• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
How Do Our Clients Use CONOPS?
 

How Do Our Clients Use CONOPS?

on

  • 694 views

This three-day course is designed for engineers, scientists, project managers and other professionals who design, build, test or sell complex systems. Each topic is illustrated by real-world case ...

This three-day course is designed for engineers, scientists, project managers and other professionals who design, build, test or sell complex systems. Each topic is illustrated by real-world case studies discussed by experienced CONOPS and requirements professionals. Key topics are reinforced with small-team exercises. Over 200 pages of sample CONOPS (six) and templates are provided. Students outline CONOPS and build OpCons in class. Each student gets instructor’s slides; college-level textbook; ~250 pages of case studies, templates, checklists, technical writing tips, good and bad CONOPS; Hi-Resolution personalized Certificate of CONOPS Competency and class photo, opportunity to join US/Coalition CONOPS Community of Interest.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
694
Views on SlideShare
693
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slashdocs.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    How Do Our Clients Use CONOPS? How Do Our Clients Use CONOPS? Presentation Transcript

    • How Do Our Clients Use CONOPS? Instructor: Mack McKinneyATI Course Schedule: http://www.ATIcourses.com/schedule.htmATIs CONOPS: http://www.aticourses.com/Technical_CONOPS_Concepts.htm
    • www.ATIcourses.comBoost Your Skills 349 Berkshire Drive Riva, Maryland 21140with On-Site Courses Telephone 1-888-501-2100 / (410) 965-8805Tailored to Your Needs Fax (410) 956-5785 Email: ATI@ATIcourses.comThe Applied Technology Institute specializes in training programs for technical professionals. Our courses keep youcurrent in the state-of-the-art technology that is essential to keep your company on the cutting edge in today’s highlycompetitive marketplace. Since 1984, ATI has earned the trust of training departments nationwide, and has presentedon-site training at the major Navy, Air Force and NASA centers, and for a large number of contractors. Our trainingincreases effectiveness and productivity. Learn from the proven best.For a Free On-Site Quote Visit Us At: http://www.ATIcourses.com/free_onsite_quote.aspFor Our Current Public Course Schedule Go To: http://www.ATIcourses.com/schedule.htm
    • CONOPS Can Uncover Requirements“I recently released a CONOPs developed in parallel with an early requirements-and-design concept development effort. This CONOPs was initially resisted, believed unnecessary by several principals. When it was completed two months later (using the outline and training provided by Solid Thinking), we had identified a number of mismatched (and unspoken) expectations, and identified on the order of forty new requirements. One of the key original skeptics [said], "This is one of the best CONOPS Ive ever seen". The CONOPs is now a key system document.” (Lockheed Martin engineer, 2006) Copyright STC March 2008. All 2 rights reserved.
    • Organizations Now Using STC’s CONOPS Outlines• UAE GHQ• HQ USAF Air Combat Command A2• USN Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City, FL• Defense Intelligence Agency• US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)• Swedish Submarine Forces• Italian General Staff and Center for Defense Innovation• Hungarian Ministry of Defense• Danish MOD, Intelligence Directorate• Boeing, Raytheon Missiles, Northrop Grumman, MITRE, Booz Allen Hamilton, Sikorsky, Lockheed Martin, others Copyright STC March 2008. All 3 rights reserved.
    • Your Clients Know Good CONOPS• Are required for all DOD/DHS programs• Can rally users and politicians to help save a threatenedprogram• Save money• Save time• Deliver better product/service to USERS, sooner, withliving documentation, training, employment tips, supportcommunity• Provide faster, less expensive upgrades that are easierto justify and fund• Sometimes save lives
    • Your Clients AlreadyBenefit From CONOPS • Used throughout federal and state government agencies (assisted by BAH, MITRE, SAIC, others) • Used for system development, reorganizations, exercises, missions, etc. Copyright STC March 2008. All 5 rights reserved.
    • So Clients Expect You to . . .• Help build effective CONOPS• Participate on CONOPS teams• Guide R&D, modeling & sim• Counsel to avoid common pitfalls Copyright STC March 2008. All 6 rights reserved.
