presentation from steve welby at the october 12 dinner meeting

INCOSE WMA10/12/10 Page-1 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A -- Cleared for public release by OSR on October 4, 2010 -- SR case numbers 10-S-3459, 3017

DoD Systems Engineering Update

Stephen Welby

Director, Systems Engineering

INCOSE WMA Chapter MeetingOctober 12, 2010

INCOSE WMA Mtg10/12/10 Page-2 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A -- Cleared for public release by OSR on October 4, 2010 -- SR case numbers 10-S-3459, 3017

Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act – signed 22 May 2009

• Establishes Director, Systems Engineering (DSE) as principal systems engineering advisor to the SECDEF and the USD(AT&L)

• Requires Congressional reporting on Systems Engineering Capabilities and MDAP achievement of measurable performance criteria

• Mandates competitive prototyping and MDA completion of a formal Post-Preliminary Design Review Assessment for all MDAPs before MS B

• Implementing DTM signed by USD(AT&L) 4 Dec 2009; Acquisition Guidance on-line 31 Jan 2010

• Director, Systems Engineering on board21 Sep 2009

• DoD Instruction formalizing responsibilities of Director, Systems Engineering in formal coordination

• First annual WSARA DSE/DDT&E Joint Report delivered to Congress 31 Mar 2010

MDAP- Major Defense Acquisition Program (USC 2430)MDA – Milestone Decision AuthorityMDAP- Major Defense Acquisition Program (USC 2430)MDA – Milestone Decision Authority

President Barack Obama hands a pen to U.S. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) as he signs the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act in the Rose Garden at the White House Friday, May 22, 2009. Standing from left are: Andrews, Rep. John McHugh (R-NY), Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX). Official White House Photo by Samantha Appleton

President Barack Obama hands a pen to U.S. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) as he signs the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act in the Rose Garden at the White House Friday, May 22, 2009. Standing from left are: Andrews, Rep. John McHugh (R-NY), Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX). Official White House Photo by Samantha Appleton


Our Guidance

• Quadrennial Defense Review Executive Summary, February 2010− Further rebalance the capabilities of America’s Armed Forces to

prevail in today’s wars, while building the capabilities needed to deal with future threats

− Further reform the Department’s institutions and processes to better support the current needs of the warfighter; buy weapons that are usable, affordable and truly needed; and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and responsibly

− Preserve and enhance the All-Volunteer Force

− Improve how it matches requirements with mature technologies, maintains disciplined systems engineering approaches, institutionalizes rapid acquisition capabilities, and implements more comprehensive testing

• Quadrennial Defense Review Report Preface Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, February 2010

– United States needs a broad portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict


Systems Engineering Mission

Develop and grow the Systems Engineering capability of the Department of Defense – through engineering policy, continuous engagement with Component Systems Engineering organizations and through substantive technical engagement throughout the acquisition life cycle with major and selected acquisition program offices.

A robust Systems Engineering capability across the Department requires attention to Policy, People and Practice.

We apply best engineering practices to:

– Support and advocate for DoD Component initiatives– Help program managers identify and mitigate risks– Shape technical planning and management– Provide technical insight to OSD stakeholders– Identify systemic issues for resolution above the program

level

We are the “E” in DDR&EWe are the “E” in DDR&E


Mission AssuranceNicholas Torelli

Major Program SupportJames Thompson

Systems AnalysisKristen Baldwin

Director, Systems Engineering

Director, Systems EngineeringStephen Welby

Addressing Emerging Challenges onthe Frontiers of Systems Engineering

Analysis of Complex Systems/Systems of Systems

Development Planning/Early SE

Program Protection/Acquisition Cyber Security

University and Industrial Engineering Research

Modeling & Simulation Coordination

Supporting USD(AT&L) Decisions with Independent Engineering Expertise

Engineering Assessment / Mentoring of Major Defense Programs

Program Support Reviews

OIPT / DAB / ITAB Support

Systems Engineering Plans

Systemic Root Cause Analysis

Leading Systems Engineering Practice in DoD and Industry

Systems Engineering Policy & Guidance

Specialty Engineering (System Safety, Reliability / Availability / Maintainability, Quality, Manufacturing, Producibility, Human Systems Integration (HSI))

