Agile development and Cost of UAV A personal opinion from ... · aeronautics major Dassault...

Agile development and Cost of UAVA persona l opinion fromPa ul Ba guley with the he lp from Collea gues

Structure

• Agile Examples• Notional Cost Estimates• Agile Concepts• Cost Engineering in Agility• UAV information• Obsolescence• Affordability• Uncertainty Methodology• Some models of Agility• Qualitative indicator of cost

Cranfield Previous Projects dra wn on

• Product Service Systems• Uncertainty• Obsolescence• Affordability• Uncertainty in Cost Estimates during

Manufacturing• NECTISE (Networked Enabled Capability Through

Innovative Systems Engineering)• This is a personal opinion from Paul Baguley only

Agility has different fa ces

• Agility forum at Iacocca Institute, Lehigh University, in the USA in 1991

• For software development is: Initially blend of lean management principles and Flexible Manufacturing System technologies (Vinodh et al 2010)

Vinodh, S. , Sundararaj, G. , Devadasan, S. R. and Rajanayagam, D.(2009) 'TADS-ABC: a system forcosting total agile design system', International Journal of Production Research, 47: 24, 6941 — 6966

Lehigh University, 4 points of Agility

• Enriching customers, Products versus Solutions• Mastering Change and Uncertainty, Entrepeneurial

Organisation• Cooperating to enhance competitiveness, Virtual

Organisation• Leveraging the impact of people and information

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inesc/index_files/Page1266.htm

Overall less uncertainty in manufacturing costs?Reduced development costs for new capabilities?

Sunday Times

• Nevertheless, the principles for such a transition are clear enough. Investment in thenew technologies of command and control, communication and surveillance, of seeingand interpreting the operational space clearly and getting the right forces to where theyare needed, should take precedence over investment in weapons platforms. Smartcommand is more important than smart weapons in almost any military operation.

• At the other end of the scale, the skills and training of the personnel—the soldiers, thesailors, the airmen and women—are also critical to "transformative" forces. Their abilityto adapt and maintain their high professionalism and dedication in a range of roles andwith a variety of technologies is key to playing to British strengths. The challenge is toproduce military units that can master the integration of systems, make the most of civiltechnologies and restructure their own organisations flexibly, as occasion demands.

• Not least, "transformative" armed forces should be backed up by excellent intelligence.All military commanders want good tactical intelligence to give them the greatestadvantage. A bigger national challenge is to invest in better strategic intelligence todetect shifts in Britain's security environment in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere.Raw information is not intelligence. The intelligence picture must be expertly interpretedand then acted upon. The most transformative military in the world cannot rescue adefence policy that is not politically sensitive to its own neighbourhood.

Our most devastating weapon is agility; THINK TANK NEW IDEAS FOR THE 21ST CENTURYThe services must get smarter to cope with today's threats, says Michael ClarkeMichael Clarke 882 words24 January 2010The Sunday Times

Higher training costs

Agility Examples

• “The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) has announced on November 8,2007, that its MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is readyfor service and flying operations in Afghanistan. One of the threepurchased under an urgent operational requirements in 2006, thegeneral Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc (GAASI) Reaper arrived inAfghanistan in October 2007. The rapid acquisition and deployment ofReaper is considered by the UK Ministry of Defence as a successfuldemonstration of the flexibility and agility of its procurement process.Reaper is tasked with providing an all-weather, persistent intelligence,surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) capabilityover a wide area to improve the situational awareness for groundtroops. Reaper is also equipped with Raytheon's AN/DAS-1Multispectral Targeting System and GSSAI's AN/APY-8 Lynx 1synthetic aperture radar with a ground moving-target indicator mode”.

Jane’s Defence Weekly November 2007 MJ Gething

Background Information a bout UAVs a nd Cost

In Europe achieving excellence in autonomous systems is challenging in the following projects:

• Neuron: a multilateral European project led by French aeronautics major Dassault Aviation;

• Taranis: the UK newcomer being developed by BAE Systems; and

• Barracuda: a German-Spanish bilateral project developed by EADS Germany, suspended in late 2007 following the loss of a prototype.

