Abstract

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has recently revised the defense acquisition system to address suspected root causes of unwanted acquisition outcomes. One of the major changes in the revised acquisition system is an increased emphasis on systems engineering trade-offs made between capability requirements and lifecycle costs early in the acquisition process (Cilli, Parnell, Cloutier, & Zigh, 2015). Given that systems engineering trade-off analyses will play a pivotal role in future defense acquisition efforts, this paper takes an in-depth look at the state of systems engineering trade-off analysis capability through a review of relevant literature and a survey of systems engineering professionals and military operations research professionals involved in defense acquisition. The survey was developed to measure the perceived level of difficulty associated with compliance to the revised defense acquisition system mandate for early systems engineering trade-off analyses and to measure perceived likelihood and impact of potential pitfalls within systems engineering trade-off studies. The survey instrument was designed using Survey Monkey and was deployed through a link posted on several groups within LinkedIn, a professional social media site, and was also sent directly via email to those with known experience in this research area. Although increased systems engineering activity early in the life cycle is a compelling change for DoD, the findings of the literature review and the survey of practitioners both indicate that there is much to be done in order to position the systems engineering community for success so that the improved defense acquisition outcomes as envisioned by the architects of 2015 DoDI 5000.02 can be realized.

Highlights

  • 1.1 The Problem StatementOn 7 January 2015, the United States Department of Defense (DoD) released the latest update to DoDI 5000.02, Instruction for the Operation of the Defense Acquisition System

  • The survey was developed to measure the perceived level of difficulty associated with compliance to the revised defense acquisition system mandate for early systems engineering trade-off analyses and to measure perceived likelihood and impact of potential pitfalls within systems engineering trade-off studies

  • The following subsections provide these results. 3.1 Perceived Level of Difficulty Associated with Early SE Trade-off Analysis In order to measure the perceived level of difficulty associated with early systems engineering trade-off analyses, participants were presented with an observation informed by case study research (Cilli, 2015)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

On 7 January 2015, the United States Department of Defense (DoD) released the latest update to DoDI 5000.02, Instruction for the Operation of the Defense Acquisition System. This Government document places increased emphasis on systems engineering trade-off analyses early in the acquisition life-cycle to address root causes of unwanted acquisition outcomes. This paper explores the degree to which the systems engineering community is prepared to execute the new DoD instruction, first through a review of relevant literature and through a survey of practitioners. The findings are presented in a conceptual format synthesized through a decision management process lens. The activities and tasks of the decision management process as identified in Section 6.3.3 of the International Standard for Systems and Software Engineering—System Life Cycle Processes, ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015(E) are shown in the bullet list below and were used to create the decision management lens for this literature review

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.