This is definitely another document that needs to have lots of HSI language in it!

Similar documents
REQUIREMENTS TO CAPABILITIES

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION

Subj: THREAT SUPPORT TO THE DEFENSE ACQUISITION SYSTEM

Overview of the Chemical and Biological Defense Program Requirements Process

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION

JCIDS: The New Language of Defense Planning, Programming and Acquisition

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

Defense Acquisition Guidebook Systems Engineering Chapter Update

Joint Interoperability Certification

THREAT SUPPORT TO THE DEFENSE ACQUISITION SYSTEM

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

Implementing the Joint Battle Management Command & Control Roadmap Panel

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

OPNAVINST C N43 18 Jun Subj: NAVY EXPEDITIONARY TABLE OF ALLOWANCE AND ADVANCED BASE FUNCTIONAL COMPONENT POLICY

February 2009 Updated 31 July 2009 MANUAL FOR THE OPERATION OF THE JOINT CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

Headquarters U.S. Air Force

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

JCIDS Overview. Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System. Joint Staff, J-8 Capabilities and Acquisition Division UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

Subj: NAVY ACCELERATED ACQUISITION FOR THE RAPID DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND FIELDING OF CAPABILITIES

GUARDING THE INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENT. Stephen J Scukanec. Eric N Kaplan

Manpower, Personnel, and Training Assessment (MPTA) Handbook

U.S. DoD Insensitive Munitions Program. Anthony J. Melita

Subj: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY POLICY ON INSENSITIVE MUNITIONS


a. To promulgate policy on cost analysis throughout the Department of the Navy (DON).

CJCSI B Requirements Generation System (One Year Later)

Subj: RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS REVIEW BOARD CHARTER

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3000 MARINE CORPS PENTAGON WASHINGTON DC

Subj: NUCLEAR SURVIVABILITY POLICY FOR NAVY AND MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS

Acquisitions and Contracting Basics in the National Industrial Security Program (NISP)

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

Inspector General FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION. SUBJECT: Physical Security Equipment (PSE) Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E)

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

Subj: CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, AND NUCLEAR DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS SUPPORTING OPERATIONAL FLEET READINESS

Subj: MISSION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE NAVAL SAFETY CENTER

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

United States Air Force (USAF) Human Systems Integration (HSI) Concept of Execution (CONEX)

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

US Army FY09 Human Systems Integration Plan

DoDI ,Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Change 1 & 2

Enhancing Maintenance Training through Distance Support Initiatives

(FOUO) Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System Not Ready for Production Decision

Warfighting Capabilities Determination

Transportability and the Acquisition Process

Subj: CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, AND NUCLEAR DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS SUPPORTING OPERATIONAL READINESS

Report No. DoDIG June 13, Acquisition of the Navy Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep Needs Improvement

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Navy Page 1 of 7 R-1 Line #31

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE. SUBJECT: DoD Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) Program

EXHIBIT R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT TEST & EVALUATION, NAVY / BA4

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3000 MARINE CORPS PENTAGON WASHINGTON D.C

Subj: NAVY ENTERPRISE TEST AND EVALUATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 2000 NAVY PENTAGON WASHINGTON DC

MCO B C March Subj: MARINE CORPS EXPEDITIONARY FORCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM (EFDS)

Product Support Manager Workshop. Rapid Capabilities. Mr. Chris O Donnell Director, Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 2000 NAVY PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC

Mission-Based Test & Evaluation Strategy: Creating Linkages between Technology Development and Mission Capability

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

OPNAVINST H N12 3 Sep 2015

Transportability and the Acquisition Process

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report. Public Key Infrastructure Increment 2 (PKI Inc 2)

D E P A R T M E N T O F THE NAVY

OPNAVINST D N09F May 20, Subj: MISSION AND FUNCTIONS OF NAVAL SAFETY CENTER (NSC)

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION

Department of the Army *TRADOC Regulation Headquarters, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command Fort Eustis, Virginia

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 3010 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

An Independent Perspective From a former PM & PEO. NDIA 13th Annual Systems Engineering Conference 26 Oct 10

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base

DoD Instruction dated 8 December Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Statutory and Regulatory Changes

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HANDBOOK

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report. Department of Defense Healthcare Management System Modernization (DHMSM)

Subj: MISSION, FUNCTIONS, AND TASKS OF THE NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND

New DoD Approaches on the Cyber Survivability of Weapon Systems

ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

The Five Myths of a Non-Developmental Item (NDI) Acquisition Program and. Implications for the T-X Program

OPNAVINST D N4 24 May (a) OPNAV M , Naval Ordnance Management Policy Manual

Subj: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY SENIOR GOVERNANCE COUNCILS

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

Requirements Management

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE. FY 2014 FY 2014 OCO ## Total FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION. Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) Human Effects Characterization

Subj: INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY FOR FIELDING OF COMMERCIAL OFF THE SHELF SOFTWARE

OPNAVINST N46 21 Apr Subj: MISSION, FUNCTIONS, AND TASKS OF COMMANDER, NAVY INSTALLATIONS COMMAND

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

PARTICIPATION IN THE GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY DATA EXCHANGE PROGRAM (GIDEP)

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

Army MANPRINT. Michael Drillings, Ph.D Director for MANPRINT, Army G-1.

