Systems Engineering: It

1
Systems Engineering Its the Law!

• An Overview of the
• Defense Acquisition Management System and Weapon
  Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA)
• Geoff Draper
• Harris Government Communications Systems Division

2
Systems Engineering Its the Law!
References

• Topics
• Performance issues in Major Defense Acquisition
  Programs (MDAPs)
• Summary of studies and reports
• Overview of the Defense Acquisition Management
  System
• DoD policies and guidance
• DODI 5000.2
• Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
  (WSARA)
• Potential Implications to the Defense Industry

P. L. 111-23, Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. May 22, 2009. http//thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111S.454.enr
Defense Technical Memorandum, DTM-09-27. Implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. Dec 2009. http//www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/DTM-09-027.pdf
DoDI 5000.02, The Defense Acquisition Management System. Dec 2008. http//www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500002p.pdf
DoD Strategic Management Plan. July 2009. http//dcmo.defense.gov/documents/2009SMP.pdf
Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG), Chapter 4 Systems Engineering. https//acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id332951langen-US
Implementation of Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009. Mona Lush, OUSD (ATL). Oct 2009. http//www.acq.osd.mil/damir/200920Conference/Future20of20DoD20Acquisition20Plenary/WSARA20Implementation20Lush.pdf
DODI 5000.02 and WSARA Impacts on Early System s Engineering. Sharon Vannucci, OSD (ATL) / DDRE. NDIA SE Conference, Oct 09. http//www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009systemengr/8925WednesdayTrack2Vannucci.pdf
Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) 2009. Mr. Nicholas Torelli, OUSD (ATL) / DDRE. NDIA SE Div mtg, July 2009. http//www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Documents/Past20Projects/August200920Division20Meeting/2009_08_06_SE-WSARA20Brief20to20NDIA20SED-final.pdf
A Multi-Level Approach to Addressing SE Issues in Defense Programs. NDIA SE Division, June 2009. http//www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Documents/Past20Projects/
3
The Problem Improving Program Performance
through SE
Numerous studies and reports document program
performance issues and the role of effective
systems engineering

• GAO-09-362T - Actions Needed to Overcome
  Long-standing Challenges with Weapon Systems
  Acquisition and Service Contract Management
• DODs major weapon systems programs continue to
  take longer to develop, cost more, and deliver
  fewer quantities and capabilities than originally
  planned.
• costs of major defense acquisition programs
  increased 26 percent and development costs
  increased by 40 percent from first estimates
• programs failed to deliver capabilities when
  promisedoften forcing warfighters to spend
  additional funds on maintaining legacy systems
• current programs experienced, on average, a
  21-month delay in delivering initial capabilities
  to the warfighter

• NRC/USAF Study - Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase
  Systems Engineering A Retrospective Review and
  Benefits for Future Air Force Acquisition
• http//www.nap.edu/catalog/12065.html
• Attention to a few critical systems engineering
  processes and functions particularly during
  preparation for Milestones A and B is essential
• critically dependent on having experienced
  systems engineers with adequate knowledge of the
  domain
• Decisions made prior to Milestone A should be
  supported by a rigorous systems analysis and
  systems engineering process involving teams of
  users, acquirers, and industry representatives.

4
Addressing SE Issues - Key Studies and Reports
Details
Study / Report Summary Issues / Findings
Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase Systems Engineering report (NRC/USAF study) Inexperienced leadership External interface complexity System complexity Incomplete/unstable reqts at MS B Reliance on immature technology Reliance on large amts of new SW
NDIA Top 5 SE Issues (2006) report, briefing Inconsistent SE practices Insufficient SE early in life cycle Lack SE resources (qty, quality) Requirements not well-defined and managed Inadequate SE tools/environments
NDIA Top SW Issues (2006) report, briefing SE decisions without SW involvement Ineffective SW life cycle plans Lack SW resources (qty, quality) SW verification costly, ineffective Requirements impact on SW SW assurance (predictable, secure) COTS/NDI impacts
Systemic Root Cause Analysis (SRCA) (2008) (publication 2009, pending) Unrealistic acq. strategies and plans Milestone decision gates, criteria Staffing shortfalls (quantity, skills, experience)
Systems Engineering of Tactical Air Launched Systems An Industry Examination (2008) briefing (Air Armament Center, NDIA Gulf Coast Chapter) Incomplete design-to requirements Requirements creep, not stable Unplanned reqts verification effort Unplanned performance/design tests Configuration variation issues Component qualification test Weapon level integration tests Weapon level qualification tests Weapon flight testing Redesign for producibility/cost Field reliability, sustainability
House Armed Services Panel on Defense Acq. Reform (final report, March 2010) Manage performance of acq. system Lacking good reqts process (JCIDS) Ad hoc acquisition of services Develop/incentivize acq. workforce Ineffective financial mgmt system Protect the industrial base (all sizes) Responsiveness of core acq system
5
Systemic Issues of Big A Acquisition
Big A Acquisition

