Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
It aac
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
973
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. IT Acquisition Advisory Council (IT-AAC) A non-partisan think tank, 501.C3Roadmap for Sustainable IT Acquisition ReformLeveraging non-traditional expertise and benchmarked standards of practices That exceed CCA & Section 804 Mandates Honorable John Grimes, Former OSD CIO John Weiler, Managing Director, john@IT-AAC.org Dr. Marv Langston, IT AAC Vi Ch i marv@langston.org D M L t IT-AAC Vice Chair @l t Kevin Carroll, IT-AAC Vice Chair 904 Clifton Drive www.IT-AAC.org Virginia 22308 * Alexandria * www.IT-AAC.org *0400 768-0400 703 768 (703)
  • 2. Senior Exec Briefing Summary™ Assuring Business Value from every IT $ Spent  Purpose  Todays Situation  Our Proposal to Assist  Way Forward Recommendation  Predictable Outcomes“Together, these steps will help to catalyze a fundamental reform of Federal IT, which is essential to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal Government” White House, OMB Director 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 1 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 3. ™ Think Tank PurposeTo provide the Decision Makers with an alternative set of resourcesand expertise needed to guide the establishment of a “best in class”set of IT Acquisition Processes and Governance Structure. StructureAcquisition Practitioners and workforce will need commercial methods, access to deepindustry expertise and emerging standards of practice to overcome common failure patternsand cultural impediments that have prevented previous attempts to achieve followingobjectives:Speed -- achieve 6-12 month cycle times vice 7-8 years (early pilots prove this is possible)Incremental development, testing, and fielding -- vice one "big bang"Actionable Requirements -- Sacrifice or defer customization for speed and COTS/OS utilization - Leverageestablished standards of practice and open modular platformsMeet DoDs wide-range IT needs -- from modernizing C2 to updating word processing softwareFocused on Outcomes and Operational Effectiveness - Health IT, InfoSharing, Cyber Security, Consolidated ITInfrastructure,Infrastructure Business Systems “You can’t solve today’s problems with the same thinking that got you there” Albert Einstein 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 2 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 4. IT-AAC understands IT Acquisition Dilemma ™ Wave 3 Solutions can’t be acquired using MilSpec processes…  We are in early stages of Wave 3 information technology  Mainframe and Client-Server waves remain in place 3. Internet - Cloud tion Driven Capability y  Waves represent many co-dependent technologies, • Virtualized compute; global network enabled, plug & play matured over time • IT Infrastructure decoupled from  Adding functional capability has Applications • COTS & OSS Integration, Integration n become easier with each new wave b i ith h Software as a Service  But enterprise infrastructure 2. Client/Server - Decentralized gaps & vulnerabilities have • PC enabled and network become more critical • Software distributed in both server and clientInformat computers t • Heavy focus on software development and point to point integration 1. Centralized - Mainframe • Central computer center, slow turn around center • One size fits all • Limited reuse of application modules 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Information Technology Evolution I f ti T h l E l ti DoD is using 1970s acquisition processes; to acquire Wave 3 IT capability 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 3 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 5. Understanding the Many Dimensions of the IT Acquisition Lifecycle ™IT Acquisition Building Blocks: Governance and Oversight: how an enterprise supports, oversees and manages IT programs and on-going portfolio. SOA as defined in the commercial market is governance tool not technology. DoD5000 and BCL represent the current approaches. Decision Analytics: enables effective Program Management and Value Stream Analysis execution. As most of these sub-processes are designed to improve decision making, a relative new discipline has evolved (since 86), that addresses the human and cultural challenges in decision making. Decision Analytics is the discipline of framing the essence and success criteria of each gate in the acquisition lifecycle. It brings focus to the high risk areas of a program, and reduces analysis/paralysis. Requirements Development: Actionable requirements must be constrained by the realm of the possible. With pressures to do more with less, we must possible less embrace mechanisms that force a relative valuation/impact of the gap/capability, with clearly defined outcomes Architecture: This is one of the most critical elements of the acquisition lifecycle, as it should represent all stake holder agreements. The market embrace of SOA is not about technology, but a refocusing of the EA on service level management and data. A good architecture is a lexicon that links requirements, technologies and acquisition strategy. T h l Technology Assessment: Understanding the limitation of technology early in the process is key. Without a clear view of the “realm of the possible” validated A t by real world results, we often find ourselves in high risk areas and over specification. Market research must be done early to help users constrain requirements and embrace the inherent business practices that codify. Recognizing that 70% make up of every IT application is vested in IT infrastructure (netcentric, cloud, SOA), it is critical to establish a common infrastructure/infrastructure standard by which all applications can share. The most prolific is ITIL to date. Business Case Analysis: Demonstrating the business value of technology investments, based on evidenced based research and lifecycle cost. This is a core requirement of Clinger Cohen Act. Performance Based Acquisition and Metrics: Software as a Service and SOA portent a new dynamic for acquisition of IT (health IT, cyber, business systems), that brings focus to Service Level Agreements (SLAs), Software as a Service (SaaS) and SL Management. If the previous activities do not directly feed the acquisition strategy or provide mechanisms for contractor accountability, all is lost. “IT Reform is about Operational Efficiency and Innovation” 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 4 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 6. Today’s Situation -- as highlighted by the HASC ™ Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform q Studies of both commercial and government IT projects have found some disturbing statistics;  Only 16% of IT projects are completed on time and on budget.  31% are cancelled before completion completion.  The remaining 53% are late and over budget, with the typical cost growth exceeding the original budget more than 89%.  Of the IT projects that are completed, the final product contains only 61% of the originally specified features. As was pointed out in testimony before the Panel, the traditional defense acquisition process is “ill-suited forinformation technology systems. Phase A is intended to mature technology; yet information technologies are now largely matured in the commercial sector”. Weapon system acquisition processes are often applied to IT systems acquisition, without addressing unique aspects of IT “the weapon systems acquisition process is optimized to manage production IT. risk and does not really fit information technology acquisition that does not lead to significant production quantities.” Defense Acquisition Panel, HASC 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 5 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 7. Understanding IT Acquisition Reform Laws ™ MilSpec must give way to Industry Best Practices: SOA, Agile, COTSHR5136: ‘‘Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition’’. Requires: (1) Determine clear performance metrics for specific programs from the start; (2) Foster an ongoing dialogue during the technology development process between the system developers and the warfighters; (3) Promote an open architecture approach that allows for more modularization of hardware and software; (4) Develop a plan for how to strengthen the IT acquisition workforce; (5) Implement alternative milestone decision points that are more consistent with commercial product development for IT; (6) Develop a process for competitive prototyping in the IT environment; (7) Develop a new test and evaluation approach that merges developmental and operational testing in a parallel fashion; (8) Place greater emphasis on the up-front market analysis; and (9) Conduct a rigorous analysis of contracting mechanisms and contract incentiveClinger Cohen Act Requires: (1) Streamline the IT Acquisition Process (2) Change business processes (BPR), not COTS (3) Favor COTS/OSS over custom development. (4) Build business case and acquire based objective assessment criteria (5) Use