TESTING PUT TO THE TEST
CONCLUSION Maintaining flexibility is imperative to successfully accomplishing a test, no matter what impediments may arise, even those imposed by COVID-19. Te robust distributed testing process facilitated the Operational Test Command team’s adapt- ability to best align resources with test objectives. Te resulting shift to a distrib- uted test ensured a safe environment for all those involved during the test. Distrib- uted testing also provided the benefit of reduced cost for the taxpayer while meet- ing the necessary requirements to conduct a successful operational test.
NEW AND IMPROVED
GFEBS, the system is utilized by Army civilians to process sensitive financial activities, now limits user access and restricts user visibility to authorized data only. After working for 24 years in legacy systems, Budget Analyst Cheryl Brophy now processes actions in the new GFEBS-SA system. (Photo by Samantha Tyler, U.S. Army Materiel Command)
conducting distributed testing, the testers are wholly dependent on the network infrastructure at their Fort Hood-based test headquarters. During the GFEBS- SA test, several network outages resulted in testing delays. Relying solely on SIPR and NIPR connectivity created a single point of failure for test execution. During normal test execution, in the event of an outage, the team would default to paper records and then transfer them when the network outages were resolved. To over- come outages and maintain connectivity, the team used mobile Wi-Fi for unclas- sified communication. However, these wireless communication devices had limited utility because they were restricted to NIPR use only, while the test was on a classified network. In addition to the network, the test team was dependent on
60
several defense software systems. However, these systems were not always operational and their unreliability resulted in test- ing delays.
For GFEBS-SA, the team relied heavily on instrumentation to detect and record the required business transaction volume to satisfy Army Evaluation Center require- ments. Elastic Stack was able to capture all transactions processing across the GFEBS- SA server. Tis efficient data collection method resulted in capturing more than 80 percent of total transitional data for the test. Taken in conjunction with the more detailed task performance forms, the data managers were able to provide the Army Evaluation Center with an accurate end- to-end process with sufficient data volume to evaluate the program.
In the future, if test teams want to use instrumentation on classified systems, they should hold weekly coordination meetings beginning six months before an operational test. Tis will ease concerns and allow things to proceed on schedule. Increasing the length of the test by up to 25 percent would account for poten- tial network and systems downtime, and using secondary sources for capturing the data would ensure more than accurate data volume.
For more information, please contact
Operational Test Command’s public affairs officer Michael Novogradac at
michael.m.novogradac.civ@
mail.mil, or go to
https://www.eis.army.mil/.
MAJ. GRAHAM L. MULLINS is an acquisition officer (51A) currently serving as a test officer within the U.S. Army Operational Test Command, Fort Hood, Texas. He previously served as an assistant product manager within the Program Executive Office for Command Control Communications – Tactical, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. He holds an MBA from Vanderbilt University and a B.S. in mechanical engineering from North Carolina State University.
Army AL&T Magazine Winter 2021
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
