SHAPING ARMY ACQUISITION
SOLDIER-CENTERED AGILE
While sometimes theoretically at odds, Agile development and Soldier-centered design can be mutually beneficial, as shown in 12 lessons learned.
by Pam Savage-Knepshield, Ph.D., Lt. Col. Jason Carney, Maj. Brian Mawyer and Alan Lee
O
ver the last 10 years, the U.S. Army has worked to change the fundamental under- pinnings of the acquisition
process and shed its reputation for being slow, frustrating, complicated and expen- sive. Te promise of Agile acquisition to enable responsive delivery of capabilities based on continuous user feedback (Soldier touch point events) has become a reality. Agile development integrates design, devel- opment and testing into an iterative life cycle to deliver incremental releases of capa- bility. Soldier-centered design places those who ultimately use the system squarely in the center of the design process ensuring their feedback and needs are the foremost consideration when making design trade- offs and decisions. At face value, it appears the two should dovetail nicely; both are philosophies, and both focus on iteration and inclusion of the end user. Despite their commonalities, we encountered several differences that played a significant role in their successful execution and integration. Overcoming these points of contention is the focus of this article.
BACKGROUND: THE SOFTWARE MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS The Project Manager for Mission Command, within the Program Exec- utive Office for Command, Control, Communications – Tactical (PEO C3T), integrated Agile and Soldier-centered design during two software moderniza- tion efforts—the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) 7.0 and Precision Fires Dismounted Block 2. AFATDS is the primary system used for planning, coordinating, controlling and executing fires and effects for field artil- lery weapon platforms and for Long-Range Precision Fires Cross-Functional Team initiatives, which are among the Army’s primary modernization lines of effort. Precision Fires Dismounted is used by forward observers on the frontline to trans- mit digital calls-for-fire and precise target coordinates to AFATDS for dynamic target prosecution. Although the software efforts for these programs vary along many dimen- sions such as size, complexity and team composition, we found our lessons learned
INCLUDE DEVELOPERS IN SOLDIER TOUCH POINTS
Samantha Mix, left, a Leidos User-Centered Design Team member, discusses user interface requirements with a Soldier at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. An early, accurate understanding of users’ goals and the context in which they will use a system is crucial for the design of an effective user interface. (Photos and illustrations by Dr. Pam Savage-Knepshield)
https://asc.ar my.mil
23
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
