for proposals or as common references for subordinate Projects/Products.
– Project/Product for proposals.
840
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 421 ‐
Implementing the CLC
• Next section will use the examples introduced on Day 1:
– IAMD; and
– Electronic Support (ESM).
• Examples will step us through the key CLC artefacts and documents leading up to Gate 2.
• Following slides are provided for reference reflecting latest known guidance with focus on new documents (to Gate 2).
841
CLC Artefacts Covered in this Course842
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 422 ‐
Key CLC Artefacts
• Program‐reference:
– Capability Program Narrative (CPN).
– Program Strategy.
– Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC).
• …
843
Key CLC Artefacts
• …
• Proposal Artefacts at Program, Project, or Product level:
– Joint Capability Narrative (JCN).
– Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS).
– Project Execution Strategy (PES).
– Business Case which supports Proposals and Submissions.
– Integrated Project Management Plan (IPMP).
– Capability Definition Documents (CDD).
• Operational Concept Document (OCD).
• Function and Performance Specification (FPS).
• Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP).
844
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 423 ‐
Program Artefacts
Program Example: IAMD
• The term ‘IAMD’ commonly used by defence organisations.
• Generally described as defence against:
– conventional air threats eg aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters, (air defence); and
– missiles eg ballistic and cruise missiles (missile defence).
846
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 424 ‐
Program Example: IAMD
• Integrated:
– Operational and technical collaboration between systems.
– Military advantage.
847
Source: http://www.anzidlsoc.com.au/1600_AIR6500_Brief_to_TDL_Interoperability_Summit_2017.pdf
Program Example: IAMD
• Largely based on data or information exchange.
• Focus on Command Control Communication Computer Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) elements.
• C4ISR are “systems, procedures, and techniques used to collect and disseminate information”.
848
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 425 ‐
IAMD Key Components
• Key components of IAMD system:
– Sensors: detect threats.
– Command and Control: Battle Management System (BMS):
• information collection, processing, dissemination.
– Effectors/weapons: respond in some way to the threat.
• IAMD also uses ‘layers’ of defence for the different types of threats so:
– Short‐range.
– Medium‐range.
– Long‐range.
849
IAMD: In Summary
• Air Defence: conventional air threats eg aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters.
• Missile Defence: ballistic and cruise missiles, hypersonic.
• Unified Operations: information exchange/ interoperability.
• Layered Defence.
850
Source: http://www.anzidlsoc.com.au/1600_AIR6500_Brief_to_TDL_Interoperability_Summit_2017.pdf
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 426 ‐
Possible Components of IAMD851
Information Exchange
Eg HF, VHF
IAMDAirborne Sensors
Joint Battle Management System
Deployable Ground Weapons
Mobile Ground Sensors
Eg Frigates
Airborne Relay Sensor
Sensor
Sensor
Command and Control
Effector
Effector
Effector
IAMD: SoS and Program
• IAMD is an example of a System of Systems (SoS) which corresponds to a CLC Program.
• Constituent systems correspond to constituent Projects and Products.
852
Project A
Project B
Project C
IAMD SoS
Information Exchange
Eg HF, VHF
IAMDAirborne Sensors
Joint Battle Management System
Deployable Ground Weapons
Mobile Ground Sensors
Eg Frigates
Airborne Relay
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Project A
Project B
Project C
IAMD Program
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 427 ‐
Australian Defence Force IAMD
• ADF IAMD Program announced in 2016 Defence White Paper.
• “A modern and integrated ground‐based air defence system is needed to protect our deployed forces from increasingly sophisticated air threats, both globally and within our region”. Ref: Minister for Defence, 10 April
2017
• Good reference: The Sir Richard Williams Foundation.
853
Three Elements of ADF IAMD
1. Upgrade of ADF’s existing air‐defence system:
– Includes C4I systems and sensors.
– Long range‐air‐defence.
– Vigilare (250 separate interfaces).
854
https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/aircraft/intelligence‐surveillance‐and‐reconnaissance/e‐7a‐wedgetail
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 428 ‐
Three Elements of ADF IAMD
2. Joint Battle Management System (BMS):
– Coordinate and synchronise ADF operations.
– Interconnect platforms, systems, sensors.
– Across air, land, sea, space, cyber.
– Provides shared situational awareness.
855
Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/EquippingDefence/LAND‐75‐ph3.4‐BMS
Three Elements of ADF IAMD
3. Ground‐based air‐defence capability (GBAD):
– Surface to air system (short‐range).
– Improves protection for deployed personnel (incl man‐portable systems).
856
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/2‐billion‐for‐nasams‐gbad‐system
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 429 ‐
Elements of IAMD
• First two IAMD Projects:
– Land19 Phase 7B: Army’s Ground Based Air Defence missile system comprising Radar plus Missile.
– AIR 6500: Upgrade or replacement of the ADF's existing air defence systems.
857
Land19 Phase 7B
AIR 6500 Phase 1
AIR 6500 Phase 2
Indicative only
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Project A
Project B
Project C
IAMD Program
Recap of Program Layer
858
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 430 ‐
Program
A program is a group of related projects managed in a coordinated manner to obtain benefits not available from managing them individually. Program management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to meet program requirements.
Source: PMI website
A Program, in the context of managing Defence capability, is defined as a group of related Projects, Products, and activities that are managed in a coordinated way to optimise capability outcomes within allocated resources.
Source: Interim Capability Life Cycle Manual
859
Objectives of Programs
• Programs in the Defence context generally of two types:
– Operational outcomes eg joint capability.
– Resource commonality eg common systems or resources (eg fuels) which provide efficiencies.
860
Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD)
Fuel
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 431 ‐
Program Approach—Benefits
• Can better prioritise across Defence Portfolio.
• Improves the strategic view for government direction.
• Efficiencies across similar Products and Projects.
• Facilitates Joint Force by Design.
861
CLC Program Artefacts862
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 432 ‐
Program Artefacts as a Common Reference
• Program‐level artefacts provide an overarching reference for constituent Projects and Products.
– Program: Parent artefact
– Project and Product: Subordinate artefacts
• Aligned: Related Projects and Products reference common Program information to enable aligned and, where appropriate, joint force outcomes.
• Efficient: Each subordinate artefact leverages the parent artefact so that only the essential ‘delta’ is developed.
863
Program Artefacts: Aligning Project/Products 864
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
FPSs
TCD
IPMP
JCNS 1
Project 2 Product 3
OCD
• Common ‘umbrella’ reference
• Aligning Project and Product requirements
• Supports integration and interoperability
• ‘Town Plan’
JCN 1
PES
FPSs
TCD
IPMP
JCNS 3
OCD
JCN 3
PES
FPSs
TCD
IPMP
JCNS 2
OCD
JCN 2
PES
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 433 ‐
Program Layer as Reference for Requirements865
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
Sect 1-4
FPSs
TCD
PES/IPMP
Efficient: leverage common content in ‘parent’
Aligned: Related Projects and Products have common reference JCNS 1
PES/IPMP
JCNS 2
PES/IPMP
JCNS 3
Project 2 Product 3
OCD
FPSs
TCD
Sect 5-7
OCD 1
Re‐used/ referenced content
New content
Sect 1-4
FPSs
TCD
Sect 5-7
OCD 2
Program Layer as Reference for Plans866
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
Sect 1-4
FPSs
TCD
PES/IPMP
Efficient: leverage common content in ‘parent’
Aligned: Related Projects and Products have common reference JCNS 1
PES/IPMP
JCNS 2
PES/IPMP
JCNS 3
Project 2 Product 3
OCD
FPSs
TCD
Sect 5-7
OCD 1
Re‐used/ referenced content
Sect 1-4
FPSs
TCD
Sect 5-7
OCD 2
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 434 ‐
Program‐reference Artefacts
867
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
868
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 435 ‐
Program References: Aligning Project/Products 869
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
FPSs
TCD
PES1/ IPMP1
JCN1/
JCNS 1
PES2/IPMP2
JCN2/
JCNS 2
PES3/IPMP3
JCN3/
JCNS 3
Project 2 Product 3
OCD
FPSs
TCD
OCD
FPSs
TCD
OCD
• Common ‘umbrella’ reference
• Aligning Project and Product requirements
• Supports integration and interoperability
• ‘Town Plan’
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
• Raised by Force Design Division
• Enduring Program‐level direction including concepts and requirements.
• ‘What’ and ‘Why’.
870
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 436 ‐
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
• Provides the Capability Manager with a synopsis of:
– operational environment,
– constraints,
– governance,
– Joint Force needs, and
– sustainment arrangements and priorities where relevant.
• Distils strategic and conceptual guidance into actionable deliverable terms.
• Contestability reviews the strategic fit of the CPN.
871
Possible IAMD CPN – Key Components
• Vision of what IAMD is and how it will operate to address the threat.
• Narrative of:
– IAMD operational context including threats;
– what the Program is trying to achieve operationally;
– constituent capabilities and how they will need to work collectively;
– interoperability, integration and commonality constraints internal and external to the Program:
• materiel solutions; and
• support arrangements.
872
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 437 ‐
Possible IAMD CPN—Why
eg: Increasingly sophisticated air and missile threat to deployed forces:
– globally and within our region; and
– likelihood that it will increase in years ahead.
873
Why: Threat
Possible IAMD CPN—What
eg: Require modern and integrated ground‐based air defencesystem:
– integration of offensive and defensive operations against air‐breathing and missile threats, to counter an enemy’s ability to degrade or disrupt our operations and projection of combat power in a contested environment; and
– fuse and share information to enhance accuracy and speed of ADF's systems response to threats.
874
What: Operational Effects
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 438 ‐
Possible IAMD CPN—What
eg: Flexibility for further enhancement to handle more complex threats and to integrate new technologies as they emerge.
What: Required Features
875
Possible IAMD CPN—What (I2)
eg: IAMD is a shared responsibility that will require integrated operations between all three Services, supported by Government Agencies, and integrated, where appropriate, with allied and coalition forces.
eg: better connect the communications, sensor and targeting systems of various platforms so that they can more effectively combine their capabilities, generating greater potency and lethality”.
Eg: ensuring that the delivered system is able to fuse and share information to enhance the accuracy and speed of ADF's systems response to air and missile threats”.
876
What: Integration and Interoperability Sources: • https://gateway.icn.org.au/project/4022/air‐6500‐joint‐battle‐management‐and‐integrated‐air‐and‐missile‐defence‐system• Integrated Air and Missile Defence Study: The Challenge of Integrated Force Design Air Vice‐Marshal John Blackburn April 2017
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 439 ‐
Possible IAMD CPN—What
eg: Must include:
– expanded access to air and space situational awareness information, including through space‐based systems;
– ground‐based active electronically scanned array radars;
– consider integrating CEA phased array radar in a ground‐based role; and
– meet defined sovereign capabilities (including support).
877
What: Specific Inclusions and constraints
Possible IAMD CPN—What
For example:
• Upgrade of the ADF’s existing air‐defence systems, including C4I systems and sensors.
• Joint Battle Management System to better coordinate and synchronise ADF operations.
• Future ground‐based air‐defence system:
– short‐range man‐portable surface to air system; and
– medium‐range surface‐to‐air missile system.
878
What: Actionable Deliverable Terms
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 440 ‐
Program Integrating Operational Concept(PIOC)
879
Program References: Aligning Project/Products 880
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
FPSs
TCD
PES1/IPMP1
JCN1/
JCNS 1
PES2/IPMP2
JCN2/
JCNS 2
IPMP
JCNS 3
Project 2 Product 3
OCD
FPSs
TCD
OCD
FPSs
TCD
OCD
• Common ‘umbrella’ reference
• Aligning Project and Product requirements
• Supports integration and interoperability
• ‘Town Plan’
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 441 ‐
PIOC: Overview
• Who develops it?
– Program Sponsor; and
– requires endorsement from Joint Force Authority (VCDF)
• When is it developed?
– when a Program is established and then maintained.
• Support provided by VCDF Group:
– Joint Force Authority (JFA);
– Force Integration Division (FID):
• Joint Integration and Capability Assurance (JICA); and
• C4ISR Design Authority.
881
PIOC: Intent
• Top‐down design documents on Integration and Interoperability.
• Achieve a Joint Force by Design.
• Limit ‘after market’ integration.
• Uniform, consistent overarching design direction to constituent systems (related Programs, Projects, and Products).
• Reduce detail in subordinate documentation.
• Identify I2 risks and define risk reduction actions.
882
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 442 ‐
PIOC: Architecture Information 883
Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/EquippingDefence/JCG02‐JointCapabilitiesGroup
PIOC: Architecture Information 884
Operational View
Warfighter Relationships and Information Needs
Technical View
Prescribes Standards and Conventions
Systems View
Relates Capabilities and Characteristics to Operational
Requirements
Technical Criteria for implementing interoperability
Processing and Levels of Information Exchange Requirements
Systems Associations to Nodes, Activities, Needlines, and Requirements
Processing and Levels of Information Exchange Requirements
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 443 ‐
PIOC Possible Content: Operational
Operational view:
• mission; scenarios; policies and doctrine; needs and constraints
• Program boundary and content
• IAMD operations (scenarios): Concept of Operations (CONOPS)
• Operational roles and responsibilities
• Collaboration requirements in coalition/sovereign operations
• Operational dependencies including definition of Information Exchange Requirements (IERs)
885
PIOC Possible Content: Traceability
• Traceability to relevant higher level guidance, for example:
– Joint Supporting Concept.
– Integration Operational Concept (IOC) Integrating Objectives.
– directed I2 requirements eg Mode 5 IFF or Link 16.
886
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 444 ‐
PIOC: Captures Detail on I2 Requirements
• General features:
– Fully networked sensors and shooters.
– Resilient, ubiquitous, interoperable network.
– Joint priorities and formats.
• Specific Requirements
– Use of Tactical Data networks (TDL).
– Information Integration: receiving, processing, fusing mass information from AS and Coalition networks:
• Satellite and UAV imagery.
• electronic and signals intelligence.• space‐based infrared systems.
• voice and data intelligence inputs.
887
PIOC: Identifies Applicable Systems for I2
• Integration aspects:
– extant/planned communications systems,
– extant/planned command and control, and
– extant/planned geospatial and intelligence products.
• Interoperability aspects:
– E‐7 Wedgetail,
– Air Warfare Destroyer (Aegis),
– SEA 5000 Future Frigate,
– P8,
– Triton,
– F‐35A,
– F/A‐18 Super Hornet and Growler,
– Key Allies.
888
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 445 ‐
PIOC: Specify Technical Requirements889
Introducing a Reference Model for Measures of Merit for Coalition Interoperability, Andreas Tolk, June 2003
Source: http://fi-ghent.fi-week.eu/fia-session-i-linked-open-data/
Open Systems Interconnection
(OSI) model
Coalition Interoperability
“Tolk” Model
PIOC: ‘Umbrella’ Design Document (I2)
• Provides design guidance in form of:
– Program needs;
– Program‐level architectures:
• derived from joint war fighting architectures; and
• supported by C4ISR Design Authority.
