Costs of Achieving Software Technology Readiness

Similar documents
Jerome Tzau TARDEC System Engineering Group. UNCLASSIFIED: Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release. 14 th Annual NDIA SE Conf Oct 2011

Technology Readiness Assessment of Department of Energy Waste Processing Facilities: When is a Technology Ready for Insertion?

Manufacturing Readiness Assessments of Technology Development Projects

TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT: INCREASING THE VALUE OF TECHNOLOGY READINESS ASSESSMENT (TRA)

Air Force Research Laboratory

GAO Technology Readiness Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Evaluating and Managing Technology Risk in Capital Acquisition Programs

Program Success Through SE Discipline in Technology Maturity. Mr. Chris DiPetto Deputy Director Developmental Test & Evaluation October 24, 2006

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course. Lesson 2.2 Selecting the Best Technical Alternative. Selecting the Best Technical Alternative

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA) Deskbook

Reliability Growth Models Using System Readiness Levels

Contents. Executive Summary... ES-1

DMTC Guideline - Technology Readiness Levels

TRLs and MRLs: Supporting NextFlex PC 2.0

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment Overview

Unclassified: Distribution A. Approved for public release

Introduction to Software Engineering (Week 1 Session 2)

A System Maturity Index for Decision Support in Life Cycle Acquisition

Technology Readiness for the Smart Grid

UNIT-III LIFE-CYCLE PHASES

ROI of Technology Readiness Assessments Using Real Options: An Analysis of GAO Data from 62 U.S. DoD Programs by David F. Rico

Readiness Assessment for Video Cell Phones SE 602

Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) and Manufacturing Readiness Assessments (MRAs)

Systems Engineering Process

Transitioning Technology to Naval Ships. Dr. Norbert Doerry Technical Director, SEA 05 Technology Group SEA05TD

Lesson 17: Science and Technology in the Acquisition Process

Technology & Manufacturing Readiness RMS

2 August 2017 Prof Jeff Craver So you are Conducting a Technology Readiness Assessment? What to Know

Presented at the 2017 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop. TRL vs Percent Dev Cost Final.pptx

Technology Transition Assessment in an Acquisition Risk Management Context

Training Briefing for the Conduct of Technology Readiness Assessments

Commercial vs. Government Satellite Cost Drivers

Flexibility for in Space Propulsion Technology Investment. Jonathan Battat ESD.71 Engineering Systems Analysis for Design Application Portfolio

Technology readiness applied to materials for fusion applications

SPACE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS: IT S NOT JUST ABOUT THE ALGORITHMS

ARTES Competitiveness & Growth Full Proposal. Requirements for the Content of the Technical Proposal. Part 3B Product Development Plan

Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) Manufacturing Readiness Assessments (MRAs)

Vector-Based Metrics for Assessing Technology Maturity

Technology Evaluation. David A. Berg Queen s University Kingston, ON November 28, 2017

Manufacturing Readiness Level Deskbook

Department of Energy Technology Readiness Assessments Process Guide and Training Plan

NASA s Strategy for Enabling the Discovery, Access, and Use of Earth Science Data

Administrative Change to AFRLI , Science and Technology (S&T) Systems Engineering (SE) and Technical Management

NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture (NSOSA) Study Update

Debrief of Dr. Whelan s TRL and Aerospace & R&D Risk Management. L. Waganer

Open Architecture Summit 2017 Industry Panel: Getting Everyone On Board

A Knowledge-Centric Approach for Complex Systems. Chris R. Powell 1/29/2015

A New Approach to the Design and Verification of Complex Systems

Are Rapid Fielding and Good Systems Engineering Mutually Exclusive?

Where does architecture end and technology begin? Rami Razouk The Aerospace Corporation

Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) Manufacturing Readiness Assessments (MRAs) In an S&T Environment

Instrumentation, Controls, and Automation - Program 68

APPLICATION OF INTEGRATION READINESS LEVEL IN ASSESSING TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION RISKS IN A DOD ACQUISITION PROGRAM

Test & Evaluation Strategy for Technology Development Phase

NASA Cost Symposium Multivariable Instrument Cost Model-TRL (MICM-TRL)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION. Multiagent Systems mjw/pubs/imas/

Software Maintenance Cycles with the RUP

Ground Systems Department

Read the selection and choose the best answer to each question. Then fill in the answer on your answer document. Science Time

