A Systems Engineering Perspective on the Revised Defense Acquisition System

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has recently revised the defense acquisition system to address suspected root causes hindering higher success rates. This article applies two systems thinking methodologies in a uniquely integrated fashion to provide an in‐depth review and compelling interpretation of the revised defense acquisition system as put forth in January 7, 2015 DoDI 5000.02. Changes from the previous defense acquisition system are significant and may be cause for some cautious optimism in the United States. This article describes how the architects of the revised defense acquisition system have increased emphasis on systems engineering activities applied early in the lifecycle so that meaningful trade‐offs between capability requirements and lifecycle costs can be explored as requirements are being written to ensure realistic program baselines are established such that associated lifecycle costs will likely fit within future budgets. Expressed as emerging systems engineering research questions, this article identifies several gaps that are likely to emerge as the defense acquisition community attempts to execute the new acquisition system.

Measuring Perceived Risk of Pitfalls Associated with Systems Engineering Tradeoff Analyses

“…As discussed in the opening of this paper, increased systems engineering activity early in the life cycle is an exciting and necessary change for DoD but will likely prove insufficient if the systems engineers charged with executing the new elements of the process are not experienced, high performing, well trained, appropriately placed, and adequately equipped (Cilli, Parnell, Cloutier, & Zigh, 2015). The review of relevant literature and the survey of practitioners presented in this paper indicate that there is much to be done in order to position the systems engineering community so that the improved defense acquisition outcomes as envisioned by the architects of 2015 DoDI 5000.02 can be realized.…”

“…Unaffordable weapon systems are an unwanted acquisition outcome that received heightened attention in this latest instruction as can be seen in the fact that the word "affordability" appeared 108 times in the 2015 version of DoDI 5000.02 whereas affordability was mentioned only 4 times in the 2008 release. Increased systems engineering activity early in the life cycle is an exciting and necessary change but will likely prove insufficient if the systems engineers charged with executing the new elements of the process are not experienced, high performing, well trained, appropriately placed, and adequately equipped (Cilli, Parnell, Cloutier, & Zigh, 2015). This paper explores the degree to which the systems engineering community is prepared to execute the new DoD instruction, first through a review of relevant literature and then through a survey of practitioners.…”

“…One of the major changes in the revised acquisition system is an increased emphasis on systems engineering trade-offs made between capability requirements and lifecycle costs early in the acquisition process (Cilli, Parnell, Cloutier, & Zigh, 2015). Given that systems engineering trade-off analyses will play a pivotal role in future defense acquisition efforts, this paper takes an in-depth look at the state of systems engineering trade-off analysis capability through a review of relevant literature and a survey of systems engineering professionals and military operations research professionals involved in defense acquisition.…”

A systems perspective on contact centers and customer service reliability modeling

“…Systemigram is a systems methodology that identifies and represents key elements of systems as a network made up of parts (nodes) and relationships (links). They provide an understandable representation of complex systems and have been successfully implemented in a variety of domains and problems …”

“…They provide an understandable representation of complex systems and have been successfully implemented in a variety of domains and problems. 41,53,54 Figure 2 depicts the systemigram built for the customer support system. Nodes in yellow constitute the mainstay, which articulates the motivation of the model for the strategic intent, its mission, or how it may be accomplished.…”