– Program‐wide process and technical standards—such as Technical Data Links Interoperability (Link 11,16, 22); and
– Joint Force requirements including US Interoperability.
• Can use Defence Architecture Frameworks.
• IAMD would consult with C4ISR Design Authority.
890
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 446 ‐
PIOC: Sets up Program Assurance
• Program T&E is achieved through coordination of T&E activities for constituent Projects and Products.
891
Program Strategy
892
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 447 ‐
Program References: Aligning Project/Products 893
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
FPSs
TCD
PES1/IPMP1
JCN1/
JCNS 1
PES2/IPMP2
JCN2/
JCNS 2
IPMP
JCNS 3
Project 2 Product 3
OCD
FPSs
TCD
OCD
FPSs
TCD
OCD
• Common ‘umbrella’ reference
• Aligning Project and Product requirements
• Supports integration and interoperability
• ‘Town Plan’
Program Strategy
• Who develops it?
– Program Sponsor on behalf of the CM based on the CPN.
• When is it developed?
– When a Program is established and then maintained.
• What is its intent?
– Ensures Program‐level capability (CPN) over time.
– Maintains pipeline of proposals/ activities to meet CPN.
– Gaps and opportunities managed/ prioritized.
894
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 448 ‐
Program Strategy: Delivering CPN over Time895
Eg Current Air Defence Systems
2019 2025 2030
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
System 1
+
System 2
+
+
+
Technology Obsolescence and replacement
System 3
System 2
System 6
+
Required IAMD Capability (CPN)
+
System 2
System 6
+System 7
Respond to threat changes
2035
Program Strategy
• Why is it produced?
– defines how CPN will be achieved.
– primary document for leading, managing and developing capabilities to satisfy Program outcomes.
– helps Program Sponsor coordinate activities of:
• Capability Manager,
• Delivery Groups, and
• Enabling Groups.
– assists industry guidance and planning.
896
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 449 ‐
Program Strategy
What is in the Program Strategy?
• Integrated planning view of Projects and Products including FIC.
• How Program will acquire, transition and sustain agreed capabilities.
• Coordination of sustainment for all Products.
• Program‐level industry opportunities and constraints.
• Program‐level risks and risk mitigation.
897
IAMD Program: Project Elements 898
Upgraded or Replaced C4I
Ground Based Sensors
Land19 Phase 7B
AIR 6500 Phase 1
Medium-Range Ground Based Air and Missile
Defence Effector
AIR 6500 Phase 2Gate 0 – Feb 20 Gate 1&2 – Apr 22
Short-Range Ground Based Air and Missile
Defence Effector
Contributing Projects: SEA4000, SEA5000, AIR5077, AIR6000…
Overlapping FIC requirements and planning • Common training and workforce• Coordinated Sustainment
IOC FY22/23
IOCFY25/26
FOCFY28/29
IOC2023
FOC2025
FOCFY28/29
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 450 ‐
IAMD Program Strategy
• “The critical issue is that an IAMD Program cannot be built purely bottom‐up if it is to be both effective and affordable; a top‐down direction and focus is essential. There is a need for an IAMD Program Roadmap, that is a Directive and not only a recommendation.”
Reference: Williams Foundation Integrated Air and Missile Defence Study 2017
899
Possible Program Strategy Content*
• Govt direction, strategic guidance.
• Defined outcomes and outputs (including priorities).
• Resource, funding, FIC allocation requirements and priorities.
• Key risks, risk mgt actions incl escalation approach.
• Identification of all constituent Proposals, Projects, Products, relationships/dependencies across operational, technical and programmatic aspects including :
– schedule and delivery milestones;
– activities (eg interface definition);
– resourcing including budget and workforce; and
– FIC elements.
• …
900
*No guidance available at time of ‘printing’.
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 451 ‐
Possible Program Strategy Content
• …
• Linkages and critical dependencies with other Programs
• Stakeholders, Governance and Management forums.
• Requirements (including standards) for Integration and Interoperability.
• Program‐level assurance program including T&E concept.
• Activities to transition into service and sustainment.
• Development gaps and opportunities to inform Force Design.
• Information management incl Program architecture info.
• 12‐month (rolling) Plan: review points, milestones.
• Key Performance Metrics.
901
Program Strategy Reviews
Reviews of Program Strategy:
– Program Sponsor responsible for periodic reviews of Program Strategy to identify, mitigate risk in Program.
– IC may direct that Contestability conducts a review.
902
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 452 ‐
Program CLC Artefacts903
Artefact Description Developed by Authority
CPN: Narrative which inform required capability of the subject group of capability systems
Force Design Division
Force Design Division
PIOC: Operational and other features of the capability grouping both within the Program and relationships with other Programs
Program Sponsor Program Sponsor
Endorsed by Joint Capability Authority
Program Strategy:
Activities, management arrangements, including integrated schedule across related Projects and Products within the Program
Program Sponsor Program Sponsor
Program Architectures:
Program features using Defence Architecture Framework (DAF) conventions
Program Sponsor/C4ISR Design Authority
Program Sponsor/C4ISR Design Authority
Proposal‐level Artefacts
904
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 453 ‐
Proposal‐level Artefacts905
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
CLC Case Study
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 454 ‐
CLC Proposal Case Study
• Aspects of CLC re‐design have been implemented in successful projects.
• This Case Study based on an actual Defence project that has used elements of CLC approach.
• We will look at how CLC may have been applied focusing on S&C and RM&RS Phases:
– approach to be adopted;
– activities to be undertaken; and
– documents to be produced.
907
SEA 1448 Ph4A Project: ESM
• Electronic Support Measures (ESM):
– Used on RAN ships to detect and identify (classify) adversary’s radars.
– A bit like a music recognition application.
• Comprises antenna and processing equipment.
• Integrates and displays on the Combat System.
908
Sources: https://images.defence.gov.au/https://www.harris.com/solution/es‐3701s‐precision‐radar‐esm‐system
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 455 ‐
SEA 1448 Ph4A Project: Key Factors
• Multiple platforms across 3 ship classes.
• Installation must be synchronised with availability of ships.
• Different installation requirements dependent on class:
– physical installation differences; and
– differences in Radio Frequency (RF) ‘noise’ situation.
• Multiple system vendors to create the system.
• Multiple installation contractors to install systems on ships.
• Time pressure to enable deployment of vessels with this capability.
909
Implementing the CLC—Example 910
Risk Reduction Studies
(technical, commercial risks)
Risk Reduction,
Requirements DefinitionOCD, FPS, TEMP
Solicitation Tendering & Contracting
docs
Requirements Definition
POCD, PFPS, TEMP
Planning definition: IPMP, IMS
Contract MgtForce Design: JCN
Contract Mgt
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Define Need:JCNS
Smart Buyer Risk
Profile and Strategy definition:
PES
SE Reviews
Risk Mgt
Assurance Mgt
Product MgtProject Mgt
Risk and Assurance Mgt
Contesta‐bility
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 456 ‐
Case Study: SEA 1448 Phase 4A
We will look at the case study in terms of what would have been done and produced under the CLC touching on:
• CLC process, frameworks and management constructs such as Programs and Smart Buyer.
• Enabling Practices:
– Systems Engineering.
– Project Management.
– ILS.
– Procurement and Contracting.
– Risk Management and Assurance.
• Then we will look at it in terms of artefacts and documents to be developed.
911
Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)
912
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 457 ‐
JCN
• Who develops it?
– Force Design Division (Force Options and Plans Branch).
• When is it developed?
– When a capability need or enabling gap or opportunity identified.
• Why is it produced?
– Used to task appropriate CM to develop a more detailed JCNS.
– Prepared as the rationale for an investment proposal.
913
JCN
• What is in a JCN?
– Provides a conceptual framework for a defined gap or opportunity and ensures joint needs are clearly aligned with strategic guidance.
– Articulates gaps, risks, issues or opportunities and the CM’s plan to meet the problem posed.
– Articulates time, resource constraints and strategicconsiderations.
914
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 458 ‐
ESM Example: Capability Gap 915
In the case of the ESM…
Navy recognised a vulnerability for their platforms.
Determine Gaps and Opportunities
Prioritise and identify possible options
Recommend response
Approve recommended response
Assess current force
CM identified gap
JCN
• In the absence of JCN, use FSR Narratives and IIP funding profiles as reference.
• Contestability reviews the JCN as one of the Force Design outputs.
• JCNs are still being developed.
916
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 459 ‐
Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
917
JCNS
• Who develops it?
– Program Sponsor as tasked by CM through a tasking statement.
• When is it developed?
– When a capability need or enabling gap or opportunityidentified through a JCN and the CM assigns a Program Sponsor.
– A key output of the Strategy and Concepts Phase.
• Why is it produced?
– An agreed statement of military or enabler need, which determines the capability required to deliver on strategic guidance.
918
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 460 ‐
Strategic Guidance and the JCNS
• In the absence of the JCN and/or CPN, the JCNS must clearly link to (but not repeat) most recent strategic guidance:
– FSR Narratives.
– Defence White Paper 16.
– Force Structure Review.
– Defence Planning Guidance (DPG).
– Australian Military Strategy (AMS).
– relevant Strategic Policy and Joint Concepts.
– IIP funding profiles.
919
• Strategic Guidance: RAN ships need be able carry out their mission safely and defend themselves.
JCNS
• What is in it?
– high level statement of an identified and bounded capability need and available option sets;
– represents a defined and bounded system solution to the capability gap
– …
920
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 461 ‐
ESM Capability Gap 921
Capability Gap
Capability performance gauged on the basis of: • ability to detect and classify radars/threats(ranges and types); and
• Reliability.
Leve
l of C
apab
ility
Decline in performance due to aging system
Higher performance expected due to:• more challenging
threats• Improved
available technology
JCNS
• What is in it?
– high level statement of an identified and bounded capability need and available option sets;
– represents a defined and bounded system solution to the capability gap
– …
922
• Capability gap/need: system that can detect and classify contemporary radars and operate with required reliability
• Action: Replace existing ESM system • Options:
• augment current system with extra functionality• existing whole system product with lower performance• integrated solution created for RAN
• Solution: Integrated solution that fully meets capability need
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 462 ‐
JCNS: Hierarchy of objectives
• What is in it?
– …
– system need described as a hierarchical structure of objectives including FIC to address the gaps and opportunities posed in the JCN;
– …
923
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
JCNS: Hierarchy of Objectives 924
Ability to classify radars
Provide data to combat system
Ability to detect radars
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 463 ‐
JCNS: Hierarchy of Objectives
• What is in it?
– …
– system need described as a hierarchical structure of objectives including FIC to address the gaps and opportunities posed in the JCN;
– …
925
Hierarchy (priority) of capability objectives: • ability to detect and classify radars; • ability to record the technical and operational data of those
radars, • ability to provide data to the combat system for tactical
purposes, and • design and support arrangements to provide very high reliability.
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
JCNS: System Characteristics
• What is in it?
– …
– system characteristics;
– …
926
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 464 ‐
JCNS: System Characteristics 927
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/content/electromagnetic-spectrum/
59o
44o
Bearing
Frequency Spectrum
Dynamic Range
JCNS: System Characteristics
• What is in it?
– …
– system characteristics;
– …
928
System characteristics: • frequency spectrum of interest • dynamic range (low to high power)• ability to discriminate signal of interest from other EM radiation • precision of angle of arrival for bearings to locate the transmitter• number of receivers needed for surveillance of the necessary
spectrum
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 465 ‐
JCNS: Joint Capability and FIC Integration
• What is in it?
– …
– contribution to joint capability with FIC integration issues highlighted and interdependencies defined;
– …
929
Joint Capability and FIC integration : • use a common system on multiple classes: ANZAC, AWD, LHD; • interface commonality especially with combat management
systems; and• efficiencies in training, maintenance and spares etc.
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
JCNS: Relationship with Other Programs
• What is in it?
– …
– relationship with other Programs;
– …
930
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 466 ‐
JCNS: Relationship with Other Programs931
EW Libraries
Facility Refurb
Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) Project
SEA 1448 Ph4A Project: ESM
LHD Project AWD Project
JCNS: Relationship with Other Programs
• What is in it?
– …
– relationship with other Programs;
– …
932
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
Relationship with other Programs : • facility development (such as JP 500 EW – EW Operations Support
Facility);• development of EW libraries; and• major ship programs (such as ASMD).
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 467 ‐
JCNS: Relationship with Other Programs
• What is in it?
– …
– describes CM’s plan to meet the problem posed by the JCN.
933
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
Capability Manager’s Plan: • establish Stand‐alone Project for common‐use system;• leverage and align with related efforts;• align with docking cycle for ASMD upgrade; and• achieve commonality across ship classes
JCNS: Review
• Who reviews and/or approves the JCNS?
– Contestability Division reviews JCNS to test if:
• aligns with Strategic Guidance;
• aligns with resourcing provisions; and
• can be delivered within resourcing direction.
– Presented at Gate 0 for approval by IC.
– Defence Committee (DC) reviews JCNS only for:
• most complex, politically sensitive, novel, high risk;
• where diverges from established policy; and
• needs to endorse further development of selected options.
934
Source: Update Interim CLC Manual
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 468 ‐
Key Features Required of the JCNS
• Strategic Alignment and Program Coherence.
• Justification: evidence supported by logic, traceability.
• Prioritisation of Needs in plain English.
• Consideration of Joint Force, Integration and Interoperability.
• Consideration of all FIC.
• Scheduling issues.
• Systems approach:
– structured derivation of requirements,
– recognition of SoS, and
– clear bounding of the system need to reflect capability gap or opportunity.
935
Project Execution Strategy (PES)
936
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 469 ‐
Strategy and Concepts: Smart Buyer937
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements
Setting
In‐Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
Force Design Framework (DCAP)
• Output: Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)• Capability Manager (CM) assigned • Output: Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)
Smart Buyer Framework
• Delivery Group assigned• IPM assigned and IPMT initiated • Output: Project Execution Strategy
PES – Key Points
• Who develops it?
– Delivery Group in close consultation with CM.
• When is it developed?
– prior to Gate 0 and evolves after that,
– remains relevant until project closure,
– may be updated as Project progresses, and
– presented in conjunction with Business Case/Proposal and JCNS.
938
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 470 ‐
PES – Key Points
• What is it’s purpose?
– high‐level, tailored statement of strategy alternatives and recommended implementation strategy approach for realising capability need;
– supports IC decision making at Gates 0, 1 and 2;
– sets broad direction for the entire asset lifecycle:
• whole Project and Product;
• Total Costs of Ownership (TCO); and
• all FIC.
– …
939
PES Development
• What is it’s purpose?
– …
– document key Project factors, Risks and Drivers,
– proposes ‘information gathering’ activities (risk reduction and requirements setting activities),
– common reference for FIC providers and FIC integration.
– identifies necessary resources and schedule, and
– shapes subordinate plans including Integrated Project Management Plan (IPMP).
940
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 471 ‐
PES: Considerations
• To develop the PES you need to address ALL factors that affect implementation including:
– Operational Need.
– Technical requirements, constraints.
