RequirementsNightmarePut to Rest

F/A-18 Advanced Weapons LaboratoryL-3 Communications Government Services Inc.Susan.weaver@navy.mil760-939-5793

Susan WeaverAWL Process Lead

2

What We Do

The Advanced Weapons Lab, China Lake -- where Sensor/ Smart Plane / Smart Bomb combinations are developed, andwired together to test their real-world, real-time performance- including full-scale, in-lab mock-ups prior to flying..

Requirements CollectionRequirements are like items atthe grocery store. Wanderaround and pick out everythingyou like and place them in yourshopping cart. But, when youget to the checkout stand, youbetter have the money to payfor it or the item goes back onthe shelf.

4

Largest Contributor ToProject Failures

60%

4.5

4.3

0 1 2 3 4 5

InadequateRequirementSpecification

Changes inRequirements

56%

82%

60% of system errors due toinadequate specification and design.(Beichter 84)

Top 2 out of 10 reasons system failedto meet cost and schedule

56% of errors in installedsystems due to poorcommunication between userand developer duringrequirements development

82% of available staff time neededto correct requirements errors ininstalled systems.

(SEI National Capacity Study 90)

Quality and delivery problems in thesoftware industry identifying threeleading causes:

1. Lack of user input

2. Incomplete requirements and specifications

3. Changing requirements specifications

“Chaos”, Compass, The Standish Group 1997

5

Requirements Commitment

Functional Requirements Documentn Provides a record of approved requirementsn Captures requirements evolutionn Updated as late requirements are addedn Contains a system-level definition of

functionalityn States the operational intent of each

requirement

6

Link to Operational Testing

FRD is critical part of testing and evaluationn Provides a “Statement of Functionality” for

use in Software Qualification TEMPn Ensures system/software is developed

against same requirements as OT communitywill be testing

n Identifies any operational limitations

7

FRD is Software Annex

FRD

HardwareRequirements Software

Development

8

FRD StructureFRD

9

Functional Requirements Sheet

w Unique Identifierw Descriptive titlew Functional Areasw Requirement & Funding Sourcew Associated documentsw Operational Intentw Statement of Functionalityw Statement of Limitations

10

Baseline FRD

w Draft FRD taken to change review board

w Updated to reflect board decisionsw FRD approved by AWL, PMA-265, N-78w Agreed upon requirements are

baselined in FRD after:n Preliminary SCRBn Planning SCRBn Final SCRB

11

FRD Reuse

w SOF comes from requirements documentation

w FRD data used in Operator Manuals

w SOL reflects known anomalies

w Summarizes all changes in a given product release

12

Evolutionary Acquisition Spiral17C FRD - SOR 05.53-14Implement “Cooperative” Engagements via System X

Product #1

Product#2

Product#3

13C FRD - SOR 05.53-01Incorporate System X

15C FRD - SOR 05.53-07System X Enhancements

LateRequirements

The clock is ticking and you’reunder pressure to meetschedule commitments, but youcan’t ignore those last-minutechange requests.

14

What We Do Is . . .

w Charge for evaluating the impact of adding a late requirement

w Communicate impacts to ongoing development efforts via an impact assessment

w Obtain signatures and funding to go along with adding late requirements

w Document requirement changes in FRD

15

Impact Assessment (IA) ProcessEntry Criteria – A sponsor has identified a candidate

requirement for an ongoing development effort (i.e.,after the Preliminary SCRB has been completed).

Input (Supplier) - Candidate Requirement (Sponsor)w Develop Impact Assessmentw Obtain AWL Approvalsw Sponsor Decision (Yes/No)Exit Criteria – IA status has been communicated and

retained. Approved impacts have been assignedunique identifiers and the FRD is updated.

