SYST/OR 699 Master’s Project –Proposal
Department of Defense Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool Enhancements
Prepared by Craig Jayson, Josh Singh, and Phillip Sutton
for Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc.
i
Proposal Agreement This proposal outlines the scope of work that the George Mason Graduate Students Capstone Team will
perform and deliver for the sponsor, Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc. (SPA); specifically, the Operational
Support Analysis Group (OSAG). Chris Anderson is the client of this project and will have signatory
approval over this proposal for SPA.
Chris Anderson, SPA Date
Craig Jayson, GMU Date
Josh Singh, GMU Date
Phil Sutton, GMU Date
Table of Contents Proposal Agreement ............................................................................................................................................................ i
Problem Definition .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Sponsorship ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Proposal Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Project Purpose and Objective..................................................................................................................................... 3
Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Scope .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Requirements .................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Technical Approach and Expected Results ............................................................................................................. 7
Program Management .................................................................................................................................................... 8
Deliverables........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Appendix A- References .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Appendix B- Definitions .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Budget Activity 1, Basic Research ......................................................................................................................... 11
Budget Activity 2, Applied Research .................................................................................................................... 11
Budget Activity 3, Advanced Technology Development (ATD)..................................................................... 11
Budget Activity 4, Advanced Component Development and Prototypes (ACD&P) .................................. 12
Budget Activity 5, System Development and Demonstration (SDD) ............................................................ 12
Budget Activity 6, RDT&E Management Support ............................................................................................ 12
Budget Activity 7, Operational System Development ....................................................................................... 12
Appendix C- Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ 13
1
Problem Definition
Sponsorship Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc. (SPA) is a professional services contractor located in Alexandria, VA.
The company was founded in 1972 and initially worked primarily for the U.S. Navy leading many technical
support studies. Today the company has evolved into a contractor who provides services to cover a wide
range of missions and clients in the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and Department of Energy.
SPA has permitted the Joint Air Force & Analysis Division (JTAAD), and specifically the Operations Support
Analysis Group (OSAG) to continue their sponsorship of the educational capstone project initiated in
October 2016 to continue enhancements of the Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool (BEAT).
Proposal Purpose The purpose of this proposal is to agree on the scope of the project and the deliverables due at the end of the
spring 2017 semester. The parties in agreement for all matters related to this proposal include SPA,
specifically OSAG, and the GMU Capstone team of Craig Jayson, Josh Singh, and Phil Sutton.
Background The DoD Budget, a discretionary budget authority to fund the department of defense, is significant in terms
of dollars apportioned. As of 2015, the U.S. defense spending is equivalent to the next seven largest military
budgets – India, the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China- combined. In 2016, over
$580 billion was allocated to fund the DoD seen in Figure 1 (source defense.gov).
The budget is nested with the National Military Strategy and the President’s budget request and reflects the
strategic outlook and operational commitments necessary to fight and win in any future conflicts. Addressing
the multiple strategic challenges and threats, whether it is North Korean aggression or China island building,
the budget considers new and innovative ways to meet mission requirements. The U.S. must remain a
modernized, technologically superior global force with the capability to project power and respond to
contingences. As former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter stated, “even as we fight today’s fights, we must
also be prepared for the fights that might come in 10, 20, or 30 years”.
Since 2014, following Secretary of Defense Hagel’s Innovation Initiative, there has been a push to invest
monies in finding capabilities that have the potential to provide a technological offset against near peer
2
competitors. This offset strategy has led to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Robert Work, creating a
deterrence panel that continues to evaluate an offset strategy. One of the major efforts that the deterrence
panel is mandated to focus on is the evaluation of technologies and capabilities that are intended to address
both capability gaps and technological opportunities that would reinvigorate the U.S. dominance in power
projection. Capabilities of interest for the panel include: multi-domain fires, electronic and cyber warfare,
manned-unmanned systems, robotics, undersea warfare, hypersonic munitions, advanced engineering, among
others.
The DoD budget is divided into seven distinct budget appropriation categories. One of the categories is the
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) budget; which is that portion of the DoD budget
that focuses on Science and Technology (S&T) and prototype development. Since FY00, the amount
appropriated to the DoD RDT&E budget has ebbed and flowed in line with national security concerns and
overseas military activities. Currently, this appropriation is 11.8% of the total DoD budget, or $69 billion.