– Commercial factors including industry structure, required competition (for VFM), company capabilities.
– Financial arrangements.
– Project Management possibilities and constraints:
• types of PM approaches,
• scheduling and resourcing needs, and
• resourcing.
– Transition into Service.
– Support/Sustainment factors.
941
PES: Considerations
• There is no template for your Project.
• You need to be able to propose and argue the best BALANCEacross these considerations to realise the capability need.
• PES document structure will change but the elements of a business argument essentially remain the same.
• The technical complexity of Defence projects requires that IPM, Project Sponsor must understand the technical factors.
942
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 472 ‐
PES: Understand the Solution Context
For the ESM case study need to understand:
• Operational factors, for example:
– Operational imperative to deliver capability.
– Availability of platforms.
• Technical factors, for example:
– Solution will be based on a number of subsystems.
– Technical risks.
• Support factors, for example :
– Sovereign support capability.
– Opportunities for efficiencies.
• Commercial and Project Management factors, for example :
– Ability to leverage off other acquisition activities.
943
PES: ESM Context
• Electronic Support Measures system is based on integration of a number of sub‐systems.
• Installation on different classes of ships.
• Some of the sub‐systems are still under development.
• Sub‐systems developed by different vendors.
944
Sources: https://images.defence.gov.au/https://www.harris.com/solution/es‐3701s‐precision‐radar‐esm‐system
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 473 ‐
Case Study: ESM Risks and Drivers
• Technical:
– Installation/Platform Integration complexity.
– Different parts of the system being developed to different timelines.
– Structural and other issues unknown (antenna mast).
– Combat system integration (software and hardware issues).
945
Case Study: ESM Risks and Drivers
• Project Management:
– Upgrade cycle that was set by Anti‐Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) Program Risks identified included:
• Two programs (ASMD and ES) out of sync.
• Time pressures.
• Overseas design and production of significant part of system with local platform installation.
946
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 474 ‐
Case Study: ESM Risks and Drivers
• Commercial:
– Multiple interdependent vendors (Saab, Excelis, BAE, CEA).
– Need for continuity of vendor workforce through the different phases of the Defence approval lifecycle.
– Price and Schedule unclear.
• T&E:
– Opportunity: ANZAC (HMAS Perth) at Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) for missile firings.
947
Case Study: Risk Reduction Activities
Targeted and funded risk reduction activities:
• Technical:
– Measurement of RF Environment:
• measurements:
– signal levels/ field density of the top‐side of the vessel (top of ANZAC mast)
– ‘live’ trials (PMRF) feasibility eg wrt other emitters
• understand the ship’s RF environment
– secure key data for design and placement of ES
–define filtering, blanking, shielding (Mexican hat)
– …
948
Sources: https://images.defence.gov.au/
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 475 ‐
Case Study: Risk Reduction Activities
Targeted and funded risk reduction activities:
• Technical:
– …
– Ship Survey:
• Practical installation eg measuring cable runs.
• Installation of system elements below deck eg will the equipment racks fit in the spaces provided.
• Use of pre‐existing ‘services’ eg power.
• Will it fit in space and weight provisions (budget).
949
Excelis/Harris
Ref: Harris.com
Case Study: Risk Reduction Activities
Targeted and funded risk reduction activities:
• Technical:
– …
– Requirements validation workshops:
• Confirming feasibility of FPS requirements.
• Each vendor reviewed FPS.
• Discussed and resolved issues eg interfaces and integration of systems.
950
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 476 ‐
Case Study: Risk Reduction Activities
Targeted and funded risk reduction activities:
• Technical:
– …
– Product Maturity / System development timeline.
• Product vendors continually upgrade their product lines:
–Saab upgrading 9LV combat system.
–Excelis upgrading ES system product.
• Vendors contracted to work together to understand implications of each development.
• System software and hardware upgrades analysed to ensure synchronized outcomes at the right time.
951
Combat System upgrade ES System product development
Radar systems evolution
Case Study: Risk Reduction Activities
Targeted and funded risk reduction activities:
• Technical:
– Combat System Integration workshops.
• Key vendors (Saab, Excelis, CEA) exchanged hardware and software models of their systems to develop an integrated solution.
952
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 477 ‐
Case Study: Risk Reduction Activities
Targeted and funded risk reduction activities:
• Implementation:
953
…
Docking for ASMD upgrade
1QTR 2010 3QTR 2010 2QTR 2012 3QTR 2017
Delivery of ES Systems
…
eg
2011 2017
Case Study: Risk Reduction Activities
Targeted and funded risk reduction activities:
• Implementation:
– Factors:
• 10 systems: 8 platforms and two ashore.
• ES systems delivered one at a time.
• Installation on platform took a matter of weeks.
– Opportunities:
• Remove and install equipment.
• Fitted For But Not With (FFBNW).
• System Integration Lab.
• Continuity of Workforce.
954
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 478 ‐
Case Study: Risk Reduction Activities
Targeted and funded risk reduction activities:
• Implementation:
955
• FFBNW: • Remove equipment• Run cables• Prepare installation spaces
…
Docking for ASMD upgrade
1QTR 2010 3QTR 2010 2QTR 2012 3QTR 2017
Delivery of ES Systems
…
eg
2011 2017
Case Study: Risk Reduction Activities
Targeted and funded risk reduction activities:
• Implementation:
956
Establish System Integration Lab (SIL)
…
Docking for ASMD upgrade
1QTR 2010 3QTR 2010 2QTR 2012 3QTR 2017
Delivery of ES Systems
…
eg
2011 2017
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 479 ‐
Case Study: Risk Reduction Activities
Targeted and funded risk reduction activities:
• Implementation:
957
Establish System Integration Lab (SIL)• system integration and interface ‘proving’ prior to installation• system software development (test new releases of hardware and software) • operator and command team training
…
Docking for ASMD upgrade
1QTR 2010 3QTR 2010 2QTR 2012 3QTR 2017
Delivery of ES Systems
…
eg
2011 2017
Key Discussion Areas for PES
1. Project Summary: background including relationship between this proposal and other Projects or Products.
2. Project Factors: key risks, drivers and other factors that will shape the PES.
3. Approval Strategy: which Gates and Government approvals.
4. Asset Management Strategy: describes the Acquisition and Sustainment Strategy alternatives and rationale for the preferred Strategy.
5. Governance and Management Strategy: Single or Multi‐layer Governance, PMO (Program/Project) Structure
6. Commercial Strategy: Business Intelligence, Relationships, Strategic Agreements, Contractual Provisions.
958
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 480 ‐
1. Project Summary
• Relationships with other Programs, Projects and Products.
• Life of Type: How long capability is expected to be in service
• High‐level resourcing and years of expenditure.
• Key schedule dates:
– Approval schedule re Gates
– Introduction into service timeline (IOC and FOC).
• Governance.
959
2. Project Factors
• Project Risk and Drivers profile determined using Smart Buyer Decision Making Framework and categories.
• PES includes potential actions in response to key risk or drivers.
960
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 481 ‐
Examples: Factors that Shape Strategies
• Factors that shape strategies include but are not limited to:
– Risk and Driver profile (including extent of risk mitigation activities).
– Budget limitations: risk reduction, acquisition, support.
– Industry structure and competitive environment.
– Workforce: Defence and Industry.
– Time constraints: such as Planned Withdrawal Date (PWD) of current assets.
– Costs of tendering for industry and Commonwealth.
– Extant source selection outcomes for similar systems.
– Sovereign capability requirements.
961
3. Approvals Strategy
• Risk‐Based Approach to Defence Investment Approvals Framework considers four categories of risk:
– Finance.
– Requirements.
– Technical and Integration.
– Industrial and Strategic.
• No significant risks or decisions required from Government:
– can proceed directly from Gate 0 to Gate 2; and
– can be approved by Minister for Defence and Minister for Finance, rather than going to NSC.
962
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 482 ‐
Case Study: Approvals Strategy
• Common ES system for RAN – AWD, ANZAC, LHD, Subs.
• Under the CLC, SEA 1448 Phase 4A could have potentially had approval at Gate 0 to seek next approval to acquire at Gate 2.
• Government approval documented in Project Direction.
963
4 ‐ 6. Asset, Gov and Mgt, Com Strategies
• Assessment of advantages and disadvantages for each of the strategy alternatives considered.
964
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 483 ‐
Case Study: ESM Procurement method
• Procurement method:
– Options: open or limited tender.
– Method adopted:
• AWD Project – Open Tender (5 tender responses) .
• SEA 1448: Limited tender:
– leveraging AWD competition outcomes; and
–differences in requirements such as interfaces, combat system, racks.
965
Case Study: ESM Approach to Market
• Approach to Market:
– Options: RFT, RFP, RFQ, competitive evaluation, other iterative engagement process.
– Approach adopted:
• AWD used RFT.
• SEA 1448 limited RFT:
–previously used ITR, RFQ; and
–had to adjust based on related procurement.
966
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 484 ‐
Case Study: ESM Project Delivery Model
• Project Delivery Model:
– Prime System Integrator (PSI): Commonwealth (MEW SPO):
• Commonwealth acquires systems.
• Systems provided as GFE to ship installer.
• Test in System Integration Lab before installation.
– System and Installation Contractors: CoA contracted:
• Prime contract with Excelis who in turn subcontracted, JEDS, SWRI, Ultra Electronics.
• SAAB and BAE for system design and installation.
• CSC for simulators for the LBTS.
• CEA for radar blanking interfaces.
967
Case Study: Contracting Template
• Contracting Template:
– ASDEFCON Complex:
• plus some elements (including DIDs) from Strategic Materiel.
– No FMS needed in this case – commercial buy OK.
968
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 485 ‐
4. Sustainment Strategy
• Examples of Sustainment Strategies include but are not limited to:
– In‐house/Outsource Hybrid.
– Maximum Outsourced Support Solution.
• Areas of consideration for Sustainment Strategies include but are not limited to:
– cost and ability to support preparedness requirements;
– necessary engineering support;
– different levels of maintenance;
– supply support (including stores and distribution); and
– training support.
969
ESM Sustainment Approach
• Prime support ‘agent’: JEDS for all subsystem elements of the ES system.
• SAAB in‐service support contractor for combat system elements of the ES system.
• Integration facility to support system development.
• Training: Train the trainer—that is, vendors trained Navy to deliver operator and maintainer training.
• Sparing and Maintenance: Contractor Managed Commonwealth Asset (CMCA) (eg warehouse) responsibility assigned to JEDS for sparing, repair and helpdesk etc.
970
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 486 ‐
6. Project Management Strategy
• Project Management as integrating discipline address all FIC:
– Delivery.
– Coordination.
– Integration
• Overview provides basis for IPMP and IMS.
• Key information gathering activities (including risk mitigation activities).
• Resources (including enabling budget for delivery groups).
• Governance bodies, roles and responsibilities.
• Schedule.
971
Case Study: ESM Project Management
Factors to be considered:
• System development and production vendors and locations.
• Access to platforms for integration.
• Multiple stakeholder engagement:
– several system vendors;
– several installation‐related vendors; and
– several FIC providers and enablers.
• IPMT composition eg structural, RF, SW integration expertise.
• Significant Risk Reduction activities.
972
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 487 ‐
Case Study: ESM Project Management
• Navy to:
– provide x platforms on an agreed timeline;
– provide y crews for training; and
– other sea assets for test program eg other vessels to test ES system performance.
• DSTG to:
– provide advice on the maturity of the technology by a certain date; and
– help develop the test program and analyse the results.
• Airforce to provide test assets for sea trials.
• Joint Organisations (JEWOSU) to provide test libraries and operational libraries.
973
Case Study: Project Management974
Subsystem 1
Subsystem 2
Subsystem 3Integration
T&E
ES
M S
yste
m
Platform 1
Platform 2
Platform 3
Platform Preparation, Installation and Integration
System Development and Production
Platform 10
…
Ship Set 2
Ship Set 3
Ship Set 10
…
Support System
Other FIC FIC
/ SS
CC
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 488 ‐
Integrated Project Management Plan (IPMP)
975
IPMP – Key Points
• Describes in more detail how PES will be implemented
• Demonstrates that:
– strategy can be implemented within budget, schedule, quality and risk; and
– risks are manageable and acceptable.
• All FIC activities, deliverables and dependencies.
• Common reference for stakeholders (including IPT):
– Sponsor.
– FIC Providers.
– CASG Line Management.
– Project Office staff.
976
Source: IPMP Guide
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 489 ‐
IPMP – Key Points
• Basis for subordinate plans such as Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP).
• Basis for each FIC provider to report progress.
• Activities, roles and responsibilities, resources needed to deliver strategy.
• Includes the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS):
– major management control/decision points (i.e. stages);
– major products and outcomes for each stage;
– activities and resources required; and
– sequencing and dependencies.
977
Source: IPMP Guide
IPMP – Subordinate Plans
Subordinate plans include:
• Project Management Planning Guidance.
• Engineering Planning Guidance (for Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP).
• Sustainment Planning Guidance.
• Commercial Planning Guidance.
• Acceptance into Operational Service Planning Guidance.
• Project Office Management.
978
Source: IPMP Guide
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 490 ‐
ESM example: Engineering Planning
• Systems Engineering Plan:
– Requirements: different requirements across different classes needed to be defined and reconciled.
– Analysis planning: technical issues across different engineering disciplines (such as physicalmounting of antenna on mast, radio frequency (RF) interference with other emitters).
– Integration planning:
• ES system integration.
• Shipboard integration (such as power, combat system).
• Staged to fit platform availability .
979
IPMP: ESM Roles and Responsibilities
• Navy:
– Provide x platforms on an agreed timeline.
– Provide y crews for training.
– Other sea assets for test program (such as other vessels to test ES system performance).
• DSTG:
– Provide advice on technology by a certain date.
– Help develop the test program and analyse the results
• Airforce to provide test assets for sea trials.
• Joint Organisations (JEWOSU): provide test libraries and operational libraries.
• Regulators including seaworthiness, training.
980
Source: IPMP Guide
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 491 ‐
Annex A: PM Planning Guidance
A.1 Project GovernanceA.2 Project AssuranceA.3 Stage / Detailed PlanningA.4 Project Work Breakdown StructureA.5 Integrated Master ScheduleA.6 Integrated Project TeamA.7 Battle RhythmA.8 Risk and Contingency ManagementA.9 Issue ManagementA.10 Stakeholder ManagementA.11 Transition to SustainmentA.12 Acceptance into Operational Service A.13 Project Closure
981
Source: IPMP Guide
Capability Definition Documents (CDD)
982
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 492 ‐
CLC Artefacts and Relationships983
DWP
FOE FJOC
AMS
AJOC
What and Why How
PGPA Act
CPRs
Force Design
CPN
JCN
IIP
DIP
DPPM
Raised within Force Design as Program-level direction
PIOCProgram Strategy
PESJCNS
Smart Buyer
OCD
FPS
IPMPProjectWBS
IMS
Tender and Contract Documents
Selected ASDEFCON Suite
DPG
JCFConcepts
Strategic Guidance
Proposal = Sponsor’s Paper+JCNS+PES
Portfolio
Program
Project
Capability Definition Documents (CDD)
• The Operational Concept Document (OCD) is the capstone document that captures the scope of, and intent for, the proposed Capability.
