Chapter-2
|
This chapter briefly discusses the acquisition strategy, selected acquisition approaches, and system acquisition phases. It is concluded by a discussion of Integrated Concept Teams (ICTs) and Integrated Product Teams (IPTs).
Each PM develops and documents an acquisition strategy that serves as the roadmap for program execution from program initiation through post-production support and retirement. A primary goal is to minimize the time and cost of satisfying an identified, validated need, consistent with common sense and sound business practices. It evolves through an iterative process and becomes increasingly more definitive in describing the essential elements of a program. It is tailored to meet the needs of the individual program, to include management requirements imposed on the contractor.
The development of the acquisition strategy provides opportunities for the MANPRINT AO to embed MANPRINT and assist the PM. Some key actions/considerations might include:
-
Participate in Working Level Integrated Product Team (WIPT) meetings associated with planning and developing the acquisition strategy.
- Ensure that sufficient time has been allocated to MANPRINT analyses and planned operational test and evaluation events.
-
Review the logistics concept and ensure that it is synchronized with the target audience description.
-
Review the PM and contractor management concept and ensure that MANPRINT is considered.
-
Ensure that MANPRINT effort take the acquisition strategy (schedules, events, management structure) into account. For example, if an incremental acquisition strategy is planned, then the system will be fielded in capability "blocks." As successive blocks are designed and fielded, MANPRINT issues may either arise or be resolved. What may have been a problem with one version of the system may not be an issue when the next block is fielded. What wasn’t a problem now may become a problem. (For example, will the upgrade affect the maintenance concept and hence the target audience ?)
2.2 Acquisition Approaches (Many systems will have components that are reflective of a combination of the following acquisition approaches)
2.2.1 Product Improvement
-
Priority consideration shall always be given to the most cost effective solution over the system's life-cycle. Generally, use or modification of a system or equipment that the government already owns is more cost effective than acquiring new materiel. There are two types of product improvement: pre-planned product improvement (P3I) and modification.
-
Pre-planned product improvement is used when market research or testing indicates current technology will not meet the requirements of the user but fielding a cost effective near term solution with current technology while planning to add or upgrade capabilities as technology matures.
Modification is a change to a weapon or information system that is in production.
2.2.2 NDI/COTS
The PM is strongly encouraged, wherever possible, to use non-developmental and commercial-off-the-shelf (NDI/COTS) products as the primary source of supply. Acquisition of NDI/COTS may be particularly attractive because the time and cost required to get the system to the user can be significantly reduced. DoD provides the following definitions pertaining to NDI/COTS:
-
Commercial item: any item, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used for nongovernmental purposes and that: (1) has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or, (2) has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public; or any item that evolved through advances in technology or performance and that is not yet available in the commercial marketplace, but will be available in the commercial marketplace in time to satisfy the delivery requirements under a Government solicitation.
-
Modified commercial item: any item with modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace or minor modifications of a type not customarily available in the commercial marketplace made to meet Federal Government requirements.
-
Non-developmental item: (1) any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for governmental purposes by a Federal Agency, a State or local government, or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement; (2) any item described in (1) that requires only minor modification or modifications of the type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency; or (3) any item described in (1) or (2) solely because the item is not yet in use.
Acquisitions involving NDI/COTS pose unique challenges to the MANPRINT practitioner, because the ability to influence actual system design can be minimal. This is not to say, however, that MANPRINT does not play a role. In fact, MANPRINT issues (risks) and concerns should be a major determinant of whether an NDI/COTS solution is viable. Suitability to the aptitudes, knowledge and skills of the intended user population; trainability (anticipated training costs) of the system; the human-machine interface; and the ability of the NDI/COTS components to satisfy total system performance requirements are among the many MANPRINT considerations that should be addressed completely and early in the decision process, during market surveillance and market research.