• Funding instability
• Insufficient resource trade space
• Budget not properly phased/magnitude to support
  planned development

Resources(PPBE)

DefenseAcquisition System (DAS)
Small a Acquisition
Requirements (JCIDS)

• Immature technologies
• Inadequate systems engineering
• Inadequate requirements flow-down/
  traceability/ decomposition
• Insufficient schedule trade space
• Inadequate implementation of Earned Value
  Management System
• Lack of time and assets for testing

• Lack of JROC-validated requirements document for
  basic program (ORD, CDD, CPD)
• Inadequate requirements for basic program and
  any increments
• Critical dependence on external programs with
  developmental issues

• Lack of inter- and intra-departmental stakeholder
  coordination and support

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development
System (CJCSI-3170) Program, Planning,
Budgeting, and Execution (DoD-7000, FMRs)
Defense Acquisition System (DoDI-5000)
Systemic Issues of Nunn-McCurdy Class of 2007
Programs
Synchronize JCIDS, DAS, and PPBE to deliver
capabilities to Warfighters.
6
Summary of Key SE Initiatives and Reports

• Other sources
• Program Support Reviews (PSRs)
• Nunn-McCurdy breaches
• Congressional oversight
• Defense Science Board
• Other studies, reviews, reports

Common program issues -Poor program
planning -Unrealistic estimates -Unstable
requirements -Immature technology -Not following
SE processes -Insufficient SE expertise -Ineffecti
ve reviews -Poor system reliability
2010
2003
2006
2008
2009

• NDIA Top 5
• SE Issues 1/03
• DODI 5000.2 5/03

• NRC/USAF Study Pre-MS A and Early SE 1/08
• DODI 5000.2 updates 12/08
• Systemic Root Cause Analysis (SRCA) draft

• PL 111-23 (WSARA) 5/09
• DTM-09-027 Implementation of WSARA 12/09

• Defense Acq Guide (DAG)Chap 4 SE 7/06
• OSD policy, guidance, reviews SEP IMS
  training risk mgmt PSRs
• NDIA Top SE Issues 7/06
• NDIA Top SW Issues 9/06

• QDR 2/10
• House Armed Services Committee report 3/10
• OSD WSARA report to Congress 3/10

NDIA Reports
DoD policy and actions
Other (Congress, studies, reviews)
There is no shortage of sources confirming we
have issues How do government and industry
collaborate to act upon solutions?
7
Secretary of Defense Direction
Chief among institutional challenges facing the
Department is acquisition.

8
Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act
The key to successful acquisition programs
is getting things right from the start with
sound systems engineering, cost estimating,
and developmental testing early in the program
cycle. The bill that we are introducing today
will require the Department of Defense to take
the steps needed to put major defense acquisition
programs on a sound footing from the outset. If
these changes are successfully implemented, they
should help our acquisition programs avoid future
cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance
problems. Senator Carl Levin, Chairman, Senate
Armed Services Committee The Weapon System
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 is an important
step in efforts to reform the defense acquisition
process. This legislation is needed to focus
acquisition and procurement on emphasizing
systems engineering more effective upfront
planning and management of technology risk and
growing the acquisition workforce to meet program
objectives. Senator John McCain, Ranking
Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
9
P. L. 111-23 Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform
Act (WSARA) May 2009