It is this RDT&E appropriation category that the previous GMU Capstone Group gathered DoD Budget
data on and developed a tool, known as the Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool (BEAT), to begin analyzing multi-
year budget data.1 The previous group drilled-down to the Program Element (PE) level for each U.S. military
service. The figure below summarizes the level of detail at which the previous project group scoped the
problem to.
1 The Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool allows users to quickly identify Program Elements within RDT&E using historic data and to
visualize the individual budget trends over time using Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) projected data.
(Source DoD.gov)
3
Problem Statement Prior to the efforts of the Fall 2016 Capstone team, there was no known method or available tool to digest
and depict multiple budget cycles (the current year plus four future years known as the Program Objective
Memorandum2) to facilitate the analysis and characterization of past, current, and/or future budget
information. The Fall 2016 Capstone team was successful in aggregating budget data into a database and
creating an Excel tool that preformed such analysis at the PE level. Understanding that there is important
information available at the more granular project level, the BEAT analysis has the capacity to provide further
information and insights, but currently that capability has not been realized.
Project Purpose and Objective The purpose of the project is to provide budget analysis and assessment at the project level, one level down
from the PE level, of selected RDT&E programs. The programs should coincide with strategy/policy offset
capabilities/technologies.
The objective of this project is to enhance the BEAT to incorporate project level data to facilitate a finer
analysis of budget trends. The enhancements will allow the stakeholders and users to identify and view trends
happening to selected projects that support the DoD’s offset strategy. The BEAT will maintain its current
ability to ingest new data as it becomes available and the new project data will be mapped to the appropriate
program data. Additionally, new visualizations and user interface will be developed to provide additional
information and ease the use of tool application.
ID projects of interest within the program elements based on DoD policy on future techs
that support an offset strategy.
Forecast future budget trends of predetermined projects over next 5 years.
ID specific accomplishments of interest within applicable projects.
Compare a new Program Budget (PB) ingestion to the previous year’s PB to determine if
new program/project/accomplishments have started anew or have ended.
2 The Program Objective Memorandum is the 5-year Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) and presents the Services and Defense
Agencies proposal on how they will balance their allocation of available resources. The POM includes an analysis of missions, objectives, alternative methods to accomplish objectives, and allocation of resources.
4
Stakeholders
The President and Congress- The DoD submits an annual budget request to the President for review. The
President then submits a budget request to Congress. This request is reviewed and subjected to a process of
revisions before it is returned to the President, at which point it is either signed into law or vetoed. The
President and Congress have a vested interest in seeing that budget meets policy.
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)- Primary defense policy advisor to the President and responsible
for formulating and executing policy through the DoD. The secretariats within OSD handle and submit the
final DoD budget to the President. The BEAT can potentially support DoD decision analysis.
Services (DoD)- This includes the Services and the S&T community. They receive the tech. and support
and collaborate with multiple stakeholders. They are the end users and the primary recipients of the RDT&E
dollars.
Communities of Interest (COIs)- A network of technical groups that integrate with experience and
technical expertise within DoD. They serve a collaboration mechanism to get interested stakeholders to
communicate on projects in future tech.
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), and University Affiliated
Research Centers (UARCs)- Research partnerships in which the DoD is the sponsor of a research facility
which is under the administration of either a corporate entity (FFRDCs) or a University. They provide the
backbone of studies as it relates to RDT&E and application to policy.
Industry- Private entities whose interests and level of involvement with the DoD vary significantly. Some
provide the product or service, prototype development, or test data of a specific or system of systems. There
are also contractors who provide consulting or advising services. This is the military industrial complex that
support the development of the specific idea, component, or end item.
(Source gmuseorspa.wordpress.com)
5
Scope As previously mentioned, the Fall 2016 Capstone team led an effort to obtain DoD budgeting data from the
RDT&E appropriation level to the PE level for all services and accounting lines within DoD. The team
created the BEAT to analyze the data using charts and graphs. Additionally, the team scoped the project to
include only three of the seven budget activities: Budget Activity 2, 3 and 4 (the definitions for each Budget
Activity are found in the Definition Appendix). Overall, this initial effort was the first of many future
endeavors to develop a Decision Management System using the BEAT and DoD budgeting data to better
predict future RDT&E investment dollars.