Market surveillance activities are conducted on a continual basis by the Army Materiel Command (AMC) and Army Research, Development, and Engineering Centers (RD&ECs). The purpose is to keep abreast of developing trends and new technologies in the commercial marketplace with potential for military application. When the user defines the need (as expressed in the Mission Need Statement [MNS]), the AMC commodity-oriented Major Subordinate Command (MSC) will make a determination regarding whether NDI/COTS is feasible. If so, the MSC will begin market research.
Market research is used to identify what is currently available in the commercial marketplace or in use by other government agencies. Market research will also identify current and emerging technologies and their potential application to the specific Army need. If the market research indicates that a commercial solution is available, requirements documents must be written so they do not preclude the adoption of the commercial solution. If the research indicates that there isn’t a commercial item available, the requirements must be supportable with the current technologies identified in the market research. The decision may also be made to assume the risk associated with writing requirements that depend on emerging technologies identified in the market research. This constitutes a Preplanned Product Improvement (P3I) program (discussed in Section 2.2.1).
MANPRINT considerations should be incorporated into market research. Issues (risks) and concerns identified by the ICT for inclusion in the Mission Need Statement (MNS) and the MANPRINT management plan (discussed in Section 4) will form the basis for MANPRINT evaluation of NDI/COTS hardware and/or software. This information should be crosswalked into independent evaluation plans and other pertinent requirements documents (e.g., the Operational Requirements Document [ORD], the Test and Evaluation Master Plan [TEMP]). A primary avenue of MANPRINT influence in NDI/COTS acquisitions is to make MANPRINT (or preeminent domains thereof) a major criterion in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and source selection process.
The MANPRINT action officer should carefully evaluate any information provided by industry for MANPRINT implications. Most importantly, the MANPRINT AO should work closely with the PM to ensure that all relevant concerns and issues (risks) are fully understood as important decisions are made about the system.
Grand design programs are characterized by design, development, test and evaluation, and deployment of the total functional capability in a single increment. It is most appropriate when the user requirements are well understood, supported by precedent, easily defined, and assessment of other considerations indicate a phased approach is not necessary. The entire system proceeds through the acquisition phases in a smooth, continuous path.
Incremental programs are generally characterized by design, development, test and evaluation, and deployment of functionality through a number of clearly defined system "increments" that stand on their own. An initial core capability is defined, designed, and developed.
It should implement a significant portion of the full intended capability. At the same time, additional increments and their related capabilities are planned for and agreed upon. Each increment proceeds through the acquisition process based on its own development, not that of the whole. It is not appropriate when the user requirements are well understood and defined, but the assessment of other considerations (e.g., risks, funding, schedule, etc.) indicates a phased approach is more prudent or beneficial.
Evolutionary programs are generally characterized by the design, development, test and evaluation, and deployment of a preliminary capability that includes provisions for the evolutionary addition of future functionality and changes as requirements are further defined. It is appropriate when the detailed user requirements are not well understood and defined. The total system functional capability is not completely defined at inception, but evolves as the system is built.
2.2.4 Other Acquisition Strategies
Any acquisition system, subsystem, component, or technology program that involves a strategy that includes funding by more than one DoD Component during any phase of a system's life cycle.
The designated lead DoD Component Head will select a single qualified program manager for the designated joint program. It will have one quality assurance program, one program change control program, one integrated test program and one set of documentation and reports to include one Joint ORD, one TEMP, one APB, etc. Human Systems Integration (HSI) is the MANPRINT equivalent for joint programs.
The Army is moving away from the stove pipe model of developing and acquiring systems in favor of a system-of-systems approach to requirements determination, development, acquisition, and fielding. The system-of-systems approach recognizes that every platform, weapon system, computer, radio, piece of equipment, and even every soldier is not only a unique entity, but also is a part of a greater system. The system-of-systems approach emphasizes seamless integration, cooperative development, and commonality of components wherever possible. Digitization represents the clearest example of the system-of-systems approach, where common technologies and requirements are leveraged across different systems to speed development, reduce costs, and enhance capabilities. The MANPRINT practitioner must ensure that MANPRINT activities not only address the soldier interface within the individual system, but the soldier's issues and concerns within the system-of-systems.