Technical Workforce Development

Standardization

Providing technical support and systems engineering leadership and oversight to USD(AT&L) in support of planned and ongoing acquisition programs


Our Focus: Supporting Knowledge Based Decision MakingOur Focus: Supporting Knowledge Based Decision Making

Address Legislative Mandates

Address Regulatory Responsibility

Provide Cadre of Engineering Expertise to support Acquisition Leadership

Deliver Independent Engineering Advice and Assessments to Acquisition Leadership

Providing Engineering Risk Assessment in support of Milestone Decisions

Focus Areas for Systems Engineering:

Systems Engineering within OSD



Improving the Department’s Engineering Practice

Improving Component System Engineering Competencies

Growing Engineering Capacity across the Department

Systems Engineering support to Programs and Program Offices

Mentoring and Independent Assessment

Our Focus: Engineering ExcellenceOur Focus: Engineering Excellence


Development PlanningCDR

DoD 5000.02 and PL 111-23 –the Changed Acquisition Landscape

Renewed emphasis on reliability and manufacturing across the lifecycle

Materiel Development

Decision (MDD)

PDR, PDR Report to the

MDA, and Post-PDR

Assessment before MS B

System-level CDR with

an initial product

baseline and a Post-CDR

Report to the MDA

Post-CDR Assessment by

the MDA between EMD sub- phases

PDR

MandatoryCompetitivePrototypes

New 2366a & 2366b Certifications*

LCSP

* Director, SE supports MDA certifications including PDR Report assessment at MS B

CBA

MS CMS BMS A

ICD TechnologyDevelopment

Engineering and Manufacturing Development

Production and Deployment O&SO&S

MaterielSolutionAnalysis

Full Rate ProductionDecision Review

MDDCDD CPD

“Knowledge-based” Decision Making . . .making acquisition decisions with solid evidence and well understood risk

Renewed Emphasis onDevelopment Planning and Early Engineering

Engagement

Renewed Emphasis onDevelopment Planning and Early Engineering

Engagement


WSARA Update

• Directly advising USD(AT&L) on systems engineering and development planning

– Active Participant in MDAP & MAIS DABs, OIPTs, Nunn-McCurdy Reviews, etc

• Reviewing and approving MDAP & MAIS Systems Engineering Plans (SEP)

• Developing SE and Development Planning policy and guidance– Development Planning Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) with USD(AT&L) for final

approval – Reliability, Availability and Maintainability DTM is ready for formal coordination

• Reviewing and strengthening SE Guidance and Practice• Coordinating with Joint Requirement Oversight Council on the

inclusion of systems engineering requirements– Participating in JCIDS review and update

• Continuing periodic review of the Components systems engineering and development planning capabilities and organizations

– Capability Assessment Survey


WSARA Update, cont

• Providing advocacy, oversight and guidance to the systems engineering workforce

• Delivered Joint DDT&E and DSE Report on 31 March 2010; next report due 31 March 2011 (unless changed in Authorization Conference)

• Continuing to develop joint guidance on measurable performance criteria in conjunction with the Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) , and Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analyses ( PARCA)

– Program metrics are being collected and tracked


Program Support Reviews

Process & Templates

Continuous Program Engagement

DoD 5000.02ExpertEngineering

• Sharper insight into

real program issues

and complexities• Greater trust and

openness developed

w/programs• Recommendations

target the real issues

at their root cause

• Assessments of Major Programs

• Program Monitoring• Systemic Root

Cause Analysis

• DAPS Methodology• Templates, process flow

diagrams, Training• Questions• Assessment Plans

• Program unique

recommendations to PMs• Expert engineering advice

within programmatic

context to Acquisition

Leadership• Systemic issues to

acquisition community for

improvements to greater

Acquisition effort

• PM acceptance of 90% of all PSR recommendations• Supporting >90% of all DABs, ITABS, OIPTs, IIPTs and SE WIPTS

Mentoring & Mentoring & AssessmentsAssessments


Major Program Support Activity

Since March 2004

FRP: Full Rate ProductionIPR: In-Progress ReviewPDR: Preliminary Design ReviewCDR: Critical Design ReviewComms: Communication Systems