architecture for driving investment decisions (6) Favor standards and best practices over MilSpec approaches 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 6 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 8. Congressional Action to Reform ™ IT Acquisition: 2009 NDAA Sec804 q“The Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement a new acquisition process for information technology systems. The acquisition process developed and implemented pursuant to this subsection shall, to the extent determined appropriate by the Secretary-- be based on the recommendations in chapter 6 of the March 2009 report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Department of Defense Policies and Procedures for the Acquisition of Information Technology; and be designed to include-- – early and continual involvement of the user; – multiple, rapidly executed increments or releases of capability; – early, successive p y prototyping to support an evolutionary approach; and yp g pp y pp – a modular, open-systems approach”Congress and DSB made these recommendations based on early adoptions by AF, Navy, USMC, and BTA of alternative methods like the Architecture Assurance Method (AAM), a risk management framework designed to improve decision making and assure stake holder value AAM incorporates by reference industry best value. practices like SOA, ITIL, and Evidenced Based Research. 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 7 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 9. OMB Guidance on IT Reform ™ from OMB’s 25 Point PlanAlign the Acquisition Process with the Technology Cycle Point 13. Design and develop a cadre of specialized IT acquisition professionals . Point 14. Identify IT acquisition best practices and adopt government-wide. Point 15. Issue contracting guidance and templates to support modular development Point 16. Reduce barriers to entry for small innovative technology companies" 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 8 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 10. OMB’s View of Federal IT Fundamentally Broken!™ 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 9 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 11. Sources of Evidence ™ Failure to fix IT is costing the tax payer $40Billion a Year“We are buying yesterday’s technology tomorrow in the rare instances we are successful ” DSB IATF: “DoD reliance on FFRDCs is isolating it from sources of new technologies and will hinder the departments ability to get the DoD technologies, best technical advise in the future” AF Science Advisory Board 2000: PMs need greater access to real world lesson learned and innovations of the market to mitigate risk and cost overruns. PMs frequently enter high risk areas due to limited access to lessons learned from those who have already forged ahead. CMU SEI Study 2004: The DoDAF alone is not effective for IT architectures, lacks business view, performance metrics or means of avoiding over specification. DoDAF (C4ISR) was developed by Mitre and IDA in 1986 to provide DoD with a systems engineering documentation tool for existing system implementations. 2009 NDAA Sec 803 : Government needs a high integrity knowledge exchange by which innovations of the market can be objectively assessed. DSB 2009: Weapons Systems Style Solution Architecture and Acquisition Processes take too long, cost too much, recommend establishing a separate IT Acquisition market that is tuned for the fast paced market. t bli hi t A i iti k t th t i t d f th f t d k t IT-AAC 2009: Major IT Programs lack senior leadership support, and have few vested in the success. All participants, including oversight, must be incentivized in meeting program goals and outcomes. BENS RPT on ACQUISITION 2009: DoD needs independent architecture development that is not compromised by those with a vested interest in the outcome FAR OCI rules must be better enforced outcome. enforced. NDAA Sec 804 2010: DoD will establish a modular IT Acquisition process that is responsive to the fast paced IT market."Weapons systems depend on stable requirements, but with IT, technology changes faster than the requirements process can keep up," he said "It changes faster than the budget process and it changes faster than the acquisition milestone process up said. It process. For all these reasons, the normal acquisition process does not work for information technology.” DepSec Bill Lynn statement at the 2009 Defense IT Acquisition Summit hosted by IT-AAC 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 10 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 12. Federal IT Acquisition Root Causes ™ compromising mission effectiveness and costing tax payer $40B/year1. IT Acquisition Ecosystem Ineffective: – Missing incentives & metrics, redundant oversight, vague accountability, ineffective g , g , g y, governance (MOE, SLA) puts focus on compliance vs outcomes. – Programs spending up to 25% on compliance without any reduction in risk.2. Good laws (CCA, OMB 119, FAR, Sec804) lack enforcement: ( , , , ) – Frequently compounded by Ad-hoc Implementations and MilSpec methods. – DODAF, JCIDS, NESI, LISI were designed for Weapons Systems, compete with standards and orthogonal to Industry Best Practices.3. Conflict of Interest unenforced, optimal resources and expertise overlooked: – FAR prohibits Contractors with vested interests in implementation should not use “Chinese firewalls” to bypass rules or gain unfair advantage. – Optimal resources in IT Program planning, market research, and solution engineering overlooked, inhibiting access to real world best practices and innovations of the market. Standards bodies & non-profit research institutes under utilized. “Insanity is continuing the same process over and over again and expecting different results” Albert Einstein 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 11 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 13. Root Cause (cont.) ™4. FFRDCs/SIs are Stifling Innovation and Decision Making due to Analysis/Paralysis: – Traditional Sis/FFRDCs are insulated from IT innovations and commercial best practices. – PMs lacks effective outreach/research capabilities needed to inform the requirements and acquisition lifecycle. Lacks timely access to innovations of the market, commercial expertise, or benchmarked best practices and lessons learned. – Small Businesses, Innovators and Public Service entities (.edu, .org, SDOs) are under utilized, utilized threatening Open Systems and Open Architecture efforts efforts.5. MilSpec Acquisition Processes in conflict with Open Systems, best practices and drive “design to spec” approach ( in spite of CCA and NDAA Section 804 directive to the contrary): – MilSpec Requirements (JCIDS), Architecture (DoDAF), Tech Assessment (TRL/C&A) (JCIDS) (DoDAF) (TRL/C&A), Business Case Analysis (AoA), Procurement (DoD5000) and Enterprise Management (CMM) processes are inconsistent with fast paced IT market (in spite of Paperwork Reduction Act, CCA, Section 804 and OMB A119 directives) – Section 804 call Open Process cannot be implemented using the same resources and expertise that created the current MilSpec processes6. Budgeting (POM) approaches drive stove pipe solutions: – Frequently undermining ability to establish common & interoperable infrastructure services which accounts for 70% of every IT program buy. Concepts like SOA, Cloud Computing and Service Level Management cannot be embraced without a change in the above. 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 12 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 14. Critical Success Factors for ™ Sustainable IT Acquisition Reform qRoot causes analysis derived from 15 years of studies, suggests the following critical success factors for sustainable IT Acquisition Reform. Any new process will need to meet the following litmus test: Must replace each of the existing IT Acquisition lifecycle building blocks (per DSB report) and address the unique challenges of the fast p q g paced IT market ( (JCIDS, DODAF, DOD5000, NESI) ) Must be derived from commercial best practices (CCA) Must avoid MilSpect by leverage existing investments and capabilities (CCA, NTTAA) Should favor processes already proven in the market Should be based on a consensus based standard (OMB A119) Must be modular, services oriented (NDAA Section 804) Should be measurable, repeatable and sustainable, with supporting training, education and mentoring (HR 5013) 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 13 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 15. ™ IT Reform Way Forward Adapting Agile Acquisition Standards and Benchmarked Commercial Best Practices 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 14 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 16. Resources for Sustainable IT Reform™ for when failure is not an option Interoperability Clearinghouse (ICH) • Repository of reusable Best Practices Frameworks (process and solution architectures) • Conflict Free Research Coop dedicated to operationalizing Clinger Cohen Act directives • Means of