OSD ATL class on Agile Acquisition

IT Policy Update
(IT Efficiencies, IT Acquisition Reform & Other)
Don Johnson
Office of the Secretary of Defense
USD(AT&L) – DASD(C3 & Cyber)
1
1

Where To Start – Senior Official for IT
Inspiring New DoD CIO Role
• DoD CIO Vision

• Agile and secure information capabilities to
enhance combat power and decision-making

• Main DoD CIO Thrust Areas

• Lead the DoD Information Enterprise
• Improve Enterprise Architecture Effectiveness via
Consolidate Infrastructure & Networks; Standardize
IT Platforms; and Deliver DoD Enterprise Cloud

• Direct and Oversee DoD IT Investments
• Streamline Processes - Includes Enable Agile IT;
Strengthen IT Governance; Leverage Strategic Sourcing
for IT Commodities; and Strengthen the IT Workforce

• Strengthen Cyber Security across DoD Enterprise
• Create & maintain strong boundary defenses and
monitoring on DoD networks

New OSD Landscape, Jan 11, 2012
• Refashioned DoD CIO

• New DASD Within AT&L

• DoD CIO will retain
• Primary authority for policy and oversight
of IT, network defense and network
operations
• Statutory responsibilities relating to
acquisition matters (aka Clinger Cohen
Act related duties)
• Principal Staff Assistant (PSA) for
nuclear, C3 and spectrum
• Information Assurance and related Cyber
oversight duties

Innovating in DoD’s IT Landscape
Each System is Often Part of a Larger “System”

DoD Adaptive
STRATCOM Planning Environment TRANSCOM
ISPAN
JFAST
Force Management
JCRM Plan Assessment
DRRS

Joint Staff J3 TSCMIS JOPES DB OUSD(P&R)
IGS
Wargaming
RTB
JET/RQT
Force Flow ICIS
ALPS
OUSD(P) Logistics DISA
Requirements Validation/Execution
DLA

Most IT Systems Have Their Own Requirements (Islands Upon Themselves)
Each System Brings Its Own Infrastructure & Technology Stack
No Single Office to Provide Guidance, Direction & Funding
4

Need to Govern Differently
CSIS Study on Acquisition of Net Centric System-of-Systems

Problem: Stove-piped, program-centric and Component-centric
systems have led to ad hoc activity, lack of flexibility and
resilience in face of “surprise”

CSIS Study Team: Mr Ken Krieg, Mr Frank Kendall, Harvard, etc.,
Points/Recommendations:
• Need for enterprise-wide governance for delivering warfighting and business
capabilities is not recognized across DoD (applies equally to MDAP and MAIS)

• Governance is key to successful delivery
› No organizational construct exists to assess and guide “enterprise”
performance (like a Board of Directors with authority to make trades)
› Successful delivery of capabilities require that interests at the system/
component level be re-balanced around the capability-centric view

• Absence of enterprise risk assessment , risk management strategies and
enterprise metrics/goals (First enterprise milestone in acquisition is “IOC”)

• Iterative involvement of warfighter in all stages of to “Capability-Centric”
Shift Governance From “Program-Centric” delivery is critical but rarely

Visible and Hidden IT Costs

Jan 2012 Defense Business Board
Enterprise Consolidation Savings: 25-50% in Total Annual Expenditures 6

Bigger Picture: Enhancing Enterprise
Efficiencies (Others Federal Agencies Having Impact)
2012 Excellence.gov Awards Ceremony, March 13, 2012
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers
• FAA Federal Notice to Airman System
• Enterprise capability replaces 50-year old system providing pilots safety of
flight (in 15 minutes) to an IT system that takes less than 5 seconds

• Overcoming Complexity of Worldwide Mission
• Department of State’s Enterprise IT Innovation
• Transformed a paper-based environment across 245 embassies
• DHS consolidated 32 globally environments into one

• Overcoming Silo-Mindset
• U.S. Treasury developed IT solution to build its annual budget now used
by 6 Cabinet agencies and 13 total agencies to build their budgets
• Coast Guard Business Intelligence
• Integrated 40 existing data sources to report readiness & capabilities
• NASA created a single enterprise-level IT cloud across its 10 Centers
• Minnesota became first U.S. state to enter into enterprise-wide cloud

