SOFTWARE ACQUISITION
The Army is moving into a high tech, software-intensive world, one that is not compatible with all of our institutional processes.
and deploy capability. Even in select programs that have adopted Agile development methodologies, the software product does not get into the hands of the users early in the life cycle for feedback. Instead, these software builds are consolidated into larger incre- ments, which then go through further integration-testing and eventually user-acceptance testing before they’re deployed.
Such an approach is not truly Agile. Compounding the problem is the enormous documentation that is required by our acquisi- tion processes that includes various plans, reports and contract deliverables. Agile development is all about delivering a usable product, and if the Agile methodology is implemented correctly, that can be delivered with minimal documentation. For formal acquisition programs, the Army has not fully leveraged the flex- ibility and agility that comes with new acquisition models such as the software acquisition pathway, which is based on modern commercial software development best practices. Te Army must take advantage of these authorities, organize ourselves as Agile product teams and focus on delivering high quality user experi- ence through micro-applications delivered in weeks and not years.
BUDGETING FOR SOFTWARE Te Army’s current software life-cycle processes are water- fall-based and defined by milestones and gates. As such, it is assumed that all software development will happen in linear steps moving from design to development to test to fielding and finally to sustainment. Te way we budget for the software life cycle follows this waterfall approach whereby we budget using research, development, test and evaluation funds for develop- ment and testing, other procurement, Army, funding to procure hardware and software, and, finally, using operations and main- tenance, Army, funds for sustainment. DOD fiscal laws drive this distinction across various colors of funding, and strict rules apply for what type of activity can be conducted in each phase of the life cycle. Any transfer of funds across these colors of fund- ing can require lengthy and complex reprogramming efforts and
CLOUD CONCEPTS
Iyer and a panel of peers discuss the importance of cloud technology as a catalyst for change and modernization. (Photo by Army Futures Command Public Affairs Office)
even Congressional approval. Tis model falls apart quickly when we leverage Agile development.
Once the minimum viable product is deployed, not only is it continually sustained but new capability and enhancements are implemented at the same time, making distinctions between colors of funding almost impossible to ascertain. Tis leads to subjective legal opinions for how to allocate funding in later phases of the software life cycle, all of which leads to potentially artificial decisions being made to apply the right color of funds to the project to ensure compliance.
Te DOD and Congress recognized the need for “colorless” funds for software and have established a pilot called the Budget Activ- ity 08 (BA-08) to address this challenge. Te Army currently has only software programs under this effort, and we must expand and scale the number of programs under this pilot to maximize the benefits available through the pilot, while at the same time
https://asc.ar my.mil
11
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