    • In DOD an OpCon and Future Standard Operating User- Focused CONOPS Concepts Procedures (SOP), Are the Linchpins (e.g. JOpsC) OPORDS, EXORDs, Ops Assessments Evolutionary Scenarios, Current System/Situation, Increments: Justif for Delta, Scenarios P3I & ECPs Summary of Impacts Training Features Left Out & Personas Programs Obsolescence Analyses & Scenarios Personas, Use Cases OpCon CONOPS & Scenarios User Manuals * OpCon Text, Scenarios, Effects-Based Solutions, Lessons Regular Input From Users Regular Input From Users, Learned Modeling & Simulation TTPsCopyright STC 2010.All rights reserved. Architecture Requirements DODAF CBAs JCIDS DOD/DHS Reviews AV-Xs OV-Xs SV-Xs Effects-Based SE Copyright STC March 2008. All 7 * Operators, maintainers, rights reserved. SysAdmin & downstream product users all need User Manuals
    • CONOPS Important for Long-Duration Dev’t Projects“ Mack, the real benefit to doing thorough CONOPShere is continuity. On programs that last for years wehave a turnover of PMs, lead engineers, in fact of theENTIRE staff, sometimes several times. Our CONOPSnow provide an easy-to-understand, unbiased recordof what we did, why we did it, why we are doingwhat we have underway at any given time. CONOPShere are a “touchstone” for EVERYONE on our majorprojects.” (Sr. Engineer at Raytheon, 2008) Copyright STC March 2008. 8 All rights reserved.
    • Special Supplement to Technical CONOPS Courses “Users” Exist in Lots of FlavorsTo Which of Them Should We Listen As We Build CONOPS and Design Systems? US DOD Photo
    • If I could just find a better way to initially treat What we need is a wounded troops without machine to carry 100 For the next exposing medics to small pounds of water andwar, we need to arms fire! ammo for each of us! design a muchbetter MEDIVACchain with faster response time,even under fire! These People Are Users and Operators With Valid Viewpoints
    • Basic Definitions• User does something with the output of a system (for example “operations”), or supports those who use that output (“maintenance”).• Surrogate User: Not a current user of the system (headquarters staffer; retired military and now a defense contractor)• Operator (always also users): Manipulates some aspect of the system, especially its controls (fly it, drive it, or otherwise employ it)• All operators are also users• Very few users are also operators
    • Deeper Definitions• End Users: Far end, downstream users of the output of the system• Mid-Stream/Dispersed Users: Use some output of the system but may not directly control it’s employment• Requirements Writers (often Surrogate Users): Headquarters/COCOM staffers who set requirements that procurement system finds and buys• Operators (always Users): Manipulate some aspect of the system (fly it, drive it, or otherwise employ it)
    • Example: Unmanned Aerial Systems in DOD• End Users: US Army Lieutenant and his troops watching video and in contact with hostile forces US Army Photo
    • • Mid-Stream/Dispersed Users: US Army Colonel at Air Operations Center using imagery for raid planning US Air Force Photo
    • • Requirements Writers (often Surrogate Users): Air Combat Command A8/9 planning exercises and recommending new procurements STC Photo
    • Hunter Airfield Controls (STC Photo) Shadow Downlink & Controls (US Army Photo) Predator Control Van (USAF Photo)• Operators (also Users): Remote “pilots” flying the air vehicles and operating sensors Warrior Alpha Control Van (US Army Photo)
    • To Which “Users” Should We Listen?• End Users?• Mid-Stream/Dispersed Users?• Requirements Writers (often Surrogate Users)?• Operators (also Users)?
