TACTICAL SOFTWARE ‘SPRINTS’ FORWARD
technology concepts and solutions can be evaluated earlier and more frequently, with feedback collected in real time to refine or generate new requirements as needed.
Collaborative developmental efforts are also providing Soldiers with a sense of empowerment, knowing they are directly influencing the direction of future capa- bilities.
Over the past four years, the Army’s Program Executive Office for Command, Control and Communications – Tactical (PEO C3T) has adopted Agile software
development best practices, values and principles within several of its programs to deliver next-generation capabilities. Te Agile development process enables program offices to incrementally provide commanders and staff functions with capabilities that are continuously improved from current baselines, and allows for programs to receive real-time feedback.
MAKING IT WORK PEO C3T’s Project Manager for Mission Command (PM MC) uses Agile software practices for its Command Post Comput- ing Environment (CPCE), which is the
primary computing environment under the Army’s Common Operating Envi- ronment (COE). Te COE provides an easy-to-use common operational picture through a single mission-command suite and server hardware operated and main- tained by Soldiers.
PM MC enacted Agile software develop- ment practices for CPCE early on when it struck a government-to-government agreement with the Weapons and Soft- ware Engineering Center of the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Armaments Center to act as its lead systems integrator. In doing so, the agreement set the conditions for main- taining Agile practices throughout the software development life cycle to ensure delivery of Soldier-informed capabilities in a timely and cost-effective manner. To do this, PM MC enlisted the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) based on the complex- ity of the CPCE program.
Te task was to develop modernized and more intuitive versions of capabilities provided by legacy mission-command systems, while integrating warfighter feedback via Agile software develop- ment methods. Te first step of the SAFe implementation road map was workforce education.
CAPABILITIES, DELIVERED
Soldiers from the 1st Cavalry Division train on upgraded CPCE software and hardware during fielding by PM MC in February at Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany. PM MC has adopted Agile software development practices for the CPCE, incorporating user feedback in each iteration. (Photo by Justin Eimers, PEO C3T Public Affairs)
Back in 2015, one of the major challenges encountered with DOD acquisition was that acquisition processes were specif- ically tailored to a waterfall software development cycle. Software programs of record were expected to have very detailed requirement and design documents estab- lished well before software development could begin. Tis waterfall methodology did not align with the changing environ- ment and times, in which asymmetric warfare and enemies who rapidly adjust their tactics are more commonplace.
84
Army AL&T Magazine
Summer 2020
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 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172
