ROAD MAPS TO THE FUTURE
PRACTICAL CHALLENGES While the technology road maps have proven useful in defining how the PEO and stakeholders will address capability requirements across program increments, including S&T investments, many chal- lenges have arisen in compiling the road maps. Tese challenges include owner- ship, competing priorities, fiscal realities and technology maturation.
Program schedules are the PM’s primary tools to define priorities for funding and execution. PMs and, in turn, PEOs use them extensively to support senior-level program reviews and requests for data. One unauthorized change in a program’s plan could have significant impacts on a POR if widely disseminated. For this rea- son, PMs prefer to maintain configuration control of all related schedule artifacts.
Competing priorities exist across the Army—in the user, acquisition and research communities. If each organiza- tion maintains an independent road map, there is a risk that its priorities will take precedence over all others. Tis does not allow for the coordination of activities and prioritization of limited fiscal resources. Only through collaboration and synchro- nization of efforts in a single portfolio road map can the Army realize efficiencies.
Finally, estimating technology matu-
ration is a daunting challenge in road map development. Many technologies under consideration for transition to a POR are next-generation, advanced con- cepts with the potential to change the battlefield. Tese concepts rely on the technological maturation of a number of components. Acquisition regulations require certification of a TRL of 6 or greater at Milestone B before a concept transitions to a POR, but this is often very difficult to estimate. Variances arise in program acquisition strategies and
30
road map planning when technology develops more rapidly than expected or there are delays in maturation.
MULTIPLE BENEFITS Tese challenges notwithstanding, PEO MS’ strategic road-mapping process pro- vides many benefits. A specific example is the synchronization of activities relative to long-term portfolio planning. PEO MS manages eight project offices with a variety of products, including mis- siles, radars, and command and control elements, that span four independent portfolios. A COE manages each port- folio, identifying requirements, priorities and modernization efforts within it. Te PEO and the appropriate project office are responsible for materiel solutions to meet COE requirements for moderniza- tion and new development.
When a particular materiel solution does not exist, but component technology could be available to support moderniza- tion, the S&T engineering development centers explore potential technologies that support the requirements. Given the current fiscal uncertainties, plans for modernization and materiel develop- ment must coordinate closely to ensure synchronization of priorities. Te road map process allows the community of stakeholders a synergistic format to over- lay PM development plans with COE requirements and S&T availability.
PEO MS is in close alignment with its S&T development partners. Proximity to AMRDEC and the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command facilitates collaboration to plan S&T efforts and execute successful transitions. Te PEO MS road maps reflect relevant schedules for technology development, linking the S&T effort directly to an identi- fied POR for transition and pinpointing
dependencies between the materiel development and S&T efforts.
S&T stakeholders have semiannual reviews with the PEO, along with quar- terly reviews with PM offices and weekly meetings with engineering staffs. Tese collaborations help manage expecta- tions for both the acquisition and S&T communities regarding technology mat- uration and transition timelines. Te road maps have served as the forcing function for alignment of technology transition and program increments, allowing for early updates to program acquisition strategies.
A third benefit of the road map is its visual impact, integrating all the stake- holders’ interests. In a single graphic, the PEO can describe the user requirements for the portfolio, what program devel- opment activities are underway to meet those requirements and what technology will soon be available.
CONCLUSION Te road map provides a visual means to quantify and represent the variety of impacts quickly. Trough due diligence and its structured road map process, PEO MS can support Army initiatives to coordinate and synchronize all develop- ment efforts.
For more information, contact the author at 256-842-0289 or marcia.b.holmes.
civ@mail.mil.
MS. MARCIA HOLMES is the chief engi- neer for PEO MS. She earned an M.S. in program management from the Naval Post- graduate School in 2006. She is Level III certified in program management, systems engineering, and production, quality, and manufacturing, and is a member of the U.S. Army Acquisition Corps.
Army AL&T Magazine
April–June 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200
