From: Sadauskas, Leonard, CTR, OSD-C3I (Leonard.Sadauskas@osd.mil)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 22:45:10 EST
UNCLASSIFIED
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Gabb [mailto:agabb@tpgi.com.au]
The proposed revamp of the US DoD requirements process has brought forth a
flood of comments that have now been adjudicated and are scheduled for a
pre-flag briefing today. The resulting product will be an executive level
instruction plus a manual of user-level details. We have not yet graduated
to a capabilities life-cycle, but have addressed Capabilities Systems
Engineering.
What are the group's thoughts about continuing requirements process validation through system post implementation assessments? Does anyone have experience with such a notion? I see it as a basic feedback control system that moves toward the target (surrogate generated requirements that fully map to user requirements) at some rate dependent on the feedback signal and system characteristics. Any takers on such a model?
Leonard Sadauskas
Hmmm, EA as a stovepipe crusher, eh?
I've noticed with fascination the USDoD gradually come round to a 'capability' view. AUS and UK have been playing with this for some years now, with mixed results, mainly due to cultural problems in my view - but I think the approach is sound. I've certainly supported it in AusDoD, where they now talk of the 'capability life cycle'.
With regard to CJCSI 3170.01C (I have Bravo), when is it due? I'm aware of the sea change in the 5000 Series last October.
Andrew
-- Sadauskas, Leonard, CTR, OSD-C3I wrote:
> Let me add a further military perspective from the USA. While we have
been
> using one or more layers of surrogates between the ultimate user and the
> developer, those responsible for the capability that a particular
> development provided, the four star combatant commanders, have been
> dissatisfied with the result. This dissatisfaction together with other
> transformation initiatives has precipitated a rewrite of the DoD
> requirements generation system, CJCSI 3170.01C, which is currently in
> staffing. Although it does not remove the surrogates, it does identify
> functional capability owners and provides more frequent feedback to the
> requirements generation process. At the same time the DoD is moving to
> evolutionary acquisition that suggests development and fielding of smaller
> chunks of capability with an end-user-to-surrogate/RE feedback path for
each
> chunk. With a higher feedback sampling rate, the new process should
provide
> more opportunity for continuous improvement of the surrogate-based RE
> process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To send a message to this mailing list send it to re-online@it.uts.edu.au. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email majordomo@it.uts.edu.au with the message `unsubscribe re-online' in the BODY of the mail. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To send a message to this mailing list send it to re-online@it.uts.edu.au. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email majordomo@it.uts.edu.au with the message `unsubscribe re-online' in the BODY of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 09:00:10 EST