Output (Customer) – Unique ID, Updated FRD,Updated cost/schedule/performance requirements,Archived IA, (AWL, Sponsors)

16

Impact Assessment Topicsw Costw Schedulew Resource requirementsw Executabilityw Risksw Alternate solutionsw Foreign Military Sales (FMS) applicabilityw Releasibilityw Performance/requirements impactsw Options (if any)w Additional work required by others outside the control

of the AWLw Assumptions

17

What We Learned . . .

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

11C 13C 15C 17C 18E

SCS

# O

f C

han

ges

Tota l # Of Impa ct Sta tements

# Of Approved Impa ct Sta tements

No Charge for Evaluation Flat Fee for Evaluation

18

What We’ve Changed . . .w Comparable Based Estimate (CBE)

n Written requestn No cost for CBE preparationn Less than 2 hour estimaten Based on AWL experience and knowledgen Added disclaimer stating not for use in POM

submissionsn CBE must be approved and funding set

aside prior to the AWL developing an ImpactAssessment

w Decision Board for CBEs and IAs

19

Candidate Requirements

AWLPreparesEstimate

&DraftFRD

ConductPrelimSystemChangeReviewBoard

(SCRB)

TeamEstimatesCandidate

Rqmt

Requirement

Sponsor(e.g., PMA, FMS)

Provides $ to EstimateRequirement

CandidateRequirementto AWL

BaselinedFRD

Draft FunctionalRequirementsDocument

20

Defining Requirements

SponsorProvides $ to Define

Requirement

ConductPlanning

SCRB

Team ExecutesRequirements Phase

Requirement DefinedRequirement

SCR SDR

Requirements Definition& Analysis

UpdatedFRD

BaselinedFRD

Impact Assessments

21

Integration & Test

SponsorProvides $

to ImplementRequirement

TeamExecutesSystem

TestPhase

ConductOTRR

TeamExecutes

ImplementationPhase

ValidatedRequirement

DefinedRequirement

UpdatedFRD

FinalFRD

Impact Assessments

22

Sample FRS

Requirement Number: 5.65-1Title: Modify LAT/LONG entry to a more common formatFunctional Areas: CNI, GPSRequirements: OAG (Priority 2 of 14)Funding by: PMA-265ASAP/DAG Date: Not ApplicableAssociated Documents (if applicable): STR 3365Category: 5 Discretionary

23

Sample FRS (Continued)

Operational Intent:Incorporate the capability to display/enter Latitude/Longitude information in Degrees/Minutes/Thousandthsof Minutes for commonality between Joint Forces whileretaining the current Degrees/Minutes/Seconds format.

Statement of Requirements:Change LAT/LONG entry to hours, minutes, andthousandths format. This is being done in interestof jointness, to make USN/USMC target databasescoincide with U.S. Army & Air Force, DMA, USGS,other agencies’ databases.

24

Sample FRS (Continued)

Statement of Functionality:During multi-service/multi-national cooperative engagement, it is imperative tohave clear communications, situational awareness, and navigation. Themodifications of the position displays to the Joint Services configuration ofDegrees/Minutes/Thousandths of minutes will enhance operations for waypointinsertion/display, A/C position and communication. However the current formatof Degrees/Minutes/Seconds will be retained as is and be the default format oncold start of the A/C.

An additional pushbutton selection has been added to the HSI/Data/Aircraft display format. Pushbutton 15 toggles betweenLATLN DCML (Lat/Long Degrees/Minutes/Thousandths of Minutes)and LATLN SEC (Lat/Long Degrees/Minutes/Seconds) throughoutthe aircraft. The DG/MN SEC format is all per current mechanization.The DG/MN THOU formats are individually discussed in the followingparagraphs.

25

Sample FRS (Continued)

Statement of Limitations:Because the format change to Degrees/Minutes/Thousandths of Minutes requires the mission computerto do a conversion, there is a delay when entering aposition in Lat/Long DCML between the time that aUFC button is pressed and the time that the digit thatwas entered appears on the scratchpad. This delay istypically 1.5 seconds, which is much longer than thedelay that occurs when entering a position in any otherformat.