transitioning the opportune landing site system to initial ... · 5c. program element number 6....

Transitioning the Opportune Landing Site System to Initial Operating Capability

AFRL’s 2007 Technology Maturation ConferenceMulti-Dimensional Assessment of Technology Maturity

13 September 2007

Presented byRobert E. McCarty

SynGenics [email protected]

Transitioning the Opportune Landing Site Transitioning the Opportune Landing Site System to Initial Operating CapabilitySystem to Initial Operating Capability

AFRLAFRL’’s 2007 Technology Maturation Conferences 2007 Technology Maturation ConferenceMultiMulti--Dimensional Assessment of Technology MaturityDimensional Assessment of Technology Maturity

13 September 200713 September 2007

Presented byPresented byRobert E. McCartyRobert E. McCarty

SynGenics CorporationSynGenics [email protected]@SynGenics.Com

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 13 SEP 2007 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED 00-00-2007 to 00-00-2007

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Transitioning the Opportune Landing Site System to Initial Operating Capability

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) SynGenics Corporation,5190 Olentangy River Rd,Delaware,OH,43015

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES See also ADM002182. Presented at the AFRL Technology Maturity Conference held in Virginia Beach, VAon 11-13 September 2007.

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Same as

Report (SAR)

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

33

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

2

Co-Authors

US Army Engineer Research & Development Center

Dr. Charles Ryerson

BoeingRich Almassy

SynGenics CorporationCarol Ventresca

SynGenics CorporationBob McCarty

3

Outline

• OLS Program Overview

• Systems Engineering Support

• Technology Maturation Planning

• Conclusions

4

Outline

• OLS Program Overview

••• Systems Engineering SupportSystems Engineering SupportSystems Engineering Support

••• Technology Maturation PlanningTechnology Maturation PlanningTechnology Maturation Planning

••• ConclusionsConclusionsConclusions

5

OLS Program Overview

• Determine area/soil suitability forlanding or drop zone and trafficability

Benefits to the War FighterDescription

Technology• Multi-spectral - flat, dry, obstacle and

vegetation free• Soil type plus soil moisture automation

yields CBR

AMC: LZ and Drop Zones

Army: TrafficabilityAFSOC: Austere LZs

Technology Investment Schedule

• Enable remote surveys • Reduce threat exposure • Compress mission planning cycle • Fewer site visits • Reduce manpower

FY05 FY06 FY07FY04

Data Collections

Soil Type Automation

Military Utility Study

Soil Strength Algorithm Dev

Soil Strength Alg Validation

Algorithm Integration/Demo

6

OLS Program Objectives

• Enable Warfighter Access Anywhere in the Battlespace

• Provide Alternate Method of Site Evaluationo Sites Currently Evaluated Physically by Military

Personnel, Often under Hostile Conditions

o Reduce Initial Search Time

o Limit Number of Necessary Evaluations to Fewest Areas

o Eventually Eliminate Need for Physical Evaluations

• Enable Warfighter Access Anywhere in the Battlespace

• Provide Alternate Method of Site Evaluationo Sites Currently Evaluated Physically by Military

Personnel, Often under Hostile Conditions

o Reduce Initial Search Time

o Limit Number of Necessary Evaluations to Fewest Areas

o Eventually Eliminate Need for Physical Evaluations

7

OLS Program Overview

• Approach:o Test/Validate OLS Tool for Landing Suitability o Tie Landing Suitability with Soil and Weather

Models o Test/Validate OLS Signatures via Field Surveyso Demonstrate Capabilities of the OLS Systemo Perform a Military Utility Study to Determine

CONOPS • Product:

o Validated/Demonstrated Warfighter Tool• Schedule:

o August 2004 to September 2007o OLS Software Delivered at End of Program

– At Technology Readiness Level 5

• Approach:o Test/Validate OLS Tool for Landing Suitability o Tie Landing Suitability with Soil and Weather

Models o Test/Validate OLS Signatures via Field Surveyso Demonstrate Capabilities of the OLS Systemo Perform a Military Utility Study to Determine

CONOPS • Product:

o Validated/Demonstrated Warfighter Tool• Schedule:

o August 2004 to September 2007o OLS Software Delivered at End of Program

– At Technology Readiness Level 5

8

Current Operations

Tanker Airlift Control Center (TACC) Identifies Need to Operate Off Hard Surface


Special Tactics Team (STT) Makes Initial Cut


TACC Redefines OperationTACC Redefines Operation STT InputSTT Input

TACC Task for Site SurveyTACC Task for Site Survey STT Does SurveySTT Does Survey STT Report

