Department of the Navy Probability of Program Success (PoPS)

Transcription

1 Department of the Navy Probability of Program Success (PoPS) Presented to DODCAS DON Service Breakout CAPT Jim Baratta, USN Deputy Director, NCCA Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Cost and Economics) 19 February

2 ACAT I = Briefing slides -2- All ACATs = Metrics and R/Y/G

3 -3-

4 3. Completed CRB 3. Approve APB and Full Funding Cert for MS-B. 7. SCP, assumptions, cost risks, S-Curves 8. Cost drivers by phase and by KPP/KSA; cost reduction strategies. DASN (C&E) SYSCOM Cost Dir -4-

5 Service Cost Position Prior Years Current Year FYDP Yr 1 FYDP Yr 2 FYDP Yr 3 FYDP Yr 4 FYDP Yr 5 FYDP Yr 6 FYDP Yr 1-6 To Comp Total ($ in Millions / Then Year) RDT&E Current $ (PB 08) Required $ Delta $ (Current - Required) PROCUREMENT Current $ (PB 08) Required $ Delta $ (Current - Required) O&M Current $ (PB 08) Required $ Delta $ (Current - Required) (1.0) 3.0 (2.0) MPN Current $ (PB 08) Required $ Delta $ (Current - Required) (1.0) (1.0) (2.0) (4.0) (1.0) (2.0) (8.0) (2.0) (6.0) MILCON Current $ (PB 08) Required $ Delta $ (Current - Required) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) TOTAL Current $ (PB 08) Required $ TOC Cap $ Delta $ (Current - Required) Delta $ (TOC Cap - Required) Delta $ (TOC Cap - Current) QUANTITIES Current (PB 08) Required Qty Delta Qty (Current - Required) 13 (2)

6 . Gate 5 Cost Estimate $5,718M Remove Gate 3 CV CI Gate 3 (Dec 07) 32.4% 78% Gate 4 (Apr 09) 25.9% 71% Gate 5 (May 10) 17.4% 65% -6-

7 -7-

8 -8- (NAVAIR pilot project)

9 -9-

10 -10-

11 NOTICE THE RELATIVE WEIGHT OF COST EST. -11-

12 -12-

13 -13-

14 PoPS 2.0 Criteria Program Description -14- How good is the program description? Tech Maturity?

15 PoPS 2.0 Criteria Cost Data -15- Is relevant, reliable data available?

16 PoPS 2.0 Criteria - Process -16- CE Process, Team, Analysis?

17 PoPS 2.0 Criteria Estimate Comparisons -17- Estimate vs ICE? Stable est over time?

18 PoPS 2.0 Criteria -Measures -18- Assessment of Risk/Uncertainty?

19 -19-

20 PoPS 2.0 Status -20-

21 -21-

22 Questions?? Resource Sponsor Program Manager -22-

23 COST ANALYSIS Fly Air Force! Backups -23- Buy Golf courses, lease Tankers...

24 Cost Estimate Maturity vs. Gate Reviews Cost, Technical, and Programmatic Uncertainty Pre Systems Acquisition Pre Systems Acquisition Systems Acquisition Sustainment Materiel Solution Analysis vs. Budget? Technology Development Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support A B C IOC FOC Disposal Gate Reviews 6 fo 6 fo 6 fo Technical Reviews ITR ASR SRR IBR Preferred System Concept System Specification/ CDD SFR System Functional Baseline PDR Allocated Baseline CDR Product Baseline TRR FRR OTRR SVR/PRR Product Baseline PCR ECPR Estimating Techniques Parametric Analogy Parametric Analogy Analogy Parametric Engineering Build-Up Extrapolate Actuals Engineering Build-Up Parametric Extrapolation of Actuals Engineering Build-Up -24-

25 Pass 1 Gates Gates 1, 2, and 3 Requirements Gates Led by CNO or CMC Starts prior to Material Development Decision, ends after Gate 3 Leads to: Approving the ICD Approving AOA guidance Selecting an AOA optimal alternative Approving a CDD Developing a CONOPS Approving System Design Specification (SDS) Development Plan -25-