• Key Elements of Legislation
• Organizational
• Establishes Directorates for SE and DTE as
  principal advisors
• Joint tracking of component and MDAP progress
  against plans and measurable criteria with
  annual reporting to Congress
• Independent cost estimation and cost analysis
  (Director, CAPE)
• Provide adequate trained staff for SE and
  development planning
• Conduct MDAP performance assessments and root
  cause analysis
• Role of SE across program lifecycle
• Developmental planning, lifecycle management,
  sustainability
• Ensure reliability, availability, maintainability
  (RAM)
• Mandates
• Measurable performance criteria in SE/DTE plans
• Competitive prototypes for MDAPs prime make/buy
  analyses
• System PDR before MS B, with formal MDA
  assessment
• Assessment of technical maturity and integration
  risk of critical technologies during Technology
  Development (TD)
• Technical and cost oversight
• Independent estimates, Problem Assessment Root
  Cause Analysis
• Technical analysis of cost/schedule breaches
  presumed termination

http//thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111S.454.e
nr
10
(No Transcript)
11
Key Acquisition Business Process Changes
X

• Increased Emphasis on Milestone A
• Mandatory for MDAPs with Technology Development
  Programs
• Likely for Most Programs

When PDR is Conducted after Milestone B an MDA
Post-PDR Assessment is Required
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) before Milestone
B to Enhance Understanding of Derived
Requirements and Improve Cost Estimation
Post-Critical Design Review Assessment A
Mandatory Decision Point to Review Progress
MS C
MS B
MS A
FRP DR
X
ICD
MDD
PCDRA
Materiel Solution Analysis
Engineering Manufacturing Development
PDR
Technology Development
Production Deployment
Operations Support
CPD
Competitive Prototyping
Re-structured EMD Phase
Effective Contracting via Pre-Award Peer Reviews
Materiel Development Decision Mandatory Process
Entry Point

• Enhanced Emphasis on
• Technology Maturity
• Systems Engineering
• Integrated Testing and Test Planning
• Manufacturing and Producibility
• Logistics and Sustainment Planning

Competitive Prototyping
Configuration Steering BoardsEstablished to
Stabilize Requirements
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Technology and Manufacturing Readiness
B
C
A
IOC
FOC
Materiel Solution Analysis
Engineering Manufacturing Development
PRODUCTION DEPLOYMENT
OPERATIONS SUPPORT
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
FRP Decision Review
Materiel Development Decision
Post CDR Assessment

Technology Readiness Levels Defense Acquisition
Guidebook para. 10.5.2

TRLs 1-3
TRL 4
TRL 7
TRL 8
TRL 9
TRL 5
TRL 6
Analytical/ Experimental Critical Function/ Charac
teristic Proof of Concept
Component And/or Breadboard Validation In
a Laboratory Environment
System Prototype Demonstrated In
an Operational Environment
Actual System Completed Qualified Through Test
and Demonstration
Component And/or Breadboard Validation In
a Relevant Environment
System/ Subsystem Model or Prototype Demonstrated
In a Relevant Environment
Actual System Mission Proven Through Successful
Operations
MRL 4
MRL 7
MRL 8
MRL 9
MRL 10
MRL 5
MRL 6
MRLs 1-3
Manufacturing Readiness Levels Draft MRA
Deskbook May 2008
Capability to Produce Systems, Subsystems Or
Components in a Production Representative Environ
ment
Full Rate Production Demonstrated. Lean
Production Practices In Place
Low Rate Production Demonstrated. Capability In
Place for FRP
Pilot Line Capability Demonstrated. Ready for LRIP
Capability to produce Technology In Lab
Environment. Manufacturing Risks Identified
Manufacturing Feasibility Assessed. Concepts defi
ned/ developed
Capability to Produce System/ Subsystem Prototypes
Capability to Produce Prototype Components
Cost Model Updated To System Level Unit Cost
Reduction Efforts Underway
Engineering Cost Model Validated
FRP Unit Cost Goals Met
LRIP Cost Goals Met Learning Curve Validated
Manufacturing Cost Drivers Identified
Cost Model Constructed
Detailed Cost Analysis Complete
Section 2366b of Title 10, United States Code,
requires certification that the technology in
the program has been demonstrated in a relevant
environment to enter Milestone B. TRL 6
15
DoD Strategic Management Plan (7/09)Key
acquisition-related excerpts
Goals Measures Key Initiatives
Improve acquisition processes and execution to support warfighter reqts of months to IOC Acquire systems through evolutionary acquisition
Increase use of fixed price contracts of contracts at MS B that are FP of contracts at MS C that are FP Milestone decision reviews
Increase of MDAPs initiated with low technical risk of MDAPs initiated in GFY of MDAPs with technologies demonstrated in a relevant environment (i.e., TRL 6) Competitive prototyping PDR before MS B Independent Technical Readiness Assessments (TRA)
Assess programs as directed in WSARA of Problem Assessment Root Cause Analysis (PARCA) offices of programs assessed Root cause analysis
Ensure supportability, maintainability and costs are considered in lifecycle programs meeting DoD sustainment metrics Establish sustainment metrics reporting (availability, reliability, TOC) Implement recommended next-gen sustainment strategies
Focus RD to address warfighting requirements of completing demonstration programs transitioned per year Track programs transitioning with CY Review RDTE funding for transition
Sponsor technology leadership strategy outreach to industry, academia of 2-day dialogues with academia technology leaders Understand investment drivers and strategies to sustain tech leadership
Right-shape and re-balance the acquisition workforce - goal to grow by 20,000 positions by FY2015 certification positions filled (annual) Annual increase in end-strength contractor work-yr equiv in-sourced Grow the acquisition workforce Achieve 10,000 acquisition positions through in-sourcing
http//dcmo.defense.gov/documents/2009SMP.pdf
16
Whats Next?