The system of systems concept allows the massing of effects, not forces. The synergistic effect is a force capable of dominating the battlespace and setting the conditions to ensure that dominance is maintained. The system-of-systems approach will be applied toward all future fieldings, with the Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) serving as the cornerstone. However, the Army has, in reality, been fielding systems of systems for years. Family of systems use common parts and operate in similar ways. It is a rare system that is independent of any other system. The Capstone Requirements Document (CRD) is the requirements management document that sets common standards and requirements. The CRD cannot be used to justify procurement. Each individual system requires its own ORD. Reference Memorandum, HQ TRADOC, ATCD-RP, Subject: System of Systems Approach Within TRADOC, dated 2 March 1999.
WRAP implements the Army's accelerated procurement of systems identified through TRADOC warfighting experiments as compelling successes which satisfy urgent needs. It is implemented within existing Army structures and organizations. It is a process that links TRADOC experimentation with systems acquisition.
2.2.4.3.1 Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWEs)
AWEs are the culminating efforts in evaluating major increases to warfighting capability. They cross TRADOC domains of doctrine, training, leader development, organization, materiel, and soldier (DTLOMS). They synergistically combine new force structure, doctrine, and materiel to counter a tactically competent opposing force. Moreover, they impact most, if not all, of the battlefield dynamics and battlefield operating systems. AWEs Managers must ensure that their technology demonstrations include appropriate consideration of MANPRINT, tailored to the scope and nature of their program.
CEP is a separately funded TRADOC program providing sponsors the ability to evaluate and capitalize on emerging technology, materiel initiatives, and warfighting ideas. They facilitate experimentation (conducted primarily by TRADOC Battle Laboratories) to determine the military utility or potential of an idea to become a DTLOMS solution to Future Operational Capabilities (FOCs). CEP reports are the primary source for data supporting initiation of WRAP.
2.2.4.3.3 Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs)
ATDs are a category of technology demonstrations. They are risk-reducing, integrated, "proof of principle" demonstrations designed to assist near-term system developments in satisfying specific operational capability needs. It accelerates introduction of new technologies into the operational systems. ATD Managers must ensure that their technology demonstrations include appropriate consideration of MANPRINT, tailored to the scope and nature of their program.
2.2.4.3.4 Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs)
ACTDs accelerate the application of mature technologies configured in a way that is useful to the warfighter which is in response to a critical military operational need. ACTDs provide an evaluation of the military utility of proposed solutions, and are jointly planned by users and technology developers to enable operational forces to experiment in the field with new technologies in order to evaluate potential changes to doctrine, warfighting concepts, tactics, modernization plans, and training. ACTD Managers must ensure that their technology demonstrations include appropriate consideration of MANPRINT, tailored to the scope and nature of their program.
This paragraph contains a brief description of systems acquisition phases, as described by DoDD 5000.1 and DoD 5000.2-R. Only summary information is presented. The reader is referred to the source documents for a more complete treatment.
Figure 2.1 depicts the system life cycle. While all programs must satisfy certain core activities (as defined in DoDD 5000.1 and DoD 5000.2-R), the number of phases and decision points should be tailored to meet the specific needs of individual PMs. Objective assessments of a program’s category status, risks, the adequacy of proposed risk management plans, and the urgency of the user’s need form the basis for the tailoring.
All acquisition programs are based on identified, documented, and validated requirements. These needs are generated as a direct result of continuing assessments of national security, military strategies, lessons learned from recent operational experiences and future conflict scenarios.
Mission needs must first be evaluated to determine if they can be satisfied by non-materiel solutions. Non-materiel solutions include changes in doctrine, organization, leader development, soldiers or training. When a need cannot be met by such changes, a broad statement of mission—expressed in terms of an operational capability (not a system-specific solution)—is identified in a Mission Need Statement (MNS). Approval of the MNS is gained at Milestone 0, "Approval to Conduct Concept Studies." Approval authorizes initiation of Phase 0, "Concept Exploration" and expenditure of resources for the activities of that phase, although it does not yet mean that a new acquisition program has been initiated. The MNS represents a formal request to begin defining requirements and exploring different technology concepts and typically leads to an Operational Requirement Document (ORD) which provides detailed requirements.