accessing wide range of SMEs and community of practices outside the Defense Industrial Complex Acquisition Assessment Method (AAM) • D i i Analytics Tool for IT centric AoA, EoA, BCA, Ri k and T h i l A Decision A l i T l f i A A E A BCA Risk d Technical Assessments • Measurable, repeatable and sustainable method to enable cost avoidance and savings • Incorporates by reference: SOA best practices, IT Infrastructure Libraries (ITIL) and Evidenced Based Research (EBR) Solution Architecture Innovation Lab (SAIL) • Virtual Lab by which innovators can validate their solutions ™ • Solution Architecture patterns for e-Gov, IT Infrastructure, Cyber-Security & Health IT • M Means of tapping existing testing and implementation resources for rapid deployment ft i i ti t ti di l t ti f id d l t IT-Acquisition Advisory Council (IT-AAC) • A non-partisan Government and industry think tank created to drive sustainable IT Acquisition Reform • Leverages expertise from academia, standards bodies, innovators and COIs • Provide an interchange for senior level leadership interchange 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 15 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 17. Partner with DAU to create a Mentoring™ and Training Curriculum g 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 16 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 18. Assessment of Alternative IT Acquisition Processes ™ MilSpec Assessment Alternative Assessment Where Acquisition against Sec 804 Acquisition against Sec 804 successfully Processes Criteria Process Criteria appliedDecisionD i i Ad h hoc, nott Largest gap in IT L t i Acquisition A i iti Open, O AF, N AF Navy, USMC, USMCAnalytics formalized Lifecycle Assurance Successfully BTA, GSA, DISA, Method (AAM) piloted, modularRequirements JCIDS, IT Box Not tuned for Value Stream Exceeds criteria US TRANSCOM,Development COTS, SOA, COTS SOA OSS Analysis w/ Agile DISA, DISA CIA Market DevelopmentArchitecture DoDAF Missing Metrics, OMB FEA RMs Strong evidence, PTO, DOC, Systems Infrastructure View, SEI SMART Services Based GPO, GSA, DOI, Engineering Stake holder DOT, DOT DHS Method perspectivesTechnology TRL IT Matures at a AF Solution COTS/OSS AF, USMC, BTA,Assessment: Assessment very fast rate Assessment Focused, support Navy CANES, Process (ASAP) BPR PTO, GPO, GSARisk & Cost Analysis of Time consuming, ASAP/AAM BCA Effective w/ AF, Navy, USMC,Management Alternatives, not aligned with COTS based sys BTA industry B.P. BTA ERAM Limited risk mgtGovernance DoD 5000 Milestone based, based ICH Clinger Integrated SOA BTA, BTA OSD HA, HAand Oversight Bus Capability not effective for IT Cohen Act Guide best practices Navy, Lifecycle (BCL) 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 17 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 19. Resource Optimization Considerations you cannot outsource risk or critical thinking ™1. FFRDCs: Best suited for govt unique R&D and Weapon Systems Source Selection.2. Standards Development Orgs (SDO), Trade Associations: Source of standardizations among suppliers, ISVs. Effective source for market communications and outreach.3. Research Institutes, Labs & Academia: Excellent source of low cost research, piloting of emerging technologies not yet proven in the market. Effective in IT & acquisition training.4. Consultancies, A&AS Firms: Excellent for IV&V and source selection if free of vendor relationships or implementation interests. Can mitigate OCI issues in acquisition.5. Innovators, ISVs, Open Source: The engine of innovation. Most effective and efficient way of filling common industry IT gaps. Great source of customer case studies and best practices.6. System Integrators: Optimized for large scale implementation and outsourcing. Have significant outsourcing economies of scale and technology usability insights. 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 18 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 20. Resource Guide for Effective IT Acquisition Based on Clinger Cohen Act and FAR Guidance ™ Partner Type FFRDC User Groups, Standards Research Consultants, Innovators, System Communities development Institutes, IV&V, A&AS Tech Mfg, IntegratorsSDLC Phase of Practice orgs, trade Labs & Firms Open Source associations AcademiaRequirement, Only when OMB Lines of SDOs = Provide Limited access Great source FAR OCIGap Analysis no other Business Primary driver Conflict free to industry for customer Rules limit company can offers Critical for open structure and lessons use cases, participation support (4). Role (6,7) systems. economies of learned. lessons Conflict free scale (2,6) ( ) learned. structures (2,3)Architecture Only when Agency CxOs Provide Principle Primary source FAR OCI rules FAR OCI rulesand Planning, no other provides standards of source of of expertise limit prohibit directMkt Research company can critical practice, not expertise participation support support ( ) pp (4) g guidance ( , 3) (2, ) support ppPMO & IV&V Only when Not inherently Play Optimized for Key role FAR OCI rules FAR OCI rulesSupport no other governmental supporting role this area prohibit prohibit company can participation participation support (4)Material Forbidden (4) Not inherently Support role Support role Provide PrimarySolution Governmental developmental partnershipEngineering areaSystem Impl., Forbidden (4) Not inherently Forbidden Lack Internal IV&V Provider of key PrimaryMaint, & Governmental Resources & for Prime technologies partnershipSupport Expertise contract area reduces risk. 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 19 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 21. Critical Success Factors for Sustainable IT Acquisition Reform ™Clinger Cohen Act, FAR, and NDAA Sec804 directives cannot be accomplished with the samethinking that got us their. FFRDCs are prohibited from competing with industry and therefore theleast effective resource for IT programs. The CSF include; Agile Methods derived from benchmarked commercial best practices (CCA, Sec804) Leverage existing investments and innovations of the market while avoiding competing withindustry or duplicating what already exists (Economy Act) Utilize pub c se ce institutes a d sta da ds bod es o e FFRDCs ( Ut e public service st tutes and standards bodies over Cs (FAR) ) Should be based on Open, consensus based methods (OMB A119) Must be modular, services oriented (NDAA Section 804) , ( ) Should be measurable, repeatable and sustainable, with supporting training, education andmentoring (HR 5013) 15 years of studies suggest the following critical success factors for sustainable IT Acquisition Reform. An “Open” IT Acquisition process will still need to conform to the rule of law (non-MilSpec): 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 20 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 22. ™ Repeatable Patterns of Success when agencies t IT expertise outside the Defense Industrial Complex! h i tap ti t id th D f I d ti lC l ! Navy: Assessment of AFLOAT Program – USAF: Streamlined COTS Acquisition USAF: Procurement of E-FOIA CANES SOA & Security Strategy Process. Applied to Server Virtualization. System using AAM Eliminated hi-risk Requirements by Established optimal arch with ROI of Completed AoA, BCA, AQ Selection 23%, $100Ms in potential savings 450% & $458 million savings in just 4 months. USMC: AoA and BusCase for Cross GSA: Financial Mgt System consolidation BTA: Assessment of External DoD Domain, Thin Client Solutions using AAM. Hosting Options using AAMGreatly Exceeded Forecasted Saving Moved FMS from OMB “red” to $300 million in potential savings with in both analysis and acquisition “green”. Eliminated duplicative minimal investment investments that saved $200M BTA: Apply AAM to complete AoA and GPO: Developed Acquisition Strategy for JFCOM: MNIS Evaluation of Alternatives BCA for DoD SOA Project Future Digital System for Cross Domain SolutionsReduced pre-acquisition cycle time Led to successful acquisition and Evaluated 100’s of Options in 90 days, and cost of Analysis by 80% implementation on time, on budget enabling stake holder buy in and (4 months vs 18) and 80% cheaper than NARA RMS source selection. “. the concept of the Interoperability Clearinghouse is sound and vital. Its developing role as an honest broker of all interoperability technologies, no matter what the source, is especially needed. Such efforts should be supported by any organization that wants to stop putting all of its money into maintaining archaic software and obtuse data formats, and instead start focusing on bottom-line issues of productivity and cost-effective use of information technology.” OSD Commissioned Assessment of Interop. Clearinghouse (Mitre 2000) 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 21 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 23. ™AF Solution Assessment Process (ASAP) Case Study; Thin Client/Server Based ComputingUsing ASAP/AAM enabled a 60day turn around to complete the following mandatory tasks;1. Converted Requirements to Services/Capabilities Gaps q p p2. Established Measures