RISK MODELING
FIGURE 1
2009 WSARA
u Drives more analysis to support AoAs.
AoA key elements: u Risk assessments. u Trade-offs.
MARCH 2011 AMSAA-LED RISK IPT FORMED
u Tasked to develop standard methodologies for conducting risk assessments.
u Schedule and technical risk: led by AMSAA.
u Cost risk: led by deputy assistant secretary of the Army for cost and economics.
u Permanent AMSAA risk team set up in October 2011 to meet risk demands.
2012 SRDDM
u AMSAA risk team releases schedule risk data decision methodology (SRDDM).
u Phase-level analysis. u Won Army Modeling and Simulation Award.
2013 SREDM
FY13 ARMY STUDY
u AMSAA seeks to enhance schedule risk methodologies through event-level analysis.
time for lower-level events within each acquisition phase, and to use the data in corresponding statistical schedule-risk assessment models. Examples of lower- level events that the team researched for historical data included contract awards; protests;
reviews, such as the critical
design review; prototype development; production development; and testing events, such as the production qualifica- tion test (PQT), limited user test, and live fire test and evaluation.
2009 EVOLVING A METHODOLOGY
The progression of risk assessment methodologies from AMSAA, from WSARA to SRDDM to SREDM. (SOURCE: AMSAA risk IPT)
2013 Tus, if the team looked at the EMD
Te distribution of possible outcomes generated from historical data can reveal useful information about a current pro- gram’s proposed schedule. For example, the data might show similar bottle- necks and schedule overruns during the EMD phase, and that most of the past programs took significantly longer to complete EMD than the time estimated for
the new program. Te risk assess-
ment might reveal a high level of risk in the current program’s schedule, along with the causes for potential delays.
To build upon the initial success of SRDDM, the AMSAA risk team endeav- ored to find historical data on duration
ANY METHOD OF EXECUTING A RISK ASSESSMENT MUST BE SUPPORTABLE IN THE TIME FRAME ALLOTTED BY AOA GUIDANCE. METHODS ALSO MUST BE CONSISTENT AND REPEATABLE FOR EACH NEW AOA.
In January 2013, AMSAA initiated devel- opment of a schedule risk event-driven methodology (SREDM) to address risk assessment gaps
that the senior Army
analysis leaders had identified and to supplement the concepts of SRDDM by using event network modeling.
An event-level approach promotes greater flexibility in the use of historical data within the model, and offers the capability to model additional schedule complexi- ties. For example, a PM may be interested in conducting a trade-off analysis to compare the schedule impacts of pursu- ing various technology solutions, which is a crucial step in making affordable
72
Decision-makers then could decide to accept the risk, choose a viable alter- native with less risk or reduce the risk by adding more time for development in line with historical schedules. Tis methodology has illuminated a way to quantitatively assess schedule risk, using a repeatable method that incorporates historical data.
phase of historical programs at an event level, it could find the duration times to achieve contract awards, first proto- types or successful PQTs. In addition, the team could collect and analyze data on specific risks realized during an event and the effects of those risks on the pro- gram’s schedule. For example, the team might find frequent contract protests that delayed Milestone C by four to six months, or frequent reliability prob- lems in past PQTs that caused five- to 15-month delays. All of these historical data can be useful to simulate a current program’s schedule and develop a distri- bution of possible schedule outcomes.
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