    • End Users Mid-Stream Requirements Operators Users Writers Pros of • The Real • Visible • Write req’ts • ImmediateRecruiting/ people at tip advocates, and can impact onListening to of spear able to drive/divert combat effort • Rewarding to impact $$$ • Rewarding to Them support req’ts • Drive long term support combat • Can drive contracts for operators troops/1st new system dev’t responders COCOM IPLs Cons of • Focused on High pressure • Focused on • System OEM isRecruiting/ fighting job, many equipping kingListening to today’s war, “bosses”, troops to fight • Other programs not often often at odds future wars (5- can be threat to Them impacted by with 15 years out) current system R&D established • Requires and its • Often have contractors dedicated, long improvements no $$$ and programs term effort to long term influence
    • Good CONOPS Gets Support From Each Group With Special Emphasis When Needed• End Users when your system/enhancement fixes a problem for troops in contact on today’s battlefield (make CONOPS section 3 especially strong since end users will focus on this)• Mid-Stream/Dispersed Users when your system improves effectiveness of system’s utility for non-operators and non-end- users who use its outputs• Requirements Writers (often Surrogate Users) when your system/enhancement will help force posture or combat capabilities for conflicts 5-15 years in future• Operators (are also Users) when your system/enhancement improves controllability or flexibility of the system by its manipulators.
    • Lastly: Inputs From Surrogate Users Should ALWAYS Be Welcomed • Viewpoints can vary widely with backgrounds and experiences • Even (sometimes especially) dated experience can be instructive • Weight the advice based on source’s level of experience, span of experience, reputation and the input’s applicability to the system/issues • Always capture and retain the advice/ideas.
    • End User’s Real Interests*• I don’t speak “contracts” or “requirements” and I don’t completely trust people who do• I don’t really trust people who have no military experience because I doubt if they understand my needs• I want a system that works as advertised, first time and every time; is easy to upgrade in the field; links seamlessly with other systems/networks• I need the system to be easy to use when I am stressed out and sleepless for 48 hours• I want the government to buy a full-up system, with training and spares and factory support whenever I need it• The headquarters folks do not understand current users’ needs and they don’t really speak for me and the other end users• I seldom get asked about system requirements and even then my words are watered down (made “P.C.”) by MAJCOM or others * Results from Solid Thinking’s ongoing survey of defense professionals Copyright STC March 2008. 21 All rights reserved.
    • To Work Best With End Users • Show effort to fix broken systems • Listen to their frustrations and help tackle them • Go visit field units, observe ops, ask questions & listen: be empathic Copyright STC March 2008. 22 All rights reserved.
    • Failure-Proofing Your Project/ProgramSBI Example (of 5 examples discussed in the CONOPS course)
    • Solid Thinking’s “Fielding Probability” Assessment System• Meets Key Users’ Need - saves lives, saves money, answers a long-standing need, meets serious emerging need, makes current job easier, permits new capability against today’s threat, permits new capability against tomorrow’s threat, meets validated COCOM/MAJCOM requirement, has clear OpCon & CONOPS• Answers Key Organizations’ Needs - preserves service/agency’s budget and/or power base, visibly supports parent org’s goals, lets service visibly support other service/coalition partner), Joint Service, employs people in key Congressmen’s districts• Offers an Executable Program - helps fight today’s conflict, has senior decision makers’ support (who have discretionary budget), has mid-level managers’ support (aka Iron Majors), has ops users’ support, championed by thought leaders, affordable now, fits existing force structure, supportive of other strong program(s), non-competitive with other strong programs, ties to ongoing and successful science and technology programs Copyright STC March 2008. All 24 rights reserved.
    • Solid Thinking’s Scoring System0 – Normal text on slides: Did not meet criteria1 - Underlined text: Met criteria2- Bold text on slides: Exceeded criteria Copyright STC March 2008. [brackets] All show key points 25 rights reserved.
    • Solid Thinking’s Fielding “Probability Assessment System” (PAS) Teaching Examples• Automated Feature Extraction for Imagery• Radar Processing Mode• Hyperspectral Imaging System• Acoustic Absorbent Tile for Armored Vehicles• Tactical ELINT System *• Border Surveillance System in Southern US *• ATC Systems in Europe *• ISR Information Service: Doing it Right! ** Discussed in 2-day and 3-day courses Without discussing specific nations, firms or technologies, what went wrong or what should have been done? Copyright STC March 2008. All 26 rights reserved.
    • Project 28 – Launch “Prototype”for $860M DHS Program• Nine mobile radar/sensor towers• Four unattended ground sensors• Seventy SAT phones• Fifty Vehicles with secure laptops and comms• Data fused at C2 Center Copyright STC March 2008. All 27 rights reserved.