UAV SURVEYAnonymousFlight International; Aug 7-Aug 13, 2007; 172, 5099; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industrypg. 22

US Air Force Remotely Piloted AircraftAnd un-manned aerial vehicle: strategic vision

Agile Support Project Mary Ann Clement PM Jan 1999

Levels of AgilityMa ckley e t a l from NECTISE


Example• The current prototype has a single engine and a swept W-shaped

wing, similar to the American B-2 Sprint strategic bomber. The plane, to a scale three quarters the size of the future operational UCAV, measures 9.3 metres in length with a 12.5 metre wingspan. Take-off weight is estimated at 5-6.5 tonnes. It is a subsonic craft (Mach 08.5) with endurance of some 12 hours.

• Agile support strategies include : the development of a real time maintenance network (investment cost), resupply of key suppliers using commercial business techniques and strategic business relationships (lower costs), and reduced inventories of spare parts (lower cash flow).




SEER-H exa mple estima te UAV

Agile Manufacturing Models

Agile Design Model

Agile Software DevelopmentModels

Agile Maintenance

Agile Operations, NetworkEnabled Capability

PRICE Systems example

Agile Concepts from the lite ra ture :Ma nufa cturing

• Taxonomy of types of manufacturing agility being basically quick, responsive, pro-active (Zhang 2010)

• Workforce agility modelled using the real options method. Maintain workforce capacity per unit of production (Qin and Nembhard 2010)

• Agility index in the supply chain (Lin et al 2006) (e.g. The Agile Drivers are: customer requirement, competition criteria, market, technological innovation)

More Research & Developent Investment Costs?

Structure of Agility Concepts in the Supply Cha in

Lin et al 2006

Agile Concepts from the lite ra ture :Ma nufa cturing

• Business case decision models for agile manufacturing plants in the automotive industry (Elkins 2004)

• Supply chain flexibility in the construction sector using pools of suppliers through framework agreement, preferred suppliers and approved suppliers(Gosling et al 2009)

• Supply chain risk through characteristics, performance and the environment (Trkman and McCormack (2009))

Skewed cost risk profiles in supply costs to more probable lower costs and less risks

Cost Engineering of Agility

• Activity Based Costing example next slides• CoSosimo University of Southern California for cost

of System of Systems

Need more information sources to cost Agility, hence cost of cost estimates greater

Total Agile Design System (TADS) ABC

• Agile manufacturing electronic switches• Agile manufacturing (“customers reactions and pro-

active participations”, “data technology”, then Quality Function Deployment, CAD, CAM, rapid protoyping, then mass customisation)


Total Agile Design Systems (TADS ABC)


Total Agile Design Systems (TADS ABC)


PSS-Cost Project

Researcher: Francisco Romero Rojo

Supervisors: Prof Rajkumar RoyDr Essam Shehab

Project Manager: Dr Kalyan Cheruvu

7th Joint Obsolescence Management Working Group

(JOMWG)

11th May 2010

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/�

Identify Obsolescence issues for the a gile e tc a nd UAV technologies (FR)

• Obsolescence issues in communications system between UAV and ground stations.

• Evolution of network architectures and technologies• Backwards compatibility?• Modularity to simplify upgrades?

• Avionics short lifecycle

Identify Obsolescence issues for the a gile e tc a nd UAV technologies (FR)

• Agile development gets rid of obsolete components but it may have an impact on the rest of the system redesigns

• Agile designs are flexible, so the impact of obsolescence is reduced.

