MATURING THE AGILE PROCESS
Phases of the Agile Process Figure 1
Phases of the Agile Process Phase 0—De ne Near Term Requirements
A TRADOC-led e ort to iden fy capability gaps and opportuni es for evalua on in the NIE. Those gaps are validated and priori zed by HQDA G3/5/7 based on opera onal need and the Army Network Strategy.
Phase I—Solicit Poten al Solu ons Led by ASA (ALT), this phase ini ates a solicita on to both Industry and the Government materiel community for poten al solu ons. For considera on in Phase I, systems must support a capability gap or opportunity established in Phase 0 and provide suppor ng informa on to ASA (ALT) concerning its technical maturity, concept of opera ons, ability and cost to integrate with the network and ability to provide the required quan ty of systems and support for the NIE. Formal Program of Record systems requiring formal tests go through the Test Schedule and Schedule and Review Commi ee (TSARC) process and are incorporated into the most relevant NIE.
Phase II—Conduct Candidate Assessments
Led by ASA (ALT), this phase determines the viability of candidates for par cipa on in the Network Integra on Evalua on. Par cipa on in Phase II requires a favorable assessment in Phase I and respec ve decision point (DP1) for inclusion on the ini al list of viable candidates. At this phase, systems undergo a more thorough review in a laboratory environment to con rm technical maturity evaluated and the system level of integra on; and a network architecture analysis to determine whether or not the candidate is a viable addi on to the NIE architecture. Based upon these results and HQDA Objec ves and Priori es for the relevant NIE, Decision Point two (DP2) selects the candidates to par cipate in the NIE.
Phase III—Evalua on Prepara on
This phase, led by the Brigade Moderniza on Command (BMC) and ASA(ALT), focuses on preparing for the Network Integra on Rehearsal (NIR) and NIE. Some speci ed criteria for this phase includes that systems have an assigned PM and Combat Developer, funding, dra requirements, ini al test plans, ini al safety assessments, training plan, a technology maturity and readiness level assessment, a dra evalua on concept, as well as an IA and spectrum assessment. Final outcome is a de ned unit architecture, systems delivered and integrated, Soldiers trained, and systems instrumented prepared for Phase IV. Candidates are required to provide onsite support during this phase of the Agile Process.
Phase IV—Network Integra on Rehearsal (NIR)
Led by ASA (ALT) and supported by ATEC and BMC, the NIR is a risk-reduc on event in prepara on for the NIE. The primary ac vity in this phase is the overall integra on of systems, not only physically within unit pla orms but also within the network and the NIE vehicle integra on eet. This phase is complete a er the successful execu on of the LOADEX, Pilot Test, and COMMEX. Candidates are required to provide onsite support during this phase of the Agile Process.
ess. Phase V—Network Integra on Evalua on (NIE)
Led by BMC, with ATEC holding primary responsibility for Type I systems (formal program of record tes ng), the NIE evaluates candidate systems in an opera onal environment. The NIE seeks Soldier recommenda ons on system/ concept con nua on and DOTMLPF changes required to integrate systems/concepts into units and opera ons. The NIE completes iden ed PoR tes ng during the rst por on of the NIE and it ends with a two-week integra on assessment event and a DOTMLPF review providing system recommenda ons. Candidates are required to provide onsite support during this phase of the Agile Process.
Phase VI—Develop a Network Implementa on Plan
Phase VI is led by the HQDA ARSTAF. ASA(ALT), TRADOC, ARSTAF collec vely provide a recommenda on to procure and integrate NIE demonstrated capabili es based on system maturity, current architecture and integrated network baseline, valid requirements, and available resourcing. In this phase, the HQDA ARSTAF makes integrated capabili es elding recommenda ons and/or DOTMLPF change recommenda ons to con nue to develop capabili es based on TRADOC’s NIE ndings for each candidate.
which establishes computing technolo- gies and standards that allow the rapid development and execution of secure and interoperable applications across a variety of computing environments (CEs).
Having established the integrated net- work baseline and the COE standards, we can then modernize the network through Capability Set Management. Instead of developing a requirement for a single capability and then buying as many as are needed upfront, we will build and pro- cure capability sets.
Treating network capability as a cohesive portfolio, Capability Set Management evaluates the current operational environ- ment, then selects a suite of systems or capabilities and equipment to answer the period. This incremental modernization will allow the Army to buy fewer but more often, to help ensure that we leverage industry advancements and keep up with the pace of changing technology. These capability sets will be validated through the NIE and delivered in alignment with Army Force Generation requirements to provide the most current capability to those who need it, when they need it.
(SOURCE: System of Systems Integration Directorate (SoSI).)
Incremental modernization will rely on the aforementioned baseline. However, as these POR systems change, they can be managed under a new “IT Box” construct, as described in the recently updated Manual for the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (online at
https://www.intelink .gov/wiki/JCIDS_Manual#Latest_ Approved_JCIDS_Documents), “to provide IS [information systems] pro- evolving technologies, and achieve faster responses from requirement validation processes than is typical for other kinds of materiel or non-materiel solutions.”
24
Army AL&T Magazine
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
