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

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

Emphasis on Systems Engineering Overdue

"Early and persistent" is our clear message, and it is reflected in these documents. We believe that the earlier in a program's life cycle that requirements are intensively managed by the systems engineering processes, the greater the likelihood that the program's cost and schedule estimates will be on target. And when these steps are documented in a SEP, the program will be supported by quantified technical data that can be scrutinized in a program's technical reviews.

We have reviewed many cases where programs have not delivered as promised. These programs failed to conduct the required systems engineering analyses before setting requirements, and the programs were prematurely launched. Gaps between resources and requirements were not discovered until well into product development. Many programs trace their rising costs and lagging schedules to requirements-based problems such as poor program definition, lack of traceable allocations, and incomplete or weak verifications.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Our studies show that in cases where programs were started with requirements that exceeded resources, costs increased from 55 percent to nearly 200 percent, and schedule delays jumped an estimated 25 percent. Early application of systems engineering will give DoD's top decision makers the necessary confidence in a program's ability to define and match technical requirements with resources--in other words, to stay on budget and on schedule--and to define, understand, and manage program risk.

In addition, several programs we reviewed had completed less than 26 percent of their engineering drawings prior to their critical design reviews. These programs experienced cost overruns from 23 to 182 percent and schedule delays of 18 months to more than three years. Contrast this with commercial firms that typically have more than 90 percent of engineering drawings available prior to a critical design review.

These facts clearly show that our renewed emphasis on systems engineering and the concomitant technical review planning and conduct are way overdue. Technical reviews, particularly with peer participation from outside a program office, are more likely to identify immature technologies and proscribe intensive risk mitigation and technology maturation efforts before a "fragile" technology becomes disruptive. We have found programs that were at low maturity levels, and yet the acquisition program was launched despite a significant gap between technology maturity and weapon system requirements. For example, in one program this gap was not closed until well into the development, and problems with technologies were a main contributor to the program's 88 percent cost overrun and 62 percent jump in schedule.

Education and Training Updated and Expanded

Policy and guidance need reinforcement throughout the extended acquisition workforce. We are introducing a number of changes that will re-emphasize the teaching of sound technical program management. The formal training available for our acquisition workforce will soon include a new introductory course in systems engineering, and the intermediate and advanced systems engineering courses are getting substantial revision.