Construction & Resource Utilization explorer (CRUX): Regolith Characterization using a Modular Instrument Suite and Analysis Tools

Stakeholder and process alignment in Navy installation technology transitions

James Bilbro 1, Cornelius Dennehy 2, Prasun Desai 3, Corinne Kramer 4, William Nolte 5, Richard Widman 6, Richard Weinstein 7

Other Transaction Authority (OTA)

Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Business Case Considerations An Enabler of Risk Reduction

Michael Gaydar Deputy Director Air Platforms, Systems Engineering

Dream Chaser Frequently Asked Questions

Technology readiness evaluations for fusion materials science & technology

Tutorial - Track 8: The Effective Use of System and Software Architecture Standards for Software Technology Readiness Assessments

The Virtual Spacecraft Reference Facility

Systems Engineering Overview. Axel Claudio Alex Gonzalez

2017 AIR FORCE CORROSION CONFERENCE Corrosion Policy, Oversight, & Processes

DMSMS Management: After Years of Evolution, There s Still Room for Improvement

COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BEST PRACTICES Richard Van Atta

COTS and automotive EEE parts in Space Programs: Thales Alenia Space Return of Experience

DUSD (S&T) Software Intensive Systems

HF ALE 2G, 3G and Wideband Some System Integration Perspectives. HFIA - Brussels September 2015 DR ANDREW F R GILLESPIE THALES UK

Reducing Manufacturing Risk Manufacturing Readiness Levels

Software Technology Readiness for the Smart Grid

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT IN DOD ACQUISITION

Our Acquisition Challenges Moving Forward

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Architecture Standards for Software Technology Readiness Assessments

Christopher J. Scolese NASA Associate Administrator

Design and Operation of Micro-Gravity Dynamics and Controls Laboratories

Final Project Report. Abstract. Document information. ADS-B 1090 Higher Performance Study. Project Number Deliverable ID

PACE Science Definition Team Kickoff Meeting. Paula Bontempi, Betsy Edwards, Eric Ianson, Hal Maring, Woody

SESAR EXPLORATORY RESEARCH. Dr. Stella Tkatchova 21/07/2015

Software-Intensive Systems Producibility

Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - ISPA-SCEA 2007

Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective

Cost Estimation as an Intensive Human Interactive Systems Engineering Problem

TRL Corollaries for Practice-Based Technologies

University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries. Digital Preservation Policy, Version 1.3

System Architecture Module Exploration Systems Engineering, version 1.0

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT FY12 TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION MISSIONS PROGRAM OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST PROPOSALS DUE.

MICROGRAVITY RESEARCH ABOARD THE ISS

DRAFT. February 2007 DRAFT. Prepared by the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel Manufacturing Readiness Level Working Group

Exploration Systems Research & Technology

Science Achievement Level Descriptors STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION GRADE 5

TECHNOLOGY CHOICES NEIL HORDEN CHIEF CONSULTANT FEDERAL ENGINEERING, INC. August 13, Copyright 2017 by Federal Engineering, Inc.

DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEE SELF-ASSESSMENT. Outcomes and Enablers

Transcription:

Costs of Achieving Software Technology Readiness Arlene Minkiewicz Chief Scientist 17000 Commerce Parkway Mt. Laure, NJ 08054 arlene.minkiewicz@pricesystems.com 856-608-7222

Agenda Introduction Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and Technology Readiness Assessments (TRAs) Software TRL Software TRL Challenges Software TRL Costs Conclusions

Introduction Complex systems require technology innovations to achieve sophisticated missions TRLs are used by NASA and DoD to assess the maturity of evolving technologies prior to using it in a system or subsystem Technology needs to reach a specified level of maturity before development on systems can begin The cost community needs to understand the cost impact associated with maturing technology required to meet program or mission requirements

Introduction (cont) The definition and applications is very focused on hardware Software is different Not as obvious what software technology means Software brings infinite possibilities for advancement of state of the art but these possibilities require the right mix of.. Hardware Tools People Processes Identifying the critical elements of software technology can be problematic

Technology Readiness Levels Technology readiness is hard for most of us to grasp Our experiences with technology are with fully matured technology In 1960 s President Kennedy challenged the US to land on the moon in that century At the time there were no solutions to solve problems such as Reaching earth orbit Travel to the moon Survival in space New technology needed to be invented!

