KILLING THE ‘CREEP’


Major JLTV EMD Test Events


These test events addressed program requirements:


Performance Testing Transportability


Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence and Interoperability Reliability, Availability and Maintainability


Ballistic Coupon Testing System-level Live Fire Limited User Test


ACQUISITION TRAILBLAZER


The JLTV program is one of the first to implement DOD’s competitive prototyping policy, which stipulates that two or more competing OEMs must produce prototypes to reduce risk, maximize performance, decrease costs and synchronize requirements. (Image courtesy of the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service Support)


produce data to satisfy DSM needs, the JPO reduced extraneous testing from the test plans. PdM Test monitored test prog- ress


(versus schedule) on a daily basis,


which enabled decisions regarding retest of failed items after corrective actions were implemented versus adhering to the test schedule and proceeding to the next test event. Tese were typically case- by-case decisions dependent on several factors based on priority (requirement priority, e.g., key performance param- eter or not, test duration, etc.) Te TUBs ensured that everyone, including PdM Test leadership, had all of the facts before providing guidance.


Ballistic testing was one of the test program’s big success stories in demon- strating how early planning eliminated any push for test creep. Te team success- fully reduced testing by understanding requirements and worked closely with


34 Army AL&T Magazine July-September 2015


the live fire integrated product team to reduce shots where OEM designs made reductions feasible. Tis abbreviated the test schedule and reduced cost. Defer- ring certain testing to the low-rate initial production phase, to be conducted on a single OEM, resulted in additional cost avoidance.


CONCLUSION Te JLTV EMD phase’s success can be attributed to open communication within the program office and among all stakeholders, a solid understanding of the risks the JLTV program faced, con- stant risk management and mitigation, and test-creep control. PdM Test success- fully achieved EMD test phase objectives, ensured that


requirements were tested,


and provided the program with the nec- essary data to support the SSEB, CPD development, and ultimately, the JLTV MS C decision. PdM Test successfully


managed and oversaw the execution of a complex test program that enabled imple- mentation of the competitive prototyping policy with all three OEMs, all while remaining on schedule and under budget. Te JLTV program promises to yield a number of lessons that can be leveraged by similar programs with a competitive- prototyping strategy.


Tose same principles must be applied in JLTV’s next phase. We learned from the last phase that we cannot buckle to each want and whim, as doing so can be detri- mental to the program. We must consider and balance each request and maintain constant awareness of the planned end state. Late-game test creep will only slow or halt what has been, to date, a very suc- cessful program.


Test programs cannot be developed without planning, budgeting and


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