of Effectiveness and Source Selection Eval Criteria3. Conducted Baseline Assessment (cost/value of current portfolio)4. Market Research (Realm of the Possible) that reaches real innovators and associated lessons learned.5. Conduct Evaluation of Alternatives (apples to apples) using Evidence Based Research6. Lite Weight Business Case Analysis for Investment Justification 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 22 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 24. Scope of ASAP Phase 2 Effort ™ Adapting ICH s Architecture Assurance Method ICH’sASAP Phase 1 (June 08 - Jan 07) TA Root Cause Analysis Integration of AF TA best practices and ICH Architecture Assurance Method ASAP Process development documentation Facilitated TA Value Stream AnalysisASAP Phase 2 (Aug 07 – Sept 07) SBC Capability Determination SBC Capability Prioritization SBC Solution Architecture & Feasibility Assessment SBC Business Case Analysis (lite) ASAP Process maturity assessmentTA-ASAP Phase 3, Operationalize an Enterprise Process (4 FTEs) pending funding approval) SBC Procurement Documentation Development SBC Source Selection TA-ASAP Management Oversight and Governance Build Out TA-ASAP Process Integration (XC EA, XC PfM, XC CBA, AQ OTD) Estimated TA resource allocation is 4-5 FTEs to support an AF enterprise wide implementation 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 23 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 25. ™ ASAP Project Milestone j Capability Determination ASAP Artifacts Capability Prioritization Feas./Arch. Assessment BCAJune 14 July 1 Aug 2 Sept 1 Oct 1 BCA ASAP Project Announced to Kick Off MAJCOM Data Call Completed Assessment Plan AF Meeting Data Call Results Data Collection Period on Capabilities AFCA On-board ASAP ASAP Completed Report HERE ASAP Process Execution  Capabilities Determination - data 3 weeks collection capabilities list  Capabilities Prioritization less than a week  Assessment of technology Products 1 day  BCA (operated in parallel with ASAP 5 weeks from start or 1 week after ASAP Assessment  Remaining time is being applied to final task on evaluation of the ASAP process itself 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 24 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 26. A ASAP Phase 2 Project Plan Process; TA-ASAP Process Model S A P Artifact; TA Sequencing Diagram Innovation Thread ™ Type 1 Technical Solutions - COTS (Portal) PE Y AL N Sp ON N ific EN L RM LITY TY Type 2 Major Program Solution (DoDAF/5000) Pr IOT ILIT TIO TIO SS URA N UR SS ITY ec I ION T T ram ZAT Type 3 Technical Solutions - Custom (Guard) IO dic INA EN PR PAB BI IS ISI CT AT T IL Type 4 Product Evaluation - Innovation T PA YS rio QU AS ITEC M M ISI I AS SIB ITE IC Type 5 Product Evaluation - Commodity CA CA AL QU PeAC TE RIF A CH SE CH SE AN og AC DE FE or VE AR AR Selection Outcomes Lab T1 S O Capability Feasibility Architecture Selection Network Outcomes Capability Independent Individual L Prioritization Assessment Assessment Audit Assessment Certification Determination Audit U KPP/CSF Lab T GO GO I T2 COTS COTS O Capability Feasibility Architecture Selection Network Outcomes Individual N Determination Capability Assessment Assessment Independent P Assessment Audit Certification Prioritization KPP/CSF Audit R T3 CUSTOM NOGO NOGO O I STEP-1 STEP-2 STEP-3 STEP-4 C N BCA N Cat-1: Value, Value U Selection S l ti Network N k Architecture Mature, Funded Individual Outcomes O Feasibility Assessment R Assessment Audit Certification V Assessment A Invest E T4 Cat-2: Value, Mature, T Capability Combined To Be Funded M I O Determination E N Cat-3: Value, N Capability Immature Prioritization Wait T C O Cat-4: No Value C t 4 N V l Lab We W R M M T5 Here O Architecture Selection Network Outcomes D Assessment Independent Assessment Certification I Audit T Y Pre-Tech Assessment Technology Assessment Phase Implementation Phase Use Cases System BCA Templates Probable Actual vs Volumes/Timings Behaviors and Models Cost Mode Planned 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 25 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 27. ™ SBC Capabilities before ASAP p1Reduce time to deploy infrastructure1aReduce the time to deploy new applications across entire command within hours.1bReduce the time to reassign client locations 1cReduce the time to stand up new organization/office/unit2Reduce infrastructure cost2aReduce equipment accountability cost asset mgt2bReduce software license cost 2cReduce number of report of survey asset mgt2dReduce power consumption (HVAC)2eReduce touch maintenance throughout installation2gReduce number of CSAs/SAs2iReduce technology refresh cost3Improve Reliability, Availability Survivability (RAS)3aReduce mission downtime caused by CMI/Intrusions3bReduce mission downtime caused by loss PC-resident data3cProvide for data backup/recovery services for clients 3dAllow workstation recovery within 15 minutes from a remote location to include applications user data and operating system3eProvide improved reliability and availability clients.3dAllow applications, data, of computing resources, services4Work within current Security Management Posture4aReduce Vulnerabilities4bImprove patch compliance5Provide support for AF Use Cases5aProvide support for client type – Baseline5bProvide support for client type – Functional5cProvide support for client type – Non-Standard5dProvide support for client type – Standalone5eProvide support for client type – Remote5fProvide support for client type – Unmanaged6Support SBC storage strategy6aProvide server-side storage of System data and/or system images6bProvide server- side storage of enterprise data6cProvide server-side storage of user data and/or system images6dProvide server-side storage of user application6eProvide server-side storage of enterprise data application7Support Infrastructure Requirements7aMaintain current bandwidth/network loads (min 10 GB to max 100GB user profiles, 100 MB to the desktop)7bProvide consistent capability, whether rich or thin, with differing capabilities based on Active Directory rights/groups7dProvide support for the Common Access Card (CAC)/DOD Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) logon8Improved Manageability8aProvide for remote manageability of desktop8bProvide support for all business and mission applications, including bandwidth sensitive applications8cProvide for a client computing environment solution that scales over the AF enterprise 8dAllow use of a diverse mix of hardware end devices in a heterogeneous environment 8eIncrease IT service availability to the mobile/pervasive user 9Provide the same user experience (irrespective of client; rich or thin client). Jumbled – Needed a Standardized Methodology To Establish A Repeatable and Executable TA process 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 26 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 28. A S Process; Capability Determination SBC Capabilities Tie Back to Mission Capability GAPS A Artifact; Hi-Level Capability Matrix P ™ Mission Capability Gaps SBC Capability Mission Capability No High level Capability FROM CJCSI 3170.01F , NCOE JIC 2 1 Reduce time to deploy infrastructure 1. Improved Operational Efficiencies asset management, system administration capacity management, manpower 1 2 Reduce infrastructure cost efficiencies, patch compliance 2. Improved ability to deploy/modify new infrastructure 1 3 Improve Reliability, Availability Survivability (RAS) within hours 3. Improved Mobility 4 4 Work within current Security Management Posture as supported by a pervasive SBC infrastructure 4. Improved security 3 5 Provide support for AF Use Cases loss or theft of physical storage at the edge l h f f h i l h d 1 6 Support SBC storage strategy 2 7 Support Infrastructure Requirements 1 8 Improved Manageability 1 9 Provide the same user experience (irrespective of client; rich orCJCSI 3170.01F - Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction under the thin client).Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)NCOE JIC - Net-Centric OperationalEnvironment under Joint Integrating Concept Derived From: ConstellationNet Architecture, USAFE Pil0t, NetCent RFI, AF Data Call, Industry Studies and Data 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 27 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 29. A Process; Capability Prioritization S Established Weighted Criteria A P Artifact; Weighted Capability Matrix For an Objective Decisions - 1™ WT No. Capability Importance 150 1 Reduce time to deploy infrastructure 1a Reduce the time to deploy new applications across entire command within hours. 1 1b Reduce the time to reassign client locations 1 1c Reduce the time to stand up new organization/office/unit 1 150 2 Reduce infrastructure cost 2a Reduce equipment accountability cost asset mgt 4 2b Reduce software license cost 1 2c Reduce number of report of survey asset mgt 4 2d Reduce power consumption (HVAC) 1 2e Reduce touch maintenance throughout installation 1 2g Reduce number of CSAs/SAs 1 2i Reduce technology refresh cost 1 50 3 Improve Reliability, Availability Survivability (RAS) 3a Reduce mission downtime caused by CMI/Intrusions 1 3b Reduce mission downtime caused by loss PC-resident data 3 3c Provide for data backup/recovery services for clients. 