FRP: Full Rate ProductionIPR: In-Progress ReviewPDR: Preliminary Design ReviewCDR: Critical Design ReviewComms: Communication Systems

DAE: Defense Acquisition ExecutiveDST: Defense Support TeamJAT: Joint Analysis TeamC2-ISR: Command & Control, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance

DAE: Defense Acquisition ExecutiveDST: Defense Support TeamJAT: Joint Analysis TeamC2-ISR: Command & Control, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance

PSRs/NARs completed: 83Nunn-McCurdy/Critical Change Review Certification: 25JATs/DST/IPA: 15PDR’s, CDR’s, tech reviews: 25


1. Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures / Common Missile Warning System

2. AEGIS Modernization3. Air and Missile Defense Radar 4. Air Operations Center - Weapon System 5. Apache (AH-64D) Block III6. Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense7. B-2 Defensive Management System 8. B-2 Extremely High Frequency9. Biometrics10. Broad Area Maritime Surveillance 11. C-130 Avionics Modernization Program12. C-27J13. C-5 Reliability and Re-engining Program14. Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives.15. Cobra Judy Replacement16. Common Infrared Countermeasures17. Consolidated Afloat Network and Enterprise Service18. Cooperative Engagement Capability 19. CV-7820. DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer21. Department of the Navy Large Aircraft Infrared

Countermeasures22. Distributed Common Ground System - Army23. Distributed Common Ground System - Navy24. E-2D Advanced Hawkeye/E-2C Radar Modernization Program

DSE Engagement with Major Defense Acquisition Programs

25. Early-Infantry Brigade Combat Team26. Electronic Health records27. Enhanced Polar System28. Extended Range Multi-Purpose 29. Excalibur30. Expeditionary Combat Support System31. Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle32. F-35 - Joint Strike Fighter Program Lightning II33. Family of Beyond Line of Sight Terminals34. Global Combat Support System - Army35. Global Hawk36. Global Positioning System IIIA37. Global Positioning System Next Generation Control System (OCX)38. Ground Combat Vehicle39. Ground Soldier System40. Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System Alternative Warhead41. H-1 Upgrades (4BW/4BN)42. HC/MC-130 Replacement Program43. Heavy Lift Replacement44. Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasure45. Integrated Personnel and Pay System Air Force46. Integrated Personnel and Pay System Army47. Integrated Strategic Planning and Analysis Network Incr 248. Joint Air to Ground Missile


49. Joint Air-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range50. Joint Cooperative Target Identification - Ground51. Joint High Speed Vessel52. Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensors53. Joint Light Tactical Vehicle54. Joint Mine Resistant Ambush Protected55. Joint Multi-Mission Submersible56. Joint Precision Approach and Landing System57. Joint Space Operations Center Mission System (JMS)58. Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System59. Joint Tactical Radio System Cluster Airborne, Maritime and Fixed 60. Joint Tactical Radio System Ground Mobile Radio61. Joint Tactical Radio System Handheld and Manpack Small Form

Radio62. Joint Tactical Radio System Waveform Network Enterprise Domain63. KC-X Tanker Replacement64. Key Management Infrastructure65. LHA-6 New Amphibious Assault Ship66. Littoral Combat Ship67. LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock68. Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) Mobile Landing Platform69. Medium Extended Air Defense System70. Mobile User Objective System71. Multi-Functional Information Distribution System (LVT, JTRS)

DSE Engagement with Major Defense Acquisition Programs

72. Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program73. National Polar-Orbiting Operational

Environment Satellite74. Navy Advanced EHF Multi-Band Terminal75. Next Generation Enterprise Network76. Next Generation Jammer77. P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft78. Reaper MQ 9 Hunter Killer Unmanned Aircraft System79. Remote Minehunting System 80. Sea Based Strategic Deterrence (Ohio Replacement Program)81. Ship-to-Shore Connector82. Small Diameter Bomb Increment 283. Space Based Space Surveillance Block 10 Follow-on84. Space-Based Infrared System Program High Component85. SSN-774 Virginia Class Submarine86. Standard Missile-687. Stryker Modernization Program88. Teleport89. V-22 Osprey Joint Advanced Vertical Lift Aircraft90. Vertical Take-Off Unmanned Aerial Vehicle91. Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 192. Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 293. Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 394. Wideband Global Satellite


