1. Introduction
Competitive Prototyping (CP) is a mandatory process in the Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition system in which, two or more competing teams develop prototypes during the early stages of an acquisition or procurement phase for the purpose of comparing then choosing the prototype that best addresses key issues, problems, or challenges. The mandate for CP has its roots in the DoD 5000 series of regulations governing the Defense Acquisition Management System. Prior to 2008, several revisions of the 5000 series periodically included mandates for CP. The latest revision was in 2008, when the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, issued a new DoD instruction (DoDI 5000.02, Dec. 8, 2008) which contains
…show more content…
Much later in 1947, Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in X-1 prototype from Bell. MITRE explains the background of prototyping in the Defense Acquisition Management Systems: “…a practice in which an early sample or model of a system, capability, or process is built to answer specific questions about, give insight into, or reduce uncertainty or risk in many diverse areas. This includes exploring alternative concepts, technology maturity assessments, requirements discovery or refinement, design alternative assessments, and performance or suitability issues. It is part of the systems engineer's toolkit of techniques for managing uncertainty and complexity and mitigating their effects”. Figure 2 – Competitive Prototyping in the Defense Acquisition Management System (Source: Defense Acquisition …show more content…
Technologies proven in the lab and ready to begin the transition to a relevant environment are good candidates for developmental prototyping. A developmental prototyping effort culminates in a demonstration that collects data on key technical knowledge points, highlights the operational promise of the resulting capability, and shows where the solution lies on the cost-capability curve. Operational prototyping advances capabilities that have already demonstrated some technical and operational promise. Technical maturity of a capability entering an operational prototyping activity varies, but good candidates are those able to make the transition to a conventional acquisition pipeline (e.g., milestone B) in two to four years. Operational prototyping advances a capability to the point where the warfighter can operate the capability in an operational environment. Form, fit, function and supportability, as well as affordability are the key drivers of operational prototyping
Risk assessment is used to determine the extent of handling threats and the risks associated with an IT system throughout its life cycle.
Zakheim and Kadish explain two decades ago, there were more than twenty prime contractors competing for defense contracts while today the government relies on just six contractors to build its defense systems. Zakheim and Kadish state, “The system largely forgoes competition on price, delivery and performance and replaces it with a kind of “design bureau” competition”. The report explains that firms such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin have operated in collaboration on several projects such as the Air Force’s next generation bomber (Zakheim & Kadish, 2008). Collaboration of this nature suggests cooperative equilibrium between the firms to enhance their mutual payoff of outbidding competitors. With the defense market on the downturn pending major budget cuts over the next several years, more collaboration strategies are possible for firms to remain competitive. The existing procurement system encourages bargaining among the government and bidding firms. When budgets are allocated generously, demand is high and firms can set their prices higher. Budget cuts decrease demand and increase bargaining between buyer and seller. Security Industry reports budget deficits subject contracts to greater
It is common knowledge within the tech community that some commercial technology lags at least a decade behind new military technology. The lag time will allow for an adjustment period to help facilitate the acceptance from the public on a mass scale.
It is primarily used to analyze the probabilities associated with the variables that compromise any process or project. When
Responsible for identifying limitations in already built in system, processes and providing alternate solutions to overcome deficiencies.
An applied form of structured information or expertise used for the process of evaluating social, economic, and organizational issues within a decision making process.
We also need to invest in the future to ensure continued development and improvement of the war fighter’s mobilization electronic operating systems while continuously conducting relevant high quality training. These mobilization technology systems must support our current complex and evolving operating environment. Additionally, it is imperative that we identify duplicate systems and work towards the migration and/or elimination of unnecessary redundancies.
The next step in the process is system analysis. This second stage involves gathering requirements, such as documenting the strengths and weaknesses of the current system, having discussions with the users to understand their roles and needs. This is an integral part of the life cycle as employees are the most important asset a company has. Baya, Gruman, & Mathaisel state, “information technology
* To perform design changes, programming, acceptance testing or implementation to address unforeseen error(s), newly discovered bugs and/or interfacing issues.
Above all, I ensured TARDEC RTI’s alignment with the aforementioned objectives such that RTI teams work to fill critical gaps in ground vehicle capability by including, as part of its strategy, technology efforts to shape the future force within the ground domain. As a case in point, have RTI teams executing focused S&T efforts as part of TARDEC’s Combat Vehicle Prototype (CVP) initiative. These critical RTI programs are developing a suite of scalable technologies that enable next generation capability across the combat vehicle fleet that will inform both future systems and enable upgrade requirements that support driving down future POR technical and integration risk, working in concert with the defense industrial base in order to position the Army for its CFT led next generation combat vehicle efforts for FY20-24 POM and beyond. In short, our RTI CVP efforts are on track to provide leap-ahead technology enabled capability to the combat vehicle fleet by FY19 at TRL 6. Examples of RTI technology efforts include 1) advanced powertrain development that utilizes a scalable, power dense combat engine that can be sized across multiple platform
For the System Development, I define it as a medium level of risk assessment. The company did design, develop and implement new systems for a certain time or logical reason. However, the new system testing is not as well as we think. As the result, the new system does no perform well as we expected. Even though the company have involve the internal audit department for the new system development, and the set them as part of the new project team to review the new project, which the team members are all been voting. They have a good process of development of new systems, but the new systems do not perform well. It will still result in a small probability of risk assessment. In general, I set a medium level of risk assessment to let the company consider about this issue.
In 1943, Theodor Von Karman, in response to a request by US Air Force headquarters, claimed that the realization of a supersonic aircraft would have been doable using the right technology and tools. The fear of breaking the "sound barrier" was finally removed in 1947, when the Captain Yaeger flew the Bell X-1 at a speed slightly above Mach 1 for few seconds, producing the famous and long-awaited sonic boom (caused by an impulsive pressure change created by the sonic waves detaching from the aircraft), music for the scientists attending that historical moment, but current nightmare for the 21st Century supersonic vehicles' designers [8].
System development can generally be thought of having two major components: systems analysis and systems design. In System Analysis more emphasis is given to understanding the details of an existing system or a proposed one and then deciding whether the proposed system is desirable or not and whether the existing system needs improvements. Thus, system analysis is the process of investigating a system, identifying problems, and using the information to recommend improvements to the system. System design is the process of planning a new business system or one to replace or complement an existing system.
Systems analysis refers to a problem solving technique where a business or procedure is studied and the goals are identified in order to create information systems to help the business achieve their goal more efficiently and easier. Systems analysts obtain feedback from the system users in various ways e.g. interviews, questionnaires etc. More importantly they find out from the users what their specific requirements are regarding the proposed system and then use the information obtained to formulate requirements for the system, the system is then written ensuring that all the requirements and expectations are met.
The current process: In 1990s a development process was entailed which is 60-month-long. Two major prototyping