presented by:

Presented By:

MIL-STD 881 Update Status

Neil F. AlbertMCR, LLC21 May 2009

General

• October – February– Team Composition (Call for members, identifying Focus Groups, Mix of

Government/Industry, mix of SE, CE, EVM, PM)– Coordination with Standardization Office– Collecting and updating the Coordinators and Reviewers per the SD-1– Created Task Plans– Kick off meeting held in October at OSD AT&L (Debbie Tomsic, et al)

• Task plan• Schedule

• Mr. Young’s memorandum– Forwarded to Standardization office– Standardization office granted full approval to turn the HDBK back into a MIL-STD

• On-line database tool developed– Focus group members post comments– Establishes “formal” record of comments– Created “Comments” Tool for other group members to comment on “Comments”– Aids in organizing the participation of over 135 government and industry representatives in

11 Focus Groups– Over 700 comments submitted

• “Essential” and “Editorial” primary focus in the formally scheduled meetings • All comments being reviewed and resolved prior to the release of the draft for coordination

2

General (Cont’d)

• February - May– Held 35 formal focus group meetings (held via WEBEX)

• Aircraft Systems (4 meetings to date)• Software Systems (4 meetings to date)• Electronic Systems (4 meetings to date)• Missile Systems (4 meetings to date)• Space Systems (2 meetings to date)• Unmanned Aircraft Systems (4 meetings to date)• Sea Systems (3 meetings to date)• Unmanned Sea Systems (3 meetings to date)• Ordnance Systems (3 meetings to date)• Surface Vehicle Systems (3 meetings to date)• Propulsion Systems (1 meeting to date)

– All meetings and action items documented in Meeting Minutes and are recorded

3

Aircraft Systems (Appendix A)

• Focus group to develop appendix to the next lower level (Level 4)– Airframe will be broken out to next lower level– Evaluating the creation of separate WBS templates for different type of A/C (i.e.,

cargo, fighter, rotary, etc)• Consensus of Focus group is a different breakout of subsystems at

Level 3– Mission Systems– Vehicle Systems– Add Level 4 IAT&CO – Add Level 3 IAT&CO

• Coordinated review of JCARD WBS• Industry sharing their suggested structures (LM, Boeing, Sikorsky, and

Textron)• Created a discussion group with AFMC Intelligence Squadron

representatives – Ensuring that “Intel” functions are captured within the WBS– Determined that there would not be separate WBS elements to capture this

however, the Intel Squadron reps will be part of the Focus Group to ensure that the functionality is properly captured in the WBS element definitions

4

Electronic Systems (Appendix B)

• Split Appendix into two Focus Groups– Electronics only portion– Software

• Embedded• Stand alone (IS/ERP)

• Appendix used as a reference for further breakout of all electronic systems within each individual appendix

– DCARC and Focus Group recommended “Templates” for five (5) of the most common types of electronics systems being contracted for and reported via CCDRs

– DCARC identified top 5 candidates. They were identified as:• Aircraft Turbine Engines• Tactical Missile Seekers• Radars• Electronic Warfare Systems• Radios and Networks

– Focus Group added two more candidates to that list• Communication/Processors• Optical Imagery Systems

– Engines will be covered in a separate WBS with a Focus Group

5

Software Systems (Associated with Appendix B)

• Group working on two types of Software categories: – “Embedded” software– Information Systems “IS/ERP” systems

• Consensus of group– Expertise to develop both WBS structures– Capturing all aspects of SW development

• Embedded Software remains part of Appendix B• Results will be incorporated with Electronics Focus

Group• IS/ERP will have separate Appendix• Using IEEE 12207 as basis of structure

6

Missile Systems (Appendix C)

• Developing WBS to level 4• Three WBS’s being evaluated by Focus Group

– Army – Extension of MIL-HDBK– Raytheon– Boeing (Tied to Space WBS)

• Consensus of the group– One appendix for Missiles– Separate appendix for Launch Vehicles

• Trying to determine the difference between Missile and Ordnance

7

Ordnance Systems (Appendix D)

• Developing WBS to level 4• Evaluating multiple WBS’s provided by Focus Group

– Raytheon– AFCAA

• Consensus of group was to create draft WBS using combination of AFCAA and Raytheon

• Discussion on the difference between a Missile and Ordnance 

• Ordnance AURs have become more sophisticated – Complete Round (unguided)– Complete Round (guided)

8

Sea Systems (Appendix E)

• Major discussion on the use of MIL-HDBK for reporting purposes vs. how ship builders actually build/manage ship programs– Use MIL-HDBK for CCDR Cost Reporting– Use different structure for EVM– ESWBS used in the design and estimating cost of ship– Ships built in zones

• Effort is scheduled by zones (IMS/EVM)

• Costs collected can be mapped to WBS but not EVM performance information 

9

Space Systems (Appendix F)

• Worked with Joint Space Cost Council (JSCC) to finalize Space and Ground WBS (working on appendix for the last two years)

• Rev 14 latest version• Creating means to incorporate sooner rather than later• Potential SMC letter requesting approval to use early

10

Surface Vehicle Systems (Appendix G)

• Defining appendix to level 4 as appropriate• Army CES structure relationship to MIL-HDBK• Reviewing appendix to ensure all surface and

amphibious vehicles are addressed• Revisiting Ground Facilities for unmanned surface

vehicles• Major discussion on System of Systems (FCS) 

11

Unmanned Air Vehicle Systems (Appendix H)

• Consensus of group to – Keep UAV as separate appendix– Define appendix to level 4 – Use Aircraft WBS efforts to ensure synergy

• Using multiple WBS examples (AF, Army) as basis for review (Global Hawk, Army Class IV, etc)

• Ground Segment – reviewing all appendices for common elements (Space, Missiles, Ordnance, etc.)

12

Unmanned Sea Vehicles (New Appendix)

• Slow start - finding industry representatives difficult• Continuing to use SEA057 support with names of

industry and representative WBS• Navy Unmanned Maritime Program Office supporting

systems efforts (PMS 403)• Consensus to create separate appendix

– Systems closer to UAV than Ship Systems

• Defining WBS to level 4

13

Other Activities

• Recently created or soon to be created Focus Groups– Propulsion (Working WBS and definitions)– Construction– Modeling and simulation – addressing in System Test and Eval elements

• Synergy/Commonality:– Ground Segment element from the “Space Appendix”

• Being reviewed by Focus Groups as appropriate – (UAV, Unmanned Sea, Missiles, Ordnance)

– Warranty• Discussed inserting “warranty” as WBS element with several Focus Groups• General conclusion that Warranty should not be a “line item” as it is not a

“product” of the system• Opinion of Focus Groups – warranty should not be purchased by the DoD since it

is a “self-insured” entity(Government is the only ‘buyer”)-- if there is a defect, then it should be worked out between industry and the government to fix the problem

– System of Systems• Adding an addendum to further address “System of Systems”• Need to help systems (i.e., Future Combat System, et al) on use of MIL-STD

14

Other Activities

• Rewriting policy section (upfront)– Converting to DODI 5000.02– Including policy changes affecting EVM, CCDR, IMS, and other

elements as appropriate– Converting “should” to “shall” as appropriate– Working with OSD/SSE on rewrite to ensure consistency

• Rewriting Common elements Appendix– Each Focus Group reviews all elements of WBS for their

appendix– Creates unique common elements which affects their system– Reviewing elements to ensure synergy across systems

15