• The Function and Performance Specification (FPS) specifies the formal requirements for the Materiel System and provides the basis for design and qualification testing of the system.
• The T&E Master Plan (TEMP) considers T&E requirements within the life‐cycle management of the Capability System. The TEMP is elaborated further by the contractor in the V&V Plan.
984
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 493 ‐
CLC Needs and Requirements Hierarchy985
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
OCD
FPS
TEMP
IPMP
JCNS 1
Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)
IPMP
JCNS 2
IPMP
JCNS 3
Project 2 Product 3
OCD
FPS
TEMP
OCD
FPS
TEMP
Program Level Supports Sufficiency Goal 986
Defence Strategic and Operational GuidanceDWP, DPG, AMS, AJOC, FJOC
Program 1
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Program Strategy
Capability Program Narrative (CPN)
Project 1
OCD
FPS
TEMP
IPMP
Requirements development practices using Program-level needs and requirements information supports FPR and CLC expectations of sufficiency through use of common references and re-use.
JCNS 1
Joint Capability Narrative (JCN)
IPMP
JCNS 2
IPMP
JCNS 3
Project 2 Product 3
OCD
FPS
TEMP
OCD
FPS
TEMP
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 494 ‐
Needs and Requirements Re‐use987
FPS
TEMP
OCD
Needs and Requirements Re-use
Program Integrating Operational Concept (PIOC)
Sections 1-4
Sections 5-6
Re-use
Re-use
Re-use
Needs and Requirements developed specifically for Project
Transformation of Operational Needs988
Transformationdocumented in OCD
Specification documented in FPSSpecifications
Ope
ratio
nal
Nee
ds
Trans
form
atio
n
Warfighter Domain
Well Understood
by Warfighters
ImplementationDomain
Well Understood by Acquirers & Developers
OCDUnderstood by
all partiesT&E expectations documented in TCDTEMP
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 495 ‐
OCD, FPS, TEMP Relationship989
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
OCD
FPS
DraftTEMP
Prepared by Stakeholders (CM)
OCD, FPS, TEMP Relationship990
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
OCD
FPS
Augmented/prepared by Delivery Group (CASG, CIOG)
(+)
TEMP
DraftTEMP
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 496 ‐
OCD, FPS, TEMP Relationship991
1 2 n
0
...
1.1 1.2 1.n...
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.n...
n.1 n.2 n.n...
n.n.1 n.n.2 n.n.n...
Needs Hierarchy Measures Hierarchy
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
CI
COI
MOE
Level 4 MOP
Level n TPM
….
….
Mission
OCD
FPS
SSS
SS
TEMP
V&VPlan
Prepared by Contractor/Sub-contractors
DraftTEMP
OCD
• Communicates the solution‐independent needs of the warfighter to all stakeholders, including acquirers and developers, in a language that all parties can understand.
• Describes capability from an operational perspective.
• Facilitates an understanding of the overall system goals for the materiel system.
• Details missions and scenarios associated with operations and support of the Materiel System.
• Provides a reference for determining ‘fitness for purpose’.
• Provides a justifiable basis for the formal requirements for the Materiel System, as captured in the FPS.
• Details the FIC needed to realise the Capability System in operational service.
992
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 497 ‐
OCD Template993
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0.1 Identification and Justification
0.2 Key Boundary Issues
0.3 Project Schedule
0.4 Capability System Mission and Critical Operational Issues
0.5 Existing Capability Description
0.6 Materiel System Solution‐class
0.7 Fundamental Inputs to Capability
1. SCOPE
1.1 Capability Identification
1.2 Document Purpose & Intended Audience
1.3 Justification for Capability
1.4 System Boundary and Acquisition Assumptions
1.5 Key Timeframes for Capability
2. DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
2.1 Referenced Documents
2.2 Glossary of Terms
3. SOLUTION‐INDEPENDENT CAPABILITY NEEDS
3.1 Mission Overview
3.2 Operational Policies and Doctrine
3.3 Capability System End‐user classes
3.4 Summary of Operational Scenarios
3.4.1 Common Scenario Attributes
3.4.2 Scenario 1 ‐ Scenario Title
3.4.2.1 Summary of Situation
3.4.2.2 Summary of Military Response
3.4.2.3 Summary of Operational Needs
3.4.3 Scenario 2 ‐ Scenario Title
3.4.4 Scenario N ‐ Scenario Title
3.5 Summary of Consolidated Operational Needs
3.6 Solution‐class‐Independent Constraints
OCD Template994
4. EXISTING SYSTEM
4.1 Existing System Overview
4.2 Existing System Operational Capability Comparison
4.3 Existing System Internal Shortcomings
4.4 Existing System Planned or Active Upgrades
4.5 Existing System Internal User classes
4.6 Existing System Internal Functionality
4.7 Summary of Existing System Internal Scenarios
5. SYSTEM SOLUTION‐CLASS DESCRIPTION
5.1 Materiel System Description
5.2 Mission System Architecture
5.3 Materiel System Interfaces
5.4 Materiel System Internal User classes
5.5 Materiel System Functionality and Performance
5.6 Materiel System Support Concepts and Requirements
5.7 Materiel System Constraints
5.8 Materiel System Evolution and Technology Forecast
5.9 Summary of Materiel System Internal Scenarios
5.9.1 Internal Scenario 1 ‐ ‘A Typical Day’s Operation’
5.9.1.1 Summary of Situation
5.9.1.2 Summary of Process Flows and Interactions
5.9.1.3 Summary of Materiel System Requirements
5.9.2 Internal Scenario 2 ‐ Scenario Title
5.9.3 Internal Scenario N ‐ Scenario Title
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 498 ‐
OCD Template995
6. CONSOLIDATED FUNDAMENTAL INPUTS TO CAPABILITY (FIC) REQUIREMENTS
6.1 FIC Related Guidance
6.2 Major Systems FIC Element Requirements
6.3 Facilities and Training Areas FIC Element Requirements
6.4 Support FIC Element Requirements
6.5 Supplies FIC Element Requirements
6.6 Organisation FIC Element Requirements
6.7 Command and Management FIC Element Requirements
6.8 Personnel FIC Element Requirements
6.9 Collective Training FIC Element Requirements
6.10 Industry FIC Elements Requirements
6.11 FIC Impacts on Supporting Capabilities
6.12 Summary of Overall FIC Responsibilities
6.13 FIC Development Forecast
A. ANNEX A ‐ EXTERNAL SCENARIOS
A.1 Capability System Operational Scenarios
A.1.1 Common Scenario Attributes
A.1.2 Scenario 1 ‐ Scenario Title
A.1.2.1 Scenario 1 ‐ Situation Requiring ADF Action
A.1.2.2 Scenario 1 ‐Military Response
A.1.2.3 Scenario 1 ‐ Operational Needs
A.1.3 Operational Scenario 2 ‐ Scenario Title
A.1.4 Operational Scenario N ‐ Scenario Title
A.2 Consolidated Operational Needs
OCD Template996
B. ANNEX B ‐ EXISTING SYSTEM INTERNAL SCENARIOS
B.1 Internal Scenario 1 ‐ ‘A Typical Day’s Operation’
B.1.1 Internal Scenario 1 ‐ Situation
B.1.2 Internal Scenario 1 ‐ Details of Process Flows and Interactions
B.1.3 Internal Scenario 1 ‐ Identified Shortcomings
B.2 Internal Scenario 2 ‐ Scenario Title
B.3 Internal Scenario N ‐ Scenario Title
C. ANNEX C ‐MATERIEL SYSTEM INTERNAL SCENARIOS
C.1 Internal Scenario 1 ‐ ‘A Typical Day’s Operation’
C.1.1 Internal Scenario 1 ‐ Situation
C.1.2 Internal Scenario 1 ‐ Details of Process Flows and Interactions
C.1.3 Internal Scenario 1 ‐Materiel System Requirements
C.2 Internal Scenario 2 ‐ Scenario Title
C.3 Internal Scenario N ‐ Scenario Title
C.4 Consolidated Materiel System Functionality and Performance
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 499 ‐
FPS
• Specifies formal requirements for the Materiel System.
• Provides the basis for design and qualification testing of the system.
• Provides the vehicle for the capture of formal, verifiable and unambiguous requirements, ‘distilled’ from the OCD.
• Is intentionally written using formal language, with all requirements in the FPS traceable to needs in the OCD.
• Addresses the total Materiel System, but will later be developed into a Mission System specification and a Support System specification, usually by a prime contractor or prime system integrator.
• FPS requirements may also need to be decomposed and/or allocated for the purposes of individual acquisition contracts.
997
FPS Template998
Section 1 – Scope
1.1 – Identification
1.2 – System Overview
1.3 – Document Overview
Section 2 – Applicable Documents
Section 3 – Requirements
3.1 – Missions
3.2 – System Boundaries and Context
3.3 – Required States and Modes
3.4 – System Capability Requirements
3.5 – Availability
3.6 – Reliability
3.7 – Maintainability
3.8 – Deployability
3.9 – Transportability
3.10 – Environmental Conditions
3.11 – Electromagnetic Radiation
3.12 – Architecture, Growth and Expansion
3.13 – Safety
3.14 – Environmental Impact Requirements
3.15 – Useability and Human Factors
3.16 – Security and Privacy
3.17 – Adaptation Requirements
3.18 – Design and ImplementationConstraints
3.19 – System Interface Requirements
Section 4 – Precedence and Criticality of Requirements
Section 5 – Verification
Section 6 – Requirements Traceability
Section 7 – Notes
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 500 ‐
TEMP Template999
SECTION I - SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 1.1 Mission Description 1.1.1 Operational Need 1.1.2 Mission(s) to be Accomplished
1.1.3 Specified Environment 1.2 System Description 1.2.1 Key Functions 1.2.2 System Architecture and Interfaces
1.2.3 Unique System Characteristics 1.3 Critical Operational Issues (COI) 1.4 System Threat Assessment 1.5 Required Operational Characteristics
1.5.1 Key Operational Effectiveness Characteristics 1.5.2 Key Suitability Characteristics 1.5.3 Thresholds
1.6 Key Technical Characteristics
SECTION II - PROGRAM SUMMARY 2.1 Project Phases and V&V Phases 2.2 Stakeholder Responsibilities with respect to V&V 2.3 Integrated Schedule 2.4 Funding Aspects of the V&V process
SECTION III – DT&E OUTLINE 3.1 Critical DT&E Issues 3.2 DT&E to Date 3.3 Future DT&E
3.3.1 DT&E Phases and Objectives 3.3.2 DT&E Activities and Scope of Testing 3.3.3 Critical DT&E Resource Requirements 3.3.4 Constraints and Limitations associated with D&TE
SECTION IV – VALIDATION OUTLINE 4.1 Critical Validation Issues 4.2 Validation to Date 4.3 Future Validation
4.3.1 Validation Phases and Objectives 4.3.2 Validation Activities and Scope of Testing 4.3.3 Critical Validation Resource Requirements 4.3.4 Constraints and Limitations associated with Validation
SECTION V – ACCEPTANCE V&V (AV&V) OUTLINE 5.1 Critical AV&V Issues 5.2 AV&V to Date 5.3 Future AV&V
5.3.1 AV&V Phases and Objectives 5.3.2 AV&V Activities and Scope of Testing 5.3.3 Critical AV&V Resource Requirements 5.3.4 Constraints and Limitations associated with AV&V
SECTION VI - SAFETY 6.1 Assessment of Safety 6.2 Critical Safety Issues 6.3 Safety Management for V&V activities
SECTION VII - SPECIALTY TEST PROGRAMS 7.1 Specialty Test Program Requirements 7.2 Specialty Test Program - Critical Issues
SECTION VIII – SUPPORTABILITY TEST PLAN
SECTION IX – TRANSITION PLAN
SECTION X – SPECIAL RESOURCE SUMMARY 10.1 Schedule of V&V activities with special resource requirements 10.2 Special Resource Requirements for V&V activities
SECTION XI – HUMAN RESOURCE LIMITATIONS
CDD Guide v2.2
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 501 ‐
Develop OCD, FPS, and TEMP1001
CDD Guide v2.0 OCD Section
(3)(1 & 3) (4) (5/6)
Develop OCD, FPS, and TEMP1002
What dowe need?
What dowe have?
What canwe do?
Is everythingstill OK?
1 to 3OCD Section 4 5/6
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 502 ‐
Define CS Context and Background1003
1.1 (1.1)
Identify Capability
1.2 (1.2)
Identify Stakeholders
1.3 (1.3)
Identify Capability rationale
1.4 (1.4)
Identify Capability System
boundaries (solution-class-independent)
1.5 (1.5)
Identify key timeframes for
Capability System
1.6 (3.1)
Identify primary and secondary
mission objectives
1.7 (3.2)
Identify operational policies and
doctrine
1.8 (2.1/2.2)
Establish and maintain Glossary and list of Referenced Documents
Define Capability System Needs1004
2.1 (3.3)
Identify all End-user classes
2.2 (3.4)
Select minimal set of
operational scenarios
2.3 (3.4)
Describe future situation requiring ADF
action
2.4 (3.4)
Describe military
response / CONOPS
2.5 (Annex A)
Capture and model
business / operational
processes of End-user
2.6 (3.4)
Extract operational
needs for each business
process step
2.7 (3.5)
Consolidate operational
needs
2.8 (3.6)
Define Capability System
constraints (solution-class-independent)
2.9 (3.5/3.6)
Prioritise Capability
System needs (solution-class-independent)
for each Operational Scenario and End-user class
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 503 ‐
Describe Existing System Capability1005
3.1 (4.1)
Provide overview of
Existing System
3.2 (4.1)
Identify Existing
System End-user classes
3.3 (4.2/1.3)
Identify capability gap
3.4 (4.3)
Identify Existing System
shortcomings
3.5 (4.4)
Identify planned
upgrades
3.6 (4.5)
Identify Existing System
Internal User classes
3.7 (4.6)
Identify Existing System internal
functionality
3.8 (4.7)
Describe Existing System internal
scenarios
internal scenarios not required
Define Materiel System Requirements1006
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 504 ‐
Selected Important Activities
1.2 Identify Stakeholders1008
1.1 (1.1)
Identify Capability
1.2 (1.2)
Identify Stakeholders
1.3 (1.3)
Identify Capability rationale
1.4 (1.4)
Identify Capability System
boundaries (solution-class-independent)
1.5 (1.5)
Identify key timeframes for
Capability System
1.6 (3.1)
Identify primary and secondary
mission objectives
1.7 (3.2)
Identify operational policies and
doctrine
1.8 (2.1/2.2)
Establish and maintain Glossary and list of Referenced Documents
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 505 ‐
1.2 Identify Stakeholders
• Strictly speaking a stakeholder could be defined as someone who has a stake in the project—that is, someone who is affected by the system in some way, or can affect the system in some way.
