Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
Weiler slideshow
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

Weiler slideshow

458

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
458
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
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
  • Use brief bullets and discuss details verbally.
  • Transcript

    • 1. IT Acquisition Advisory Council (IT-AAC) A non-partisan think tank, 501.C3 Roadmap for Sustainable IT Acquisition Reform Leveraging 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 Vice Chair [email_address] Kevin Carroll, IT-AAC Vice Chair www.IT-AAC.org 703 768 0400 904 Clifton Drive * Alexandria * Virginia 22308 www.IT-AAC.org * (703) 768-0400
    • 2. Senior Exec Briefing Summary Assuring Business Value from every IT $ Spent <ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Today's Situation </li></ul><ul><li>Our Proposal to Assist </li></ul><ul><li>Way Forward Recommendation </li></ul><ul><li>Predictable Outcomes </li></ul>“ 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
    • 3. Think Tank Purpose <ul><li>Acquisition Practitioners and workforce will need commercial methods, access to deep industry expertise and emerging standards of practice to overcome common failure patterns and cultural impediments that have prevented previous attempts to achieve following objectives: </li></ul><ul><li>Speed -- achieve 6-12 month cycle times vice 7-8 years (early pilots prove this is possible) </li></ul><ul><li>Incremental development, testing, and fielding -- vice one &quot;big bang&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>Actionable Requirements -- Sacrifice or defer customization for speed and COTS/OS utilization - Leverage established standards of practice and open modular platforms </li></ul><ul><li>Meet DoD's wide-range IT needs -- from modernizing C2 to updating word processing software </li></ul><ul><li>Focused on Outcomes and Operational Effectiveness - Health IT, InfoSharing, Cyber Security, Consolidated IT Infrastructure, Business Systems </li></ul>To provide the Decision Makers with an alternative set of resources and expertise needed to guide the establishment of a “best in class” set of IT Acquisition Processes and Governance Structure. “ You can’t solve today’s problems with the same thinking that got you there” Albert Einstein
    • 4. Information Technology Evolution Information Driven Capability <ul><li>Central computer center, slow turn around </li></ul><ul><li>One size fits all </li></ul><ul><li>Limited reuse of application modules </li></ul><ul><li>Centralized - Mainframe </li></ul><ul><li>Client/Server - Decentralized </li></ul><ul><li>Internet - Cloud </li></ul><ul><li>PC enabled and network </li></ul><ul><li>Software distributed in both server and client computers </li></ul><ul><li>Heavy focus on software development and point to point integration </li></ul><ul><li>Virtualized compute; global network enabled, plug & play </li></ul><ul><li>IT Infrastructure decoupled from Applications </li></ul><ul><li>COTS & OSS Integration, Software as a Service </li></ul><ul><li>Adding functional capability has become easier with each new wave </li></ul><ul><li>We are in early stages of Wave 3 information technology </li></ul><ul><li>Mainframe and Client-Server waves remain in place </li></ul><ul><li>Waves represent many co-dependent technologies, matured over time </li></ul><ul><li>But enterprise infrastructure gaps & vulnerabilities have become more critical </li></ul>DoD is using 1970s acquisition processes; to acquire Wave 3 IT capability IT-AAC understands IT Acquisition Dilemma Wave 3 Solutions can’t be acquired using MilSpec processes… 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
    • 5. Understanding the Many Dimensions of the IT Acquisition Lifecycle <ul><li>IT Acquisition Building Blocks: </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Requirements Development : Actionable requirements must be constrained by the realm of the possible. With pressures to do more with less, we must embrace mechanisms that force a relative valuation/impact of the gap/capability, with clearly defined outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Assessment : Understanding the limitation of technology early in the process is key. Without a clear view of the “realm of the possible” validated 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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>“ IT Reform is about Operational Efficiency and Innovation”
    • 6. Today’s Situation -- as highlighted by the HASC Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform <ul><li>Studies of both commercial and government IT projects have found some disturbing statistics; </li></ul><ul><li>Only 16% of IT projects are completed on time and on budget. </li></ul><ul><li>31% are cancelled before completion. </li></ul><ul><li>The remaining 53% are late and over budget, with the typical cost growth exceeding the original budget more than 89%. </li></ul><ul><li>Of the IT projects that are completed, the final product contains only 61% of the originally specified features. </li></ul>As was pointed out in testimony before the Panel, the traditional defense acquisition process is “ill-suited for information 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 risk and does not really fit information technology acquisition that does not lead to significant production quantities.” Defense Acquisition Panel, HASC