• Some of the programs have it right!• However: For each positive systemic

findings there exists offsetting systemic negative findings

Systemic Findings

Positive Finding

3.3 Program & Project ManagementStrong teamwork between PMO and contractor; cohesive, team-like atmosphere where there is open information sharing, coordination and mutual supportRisk management process effective in capturing, tracking and managing system-level risksRisk mitigation process well defined and documented

Programs continually addressing cost and schedule risk through comprehensive and robust use of EV

4.2 Requirements BaselineRequirements process adequately documented and reqmt’s traceable to top level

4.5 SoftwareStrong SW metrics approach

4.6 Design VerificationT&E consistently well-planned and executed

1.3 CapabilitiesRequirements stable and consistent

2.3 Staffing LevelsPMO and CTR suitable staffed w/experienced, highly qualified and knowledgeable personnel

Negative Finding

3.3 Program & Project ManagementLack of good communications between Government and contractors

No formal risk assessment performed Lack of properly documented risk mitigation plans

EVMS does not provide req’d insight or reflect work being done

4.2 Requirements BaselineRequirements don’t flow down, poorly stated, not defined

4.5 SoftwareLack of metrics prevents accurate awareness of SW development, test and fix progress

4.6 Design VerificationTesting is incomplete or inadequate and scope is not defined.

1.3 CapabilitiesRequirements not stable or defined

2.3 Staffing LevelsPOs lack acquisition or specialized expertise


Top Negative Systemic Findings

Rank Systemic Finding % Reviews

Staffing – 57% of reviews 1 Marginal program office staffing 33

22 POs have a lack of acquisition or specialized expertise 15 23 POs find it difficult to bring in and retain high quality personnel 15

Schedule – 82% 2 Schedule is too success-oriented, aggressive, and unlikely to be achieved 32

11 Program is schedule driven, not event driven 18 14 Program does not have a current IMS or even an IMS 17

Requirements – 84% 8 Requirements are not stable and continue to churn 20

15 Requirements are vague, poorly stated, or even not defined 17 16 Baselines are constantly changing due to requirements creep 17

Management – 72% 3 POs have inadequate system engineering processes 23 7 Lack of good communications between Government and contractor 22 9 Program management structure has major deficiencies 20

Reliability – 52% 4 A reliability test program is needed 23

13 Reliability is not progressing as planned or has failed to achieve requirements 17 Budget – 48%

5 Program budget is insufficient 23 Testing – 77%

6 Test schedule is aggressive and highly concurrent 23 10 Testing is incomplete or inadequate 18

October 2009

Acquisition Efficiency Guidance Roadmap

Target Affordability and Control Cost Growth- Mandate affordability as a requirement- Implement “should cost” based management- Eliminate redundancy within warfighter portfolios- Achieve Stable and economical production rates - Manage program timelines

Incentivize Productivity & Innovation in Industry- Reward contractors for successful supply chain and

indirect expense management- Increase Use of FPIF contract type- Capitalize on progress payment structures - Institute a preferred supplier program - Reinvigorate industry’s independent research and

development

17Sept 15, 2010 SBIR Conference

Promote Real Competition- Emphasize competitive strategy at each program milestone- Remove obstacles to competition

• Allow reasonable time to bid • Require non-certified cost and pricing data on single

offers• Enforce open system architectures and set rules for

acquisition of technical data rights- Increase small business role and opportunities

Improve Tradecraft in Acquisition of Services- Assign senior managers for acquisition of services- Adopt uniform services market segmentation (taxonomy)- Address causes of poor tradecraft

• Define requirements and prevent creep• Conduct market research

- Increase small business participation

Reduce Non-Productive Processes and Bureaucracy- Reduce frequency of OSD level reviews- Work with Congress to eliminate low value added statutory requirements- Reduce the volume and cost of Congressional Reports- Reduce non-value added requirements imposed on industry- Align DCMA and DCAA processes to ensure work is complementary- Increase use of Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs) to reduce

administrative costs


Target Affordability and Control Cost Growth- Mandate affordability as a requirement- Implement “should cost” based management- Eliminate redundancy within warfighter portfolios- Achieve Stable and economical production rates - Manage program timelines