• Thinking Differently

Need to Innovate & Think Differently
What Did Former DoD Leaders Say -

“It is time to think hard about how to institutionalize the procurement
of capabilities to get them fielded quickly – the issue becomes how
we can build innovative thinking and flexibility into the rigid
procurement system”

• Adaptive Ecosystem
• Processes responsive to dynamic operational
and technology environment
• Responsive Solutions

• User-centered domain expertise
• Leverage the latest solutions available commercially and
products not hard-wired at predetermined needs unable to evolve
• Speed
• He who learns fastest ends up making progress and wins
• Speed the process… … Gen Petraeus
“The [defense] budget has basically doubled in the last decade. And my
own experience here is that in doubling, we’ve lost our ability to prioritize,
to make hard decisions, to do tough analysis, to make trades.”
8

Thinking Differently in IT Acquisition
Inside the Pentagon, March 2012

Deputy Chief Management Officer Beth McGrath said the revision to
the 5000.02 instruction that would overhaul the DoD procurement
process awaits the signature of acting USD (AT&L) Frank Kendall to
start coordination.

DoD calls for an agile application process that deploys capabilities
every 12 to 18 months to a number of business and non-business
systems, said McGrath and DoD CIO Teri Takai in separate
interviews.

Congressional sources said that DoD has deviated from several
steps laid out in the section 804 report's implementation schedule
and Congress is still waiting to see the details of how DoD will
achieve the plan.

9

IT Legislative Landscape
-2010 Section 804: New IT acquisition process
-2010 Section 933: New Cyber process & tools

-2009 WARSA: ICE for certain MAIS when AT&L is MDA
-2009 Section 841: Replace IOC with FDD
-2009 Section 817: MAIS and MDAP mutually exclusive

-2008 Section 812: Pre-MAIS reporting, funds first obligated
-2008 10 USC 2222: Obligation of funds restrictions annual IRB

-2007 Section 816: Codify MAIS, SAR-like and NM-like reporting
-2007 Section 811: Time certain development for MAIS
-2006 Section 806: Notify Congress of MAIS cancelation or significant change

-1996 Clinger Cohen Act: DoD given acquisition authority to independently procure IT

- 1988 Warner Amendment: DoD to procure IT provided it was an integral part of a weapon
- 1965 Brooks Act: Provided GSA exclusive IT acquisition authority across the Government

2010 National Defense Authorization Act
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW ACQUISITION
PROCESS FOR INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
• NEW ACQUISITION PROCESS
REQUIRED —The Secretary of Defense
shall develop and implement a new
acquisition process for information
technology systems
• “… Be based on the recommendations in
Chapter 6 of the March 2009 report of the DSB
Task Force on DoD and Procedures for the
Acquisition of Information Technology
• New designed to include—

(A) early and continual involvement
of the user;
(B) multiple, rapidly executed increments
or releases of capability;
(C) early, successive prototyping to
support an evolutionary approach;
(D) a modular, open-systems approach

Achieving the Vision of the
March 2009 Defense Science Board
DSB Report on Policies and Procedures for Acquisition of IT

Today (Static/Time Unconstrained) Future (Dynamic/Time Boxed)

91 months 18-36 months

“The primary conclusion of the task force is that the conventional DOD
acquisition process is too long and too cumbersome
to fit the needs of the many IT systems that require continuous changes and
upgrades. Thus the task force believes that there is a need
for a unique acquisition system for information technology.”