• More usefully, a stakeholder is defined as someone (or some organisation) who has a right to influence the outcome of the system, rather than someone who is simply affected by the system.
1009
1.2 Identify Stakeholders
• Even our better definition does not assist us to identify our stakeholders automatically. If a stakeholder has a right to influence the requirements, we need to identify what or who gives them that right. Even then, we need to examine candidate stakeholders more carefully. For example:
– Do all stakeholders have equal rights?
– If not, who decides which have higher priority?
– What do we do if stakeholders do not agree?
– If a group of people is considered to be a stakeholder, do they all have a voice, or is a spokesperson to be elected/nominated?
– How do we discount requirements collected from a stakeholder who is clearly confused and whose contributions are unenlightening?
1010
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 506 ‐
1.4 Identify CS Boundaries1011
1.1 (1.1)
Identify Capability
1.2 (1.2)
Identify Stakeholders
1.3 (1.3)
Identify Capability rationale
1.4 (1.4)
Identify Capability System
boundaries (solution-class-independent)
1.5 (1.5)
Identify key timeframes for
Capability System
1.6 (3.1)
Identify primary and secondary
mission objectives
1.7 (3.2)
Identify operational policies and
doctrine
1.8 (2.1/2.2)
Establish and maintain Glossary and list of Referenced Documents
Context Diagrams
• To assist with bounding the system, a tool called a context diagrammay be used to illustrate the related systems, relevant regulatory environments, stakeholders, external systems, interfaces, and so on.
• Different systems may of course have significantly different context diagrams.
1012
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 507 ‐
This is NOT a Context Diagram1013
SystemUnder
Consideration
How does this system fit in with the rest of the world?
Context Diagram1014
Power entrypanel
Powerpoint
Power DistributionSubsystem
HouseSystem
AlarmSystem
PSTN
Resident
Monitoring Agent Monitoringsystem
Power Grid
Intruder
Police Neighbours
Environment
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 508 ‐
Consider External Interfaces
• Interfaces with existing or future external systems must also be defined as these will place considerable requirements on the system under development.
• While these external systems are not directly related to the system, the success of the fielded system is often determined by its ability to interface to its external environment.
• For example, while it is possible to build a perfectly functional aircraft without consideration of air traffic control regulations, the aircraft would be useless because it would not be allowed to operate.
1015
Consider External Interfaces
• The definition of an interface requires considerably more detail than simply identifying and naming the interface. Broadly there are three main steps in interface definition:– Interface Description. The interface is given a name, short title and identifier. The nature of the interface is described in terms of who, what, when, where, why, how.
– Interface Impact Analysis. The interface is analysed in terms of its impact on the system. In particular, any constraints imposed by the system are identified. A risk analysis is conducted to determine the impact of the interface on the operation and design of the system.
– Interface Control Analysis. Each external interface must be analysed to determine the extent to which it can be controlled so that designers and operators of the system are not at the mercy of its external interfaces.
1016
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 509 ‐
External Interfaces1017
Power entrypanel
Powerpoint
Power DistributionSubsystem
HouseSystem
AlarmSystem
PSTN
Resident
Monitoring Agent Monitoringsystem
Power Grid
Intruder
Police Neighbours
Environment
E01
E02
E03E04
E05/6
E07
E08
E09
E10
Consider External Interfaces
• Once it has been defined, each interface has to be documented and managed. Interface management is very important because systems (and the projects that deliver them, for that matter) often live or die by their interfaces. This is even more evident in modern systems where the sheer number of interfaces and their complexity are a significant source of risk in system development.
• The definition of a system’s external interfaces assists in defining the system’s scope—interface management is therefore an important part of the scope management activities undertaken by the project manager. It is highly likely that the scope of a system would be affected should there be a change to any aspect of a system’s external interfaces throughout its development.
1018
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 510 ‐
1.6 Identify Mission Objectives1019
1.1 (1.1)
Identify Capability
1.2 (1.2)
Identify Stakeholders
1.3 (1.3)
Identify Capability rationale
1.4 (1.4)
Identify Capability System
boundaries (solution-class-independent)
1.5 (1.5)
Identify key timeframes for
Capability System
1.6 (3.1)
Identify primary and secondary
mission objectives
1.7 (3.2)
Identify operational policies and
doctrine
1.8 (2.1/2.2)
Establish and maintain Glossary and list of Referenced Documents
Identify Mission (and Operational Needs)
• Because the user has most probably stated the mission for the system in a fairly general way, every project should begin with a concise statement of the mission, elaborated by statements of the system‐level needs.
• The mission statement is then expanded and qualified by short declarative statements of the system operational needs (best expressed in a functional hierarchy).
• Level 1 Operational Needs are normally relatively broad, each of which spawns a number of more‐specific Level 2 Operational Needs, each of which spawns a number of more‐specific Level 3 Operational Needs, and so on.
• Level 3 or 4 is sufficient for the OCD—lower level needs spawn system requirements in the FPS (and subsequently in the SS and then the SSS).
1020
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 511 ‐
Secondary Missions
• Secondary mission objectives can be considered on the assumption that the Capability System will eventually be in place. These secondary objectives take advantage of the existence of this Capability System, given that, without it, they would have to be satisfied in another way.
• For example, an air‐to‐air refueller platform may have a secondary mission objective as a communications relay. If the refuelling role did not exist, the communications‐relay capability may be achieved by some other means, such as a suitably equipped unmanned aerial vehicle.
1021
1.7 Identify Policies and Doctrine1022
1.1 (1.1)
Identify Capability
1.2 (1.2)
Identify Stakeholders
1.3 (1.3)
Identify Capability rationale
1.4 (1.4)
Identify Capability System
boundaries (solution-class-independent)
1.5 (1.5)
Identify key timeframes for
Capability System
1.6 (3.1)
Identify primary and secondary
mission objectives
1.7 (3.2)
Identify operational policies and
doctrine
1.8 (2.1/2.2)
Establish and maintain Glossary and list of Referenced Documents
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 512 ‐
1.7 Identify Policies and Doctrine
• Identify operational and policies such as:
– international treaties;
– agreements regarding operation in international waters or airspace;
– compliance with environmental, heritage, and land rights legislation;
– compliance with spectrum management regulations;
– doctrine relating to the primary and secondary missions; and
– interoperability requirements, which may be considered here, but are usually considered as part of the derivation of the operational needs and solution‐class requirements.
• We discuss these in more detail later as enterprise constraints.
1023
18 Glossary and Referenced Documents1024
1.1 (1.1)
Identify Capability
1.2 (1.2)
Identify Stakeholders
1.3 (1.3)
Identify Capability rationale
1.4 (1.4)
Identify Capability System
boundaries (solution-class-independent)
1.5 (1.5)
Identify key timeframes for
Capability System
1.6 (3.1)
Identify primary and secondary
mission objectives
1.7 (3.2)
Identify operational policies and
doctrine
1.8 (2.1/2.2)
Establish and maintain Glossary and list of Referenced Documents
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 513 ‐
1.8 Glossary and Referenced Documents
• The aim of this step is to initially create and then maintain a glossary of defined terms and acronyms, and a list of referenced documents. The set of terms used in each of the OCD, FPS and TEMP may not always overlap, but wherever common terms and documents are referenced, the terminology and references should be the same.
• A project‐wide integrated dictionary should be established, consisting of both a glossary of terms and acronyms and a list of referenced documents. A filtered set of this dictionary should be incorporated into the OCD and other CDD, as applicable.
1025
Define Capability System Needs1026
2.1 (3.3)
Identify all End-user classes
2.2 (3.4)
Select minimal set of
operational scenarios
2.3 (3.4)
Describe future situation requiring ADF
action
2.4 (3.4)
Describe military
response / CONOPS
2.5 (Annex A)
Capture and model
business / operational
processes of End-user
2.6 (3.4)
Extract operational
needs for each business
process step
2.7 (3.5)
Consolidate operational
needs
2.8 (3.6)
Define Capability System
constraints (solution-class-independent)
2.9 (3.5/3.6)
Prioritise Capability
System needs (solution-class-independent)
for each Operational Scenario and End-user class
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 514 ‐
2.1 Identify all End‐user Classes1027
2.1 (3.3)
Identify all End-user classes
2.2 (3.4)
Select minimal set of
operational scenarios
2.3 (3.4)
Describe future situation requiring ADF
action
2.4 (3.4)
Describe military
response / CONOPS
2.5 (Annex A)
Capture and model
business / operational
processes of End-user
2.6 (3.4)
Extract operational
needs for each business
process step
2.7 (3.5)
Consolidate operational
needs
2.8 (3.6)
Define Capability System
constraints (solution-class-independent)
2.9 (3.5/3.6)
Prioritise Capability
System needs (solution-class-independent)
for each Operational Scenario and End-user class
2.1 Identify all End‐user Classes
• The aim of this step is to identify all the End‐user classes (End‐users that has a common set of needs) in conjunction with establishing the scenarios for the Capability System.
• This step is typically iterative because the identification of an End‐user class may require additional operational scenarios (next step) in which they appear, and vice‐versa.
• The set of End‐user classes should identify the people who are external to the 'black box' Capability System and who are the End‐users of the system products or capabilities.
• The roles and needs of people inside the Capability System (Internal Users), such as operators, maintainers and trainers, is addressed later (in Section 5.4), during preparation of the internal, solution‐class‐dependent description.
1028
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 515 ‐
2.2 Select Operational Scenarios1029
2.1 (3.3)
Identify all End-user classes
2.2 (3.4)
Select minimal set of
operational scenarios
2.3 (3.4)
Describe future situation requiring ADF
action
2.4 (3.4)
Describe military
response / CONOPS
2.5 (Annex A)
Capture and model
business / operational
processes of End-user
2.6 (3.4)
Extract operational
needs for each business
process step
2.7 (3.5)
Consolidate operational
needs
2.8 (3.6)
Define Capability System
constraints (solution-class-independent)
2.9 (3.5/3.6)
Prioritise Capability
System needs (solution-class-independent)
for each Operational Scenario and End-user class
2.2 Select Operational Scenarios
• Once the mission and high‐level operational needs have been articulated, the top‐down process is continued through an examination of the range of operational scenarios that the stakeholders propose for the system.
• The examination begins with a description of the general operational environment for the system to identify all of the environmental factors that may have an effect on the operation of the system.
• Specific operational scenarios are then described in users’ language to depict the full range of circumstances under which the system is required to operate.
• It is not necessary to describe every possible scenario, but all types of operation must be represented. Scenarios also need to represent all stakeholder perspectives.
1030
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 516 ‐
2.2 Select Operational Scenarios
• These scenarios, or use cases, provide valuable guidance to the system designers and form the basis of major events in the Acquisition Phase such as acceptance testing of the system as it is introduced into service.
• Despite any more detailed technical verification and validation procedures, the system’s fitness for purpose is fundamentally related to its ability to perform in accordance with the operational scenarios defined at this stage.
• In many cases it is also useful to define the various modes of operation for the system products under development. Designers need to understand if the system is to exist in a number of different modes even if it is as simple as the difference between the fully operational mode or the training mode.
1031
2.2 Select Operational Scenarios
• Complex systems may have their requirements stated in a number of modes. For example, a modern fighter aircraft may have modes defined for air‐to‐air combat, ground attack, reconnaissance, naval operations, non‐tactical flights, and so on. Each mode must be associated with the particular conditions (mission, operational, environmental, configurational, and so on) that define it.
• In our aircraft example, a number of modes may be defined for international and domestic operation including taxi, take‐off, cruise, approach, landing, turn‐around, and so on. Modes may also be defined for maintenance and for administrative movement of the aircraft.
1032
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 517 ‐
2.2 Select Operational Scenarios
• Users tend to think in terms of the systems operation to suit their purposes—care has to be taken to define exception conditions.
• For example, a pilot of a combat aircraft will naturally describe a number of modes and states during which adversary aircraft are engaged and destroyed, but will need some prompting to describe what happens when the pilot’s aircraft is hit and the pilot must eject.
• At every stage in each scenario, we must ask the question “What could go wrong here?”
1033
Define Capability System Constraints1034
2.1 (3.3)
Identify all End-user classes
2.2 (3.4)
Select minimal set of
operational scenarios
2.3 (3.4)
Describe future situation requiring ADF
action
2.4 (3.4)
Describe military
response / CONOPS
2.5 (Annex A)
Capture and model
business / operational
processes of End-user
2.6 (3.4)
Extract operational
needs for each business
process step
2.7 (3.5)
Consolidate operational
needs
2.8 (3.6)
Define Capability System
constraints (solution-class-independent)
2.9 (3.5/3.6)
Prioritise Capability
System needs (solution-class-independent)
for each Operational Scenario and End-user class
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 518 ‐
Project and Enterprise Constraints
• Before focusing on the detail of the desired system, it is essential to identify the project and enterprise constraints that are relevant to the system and its acquisition. This analysis provides essential information about the development environment for the system and begins the top‐down approach to system development.
• Enterprise constraints include any organizational policies, procedures, standards or guidelines that guide system development and procurement. These constraints can include partnering relationships with other companies, contracting policies and so on.
1035
Project and Enterprise Constraints
• Project constraints include the resource allocations to the project as well as any externally imposed deliverables and acquisition timeframes.
• Many companies have enterprise‐wide standards for processes such as quality assurance and systems engineering and these methodologies guide the manner in which projects can operate.
• Additionally, the enterprise may require the project to report progress in a particular way or to implement particular metrics, tools and documentation procedures.
1036
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 519 ‐
Identify External Constraints
• In addition to enterprise‐imposed constraints, there are wider external constraints on system development that arise from the requirement for conformance to national and international laws and regulations, compliance with industry‐wide standards, as well as ethical and legal considerations.
• Other external constraints include the requirement for interoperability and the capabilities required for interfacing to other systems.
• Again, an important aspect of top‐down design is to understand these constraints before considering lower‐level system requirements.
1037
Identify External Constraints
• External constraints could include:– Business environment. The system will no doubt be affected by changes in the broader business and economic environment, particularly those related to cost, pricing, availability, and licensing.
– Conformance to laws and regulations. Conformance to laws is binding within a national or international legal construct; regulations are normally provided by governing bodies within the application domain of the development.
– Compliance with standards. Industry standards provide similar constraints to laws and regulations, except that compliance with any particular standard may be at the discretion of the developer, unless the standard is mandated by the enterprise or by the contract.
– …
1038
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 520 ‐
Identify External Constraints
• External constraints could include:
– …
– Ethical considerations and social responsibility. System developers have a moral and ethical responsibility to the owners and users of the system, as well as to the community.
– Interoperability and or interfacing requirements. Since it is rare that a system would stand alone, interoperability and interface considerations must be taken into account during development.
– Operating environment. The system will have to exist within an operational environment that will provide constraints in terms of temperature, humidity, and radiation as well as robustness to shock.
1039
Identify Design Constraints
• Design constraints include those factors that directly affect the way in which the system design can be conducted. Of course, a number of enterprise, project and external constraints (such as budgets, regulations, and standards) will flow down and be inherited as design constraints.