    • 7. Understanding IT Acquisition Reform Laws MilSpec must give way to Industry Best Practices: SOA, Agile, COTS <ul><li>HR5136: ‘‘Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition’’. Requires: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(1) Determine clear performance metrics for specific programs from the start; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(2) Foster an ongoing dialogue during the technology development process between the system developers and the </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>warfighters; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(3) Promote an open architecture approach that allows for more modularization of hardware and software; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(4) Develop a plan for how to strengthen the IT acquisition workforce; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(5) Implement alternative milestone decision points that are more consistent with commercial product development for IT; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(6) Develop a process for competitive prototyping in the IT environment; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(7) Develop a new test and evaluation approach that merges developmental and operational testing in a parallel fashion; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(8) Place greater emphasis on the up-front market analysis; and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(9) Conduct a rigorous analysis of contracting mechanisms and contract incentive </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Clinger Cohen Act Requires: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Streamline the IT Acquisition Process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Change business processes (BPR), not COTS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Favor COTS/OSS over custom development. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Build business case and acquire based objective assessment criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use architecture for driving investment decisions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Favor standards and best practices over MilSpec approaches </li></ul></ul>
    • 8. Congressional Action to Reform IT Acquisition: 2009 NDAA Sec804 <ul><li>“ 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-- </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>be designed to include-- </li></ul><ul><ul><li>early and continual involvement of the user; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>multiple, rapidly executed increments or releases of capability; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>early, successive prototyping to support an evolutionary approach; and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>a modular, open-systems approach” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>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 practices like SOA, ITIL, and Evidenced Based Research. </li></ul>
    • 9. OMB Guidance on IT Reform from OMB’s 25 Point Plan <ul><li>Align the Acquisition Process with the Technology Cycle </li></ul><ul><li>Point 13. Design and develop a cadre of specialized IT acquisition professionals . </li></ul><ul><li>Point 14. Identify IT acquisition best practices and adopt government-wide. </li></ul><ul><li>Point 15. Issue contracting guidance and templates to support modular development </li></ul><ul><li>Point 16. Reduce barriers to entry for small innovative technology companies&quot; </li></ul>
    • 10. OMB’s View of Federal IT Fundamentally Broken!
    • 11. Sources of Evidence Failure to fix IT is costing the tax payer $40Billion a Year <ul><li>“ We are buying yesterday’s technology tomorrow in the rare instances we are successful ” </li></ul><ul><li>DSB IATF: “DoD reliance on FFRDCs is isolating it from sources of new technologies, and will hinder the departments ability to get the best technical advise in the future” </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>NDAA Sec 804 2010: DoD will establish a modular IT Acquisition process that is responsive to the fast paced IT market. </li></ul>&quot;Weapons systems depend on stable requirements, but with IT, technology changes faster than the requirements process can keep up,&quot; he said. &quot;It changes faster than the budget process and it changes faster than the acquisition milestone 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
    • 12. Federal IT Acquisition Root Causes compromising mission effectiveness and costing tax payer $40B/year <ul><li>IT Acquisition Ecosystem Ineffective : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Missing incentives & metrics, redundant oversight, vague accountability, ineffective governance (MOE, SLA) puts focus on compliance vs outcomes . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Programs spending up to 25% on compliance without any reduction in risk. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Good laws (CCA, OMB 119, FAR, Sec804) lack enforcement : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Frequently compounded by Ad-hoc Implementations and MilSpec methods. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DODAF, JCIDS, NESI, LISI were designed for Weapons Systems, compete with standards and orthogonal to Industry Best Practices. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Conflict of Interest unenforced, optimal resources and expertise overlooked: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FAR prohibits Contractors with vested interests in implementation should not use “Chinese firewalls” to bypass rules or gain unfair advantage. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul></ul>“ Insanity is continuing the same process over and over again and expecting different results” Albert Einstein