1 3d Allow workstation recovery within 15 minutes from a remote location to include 2 applications, user data, and operating system 3e Provide improved reliability and availability of computing resources, services 3 50 4 Work within current Security Management Posture 4a Reduce Vulnerabilities 1 4b Improve patch compliance 1 50 5 Provide support for AF Use Cases 5a Provide support for client type – Baseline 1 5b Provide support f client t P id t for li t type – F Functional ti l 1 5c Provide support for client type – Non-Standard 3 5d Provide support for client type – Standalone 2 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 28 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 30. A Process; Capability Prioritization S Established Weighted Criteria A P Artifact; Weighted Capability Matrix For an Objective Decisions - 2™ 5e Provide support for client type – Remote 3 5f Provide support for client type – Unmanaged 5 125 6 Support SBC storage strategy 6a Provide server-side storage of System data and/or system images 1 6b Provide server-side storage of enterprise data 1 6c Provide server-side storage of user data and/or system images 1 6d Provide server-side storage of user application 1 6e Provide server-side storage of enterprise data application 1 125 7 Support Infrastructure Requirements 7a Maintain current bandwidth/network loads (min 10 GB to max 100GB user profiles, 1 100 MB to the desktop) 7b Provide consistent capability, whether rich or thin, with differing capabilities based 1 on Active Directory rights/groups 7d Provide support for the Common Access Card (CAC)/DOD Public Key 1 Infrastructure (PKI) logon 150 8 Improved Manageability 8a Provide for remote manageability of desktop 1 8b Provide support for all business and mission applications, including bandwidth 4 sensitive applications 8c Provide for a client computing environment solution that scales over the AF 1 enterprise 8d Allow use of a diverse mix of hardware end devices in a heterogeneous 1 environment 8e Increase IT service availability to the mobile/pervasive user 2 150 9 Provide Pro ide the same user e perience (irrespecti e of client; rich or thin ser experience (irrespective client 1 client). 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 29 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 31. A Process; Feasibility & Architecture S Assessment Results Assessments A Artifact; Solution Risk Assessment ™ P Report Q Quantify Risks y The results showed how the combined Use Cases could be several by a single product suite. ASAP scored the highest due to clarity toprovide the same useras a difficult though SoftGrid quickly provided it’s ability to what seamed experience even decision which was being clouded by no one commercial evaluated where in theoptimal Clearly there are tradeoffs the range of score was not statistically different and all solution being low risk range. all capabilities to tradeoffs. Overall, SoftGrid had the best solution to cover the entirety of the use case including speed to and Wyse solution had and thatreact, andsolutions could be rapidly the least potential to reduce Citrix potential to reduce deploy and ‘80%’ manageability. However, SoftGrid has analyzed and then the most procured and implemented. infrastructure costs. infrastructure costs. Citrix and Wyse were the least capable in manageability. manageability Ardence was the least capable in speed to deploy and react. CCI/HP, Citrix, ClearCube and n e rity Wyse had the W rk w in cu e t S cu pective of u va ility Im ro d M n g a ility client; rich or thin client). ro e p o f r FBlue = Essential 1 - 1.99 most impact on S p o In stru re R d ce in stru re a a e e t o re P vid su p rt fo A o e eploy rovide the sam user A ila ility S rviv b p ve a a e b S p o S Csto g ctu fra ctu M n g m n P stu p ve e b ty, raGreen = Desirable 2 - 2.99 reliability e ab ty c c s rre educe tim to de experience (irresp Im ro R lia ilit u p rt fra u eYellow = Less Desirable 3 - 3.99 availability, and R q ire e ts infrastructure e u mnRed = Undesirable 4 - 5.00 e u p rt B survivability se a s ith U C se te y stra g va b c re A ) (R S eu So st o co R P Value Factors 15% % 15% % 5% % 5% % 5% % 13% % 13% % 15% % 15% %Softgrid 1.67 3.00 3.40 1.50 0.73 1.40 1.00 1.56 1.00 1.67Ardent 2.33 3.15 3.40 3.00 1.53 1.40 1.33 2.11 2.00 2.23 Very Reliable VClearC ube 1.67 2.23 1.30 2.50 2.07 1.40 2.00 2.78 4.00 2.48Wys e 1.00 1.92 1.30 1.50 2.80 1.00 2.33 4.22 5.00 2.67 Reliable RC I/H C P 1.67 2.23 1.30 2.50 2.07 1.40 2.00 2.78 4.00 2.83 Questionable QCitrix 1.00 1.92 1.30 1.50 2.80 1.00 2.33 4.22 5.00 3.03 Unreliable U Revisiting the Assigned Weights may change the scoring outcome Data Faith - R - Click on Table - 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 30 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 32. A Process; Capability Determination S Use Cases Provide ™ A P Artifact; Solution Cases Use Context for Tech AssessmentSubscriber Connection Security Domain Services/Applications Each connection type is available for each security domain, subscribing to a variety of services/applications. This produces  Can be viewed as two roles: many user types and a complex scenario.  Mission Support Users who are supportable by the standard availability design of the network, e.g. ERP USE CASES Baseline – Standard or training.  Mission Critical Users who must work even when Desktop Configuration there is a network outage, e.g. mobile, remote orConnected – NIPRNet standalone user (use cases)at work, persistent Functional – GCCS,network Communications,Standalone – SIPRNet Logistics, Finance, etc.must work withoutInternet (e.g. laptop) Nonstandard –Remote Access – JWICS Photoshop, Developerat home or in hotel Tools, etc. Single Domain Only Of 635,000 clients identified by the MAJCOMs, 269,000 were Baseline Users and 278,000 were Functional User (86%) which are , ( ) the bulk of Mission Support users 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 31 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 33. A Process; Business Case Analysis S A Artifact; BSA Report BCA for SBC must define business value to AF P ™Question Answer  SBC improves security – loss or theft of physical storage at the edge by 100%Does the SBC iD h improve AF  SBC improves ability to deploy/modify new infrastructure from weeks to hours i bilit t d l / dif i f t t f k t heffectiveness?  SBC improves operational efficiencies – asset management, system administration, capacity management, manpower efficiencies, patch compliance by as much as 75% on a 4 year TCO  SBC improves Mobility – as supported by a pervasive SBC infrastructure but requires a 20% investment in infrastructure migration. This translate into increase first year cost to 200%What is the ROI and TCO?  Breakeven in 2nd year  ROI 468%Where and when should it  Target implementation – Baseline and Functional office user (non-power users) representing 250,000be implemented? to 500,000 initial SBC recipients. Recommend phased implantation. 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 32 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 34. ITCC’s Standard Desktop fulfills™ 1st Step in launching SBC p g Industry Data: Unmanaged PC PC environment where software installation and setup, software maintenance, and asset A Migration to management are local to the client. F Managed PCs ( (SDC) will ) S provide over 50% t of SBC saving eSBC/ Managed PC PC environment where software installation and setup, software maintenance, and asset p management are managed centrally at the server-side where all data relevant to these services are housed. 1 A FSBC/ Thin Client A thin client is characterized by a workstation that does not provide local storage and performs only local execution of specialized applications. A thin client is a lightweight S workstation that contains a standard operating system with the capability to execute local te applications. A variation of a thin client can be a workstation that does not provide local p storage and performs no local execution of applications, referred to as an ultra-thin client. 