GROUND TRUTH
TESTING, ONE, TWO …
During a proof-of-principle drill, Army Field Support Battalion – Afghanistan’s Logistics Task Force Bagram ensured that subject- matter experts were on hand to answer any questions about equipment and remediate any issues with the equipment being issued. This drill was conducted to test the battalion’s plans and procedures to rapidly issue an infantry company equipment set upon order from U.S. Forces Afghanistan. Similarly, when program offices look for ways to reduce costs in accordance with BBP, feedback from users and other stakeholders can help refine requirements. (Photo by Patrick A. LeBlanc)
ENSURE REALISTIC AND RELEVANT REQUIREMENTS
LL_380: Program requirements must take into account affordability and the mission of the system. The require- ments document must be tailored to the purpose of system.
Background One program began originally under the Future Combat Sys- tems (FCS) program, whose system-of-systems concept had planned for all systems to meet very similar requirements, ensuring that a brigade combat team could operate in many different environments. Tis led to reduced flexibility in tai- loring the system to meet mission needs while remaining affordable. Te program management team disagreed often with government stakeholders and the contractor over require- ments that were not relevant to the program or would result in an unaffordable system. Te program had multiple require- ments that were either inappropriate or unobtainable, such as the requirement to operate in temperatures as low as -25 degrees Fahrenheit without special kits and procedures. Te user community and FCS program office had little understand- ing of the limits of the system’s technology and the additional equipment it would need to meet certain requirements, which would increase the weight and cost of the system.
Recommendation Te program office and user community must resolve require- ments early and often as soon as information, knowledge, test results and data become available. Te program office must refine cost data as more information becomes known. It is imperative that the program office and user community be open
to trades between cost and performance as information is pre- sented. When the program reaches a point where improvements to technology or affordability are no longer achievable, the pro- gram office and user community must work together without delay to make decisions on the program’s requirements. Try- ing to meet requirements that do not add value will increase program costs, and trying to balance requirements that must be met with those that have marginal value will affect overall system performance.
LL_883: Question unclear or unnecessary requirements, even in approved documents.
Background During the development of the systems engineering plan and requirements traceability matrix for a joint program, one ser- vice’s requirement for mean time between operational mission failure (MTBOMF) for a system component was significantly higher than other services’ MTBOMF requirements. It is dif- ficult and very costly to test the higher MTBOMF, and it was not clear why there was a large difference in the requirement. When the other services raised this question to that service, they reviewed the requirement and agreed to significantly reduce the MTBOMF. Te requirements developer updated the approved CDD with this change and documented the rationale based on the current system’s MTBOMF and expected improvements in the newer system.
Recommendation Program offices should always look for ways to reduce costs in accordance with the BBP approach, while still providing a
50
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