March 2009 Defense Science Board Task Force Report

Acquisition Model
Chapter 6 of March 2009 DSB Report
Milestone Build
Decision

RELEASE 1
CDD
Architectural Development Development & Demonstration
ICD Business Case Analysis and Risk Reduction Fielding
and Development
Prototypes Iteration1 Iteration 2 Iteration “N”
Coordinated DOD stakeholder involvement Integrated DT / OT
Up to 2 years 6 to 18 months

Development & Demonstration
RELEASE 2 Prototypes Fielding
Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3

ICD Initial Capability Document
CDD Capabilities Development Document Prototypes
Development & Demonstration
Fielding
RELEASE “N” Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3

Decision Point

odel: Continuous Technology/Requirements Development & Maturation
• Impact to Core DoD Processes
– Requirements: From: fix set of requirements; To: evolving requirements & user role throughout
– Delivery: From: static waterfall model; To: Agile model with user feedback driving priorities
– Governance: From: Driven by Milestones & breaches ; To: More frequent review- delivery focused
– Functional Areas: From: rigor tied to documentation for single milestone;
1 Year Study – rigor tied to demonstrated risk and deliveryJohn Stenbit,
To: Dr Kaminski, Noel Longuemare, of capabilities 13
Pricilla Guthrie, Industry, Academia, Former DARPA Director

DSB Recommended Scope of Change

IT Use by DOD

IT to Support a National IT to Support an IT to Provide a
Security System Operational Process Shared Infrastructure

“Classic”
NSS
War Business Data Common Comm
Legacy Cyber Fighting Middle/
New NSS Process
NSS NSS Process ware Process Networks Satellites
Improve Improve Provide Shared,
Trustworthy, Ubiquitous,
Intent Weapon Operational
Process High Performance, Low
System
Cost IT Infrastructure

Customer Force Process Infrastructure
Provider Owner Provider
DOD DOD
Realization Milestone Milestone
New IT Acquisition Process
Process Process Process

The Call For Change
March DSB Consistently Supported By Others
Acquisition
• Long acquisition cycle-times
• Successive layers … built over years
• Limited flexibility and agility

Requirements
• Understanding and prioritizing requirements
• Ineffective role and comm in acquisitions

Test/Evaluation
• Testing is integrated too late and serially
• Lack of automated testing

Funding & Governance
• Program-centric, not capability-centric
• Overlapping decision layers
(e.g., multiple review processes)
• Lack of customer-driven metrics
• Funding inflexibility & negative incentives

National Academies Study
Achieving Effective Acquisition of IT in the DoD, Dec 2009

DoD Should Implement Agile -- Prioritization of
Capabilities Throughout and Time-box Iterations
Within Each Capability Increment
Integrated T&E / Voice of the End User

Requirements Analysis, Requirements Analysis, Requirements Analysis,
Re-prioritization & Re-prioritization & Re-prioritization &
Planning Planning Planning

Architecture Verification & Architecture Verification &
Refinement Validation Refinement Validation

Test Cases Testing Test Cases Testing

Design Integration Design Integration

Implementation Implementation

4 to 8 Week Iterations

2 Year Study – Lt Gen Campbell, Dawn Meyerriecks,
Microsoft, Google, Carnegie Mellon, Cohen Group
16

What is an Agile Model

Robust Operational Value
Iteration n

Operational Value
Step Development with
Mission Infrastructure Initial Demonstrated
As The Base Operational Value
Iteration 2

Iteration 1

Iteration 0

Mission Apps Mission Apps Mission Apps

Mission Infrastructure Mission Infrastructure Mission Infrastructure

IT Infrastructure IT Infrastructure IT Infrastructure

Demonstrated Operational Value Constantly Increases with each Iteration

17

Comparison DSB Model to DoD 5000
Why continued modifications will not work
Agile (AAM*) Waterfall (5000.2)

1

3
2
Incremental Integration &
& Iterative “Big Bang”
Delivery Delivery

Presentation / User Interface Presentation / User Interface

User

Business Logic / Services Business Logic / Services
Integration
Integration
Integration

Database / Integration Development Database / Integration
Team
Development
Team

2-Oct 30-Oct 30 Nov 30-Dec 2-Oct 91 Months
Iteration Iteration Iteration
Later
Data generated and used to calibrate the plan

Significantly Changes Workforce Dynamics
* AAM = Acquisition Assurance Method, an ICH process standard

