Search

This paper summarizes the results of a DoD Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) project to synthesize analyses of DoD SE effectiveness risk sources into a lean framework and toolset for early identification of SE-related program risks. It includes concepts of operation which enable project sponsors and performers to agree on the nature and use of more effective evidence-based reviews. These enable early detection of missing SE capabilities or personnel competencies with respect to a framework of Goals, Critical Success Factors (CSFs), and Questions determined from leading DoD early-SE CSF analyses. The SE Effectiveness Measurement (EM) tools enable risk-based prioritization of corrective actions, as shortfalls in evidence for each question are early uncertainties, which when combined with the relative system impact of a negative answer to the question, translates into the degree of risk that needs to be managed to avoid system overruns and incomplete deliveries., Proceedings of the Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Hoboken, NJ, March 2010. DOD-sponsored. U.S. Government or Federal Rights License

DoD programs need effective systems engineering (SE) to succeed. DoD program managers need early warning of any risks to achieving effective SE. This SERC project has synthesized analyses of DoD SE effectiveness risk sources into a lean framework and toolset for early identification of SE-related program risks. Three important points need to be made about these risks. * They are generally not indicators of bad SE. Although SE can be done badly, more often the risks are consequences of inadequate program funding (SE is the first victim of an underbudgeted program), of misguided contract provisions (when a program manager is faced with the choice between allocating limited SE resources toward producing contract-incentivized functional specifications vs. addressing key performance parameter risks, the path of least resistance is to obey the contract), or of management temptations to show early progress on the easy parts while deferring the hard parts till later. * Analyses have shown that unaddressed risk generally leads to serious budget and schedule overruns. * Risks are not necessarily bad. If an early capability is needed, and the risky solution has been shown to be superior to the alternatives, accepting and focusing on mitigating the risk is generally better than waiting for a better alternative to show up. Unlike traditional schedule-based and event-based reviews, the SERC SE EM technology enables sponsors and performers to agree on the nature and use of more effective evidence-based reviews. These enable early detection of missing SE capabilities or personnel competencies with respect to a framework of Goals, Critical Success Factors (CSFs), and Questions determined by the EM task from the leading DoD early-SE CSF analyses. The EM tools enable risk-based prioritization of corrective actions, as shortfalls in evidence for each question are early uncertainties.

CONTENTS: 1) Measures and Risk Indicators for Early Insight Into Software Safety by Dr. Victor Basili, Kathleen Dangle, Linda Esker, Frank Marotta, and Ioana Rus. While software increases functionality and control, it also adds complexity and vulnerability to hazards. This article explores a measurement approach that provides early visibility into the implementation of the software safety hazard process. 2) Safety and Security: Certification Issues and Technologies by Dr. Benjamin M. Brosgol. This article looks at the DO-178B and the Common Criteria standards, analyzes language-related issues, and assesses three possible technologies for safety-critical or high-security systems. 3) WebBee: A Platform for Secure Mobile Coordination and Communication in Crisis Scenarios by Sugih Jamin. In a disaster, first-responders must be able to communicate using devices they already have and are well-accustomed, on a secure and mobile channel, and with systems beyond the consumer communication infrastructure. This article analyzes how WebBee addresses these concerns. 4) Constructing Change-Tolerant Systems Using Capability-Based Design by Dr. James D. Arthur and Ramya Ravichandar. Advancements in technology have created large-scale software systems that still require change while meeting stakeholder expectations, technology advancements, scheduling constraints, and market demands. This article explores a capability-based approach to evolving change-tolerant systems. 5) DoD Business Mission Area Service-Oriented Architecture to Support Business Transformation by Dennis E. Wisnosky, Dimitry Feldshteyn, Wil Mancuso, Al (Edward) Gough, Eric J. Riutort, and Paul Strassman. Will a service-oriented architecture be the DoD Business Mission Area's answer to their multifaceted operational needs? This article explores their complex business transformation infrastructure as well as the service-oriented architecture's capabilities in readiness, information assurance, and governance., CrossTalk,The Journal of Defense Software Engineering is co-sponsored by the Department of Defense Chief Information Office (DoD-CIO); the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L); U.S. Navy (USN); U.S. Air Force (USAF); and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DoD-CIO co-sponsor: Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information Integration). OSD (AT&L) co-sponsor: Software Engineering and System Assurance.USN cosponsor: Naval Air Systems Command. USAF cosponsors: Oklahoma City-Air Logistics Center (ALC) 76 Software Maintenance Group (SMXG); and Ogden-ALC 309 SMXG. DHS co-sponsor: National Cyber Security Division in the National Protection and Programs Directorate. The original document contains color images.

Software contributes an ever-increasing level of functionality and control in today's systems. This increased use of software can dramatically increase the complexity and time needed to evaluate the safety of a system. Although the actual system safety cannot be verified during its development, measures can reveal early insights into potential safety problems and risks. An approach for developing early software safety measures is presented in this article. The approach and the example software measures presented are based on experience working with the safety engineering group on a large Department of Defense program., Published in CROSSTALK: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, p4-8, October 2008. Prepared in collaboration with University of Maryland, Fraunhofer Center, and Honeywell Aerospace.

"Introducing the Department of Defense Acquisition Best Practices Clearinghouse," by Kathleen Dangle, Laura Dwinnell, John Hickok, and Dr. Richard Turner -- This new capability will help acquisition personnel identify, select, and implement validated practices according to their programmatic needs. "Ports, Protocols, and Services Management Process for the Department of Defense," by David R. Basel, Dana Foat, and Cragin Shelton -- This article explains how to comply with the registration requirements for all automated information systems used on Department of Defense data networks. "Transformational Vulnerability: Management through Standards," by Robert A. Martin -- The Department of Defense's new vulnerability and configuration standardization efforts will dramatically improve the insight and oversight of the security and integrity of the agency's systems and networks. "Extending Agile Methods: A Distributed Project and Organizational Improvement Perspective," by Paul E. McMahon -- This article promotes using agile methods by exposing common myths and providing information that can help managers and customers facilitate practical agility within their organizations. "How to Perform Credible Verification, Validation, and Accreditation for Modeling and Simulation," by Dr. David A. Cook and Dr. James M. Skinner -- Verification and validation of the model, simulation, and accompanying life-cycle steps are required to know that you have the right model and valid simulation results. "Technology Readiness Assessments for IT and IT-Enabled Systems," by Robert Gold and David Jakubek -- This article summarizes the revised Technology Readiness Assessment guidelines and provides examples in applying them to major defense acquisitions.