ResultsSTT Report Results

TACC Evaluates ResultsTACC Evaluates Results

TACC Task MissionTACC Task Mission

STT Deploys for OperationSTT Deploys for Operation

(Green = Operations Done in Field)

TACC Tasks STT for OperationTACC Tasks STT for Operation

9

OLS Full Operational Capability




Special Tactics Special Tactics Special Tactics Team (STT) Team (STT) Team (STT) Makes Initial CutMakes Initial CutMakes Initial Cut

TACC Redefines OperationTACC Redefines TACC Redefines TACC Redefines OperationOperationOperation STT InputSTT InputSTT InputSTT Input

TACC Task for Site SurveyTACC Task for TACC Task for TACC Task for Site SurveySite SurveySite Survey STT Does SurveySTT Does Survey STT Report

ResultsSTT Report Results






OLS System OperatesOLS System Operates

10

OLS Future Operational Capability



STT Does SurveySTT Does SurveySTT Does SurveySTT Does Survey STT Report ResultsSTT Report STT Report STT Report ResultsResultsResults






OLS System OperatesOLS System Operates

11

Outline

••• OLS Program OverviewOLS Program OverviewOLS Program Overview

• Systems Engineering Support



12

Systems Engineering SupportSystems Engineering Tailored for S&T (SETFST)

Step 2:Generate AlternativesThat May Satisfy Desirements

Step 2:Generate AlternativesThat May Satisfy Desirements

Step 3:Evaluate Alternatives

Against Desirements

Step 3:Evaluate Alternatives

Against Desirements

Step 1:Negotiate Desirements

Step 1:Negotiate Desirements

Step 4:Document Results

Step 4:Document Results

•Value (Benefit)•Risk•Sensitivity•Feasible Solution Space

13

1. Negotiate Desirements

• Term “Desirement” More Effective than Traditional Requirement

o Better Able to Express Intent than Requirement

• Desirement Characterized byo Name and Descriptiono Unit of Measureo Definition of How it Will be Measuredo An Objective Value (Point of Full Customer Satisfaction)o A Limit Value Separating Acceptable from Unacceptable (Pass/Fail)o A Desirability Function (d-curve) Capability to ID Landing Sites

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

40 50 60 70 80 90 100Pr(Correct ID)

Desi

rabi

lity

14

• SETFST Alternatives Similar to Traditional Alternatives• Subject-Matter Experts Work Together to Conceptualize

Different Possible Solutions

2. Generate AlternativesThat May Satisfy Desirements

• Expected Outcomeso Mapped to Desirementso Translated to Desirability

Units

15

• Analysiso Evaluation of Alternatives with Rigorous Mathematicso Sensitivity Analysis Bounds Feasible Solution Spaceo Enables Exploration of Space for Best-Value Solutions

• Composite Desirability (D) for Evaluation of Alternativeso Alternative’s Ability to Satisfy Full Range of Desirementso Risk in Quantitative Termso Sensitivityo Failure for One Desirement Means Failure for All

• Sensitivity Analysis Shows Highly Leveraged Alternativeso Where Small Changes Deliver Large Changes in Results o Where Large Changes Produce Little Change in Results

3. Evaluate AlternativesAgainst Desirements

16

4. Document Results

• Depends Upon the Problem Under Study• Includes Information Decision-Maker Needs

o Feasible Solution Spaceo Value and Risk o Results of Sensitivity Analysiso Conclusions and Recommendations

• Usually Includes an Executable Program Plano At the Corporate Level, oro At the Technology Directorate Levelo At the Program Level

17

3a. Compute Desirability, RiskOptimize Best Alternative

=

where:

= Customer SatisfactionIndex for Concept A

= Probability of Failure toMeet Threshold for Concept A

3b. Explore Trade Space- Performance s Cost- Risk vs Cost- Sensitivities

4. Recommend/Document- Based on Desirability- Based on Risk

1. Negotiate Desirements

• Define Desirability vs How Measured and Threshold forEach Desirement

• Weight desirements to Signify Relative Importance

2. Generate Alternatives

- Design Concept A- Design Concept B

3. Evaluate Alt’s vs Desirements

• For Each Design- Estimate EXPECTED Performance

for Each desirement

- Estimate Performance“SPREAD” for Each Desirement

Concept A Concept B

•How Measuredvs Desirability

•Weighting•Threshold

Type 1- CostType 2 - Safety

Type 3 - Perform

How Measured

Desirability

1

0

Cost

• Concept B• Concept A

WGWGDGACSI

ACSI

A

How Measured

Cost

• Concept B

• Concept ACSI

Threshold

~ d

1

0

1

0

~ d

Expected Spread

Threshold Threshold1

0

1

0

Threshold

( )A = 1 – e-G

SETFST Process Overview

d-Limit

18

SETFST Goals for OLS Program

• Enable Successful 2007 Demonstrationo “M/S A Like” Decision for Technology Development