Analysis &
Modelling Prototype Development
Design

Test and Evaluation Paradigm Shift
From Sequential to Agile Test/Evaluation

Combined DT/OT/Interop/Security

CT&E

RELEASE 1

Development and Demonstration

Iteration 1 CT&E
Iteration 2 CT&E
Iteration 3 CT&E

• Establish a single entity accountable for rapid Test/Evaluation
• Focus Capability T&E on the prioritized requirements of each
iteration (vs. release)
• Significant amount (100% is the goal) of test automation
• Treat Capability T&E as a shared resource
– Accomplish DT/OT/Iop/Security objectives
– One team, one time, one set of conditions, one report
• Field deployable capability…start small; scale rapidly

New Requirements Process
JCIDS “IT Box” and Increased Combatant Command/User Role

• Delegation of JROC responsibilities
• Increased Combatant/User role throughout
• Creation of “Functional Manager”
• Charged with requirements accountability
• Secretariat to delegated-JROC board
• Responsible for maturing & prioritizing Req’ts
• Serves as the regular, high-frequency,
interaction with acquisition

• Scenario Based Requirements
• User Story (include Req’ts and
Features) and Story Stack
An active, living scope of work that
stakeholders use to drive the project
• Annual Capability Roadmaps
• Annual Expectation Management
Agreements
• Domain understanding via
enhanced use of prototyping &
modeling (activity diagrams,
process models, spike solutions,
etc)

Early Adopters: Organization-Wide Changes
Within The Intelligence Community

Problem: The Intelligence Community faces nimble adversaries who can take full advantage of the
speed of IT innovation from commercial industry where the “end state” is not known and thus requires
continual modernization consistent with the pace of technology

Solution: Based upon these guiding principles, an IC Agency implemented the following acquisition
process:

• Major modernizations projects are broken into increments
• Increments typically have 18-30 month duration
• Increments are subdivided into “spins” lasting typically 90-120 days or shorter
• Initial Operational Capability (IOC) achieved within each increment
• Customers prioritizes capabilities within each increment
• Use of gates, metrics and processes to create, test and deliver valued capability
• Robust risk management and governance process based upon quarterly reviews
Program Initiation to MS B: 18 months (DoD: 41 months)
MS B to initial delivery: 9 months (DoD: 47 months)

Integrated Strategic Planning and
Analysis Network (ISPAN) Increment 2
March 29, 2010 Acquisition Decision Memorandum Signed by Dr Carter
Purpose:
Authorizes tailoring of the Increment 2 program to achieve principles of Section 804 (of the 2010
NDAA) while adhering to DoDD 5000.01

Guidance:
• No Milestone A
• Replaces a "Build Decision" with traditional Milestone B decision
• Approves program to forgo a Milestone C
• Tailors the Configuration Steering Board
• Replaces OIPT with a co-chaired PEO/OIPT quarterly review forum
• Implements annual Expectation Management Agreement to include the spend plan, schedule, and
capabilities to be delivered in the next l2-month period
• Implements annual Capability Roadmap to define time-phased set of capabilities
• Requires milestone doc to be signed within 45 days; if not, report to MDA required
• Designates ISPAN Increment 2 a “Capital Program”
23

Comparison of Projected Deliveries
Generic MAIS Timeline* Initial
Milestone B Operating
Planning Phase Build Phase Capability

43 48
Development MS C
Analysis of Economic
Alternatives Analysis 40 Test
5
91 Months
* DSB Report,2009, Average of 32 MAIS
ISPAN Timeline
Initial
Material Build Initial Operating
Development Decision Delivery Capability
Decision
12
13
9

33
Numbers represent time in months

This Road Seems Awfully Familiar
Previous attempts to reform IT lacking
• Brooks Act…..1972
• Centralized IT acquisition & management
• CCA - Clinger Cohen Act….1996
• Computer Chaos “Billions Wasted Buying Federal IT”
• “Process of acquiring IT takes significantly longer than tech..”
• Decentralized IT acquisition & management
• DoD Rapid Improvement Team…..2005
• Capability Portfolio Management ……2008
DoD Directive 7045
Previous attempts at program level
• Agile emphasized on NCTC Railhead Proposal
• Top IT program to fight terrorism
• Significant Gov & FFRDC team
• RFP Required Agile experience/Scrum expertise
• 2010 “Railhead’s $500M Colossal Failure”
- “Collapse of the Railhead result of poor technical
planning and design, potential contractor
mismanagement and inadequate government oversight” 25