Figure 2.1—System Life Cycle
Phase 0—Concept Exploration —typically consists of competitive, parallel short-term concept studies. The focus of these efforts is to define and evaluate the feasibility of alternative concepts and to provide a basis for assessing the relative merits (i.e., advantages and disadvantages, degree of risk) of these concepts at Milestone I—Approval to Begin a New Acquisition Program. Analysis of alternatives shall be used as appropriate to facilitate comparisons of alternative concepts. The most promising system concepts are defined in terms of initial, broad objectives for cost, schedule, performance, software requirements, opportunities for tradeoffs, overall acquisition strategy, and test and evaluation strategy. An approved ORD (which contains MANPRINT requirements and constraints) is produced during Phase 0 and serves to define the "program" initiated at Milestone I. The ORD is a "living" document and can be (and often is) revised periodically during Phase I and II. A PM will usually be appointed within 3 months of a favorable Milestone I decision.
During the next phase, Phase I—Program Definition and Risk Reduction—the program becomes defined. One or more concepts, design approaches, and/or parallel technologies are pursued as warranted.
Assessments of the advantages and disadvantages of alternative concepts are refined. Prototyping, demonstrations, and early operational assessments are considered and included as necessary to reduce risk so that technology, manufacturing, and support risks are well in hand before the next decision point (Milestone II—Approval to Enter Engineering and Manufacturing Development). Cost drivers, life-cycle cost estimates, cost-performance trades, interoperability, and acquisition strategy alternatives are considered, to include evolutionary and incremental software development.
During Phase II—Engineering and Manufacturing Development—the most promising design approach developed in Phase I is translated into a stable, interoperable, producible, supportable and cost effective system design. The manufacturing or production process is validated, and testing is conducted to demonstrate that the system capabilities meet contract specification requirements, satisfy the mission need, and meet minimum acceptable operational performance requirements. A favorable decision at Milestone III—Production or Fielding/Deployment Approval—authorizes entry into Phase III.
The focus in Phase III—Production, Fielding/Deployment, and Operational Support —is to achieve an operational capability that satisfies mission needs. Deficiencies encountered in Development Test and Evaluation (DT&E) and Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) are resolved and fixes are verified. During fielding/deployment and throughout operational support, the potential for modifications to the fielded/deployed system continues.
2.4 Integrated Concept Teams (ICTs) and Integrated Product Teams (IPTs)
The decision to acquire a new system is actually the end product of an ongoing series of warfighting experiments, simulations, discussions and analyses. The TRADOC Commander is responsible for development of the vision of our Army’s future warfighting capabilities. This vision is translated into a more detailed concept by Integrated Concept Teams (ICT) approved and chartered by Headquarters TRADOC (Tier 1) or School/Center Commandants (Tier 2). ICTs formed by TRADOC School Commandants and selected non-TRADOC leaders augment this vision with more detailed operations and branch concepts. The ICT (Tier One and Two) is charged with developing products, which include Materiel Requirements Documents (MNS, ORD) if such a solution is warranted. Ultimately, ICTs transition into IPTs as concepts mature into tangible systems. ICT members are responsible for both horizontal and vertical coordination within their parent organization.
The ICTs meet to propose, discuss, and advance developmental concepts and to define needs which may ultimately become mission needs statements. Experiments may play a role in developing concepts and requirements. There are two main categories of warfighting experiments—concept experiments and advanced warfighting experiments. The overwhelming majority are concept experiments pertaining to individual operations or branches. Usually, the concept proponent conducts the experiment or requests an Army battle lab to sponsor it.
The concept proponent and/or battle lab formulate hypotheses to be tested. The hypotheses can relate to modifications in doctrine, training, leadership development, organization, materiel and/or soldiers (DTLOMS). After the experiment has been conducted, the TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC) analyzes the results.