Obsolescence issues for the UAV technologies

• Air vehicle• Structure

• Wing – Structural Materials obsolescence• Empennage – Structural Materials obsolescence• Fuselage – Structural Materials obsolescence• Secondary Structure – Structural Materials

obsolescence• Alighting Gear – Structural Materials obsolescence• Engine Section – Structural Materials obsolescence• Air Induction – Structural Materials obsolescence


• Propulsion• Engine – Materials & EEE obsolescence• Fuel System – Materials & EEE obsolescence

• Systems• Aircraft Com Nav – EEE & S/W obsolescence• Aircraft Flight Controls – EEE & S/W obsolescence• Harnesses – Materials obsolescence• Hydraulic/Pneumatic – EEE & Materials

obsolescence


• Payload• Antenna – Materials obsolescence• Antenna Electronics – EEE obsolescence• Payload Electronics – Materials obsolescence• CPU – EEE obsolescence• Harnesses – Materials obsolescence


• Ground Components• Tactical Ground Mobile Unit

• Humvee Vehicle (High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle) – EEE & Materials obsolescence

• Electronic Gear• Flight Control CPU – EEE & S/W obsolescence• Flight Data CPU – EEE & S/W obsolescence• Mission CPU– EEE & S/W obsolescence


• Electronic Gear• Flight Transmitters Receivers – EEE obsolescence• Mission Transmitters Receivers – EEE

obsolescence• Antenna Electronics – EEE obsolescence• Antenna – Materials obsolescence

• Launcher• Launcher – Materials obsolescence

Agile Support Concepts

Agility in support: • A telemaintenance system that has been put in place to link up the operational and flight test bases with the• Teledyne Ryan Action Center and its key suppliers.• An automated fault diagnostics capability used for troubleshooting, consisting of expert systems and

integrated database and digital images of the problem areas.• Supplier strategic partnering consisting of electronic web-based procurement of spares and supplier

agreements for rapid spares delivery. (from the Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program)

Agile techniques:• Strategic Partnering• Multi-tier Purchasing Agreements• Vendor Certifications• Delivery to Point of Use• Vendor Base Consolidations• Networked Information Systems and• Resource Planning• Rapid Supply Chain Contracting• Electronic Data Interchanges




More Knowledge and Automated SupportRequires investment in Maintenance Technologies

Faults detected and solved better, less maintenance operating costs


In Europe achieving excellence in autonomous systems is challenging in the following projects:

• Neuron: a multilateral European project led by French aeronautics major Dassault Aviation;

• Taranis: the UK newcomer being developed by BAE Systems; and

• Barracuda: a German-Spanish bilateral project developed by EADS Germany, suspended in late 2007 following the loss of a prototype.




Literature Source on UAV costs

manned systems, life-cycle operating and maintenance costs may be significantly less. For example, operator training potentially can be conducted using robust mission simulators, reducing or eliminating the need for dedicated training flights with the actual aircraft. Reduced use of the aircraft for training results in less maintenance and greater availability for operational use. Based on recent studies and current projected funding levels, there is no need for large increases in research and development funding in the area of low-observabilitytechnology. Unmanned systems can use a combination of current low-observable technology, electronic countermeasures, active defenses, and high-altitude flight to achieve a level of protection comparable to advanced manned systems. However, propulsion technologies and technologies that enable autonomous operation, including robust human-machine interfaces for operator situational awareness and system oversight, require increased emphasis; many of the potential attributes of





unmanned systems can only be realized through advances in these areas that are not currently programmed or fully funded. Unmanned systems, with their long loiter times, are collecting vast amounts of imagery, but there is currently no Air Force policy or methodology for retaining or aggregating this data. Each unit is developing policies for archiving and eventually disposing of the images they take. This increases local costs for hardware and manpower without a firm basis in requirements. The Air Force must work with DoD to establish policy for image reconnaissance data disposition in order to drive down these costs. Tradespace is a significant challenge that unmanned systems will face as manned and unmanned systems both grow in cost and complexity. The challenge is in finding the proper mix of manned and unmanned systems in a “revenue-neutral” environment; the result may be a lower number of total systems. Addressing this challenge requires innovative thinking. For example, when designing new RPAs and UAVs, the Air Force and other Services should consider whether a larger number of small, inexpensive systems could provide the same or better capability provided by a smaller number of larger, more expensive.

Policy Costs?