The scope of this project is to continue with the work of moving forward toward final development of a
Decision Management System for DoD budget analysis. The project team for Spring 2017 Capstone team
will focus on taking the PEs and continuing to add to the database by including all project level data for as
many PEs as appropriate. The PEs chosen will depend initially on whether the PE is in-line with OSD-Policy
determination of capabilities/technologies that are central to an offset strategy. For instance, the PE
associated with Advanced Aerospace Systems is a PE that OSD-Policy is interested in potentially adding
future dollars towards in meeting future deterrence requirements.
The team will drill one level down into the project level of Advanced Aerospace Systems and gather all
project level data. The team will also begin to focus on accomplishment level data, which is one level down
from project level data. The figure below provides an illustration of what the scope will entail.
There are natural scoping mechanisms built into the budget nomenclature and taxonomy
used to build the budget documents. The team will us this scoping mechanism to continue
work from previous Capstone Team.
6
There are several critical assumptions that are required to scope the problem to the needs of the sponsor.
1) The Project Data is readily accessible and does not require infeasible time for download and transfer
to the database.
2) The team will have access to OSD-Policy offset strategy future techs/capabilities.
3) The team will be able to relate OSD-Policy offset techs/capabilities to PE and follow-on project
level data.
4) The accomplishment level data is available; classified data will be avoided.
Requirements Mission Requirements
MR1: The BEAT system shall be able to ingest project level information and data from DoD
documents.
MR2: The BEAT system shall ingest project level description information for each project.
MR3: The BEAT system shall ingest five future years of expected project level data.
MR4: The BEAT system shall be able to ingest accomplishment level data for specific projects.
MR5: The BEAT system shall visualize RDT&E, specifically project level data, over a pre-
determined period.
MR6: The BEAT system shall be able to display Program Budget (PB) new
program/project/accomplishments have started anew or ended
System Requirements
SR1: The BEAT system shall generate project level data (R-2) for predetermined Program Elements.
SR2: The BEAT system shall generate project level description for Program Elements.
SR3: The BEAT system shall generate accomplishment level data based on specific project level.
SR4: The BEAT system shall aggregate budget data for each Program Element.
SR5: The BEAT system shall display project level data over time.
SR6: The BEAT system shall display new PB ingestion to the previous year’s PB to determine if new
program/project/accomplishments have started anew or have ended.
Functional Requirements
FR1: The BEAT system shall have ability to create a plot that visualizes specific project level data
over time.
FR2: The BEAT system shall have the ability to create a plot that visualizes significant “outliers” of
project level data.
FR3: The BEAT system shall have the ability to create a plot that visualizes accomplishment
“outliers”.
FR4: The BEAT system shall monitor a minimum of five RDT&E budget cycles.
FR5: The BEAT system shall aggregate specific project level data.
FR6: The BEAT system shall not consider discontinued PEs in project level analysis.
FR7: The BEAT system shall consider PB data and determine which
program/project/accomplishment data has started new or have completed.
7
Technical Approach and Expected Results As a result of the work done in the previous semester, there is an existing database architecture in place that
stores the DoD budget information at the PE level. The database is created using the XML files that are
available from the DoD through Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) which are then parsed via a
Java program. Currently the database only ingests program level data, however, the project and
accomplishment data is also available in the same XML files.
The DoD budget information is available in two different formats R-1 and R-2. The R-2 data contains data
specific to each program and serves as the item justification for each program. That justification also provides
detailed information on the projects within each program. Therefore our analysis will be most interested in
dissecting the R-2 XML files to retrieve the requisite project level information.
Example Project Level Data
The initial effort of this project will be to expand the current data absorption from only program level data to
include project and accomplishment information. In order to accomplish this, modification to the Java code
will be created to absorb the project information. Once the Java file is updated, the database will house all
required information in a structured format to be easily exported to csv files, which can then be imported into
the BEAT tool.
