KILLING THE ‘CREEP’
constant communication with a diver- sity of stakeholders: the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC); the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s direc- tor of operational test and evaluation; the deputy assistant secretary of defense for developmental test and evaluation; the Marine Corps Operational Test and Eval- uation Activity (MCOTEA); and Army and Marine Corps combat developers. Te JLTV program yielded a number of lessons learned that will be shared with other programs employing a competitive prototyping strategy.
Te tight schedule and extensive EMD testing, combined with heel-to-toe vehicle
Tere were instances when test creep was a reality, and no amount of discussion could put or keep it at bay. Weeks of assertive back-and-forth dialogue on the test and evaluation master plan (TEMP) were spent on “in the weeds” details. Te program office’s position empha- sized that those details should have been included in a detailed test plan (DTP), as opposed to the TEMP, in which they are considered binding regardless of any risk-benefit analysis.
Te key to this effort focused on strik- ing a balance and obtaining stakeholder buy-in to what is too much, which could cause program failure
resulting from testing, required JLTV Prod-
uct Manager for Test (PdM Test) team to thoroughly understand when to push back on test creep. For example, simply asking what the program and stakeholders would gain by conducting more testing, and then showing the cor- responding low return on investment was sometimes what stood between staying on schedule and under budget, and creating program schedule and cost overruns.
32
restrictive wording, and what is not enough, which could cause future fund- ing issues. Requirements management is the program’s foundation. Tis founda- tion must be rock-solid without allowing test creep to erode it.
EMD PLANNING In planning for JLTV EMD, the pro- gram team had to clearly understand what we were providing the warfighter and the risks associated with building it.
Each test category contained numerous subtests addressing specific requirements. For example, automotive performance testing included soft-soil mobility, sand- slope traversing, braking, steering and handling, ride quality, fording, fuel consumption, top speed, acceleration, grades and slopes, as well as several other tests. Ballistic testing required additional test assets at the subsystem level (nine armored chassis plus numerous armor coupons or armor samples) in addition to the 27 system-level test assets included in the 66 test assets overall.
Test planning and DTP development were a several-month endeavor that involved multiple draft revisions, requiring weekly (and often daily) communication between the test-site subject-matter experts and our PdM Test team.
PdM Test emphasized a collaborative effort among JLTV PdM Test, ATEC’s U.S. Army Evaluation Center (AEC), MCOTEA and the various test sites, which ensured an appropriate balance between adequately testing the require- ment and over-testing.
Army AL&T Magazine
July-September 2015
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