The application of Agile support concepts to the Global Hawk program results in a $22-million decreaseto the overall life-cycle cost of the program, while contributing to a 20-percent increase in operationalavailability. (From the Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program)

UAVs come in two varieties: some are controlled from a remote location, and others fly autonomously based on pre-programmed flight plans using more complex dynamic automation systems.

Classifying UAV’S

• They can also be categorised in terms of range/altitude and the following has been advanced as relevant at such industry events as ParcAberporth Unmanned Systems forum:

• Handheld 2,000 ft (600 m) altitude, about 2 km range• Close 5,000 ft (1,500 m) altitude, up to 10 km range• NATO type 10,000 ft (3,000 m) altitude, up to 50 km range• Tactical 18,000 ft (5,500 m) altitude, about 160 km range• MALE (medium altitude, long endurance) up to 30,000 ft (9,000 m) and range over

200 km• HALE (high altitude, long endurance) over 30,000 ft (9,100 m) and indefinite range• HYPERSONIC high-speed, supersonic (Mach 1–5) or hypersonic (Mach 5+) 50,000 ft

(15,200 m) or suborbital altitude, range over 200 km• ORBITAL low earth orbit (Mach 25+)• CIS Lunar Earth-Moon transfer• CACGS Computer Assisted Carrier Guidance System for UAVs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParcAberporth�

Technology in UAV’s

• Autonomy technology that is important to UAV development falls under the following categories:

• Sensor fusion: Combining information from different sensors for use on board the vehicle• Communications: Handling communication and coordination between multiple agents in the

presence of incomplete and imperfect information• Path planning: Determining an optimal path for vehicle to go while meeting certain objectives

and mission constraints, such as obstacles or fuel requirements• Trajectory Generation (sometimes called Motion planning): Determining an optimal control

maneuver to take to follow a given path or to go from one location to another• Trajectory Regulation: The specific control strategies required to constrain a vehicle within

some tolerance to a trajectory• Task Allocation and Scheduling: Determining the optimal distribution of tasks amongst a

group of agents, with time and equipment constraints• Cooperative Tactics: Formulating an optimal sequence and spatial distribution of activities

between agents in order to maximize chance of success in any given mission scenario

Less costs for sensors integration Because of interoperability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_fusion�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_planning�

An example cost estimate for ma nufa cturing

• The RQ-4 Global Hawk produced by the American company Northrop Grumman is a high altitude long endurance (HALE) UAV. It has a unit cost of 35 million dollars and can fly for 36 hours at 20 000 metres altitude. 14.5 metres long and with a wingspan of 39 metres, it has a maximum weight of 14.6 tonnes ("Euro Hawk"). It is the first UAV to have crossed the Pacific from the United States to Australia (in 22 hours, in 2001). Known in Europe as "Euro Hawk", this model was the fruit of cooperation between Northrop Grumman and EADS. www.luftwaffe.de

• Taranis is about the practical implementation of the concepts developed in the framework of those various projects:

• Replica: stealth combat aircraft project conducted in the framework of the "Future Offensive Air Systems" (FOAS) programme in order to develop British stealth technologies. Following a five-year research effort a full-scale prototype was built in 1999 for a total cost of 20 million pounds. In 2005, FOAS was replaced by a new programme called "Future Combat Air Capability" (FCAC). The UK also has access, through its participation in the F-35 Lightning II-Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, to the more advanced American research in the area of stealth.

http://www.luftwaffe.de/�

Potential investment in UAVs

• Notwithstanding these qualities, however, UCAV systems are not at the top of the list of priorities when it comes to modernising and replacing European air fleets, a fact which is reflected in the sums invested in the three programmes - Neuron, Taranis and Barracuda -amounting to 500 to 600 million euros over five or six years.

• This may not have happened yet, but the matter deserves to be given thought, particularly in the context of Europe's regularly declining population rates and tight defence budgets, which are no longer sufficient to pay for all the major land, air, naval but also space equipment programmes that are under way or planned for the coming years. The aeronautical sector is particularly at risk, because production series are smaller and states can no longer really afford to buy hundreds of aircraft at a unit cost of 40 to 50 million euros.