TRAC analyses and recommendations from experiment participants form the basis for the final experiment report. At this point, the concept proponent can discard the hypothesis, modify it, continue to explore it, or define a DTLOMS requirement on the basis of what has been learned.
Warfighting experimentation, science and technology research, concept development, and contemporary issues all provide DTLOMS insights on means to achieve future operational capabilities. To translate these insights into requirements, the concept proponent will form focused ICTs to integrate and analyze them to determine the most effective, timely, and least costly means. The MANPRINT AO must ensure total life cycle costs are addressed, not just acquisition costs. TRADOC Pamphlet 71-9 states that a MANPRINT representative will be a core member of the ICTs.
There is a specific order to the analyses that are performed. Doctrine insights are analyzed first. If modifications to doctrine will not satisfy the requirement, changes in training, leader development, organizational design, and soldier capabilities are explored (in that order). Materiel solutions are considered last. This sequence has been established to explore the least costly and most rapid changes first.
In the event that the concept proponent decides a materiel solution is warranted, activities will be initiated to document the requirements for presentation to the CG, TRADOC. An ICT for the potential new system will be formed. Tier one ICTs established by HQ TRADOC normally will have the highest visibility. MANPRINT has a core representative but of all or most MANPRINT domains may need to participate. For Tier two ICTs conducted at TRADOC centers and schools, ARL-HRED field elements will have the lead for participating and coordinating MANPRINT expertise.
The Materiel Developer (MD) also plays a role in the pre-milestone 0 time frame. The MD may form a task force or working group that will work with the ICT. Like the ICT, the task force or working group may be composed of representatives from all appropriate functional disciplines working together to build successful programs and enabling decision-makers to make the right decisions at the right time. Like IPTs, these groups should function in a spirit of teamwork. Participants should be empowered and authorized, to the maximum extent possible, to make commitments for the organization or the functional area they represent.
Prior to MDR 0, the ICT, with input from the MD IPT, will define users’ requirements in broad operational terms. The two teams will explore the feasibility of satisfying them given the state of the art in technology, initiate market research into NDI/COTS, and examine acquisition strategies, among other things.
During Phase 0, the CD’s ICT and the MD’s IPT will further refine user requirements, system alternatives and concepts, acquisition strategy, program plans, and life cycle costs. They will prepare all of the necessary documentation for MDR I. This process will evolve through the Concept and DTLOMS Determination Analysis ICTs to the Materiel Requirements Document ICTs. After a favorable MDR I decision is obtained, a new program is initiated, and a PM is designated.
One of the first actions taken by the PM will be the formation of IPTs. At the PM level, there are generally two types: Working Level IPTs (WIPTs) and the Integrating Integrated Product Team (IIPT) . The first team to be formed is the IIPT, and at least some of the members of the ICT and the MD’s IPT will transition over to the IIPT. The IIPT assists the PM in determining a structure for the WIPTs (e.g., which WIPTs should be formed, who should participate, how much support is needed). The PM may appoint an ILS Manager and a MANPRINT Manager or the same individual may be dual-hatted.
One of the WIPTs that may be recommended, based on needs or issues, at this point is the MANPRINT WIPT. As with the transition from the new system ICT to the IIPT, the MANPRINT WIPT should contain MANPRINT members who have transitioned from the ICT. This structure ensures continuity throughout the acquisition process. In cases where a MANPRINT WIPT is inappropriate or unsupported, MANPRINT must be represented on another WIPT(s). ARL-HRED, will coordinate MANPRINT issues and activities.
The same basic process holds true for automated information systems, even when TRADOC is not the system proponent. The Functional Proponent would perform similar functions to that of a Combat Developer/ICT as described in TRADOC Pamphlet 71-9. A listing of ongoing ICTs will be maintained on the TRADOC DCSCD Homepage at: http://www.tradoc.army.mil/dcscd/index.htm
|
|
Copyright © 1998,
1999 U.S. Army. |