26 Pass 2 Gates Gates 4, 5, and 6 Acquisition Gates Led by ASN(RDA) Starts after Gate 3, ends after Milestone B (initial EMD phase) Leads to: Approving the SDS Approving release of the RFP Assessing readiness for production Assessing sufficiency of the EVMS PMB Assessing the IBR Follow-on Gate 6 s pre- and post-milestone C and FRP DR Serve as Configuration Steering Boards and review program health -26-

27 Recommended Focus Areas from Senior Analysis Team, Jan 2008 Look at POPS reporting and cost estimate presentation to leadership Fix those insight disconnects for a more meaningful indicator Addressed by Cost Review S-curve understanding and usage Estimating team Gain a better view of the potential upper-range bounds of cost risk Add technical/programmatic non-advocate reviews Remove some of the optimism from program definitions Addressed by Chief SYSENG team Improve SE process and early acquisition phase flow Attain a higher maturity before committing to a program Align budgeting and programming expectations TBD Reduce the risk of cost growth surprises funding and budget policy? -27-

28 METRIC CRITERIA Former POPS 1.0 Cost Estimating Criteria GATE 1 GATE 2 GATE 3 GATE 4 GATE 5 GATE 6 C O S T E S T I M A T I N G COST ESTIMATING Plan to conduct cost estimates has been developed; all stakeholders actively involved Cost estimate range to address potential capability alt. have been developed and dropped Cost estimating activities are on or ahead of schedule. Appropriate technical authorities and stakeholders are involved to ensure total ownership cost implications are being addressed Cost Estimate confidence level is about 75% Initial independent CE has been accomplished by an org. outside the PORC. Less than 10% diff. btwn the P.O. and initial ind.cost estimator. Diff. in assumptions and methodologies have been resolved. GREEN - Plan for cost estimates have been developed; all stakeholders involved YELLOW - Plan for cost estimates are being developed; key stakeholders involved RED - Plan for cost estimates is NOT been developed GREEN - developed and approved YELLOW - being developed RED - NOT being developed GREEN - can be evaluated YELLOW RED - can NOT be evaluated Confidence Level is NOT the S- Curve C.I. It is PM ssubjective Is there a Plan to get an Estimate? GREEN - ahead of schedule GREEN - ahead of schedule GREEN - ahead of schedule GREEN - ahead of schedule GREEN - ahead of schedule YELLOW - behind schedule but YELLOW - behind schedule but YELLOW - behind schedule but not affecting planning not affecting planning/execution not affecting planning/execution RED - behind sched. & affecting RED - behind sched. & affecting RED - behind sched. & affecting planning planning/execution planning/execution Are CE activities on-schedule? >75% 25-75% <25% >80% 50-80% <50% YELLOW - behind schedule but not affecting planning/execution RED - behind sched. & affecting planning/execution GREEN: >75% GREEN: >80% GREEN: >85% GREEN: >90% GREEN: >95% YELLOW - behind schedule but not affecting planning/execution RED - behind sched. & affecting planning/execution YELLOW: 25-75% YELLOW: 50-80% YELLOW: 60-85% YELLOW: 75-90% YELLOW: 80-95% RED: <25% RED: <50% GREEN: Less than 10% RED: <60% GREEN: Less than 10% RED: <75% GREEN: Less than 10% RED: <80% GREEN: Less than 10% difference. All diff. have been difference. All diff. have been difference. All diff. have been difference. All diff. have been resolved resolved resolved resolved YELLOW: 10-30% difference. All diff. are resolvable RED: >30% difference. All diff are NOT resolvable >85% 60-85% <60% YELLOW: 10-30% difference. All diff. are resolvable RED: >30% difference. All diff are NOT resolvable >90% 75-90% <75% YELLOW: 10-30% difference. All diff. are resolvable RED: >30% difference. All diff are NOT resolvable >95% 80-95% <80% YELLOW: 10-30% difference. All diff. are resolvable RED: >30% difference. All diff are NOT resolvable 78 Criteria had cost estimating linkage (across all Gates); only 19 of those were captured in the Cost Estimating Metric. -28-

29 POPS 2.0 Approved Cost Estimating Criteria METRIC CRITERIA How good is the program description? Tech Maturity? Is relevant, reliable data available? Best Practices process used? Estimate vs ICE? Stable est over time? S-curve shape? New recommended criteria provide insight into the cost estimate. -29-