Guarding the crown jewels: identifying critical program information - Best Practices

Program Manager, Sept-Dec, 2003 by Arion N. Pattakos

Program managers and other key personnel who make decisions as part of the acquisition management framework are very sensitive to the imperatives associated with cost, schedule, and performance. But the principal consideration when fielding a system should be its performance in the hands of the warfighter. Determining the potential for success in battle emphasizes the notion that opposing forces not have the capability to counter, kill, or reduce the effective combat life of a fielded system.

DoDI 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System (May 12, 2003), makes clear in several places that programs with critical technologies/systems must develop plans to protect their "crown jewels," more officially labeled "critical program information" (CPI) during both development and sustainment.

PMs must examine their programs critically to determine if they have CPI. If they do, a program protection plan with an anti-tamper annex is required and must be summarized in the acquisition strategy no later than Milestone B. (If PMs determine that their programs have no CPI, this must be certified in writing to the Milestone Decision Authority) It is certainly to a PM's advantage to identify CPI as early as possible before Milestone B, given the potentially profound impact that failure to protect CPI might have on schedule, cost, and performance. As a side note, technology protection is a specific inspection item of the DoD inspector general.

Determining CPI

So what are the criteria for determining CPI? Three were mentioned in the first paragraph: the capability of an adversary to counter, kill, or reduce the effective combat life of the system. To that list are added two more. The fourth criterion is "clone"--in other words, sufficient information for an adversary to develop a like system or even skip a generation and develop one that is superior. Obviously not a good situation for our forces to face when deployed. The fifth criterion is the requirement for additional research and development (R&D)--and hence dollars--to achieve the capability required by the warfighter in the event that it is determined that an adversary has exploited system CPI. Figure 1 gives a graphical view of the overall process for determining CPI.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

PMs need to identify and prioritize CPI for any component, subsystem, technology, demonstrator, or even independent research program, the results of which may later be incorporated into their programs. This last may prove difficult, as it raises concerns associated with basic, advanced, and applied research and protecting related information. Most researchers believe--and rightly so--that technology is advanced by openness and retarded by secrecy; however, there exists a gray zone between the two that must be determined if we are to field successful systems (Figure 2). It makes sense for the R&D community to ask if a technology is likely to end up in a system used by the warfighter and if that technology is likely to be designated as CPI.

Blue/Red Analysis

A blue/red analytical approach is suggested for the identification of CPI. The blue analysis addresses CPI from a U.S. perspective. What do we think are the key/critical elements of the program (and thus CPI) and why? The analytical process includes performing a "functional decomposition" of the system to isolate what is central to its success. A potentially good beginning in decomposing a system may be found in a review of the Militarily Critical Technologies List (MCTL) The MCTL is the systematic, ongoing assessment and analysis of technologies to determine which are militarily critical. Another source is a well-executed work breakdown structure (WBS). While a PM is not required to have a WBS, the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) advises that it is a derived requirement and a "best practice." Per MIL Handbook 881, the WBS provides the framework for specifying the objective of the program and defines it in terms of hierarchically product-oriented elements, each providing logical summary points lot assessing technical accomplishment One objective of the WBS is to separate component parts to make relationships clear. A key word to remember when doing a CPI analysis is "unique." What makes the system unique and thus important to our military forces?

The red analysis is conducted from a foreign interest/adversary perspective. What do "they" think is important about the technologies or concepts we are using or plan to use, and why? Do they have similar systems in some stage of development? More specifically the intelligence community should be asked to determine foreign interest targets associated with or relevant to a program. Here too the MCTL is a useful document, since it provides a foreign technology assessment. Another source that program personnel can use to develop questions for the intelligence community is the unclassified version of the annual Technology Collection Trends in the U.S. Defense Industry prepared by the Defense Security Service.