2 Industry Data: Migration to Thin Client (will provide a an additional 50% of SBC saving SBC – Server-side Data Strategy Industry Data: Categorization is necessary in a BCA to determine how much additional savings can be obtained in thin client type platforms 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 33 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 35. TCO Assumptions ™ Derived From Burton Group, Gartner, IDC, Mitre & ICH Sources Direct cost of thin client at 21% of Unmanaged PC costs - Burton Group Migration Cost are 20% of the implementing the total cost - IDC Managed PC add management server to the Unmanaged PC environment - Burton The ratio between direct (fixed ) costs and indirect (variable costs) are 50:50 in Unmanaged PC environment – Gartner, Mitre The ratio between direct (fixed ) costs and indirect ( ( (variable costs) are 65:35 in Managed PC environment – Gartner, Mitre ) g , The ratio between direct (fixed ) costs and indirect (variable costs) are 74:26 in Thin Client environment – Gartner, Mitre Strategy –  replace a fourth of the workstation each year inline this technology refresh cycle  V i bl cost will increase each year in line with increasing SBC population Variable t ill i h i li ith i i l ti Very Reliable V Reliable R Questionable Q Unreliable U Data Faith - R 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 34 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 36. A Process; BCA & Volumes Behaviors S A MAJCOM Response Artifact; BCA Segregation by Use P™ Cases Total Clients – 635,000 Use Case (000) 1. Baseline 269 42% Mission ss o 278 44% 2. Functional Support 3. Nonstandard 11 2% 4. Standalone 13 2% 5. Remote 57 9% 6. Other 7 1% Connection (000) A. NIPRnet 553 87% Data Faith - R B. SIPRnet 67 11% Very Reliable V C. JWIC 15 2% Reliable R Questionable Q Unreliable U 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 35 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 37. A Process; BCA & Volumes Behaviors S A Potential Efficiencies Artifact; BCA Segregation by Use P ™ Cases As Reported by MAJCOMs AFSPC ANG PACAF AETC USAFE AMC ACC AVGReduce touch maintenance throughout installation 50% 7% 70% 40% 50% 43%Reduce power consumption 50% 2% 80% 50% 46%applications 15% 80% 48%Improve patch compliance 50% 35% 100% 30% 80% 59%Reduce number of CSAs 50% 25% 55% 100% 40% 54%Reduce equipment accountability cost 50% 25% 100% 70% 10% 51%Reduce technology refresh cost 57% 85% 71%Reduce software license cost 25% 30% 50% 35%Increase IT service aavailability 25% 25% 25%Increase IT service availability to the mobile user 25% 10% 60% 32%hours. 0%Rapidly reassign client locations 500% 80% 70% 217%Rapidly stand up new organization/office/unit 50% 80% 75% 68%Reduce equipment accountability cost 40% 70% 55%Potential software license cost savings 0% 0%Reduce number of report of survey 5% 100% 20% 42%No reduced mission downtime caused by CMIs 0% 100% 100%data 30% 100% 65%Increase ITservice availability 10% 10%Compatibility with functional applications 97% 97% Very Reliable V Reliable R Questionable Q Unreliable U Data Faith - Q 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 36 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 38. SBC Implementation Alternatives ™ Alternative 1 – SBCs implement SBC/TC devises ad hoc into an Site SBCs existing environment creating a mixed desktop environment Alternative 2 – SBCs implement SBC/TC across a large user Use Case community type to single or small no of networks SBCs (minimum of 2500 clients to take advantage of the operational efficiency occurring in the migration cost only at those NOC centers applicable to the migration. This strategy replaces PC at their normal refresh cycle with SBC devices there by not increasing the investment cost with early PC replacement cost . cost. Alternative 3 – SBCs implement SBC/TC as a major NIPRNet Enterprise service within the AF, occurring all migration costs SBC upfront and a strategy of replacing PC at their normal refresh cycle with SBC devices. This an enterprise approach and all use case would be  incorporated into the plan.Recommended 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 37 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 39. A Process; Analysis of Alternatives S A Analysis of Alternatives Lays out Artifact; AoA Semented by Use P Cases™ Multiple Viable Options Mission Gaps Site SBCs Use Case SBCs Enterprise SBC Improved Operational Efficiencies Isolated High Very High  Improved ability to p y deploy/modify new infrastructure Isolated High Very High  Improved Mobility Isolated High Very High  Improved security Isolated High Very High  Cost to Implement Low Medium Very High Highest Impact at p least cost 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 38 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 40. A Process; BCA S A Artifact; Total Cost of Ownership P ™ TCO Analysis 1 – 250 000 SBC/TC 250,000Units 250,000 Unmanaged PC Managed PC Thin Client SummaryDirect Cost - 1 Unit $ 500 $ 504 $ 393Direct cost - 250K Uni $ 125,000,000 $ 126,000,000 $ 98,278,503 Savings $114,987,807In-Direct cost - 250K U$ 125,000,000 $ 69,300,000 $ 24,569,626 Investment $24,589,626Migration Costs $ - $ - $ 24,569,6264 yr TCO $ 437,500,000 $ 299,250,000 $ 184,272,193 ROI 468%4 yr TCO per SBC Breakeven 2nd YearClient $ 2,500 $ 1,613 $ 885SBC Year 1 (25%) Year 2 (25%) Year 3 (25%) Year 4 (25%) TCODirect Cost $ 24,569,626 24 569 626 $ 24,569,626 24 569 626 $ 24,569,626 24 569 626 $ 24,569,626 24 569 626 $ 98,278,503 98 278 503In-Direct Cost $ 6,142,406 $ 12,284,813 $ 18,427,219 $ 24,569,626 $ 61,424,064Migration Cost $ 24,569,626 $ 24,569,626Annual Costs $ 55,281,658 $ 36,854,439 $ 42,996,845 $ 49,139,251 $ 184,272,193Unmanaged PCUnmgd PC Annual $ 62,500,000 $ 93,750,000 $ 125,000,000 $ 156,250,000 $ 437,500,000SBC Saving $ 7,218,342 $ 56,895,561 $ 82,003,155 $ 107,110,749 $ 253,227,807Managed PCManaged PC Annual $ 48,825,000 $ 66,150,000 $ 83,475,000 $ 100,800,000 $ 299,250,000SBC Saving $ (6,456,658) $ 29,295,561 $ 40,478,155 $ 51,660,749 $ 114,977,807 Very Reliable VBreakeven Year is 2nd year Reliable RROI 468% benefit/investment Questionable Q Data Faith - R Unreliable U 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 39 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 41. ™ SBC ASAP Lessons Learned1. TA-ASAP requires clear mandate (like AQ OTD initiative). TA-ASAP Governance and Management Processes need to be put in place (4-5 FTEs) to effect process and cultural change (mentoring, facilitation, mgt oversight)2. With HQ XC Management Support and Facilitate Outreach, TA cycle times can approach 30 days, but.. Supply Chain/time to market savings may be hindered due to disconnects with requirements and acquisition processes (reduce redos).3. Centers need XC mentoring support in executing TA-ASAP. MAJCOMs cannot produce quality requirements or capability gaps and need help in meeting exit criteria. (VSA and ASAP training issue)4. Current RFI approach that relies on FSI’s ability to capture real world implementation best practices from ISVs is a non-starter. ICH needs to better utilize it research coop of 38 COIs and direct access to the ICH network of domain experts.5. SAF/XC needs to partner w/ AQ and establish a more dynamic TA feedback loop to expose MAJCOMs and Centers to capabilities/developments/results (KM issue). 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 40 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 42. TA-ASAP Action Items ™ Teed up, on contract and awaiting funds SBC Pilot (2 FTEs, 30 days) 1. Present SBC Results to C2 GOSG for action 2. 2 Move decision into Acquisition Stage Develop SBC Acquisition Ready Documentation (unclear) Stage. (unclear). TA-ASAP Rollout (XC = 4 FTEs, AQ = TBD) 1. Present revised TA-ASAP Plan to Process Council for AF enterprise deployment approval. Address Cyber Command utilization. 2. Coordinate w/ AQ to integrate and de-conflict w/ emerging tech acquisition policy/processes (OTD/NESI). Work AQ Partnership 3. Coordinate w/ XC process owners to integrate and de-conflict; EA, PfM, KM, & SOA Game Plan. 4. Establish and Issue Appropriate TA-ASAP Mgt Oversight, Policy and Process guidance (XC, AQ, Centers, MAJCOMs). 5. 5 Establish TA-ASAP mentoring and training to assure effective use of AF resources resources. 6. Build out ICH’s research coop to leverage existing industry expertise and experiences to reduce cycle times and risk. 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 41 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 43. ™ How ASAP Met the Challenge Executable, Measurable, Repeatable Proved out as a sound IT Assessment methodology standard that will mitigate deployment risk. using products used:  Capability Determination, Capability Prioritization and Feasibility Assessment Validated Maturity of SBC Market Demonstrated a capabilities-based technology assessment method Established a body of standard artifacts that are important for future efforts y p Demonstrated a rapid AOA Approach for COTS Overall - Provides the AF with a standardized COTS Assessment Process that will increase the efficiency and technical robustness across the spectrum of future technology assessment 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 42 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 44. A Process; BCA S A Artifact; Total Cost of Ownership P ™ TCO Analysis 2 – 500,000 SBC/TCUnits 500,000 Unmanaged PC Managed PC Thin Client SummaryDirect Cost - 1 Unit $ 500 $ 504 $ 393Direct cost - 500K Uni $ 250,000,000 $ 252,000,000 $ 196,557,006 Savings $229,956,614In-Direct cost - 500K U$ 250,000,000 $ 138,600,000 $ 49,139,251Migration Costs $ - $ - $ 49,139,251 Investment $49.139,2514 yr TCO $ 875,000,000 $ 598,500,000 $ 368,544,386 ROI 468%4 yr TCO per SBC Breakeven 2nd YearClient $ 2,500 $ 1,613 $ 885SBC Year 1 (25%) Year 2 (25%) Year 3 (25%) Year 4 (25%) TCODirect Cost $ 49,139,251 $ 49,139,251 $ 49,139,251 $ 49,139,251 $ 196,557,006In-Direct Cost $ 12,284,813 $ 24,569,626 $ 36,854,439 $ 49,139,251 $ 122,848,129Migration Cost $ 49,139,251 $ 49,139,251Annual Costs $ 110,563,316 $ 73,708,877 $ 85,993,690 $ 98,278,503 $ 368,544,386Unmanaged PCUnmgd PC Annual $ 125,000,000 $ 187,500,000 $ 250,000,000 $ 312,500,000 $ 875,000,000SBC Saving $ 14,436,684 14 436 684 $ 113,791,123 113 791 123 $ 164,006,310 164 006 310 $ 214,221,497 214 221 497 $ 506,455,614 506 455 614Managed PCManaged PC Annual $ 97,650,000 $ 132,300,000 $ 166,950,000 $ 201,600,000 $ 598,500,000SBC Saving $ (12,913,316) $ 58,591,123 $ 80,956,310 $ 103,321,497 $ 229,955,614 Very Reliable VBreakeven Year is 2nd year y Reliable RROI 468% benefit/investment Questionable Q Unreliable U Data Conf. - R 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 43 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 45. A Process; Feasibility and Architecture S Assessments A P AFCA Tech Assessment Artifact; Scoring Template Results™ Team Scoring of SBC Results - 1 ClearCube CCI/HP Softgris Ardent yse Citrix No. Capability SCORING 1 to 5: 1 is least risk W 1 Reduce time to deploy infrastructure 1a Reduce the time to deploy new applications across entire command within hours. 