Once the data has been properly housed, part two of the project will be to expand the capabilities within the
BEAT tool to visualize the new information. Additional visualizations will be developed and VBA will be
leveraged to provide user friendly interfaces to create and modify the visualizations. There currently exists a
user form that is used for updating the program element that should be plotted.
Upon completion of our support, the database will have an updated structure and parsing program to ingest
project level data. That new data will be housed in a structured format that can be easily exported into a csv
file for upload into additional data analysis programs, specifically the Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool.
Additionally, the BEAT tool will contain new visualizations pertaining to the project level information to
provide meaningful insights into trends within the RDT&E community.
8
Program Management The team will use either Microsoft Project, Microsoft Edraw, or Innoslate Software to manage the Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS) and project schedule. The proposed WBS is broken into four high level phases;
Analysis, Design, Implementation, and Verification.
The team will further define the project cost and schedule upon customer approval of the proposal. Once
requirements have been agreed upon by the customer, the WBS will be updated to account for the price of
the contract. The Statement of Work (SOW) will serve as a baseline for the work to be performed by the
team. A preliminary detailed schedule with each phase in the WBS further expanded to list all the tasks that
shall be completed is displayed below with a tentative completion date of May 12, 2017.
BEAT Enhancement
Analysis Design Implementation Verification
8
9
Deliverables The team is currently scheduling a minimum of three customers+ facing meetings to review progress that is
being made. The team will provide SPA with a written report and brief the results of the research and analysis
obtained. The team will continue to refine and develop BEAT to fit the newly derived needs of SPA. The
team will also update the BEAT user manual. Each deliverable will identify future budget trends that are
nested with the Office of Secretary of Defense’s offset strategy more specifically by identifying specific
accomplishments of interest within applicable projects.
The project team shall provide the following deliverable items:
1) BEAT continued refinement and project level data uploaded
2) BEAT user interface improvement with ability to visualize new information
3) BEAT user manual updated
4) BEAT test/use case for final report
5) Written report and briefing summarizing results of the analysis
6) Listing of all sources
7) Identification of specific accomplishments of interest within applicable projects
8) Identification of future budget trends of projects that are nested with Office of Secretary of
Defense’s offset strategy
10
Appendix A- References American Association for the Advancement of Science 2016 [3] - Govini. No Date.
DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 2B, Chapter 5
Department of Defense (DoD) Releases Fiscal Year 2017 President’s Budget Proposal
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) – www.dtic.mil
GMUSEORSPA at https://gmuseorspa.wordpress.com/deliverables/
Military budget of the United States, Wikipedia
"US Department of Defense Third Offset Standard Market Taxonomy." Analyst Report, Washington, D.C.
11
Appendix B- Definitions Budget Activity 1, Basic Research Basic research is systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental
aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in
mind. It includes all scientific study and experimentation directed toward increasing fundamental knowledge
and understanding in those fields of the physical, engineering, environmental, and life sciences related to
long-term national security needs. It is farsighted high payoff research that provides the basis for
technological progress. Basic research may lead to: (a) subsequent applied research and advanced technology
developments in Defense-related technologies, and (b) new and improved military functional capabilities in
areas such as communications, detection, tracking, surveillance, propulsion, mobility, guidance and control,
navigation, energy conversion, materials and structures, and personnel support. Program elements in this
category involve pre-Milestone A efforts
Budget Activity 2, Applied Research Applied research is systematic study to understand the means to meet a recognized and specific national
security requirement. It is a systematic application of knowledge to develop useful materials, devices, and
systems or methods. It may include design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new processes
to meet general mission area requirements. Applied research translates promising basic research into solutions
for broadly defined military needs, short of system development. This type of effort may vary from systematic
mission-directed research beyond that in Budget Activity 1 to sophisticated breadboard hardware, study,
programming and planning efforts that establish the initial feasibility and practicality of proposed solutions to
technological challenges. It includes studies, investigations, and non-system specific technology efforts. The
dominant characteristic is that applied research is directed toward general military needs with a view toward
developing and evaluating the feasibility and practicality of proposed solutions and determining their
parameters. Applied Research precedes system specific research. Program control of the Applied Research
program element is normally exercised by general level of effort. Program elements in this category involve
pre-Milestone B efforts, also known as Concept and Technology Development phase tasks, such as concept
exploration efforts and paper studies of alternative concepts for meeting a mission need.