    • 13. Root Cause (cont.) <ul><li>FFRDCs/SIs are Stifling Innovation and Decision Making due to Analysis/Paralysis : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Traditional Sis/FFRDCs are insulated from IT innovations and commercial best practices. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Small Businesses, Innovators and Public Service entities (.edu, .org, SDOs) are under utilized, threatening Open Systems and Open Architecture efforts. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>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): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MilSpec Requirements (JCIDS), Architecture (DoDAF), Tech Assessment (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) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Section 804 call Open Process cannot be implemented using the same resources and expertise that created the current MilSpec processes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Budgeting (POM) approaches drive stove pipe solutions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul></ul>
    • 14. Critical Success Factors for Sustainable IT Acquisition Reform <ul><li>Root 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 : </li></ul><ul><li>Must replace each of the existing IT Acquisition lifecycle building blocks (per DSB report) and address the unique challenges of the fast paced IT market (JCIDS, DODAF, DOD5000, NESI) </li></ul><ul><li>Must be derived from commercial best practices (CCA) </li></ul><ul><li>Must avoid MilSpect by leverage existing investments and capabilities (CCA, NTTAA) </li></ul><ul><li>Should favor processes already proven in the market </li></ul><ul><li>Should be based on a consensus based standard (OMB A119) </li></ul><ul><li>Must be modular, services oriented (NDAA Section 804) </li></ul><ul><li>Should be measurable, repeatable and sustainable, with supporting training, education and mentoring (HR 5013) </li></ul>
    • 15. IT Reform Way Forward Adapting Agile Acquisition Standards and Benchmarked Commercial Best Practices
    • 16. Resources for Sustainable IT Reform for when failure is not an option <ul><li>Interoperability Clearinghouse (ICH) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Repository of reusable Best Practices Frameworks (process and solution architectures) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conflict Free Research Coop dedicated to operationalizing Clinger Cohen Act directives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Means of accessing wide range of SMEs and community of practices outside the Defense Industrial Complex </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Acquisition Assessment Method (AAM) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Decision Analytics Tool for IT centric AoA, EoA, BCA, Risk and Technical Assessments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Measurable, repeatable and sustainable method to enable cost avoidance and savings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Incorporates by reference: SOA best practices, IT Infrastructure Libraries (ITIL) and Evidenced Based Research (EBR) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Solution Architecture Innovation Lab (SAIL) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Virtual Lab by which innovators can validate their solutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solution Architecture patterns for e-Gov, IT Infrastructure, Cyber-Security & Health IT </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Means of tapping existing testing and implementation resources for rapid deployment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>IT-Acquisition Advisory Council (IT-AAC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A non-partisan Government and industry think tank created to drive sustainable IT Acquisition Reform </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Leverages expertise from academia, standards bodies, innovators and COIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide an interchange for senior level leadership interchange </li></ul></ul>AAM ™
    • 17. Partner with DAU to create a Mentoring and Training Curriculum