• Areas of emphasis
• Defense Strategy
• Defense objectives, emerging threats
• Rebalancing the Force
• Counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, WMD, cyber
• U.S. force structure sizing, shaping, evolution
• Defense workforce
• Supporting troops, deployment
• Recruiting, retention, development
• Strengthening relationships
• U.S. defense posture, interagency, abroad
• Reforming How We Do Business
• Rapid acquisition, security, how we buy, exports
• Strengthening the industrial base
• Strategic approach to climate and energy
• Defense Risk Management Framework
• Operational, force management, institutional,
  future challenges, strategic, military, political

http//www.defense.gov/QDR/
A U.S. force prepared to conduct a wide variety
of missions under a range of different
circumstances.
17
Summary

• DODI 5000.2 and WSARA are changing the game
• Early life cycle planning (SEP)
• Adherence to effective SE practices
• Independent cost estimates
• Competitive prototyping
• Managed technology risks (TRL)
• Increased emphasis on reliability and
  supportability (RAM)
• Congressional reporting and oversight
• More fixed priced contracts and evolutionary
  acquisition likely
• Revitalization of DoD SE and acquisition
  workforce
• Questions?
• Geoff Draper (gdraper_at_harris.com, 321-727-5617)

18
Backup
19
(No Transcript)
20
Addressing SE Issues Key NDIA Task Groups and
Milestones

• Government Studies/Reports (GAO, NRC, DCMA,
  etc.)
• Reviews (QDR, etc.)

• Program Support Reviews (PSRs)
• Congressional oversight (Nunn-McCurdy,
  McCain-Levin, )

• Working Groups
• Conferences
• Forums

2003
2006
2007
2008
2009

• NDIA Top 5
• SE Issues

• NDIA Top 5 SE Issues
• NDIA Top SW Issues
• Defense Software Strategy Summit

• SE Effectiveness Survey

• Systemic Root Cause Analysis (SRCA) draft
• Industrial Committee on Program Mgmt (ICPM)
• SE of Tactical Air Launched Systems (Gulf Coast
  Chapter) (Air Armament Center)

• Top SE/SW Issues Update(planned)
• Industrial Committee on SE (ICSE) (planned)