2 2 1 3 2 1 1b Reduce the time to reassign client locations 1 1 1 2 2 1 1c Reduce the time to stand up new organization/office/unit 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 Reduce infrastructure cost 2a Reduce equipment accountability cost asset mgt 2 2 2 3 3 2 2b Reduce software license cost 3 3 4 4 4 4 2c Reduce number of report of survey asset mgt 2 2 2 3 3 2 2d Reduce power consumption (HVAC) 3 3 2 4 4 2 2e Reduce touch maintenance throughout installation 3 3 1 3 1 1 2g Reduce number of CSAs/SAs 2 2 1 3 3 1 2i Reduce technology refresh cost 2 2 1 3 3 1 3 Improve Reliability, Availability Survivability (RAS) 3a Reduce mission downtime caused by CMI/Intrusions 1 1 1 3 3 1 3b Reduce mission downtime caused by loss PC-resident data 2 2 1 3 3 1 3c Provide for data backup/recovery services for clients. 1 1 1 3 3 1 3d Allow workstation recovery within 15 minutes from a remote location to include applications, 1 1 1 5 5 1 user data, and operating system 3e Provide improved reliability and availability of computing resources, services 1 1 2 3 3 2 4 Work within current Security Management Posture 4a Reduce Vulnerabilities 3 3 2 3 1 2 4b Improve patch compliance 2 2 1 3 2 1 5 Provide support for AF Use Cases 5a Provide support for client type – Baseline 1 1 1 1 1 1 5b Provide support for client type – Functional 2 2 4 2 2 4 5c Provide support for client type – Non-Standard 2 2 5 1 1 5 5d Provide support f client t P id t for li t type – St d l Standalone 5 5 5 4 1 5 5e Provide support for client type – Remote 4 4 4 3 1 4 5f Provide support for client type – Unmanaged 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 44 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 46. A Process; Feasibility and Architecture S Assessments A P AFCA Tech Assessment Artifact; Scoring Template Results™ Team Scoring of SBC Results - 2 ClearCube CCI/HP Softgris Ardent Wyse Citrix No. Capability SCORING 1 to 5: 1 is least risk 6 Support SBC storage strategy 6a Provide server-side storage of System data and/or system images 1 1 1 1 1 1 6b Provide server-side storage of enterprise data 2 2 1 2 2 1 6c Provide server-side storage of user data and/or system images 2 2 1 2 2 1 6d Provide server-side storage of user application 1 1 1 1 1 1 6e Provide server-side storage of enterprise data application 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Support Infrastructure Requirements 7a Maintain current bandwidth/network loads (min 10 GB to max 100GB user profiles, 100 MB to 3 3 3 1 1 3 the desktop) 7b Provide consistent capability, whether rich or thin, with differing capabilities based on Active 2 2 3 2 1 3 Directory rights/groups 7d Provide support for the Common Access Card (CAC)/DOD Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) 1 1 1 1 1 1 logon 8 Improved Manageability 8a Provide for remote manageability of desktop 2 2 1 3 3 1 8b Provide support for all business and mission applications, including bandwidth sensitive 2 2 5 1 1 5 applications 8c Provide for a client computing environment solution that scales over the AF enterprise 3 3 4 3 1 4 8d Allow use of a diverse mix of hardware end devices in a heterogeneous environment 4 4 5 3 2 5 8e Increase IT service availability to the mobile/pervasive user 4 4 4 3 2 4 9 Provide the same user experience (irrespective of client; rich or thin client) client). 4 4 5 2 1 5 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 45 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 47. A Process; Feasibility and Architecture S A Assessments Artifact; Near Term Results AFCA Tech Assessment P ™ Intermediate Results Raw Scoring Weighted ScoringWT No. Capability y Importance e ClearCube Clearcube Softgrid Softgrid CCI/HP CCI/HP Ardent Ardent Wyse Wyse Citrix Citrix150 1 Reduce time to deploy infrastructure 1.67 1.67 1.00 2.33 1.67 1.00 Reduce the time to deploy new applications across entire 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 0.67 0.67 0.33 1.00 0.67 0.33 1a command within hours. 1b Reduce th ti R d the time t reassign client l ti to i li t locations 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 0.33 0 33 0.33 0 33 0.33 0 33 0.67 0 67 0.67 0 67 0.33 0 33 Reduce the time to stand up new organization/office/unit 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 0.67 0.67 0.33 0.67 0.33 0.33 1c150 2 Reduce infrastructure cost 2.23 2.23 1.92 3.15 3.00 1.92 2a Reduce equipment accountability cost asset mgt 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.92 0.92 0.62 Raw Scoring Weighted Scoring 2b Reduce software license cost 1 3 3 4 4 4 4 0.23 0.23 0.31 WT No. 0.31 0.31 Capability 0.31 Im o n e le r u e p rta c le r u e C aC b 2c Reduce number of report of survey asset mgt C ac b 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.92 0.92 0.62 S ftg id S ftg id C P C P A et A et C I/H rd n rd n o r o r C I/H ye ye itrix itrix Ws Ws C C 2d Reduce power consumption (HVAC) 1 3 3 2 4 4 2 0.23 0.23 0.15 150 1 1a 0.31 0.31 Reduce time to deploy infrastructure 0.15 Reduce the time to deploy new applications across entire command within hours. p y pp 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1.67 0.67 0 67 1.67 0.67 0 67 1.00 0.33 0 33 2.33 1.00 1 00 1.67 0.67 0 67 1.00 0.33 0 33 1b Reduce the time to reassign client locations 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.33 2e Reduce touch maintenance throughout installation 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 0.23 0.23 0.08 150 1c 2 0.23 0.08 0.08 Reduce the time to stand up new organization/office/unit Reduce infrastructure cost 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 0.67 2.23 0.67 2.23 0.33 1.92 0.67 3.15 0.33 3.00 0.33 1.92 2g Reduce number of CSAs/SAs 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 0.15 0.15 0.08 2a 2b 2c 2d Reduce equipment accountability cost asset mgt 0.23 0.23 Reduce software license cost 0.08 Reduce number of report of survey asset mgt Reduce power consumption (HVAC) 4 1 4 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 2 0.62 0.23 0.62 0.23 0.62 0.23 0.62 0.23 0.62 0.31 0.62 0.15 0.92 0.31 0.92 0.31 0.92 0.31 0.92 0.31 0.62 0.31 0.62 0.15 2i Reduce technology refresh cost 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 0.15 0.15 0.08 2e 2g 2i Reduce touch maintenance throughout installation 0.23 0.23 Reduce number of CSAs/SAs Reduce technology refresh cost 0.08 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 0.23 0.15 0.15 0.23 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.08 0.08 50 3 Improve Reliability, Availability Survivability (RAS) 1.30 1.30 1.30 3.40 3.40 1.30 3a Reduce mission downtime caused by CMI/Intrusions 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.10 Reduce mission downtime caused by loss PC-resident 3 2 2 1 3 3 1 0.60 0.60 0.30 0.90 0.90 0.30 3b data 3c Provide for data backup/recovery services for clients. 