    • 18. Assessment of Alternative IT Acquisition Processes MilSpec Acquisition Processes Assessment against Sec 804 Criteria Alternative Acquisition Process Assessment against Sec 804 Criteria Where successfully applied Decision Analytics Ad hoc, not formalized Largest gap in IT Lifecycle Acquisition Assurance Method (AAM) Open, Successfully piloted, modular AF, Navy, USMC, BTA, GSA, DISA, Requirements Development JCIDS, IT Box Not tuned for COTS, SOA, OSS Market Value Stream Analysis w/ Agile Development Exceeds criteria US TRANSCOM, DISA, CIA Architecture DoDAF Systems Engineering Method Missing Metrics, Infrastructure View, Stake holder perspectives OMB FEA RMs SEI SMART Strong evidence, Services Based PTO, DOC, GPO, GSA, DOI, DOT, DHS Technology Assessment: TRL Assessment IT Matures at a very fast rate AF Solution Assessment Process (ASAP) COTS/OSS Focused, support BPR AF, USMC, BTA, Navy CANES, PTO, GPO, GSA Risk & Cost Management Analysis of Alternatives, Time consuming, not aligned with industry B.P. ASAP/AAM BCA BTA ERAM Effective w/ COTS based sys Limited risk mgt AF, Navy, USMC, BTA Governance and Oversight DoD 5000 Bus Capability Lifecycle (BCL) Milestone based, not effective for IT ICH Clinger Cohen Act Guide Integrated SOA best practices BTA, OSD HA, Navy,
    • 19. Resource Optimization Considerations you cannot outsource risk or critical thinking <ul><li>FFRDCs: Best suited for govt unique R&D and Weapon Systems Source Selection. </li></ul><ul><li>Standards Development Orgs (SDO), Trade Associations: Source of standardizations among suppliers, ISVs. Effective source for market communications and outreach. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>System Integrators: Optimized for large scale implementation and outsourcing. Have significant economies of scale and technology usability insights. </li></ul>
    • 20. Resource Guide for Effective IT Acquisition Based on Clinger Cohen Act and FAR Guidance Partner Type SDLC Phase FFRDC User Groups, Communities of Practice Standards development orgs, trade associations Research Institutes, Labs & Academia Consultants, IV&V, A&AS Firms Innovators, Tech Mfg, Open Source System Integrators Requirement, Gap Analysis Only when no other company can support (4). OMB Lines of Business offers Critical Role (6,7) SDOs = Primary driver for open systems. Conflict free structures (2,3) Provide Conflict free structure and economies of scale (2,6) Limited access to industry lessons learned. Great source for customer use cases, lessons learned. FAR OCI Rules limit participation Architecture and Planning, Mkt Research Only when no other company can support (4) Agency CxOs provides critical guidance (2, 3) Provide standards of practice, not support Principle source of expertise Primary source of expertise FAR OCI rules limit participation FAR OCI rules prohibit direct support PMO & IV&V Support Only when no other company can support (4) Not inherently governmental Play supporting role Optimized for this area Key role FAR OCI rules prohibit participation FAR OCI rules prohibit participation Material Solution Engineering Forbidden (4) Not inherently Governmental Support role Support role Provide developmental Primary partnership area System Impl., Maint, & Support Forbidden (4) Not inherently Governmental Forbidden Lack Resources & Expertise Internal IV&V for Prime contract reduces risk. Provider of key technologies Primary partnership area
    • 21. Critical Success Factors for Sustainable IT Acquisition Reform <ul><li>Clinger Cohen Act, FAR, and NDAA Sec804 directives cannot be accomplished with the same thinking that got us their. FFRDCs are prohibited from competing with industry and therefore the least effective resource for IT programs. The CSF include; </li></ul><ul><li>Agile Methods derived from benchmarked commercial best practices (CCA, Sec804) </li></ul><ul><li>Leverage existing investments and innovations of the market while avoiding competing with industry or duplicating what already exists (Economy Act) </li></ul><ul><li>Utilize public service institutes and standards bodies over FFRDCs (FAR) </li></ul><ul><li>Should be based on Open, consensus based methods (OMB A119) </li></ul><ul><li>Must be modular, services oriented (NDAA Section 804) </li></ul><ul><li>Should be measurable, repeatable and sustainable, with supporting training, education and mentoring (HR 5013) </li></ul>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):
    • 22. Repeatable Patterns of Success when agencies tap IT expertise outside the Defense Industrial Complex! “ . 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) Navy: Assessment of AFLOAT Program – CANES SOA & Security Strategy Eliminated hi-risk Requirements by 23%, $100Ms in potential savings USAF: Streamlined COTS Acquisition Process. Applied to Server Virtualization. Established optimal arch with ROI of 450% & $458 million savings USAF: Procurement of E-FOIA System using AAM Completed AoA, BCA, AQ Selection in just 4 months. USMC: AoA and BusCase for Cross Domain, Thin Client Solutions Greatly Exceeded Forecasted Saving in both analysis and acquisition GSA: Financial Mgt System consolidation using AAM. Moved FMS from OMB “ red ” to “ green ”. Eliminated duplicative investments that saved $200M BTA: Assessment of External DoD Hosting Options using AAM $300 million in potential savings with minimal investment BTA: Apply AAM to complete AoA and BCA for DoD SOA Project Reduced pre-acquisition cycle time and cost of Analysis by 80% (4 months vs 18) GPO: Developed Acquisition Strategy for Future Digital System Led to successful acquisition and implementation on time, on budget and 80% cheaper than NARA RMS JFCOM: MNIS Evaluation of Alternatives for Cross Domain Solutions Evaluated 100’s of Options in 90 days, enabling stake holder buy in and source selection.
