Assessing System Readiness

Benefits and limitations of current techniques for measuring the
readiness of a system to proceed to production
James W. Bilbro
JB Consulting International
www.jbconsultinginternational.com
Executive Summary
This paper summarizes a number of methodologies currently being used or developed for
determining the readiness of a system to be taken into production, addressing both strengths and
weaknesses. There are a number of possible permutations and combinations of the tools and
processes addressed that would be successful, but there are a few key points that should be
considered.
• An integrated total system approach should be used that addresses technology,
manufacturing, integration, etc. from the system of systems level to the individual
component level.

• Current status should be augmented by a predictive assessment that addresses the
combined risk, schedule and cost to completion. While risk and cost assessments are
currently undertaken, they appear to be only loosely connected to each other and not at
all to TRA’s.

• A system readiness process should be standardized through the use of tools – this
facilitates independent assessments as well as comparisons between programs.

• The tools and processes/methodologies should be mandatory: if they are not mandatory,
they will never be used and therefore never be improved. There are too many demands
on the program manager to utilize “helpful” processes, tools, etc.

• In the end, whatever approach is chosen, there needs to be a balance between
“comprehensiveness” and ease of use. It is easy to ask 10,000 questions to cover
everything; however, it is impractical from the point of view of the resources available to
do so.

• In this respect, one should rely on the system engineering process (perhaps relying on a
consolidated set of checklists) and develop a concise augmentation process such as
expanding upon the AD2 process in conjunction with a system level TRA, or incorporating
the RI3 methodology into a cost assessment together with an integrated TRA & MRA..

Introduction:
Program failures and cost and schedule overruns over the last two decades have led to
pressure to focus on specific issues in order to improve performance. Initial focus was on
Technology Readiness, soon to be followed by Manufacturing Readiness and most recently on a
renewed emphasis on system engineering, including specifically integration. There is no question
that attempts to use immature technology (both hardware and software) and lack of
manufacturing capability have significantly contributed to these problems as have integration
issues, particularly in today’s complex interrelated systems. However, arguably all of these
issues have arisen from failures in the system engineering process and, if a solution is to be
found it must be approached from a total system engineering perspective. A summary of tools
and processes currently available is provided in the following paragraphs.
Available Tools & Processes

4017 Panorama Drive SE Huntsville, AL 35801
Phone: 256-534-6245 Fax : 866-235-8953 Mobile : 256-655-6273 E-mail: jbci@bellsouth.net
Website : www.JBConsultingInternational.com

Advancement Degree of Difficulty (AD2):
AD2 is designed to be done in conjunction with a Technology Readiness Assessment
(TRA). The AD2 process is focused on determining the “tall tent pole” issues in cost, schedule and
risk that are associated with the various elements (systems, subsystems, components) deemed
to be below the desired level of maturity by the TRA. It is structured around the Work Breakdown
Structure (WBS) and asks a series of questions regarding the element under investigation as to
whether or not it can be designed, manufactured, tested, or operated. E.g. do you have the
necessary models with the requisite accuracy and if not, what is the cost and schedule required
to obtain them and what is the risk that they cannot be obtained? The results are portrayed in the
form of identifying the weakest link, ie, greatest risk, highest cost, longest time. AD2 is not
intended as a replacement for a formal cost analysis nor risk analysis, rather it looks to provide
quantified indicators for more detailed examination. The AD2 tool currently consists of 57
questions in 5 categories: Design & Analysis, Manufacturing, Software Development, Test, and
Operations. Categories may be changed and questions may be changed or additional questions
added. The strength of the AD2 process is that it is predictive and can (and should) be used from
the system of system level down to the component level. The weakness is that it is only as good
as the questions asked and they must continually be refined.
https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=189733&lang=en-US
DOD Systems Engineering Checklists:
There are 18 System Engineering Checklists covering all program phases intended to
supplement the Services individual processes/methodologies. The TRA checklist for example
consists of 69 questions in 8 areas: Timing/Entry Level, Planning, Program Schedule, Program
Risk Assessment, Critical Technologies Identification, TRA Panel, TRA Preparation and Event,
and Completion/Exit Criteria. Each question is to be assessed with respect to risk categories of
Red, Yellow, Green, Unassigned or Not Applicable. The strength of the checklist approach as a
whole is its comprehensiveness which, as was the case, with the UK approach (below) is also
one of its weaknesses because of the time required to apply it. The questions are also of a
programmatic nature as to whether or not a process has been completed without regard to how
well it was done. The checklist approach also is only a status. While it does make risk
characterization, it does not provide any quantification of what remains to be done. It appears that
while these checklists are recommended for DOD as a whole, only NavAir (the developer) makes
much use of them. https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=144143&lang=en-US
Risk Identification, Integration & ‘illities (RI3):
RI3 is a methodology designed to provide a concise set of questions that highlight key
areas that have historically been overlooked, particularly in areas related to the integration of new
technologies, and the “ilities.” It is intended to be used in conjunction with formal risk assessment
processes, not as a replacement. It consists of 105 questions in 9 categories: Design Maturity
and Stability, Scalability & Complexity, Integrability, Testability, Software, Reliability,
Maintainability, Human Factors, and People Organization & Skills. The questions are formulated
in terms of “best practices” and if the answers are negative, the responder is asked to indicate a
likelihood of the “best practice” not occurring and the subsequent consequence to the program.
The results are captured in a conventional 5X5 risk matrix and in linearized likelihood and
consequence charts. It is recommended that the linearized charts be used due to the stigma
associated with having “red” areas in a conventional 5X5 risk matrix which often results in risks
being under reported. The strength of the RI3 methodology is that it is applicable to any level -
from system of systems to components and that it focuses on issues that have most frequently
been missed. The primary weakness of the RI3 method is that when the questions are examined
they are frequently dismissed as being common sense issues which “of course” are already being
addressed. This can lead to the methodology being deemed unnecessary and therefore not
utilized. Questions, of course, must continue to be refined and if maximum benefit is to be