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO

From: Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Subj: NAVY EXPEDITIONARY TABLE OF ALLOWANCE (TOA) DEVELOPMENT AND REVISION POLICY AND PROCESSES

Transcription:

1

The Capability Production Document (or CPD) is one of the most important things to come out of the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase. It defines an increment of militarily useful, logistically supportable, and technically mature capability that is ready for a production decision. The CPD also defines a single increment of the performance attributes to support a Milestone C decision. The CPD is the sponsor s primary means of providing authoritative, testable capabilities for the Production and Deployment phase of an acquisition program. The CPD is finalized after the Critical Design Review and is validated and approved before the Milestone C acquisition decision. Most of the information found in these slides is from CJCSI 3170.01G and the JCIDS Manual. Later, in this presentation we ll touch on CPD guidance from each of the service policies. This slide demonstrates where the CPD fits into the JCIDS and acquisition process. You can see how the CPD builds on the previous work that s been done earlier in the JCIDS and acquisition processes. And, as you can see, there are several documents and activities that depend on or are driven by the contents t of the CPD. This is definitely another document that needs to have lots of HSI language in it! 2

The primary difference between a CPD and a CDD is that the CPD is informed by the lessons learned during the development process that may result in a change to the thresholds of the KPPs. So, the CPD serves to refine the threshold and objective values for performance attributes, KSAs and KPPs that were validated in the CDD. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council s objective in approving the CPD is to ensure the system meets the needs originally defined in the Initial Capabilities Document at an affordable cost. If the system doesn t meet all of the threshold levels for the KPPs, the JROC will decide whether or not the system is still operationally acceptable. The approved CPD informs the MDA decision to enter the Production and Deployment phase at Milestone C. The development of the CPD is guided by the DOD Enterprise Architecture and the solution architecture. Several other documents also guide or shape the development of the CPD. These documents include the ICD, the CDD; the Analysis of Alternatives and any supporting analyses, developmental and operational test results, and the critical design review. The CPD also has to include DOTMLPF issues. Just like the CDD, the CPD has to discuss ss any DOTMLPF issues that may result from the deployment of the materiel solution. 3

This slide lists the major sections of the Capability Production Document. Just like the CDD, there are 16 sections. In fact, they re exactly the same 16 sections that are in the CDD! I describe these section in some detail in the module that covered the CDD so I won t do that again here. You can either go back to the Interactive DA Framework and click on the CDD block or refer to your reading assignment for this module, Appendix H of the JCIDS Manual. One slight difference between the CDD and the CPD is that in the CDD discusses initial operational capability and the CPD discusses full operational capability. 4

The next few slides will touch on the Navy, Army, and Air Force policies with respect to CPDs. More specifically, we ll look at what each of the service policies or guidance has to say about HSI in the CPD. The Navy s SECNAV Instruction 5000.2 D really doesn t differentiate between CDDs and CPDs. It refers to these documents as CDD/CPD. Should they be discussed separately? Do you see enough differences between the two documents to describe them separately? What do you think? In previous modules I mentioned the Navy s Two-Pass, Six-Gate process. That process comes into play here just as it did with the ICD and the CDD. The Navy conducts one or more Follow-on Gate 6 reviews. One of those follow- on reviews is conducted d to endorse or approve the CPD. This review is chaired by Chief of Naval operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, or someone designated by either of them. All CPDs are approved by Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Integration of Capabilities and Resources (CNO (N8)) or by a higher authority if specified by this Instruction. 5

OPNAV Instruction 5310.23 provides the CNO s guidance on including HSI in the Capability Production Document. It stresses the need to integrate HSI into the performance parameters of a system. Similar to the SECNAV Instruction I just mentioned on the previous slide, the OPNAV Instruction doesn t differentiate between CDDs and CPDs either. As I mentioned when we discussed the CDD, the OPNAV Instruction, which was just recently signed by the Chief of Naval Personnel, defines the human performance and then describes the type of HSI information that should be included in each section of the CDD and CPD. 6

Let s look at the Army s MANPRINT Handbook to see what it has to say about the Capability Production Document. The quote at the top of this slide gives you a good idea of how important the CPD is to the Army MANPRINT process. The Handbook emphasizes that MANPRINT requirements have to be contained in the CPD and associated KPPs in order for the requirements to make it into the RFP, the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (or TEMP), and other key documents. From a MANPRINT perspective, a good CPD starts with a good CDD. If MANPRINT is not adequately addressed in the CDD, it will probably not be adequately addressed in the CPD, the TEMP, or other important contractual documents. The Handbook also addresses KPPs specifically: If the MANPRINT KPPs are not included in the CDD, the chances of getting them into the CPD will be slim. MANPRINT practitioners are encouraged to participate actively in the CPD IPT. By being an integral part of the IPT, the chances of getting MANPRINT issues addressed will increase dramatically. The Army s Capabilities Integration Center has published a Capability Production Document Writer s Guide, dated 16 June 2009. You ll find a copy of it in the Quick Links Panel of this module. 7

The Air Force has put a lot of thought into both CDDs and CPDs and the manner in which HSI should be incorporated into these documents. The Human Systems Integration Development Guide published by the 711 th Human Performance Wing is where this information can be found. As I said in the past, it s not official USAF policy. But, there s a bunch of great stuff in there and regardless of what service you work with, it s well worth your time to take a look at it. An extract from the Development Guide is attached to the same block on the Interactive DA Framework as this presentation. You were asked to scan this document as a reading assignment for this module. The Development Guide steps through each section of a CPD and describes HSI issues and concerns that should be addressed. After that, the Guide provides examples of the type of HSI language that should be written into a CPD. There are even examples of language to avoid and language that s t useful. Appendix I describes each of the domains in great detail. Not only does the Development Guide describe the domains, it also lists issues and concerns for each domain in the form of questions. 8