    • 23. <ul><li>AF Solution Assessment Process (ASAP) Case Study; Thin Client/Server Based Computing </li></ul><ul><li>Using ASAP/AAM enabled a 60day turn around to complete the following mandatory tasks; </li></ul><ul><li>Converted Requirements to Services/Capabilities Gaps </li></ul><ul><li>Established Measures of Effectiveness and Source Selection Eval Criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Conducted Baseline Assessment (cost/value of current portfolio) </li></ul><ul><li>Market Research ( Realm of the Possible ) that reaches real innovators and associated lessons learned. </li></ul><ul><li>Conduct Evaluation of Alternatives (apples to apples) using Evidence Based Research </li></ul><ul><li>Lite Weight Business Case Analysis for Investment Justification </li></ul>
    • 24. Scope of ASAP Phase 2 Effort Adapting ICH’s Architecture Assurance Method <ul><li>ASAP Phase 1 (June 08 - Jan 07) </li></ul><ul><li>TA Root Cause Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Integration of AF TA best practices and ICH Architecture Assurance Method </li></ul><ul><li>ASAP Process development documentation </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitated TA Value Stream Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>ASAP Phase 2 (Aug 07 – Sept 07) </li></ul><ul><li>SBC Capability Determination </li></ul><ul><li>SBC Capability Prioritization </li></ul><ul><li>SBC Solution Architecture & Feasibility Assessment </li></ul><ul><li>SBC Business Case Analysis (lite) </li></ul><ul><li>ASAP Process maturity assessment </li></ul><ul><li>TA-ASAP Phase 3, Operationalize an Enterprise Process (4 FTEs) pending funding approval) </li></ul><ul><li>SBC Procurement Documentation Development </li></ul><ul><li>SBC Source Selection </li></ul><ul><li>TA-ASAP Management Oversight and Governance Build Out </li></ul><ul><li>TA-ASAP Process Integration (XC EA, XC PfM, XC CBA, AQ OTD) </li></ul><ul><li>Estimated TA resource allocation is 4-5 FTEs to support an AF enterprise wide implementation </li></ul>
    • 25. ASAP Project Milestone Capability Determination Capability Prioritization Feas./Arch. Assessment BCA ASAP Artifacts ASAP Process Execution June 14 July 1 Aug 2 Sept 1 Oct 1 Project Plan Kick Off Meeting Data Call Results MAJCOM Data Call Announced to AF ASAP Completed BCA Completed ASAP Assessment Period ASAP Report Data Collection on Capabilities AFCA On-board HERE
    • 26. ASAP Phase 2 Project Plan Innovation Thread Use Cases Volumes/Timings System Behaviors BCA Templates and Models Probable Cost Mode Actual vs Planned We R Here Process; TA-ASAP Process Model A S A P Artifact; TA Sequencing Diagram
    • 27. SBC Capabilities before ASAP <ul><li>1 Reduce time to deploy infrastructure1a Reduce the time to deploy new applications across entire command within hours. 1b Reduce the time to reassign client locations 1c Reduce the time to stand up new organization/office/unit 2 Reduce infrastructure cost 2a Reduce equipment accountability cost asset mgt 2b Reduce software license cost 2c Reduce number of report of survey asset mgt 2d Reduce power consumption (HVAC) 2e Reduce touch maintenance throughout installation 2g Reduce number of CSAs/SAs 2i Reduce technology refresh cost 3 Improve Reliability, Availability Survivability (RAS) 3a Reduce mission downtime caused by CMI/Intrusions 3b Reduce mission downtime caused by loss PC-resident data 3c Provide for data backup/recovery services for clients. 3d Allow workstation recovery within 15 minutes from a remote location to include applications, user data, and operating system 3e Provide improved reliability and availability of computing resources, services 4 Work within current Security Management Posture 4a Reduce Vulnerabilities 4b Improve patch compliance 5 Provide support for AF Use Cases 5a Provide support for client type – Baseline 5b Provide support for client type – Functional 5c Provide support for client type – Non-Standard 5d Provide support for client type – Standalone 5e Provide support for client type – Remote 5f Provide support for client type – Unmanaged 6 Support SBC storage strategy 6a Provide server-side storage of System data and/or system images 6b Provide server-side storage of enterprise data 6c Provide server-side storage of user data and/or system images 6d Provide server-side storage of user application 6e Provide server-side storage of enterprise data application 7 Support Infrastructure Requirements 7a Maintain current bandwidth/network loads (min 10 GB to max 100GB user profiles, 100 MB to the desktop) 7b Provide consistent capability, whether rich or thin, with differing capabilities based on Active Directory rights/groups 7d Provide support for the Common Access Card (CAC)/DOD Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) logon 8 Improved Manageability 8a Provide for remote manageability of desktop 8b Provide support for all business and mission applications, including bandwidth sensitive applications 8c Provide for a client computing environment solution that scales over the AF enterprise 8d Allow use of a diverse mix of hardware end devices in a heterogeneous environment 8e Increase IT service availability to the mobile/pervasive user 9 Provide the same user experience (irrespective of client; rich or thin client). </li></ul>ICON Jumbled – Needed a Standardized Methodology To Establish A Repeatable and Executable TA process
