ENEMIES LIST


interfacing with numerous unmanned systems, all of which likely have differ- ent interface exchange requirements. Tat increases the risk that the control- ler cannot interface with one or more unmanned systems, thereby failing the requirement. Additionally, the test and evaluation community must design a test to verify that the controller can control all unmanned systems; such a test could prove to be lengthy and expensive, depending upon the number of inter- faces required.


Tese requirements will work only to the extent that they’re carefully considered within the scope of the intended mission, and their feasibility is within the scope of the time, resources and risk of system development. An alternate course could have been to focus the requirement on the most commonly used unmanned systems.


CHALLENGE #4: OVERLY PRECISE REQUIREMENTS System requirements frequently include a questionable level of precision in their quantitative performance metrics.


FIGURE 3 HOW PRECISE IS TOO PRECISE?


Testing a 25-ton combat vehicle’s fuel consumption rate down to the one- hundredth of a mile per gallon and the one-hundredth of a gallon per hour is less likely to be worth the time and expense than, say, testing how long the vehicle can operate before logistical resupply. Thus the latter makes more operational sense as a system requirement. (Image courtesy of USAASC and Joshua R. Barker)


Platform weight 25 tons Miles per gallon


THRESHOLD OBJECTIVE 2.19


1.81 150 Army AL&T Magazine Winter 2020 Gallons per hour


4.32 3.46


Stakeholders may want to ensure that the system is effective, hold the contrac- tor accountable for delivering the desired capability or make sure the requirement is testable. While these are valid objectives, we need to exercise caution when includ- ing precise metrics.


Few Americans would tell their car dealer that they are looking for a car that gets no less than 30.01 miles per gallon. Tis level of precision excludes potentially valid materiel solutions, increases the risk that the system will not meet the requirement and will likely increase testing costs.


Precise requirements are often too techni- cal and therefore difficult to link directly to the desired operational capability. Te table in Figure 3 is an example of these challenges from a combat vehicle program. Te vehicle is required to demonstrate a fuel consumption rate to the one- hundredth of a mile per gallon and the one-hundredth of a gallon per hour at 25 tons. Te challenge is that this require- ment drives a lengthy and expensive test program to verify performance down to


the one-hundredth level with statistical confidence.


At times, requirements should include precise quantitative metrics. Te goal of the requirements development process should be ensuring that the requirements represent the bottom-line standards of performance that the unit needs. Is the Army commander going to say that this vehicle doesn’t adequately support the mission if it only gets 1.80 miles per gallon at 25 tons? Perhaps a more effec- tive requirement is how long the vehicle must be able to operate before logistical resupply.


CHALLENGE #5: OVERLOOKING SUPPORTABILITY System supportability is a major contrib- utor to operation and sustainment costs and a major component of a system’s suit- ability. Supportability and sustainment considerations must be built into the engi- neering process at the start to streamline development and minimize future risks. If requirements development does not take


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  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176