achieved from the methodology it should be incorporated into formalized cost assessments.
http://www.afit.edu/cse/page.cfm?page=164&sub=95
System Readiness Level (SRL) (Stevens Institute):
The SRL in this case is defined through the combination of the TRL of a given technology
with the Integration Readiness Level (IRL) of each of the elements with which it will be integrated.
The computation of SRL is considered as a normalized matrix of pairwise comparisons of
normalized TRL and IRL. The strength of this approach is that it recognizes that integration plays
a major role in successful program completion and offers the opportunity to define a system
readiness by a single number. One weakness of this approach is that representing a system
readiness by a single number has the unwanted potential for masking major problems. A more
limiting weakness is that it requires the use of Integration Readiness Levels which at this point
are too ill-defined to result in practical application. This approach provides for status only and
does not provide any means of quantifying what is left to be done. Substantial work remains to
be done on quantifying IRLs if this methodology is to be successful.
http://www.systemreadinesslevel.com/

System Readiness Level (SRL) ( UK Ministry of Defense):
The UK MOD SRL methodology is an attempt at a comprehensive look at all aspects of a
program. It is used in conjunction with TRL assessments. The SRL self assessment tool has 9
top level categories: System Engineering Drivers, Training, Safety & Environmental, Reliability &
Maintainability, Human Factors, Software, Information Systems, Airworthiness, and Maritime.
Each of these 9 areas has a set of questions for each of the 9 levels of the SRL for a total of 399
questions. Affirmative answers to a complete set of questions for a given level determines the
SRL for that area. The composite SRL is displayed as a matrix of areas against individual SRLs
resulting in a particular signature at a given point in the program. The strength of this
methodology is its comprehensiveness, which is also its major weakness, it is incredibly time
consuming to perform this assessment and there has been some indication (not confirmed) that
the UK MOD has discontinued use of this methodology. It is worth noting that the UK MOD
attempted to utilize Integration Readiness Levels (IRLs) and Design Readiness Levels (DRLs)
before settling on this approach. http://www.aof.mod.uk/aofcontent/tactical/techman/index.htm
System Technology Readiness Assessments (STRA):
Technology Readiness Assessment can (and arguably should) be performed on a
system or even System of Systems basis as well as subsystem and component. This is
particularly true in consideration of the fact that using legacy hardware or software in a new
system/environment frequently results in technology development. When a TRA is conducted at
the system level all issues including integration are addressed. I.e., if a system level prototype is
tested in a relevant environment, it must have been integrated first. Two tools exist for
standardizing the TRA assessment – the AFRL TRL Calculator and the NASA-AFRL TRL
Calculator. The latter calculator is specifically structured to perform assessments as a function of
the program Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS). It has 259 questions for the 9 levels in 3
categories (hardware, software & manufacturing). A web-based version of the AFRL TRL
Calculator is under development which will also include a WBS capability. The strength of this
approach (when used with a calculator tool) is that it provides a standardized means of making a
comprehensive system assessment from the top down as well as from the bottom up. The
weakness is that it only provides a status at the time of the assessment and does not address
what is required for successful completion. https://acc.dau.mil/Search.aspx?
id=157372&m=6&tfp=1&tfk=1&tfd=1&q=trl
https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=189733&lang=en-US


Assessing System Readiness

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Assessing System Readiness (20)

More from jbci (7)

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing System Readiness