search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
ARMY AL&T


of minimum viable product, recommend a new definition of MVP that is inclusive of hardware development, and provide a template for program managers to use MVP and iterative prototyping in hard- ware acquisition.


WHAT IS AN MVP? When I talk to acquisition professionals in hardware development and they hear the term “minimum viable product,” they tend to think of an end-product with the mini- mum performance benchmarks to meet a stated requirement. Tey envision an end- product where features are removed until the product fits within cost, schedule and performance constraints before produc- tion and fielding.


FAST MOVING


The minimum viable product process for hardware development used in the urgent needs pathways to develop the HMDS and the NPC. (Graphic by the author)


contaminating others on the aircraft trans- porting them—delivered urgent capability at lightning speeds by using a hybrid approach to acquisition. Tese programs tailored their acquisition process using methods typical of agile software devel- opment despite being hardware-centric systems. Software development compa- nies focus on agile strategies as a primary project management structure; however, agile project management is not common in hardware development in DOD acqui- sition. Te HMDS and NPC teams used minimum viable product (MVP) and iterative prototyping strategies, pillars of software development, to design, develop, test and deliver hardware systems at the speed of relevance.


Both programs had significant design and development processes and robust


test programs while moving in high-pace acquisition environments. Te HMDS fielded its initial capability within nine months, and “the first NPC mission was flown 85 days from JUON [Joint Urgent Operational Need] issuance,” retired U.S. Air Force Col. Paul “Jimi” Hendrickson said in his 2021 presentation “Te Nega- tively Pressurized Conex (NPC) Program – How Acquisition and Systems Engi- neering Agility Delivered Capability to USTRANSCOM in 95 Days.” Te NPC team won the David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award in 2021, DOD’s high- est acquisition team award.


Tis article will describe how program managers can apply agile processes, typi- cal of software development, to deliver hardware capabilities at a rapid pace. It will consider the DODI 5000 definitions


Tose in software development, however, think of the term in a completely differ- ent way. An MVP is an early prototype designed to understand the usefulness or potential demand of a product with the minimum amount of effort neces- sary. An MVP is a starting point. DODI 5000.87, “Operation of the Software Acquisition Pathway,” defines an MVP as “an early version of software to deliver or field basic capabilities to users to evalu- ate and provide feedback on. Insights from MVPs help shape scope, requirements and design.”


Tis is the only definition for an MVP in the Adaptive Acquisition Framework. Notice that it focuses on gathering infor- mation early in the product development cycle. It is a ball of clay ready to be molded. Also notice the definition specifies “soft- ware.” DOD could modify the MVP definition to incorporate hardware and software. A general definition of an MVP for DOD hardware and software capabil- ity development could be “a prototype that provides the program office with enough information to determine that the acqui- sition is worthwhile as soon as possible in


https://asc.ar my.mil 99


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