UAV market segments

- R&D, tests and evaluation- Unmanned Air Vehicles- Payloads- Ground Control Systems- Service, support and maintenance- Training- Data management- Revenues by UAV Groups (by vehicle airspeed, weight, and operating altitude)

Affordability

Customer Affordability

Manufacturer Profitability

Supplier Sustainability

Investigate the concept of Affordability from 3 perspectives:

Dimensions of Supplier Sustainability

Dimensions and measures of Supplier Sustainability

Supplier Sustainability

Delivery & Quality – refers to the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy customer need which make it fitness for purpose. (SC21, 2009, Whicker et al., 2009).

- Agility to respond to customer requirement change is the ability to respond to short-term changes in demand or supply quickly and handles external disruptions smoothly. This is measured by the speed of supplier’s response as seen below.

MeasureScore Definition1 responds to short-term changes quickly and maintain

quality3 responds to short-term changes gradually and maintain

quality5 responds to short-term changes slowly

Lee et al (2005), control system for a gile ma nufa cturing

• Standard interfaces, modularity• “respond rapidly and flexibly to volume changes, speed up

model turnover, facilitate equipment upgrading”• “respond rapidly and flexibly to unpredictable market

demands”• “flexibility, reconfigurability, re-usability”• “new functions and process technology to be rapidly

integrated”• Physical, Functional, Knowledge modularity

Lee, S.M., Harrison, R., and West, A.A., (2005), “A component based control system for agile manufacturing”,Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture, pp.123-135

Decrease overall cost of new developments throughModular design

Agile Manufacturing Crite ria

Vinodh, S. , Sundararaj, G. , Devadasan, S. R. , Maharaja, R. , Rajanayagam, D. and Goyal, S. K.(2008)'DESSAC: a decision support system for quantifying and analysing agility', International Journal of Production Research,46: 23, 6759 — 6780

Increasing or Decreasing Uncerta intie s(Pa rekh e t a l 2010)

• Correlation uncertainty decreased• Skews to lower costs

Bid In-service phase Disposal

• Bid cost• Exchangerate

• Revenue• Affordability

• Turnaround time• Tooling• Repair cost• Technology RefreshRequirements

• Operational cost• Spares cost• Obsolescence

Resolution

• Disposal cost• Disposal strategy• Environmental Legislation

Evolution of Uncertainty from Service Bid to Disposal (Erkoyuncu et al., 2010)

Time

Sources of uncertaintyService demand uncertainty Service supply uncertaintyType Nature Type Nature

Reliability Aleatory Mean Time to Repair

Aleatory-Epistemic

Availability Aleatory Supply Chain: Capacity, Capability

Aleatory-Epistemic

Mean Time Between Failure

Aleatory Human Involvement

Epistemic

Scope of Service Epistemic-Aleatory Fault Freeness EpistemicDelivery Urgency Aleatory Responsiveness Aleatory

Differences Across Customer Demand

Aleatory Repair Time Aleatory

Maintainability Epistemic-Aleatory Maintenance requirement

Aleatory

Obsolescence Epistemic-Aleatory Stock level Epistemic

Sources of uncertainty in service delivery (Erkoyuncu et al., 2010)

Classification Source Type ExampleData Uncertainty Variability Inherent randomness Aleatory Repair time, Mean

Time Between FailureStatistical error Lack of data Epistemic and aleatory Reliability data

Vagueness Linguistic uncertainty Epistemic and aleatory The component needsto be replaced aboutevery 2 to 3 months.

Ambiguity Multiple sources ofdata

Epistemic Expert 1 and expert 2provides differentvalues to end-of-lifecosts.

Subjective judgement Optimism bias Epistemic Over confidence inschedule allocation.