Budget Activity 3, Advanced Technology Development (ATD) This budget activity includes development of subsystems and components and efforts to integrate subsystems
and components into system prototypes for field experiments and/or tests in a simulated environment. ATD
includes concept and technology demonstrations of components and subsystems or system models. The
models may be form, fit and function prototypes or scaled models that serve the same demonstration
purpose. The results of this type of effort are proof of technological feasibility and assessment of subsystem
and component operability and producibility rather than the development of hardware for service use.
Projects in this category have a direct relevance to identified military needs. Advanced Technology
Development demonstrates the general military utility or cost reduction potential of technology when applied
to different types of military equipment or techniques. Program elements in this category involve pre-
Milestone B efforts, such as system concept demonstration, joint and Service-specific experiments or
Technology Demonstrations. Projects in this category do not necessarily lead to subsequent development or
procurement phases.
12
Budget Activity 4, Advanced Component Development and Prototypes (ACD&P) Efforts necessary to evaluate integrated technologies, representative modes or prototype systems in a high
fidelity and realistic operating environment are funded in this budget activity. The ACD&P phase includes
system specific efforts that help expedite technology transition from the laboratory to operational use.
Emphasis is on proving component and subsystem maturity prior to integration in major and complex
systems and may involve risk reduction initiatives. Program elements in this category involve efforts prior to
Milestone B and are referred to as advanced component development activities and include technology
demonstrations. Completion of Technology Readiness Levels 6 and 7 should be achieved for major
programs. Program control is exercised at the program and project level. A logical progression of program
phases and development and/or production funding must be evident in the FYDP.
Budget Activity 5, System Development and Demonstration (SDD) SDD programs have passed Milestone B approval and are conducting engineering and manufacturing
development tasks aimed at meeting validated requirements prior to full-rate production. This budget activity
is characterized by major line item projects and program control is exercised by review of individual programs
and projects. Prototype performance is near or at planned operational system levels. Characteristics of this
budget activity involve mature system development, integration and demonstration to support Milestone C
decisions, and conducting live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) and initial operational test and evaluation
(IOT&E) of production representative articles. A logical progression of program phases and development
and production funding must be evident in the FYDP consistent with the Department's full funding policy.
Budget Activity 6, RDT&E Management Support
This budget activity includes research, development, test and evaluation efforts and funds to sustain and/or
modernize the installations or operations required for general research, development, test and evaluation. Test
ranges, military construction, maintenance support of laboratories, operation and maintenance of test aircraft
and ships, and studies and analyses in support of the RDT&E program are funded in this budget activity.
Costs of laboratory personnel, either in-house or contractor operated, would be assigned to appropriate
projects or as a line item in the Basic Research, Applied Research, or Advanced Technology Development
program areas, as appropriate. Military construction costs directly related to major development programs are
included.
Budget Activity 7, Operational System Development
This budget activity includes development efforts to upgrade systems that have been fielded or have received
approval for full rate production and anticipate production funding in the current or subsequent fiscal year.
All items are major line item projects that appear as RDT&E Costs of Weapon System Elements in other
programs. Program control is exercised by review of individual projects. Programs in this category involve
systems that have received Milestone C approval. A logical progression of program phases and development
and production funding must be evident in the FYDP, consistent with the Department's full funding policy.
13
Appendix C- Acronyms
ACD&P Advance Component Development & Prototypes
ATD Advance Technology Development
BEAT Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool
DoD Department of Defense
FYDP Future Year Defense Program
GMU George Mason University
JTAAD Joint Airforce and Analysis Division
LFT&E Live Fire Test & Evaluation
MR Mission Requirement
OSAG Operations Support Analysis Group
OSD Office of Secretary of Defense
PB Program Budget
PE Program Element
POM Program Objective Memorandum
RDT&E Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation
SDD System Development and Demonstration
SOW Statement of Work
SPA Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc.
SR System Requirement
S&T Science & Technology
WBS Work Breakdown Structure