    • 28. SBC Capabilities Tie Back to Mission Capability GAPS <ul><li>Mission Capability Gaps </li></ul><ul><li>FROM CJCSI 3170.01F , NCOE JIC </li></ul><ul><li>Improved Operational Efficiencies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>asset management, system administration capacity management, manpower efficiencies, patch compliance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Improved ability to deploy/modify new infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li> within hours </li></ul><ul><li>Improved Mobility </li></ul><ul><li> as supported by a pervasive SBC infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Improved security </li></ul><ul><li>loss or theft of physical storage at the edge </li></ul>CJCSI 3170.01F - Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction under the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) NCOE JIC - Net-Centric Operational Environment under Joint Integrating Concept Provide the same user experience (irrespective of client; rich or thin client). 9 1 Improved Manageability 8 1 Support Infrastructure Requirements 7 2 Support SBC storage strategy 6 1 Provide support for AF Use Cases 5 3 Work within current Security Management Posture 4 4 Improve Reliability, Availability Survivability (RAS) 3 1 Reduce infrastructure cost 2 1 Reduce time to deploy infrastructure 1 2 High level Capability No Mission Capability SBC Capability Derived From: ConstellationNet Architecture, USAFE Pil0t, NetCent RFI, AF Data Call, Industry Studies and Data Process; Capability Determination A S A P Artifact; Hi-Level Capability Matrix
    • 29. Established Weighted Criteria For an Objective Decisions - 1 Process; Capability Prioritization A S A P Artifact; Weighted Capability Matrix
    • 30. Established Weighted Criteria For an Objective Decisions - 2 Process; Capability Prioritization A S A P Artifact; Weighted Capability Matrix
    • 31. Assessment Results Quantify Risks ASAP quickly provided clarity to what seamed as a difficult decision which was being clouded by no one commercial solution being optimal to all capabilities and that ‘80%’ solutions could be rapidly analyzed and then procured and implemented. Data Faith - R The results showed how the combined Use Cases could be several by a single product suite. SoftGrid scored the highest due to it’s ability to provide the same user experience even though the range of score was not statistically different and all evaluated where in the low risk range. Overall, SoftGrid had the best solution to cover the entirety of the use case including speed to deploy and react, and manageability. However, SoftGrid has the least potential to reduce infrastructure costs. Clearly there are tradeoffs. Citrix and Wyse solution had the most potential to reduce infrastructure costs. CCI/HP, Citrix, ClearCube and Wyse had the most impact on reliability availability, and survivability Citrix and Wyse were the least capable in manageability. Ardence was the least capable in speed to deploy and react. Revisiting the Assigned Weights may change the scoring outcome - Click on Table - Process; Feasibility & Architecture Assessments A S A P Artifact; Solution Risk Assessment Report
    • 32. Use Cases Provide Context for Tech Assessment 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 USE CASES Single Domain Only <ul><li>Can be viewed as two roles: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mission Support Users who are supportable by the standard availability design of the network, e.g. ERP or training. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mission Critical Users who must work even when there is a network outage, e.g. mobile, remote or standalone user (use cases) </li></ul></ul>Process; Capability Determination A S A P Artifact; Solution Use Cases
    • 33. BCA for SBC must define business value to AF Question Answer Does the SBC improve AF effectiveness? <ul><li>SBC improves security – loss or theft of physical storage at the edge by 100% </li></ul><ul><li>SBC improves ability to deploy/modify new infrastructure from weeks to hours </li></ul><ul><li>SBC improves operational efficiencies – asset management, system administration, capacity management, manpower efficiencies, patch compliance by as much as 75% on a 4 year TCO </li></ul><ul><li>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% </li></ul>What is the ROI and TCO? <ul><li>Breakeven in 2nd year </li></ul><ul><li>ROI 468% </li></ul>Where and when should it be implemented? <ul><li>Target implementation – Baseline and Functional office user (non-power users) representing 250,000 to 500,000 initial SBC recipients. Recommend phased implantation. </li></ul>Process; Business Case Analysis A S A P Artifact; BSA Report