Imprecision Future decision orchoice

Epistemic Supplier A or B

Model Uncertainty Intuitive/expert opinion Judgement Epistemic Similar manufacturingprocess will be usedbut geometricalchanges are made

Analogical Selection ofbenchmark model(qualitativecharacteristics)

Epistemic The system will have20% higher capacitythan existing systemand consumes 10%less fuel

Parametric Costdrivers/parametersCER choiceRegression fitData uncertaintyExtrapolation

Epistemic and aleatory Missing key costdriversUnsuitable CERfunction form

Analytical/engineering ScopeLevel of details

Epistemic and aleatory Simplification in WBSdue to lack of time

Classification of uncertainties in cost data and models (Xu et al., 2010)

Types of uncertainty in Contracting for Availability (Erkoyuncu e t a l., 2010)

EngineeringInternal factors: Rate of system integration issues, maintaining design rights, rate of rework, quality of engineering, cost estimating data quality, cost estimating data, interpretation management of risk and opportunitiesExternal factors: Rate of capability upgrades, licensing and certification, Failure rate for software, technology refresh, severity of obsolescence, rate of fault investigation

OperationInternal factors: Skill level of maintainers, repair time, rate of availability of facilityExternal factors: Rate of emergent work, complexity of equipment, no fault found rate, quality of components and manufacturing, transport, rate of repairability, equipment utilisation rate or component stress and load, mean time between failure data, logistic delays, rate of materials, rate of materials, rate of beyond economical repair, location of maintenance, failure rate of hardware, rate of consumables requirements, operating parameters, maintenance policy part level

TrainingInternal factors: Availability of trainers, facilities availability, courses to be offeredExternal factors: Trainee skill level, number of students, affordability of customer, ability to screen candidates, length of course

AffordabilityInternal factors: Bid success rate, whole life cycle costExternal factors: Customer ability to spend, economy

CommercialInternal factors: Cost estimation process, labour efficiency, labour availability, level of uncertainty contingency, relationship with suppliers processExternal factors: Customer misuse, KPI specification, changing requirements, customer relationship, work share between partners, environmental burden, material cost

PerformanceInternal factors: Performance against key performance indicatorsExternal factors: Combination of all other categories

PSSSetting

PSSE

nablingPSS Focus

Uncertainties Identified

Uncertainty Site FacilityConsumabl

eFinished Product Procurement

Product Technology

Process Technology

Supplier TechnologyComponent

Sub-Assembly Assembly Overhead Software

Technology transfer 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 0 3Technology implementation 3 1 2 1 4 4 1 2 2 2 0 1Breaches in intellectual property rights 0 0 3 2 4 4 2 3 3 3 0 1Retention of technology advantage 1 0 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 0 1Increase in complexity 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 3 0 1Slow performance 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 0 1Higher performance 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 0 1Obsolescence - Planned 0 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 0 3Obsolescence - Unplanned - Technical 0 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 3Obsolescence - Unplanned - Functional 0 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 0 3Accelerated rate of Technology Change - Increased rate of technology insertion and upgrade 1 1 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 3Design tools are not adequate (CAD, CAE) 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 3Unproven Technology 2 0 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 0 2Accuracy of cost estimates 1 0 0 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 3 2Poor product definition for costing purposes 0 0 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 0 1The need to spend to meet performance guarantees 0 0 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 0 1Non-contractual BoM growth 0 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 0 0Non-contractual change in scope 0 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 0 0Impact of schedule changes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Impact of engineering changes 0 1 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 0 0Level of internal cost competitiveness 3 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 1Level of purchasing power 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0Programmatic risks 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3Programming language variance 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3Licensing issues 2 1 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 3Slow software performance - Programming language 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 3Slow software performance - Due to software/hardware combination 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 3Lack of system integration 3 0 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 2IT System failure 1 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 3Variation in Simulation and Sample data 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3Third party software agreements 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3Does not meet requirements 2 2 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3Software is not available on time 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3No recognisable upgrade path 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3Software is not supportable 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3Change in scope 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0Change in work pattern 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Change in Scale (i.e. quantity) 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Readability 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0Sequence identification 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0Lack of traceability (also related to Design and Manufacturing) 0 1 0 3 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 2

Agile Properties in Softwa re Deve lopment (Foge lstrom et a l 2010)

• Feature orientation (in small and frequent iterations)• Reactive development• Evolving project release scope (updating the release scope)• Applicability of agile to large critical systems?• Lack of large documentation and planning stages will reduce

costs here at the front.• Cost of requirements volatility decreased? (see reactive

development)• What are the needs of defence versus agile development:

(“balancing different requirement types”, “trade-off between market pull and technology push”, “release content planning”). This was agile versus market driven software product development.