• Typical design constraints include the state‐of‐the‐art of relevant technologies, the skill sets of available engineers and tradespersons, as well as extant methodologies and tools to assist in the design, development, construction, and production of the system.
• Additionally, bounds such as all‐up weight may be a design constraint for an aircraft system if it is to land on certain classes of airfield.
1040
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 521 ‐
Overview of CLC Artefact Development
• Artefacts are developed over the CLC to perform a number of functions:
– Recording evidence and decisions.
– Supports considered analysis and records rationale.
– Allows demonstration of traceability.
– Supporting risk reduction.
– Establishes authority and certainty.
– Provides continuity of position, expectations, and agreed outcomes.
– Bounds the scope and enabling parameters.
1041
Submissions
and their passage through Defence and Government
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 522 ‐
Core Objectives of the CLC 1043
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Successful Implementation
Approvals to progress Proposal
Investment Approval Pathway
Core Objectives of the CLC 1044
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Successful Implementation
Approvals to progress Proposal
This is not the ‘end-game’
Investment Approval Pathway
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 523 ‐
Core Objectives of the CLC 1045
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Successful Implementation
Approvals to progress Proposal
This is the ‘end-game’
Investment Approval Pathway
Core Objectives of the CLC 1046
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Successful Implementation
Approvals to progress Proposal
This is the ‘end-game’
The Project and Product need to be set up for success
Investment Approval Pathway
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 524 ‐
Core Objectives of the CLC 1047
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Successful Implementation
Approvals to progress Proposal
Capability Manager Accountable
Investment Approval Pathway
CLC Process Overview: Your Process Map1048
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Investment Approval Pathway
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 525 ‐
CLC Process Overview: Your Process Map1049
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management O
ffer
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Business Case
Business Case
Business Case
Defence CLC Business Case
1050
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 526 ‐
Business Case Development
• Business Cases incorporate different documents depending on the purpose.
• Intent remains the same – Business Argument.
• There are different ‘rules’ at each Gate – you need to find the latest.
1051
Business Case Framework1052
Reference throughout BBC sections is: https://treasury.govt.nz/information‐and‐services/state‐sector‐leadership/investment‐management/better‐business‐cases‐bbc
based on
NZ Treasury Better Business Case Guide
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 527 ‐
Better Business Case (BBC) Guide: CLC
• In 2016 the BBC approach was adapted to Defence CLC.
• Still on VCDF website.
• Based on BBC Five Case Model mapped to JCNS and PES and covering submission documents.
• BBC framework by NZ government (and UK Gov)
• Systematic method for programs or projects.
• Internationally recognised best practice standard—that is, the five‐case model.
1053
1054
IC agrees to resourcing, timeframes and outcomes to reach next Gate
IC agrees to proposed Project Execution Strategy (PES)
IC agrees options based upon a broad consideration of strategic and economic
Informed By Joint Capability Needs Statement Informed by PES
Strategic Case Economic Case Financial, Commercial and Management Cases
Proposal of resources needed, timeframes, and outcomes required to reach the next Gate
Proposal of detailed risk-based tailored Project Execution Strategy.
Argument on the method, considerations, and rationale used to select the options if needed.
Description of strategic risks, issues, and constraints relevant to the proposal
Argument that proposal aligns with strategic (capability and business) intentand is consistent with priorities
Joint Capability Needs
Statement (JCNS)
IC agrees that overall proposal meets Defence constraints for strategic intent and portfolio priorities
IC notes risks, issues and constraints for the Proposal
• High level statement of an identified and bounded capability need and available option sets linked to specific strategic guidance
• Contribution to joint capability with FIC integration issues highlighted and interdependencies defined
Business
Case
Components
Better
Business Case
Structure
• A short statement of what decisions are being sought from VCDF.
• If Project already in IIP then need is reconfirmed if there has been change to strategic landscape, otherwise just restated.
• Capability Need and the Investment Proposal is justified within context of Defence strategic landscape and identified Portfolio and Program priorities.
• Scope of Capability Need is agreed in terms of capability objectives, outcomes, and requirements.
• Proposal fits in with other relevant strategic ‘business’ intentions eg ICT Roadmap
• Value Proposition: the overall Investment Proposal, as known at the time, represents value to Defence outcomes relative to other investments.
• Is the expected financial allocation to get to the next Gate affordable and consistent with Defence priorities.
• Informed by Smart Buyer Risk Analysis, Joint Capability Needs Statement and Program Strategy:
• Consistent with due diligence obligations the IC is informed of risks, issuesand opportunities for theoverall proposal.• IC is informed of constraints that will impactoption selection andimplementation e.g.enablers, resources.• IC is informed ofdependencies and potentialimpacts on other parts ofDefence, industry etc.*• Stakeholders are identifiedand key interests understood
• IC is advised of the Critical Success Factors which have been used to evaluate the options including key factors:
Value proposition of each option (value for money if information available)
Supplier capacity and capability (market analysis)
Potential affordability Potential achievability For a direct to Gate 2
proposal, IC is advised of the options considered, the short-listing, and rationale for the preferred option/s. The Value Proposition of each option is described.
Where options require further development the argument is presented here for a Gate 1 decision.
• Proposed Project Execution Strategy (PES) based on Smart Buyer Framework for preferred option/s agreed on:*
• Tailored approval Pathway for Gates, decision delegations, time-bounding and plan (to next Gate);
• Tailored Acquisition and Sustainment Strategy including Industry Engagement and solicitation method
• Risk Reduction activities that address program and project risks consistent with Investment Committee’s risk appetite
• Sufficient documentation (tailored Information requirements)
• Cost and Schedule estimates (broad for overall investment and accurate for work to next Gate);
• Project execution Workforce • Management of Project/Program
dependencies • Governance and Assurance approach
• The resources required to reach the next Gate based on the PES are justified and available for implementation including:
• Cost of risk reduction activities and all other project costs to reach the next Gate.
• Agreement to schedule to next Gate.
• Project delivery Workforce
• Specific decisions for the proposal including:
• Guidance from VCDF on escalation criteria and thresholds for return to IC.
• Any other next steps
Business Case Guide: Tailored for particular gate based upon sufficiency of information required for decision
IC Actions
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 528 ‐
Better Business Case
The objective of Better Business Cases is to provide objective analysis and consistent information to decision‐makers, to enable them to make smart investment decisions for public
value.
1055
Source: https://treasury.govt.nz/information‐and‐services/state‐sector‐leadership/investment‐management/better‐business‐cases‐bbc
Better Business Case
• Builds a business case proposal by answering five core questions:
– What is the compelling case for change?
– Does the preferred option optimise value for money?
– Is the proposed deal commercially viable?
– Is the investment proposal affordable?
– How can the proposal be delivered successfully?
1056
Source: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/statesector/investmentmanagement/plan/bbc/framework
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 529 ‐
Business Case Development
The five cases are addressed within the business case development process:
1057
Better Business Case in Short
• Strategic Case – The big picture
• Economic Case – The options
• Financial Case – Do the numbers stack up?
• Commercial Case – Who delivers
• Management Case – Governance
1058
Source: Building Better Business Cases Association for Project Management, N. Wensleyhttps://www.slideshare.net/assocpm/building‐better‐business‐cases
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 530 ‐
Business Cases are not just Written
• Business Cases are based on:
– Research
– Evidence
– Analysis
– Choices
– Decisions
• Supported by:
– Methods
– Techniques
1059
BBC Guidance
• Use BBC in a ‘fit for purpose’ way.
• Can be used for ANY Program, Project of any:
– scale, and
– risk and uncertainty.
• A Business case turns an idea (“Think”) into a proposal (“Plan”).
• Resources to develop business case should be proportionate to scale of the proposal.
1060
https://treasury.govt.nz/information‐and‐services/state‐sector‐leadership/investment‐management/better‐business‐cases‐bbc/bbc‐and‐investment‐management‐life‐cycle
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 531 ‐
CLC Context: One Investment Better than Another?1061
Proposed Investment (eg Project)
Whole Defence Capability Portfolio
https://images.defence.gov.au/assets/archives (M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier
Two Types of Business Case in BBC Guide 1062
• Programme / Program
• Project
https://treasury.govt.nz/information‐and‐services/state‐sector‐leadership/investment‐management/better‐business‐cases‐bbc/bbc‐and‐investment‐management‐life‐cycle
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 532 ‐
Program to Project Business Cases 1063
AcquisitionStrategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Project
Product
Activity: eg preparedness analysis Activity: eg modelling
ProgramAcquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation ad Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
A Good Business Case Should Demonstrate
• investment has value, importance and relevance;
• implementation is feasible and can be properly managed;
• organisation has capability to deliver the benefits;
• organisation’s resources are working on the highest value opportunities; AND
• inter‐dependencies are managed (optimum sequence).
1064
Source: Department of Finance ICT Business Case Guide, October 2015
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 533 ‐
Program Business Cases
• Program: group of related Projects, Products and activities.
• Program Business Case comprises:
– Strategic vision.
– Roadmap of how to get there.
– How to manage change.
• Can be used for:
– Policy change, such as FPR.
– Capability Change, such as IAMD.
1065
https://treasury.govt.nz/information‐and‐services/state‐sector‐leadership/investment‐management/better‐business‐cases‐bbc/bbc‐and‐investment‐management‐life‐cycle
Project Business Cases
• Project:
– fixed period,
– fixed objectives.
• Project Business Case:
– Indicative Business Case.
– Detailed Business Case.
– Implementation Business Case.
• Business Cases can be combined.
1066
https://treasury.govt.nz/information‐and‐services/state‐sector‐leadership/investment‐management/better‐business‐cases‐bbc/bbc‐and‐investment‐management‐life‐cycle
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 534 ‐
Purpose of a Business Case
• Provide information on benefits, costs and risks of proposal.
• Basis for effective decision making.
• Captures the reasoning for initiating an investment.
• Demonstrates resources support specific business need.
• Basis for planning and implementation.
• Basis for demonstrating ongoing viability of investment.
1067
Source: Department of Finance ICT Business Case Guide, October 2015
Defence CLC Business Case
• Primary CLC decision document.
• Seeks approval to progress to next gate.
• Produced by Project Sponsor with IPMT.
• Sponsored by CM at each gate.
• Evolving document from Gate 0 to Gate 2:
– increases in depth, and
– information certainty.
• Generally significant lead time.
1068
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 535 ‐
Defence CLC Business Case
• Defence Business Cases must be:
– understandable,
– jargon‐free,
– scrutinised, and
– provide most accurate and timely advice Defence can prepare at the time.
• No Templates.
• No guidance available from lessons learnt.
1069
Business Case Definitions
• Live and working document.
• Communicates benefits and value of the endeavour.
• Drives decision‐making.
• Continuous reference to ensure progress aligned to the business objectives.
1070
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 536 ‐
Submissions use Business Case Practice 1071
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting
In-Service and Disposal
Successful Implementation
Submissions are based on Business Cases
Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2
BBC Approach for the CLC
Same underlying approach no matter what the Business Case being presented—that is:
• Program or Project.
• Gate 0,1,2 or non‐CLC proposal.
• Must develop Business Case/s based on Five Cases:
– Strategic.
– Economic.
– Commercial.
– Financial.
– Management.
1072
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 537 ‐
BBC Approach for the CLC
Same underlying approach no matter what the Business Case being presented—that is:
• Program or Project.
• Gate 0,1,2 or non‐CLC proposal.
• Must develop Business Case/s based on Five Cases:
– Strategic
– Economic
– Commercial
– Financial
– Management
1073
24 steps or ‘actions’
Project Business Case Features
• 24 steps or ‘Actions’.• Basically same actions no matter the business case or stage
of CLC.
• Business Case evolves over CLC.
• Is based on rigorous underlying analysis and techniques:
– Demonstrates conformance with organisational goals.
– Explicit definition of requirements.
– Structured down‐selection of options.
1074
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 538 ‐
Summary of Five ‘Cases’
• Strategic Case: Proposal aligns with strategic intent and priorities.
• Economic Case: Value proposition and options for proposed investment are sound.
• Financial Case: Resourcing provisions are addressed.
• Commercial Case: Requirements, execution strategy including acquisition and sustainment strategy, risk.
• Management Case: Management arrangements are appropriate.
1075
Case Study: Business Cases
• Strategic Case:
– Proposal aligns with strategic intent and priorities.
– Contained in JCNS.
• Economic Case:
– Options and value proposition for the proposed investment are sound.
– Spend $10m to protect $1bn.
– Need to be able to use the asset in the necessary environments ie can’t be constrained.
– Standardised ES system across fleet so economies of scale for acquisitions, training, support.
1076
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 539 ‐
Case Study: Business Cases
• Financial Case:
– Resourcing provisions are addressed including:
– costings defined:
• estimates for risk reduction;
• outcomes of risk reduction effort enabled better quotes (uncertainty increases costs);
• estimates for acquisition and support; and
• phasings and currencies defined.
– workforce requirements and timings defined;
– savings achieved by reducing support costs eg training, maintenance.
1077
Case Study: Business Cases
• Commercial Case:
– can leverage off other competitions (RFTs) and contracts to reduce cost of tendering; and
– installation through ANZAC Alliance using existing contracts with BAE (installation) and SAAB (combat system integration).
• Management Case:
– Prime System Integrator – overarching manager.
– MEWSPO has expertise in EW so case for system SPO management argued.
– Defined engagement between AWD Project, ASMD Project and SEA 1448 Phase 4A through formal documented ‘Project Agreements’.
1078
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 540 ‐
Submission Pathways
Business Argument via Submissions1080
Acquisition Strategy and
Concepts Risk Mitigation and
Requirements Setting In-Service and
Disposal
Gate 0 Gate 2Gate 1
ApprovalsIC
Approval
IC, Government
Approval
IC, Government Approval
CM accepts into service
CM approves disposal
Contestability
Activities
Smart Buyer
CM Needs
Force Design Outputs
Project Activities Project
ActivitiesSmart Buyer
Smart Buyer
Artefacts Tender docs
PFPS*
POCD*
PES 1JCNSJCN
FPS*
OCD*PES 2
IPMP
PES 3Reduced Risk
Sub
mis
sion
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Sub
mis
sion
Project Activities
IMS
Sub
mis
sion
Product Activities
Contract Docs
IPMP
PDA/MAA
Contract Docs
IPdMP
PDA/MSASource Selection
Practices/Disciplines
Systems/Requirements Engineering Systems Engineering Management
Project Management
Procurement and Contracting
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
App
rova
l &
Dire
ctio
n
Contract Management
Off
er
Acc
epta
nce
App
rova
l
Investment Approval Pathway
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 541 ‐
Approval Submission Pathways1081
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
PES
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR CMGR CMGR
Cabinet
Business Case*
DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB CABSUB
* Only if no CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Tier 2 docs must be at mature draft
Group Head Brief
& Script
Contesta-bility Brief
Contesta-bility Brief
ICSynopsis
Sponsors Paper Central
Agency Slide Pack
Cost Model
PWC
DTPSMC
Significant facilities, ICT
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service and Disposal
Approval Submissions: Gates/Passes
Note:
• Following IC Gate 1 approval, the subsequent approval by Government is First Pass approval,
• Following IC Gate 2 approval the subsequent approval by Government is Second Pass approval.
