Program management
and assessment in the acquisition community is undergoing a
few changes. These changes are being driven by two basic
factors:
• A move from the traditional specification type contracts
with Statements of Work (SOW) to performance based contracts
with Performance Work
Statements (PWS)
• A requirement to more effectively manage and control
programs using Earned Value Management (EVM)
These two factors
are changing the nature of the role of the government
program manager (PM) with respect to the type of control he
or she has on the execution of the contract. In a more
traditional role, the government would specify the
requirements and the system specifications as an SOW in the
Request for Proposal (RFP) and the selected contractor would
execute the SOW using the work plan outlined in their
proposal. In a performance based solicitation, the proposals
include the system specifications and work plan to develop a
solution that will meet the performance criteria in the PWS
and the selected contractor executes according to their
proposal.
This change
requires that the PMs ensure that the system being developed
meets the performance specifications and have less control
over the actual system specifications. Given that
information technology
changes rapidly and COTS products are being used to a
greater degree, this approach can result in better
performing systems, and faster development times.
Program
management has also been undergoing changes. PMs are
requiring more realistic assessments of progress in their
programs and early identification of problems so that
corrective actions can be taken. This is one of challenges
in performance based contracting: sometimes it is hard to
know if the system will work to specification until it is
almost complete and by then it may be too late.
Additionally, these program assessments need to be an
integral part of the RFP and contract so that data calls and
assessment processes are integral to execution. Finally,
many programs are no longer stand alone entities. Systems
developed in one program are designed to be integrated with
other programs and therefore, changes to one will affect
another.
InterchangeSE
is an integrated environment that can solve these issues. It
was designed as a complex systems engineering environment
that associates technical performance and progress with
cost, schedule and risk assessments.
Figure 1
illustrates an example integration that is possible with
InterchangeSE . The
requirements, performance specifications and metrics are
part of the RFP. The proposal includes the technical
approach including the system specification, work breakdown
structure (WBS), cost and schedule elements of the system.
The contract will tie these together and include the test
and evaluation as well as any other technical development or
information integration that might be needed.
The advantage
to the InterchangeSE
approach is that all the technical elements including the
WBS as well as the cost and schedule elements become part of
a central information repository. This information repository is more
than just a place to store the information. The InterchangeSE
repository implements a fully integrated data model that is
based on the GEIA-STD-927 standard data model for complex
systems engineering and is compliant with the GEIA 748-A
Earned Value Management standard. Because of this
integration, the program manager is able to objectively
assess progress toward milestones, which is a common
challenge in EVM based program and project management.
In addition to
a more effective EVM implementation, the InterchangeSE
solution will also improve the technology tradeoff and
insertion process and have a more effective and complete
risk analysis and management capability. Technology
capabilities and performance metrics can be measured against
the requirements, the overall effect on the program with
respect to budget and schedule can be assessed and more
informed decisions can be made. |