Incentivize Productivity & Innovation in Industry- Reward contractors for successful supply chain and

indirect expense management- Increase Use of FPIF contract type- Capitalize on progress payment structures - Institute a preferred supplier program - Reinvigorate industry’s independent research and

development




Promote Real Competition- Emphasize competitive strategy at each program

milestone- Remove obstacles to competition

• Allow reasonable time to bid • Require non-certified cost and pricing data on

single offers• Enforce open system architectures and set rules

for acquisition of technical data rights- Increase small business role and opportunities



Improve Tradecraft in Acquisition of Services- Assign senior managers for acquisition of services- Adopt uniform services market segmentation

(taxonomy)- Address causes of poor tradecraft

• Define requirements and prevent creep• Conduct market research

- Increase small business participation



Reduce Non-Productive Processes and Bureaucracy- Reduce frequency of OSD level reviews- Work with Congress to eliminate low value added

statutory requirements- Reduce the volume and cost of Congressional

Reports- Reduce non-value added requirements imposed on

industry- Align DCMA and DCAA processes to ensure work is

complementary- Increase use of Forward Pricing Rate

Recommendations (FPRRs) to reduce administrative costs


Improving the Department’s Engineering PracticeSupporting Our People

Growing the Systems Engineering Workforce Competencies:Systems Engineering Workforce DAU Systems Engineering Course Content

Engineering Capabilities in the Defense Industrial Base:NDIA Systems Engineering DivisionAIA Technology Operations CouncilWorkshops with Industry

Growing our Nations Future Engineering Workforce:Engagement with Service Academies Visits with Engineering facultyUndergraduate SE WorkshopSupport for K-12 STEM

Systems Engineering is not an Audit Function,Our Goal is to Support Services, Agencies and Program Offices

In Achieving Technical Success

Systems Engineering is not an Audit Function,Our Goal is to Support Services, Agencies and Program Offices

In Achieving Technical Success

Cos

t

Tec

hnic

al P

erfo

rman

ce

Sch

edul

e



Improving the Department’s Engineering Practice

Our Focus: Policy, People and PracticeOur Focus: Policy, People and Practice

Growing the Systems Engineering Workforce

Improving SE Capabilities in the Defense Industrial Base

Growing our Nation’s Future SE Workforce


Systems Engineer - The Best Job in America?

Source: http://www.focus.com/fyi/human-resources/best-jobs/ c 2010 Focus - Used with permission.


What Are Our Expectations of Our Systems Engineering Workforce?

• Breadth– Awareness of and appreciation for other functional areas,

– Understanding of the system lifecycle and processes

– Knowledge of other engineering disciplines and how they integrate into the system solution

– Knowledge of product domains

• Depth– Extensive expertise and experience in one or more engineering

disciplines and in one or more product domains

• Leadership – Ability to motivate and inspire individuals and teams

– Comfort in dealing with complexity

– Focused on underpinning decisions with data

– Capability to make tough technical decisions


Challenges Ahead

• Create the tools to enable Rapid Capability Delivery– Shorten the time to deliver life-saving and war-winning technologies –

without compromising SE integrity

• Expand the aperture of SE to address 21st century technical challenges– Security, software-intensive, etc…

• Embrace complexity– Systems of Systems / Complex Adaptive Systems / Emergent

behaviors

• Expand the SE human capital resource base– Reflect new insights in curricula to grow the next “crop” of SE


The DoD 5000.02 Process


The Challenge of Rapid Fielding

Lessons Learned FeedbackLessons Learned Feedback

Industry

US Govt

Services

ICDARPA

Coalition

Program of Record

PrototypeCapability

Terminate

ProblemProblemIdentificationIdentification

SolutionSolutionMatchingMatching

ImplementationImplementationToolsTools TransitionTransition

JUONS

COCOM Requests

Anticipated Needs

OSD

Academia

RapidEquipping

Force

JIEDDO

RapidFieldingOffice

RapidCapabilities

Office

Others

Role of Systems Engineering in Rapid Fielding?