1082
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 542 ‐
CMGR submissions
Approval Submission Pathways1084
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
PES
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service and Disposal
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR CMGR CMGR
Cabinet
Business Case*
DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB CABSUB
* Only if no CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Group Head Brief
& Script
Contesta-bility Brief
Contesta-bility Brief
ICSynopsis
Sponsors Paper Central
Agency Slide Pack
Cost Model
PWC
DTPSMC
Significant facilities, ICT
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 543 ‐
Lead Times to Gate 0 (IPMB Website)1085
Source: Smart Buyer presentation pack June 2018
Capability Manager Gate Review (CMGR)
• 2‐Star / SES Band‐2 CM‐led governance forum.
• Not compulsory (choice of CM).
• Quality control point for Projects/Programs prior to IC.
• Opportunity for:
– high level consultation; and
– identify and resolve key concerns.
• Contestability advice either:
– stand‐alone Contestability Brief, or
– Sponsor’s Paper/Business Case with embedded Contestability advice.
1086
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 544 ‐
CMGR Submission ‘Rules’
• Documents must be submitted to VCDF IPM Coord on DSN.
• Date is ‘supporting event’ in CDMRT/Capability 1.
• Once submitted modifications to documents only permitted with Program Sponsor’s approval.
• Contestability advice :
– at discretion of relevant Contestability Executive; and
– standalone Contestability Brief or embedded in Sponsor’s Paper/Business Case.
• Contestability Division drafts key decisions, actions and minutes from CMGR meeting in consultation with the relevant Program Sponsor.
1087
Source: IPMB website
CMGR Process
• Project Sponsors to engage with key stakeholders during development of document suite.
• 25‐15 days prior to meeting: Project Sponsor to finaliseCMGR document and any SCARs in CDMRT.
• NLT 15 working days prior: Program Sponsor lodge cleared doc suite including CMGR synopsis “Section A” to VCDF IPM Coord.
• NLT 3 working days prior: submit CMGR Synopsis “Section B”.
• NLT 5 days prior: Contestability Brief:
– due to VCDF IPM Coord; and
– made available to CMGRMembers and Support Staff.
1088
Source: IPMB website
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 545 ‐
CMGR Submissions: CMGR Synopsis
• Program Sponsors should review the Synopsis form located in CDMRT to determine: input, consultation and assurance to be sought from CMGR Members.
• CMGR Synopsis provides Committee with:
– snap‐shot of proposal
– checklist for CMs to make sure:
• key issues thought through;
• key internal stakeholders engaged;
– can include draft Government approval submission.
1089
Source: IPMB website
Investment Committee (IC)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 546 ‐
Approval Submission Pathways 1091
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
PES
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR CMGR CMGR
Cabinet
Business Case*
DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB CABSUB
* Only if no CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Tier 2 docs must be at mature draft
Group Head Brief
& Script
Contesta-bility Brief
Contesta-bility Brief
ICSynopsis
Sponsors Paper Central
Agency Slide Pack
Cost Model
PWC
DTPSMC
Significant facilities, ICT
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service and Disposal
Integrated Investment Program (IIP)
• Managed through Investment Committee (IC) and Defence Committee (DC).
• Spans all capability investment (over whole CLC):
– Major Capital Equipment.
– Enterprise ICT.
– Estate initiatives.
1092
http://www.defence.gov.au/CIOG/Careers.asphttps://images.defence.gov.au/assets/archives (M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier & C17-A RAAF Base Amberley)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 547 ‐
Investment Committee (IC)
• Subsidiary of Defence Committee.
• Ensures resourcing consistent with Defence’s strategic priorities.
• Makes Gate 0 decisions for majority of proposals.
• Oversees implementation and integrity of IIP.
• VCDF (Chair):
– Assoc Sec
– CJC
– DEPSEC SP&I
– CFO
– CN, CA, CAF
1093
Government
Defence Committee
Investment Committee
Capability Manager
Program Sponsor
Project/Product Sponsor
– DEPSEC CAS, CDS
– FAS Contestability
– Central Agencies (Finance, PM&C)
Gate 0 Proposal: Components1094
What?
How?
Why?
Project Execution Strategy (PES)How will investment (Project) be undertaken
Sponsor Paper
+
+
Overarching business argument for investment
Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS)What is the capability need (gap)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 548 ‐
Gate 1&2 Proposals: Components May Include1095
What?
How?
Requirements Statement
Updated PES
Integrated Project Management Plan (IPMP) to Gate 2
Why? Sponsor Paper
+
+
+
Draft Submission to Government Why?
+
Summary of What to Take to the IC1096
Use Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2Government CabSub or MinSub CabSub or MinSub
Investment Committee
• IC Synopsis • Sponsor Paper:
- Business Case argument
- Contestability Statement
- Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
- Industry considerations
• JCNS
• PES
• IC Synopsis • Sponsor Paper- no
longer than 3 pages • Draft Approval
Submission to Government either Ministerial submission or Cabinet Submission
• Draft Approval Submission to Government either Ministerial submission or Cabinet Submission
Key Considerations
Business Case, RiskAssessment and mitigation actions, Acquisition and Sustainment Strategies, IPMP, Cost Estimates, Workforce Estimates, Whole FIC
Business Case, Risk Assessment and mitigation actions, costs and schedule estimates, IPMP, Requirements (OCD, FPS, TEMP)
Business Case, Risk Assessment and mitigation actions, costs and schedule estimates,IPMP, Requirements (OCD, FPS, TEMP), Source Evaluation
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 549 ‐
Beyond IC:Gaining Government Approval for Proposals
Approval Submission Pathways 1098
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
PES
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR CMGR CMGR
Cabinet
Business Case*
DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB CABSUB
* Only if no CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Tier 2 docs must be at mature draft
Group Head Brief
& Script
Contesta-bility Brief
Contesta-bility Brief
ICSynopsis
Sponsors Paper Central
Agency Slide Pack
Cost Model
PWC
DTPSMC
Significant facilities, ICT
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 550 ‐
What is Cabinet? 1099
What is Cabinet?
• “The Cabinet is the focal point of the decision‐making process of government.”
Source: https://www.aph.gov.au/
• Council of senior ministers empowered by Government to:
– take binding decisions on behalf of the Government.
– direct Government policy and
– make decisions on important national issues.
• The Cabinet is a product of convention and practice.
• Meets on a weekly basis throughout the year.
• Minister for Defence has responsibility for all Defencematters in Cabinet.
1100
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 551 ‐
Cabinet and Committees consider…
• new policy proposals or changes;
• proposals which significantly affect employment;
• expenditure proposals;
• proposals requiring legislation;
• proposals which impact relations between Australian Government and foreign, state, territory or local governments;
• proposed responses to parliamentary committee etc;
• negotiation or agreement of international treaties; and
• requests from parliamentary committees for references.
1101
Source: https://www.directory.gov.au/commonwealth‐parliament/cabinet/cabinet‐committees
Cabinet Committees
• Subject area, such as national security.
• General function, such as expenditure.
• Can be temporary or ad‐hoc:
– Expenditure Review Committee.
– Governance Committee.
– National Security Committee (NSC).
– National Security Investment Committee (NSIC).
– Parliamentary Business Committee.
– Service Delivery and Coordination Committee.
1102
Source: https://www.directory.gov.au/commonwealth‐parliament/cabinet/cabinet‐committees
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 552 ‐
National Security Committee (NSC)
• Chair: PM
• Focus on:
– major foreign policy and national security issues of strategic importance to Australia;
– border protection policy;
– national responses to developing situations (either domestic or international); and
– classified matters relating to aspects of operation and activities of the Australian Intelligence Community.
• Decisions of NSC do not require endorsement of Cabinet.
1103
Source: https://www.directory.gov.au/commonwealth‐parliament/cabinet/cabinet‐committees
Defence Projects and NSC
Projects will automatically be referred to NSC if assessed as HIGH risk against four criteria:
• Financial: unaffordable from within existing IIP; potential cost increases (IIP re‐profiling).
• Requirements: new and/or potentially contentious military capability; requirements ill‐defined; wide range of options.
• Technical and Integration: developmental, extensive technical design, development work, especially integration and interoperability.
• Industrial and Strategic: strategically significant industrial capability or contractor selection; significant innovation and economic opportunities for Australian industry, Political and security factors.
1104
Source: ASIP presentation Feb 2017
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 553 ‐
National Security Investment Committee(NSIC)
• Under the auspices of NSC considers in detail major National Security investments and procurements to ensure:
– investments remain aligned with Australia’s strategic priorities,
– achieve best value, and
– implemented on schedule.
• Decisions of the NSIC must be endorsed by the NSC.
1105
Source: https://www.directory.gov.au/commonwealth‐parliament/cabinet/cabinet‐committees
When does a Proposal go to Cabinet?
A Proposal goes to Cabinet when it:
• addresses a top priority of the Government;
• has significant budget implications;
• makes major or complex changes;
• involves significant cross‐agency or cross‐jurisdictional issues;
• is particularly sensitive—for example, has a large number of conflicting stakeholders, is particularly risky or impacts a significant number of people or a vulnerable cohort;
• requires urgent implementation; or
• involves new or complex delivery systems.
1106
Source: https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/policy‐implementation
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 554 ‐
Who Decides if a Proposal Goes to Cabinet?
• Joint decision between the agency responsible for drafting the submission and PM&C.
1107
Source: https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/policy‐implementation
Resource: Better Business Practice Guide
• Cabinet Handbook (13th Edition).
• Better Business Practice Guide to Successful Implementation of Policy Initiatives.
1108
Source: https://www.pmc.gov.au/
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 555 ‐
Advice
• Cabinet Liaison Services (CLS): Can provide advice on…
• PM&C can provide advice on:
– the Cabinet Submission process,
– the level of detail in the submission, and
– which of the principles of implementation the Cabinet requires information on.
1109
Source: https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/policy‐implementation
Other Committees
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 556 ‐
Approval Submission Pathways 1111
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
PES
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR CMGR CMGR
Cabinet
Business Case*
DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB CABSUB
* Only if no CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Tier 2 docs must be at mature draft
Group Head Brief
& Script
Contesta-bility Brief
Contesta-bility Brief
ICSynopsis
Sponsors Paper Central
Agency Slide Pack
Cost Model
PWC
DTPSMC
Significant facilities, ICT
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service and Disposal
Public Works Committee (PWC)
1112
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 557 ‐
Facilities: Two ‘Pathways’
Facilities proposals progressed in two ways:
1. Approval for funding
2. Scrutiny
1113
$
Capability Submission Pathway1114
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR CMGR CMGR
Cabinet
Business Case*
DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB CABSUB
* Only if no CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Tier 2 docs must be at mature draft
Group Head Brief
& Script
Contesta-bility Brief
Contesta-bility Brief
ICSynopsis
Sponsors Paper Central
Agency Slide Pack
Cost Model
PWC
DTPSMC
Significant facilities, ICT
PES
Facilities
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service and Disposal
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 558 ‐
Facilities BC: ‘spins off’ from Capability Submission 1115
Parliamentary Approval
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service & Disposal
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR
Cabinet DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Tier 2 docs must be at mature draft
Contesta-bility Brief
Cost Model
PWC
Significant facilities, ICT
PES
Facilities
Facilities Initial
Business Case
Facilities DetailedBusiness
Case
Value dependent
Public Works Committee (PWC): Scrutiny
• Investigative committees of the Parliament.
• Established under Public Works Committee Act 1969.
• All public works for the Commonwealth estimated to cost more than $15 million must be referred to the Committee.
• Includes Commonwealth departments and major statutory authorities.
1116
Source: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Public_Works/Role_of_the_Committee
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 559 ‐
Public Works Committee (PWC)
• Report on:
– purpose and suitability of the proposed work,
– need for the work,
– cost‐effectiveness of the proposal,
– revenue it will produce if the work is revenue producing, and
– current and prospective value of the work.
1117
Source: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Public_Works/Role_of_the_Committee
ICT Investment Approval Process
1118
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 560 ‐
ICT Investment Approval Process
“If your entity is bringing forward an ICT‐enabled proposal for Cabinet consideration you may be subject to the ICT Investment Approval process.”
1119
Source: https://www.finance.gov.au/policy‐guides‐procurement/ict‐investment‐framework/ict‐two‐pass‐review/
ICT Investment Approval Process
ICT Investment Approval Process applies* if:
• Proposal is ICT‐enabled (policy or service highly dependent on an underpinning ICT system);
AND
• total whole‐of‐life cost >$30 million incl. ICT >$10 more;
AND
• Proposal is high risk** (complexity, schedule or available workforce capacity)
1120
* Defence should consult with Investment, Capability and Assurance Branch in the Department of Finance (Finance)** Risk rating for proposals is determined by Finance.
Source: https://www.finance.gov.au/policy‐guides‐procurement/ict‐investment‐framework/ict‐two‐pass‐review/
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 561 ‐
ICT Investment Approval Process
If it applies* the minimum stages are:
• First Pass Cabinet Approval
• Second Pass Cabinet Approval
A business case required at both stages to ensure Cabinet has sufficient information about the proposal to make an informed decision.
1121
* Defence should consult with Investment, Capability and Assurance Branch in the Department of Finance (Finance)
Source: https://www.finance.gov.au/policy‐guides‐procurement/ict‐investment‐framework/ict‐two‐pass‐review/
Digital Transformation and Public Sector Modernisation Committee of Cabinet
(DTPSMC)
1122
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 562 ‐
Digital Transformation Agency (DTA)
• The Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) is an Executive Agency within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
• Strategic leadership on:
– whole‐of‐government and shared ICT and digital services,
– sourcing and capability development.
• Policies, standards and platforms for whole‐of‐government and shared ICT and digital service delivery.
• Advice to agencies and the Government on ICT and digital investment proposals.
• Oversee significant ICT and digital investments
1123
Source: https://www.dta.gov.au/about‐us
Digital Transformation and Public Sector Modernisation Committee (DTPSMC)
• Oversees the Digital Transformation Agenda to:
– improve the experience of people dealing with Government;
– drive service delivery reform;
– transform, simplify and drive value in Commonwealth ICT; and
– modernise the Australian Public Service.
• Decisions of the DTPSMC must be endorsed by the Cabinet.
• This committee was formally known as the Digital Transformation Committee (DTC).
1124
Source: https://www.directory.gov.au/commonwealth‐parliament/cabinet/cabinet‐committees
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 563 ‐
DTPSMC
• Digital Transformation and Public Sector ModernisationCommittee of Cabinet.
• Government’s Digital Transformation Strategy, Nov 2018:
– Roadmap with 2 year horizon.
– Digital Service Standard to assess government digital services.
• Objectives: modernise the Australian Public Service (APS) so that it is best structured to meet the challenges of digital delivery of government services.
1125
Defence Requirements of ICT Projects
1126
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 564 ‐
ICT and Digital‐enabled Submissions
• Need to satisfy/align with:
– Defence Enterprise Information Management Strategy 2015‐2025.