DCMO-led Task Force(s) …. (2+ yrs later)
Portfolio &
Portfolio &
Funding & Resourcing
Funding & Resourcing Governance
Governance

Acquisition Process
Acquisition Process
Architecture
Architecture

Requirements
Requirements Contracting
Contracting

Test, Evaluation, and
Test, Evaluation, and
Certification
Certification

UNCLEAR THERE IS ANY REPORT, RESULTS OR CONCLUSION
Effort Appears to Quietly Disappear!
26

Where Are We Today ?
New DoD 5000 With Multiple IT Appendices/Templates

30 Pages of
Detailed Process
No significant change to
architecture, requirements,
funding, portfolio mgt,
governance, contracting and
test/evaluation
(DCMO-Task Force areas)

No Apparent Use of
Experience
From Early Adopters FDD

27

FY11 NDAA Section 933

Develop a strategy for the rapid acquisition of tools, apps, and other
capabilities for cyber warfare for USCYBERCOM and other cyber operations
components of military

Orderly process for determining, approving operational requirements
Orderly process for determining, approving operational requirements
Well-defined, repeatable, transparent, and disciplined process for developing
Well-defined, repeatable, transparent, and disciplined process for developing
capabilities IAW IT Acquisition process
capabilities IAW IT Acquisition process
Allocation of facilities and other resources to thoroughly test capabilities in
Allocation of facilities and other resources to thoroughly test capabilities in
development, before deployment and use to validate performance and take into
development, before deployment and use to validate performance and take into
account collateral damage
account collateral damage

Our plan is to first determine the best rapid
Our plan is to first determine the best rapid
acquisition solution for the Department, then vet
acquisition solution for the Department, then vet
through the Department leading to the final report for
through the Department leading to the final report for
congress
congress

Submit report on Cyber
Acquisition Strategy to
Congress
28

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)
• Proposed Streamlined Requirements Process and Oversight Level
• Leverage overarching ICDs for GIG Net Ops, Cyber Defense and Cyber Offense
• Implement a “IT Box Concept” to support streamlined cyber requirements process
• Acquisition Process Tailored to Product (“What”) and Timelines (“When”)
• Process A: <30 days – Standard Catalog – COTS/GOTS, IT Services
• Process B: 1-9 Months – Simple Catalog Mods – Modified COTS/GOTS, SW Dev
• Testing
• Perform testing as an integrated activity across development – DT/ OT, Interoperability, IA
• Scale T&E – C&A scope & rigor based on acceptable risk to support acquisition timelines
• Establish enterprise-level architectures for cyber test infrastructure and resources
• Cyber Governance
• Establish a Senior Mgt Board to align technical, acquisition, and investment strategies
• Oversee Development and Implementation of policies to acquire cyber via quarterly reviews
• Collaborate with cyber governance bodies of requirements, acquisition, and test

• Funding
• Dedicated funding for cyber required; exploring options

29

Rapid Cyber Acquisition Roadmap

Implementation Plan
Development
Refinement
Inform / /Update
Inform Update

Pilots
Report to DoDi on
Congress -Define Metrics
Cyber
Submitted -Lessons DAG
Acquisition
(Provided Learned DTM Acquisition
SME/
Overview) -Refinement
Stakeholder T&E Policy
Input (As needed)

Charter & Policy JCIDS Updates

Develop & Validate Use Cases
Stakeholder Engagement

Working Group Activities

“Change is the law of life. And, those who look only to the
past or present are certain to miss the future.”

In IT Domain
Doing Nothing is Not an Option

Contact Information

Mr Don Johnson
USD(AT&L) DASD (C3 & Cyber)
(703) 614-5839
Don.Johnson@osd.mil

OSD ATL class on Agile Acquisition

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to OSD ATL class on Agile Acquisition (20)

More from John Weiler (8)

OSD ATL class on Agile Acquisition

Editor's Notes