Lessons Learned FeedbackLessons Learned Feedback

Industry

US Govt

Services

IC

DARPACoalition

Program of Record

PrototypeCapability

Terminate

ProblemProblemIdentificationIdentification

SolutionSolutionMatchingMatching

ImplementationImplementationToolsTools TransitionTransition

JUONS

COCOM Requests

Anticipated Needs

OSD

Academia

RapidEquipping

Force

JIEDDO

RapidFieldingOffice

RapidCapabilities

Office

Others

Can we increase the speed of our rigorous process?

Can we increase the rigorof our rapid process?

Adopt Commercial Deployment Models?Adopt Commercial Deployment Models?

Rethinking How We Buy?

Balance Rigor & Repeatability w/Speed & Effectiveness?Balance Rigor & Repeatability w/Speed & Effectiveness?


Major Initiatives: Development Planning

TechnologyDevelopment

Materiel Solution Analysis

AEngineering Analysis

Analysis ofAlternatives

Strategic Guidance

Joint Warfighting

ConceptsCBA ICD

MDD

Preacquisition Concepts and Prototyping

Enabling

S&T

MDD is the opportunity to start programs with a strong early Systems Engineering foundation

COMPETITIVE

PROTOTYPING

BEFORE MS B

Materiel Development Decision (MDD)- Formal entry point into the acquisition process • Keys to upfront technical preparation 1.The candidate materiel solution approaches effectively address the capability gap(s), desired performance characteristics and associated dependencies.

2.There exists a range of technically feasible solutions generated from across the entire solution space, as demonstrated through early prototypes, models, or data.

3.Consideration has been given to near-term opportunities to provide a more rapid interim response to the capability need.

4.The plan to staff and fund analytic, engineering, and programmatic activities supports the proposed milestone entry requirements.


Major Initiatives: Reinvigorating Defense Standardization

Standards provide our Corporate Technical Process Memory and Enable Communication Between and Across the

Department, Industry, and our Allies

Standards provide our Corporate Technical Process Memory and Enable Communication Between and Across the

Department, Industry, and our Allies

• Acquisition Reform efforts cancelled tens of thousands of Mil Standards

• Mil Standards partially replaced with Voluntary Consensus Standards (VCS)• VCS proponents may not fully capture US Governments interests and

equities

• Services Product Centers are currently pursuing independent efforts to reinvigorate standards processes

• Opportunity for SE to advocate for and coordinate service efforts

• USD(AT&L) Appointed D,SE Defense Standardization Executive (was LM&R, Standardization staff still at DLA)

• Standards, GIDEP, Interagency Coordination

• STATUS: Goal is to make standardization efforts an effective Engineering coordination tool


Systems 2020Research Areas

Capability

on Demand

Capability

on Demand

Model Based Engineering

Model Based Engineering

Platform Based

Engineering

Platform Based

Engineering

Modeling and simulation tools for concurrent design, development & manufacture

Architectural and automated design tools to rapidly insert new capabilitiesArchitectural and automated design tools to rapidly insert new capabilities

Systems embedded with organic adaption capabilitiesSystems embedded with organic adaption capabilities

Faster delivery of complex, adaptive systemsFaster delivery of complex, adaptive systems

Trusted Systems Design

Trusted Systems Design

Design methods and tools for system assurance that detect malice or enable self awareness

Design methods and tools for system assurance that detect malice or enable self awareness


Opportunities

• Acquisition reform efforts have recognized criticality of strong Systems Engineering focus for program success – Systems Engineering toolkit focused on identifying and managing risk –

development risk, production risk and life-cycle

• Growing focus on addressing “early-acquisition” phases - requirements definition, development planning, and early acquisition sytem engineering support– Leading to more informed decisions at MS B

• Our development processes need to evolve to provide faster product cycles, more adaptable products and address emerging challenges

• Future US Defense capabilities depend on a capable US engineering workforce in and out of government– Need to create opportunities to grow future “Engineering Heroes”


Systems Engineering:Critical to Program Success

Innovation, Speed, and Agilityhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/se

Innovation, Speed, and Agilityhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/se

presentation from steve welby at the october 12 dinner meeting

Documents