• Defence vision for EIM:
“trusted and accurate information and information services are delivered to the point of need to enhance military and business operations”.
1127
ICT and Digital‐enabled Submissions
• Defence Architecture Vision Statement identified the strategic importance of an Enterprise approach to EIM for Defence. It provides a high level vision and mission for EIM within Defence.
• This document will assist the reader in understanding the high level architectural goals and strategy of EIM.
• Informs: Current State Architecture, Target State Architecture, Data Architecture, Information Exchanges, Domain Roadmaps
1128
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 565 ‐
Department of Finance
Provision of Cost Models
Approval Submission Pathways 1130
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
PES
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service and Disposal
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR CMGR CMGR
Cabinet
Business Case*
DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB CABSUB
* Only if no CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Tier 2 docs must be at mature draft
Group Head Brief
& Script
Contesta-bility Brief
Contesta-bility Brief
ICSynopsis
Sponsors Paper Central
Agency Slide Pack
Cost Model
PWC
DTPSMC
Significant facilities, ICT
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 566 ‐
Dept of Finance Guidance/Requirements
• Estimates Memorandum: Defence‐specific.
• Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), Whole of Lifecycle.
• Defence Capability, ICT, Facilities.
• Must provide Cost Model:
– all assumptions, data and formulae, other evidence.
• Cost Quality Standards:
– First to Second Pass (strategic Gate 1).
– Second Pass and Combined Pass (acquisition Gate 2).
• Parametric or analogous costing methodology where no tender quality information.
1131
Gaining Government Approval for Proposals
1132
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 567 ‐
Approval Submission Pathways 1133
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
PES
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service and Disposal
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR CMGR CMGR
Cabinet
Business Case*
DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB CABSUB
* Only if no CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Tier 2 docs must be at mature draft
Group Head Brief
& Script
Contesta-bility Brief
Contesta-bility Brief
ICSynopsis
Sponsors Paper Central
Agency Slide Pack
Cost Model
PWC
DTPSMC
Significant facilities, ICT
CABSUBs and MINSUBs
1134
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 568 ‐
MINSUB vs CABSUB
• A ministerial submission (MINSUB) is used when approaching one or two ministers.
• A cabinet submission (CABSUB) is used when approaching Cabinet or a Cabinet sub‐committee.
1135
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
What is a Cabinet Submission (CABSUB)
• A Cabinet Submission is a document that a minister or ministers present to Cabinet to obtain its agreement to a course of action.
• Cabinet generally makes a decision on the proposals within the submission, and the decisions are published as:
– Cabinet Minute, or
– Cabinet Memorandum.
1136
https://www.finance.gov.au/resource‐management/pgpa‐glossary/cabinet‐submission‐minute‐memorandum/
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 569 ‐
What is a Cabinet Submission (CABSUB)
• Submissions must be sponsored by the Cabinet minister with portfolio responsibility.
• Proposals may be sponsored jointly by more than one minister.
• Proposals that are complex and challenging should have implementation plans developed to ensure all the risks are identified and mitigation strategies are in place.
1137
Source: https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/cabinet‐handbook‐13th‐edition_0.pdf
Handling of CABSUBs
• Must not be copied, transcribed or copying into departmental IT systems.
• If copies required, a request must be submitted to Cabinet Division including the ‘need‐to‐know’.
• Hard‐copy Cabinet documents must be kept in Cabinet‐specific files in suitably classified storage containers.
1138
Source: https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/cabinet‐handbook‐13th‐edition_0.pdf
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 570 ‐
CABSUB Development for Defence
• Use a CABSUB when approaching Cabinet or a Cabinet sub‐committee (e.g. NSC) .
• Defence is usually the business of NSC.
• A Covering Ministerial Submission (MINSUB) is also required to support the CABSUB.
• Business Case no longer required as attachment to Govt Submission however must be available upon request (Ensure Contestability have access to the Business Cases).
1139
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
CABSUB Development for Defence
• Initiating CABSUB:
– CLS advisor will meet with you to provide key information and discuss mandatory requirements for your item to be considered by NSC.
• Lodge CABSUB: Pre‐Exposure Draft with CLS.
1140
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 571 ‐
Lead‐times for CABSUB submission
Days ahead of Cabinet Meeting:
• Exposure Draft: 16 working days (check)
• Co‐ord Final Version released: 6 working days (check)
• Final Released: 3 working days (check)
• CABSUB Exposure Draft for DTPSMC for ICT‐related proposal with CLS: DTPSMC date minus 28 working days.
1141
Source: https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/cabinet‐handbook‐13th‐edition_0.pdf
MINSUB purpose
• Prepared by Department to provide information to the Minister.
• Ask Minister to note issues, approve requests or make a decision on a subject.
• The Business Case is an attachment to the MINSUB.
• Neither JCNS nor PES are provided to IC or Government for Gate 1 or Gate 2.
1142
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 572 ‐
MINSUB Rules
• All Ministerial submission (MINSUB) should be accompanied by:
– covering brief, outlining reason(s) for the MINSUB; and
– actions to be taken by CDF/SEC, timelines.
• MINSUB for CDF and SEC signature must be submitted with all attachments in soft copy.
• MINSUBs and all attachments are placed in a dedicated system (PDMS).
• If a MINSUB is extremely sensitive, a hard and electronic copy is to be provided.
1143
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
MINSUB Timings
• Lodge MINSUB with the Executive Support Unit: target month minus 10 working days.
• SEC / CDF clearance: 5 working days.
• 1MIN clearance / approval: 5 working days (facilitated by Directorate of Ministerial Services).
• 2MIN / 3MIN clearance / approval: no set timeframe (facilitated by Directorate of Ministerial Services).
1144
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 573 ‐
Approval Submissions: Templates
• Must use correct Cabinet and Ministerial submission templates:
– specific formatting and style rules for CABSUBS;
– location of templates depends on whether a Cabinet or Ministerial submission:
• CabSub at Cabinet Liaison Services (CLS) webpage (DPN and DSN); and
• MINSUB templates located on Parliamentary Document Management System (PDMS) on the DSN.
• To access templates, you must first create a parliamentary document record.
1145
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
Approval Submission Content
• Submission must cater to the correct audience:
– Likely a broad, strategic knowledge of capability proposal.
– Very little time to read and make sense of submission.
– Present complex information in a simple style that is easy for all stakeholders to understand.
1146
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 574 ‐
Approval Submissions: Final points
Shape the Pathway
There are two key forms of tailoring:
• Approval Authority – “Who is approving?”
– NSC, Two Minister, One Minister, internal Defence (or a combination of all of these at different time points).
• Approval Pathway – “How many approvals?”
– Two Pass, Combined Pass, multiple approaches, and ‘rolling wave’ tranches.
1148
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 575 ‐
Government Pathway Options
1. Number of required Government decision points (one, two, or multiple).
2. Nature of the decision point(s) and approval sought:
– strategic (First Pass);
– acquisition (Second Pass); or
– combined pass.
3. Required approval authority:
– Cabinet approval;
– Two Minister (Finance and Defence) approval; or
– One Minister (Defence) approval;
– including ERC, DTPSMC.
1149
Source: ASIP presentation Feb 2017
Shape the Pathway
• Majority of individual IIP projects are still likely to be 2 Pass /
NSC approvals.
• The Investment Committee will validate the pathway.
1150
Source: ASIP presentation Feb 2017
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 576 ‐
Criteria for Fast Track / Gates 0 to 2
Criteria for Fast Track / Gates 0 to 2:
• only one feasible supplier;
• acquiring additional quantities of an existing capability;
• mandatory interoperability requirements that dictate a certain platform choice;
• operational urgency; and
• proposal is simple and low risk and within existing operational policies.
1151
Source: ASIP presentation Feb 2017
Gates 0 to 2
• If a Gate 0‐2 path is agreed may need to seek:
– early access to IIP funding ahead of Gate 2, and
– permission to engage with Industry ahead of Government approval.
• This is achieved through the omnibus Biannual IIP Update to Government.
• Two forms of Biannual Updates:
– Portfolio Budgets Statements (PBS).
– Mid‐Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO).
1152
Source: ASIP presentation Feb 2017
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 577 ‐
NSC
Projects will automatically be referred to NSC if assessed as HIGH risk against four criteria:
• Financial
• Requirements
• Technical and Integration
• Industrial and Strategic
1153
Source: ASIP presentation Feb 2017
First Pass
• First Pass approval only required for:
– complex and high‐risk projects / programs, or
– when a Government decision is required in order to narrow the field of options.
• Main concerns are whether:
– options comply with strategic guidance and capability priorities;
– options are feasible, affordable and sufficiently differentiated; and
– the plan to achieve Second Pass approval is sound and accurately costed.
1154
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 578 ‐
Approval Submissions
• Start 6 months prior to scheduled approval date:
– Scheduled National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSC) meeting for Cabinet Approvals.
– Target month for Ministerial Approvals.
– Commence drafting before CMGR.
1155
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
Approval Submissions: Checklists 1st, 2nd Pass
• Help CM reps determine if Government is being provided with enough information to make informed decision.
1156
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 579 ‐
Examples of Pathways
• Continuing an existing Prime Systems Integrator (PSI) relationship (i.e. ‘single supplier’) on a large scale ICT project, with sub‐elements to be competed by Industry:
– Approach approved by Government at First Pass due to arguments presented on cost and schedule savings, reduced risk and retention of competition in sub‐elements.
– Significant follow‐on acquisition approvals directly to Second Pass.
1157
Approval Submission Pathways 1158
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
PES
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service and Disposal
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR CMGR CMGR
Cabinet
Business Case*
DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB CABSUB
* Only if no CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Tier 2 docs must be at mature draft
Group Head Brief
& Script
Contesta-bility Brief
Contesta-bility Brief
ICSynopsis
Sponsors Paper Central
Agency Slide Pack
Cost Model
PWC
DTPSMC
Significant facilities, ICT
Strategic approach approval
Subsequent Acquisition approvals
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 580 ‐
Examples of Pathways
• A ‘rolling wave’ or tranched approach to respond to rapidly changing threats and technologies:
– Flexible funding arrangements with corresponding reporting and forecasting updates to Government based on arguments of greater responsiveness to changing environments.
– early IIP funding requests based on flexible funding ‘offset’ arrangements that allow time critical work to continue.
1159
Approval Submission Pathways 1160
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
PES
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service and Disposal
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR CMGR CMGR
Cabinet
Business Case*
DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB CABSUB
* Only if no CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Tier 2 docs must be at mature draft
Group Head Brief
& Script
Contesta-bility Brief
Contesta-bility Brief
ICSynopsis
Sponsors Paper Central
Agency Slide Pack
Cost Model
PWC
DTPSMC
Significant facilities, ICT
Combined Pass: Strategic and Acquisition approval
Regular reporting and updates through
Biannual Updates (PBS and MYEFO)
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 581 ‐
Approval Submission: 1st Pass Checklist 1161
Is proposal IAW extant Government and Defence decisions and/or guidance?
‐What has Government previously agreed or stated in public about the project?
‐What has previously been agreed by Defence?
Are the outcomes clear and justifiable?
‐ Is decision sought from Government clear?
‐ Is the capability outcome sought clear, affordable and aligned with capability priorities?
What will the project deliver?
‐What is the strategic justification for the capability?
‐What is the capability aspiration?
‐ How does proposal address the capability aspiration?
Is the option set defensible?
‐ Are the options clearly described?
‐ Does the option set offer a range of cost‐capability drivers?
‐ Are there any alternatives to the option set?
‐ Are there any off‐the‐shelf options?
…
‐ Are all of the options viable and affordable?
‐ Have the right options been recommended for developmentto Gate 2?
Is there enough information to make a decision?
‐ Do the documents provide ‘Gate 1’ quality information?
‐ Are the costs affordable, suitably benchmarked, and in linewith the scope of the project?
‐ Can the implementation strategies be carried out?
‐ Is the schedule viable and agreed by all stakeholders?
‐ Are the workforce requirements agreed and within theallocation? If not, have offsets been identified?
‐ Are there industry issues associated with this proposal? If so,are they well understood and articulated?
‐ Have the main risks been identified? How will they bemanaged?
‐ Has all data been signed off by the relevant stakeholders?
Can the approval submission be written?
‐ Is the proposal complete?
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
Approval Submission: 2nd Pass Checklist 1162
Is the proposal in accordance with extant Government and Defence decisions and/or guidance?
‐What has Government previously agreed at Gate 1 approval or stated in public about the project?
‐What has previously been agreed by Defence?
Are the outcomes clear and justifiable?
‐ Is the decision sought from the Government clear?
‐ Is the capability outcome sought clear, affordable and aligned with capability priorities and Gate 1 decisions?
Is the recommended option appropriate and justifiable?
‐ Is the recommended option clearly described? Is it demonstrably better than the other options?
‐ Has there been any change in the options set since Gate 1 approval? If so, is the change justifiable?
‐ Does the recommended option fall within the provision, or are offsets provided?
‐ Is the recommended option off‐the‐shelf? If not, why not?
‐ Has sufficient account been taken of constraints and overarching imperatives?
‐ Are there any industry or probity issues associated with the outcomes?
…
Is there enough information to support a decision?
‐ Do the documents provide ‘Gate 2’ quality information?
‐ Is the project scope clear?
‐ Are the implementation strategies viable?
‐ Is the schedule viable?
‐ Are the costs affordable, suitably benchmarked, and aligned tothe scope of the project?
‐ Have the main risks been identified? How will they bemanaged?
‐ Do the results of the Gate 1 to Gate 2 activities support theconclusions?
‐ Has all data been signed off by the relevant stakeholders?
Can the approval submission be written?
‐ Is the proposal complete?
Source: IPMB and Army HQ Business Model
Capability Life Cycle (CLC) Management
Professor Mike Ryan & Dr Shari Soutberg
©2020 ‐ 582 ‐
Approval Submission Pathways 1163
Cabinet Liaison Services
Cost Workforce
PES
JCNS
Covering Brief
NSIC
NSC
Contestability
Acquisition Strategy and Concepts
Risk Mitigation and Requirements Setting In-Service and Disposal
GATE 0 GATE 2GATE 1
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Go
vern
me
nt
Ap
pro
val
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Investment Committee (IC)
Approval
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
Sub
mis
sion
FIRST PASS SECOND PASS
Def
ence
A
pp
rova
l
CMGR CMGR CMGR
Cabinet
Business Case*
DoF
PM&C
1,2,3 Minister
NSIC
NSC
Cabinet 1,2,3
Minister
MINSUB
CABSUB
MINSUB CABSUB
* Only if no CABSUB
MINSUB must cover a CABSUB
Business Case
Group Head Brief
& Script
Contesta-bility Brief
Contesta-bility Brief
ICSynopsis
Sponsors Paper Central
Agency Slide Pack
Cost Model
PWC
DTPSMC
Significant facilities, ICT
Capability Life Cycle (CLC)Management
Professor Mike Ryan
Dr Shari Soutberg