Technology Readiness Levels NASA developed, institutionalized, service adopted similar levels TRLs generalized 1. An idea 2. Idea good and useful 3. Idea is possible 4. Idea presents realistic solution 5. Alpha 6. Beta 7. Release candidate quality 8. Gold release 9. Used successfully in target environment NASA TRLs

Technology Readiness Assessments Document prior to system design and development that the acquisition is technically feasible DoD requires for Acquisition Category 1 (ACAT1) programs at Milestones A and B

Technology Readiness Assessment Identification of Critical Technology Elements (CTEs) New or novel technology Technology to operate in environment different from any previous Recommended that CTEs line up with Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Each CTE is evaluated for technology readiness and assigned a TRL Maturation plans are developed for immature CTEs

Software TRL According to Robert Gold, there are five distinct ways software can be evaluated for technology readiness Unprecedented functionality are the algorithms being implemented new or novel Off the shelf (OTS) components has OTS capability been proven in intended environment Enabling run time what besides the software itself (hardware, operating system functionality, middleware) is new, novel or unproven Aggregation of components are components that are not critical on their own gain criticality if their interactions prevent critical components to succeed Enabling development - is the success of a component dependent on immature technology for implementation

Software TRL Challenges TRLs as initially developed are hardware focused The Army has developed software TRL definitions but there are still areas of potential confusion Software components are considered CTEs if the algorithms they deliver are new and novel, but there are also other things to consider Off the shelf software Aging software Supporting hardware and software

Off the shelf capability IT applications are composed mostly of off the shelf applications Off the shelf components are assumed to be mature by their very nature they are used in the field There are maturity issues that will make the OTS capability a CTE candidate Technology not proven in intended operating environment Interoperability of multiple OTS capabilities Additionally COTS products generally undergo a new release every 8 to 9 months with support for 3 latest releases. Does TRL persist once established

Aging Software Software never stops changing, when its off the shelf software this fact is exacerbated According to J. D. Smith, COTS products generally Undergo new release every 8 to 9 months Have active vendor support for 3 releases Interfaces and interoperability issues may occur with new release COTS vendors sometimes retire solutions with new and improved alternative, sometime no alternative at all

Supporting hardware and software Software does not stand alone Requires hardware to execute Requires software for support (Operating system, Databases, etc) Software itself may not be a CTE but consideration needs to be given to. IT that supports the software Interfaces with software systems that support the software Legacy capability when backward compatibility is crucial

Software TRL Costs Even when some of the technology is immature, there needs to be a plan for the program Modeling techniques can be used to analyze costs of moving from a low TRL to the point where its ready for development Analysis is partitioned into 3 part Costs for theoretical studies to prove a concept (TRL 1-4) Costs for development of the technology (TRL 6-8) Costs for development and production of the system incorporating new technology with existing technology

Product Breakdown Structure for Technology Maturity Progression

From TRL 1 to 4 Paper studies and laboratory experiments Limited set of activities need to be accomplished Requirements analysis and high level design (1-2) Some low level design and code development (3-4) Cost driver recommendations Size reflects new technology only based on assessment of desired capability through analogous experience New design high Complexity high Operating environment not important External integration not important

From TRL 4 to 6 Technology is developed and tested in lab and operational like environments Additional activities Coding and unit test occurs Integration and test of new technology or COTS product with mature technologies and legacy capabilities If hardware or other IT represents CTEs for software, hw/sw integration should be included Cost driver recommendations Size of new technology should be less new and more reused or modified Size of elements or OTS that are integration critical important New design for new technology reduced Operating environment is important External integration is important

Beyond TRL 6 More of a traditional estimate from this point on Cost driver recommendations New technology should be modified or reused, not new New design for new technology should be low Integration complexities lower for integrations already tested Take credit for experience of personnel if applicable

Costs and activity spread

Conclusions It is important that projects respect the risks associated with new technologies and use TRAs to mitigate these risks Software is increasingly called upon to deliver new technology presenting new CTE identification challenges beyond new and novel Off the shelf software Aging software Supporting hardware and software Once CTEs have been identified, parametric estimating techniques exist to estimate the costs of maturing and using new software technologies