Using the DecisionTools Suite and @RISK for Project for an Analysis of Alternatives of a Hypothetical Weapons System

There is almost universal agreement that defense acquisition is broken. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently testified before the U.S. Senate; his testimony included a litany of "long-standing systemic [acquisition] problems" that have contributed to "repeated—and unacceptable—problems with requirements, schedule, cost, and performance." A recent report from the General Accountability Office (GAO-09-362T) noted that DOD’s major weapon systems continue to take longer to develop, cost more, and deliver fewer quantities and capabilities than originally planned.

Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, introduced the "Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009." The Act, S.454, contains provisions that would, amongst other things, require DOD to reestablish systems engineering organizations and developmental testing capabilities and to make trade-offs between cost, schedule and performance early in the program cycle. These recommendations are supported by a recent Defense Science Board Study (2009-02) that notes:

“The need for fundamental systems engineering in large defense systems is well documented. An important aspect of systems engineering occurs pre-Milestone A, where analysis of alternative considers programmatic needs, available technologies, and trades off performance, cost, and schedule. The degree to which this step was carried out in the programs the task force examined was a reliable indicator of program success.” [emphasis added]

This webcast will demonstrate the use of the DecisionTools Suite and @RISK for Project for a Systems Engineering and Analysis of Programmatic Alternatives of a hypothetical weapons system.