Common program issues -Poor program
planning -Unrealistic estimates -Unstable
requirements -Immature technology -Not following
SE processes -Insufficient SE expertise -Ineffecti
ve reviews -Poor system reliability
There is no shortage of sources confirming we
have issues How do government and industry
collaborate to act upon solutions?
21
NRC Study Pre-MS A and Early-Phase SE
Findings Recommendations
Attention to a few critical systems engineering processes and functions particularly during preparation for Milestones A and B is essential to ensuring that Air Force acquisition programs deliver products on time and on budget. Require that Milestones A and B be treated as critical milestones in every acquisition program and that the Pre-Milestone A/B Checklist be used to judge successful completion.
The creation of a robust systems engineering process is critically dependent on having experienced systems engineers with adequate knowledge of the domain relevant to a contemplated program. Assess needs for officers and civilians in the systems engineering field and evaluate whether either internal training programs or external organizations are able to produce the required quality and quantity of systems engineers and systems engineering skills.
The government, FFRDCs, and industry all have important roles to play throughout the acquisition life cycle. Source selection for system development and demonstration should not be made until after the work associated with Milestones A and B is complete. Decisions made prior to Milestone A should be supported by a rigorous systems analysis and systems engineering process involving teams of users, acquirers, and industry representatives.
The Air Force used to have a development planning organization that applied pre-Milestone A systems engineering processes to a number of successful programs, but that organization was allowed to lapse. A development planning function should be established in the military departments to coordinate the concept development and refinement phase of all acquisition programs to ensure that the capabilities as a whole are considered and that unifying strategies such as interoperability are addressed.

• Reference Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase
  Systems Engineering A Retrospective Review and
  Benefits for Future Air Force Acquisition.
  http//www.nap.edu/catalog/12065.html

22
NDIA Top 5 SE IssuesNDIA SE Division (July 2006)
Provides an update and status from a previous
task group report conducted in 2003.
Issues Recommendations
1. Key systems engineering practices known to be effective are not consistently applied across all phases of the program life cycle. Ensure institutionalization of effective SE practices into program planning and execution
2. Insufficient systems engineering is applied early in the program life cycle, compromising the foundation for initial requirements and architecture development. Integrate engineering planning within the acquisition life cycle to ensure adequate time and effort for SE early in the program life cycle
3. Requirements are not always well-managed, including the effective translation from capabilities statements into executable requirements to achieve successful acquisition programs Emphasize the application of SE practices and resources to the capability definition process to address warfighter needs and translation into executable programs.
4. The quantity and quality of systems engineering expertise is insufficient to meet the demands of the government and the defense industry. Grow SE expertise through training, career incentives, and broadening systems thinking into other disciplines.
5. Collaborative environments, including SE tools, are inadequate to effectively execute SE at the joint capability, system of systems (SoS), and system levels. Strengthen and clarify policy and guidance regarding use of collaborative environments, models, simulations, and other automated tools.
Reference NDIA Top 5 Systems Engineering Issues
Report. July 2006. NDIA Systems Engineering
Division. report, briefing http//www.ndia.org/D
ivisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Pages/Past_P
rojects.aspx
23
NDIA Top Software IssuesNDIA SE Division (Sept
2006)
Issues Recommendations
1. The impact of requirements upon software is not consistently quantified and managed in development or sustainment. Enforce effective software requirements development and management practices, including assessment of change impacts, for both the acquirer and the supplier organizations.
2. Fundamental system engineering decisions are made without full participation of software engineering Institutionalize the integration and participation of software engineering in all system engineering activities.
3. Software life-cycle planning and management by acquirers and suppliers is ineffective. Establish a culture of quantitative planning and management, using proven processes with collaborative decision-making across the software life cycle.
4. The quantity and quality of software engineering expertise is insufficient to meet the demands of government and the defense industry. Collaborate on innovative strategies to staff to appropriate levels, and to attract, develop, and retain qualified talent to meet current and future software engineering needs in government and industry.
5. Traditional software verification techniques are costly and ineffective for dealing with the scale and complexity of modern systems. Study current software verification practices in industry, and develop guidance and training to improve effectiveness in assuring product quality across the life cycle.
6. There is a failure to assure correct, predictable, safe, secure execution of complex software in distributed environments. Collaborate with industry to develop approaches, standards, and tools addressing system assurance issues throughout the acquisition life cycle and supply chain.
7. Inadequate attention is given to total lifecycle issues for COTS/NDI impacts on lifecycle cost and risk. Improve and expand guidelines for addressing total lifecycle COTS/NDI issues.
Reference NDIA Top Software Engineering Issues
Report. Sep 2006. NDIA Systems Engineering
Division. report, briefing http//www.ndia.org/D
ivisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Pages/Past_P
rojects.aspx
24
Systemic Root Cause Analysis (SRCA)- Conducted
2007-2008, publication pending