    • Project 28 – Launch “Prototype”for $860M DHS Program• Nine mobile radar/sensor towers• Four unattended ground sensors• Seventy SAT phones• Fifty Vehicles with secure laptops and comms Copyright STC March 2008. All 28 rights reserved.
    • Project 28 Problems Citedin Feb 08 Report from GAO • Cameras working at less than ½ expected ranges (drives total numbers and locations of towers required, other sensors, etc.) • Radars being falsely triggered by rain • Radar data taking too long to display at C2 nodes • COTS C2 S/W probably not appropriate for intended use • Wrong contract vehicle used: FFP Task Order contract used for an R&D / demo project Copyright STC March 2008. All 29 rights reserved.
    • What Did Boeing and the US Border Patrol Do Right?• Realized they were building a complex system in a politically- charged atmosphere• Talked to users• Got feedback from users on overall system capabilities• Suitability-tested Copyright STC March 2008. All components rights reserved. 30
    • What Went Wrong? Copyright Solid Thin All Rights Reserved.User-inputs did not catch errors of omission and commission. Why not? We don’t know. Some possible reasons:• Wrong “users” were involved (perhaps surrogate users)?• Users were involved at the wrong times to impact system design?• Wrong (subtly biased?) questions were asked of the users?• Users were not involved in building subsystem requirements or test plans?• Entire requirements approach was unstructured, users’ inputs were not properly solicited, timed or managed and no CONOPS was generated????? Copyright STC March 2008. All 31 rights reserved.
    • Project 28 Prototype’s Score 0-1-00- Meets Key Users’ Need - saves lives, saves money, answers a long-standing need (border security), meets serious emerging need, makes current job easier, permits new capability against today’s threat, permits new capability against tomorrow’s threat, meets validated COCOM/MAJCOM requirement, has clear OpCon & CONOPS1- Answers Key Organizations’ Needs - preserves service/agency’s budget and/or power base, visibly supports parent org’s goals, lets service visibly support other service/coalition partner), Joint Service, employs people in key Congressmen’s districts0- Offers an Executable Program - helps fight today’s conflict, has senior decision makers’ support (who have discretionary budget), has mid-level managers’ support (aka Iron Majors), has ops users’ support, championed by thought leaders, affordable now, fits existing force structure, supportive of other strong program(s), non-competitive with other strong programs, ties to ongoing and successful science and technology programs Copyright STC March 2008. All 32 rights reserved.
    • Result: Prototype Rejected Biggest Loser: US Citizens, now less secure• Government’s position: We trusted the US’s premier integrator of complex systems (Boeing) who had the DHS Director’s support and plenty of money to do this.• Developer’s probable position: This was a prototype, from which we were learning about technologies, system integration enhancements needed, etc. We should have stressed that “prototype” status. And we should have taken a CPFF development contract for the R&D part of this job.) Copyright STC March 2008. All 33 rights reserved.
    • Project 28 Prototype’s Score 0-1-0 What Else SHOULD Have Been Done? 0- Meets Key Users’ Need - saves lives, saves money, answers a long- standing need (border security), meets serious emerging need, makes current job easier, permits new capability against today’s threat, permits new capability against tomorrow’s threat, meets validated requirement, clear OpCon and CONOPSA. Should’ve controlled 1 - Answers Key Organization’s Need - preserves service/agency’sNo brainer expectations B. budget a la “prototype” base, visibly supports parent org’s goals, lets service and/or power C. Boeing should have implemented visibly support other service/coalition partner status process for frequent “rudder check” 0 - Offers an Executable Program - helps fight today’snot just HQ folks from USBP FIELD AGENTS, conflict, has senior decision makers’ support (who have discretionary budget), has mid- level managers’ support (Border Patrol Agents), has ops users’ support, championed by thought leaders, affordable now, fits existing force structure, supportive of other strong program(s), non-competitive with other strong programs, ties to ongoing and successful science and technology programs accepted prototype, then made D. DHS Boeing dump it: makes Chertoff’s supporters look silly Copyright STC March 2008. All 34 rights reserved.
    • To learn more please attend this ATI course Please post your comments and questions to our blog: http://www.aticourses.com/blog/ Sign-up for ATIs monthly Course Schedule Updates :http://www.aticourses.com/email_signup_page.html