Much as the Army did with the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), performing detailed systems engineering before product development is the most effective way to shorten platform development and curb cost, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office.
GAO performed case studies of nine development programs from across the Defense Department and found that those with systems engineering done before preliminary design generally adhered to development timelines and budget goals.
The JLTV, along with the Small Diameter Bomb increment I (SDB I) and KC-46A aerial refueling tanker, each included service-specific requirements that posed challenges to industry teams designing platforms. In those programs “steps were taken to identify and retire risks through detailed systems engineering, which enabled development of sound business cases before product development began,” the GAO report, published Nov. 17, said.
“In these cases, the government and the prime contractor conducted systems engineering to decompose the requirements and identify an allocated baseline by the time they started product development,” the report said. “As a result, the programs established cost and schedule baselines that were well informed, contributing to relatively good outcomes.”
The Army, with the Marine Corps in tow, began JLTV product development in 2012 with a detailed systems engineering phase. Three contractors worked with the Army to refine the vehicle’s requirements before beginning an incremental source selection eventually won by Oshkosh Defense. Using mature technologies incorporated into prototype vehicle designs produced and tested by Oshkosh, the Army initially sought basic improvements over the Humvee’s force protection, fuel efficiency and payload while other upgrades to performance and lethality would come later.
“As a result, the prime contractor was able to identify an allocated baseline and provide a mature product based on a demonstrated design at the start of development,” GAO found. “With the bulk of the systems engineering done before development started, the JLTV program had taken steps to reduce risk and enable a sound business case that reflected a realistic understanding of the challenge it faced.”
Thus far, Oshkosh and the Army have reduced overall development cost by 6 percent, GAO found. The vehicle delivery schedule has increased nine months, but that delay was caused by a lengthy award protest process instigated by a losing contractor.
The report juxtaposes the relative success of JLTV with other programs that did not follow a tidy path from requirements generation to development and production. Paladin Integrated Management (PIM), as is recognizable from its title, began as a service life extension to replace the fire-control system and power plant of the legacy Paladin M109A6. What began as a relatively minor upgrade effort with systems engineering in 2007 eventually morphed into a major defense acquisition program by 2011. By that time the army had added force-protection and survivability requirements and a cannon culled from the defunct Future Combat Systems.
“These changes essentially resulted in a new design versus an upgrade, and the associated costs increased enough to make PIM a major defense acquisition program,” GAO found.
A worse example is development of the integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) system, which would link sensors, weapons and common command and control system into a modular, deployable network of air defense capabilities.
Some systems engineering was done at the outset of product development, but IAMD’s “business case was critically dependent on sensors and weapons that had been developed and managed as separate programs,” GAO found.
Adding to the complexity, the Army made significant changes to system requirements within a year of launching product development that caused changes to how the various component systems would interact. Those and other changes have caused development costs to balloon by 60 percent and resulted in a rebaslining that pushed initial operational capability back by two years, GAO said.
GAO is calling on Congress to require updates on major program engineering status by way of systems engineering plans (SEP) in every annual budget request beginning with the year in which development funds are first requested.
“The information could be presented on a simple timeline … and at a minimum should reflect the status of a program’s functional and allocated baselines as contained in the most current version of the program’s systems engineering plan,” the report says.
In a response to GAO’s findings published in the report, Defense Department officials agreed that early systems engineering work reduces overall risk and provides “ a solid foundation for success.”
“However, the Department does not agree that the systems engineering plan (SEP) is the most effective means to provide Congress with insight into the program’s risk,” DoD said in its official response. “The Department believes that current certification requirements provide a more relevant tool for this purpose.”