• SRCA workshops and task group
• Based on PSR findings (44 programs)
• Tagged to core/systemic root causes

• 95 preliminary recommendations
• 48 systemic issues
• 3 Recommendation Areas

Recommendation Area Problem Statement Industry Actions
Implement Achievable Acquisition Strategy and Planning Acquisition strategies and plans are incomplete, ineffective and unrealistic, resulting in unachievable program expectations Require the government, prior to RFP release, to provide industry with govt. expectations and common understanding for IMP/IMS/risk management/business rhythms
Enhance Gate Review Process Lack of timely process and adequately defined and enforceable criteria to assess program maturity at milestones and linkage to technical reviews Define criteria for trigger conditions
Enhance Staff Capabilities Staffing shortfalls (numbers, skills, and experience) lead to adverse acquisition consequences specifically in the areas of requirements, planning, execution and expectations Develop and validate a representative staffing model for DoD based on industry that can be applied to the govt. given the current OSD acquisition guidance Develop a workload analysis to estimate the numbers and expertise needed in the acquisition workforce Broaden expertise to enhance cross-functional and domain knowledge and skills
Reference SRCA briefing for additional details
and recommended government actions.
25
SE of Tactical Air Launched WeaponsNDIA Gulf
Coast Chapter (2008)
SE Deficiencies Root Causes
Program Structure and Control Insufficient Maturity Of Design At Critical Decision Points Insufficient Testing And Analysis Planned To Achieve Maturity Late Integration Of Production Critical Processes And Controls Program Funding Profiles Not Structured For Improved Practices
Requirements And Verification Lack Of Service Use Profile Leaves Interpretive Requirements Insufficient Mapping Of Requirements To Design Ineffective Maturation And Verification Planning
Design Best Practices Inadequate Design Analysis - Fault Tree Analysis On All Subsystems During Design - Single Point Failure Analysis During Design Inadequate Maturation Analysis And Testing - COTS Integration - Design Margin And Sensitivity Development - Critical Manufacture And Assembly Process ID / Control Use Of Production Representative Configuration For Verification
Risk Identification And Management Inadequate Relationship To Knowledge Of Design
Supply Chain Practices Inconsistent Approaches To Design Characterization
Reference Systems Engineering of Tactical
Air-Launched Weapons An Industry
Examination. Air Armament Symposium, 2008.
briefing http//www.ndiagulfcoast.com/events/arc
hive/34th_Symposium/34_Day1/11_SysEngNDIASymposium
BriefOct208.pdf
26
A Survey of Systems Engineering Effectiveness
(2007)

• Joint NDIA/SEI survey of 46 programs correlating
  the effectiveness of SE processes with program
  performance.
• SE processes most strongly correlated with better
  program performance
• Architecture
• Trade Studies
• Technical Solution
• IPT Capability
• Requirements Development and Management
• Report http//www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/
• documents/08.reports/08sr034.html

Projects with better Systems Engineering
Capabilities deliver better Project Performance
(cost, schedule, functionality)
27
Defense Acquisition System Weighted Expenditures
DoDI 5000.02 Perspective
ProgramInitiation
B
A
C
IOC
FOC
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
MaterielSolutionAnalysis
Technology Development
Production Deployment
Operations Support
FRP Decision Review
Materiel Development Decision
Post-CDR Assessment
LRIP/IOTE
Systems Acquisition
Sustainment
Pre-Systems Acquisition
Warfighter and Sustainment Organization
Perspective
(Program Initiation)
A
B
C
Materiel Solution Analysis
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
Production Deployment
Technology Development
Operations Support
FR5P Decision Review
Materiel Development Decision
LRIP/IOTE
Post-CDR Assessment
Systems Acquisition
Pre-Systems Acquisition
Sustainment
65-80
20-35
30 YEARS
Nominal Life Cycle Cost Distribution