    • 34. ITCC’s Standard Desktop fulfills 1 st Step in launching SBC SBC – Server-side Data Strategy Unmanaged PC PC environment where software installation and setup, software maintenance, and asset management are local to the client. SBC/ Managed PC PC environment where software installation and setup, software maintenance, and asset management are managed centrally at the server-side where all data relevant to these services are housed. SBC/ 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 workstation that contains a standard operating system with the capability to execute local applications. A variation of a thin client can be a workstation that does not provide local storage and performs no local execution of applications, referred to as an ultra-thin client. AF St ep 1 Industry Data: Migration to Managed PCs (SDC) will provide over 50% of SBC saving Industry Data: Migration to Thin Client (will provide a an additional 50% of SBC saving AF Step 2 Industry Data: Categorization is necessary in a BCA to determine how much additional savings can be obtained in thin client type platforms
    • 35. TCO Assumptions Derived From Burton Group, Gartner, IDC, Mitre & ICH Sources <ul><li>Direct cost of thin client at 21% of Unmanaged PC costs - Burton Group </li></ul><ul><li>Migration Cost are 20% of the implementing the total cost - IDC </li></ul><ul><li>Managed PC add management server to the Unmanaged PC environment - Burton </li></ul><ul><li>The ratio between direct (fixed ) costs and indirect (variable costs) are 50:50 in Unmanaged PC environment – Gartner, Mitre </li></ul><ul><li>The ratio between direct (fixed ) costs and indirect (variable costs) are 65:35 in Managed PC environment – Gartner, Mitre </li></ul><ul><li>The ratio between direct (fixed ) costs and indirect (variable costs) are 74:26 in Thin Client environment – Gartner, Mitre </li></ul><ul><li>Strategy – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>replace a fourth of the workstation each year inline this technology refresh cycle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Variable cost will increase each year in line with increasing SBC population </li></ul></ul>Data Faith - R
    • 36. MAJCOM Response Total Clients – 635,000 Mission Support Use Case (000) 1. Baseline 269 42% 2. Functional 278 44% 3. Nonstandard 11 2% 4. Standalone 13 2% 5. Remote 57 9% 6. Other 7 1% Connection (000) A. NIPRnet 553 87% B. SIPRnet 67 11% C. JWIC 15 2% Data Faith - R Process; BCA & Volumes Behaviors A S A P Artifact; BCA Segregation by Use Cases
    • 37. Potential Efficiencies As Reported by MAJCOMs Data Faith - Q Process; BCA & Volumes Behaviors A S A P Artifact; BCA Segregation by Use Cases
    • 38. SBC Implementation Alternatives <ul><li>Alternative 1 – SBCs implement SBC/TC devises ad hoc into an Site SBCs existing environment creating a mixed desktop environment </li></ul><ul><li>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. . </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul> Recommended
    • 39. Analysis of Alternatives Lays out Multiple Viable Options Highest Impact at least cost Very High Medium Low  Cost to Implement Very High High Isolated  Improved security Very High High Isolated  Improved Mobility Very High High Isolated  Improved ability to deploy/modify new infrastructure Very High High Isolated  Improved Operational Efficiencies Enterprise SBC Use Case SBCs Site SBCs Mission Gaps Process; Analysis of Alternatives A S A P Artifact; AoA Semented by Use Cases
    • 40. TCO Analysis 1 – 250,000 SBC/TC Summary Savings $114,987,807 Investment $24,589,626 ROI 468% Breakeven 2 nd Year Data Faith - R Process; BCA A S A P Artifact; Total Cost of Ownership
    • 41. SBC ASAP Lessons Learned <ul><li>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) </li></ul><ul><li>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). </li></ul><ul><li>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) </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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). </li></ul>
    • 42. TA-ASAP Action Items Teed up, on contract and awaiting funds <ul><li>SBC Pilot (2 FTEs, 30 days) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Present SBC Results to C2 GOSG for action </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Move decision into Acquisition Stage. Develop SBC Acquisition Ready Documentation (unclear). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>TA-ASAP Rollout (XC = 4 FTEs, AQ = TBD) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Present revised TA-ASAP Plan to Process Council for AF enterprise deployment approval. Address Cyber Command utilization. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinate w/ AQ to integrate and de-conflict w/ emerging tech acquisition policy/processes (OTD/NESI). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Work AQ Partnership </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinate w/ XC process owners to integrate and de-conflict; EA, PfM, KM, & SOA Game Plan. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish and Issue Appropriate TA-ASAP Mgt Oversight, Policy and Process guidance (XC, AQ, Centers, MAJCOMs). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish TA-ASAP mentoring and training to assure effective use of AF resources. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Build out ICH’s research coop to leverage existing industry expertise and experiences to reduce cycle times and risk. </li></ul></ul>