• Forge Tech Maturation Plan for Successful Transitiono “M/S B Like” Decision for System Development/

Demonstrationo “M/S C Like” Decision for Production and Deployment

19

OLS DesirementsFor Milestone A-Like Decision

For Technology Development

20

OLS DesirementsFor Milestone A-Like Decision

For Technology Development

• 8 Desirements Total• Including 4 Exit Criteria• 3 of Which are Key Performance Parameters (KPPs)

o Capability to Correctly ID Landing Siteso Capability to Correctly Determine Soil Strengtho Repeatabilityo Ability to Accept User-Defined Parameters (not a KPP)

21

OLS DesirementsFor Milestone B-Like Decision

For System Development and Demonstration


o Capability to Correctly ID Landing Siteso Capability to Correctly Determine Soil Strengtho Low Incidence of False Positiveso Repeatabilityo Ability to Accept User-Defined Parameters (not a KPP)o Degree of User Confidence Inspired (not a KPP)

22

OLS DesirementsFor Milestone C-Like Decision

For System Production and Deployment


o Too Numerous to List Hereo KPPs/Exit Criteria for M/S A and B Remain in this Set of

Desirementso Definition of Failure Becomes More Stringent for Later

Milestones– e.g. Capability to ID Landing Site

50% for Milestone A 85% for Milestone B 95% for Milestone C

23

Outline



• Technology Maturation Planning


24

OLS Tech Maturation Plan (TMP)

• OLS TMP Based on AFMC Instructiono Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) Programs

• Written Jointlyo Boeingo US Army Engineer and Research Development Center (ERDC)o SynGenics

• Outlines How to Enable Development Decision• Paints Long Range Vision for Production/Deployment• Guide for OLS Follow-On S&T Program Manager• Way Ahead for Acquisition Program Manager• Ensures Delivery of Best Value with Acceptable Risk

25

Technology Maturation Plan

• Technology Demonstration Plan

• Acquisition Strategy

• Technology and Transition Agent Bridge

• Deployment Strategy

• Signature Pages

26

Technology Demonstration PlanTypes of Maturity Measures

Programs Critical to OLSPrograms Critical to OLS

Technology Protection PlanTechnology Protection PlanProduct/Payoff/Exit CriteriaProduct/Payoff/Exit Criteria

FundingFundingTarget Acquisition ProgramsTarget Acquisition Programs

Risk AnalysisRisk AnalysisTech Tech DevelDevel Required for SDDRequired for SDD

Technology not DeliveredTechnology not DeliveredProgram ApproachProgram Approach

DeliverablesDeliverablesProgram ObjectiveProgram Objective

Major Technology MilestonesMajor Technology MilestonesRelevant Mission Area NeedsRelevant Mission Area Needs

Missions/Missions/PgmsPgms Supported by OLSSupported by OLSTechnology ParticipantsTechnology Participants

27

Acquisition StrategyTypes of Maturity Measures

TestTest

LogisticsLogisticsSystem Development and DemonstrationSystem Development and Demonstration

FinancialFinancialProjected Availability DatesProjected Availability Dates

BusinessBusinessCapability Requirements DocumentsCapability Requirements Documents

TechnicalTechnicalStakeholdersStakeholders

Functional StrategiesFunctional StrategiesTarget Acquisition ProgramsTarget Acquisition Programs

28

Outline




• Conclusions

29

Conclusions

• “Work Accomplished to Define Desirements Provided Direction for the OLS Program”

• “Helped Direct Team’s Efforts more Productively”o Both Comments by Boeing Principal Investigator

• SETFST Process Critical to Tech Mat Planningo Definition of Set of Key Desirements for Each Milestone

– Corresponding to Acquisition Life Cycle Decisions

o Many Aspects are Key to Effective Tech Mat Planning– Technology Maturity Assessment Has to be Multi-Dimensional

o Drove Team to Identify System Development Stakeholders

31

OLS DesirementsFor Milestone B-Like Decision

For System Development and Demonstration

32


For System Production and Deployment

33


For System Production and Deployment - Continued