Capability Evolution Documents:
Managing R&D and S&T Investments to Improve Warfighting Capabilities
________________________________________________________
By Anthony Zilic
Acquisition decisions are made in the context of a complex system of
systems. These decisions are driven by many different factors; threats,
capability gaps, requirements, legacy architectures, measures of effectiveness
and performance, business process changes, and strategic choices.
Developers currently synthesize their plans and milestones through
an iterated manual process until reaching stakeholder consensus that
capability, cost, performance and schedule are appropriately balanced.
Articulating the vision and resulting plan to senior leadership to explain
how capability matures over time is more art than craft. Imagine if
your car’s dashboard changed every time you turned the key, or worse,
every time you looked down to check your speed. Providing a common
holistic view of how drivers influence technology and how technology
matures into capability is the challenge to managers, designers, scientists
and engineers.
This article proposes the use of “Capabilities Evolution Documents”
(CEDs) as a “common dashboard.” The CED is a data-driven, high-level
depiction of a mission framework, enabling capabilities, warfighting
systems and supporting technologies. By exploring the foundational
CED elements and the relationships across capability, technology and
threshold, the reader will better understand how these documents foster
improved management of the Navy’s research and development and
science and technology investments. Before exploring the elements of
the CED, it helps to review a basic approach to Systems Engineering
illustrated in the process known as the Systems Engineering “V.”
The Systems Engineering “V”
Systems Engineering is an interdisciplinary
approach and means to enable the realization of successful
systems. It focuses on defining customer needs
and required functionality early in the development
cycle, documenting requirements, and then proceeding
with design synthesis and system validation
while considering the complete Systems Engineering
domain, including:
- Cost & Schedule
- Performance
- Manufacturing
- Test
- Training & Support
- Operations
- Disposal
Systems Engineering integrates all the disciplines
and specialty groups into a team effort forming a
structured development process that proceeds from
concept to production to operation. Systems Engineering
considers both the business and the technical
needs of all stakeholders with the goal of providing a
quality product that meets the user needs. The International
Council on Systems Engineering provides
resources explaining this process (http://www.incose.
org/practice/whatissystemseng.aspx ).
Processes have matured since the Systems Engineering
discipline was recognized in the 1950’s.
Figure 1 depicts the modern process as applied to
design and acquisition of military systems, commonly
known as the System Engineering “V.”
Inputs and Processes
Processes and inputs that flow down the left side
of the diagram represent increasingly granular and
specific statements of the user’s needs. The technical
processes are iteratively applied until it is possible to
develop a detailed production design, test plans, and
employment concepts. This activity is undertaken
using well defined “Technical Processes” listed on
the left side of the diagram.
Outputs and Processes
After selecting a design that best meets the requirements,
tasks flow up the right side of the diagram
until capability has been delivered to the warfighter.
The activity progresses using well defined “Technical
Processes” listed on the left side of the diagram.
Both the top-down requirements flow and bottom-up
capability development are governed by Technical
Management Processes which, when properly applied,
ensure requirements “creep” i.e., uncontrolled changes
or continuous growth in a project’s scope, is minimized
within the context of the system design.
Introduction to the Capability Evolution
Document Concept
It is easy to imagine the complexity of developing
the acquisition documentation package. There is
often very little detail regarding enabling science
and technology (S&T). A new artifact depicting
the relationship of S&T to a warfighting need is
required. This artifact will articulate the total system
of warfighting need to research, acquisition and
fielding. The Capabilities Evolution Document (CED)
is proposed as a solution to this need.
The CED in Figure 2, is a depiction of technology
flowing through development and integration to meet
a warfighting need over time. It is a top-down mission
architecture enriched by the bottom-up, data-driven
summaries of research, technology, systems, platforms,
missions, and drivers. Drivers can be strategy,
capability gaps, requirements, technical gaps, policy
- all of which correspond to the upper left side of the
System Engineering “V.”
As the focus flows through Mission(s) to Capability
to Systems/Components to Technology Advancements,
the impact of today’s research is shown to
be increasing in the far term. Reversing this flow corresponds
to the right side of the System Engineering
“V.” The relationship of solid research and/or technology
development today is aligned to operational
needs of the near, mid and far term, thus reinforcing
research investments (Budget Activity 2 and Budget
Activity 3 S&T projects) as part of the Systems Engineering
processes.
Common taxonomy is a key factor of practical
and usable CED’s. Properly developed, sets of CED’s
underpinned by shared taxonomy can be analyzed
across missions. This helps identify cases where technologies
can contribute to multiple capabilities. For
example, improved information technology has application
to many DoD systems from weapons development
to business office operations. Such analysis
is possible if CED developers not only use the same
vocabulary but also the same definitions. In later
paragraphs, we explore techniques to enforce shared
taxonomy across communities.
Figure 2 is an idealized CED model. In practice,
the model is adaptable to incorporate only the layers
needed to help “tell the story” of how user’s needs
guide technology advancements and system development.
Other themes available in the CED are the identification
of missing projects or programs from the
critical path to capability development and how newly
available technologies can inform system design.
“New capabilities desired by national leadership
may involve modifications to kill chains, Command
and Control (C2) constructs, improved coordination,
and performance. These capabilities must be realized
through modifications to programs of record and
integration across elements of the system that have
their own independent programmatic momentum.
A challenge of Systems of Systems Engineering is to
objectively evaluate competing solutions and assess
the technical viability of trade off options.” 2 Figure 3
depicts how CED’s both are informed by the system
engineering process and inform leadership of key
relationships between capabilities and end items.
Automation Requirements
CED generation is a multi-disciplinary participatory
activity. Critical discussion among program
managers, system engineers, and both technical and
operational subject matter experts contributes to the
CED. Figure 4 depicts the results of a work session
where the interrelationships (strings) of specific developments
(note cards) are worked out and understood
by a set of participants. While effective, employment
of this approach is not an efficient use of time in the
long-term due to the maintenance demands of manually
placing note cards and string on a war room
wall. Also, the product is not easily reproduced or
copied to other media types.
At a minimum, the tool must be able to track relationships
and changes, and graphically display an
entire plan for achieving an Operational Capability
such that the relationship of maturity of capability
and time are clearly shown. All database variables
listed below must be included.
Functionally, such a tool needs to:
- Track capabilities, programs, and activities
- Manage linkage across programs and
fielding process
- Provide multiple views (e.g., roll-up,
timeline, functional, relational, etc.)
- Provide a flexible and extensible database
- Provide menu driven data entry capability
and connection to the Integrated Digital
Environment
- Track risk and dependencies
- Handle varying levels of classification
- Provide network based access
Summary
The primary goal of the CED is to develop processes
and tools to manage, track, and visualize the
dependencies across time from desired warfighting
capability, through system development, down to
foundational S&T while considering the links between
the following:
- Strategy
- Mission
- Systems of Systems to perform missions
- System components
- Technological advancements and how they
impact system performance
- Warfare concepts and capabilities
- Key performance parameters
- Force Structure such as Carrier Strike
Groups, Expeditionary Warfare Groups and/
or Tactical Ballistic Missile Defenses Groups
- Network enabled systems and platforms and
how the they relate
- Systems installation and deployment plans
- Full range of RDT&E (Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation)
- Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel,
Leadership and Education, Personnel and
Facilities (DOTMLPF) modifications and/or
alternatives to achieving capability
The taxonomies, relationships, and tracking
analysis shown in Figure 5 must be included.
Achieving this goal will ensure the application of
System of Systems and Mission Engineering methodologies
results in a better alignment of future RDT&E
with warfighting needs.