    • 43. How ASAP Met the Challenge Executable, Measurable, Repeatable <ul><li>Proved out as a sound IT Assessment methodology standard that will mitigate deployment risk. using products used: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Capability Determination, Capability Prioritization and Feasibility Assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Validated Maturity of SBC Market </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrated a capabilities-based technology assessment method </li></ul><ul><li>Established a body of standard artifacts that are important for future efforts </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrated a rapid AOA Approach for COTS </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul>
    • 44. TCO Analysis 2 – 500,000 SBC/TC Summary Savings $229,956,614 Investment $49.139,251 ROI 468% Breakeven 2 nd Year Data Conf. - R Process; BCA A S A P Artifact; Total Cost of Ownership
    • 45. AFCA Tech Assessment Team Scoring of SBC Results - 1 Process; Feasibility and Architecture Assessments A S A P Artifact; Scoring Template Results
    • 46. AFCA Tech Assessment Team Scoring of SBC Results - 2 Process; Feasibility and Architecture Assessments A S A P Artifact; Scoring Template Results
    • 47. AFCA Tech Assessment Intermediate Results Process; Feasibility and Architecture Assessments A S A P Artifact; Near Term Results
    • 48. SBC ASAP Pilot Focus TA-ASAP Governance, Mgt Reporting, and Oversight pending <ul><li>ASAP continues to require refinement – HPTs: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tool standardization </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Library standardization </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cataloging standardization </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collection Methods </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>ASAP requires active: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Training, feedback and mentoring </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Further streamlining </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>ASAP requires governance over: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Capabilities – Business and Military </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Policies </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Processes </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Procedures </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reports </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Measures and Metrics </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>SBC ASAP Pilot was a partial implementation of ICH’s Architecture Assurance Method SBC ASAP Pilot Focus
    • 49. Back Up Slides
    • 50. What Congress and OMB are Encouraging to assure Sustainable IT Acquisition Reform <ul><li>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 process, culture, incentives and mentoring. </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>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). </li></ul><ul><li>Require Agencies to leverage IT-AAC Benchmark IT Standards of Practice: Document emerging IT 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. </li></ul><ul><li>Institutionalize New IT Acquisition “Think Tank” that addresses Section 804, HR 5013 process implementation, training and piloting of the new IT Acquisition process. Mentor high profile IT programs ( who are already looking for change) through new 804 process; TMA’s EHR, DEEMs, Army FCS, DISA NECC, AF SOA, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>Phase 3 Phase 2 Phase 1
    • 51. How Agencies Can Respond to achieve Efficiencies and Cut Waste <ul><li>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 with reusable acquisition decision templates and solution architectures already proven in the market </li></ul><ul><li>Change Management : Establish Incentives that bring focus to Outcomes with supporting Measures of Effectiveness and StakeHolder Forums that align IT with mission outcomes. </li></ul><ul><li>Portfolio Assessment and Market research : Identify the capability gap. Align with real world 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. </li></ul><ul><li>Establish Shared Infrastructure Services : Define core IT infrastructure capabilities & services that can be widely leveraged (shared services), via SOA, IT Infrastructure, Cloud Computing </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Transform Acquisition Ecosystem: Streamline and integrate current IT Lifecycle Processes by focusing on outcome, metrics and decision analytics. Establish Technology Advisory Council or Grey Beard Council that improves transparency and leverages proven expertise. </li></ul>Process Technology People
    • 52. IT-AAC Accomplishments can significantly reduce time, risk and cost <ul><li>Established an alternative, conflict free think tank composed of the worlds top minds and most respected public service entities. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Benchmarked Industry IT Architecture & Acquisition Best Practices and Common Failures, 10 of Fortune 50. </li></ul><ul><li>Completed agency pilots of alternative IT Acquisition processes covering; requirements, architecture, tech assessments, business case analysis, and source selection. </li></ul><ul><li>Standardized Agile Acquisition Framework, documentation, and case studies for rapid adoption </li></ul><ul><li>Partnership with DAU, which established an alternative IT Acquisition Training Curriculum. </li></ul>&quot;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

    ×