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.10 Allow workstation recovery within 15 minutes from a remote location to include applications, user data, and 2 1 1 1 5 5 1 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.20 3d operating system Provide improved reliability and availability of computing resources, services 3 1 1 2 3 3 2 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.90 0.90 0.60 3e 50 4 Work within current Security Management Posture 2.50 2.50 1.50 3.00 1.50 1.50 4a Reduce Vulnerabilities 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 4b Improve patch compliance 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.50 1.00 0.50 50 5 Provide support for AF Use Cases 2.07 2.07 2.80 1.53 0.73 2.80 5a Provide support for client type - Baseline 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 5b Provide support for client type - Functional 1 2 2 4 2 2 4 0.13 0.13 0.27 0.13 0.13 0.27 5c Provide support for client type - Non-Standard 3 2 2 5 1 1 5 0.40 0.40 1.00 0.20 0.20 1.00 5d Provide support f P id t for client t li t type - St Standalone d l 2 5 5 5 4 1 5 0.67 0 67 0.67 0 67 0.67 0 67 0.53 0 53 0.13 0 13 0.67 0 67 5e Provide support for client type - Remote 3 4 4 4 3 1 4 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.20 0.80 5f Provide support for client type - Unmanaged 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 125 6 Support SBC storage strategy 1.40 1.40 1.00 1.40 1.40 1.00 Provide server-side storage of System data and/or system 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 6a images 6b Provide server-side storage of enterprise data 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.20 Provide server-side storage of user data and/or system 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.20 6c images 6d Provide server-side storage of user application 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Provide server-side storage of enterprise data application 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 6e 125 7 Support Infrastructure Requirements 2.00 2.00 2.33 1.33 1.00 2.33 Maintain current bandwidth/network loads (min 10 GB to 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 7a max 100GB user profiles, 100 MB to the desktop) Provide consistent capability, whether rich or thin, with differing capabilities based on Active Directory 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.33 1.00 7b rights/groups Provide support for the Common Access Card (CAC)/DOD Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) logon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 7d 150 8 Improved Manageability 2.78 2.78 4.22 2.11 1.56 4.22 8a Provide for remote manageability of desktop 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.11 Provide support for all business and mission applications, 4 2 2 5 1 1 5 0.89 0.89 2.22 0.44 0.44 2.22 8b including bandwidth sensitive applications Provide for a client computing environment solution that 1 3 3 4 3 1 4 0.33 0.33 0.44 0.33 0.11 0.44 8c scales over the AF enterprise Allow use of a diverse mix of hardware end devices in a 1 4 4 5 3 2 5 0.44 0.44 0.56 0.33 0.22 0.56 8d heterogeneous environment Increase IT service availability to the mobile/pervasive user 2 4 4 4 3 2 4 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.67 0.44 0.89 8e Provide the same user experience (irrespective of client; rich or thin client). 1 4.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 150 9 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 46 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 48. SBC ASAP Pilot Focus TA-ASAP Governance, ™ Mgt Reporting, and Oversight pending Management Processes  ASAP requires Entry Exit g governance over: Criteria C it i Criteria C it i – Capabilities – Business and Military – Policies Capability Determination – Processes – Procedures Capability Prioritization – Reports es Request tProcesse – Measures and Metrics Results Feasibility Assessments Architecture Assessment  ASAP continues to require refinement – Selection Assessments HPTs: HPT Network Certification – Tool standardization – Library standardization – Cataloging Outcomes standardization – Collection Methods Knowledge Exchange Processes SBC ASAP Pilot Focus  ASAP requires active: – Training, feedback and SBC ASAP Pilot was a partial mentoring implementation of ICH s Architecture ICH’s – Further streamlining Assurance Method 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 47 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 49. ™ Back Up Slides 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 48 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 50. What Congress and OMB are Encouraging ™ to assure Sustainable IT Acquisition Reform 1. Recommend using IT-AAC to Establish Measures of Effectiveness: tap alternative resources and expertise to provide critical resource support to the DepSec and IT Acquisition Task Force to establish performance metrics. Guide Task Force in establishing Governance Structure and Incentives for Sec804 and Operational Efficiencies in terms of p p process, culture, incentives and mentoring. , , gPhase 1 2. Brief out Root Cause Analysis: of current acquisition ecosystem (processes, culture, acqu resources and incentives) with public/private partners. Repurpose existing studies developed by objective sources; GAO, DSB, AF SAB, BENS, CSIS, IAC/ACT, ICH, IT-AAC, RAND, Battelle, NDIA. Conduct impact assessment and cost of maintaining status quo. Establish Critical Success Factors 3. Direct OMB and DoD to utilize IT-AAC to effect transformation. Build out IT-AAC Leadership Forums to identify existing capabilities, expertise, and emerging standards of practice. “804 Solution” must address weakness of all acquisition lifecycle processes; requirements (JCIDS), architecture (DoDAF), tech assessment (TRL), acquisition strategy, source selection, decision analytics (oversight).Phase 2 4. 4 Require Agencies to leverage IT-AAC Benchmark IT Standards of Practice: Document emerging IT Requirements, Architecture, IT AAC Requirements Architecture Assessment & Acquisition standards of practices, approaches, processes, processes standards that have already been proven in the market. Reduce cost and risk of “build from scratch” or “reshaping broken processes”. Identify high risk programs where new processes can be piloted. 5. Institutionalize New IT Acquisition “Think Tank” that addresses Section 804, HR 5013 process implementation, training and piloting of the new IT Acquisition process. M t hi h profile IT programs ( who are already looking for change) through new 804 il ti f th A i iti Mentor high fil h l d l ki f h ) th hPhase 3 process; TMA’s EHR, DEEMs, Army FCS, DISA NECC, AF SOA, etc. 6. Work with DAU to establish IT Acquisition training curriculum and mentoring program. Build out DAU’s IT Clearinghouse to capture benchmarked industry best practices and proven innovations of the market. 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 49 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 51. ™ How Agencies Can Respond to t achieve Efficiencies and Cut Waste hi Effi i i dC tW t 1. Workforce Empowerment: Establish robust IT Acquisition Training and Mentoring program with the IT-AAC that builds on DAU/IT-AAC Partnership. Build out Best Practices Clearinghouse withPeople e reusable acquisition decision templates and solution architectures already proven in the market 2. Change Management: Establish Incentives that bring focus to Outcomes with supporting Measures of Effectiveness and StakeHolder Forums that align IT with mission outcomes. 3. Portfolio Assessment and Market research: Identify the capability gap. Align with real world hnology metrics and service levels that reflect the realm of the possible. Partner with non-profits, SDOs, and other public service entities that increase the aperture of innovation.Tech 4. Establish Shared Infrastructure Services: Define core IT infrastructure capabilities & services that can be widely leveraged (shared services), via SOA, IT Infrastructure, Cloud Computing 5. Adopt Open Architecture and Agile Acquisition Processes: Identify and eliminate legacy processes and policies that are no longer relevant to IT Acquisition outcomes. Establish streamlined set of methods & tools based on proven evidence to deliver.Process 6. Transform Acquisition Ecosystem: Streamline and integrate current IT Lifecycle Processes byP focusing on outcome metrics and decision analytics Establish Technology Advisory Council or outcome, analytics. Grey Beard Council that improves transparency and leverages proven expertise. 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 50 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org
  • 52. IT-AAC Accomplishments ™ can significantly reduce time, risk and cost1. Established an alternative, conflict free think tank composed of the worlds top minds and most respected public service entities.2. Completed Root Cause Analysis of Reoccurring Failure Patterns in DoD IT Acquisition and their devastating impact, derived from; over 40 major studies, 2 surveys, 121 interviews, 21 Leadership Workshops and 4 conferences.3. Benchmarked Industry IT Architecture & Acquisition Best Practices and Common Failures, 10 of Fortune 50.4.4 Completed agency pilots of alternative IT Acquisition processes covering; requirements architecture, requirements, architecture tech assessments, business case analysis, and source selection.5. Standardized Agile Acquisition Framework, documentation, and case studies for rapid adoption6. Partnership with DAU, which established an alternative IT Acquisition Training Curriculum. "It is not a great mystery what needs to change, what it takes is the political will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices -- choices that will displease powerful people both inside the Pentagon and out” Defense Secretary Robert Gates out 501.C Non-Profit Research Institute IT-AAC Proprietary © 2008- 2010 All Rights Reserved 51 703-768-0400 www.IT-AAC.org

×