JOURNAL OF SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AND EVOLUTION: RESEARCH AND PRACTICEJ. Softw. Maint. Evol.: Res. Pract. 2010; 22:53–80Published online 21May 2009 inWiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/spip.420SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT AND PRACTICE ARTICLE

The impact of agile principleson market-driven softwareproduct developmentNina Dzamashvili Fogelstr¨om1,∗, †, Tony Gorschek1Mikael Svahnberg1 and Peo Olsson21Department of Systems and Software Engineering

Decrease requirements creep costs inSoftware development?

Types of Uncertainty

• Unknown unknowns

• Service perspective uncertainties (Erkoyuncu et al., 2010):

• commercial• affordability• performance• training• operation• engineering

Example MaintenanceActivitie s

• MQ-1 Predator Aircraft and Aircraft Related (Airframe) -The airframe consists of the structural repair of the main body of the aircraft. It includes structural members, control surfaces, and other integral airframe components.

• MQ-1 Predator Ground Data Terminal (GDT) - The GDT maintains the line-of-sight radio frequency (RF) data link with the aircraft. The GDT is remotely located from the ground control station (GCS).

• MQ-1 Predator Primary Satellite Link (PSL) - Software portion of the ground control station that functions as the aircraft cockpit.

• MQ-1 Predator Ground Control Station (GCS) - Functions as the aircraft cockpit. The control station can control the aircraft either within the line of sight (LOS) or beyond the LOS (BLOS). The GCS is either mobile to support forward operating locations or at a fixed facility to support remote fixed operation.

• MQ-9 Reaper Airframe - The airframe consists of the structural repair of the main body of the aircraft. It includes structural members, control surfaces, and other integral airframe components. (defenceacquisition.com)

Issues in Agility

• Risk – software entropy when using agile software development is

• “Software entropy is a phenomenon where repeated changes gradually degrade the structure of the system, making it hard to understand and maintain” (Hansen et al 2010)

• Mobile and wireless technologies for asset management and maintenance (Emmanouilidis et al 2009)

Richter 2010

• Shifts design decisions from the system level to the module level

• What is the contract, how is its incompleteness modelled?• Life Cycle Cost supplier reductions as part of new industrial

product service business models• Flexibility in opportunities in providing service caused by

contracts• Product architecture designed with regards to flexibility of

supply chain• Risks are risks to the supply chain being flexible or not• Modularisation• How can management accounting measure flexibility?

Richter, A., et al., Flexibility in industrial product-service systems and use-oriented businessmodels. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology (2010),

Richter et al (2010)

• Flexibility is considered with other aspects of changeability• Because of flexibility target costing and NPV not used but real options

for instance• “literature on modularisation shows a negative economic

consequences must be expected with over or under modularisation”

Richter, A., et al., Flexibility in industrial product-service systems and use-oriented business models. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology (2010)

Agility EnablersMa ckley e t a l

Liu et al

• Increased cost of testing because of poor scalability of agile development to large NEC projects as compared to small agile software development methods

Agile Properties of Service Oriented Architectures forNetwork Enabled CapabilityLu Liu, Duncan Russell & JieXuSchool of ComputingUniversity of LeedsLeeds, West Yorkshire, U.K.

{luliu, duncanr & jxu}@comp.leeds.ac.ukJohn K Davies & Ken IrvinBAE Systems InsyteVictory PointFrimley, U.K.{john.k.davies & ken.irvin}@baesystems.com

Liu et al

• Sensors deployed on a UAV as part of a new capability

Agile Properties of Service Oriented Architectures forNetwork Enabled CapabilityLu Liu, Duncan Russell & Jie XuSchool of ComputingUniversity of LeedsLeeds, West Yorkshire, U.K.

