Revitalization of systems engineering in DoD: implications to product cost control

Defense AT&L, March-April, 2005 by Michael W. Wynne, Mark D. Schaeffer

Many systems approaching an acquisition milestone review come before the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) without demonstrating sound management practices firmly based in systems engineering. Our analyses of a sampling of major acquisition programs show a definite linkage between escalating costs and the ineffective application of systems engineering. It is clear to me that our budgets are only going to become tighter, public scrutiny is only going to become stronger, and demands for our services are only going to come faster.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Making Revitalization a Priority

Consequently, we've made the revitalization of systems engineering a priority within the U.S. Department of Defense. We have taken the first steps to reinvigorate policy, guidance, education, and training, as well as to develop program support and outreach. We expect to see a reduction in acquisition risk, which ultimately translates to improved product cost control over the entire life cycle.

Our primary goal is to re-establish DoD's systems engineering prowess and to let that expertise flow down to our industry. We will accomplish this through systemic, effective use of systems engineering as a key acquisition management planning and oversight tool. In addition, we will promote systems engineering training and best practices among our acquisition professionals.

Policy Shows Way

In our review of existing systems engineering policy, we identified specific gaps in policy that required immediate attention. In my Feb. 20, 2004, policy memorandum, I directed that:

  All programs responding to a capabilities or requirements document,
  regardless of acquisition category, shall apply a robust systems
  engineering approach that balances total system performance and total
  ownership costs within the family-of-systems, systems-of-systems
  context. Programs shall develop a Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) for
  Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) approval in conjunction with each
  Milestone review, and integrated with the Acquisition Strategy. This
  plan shall describe the program's overall technical approach,
  including processes, resources, metrics, and applicable performance
  incentives.

With this policy, we have established the SEP as the cornerstone of the systems engineering revitalization effort. "Early and persistent systems engineering" is a theme now emphasized by policy; and the SEP, mandated at a program's earliest milestone decision, does just that. For systems coming before the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) DAB review, the OSD staff is responsible for providing an assessment of readiness based on the program's achievements against the planned activities documented in the SEP.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

On Oct. 22, I issued an addendum to this policy, focusing on two aspects. First, I directed each program executive officer or equivalent entity to revitalize systems engineering. Each must have a chief systems engineer who will review assigned programs' SEPs, oversee the SEP implementation, and assess the performance of subordinate chief systems engineers. Next, I demanded further rigor in the procedures for technical reviews: reviews must be event-driven, instead of schedule-driven. In other words, reviews should be conducted when the system meets review entrance criteria as documented in the SEP. Additionally, unless waived by the SEP approval authority, reviews must include participation by subject matter experts independent of the program.

Guidance Provides Reinforcement

The policy has been reinforced by explicit guidance from my systems engineering flag bearers. Mark D. Schaeffer and Dr. Glenn Lamartin, director of defense systems (DS), have emphasized that the SEP should convey the core information needed to understand the systems engineering approach planned for a program and how that approach is integrated with the overall program management activities, including risk management, contract management, and financial management. The SEP should answer the following questions:

* What are the technical issues?

* Who has responsibility and authority for managing the technical issues?

* What processes and tools will be used to address the technical issues?

* How will that process be managed and controlled?

* How is that technical effort linked to the overall management of the program?

Guidance documents recently released include the DS interim guidance memorandum (March 30, 2004); a systems engineering chapter in the new Defense Acquisition Guidebook <http://akss.dau.mil/dag/>; and the SEP Preparation Guide <www.acq.osd.mil/ds/se/publications.htm>. These documents emphasize the changes in the Department's approach to systems engineering, which specifically addresses:

* SEP purpose, contents, use, integration with other program documents

* Phased systems engineering activities with new emphasis on pre-Milestone A and post-Milestone C systems engineering processes

* Systems engineering leadership from senior technical leaders in a component down to technical staff on a program

* Event-driven technical reviews' timing, critical questions to be answered, participation by technical experts from outside the program (i.e., peer review).