{luliu, duncanr & jxu}@comp.leeds.ac.ukJohn K Davies & Ken IrvinBAE Systems InsyteVictory PointFrimley, U.K.{john.k.davies & ken.irvin}@baesystems.com

Agile acquisition

• Maneouvre in acquisition like an F18. F18 had a larger canopy and assisted controls to change quicker than the Mig in the Korean War

• Asymmetric transients• Get inside the opponents agility loop (Mackley et al)

Agile Acquisition Exa mple

• “A good example of a team that was enabled in this manner is the team that developed and fielded the BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon. On 11 Oct 01, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency organized a quick-response team including Navy, Air Force, Department of Energy (DOE), and industry. Their purpose was to look at a number of on-going Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations and then “identify, test, integrate, and field a rapid solution that would enhance weapons options in countering hardened underground targets.5” The Navy focused on development of the new explosive, while the Air Force had system integration, safety and flight, and a modified fuze. On 14 Dec 01, the BLU-118/B was successfully tested at a Nevada Test Site tunnel. On 21 Dec 01, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Edward C. Aldridge, announced a small number of the weapons were being deployed to support the war in Afghanistan. In late January 02, the Air Force completed technical data and flight"

• “certifications, clearing the way for operational use of the ten warheads that were available. The first combat use of the warhead occurred on 3 Mar 02.6”

• “The team was formed in mid-October and ten warheads were available for use at the end of January – approximately three and half months later. The team created an “asymmetric fast transient” by modifying an existing penetrator with new capability to reach the enemy where previously they had been safe. The compressed process employed on the BLU-118/B initiative should be the rule, instead of the exception. It should not take actual combat for the acquisition community to shift into high gear. Whether we are at war or not, every delay drives two major impacts: 1) the capability delayed is not available for use in the field, and 2) resources for addressing other warfighting capabilities are not available”.

AIR FORCE FELLOWS (SDE) AIR UNIVERSITY “ASYMMETRIC FAST TRANSIENTS” APPLIED TO REDUCE DOD ACQUISITION CYCLE TIME by

Jeffrey L. Schaff, Lt Col, USAF A Research Report Submitted to Air Force Fellows, CADRE/AR In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements Advisor: National Laboratory Liaison Officer, Col Steven C. SuddarthOrganization: USSTRATCOM

High Level Trade-off a t the ca pa bility leve l(Ma ckley e t a l)

• Service provision, asymmetric threats, urgent operational requirements, legacy systems, sustainable solutions

Uncertainty Identification Tool (UnIT)

The purpose of the UnIT is to assist users into making effective decisions concerning the feasibility of a cost estimate

Methodology

Tool for classifying uncerta intie s

(AACE, 1997)

Identify public domain modelsNeuron, Taranis and Barracuda represent three UAV programmes in Europe

Examples of Uncertainty(Ma ckley e t a l)

Correlations in types of Cost (Ma ckley e t a l)

Agility activities (Ma ckley e t a l, NECTISE)

Conclusions

• Investments needed to adopt agile practice• Costs should focus on capability and capability

profiles• Initial investments are offset against the lower costs

of capability updates• Requirements uncertainty decreased• Shorter lead times• Less risk with standardised parts• Trade-off new capability against training and

operations costs• Different types of uncertainties

Comments

Reduced Development Costs for new Capabilities

Higher Training Costs to Master new Capabilities

Less Uncertainty in Manufacturing Cost

Investment costs for real-time maintenance network

Lower cost of supply Cost of cost estimating greaterFaults detected and solved better hence less maintenance costs

More knowledge and automated support requires investment in maintenance technologies

Decrease overall cost of new developments through modular design

Correlation uncertainty decreased

Increased cost of testing Software entropy risk

Date post:	03-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungngoc
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Agile development and Cost of UAV A personal opinion from ... · aeronautics major Dassault...

Documents