Attachment_J.6_-_CLIN_0100_-_Sample_Deliverables.pdf

Presented to:

By:

Date:

Federal Aviation Administration Program Management

Review

Integrated Portfolio Team

PMO PMR Attendees

Jeremy Aaronson

May 28, 2015

Federal Aviation Administration

Agenda

• Background – CPI Summit Nov 2014

• Problem Statement

• CPI Sponsorship Framework

• IPT Objectives, Outcomes, Scope, Benefits

• Participating Organizations

• Timeline

• Strategic and Tactical Sub-Teams – Overview and

Accomplishments

• Next Steps

Background: Capital Program Integration (CPI) Summit November 2014

• Purpose – Explore opportunities and address challenges that exist within capital program integration, with focus on collaboration across lines of business

• Participation – About 70 managers and executives from PMO, ATCF/ES, Mission Support, Finance, Safety and Technical Training, and NextGen

• Outcomes

– Initiated solution generation across FAA organizations – resulting in formation of Integrated Portfolio Team (IPT) and Portfolio Implementation Team (PIT)

– Strong leadership commitment across organizations – empowering both teams to address issues identified

• Next Summit planned for July 2015

Problem Statement

• Insufficient and inconsistent coordination between FAA organizations (ATO LoB, NextGen, Finance, Airports) with regard to

– Prioritization of work that aligns with FAA strategies and goals

– Allocation of funding and human resources to accomplish the work

• Lack of integrated portfolio management structure and process results in

– Inability to effectively manage competing priorities among LoB

– Insufficient accounting for, and strategic focus on, program interdependencies

– Increased risk of programs not meeting their schedule

– Loss of potential cost and resource savings through inefficiency

CPI Sponsorship Framework

Kicked off in Jan 2015

Charter development under way

Kicked off in Jan 2015

(D)VP representation

Charter endorsed in May

Includes IPT, PIT and IMT Leads

Integrated Portfolio Team – At a Glance

IPT Objectives

• Develop and recommend a coordinated governance structure and process for integrated portfolio management of capital programs across all relevant FAA LoB (ATO, NextGen, Finance, Airports)

– Develop process for conflict adjudication and identification of alignment opportunities

– Define requirements to inform decision-making related to funding, resource planning, and site scheduling

IPT Outcomes

• Near term

– Establish requirements to develop a tool that de-conflicts program priorities and create a corresponding adjudication process, to adjudicate approved capital programs and projects.

• Far term

– Develop and establish an integrated communication strategy and plan, with a coordinated activity schedule, to ensure that representation and information sharing is effective across the Agency

– Determine beneficial short-term impacts to planning and execution of FY14 (unobligated funds), FY15, and FY16 portfolios

– Develop and establish a fully-integrated NAS portfolio using the governance structure and prioritization model for FY17 and beyond.

– Develop and establish a change management plan, identifying how the proposed changes in governance structure and process will be implemented across LoB to ensure sustainable adoption and success

Governance

Informal Practices •Day-to-Day

Interaction •Best Practices Decision Making Body

•Decision Making •De-conflict competing priorities

•Accountability

Formal Practices •Regulations

•Abiding

Strategic •Risk-based

•View of impact (to the NAS & Field)

Monitoring Implementation

Leading, Principal

Overriding

Structure •Processes

Establishing “Policy”

Communication •Collaboration

Focus On Capital Programs and Projects

• Includes all types of capital programs and projects, and the organizations affecting them or affected by those programs or projects

• What is a capital program or project?

– A program or a project that produces an end-product system, technology, or capability for the NAS, including System and Service Acquisitions, Facility Infrastructure Programs, and Mission Support projects

• Why capital programs and projects?

– Phased approach, F&E projects are the initial focus in this substantive effort

Expected Benefits

• Improved ability to perform organizational strategic planning and decision-making as well as effectively manage competing priorities

• Increased schedule and cost savings through increased efficiency and less rework

• Reduced risk of programs across the Agency meeting their schedules and milestones

Participating Organizations Core Team Extended Team

• Technical Operations, Air Traffic Control Facilities/Engineering Services (AJW-2)

• Program Management Organization

(PMO)

• Mission Support (PRG, AJV-7, PBN)

• NextGen (ANG)

• Technical Operations, Air Traffic Control Facilities/Engineering Services (AJW-2)

• Program Management Organization

(PMO)

• Mission Support (PRG, AJV-7, PBN)

• NextGen (ANG)

• Airports (ARP)

• Finance (ABP)

• System Operations (AJR)

• Air Traffic Services (AJT)

• Safety & Technical Training (AJI)

• ATO Management Services (AJG)

• Project planning and management

• Coordination between participating organizations

• Tri-Leads are liaison with CPI Group

• Deliverable development

• Support to project planning

• Entry point to respective organization

M em be rs hi p

R ol es

R po ns ib ili tie s

Integrated Portfolio Team (IPT)

DRAFT

Timeline to the Next CPI Summit

Charter & Concept

Dev’t

Data

Gathering and Scoping

Sub-Team Analysis & Design

Report out

IPT Kickoff and Full Team

Formation

January

CPI Summit

July 14-16

CPI Summit

Nov 2014

Integrated Design and Rec’s

IPT

Charter

Endorsed

February

Draft Project

Plan

Feb/March

Sub-team Formation

March

ISC Meeting

June 25

We are here

Workshop

June 18

Draft Rec’s and

Early Wins

End June

Sub-Teams – Two Areas of Focus

Strategic Alignment & Agency Prioritization

Tactical Integration – Conflict Identification & Adjudication

Three Tactical Sub-Teams

ATCF/ES and PMO

PRG and Airports

Metroplex and PMO

Scope dev’t in progress

Tactical Sub-Team Accomplishments to Date

• ATCF/ES and PMO

– Early Win: identified need for CWP data cleanup & removal for ~50% of IDSR projects

– Identified first draft of requirements for ITS Team – 13 data shortfalls

– Identified existing informal program coordination process responsible for significant cost savings – opportunity to connect with and strengthen

– Identified critical roles within ES and PRG to support integration and working to improve connection points

– Developing approach for conflict identification (e.g., what parameters to use to avoid too many false positives)

Tactical Sub-Team Accomplishments to Date

• PRG and Airports

– Established connection with Airports to jointly evaluate opportunities to improve portfolio planning and conflict analysis

– Working to improve data reliability supporting planning efforts

– Developing process documentation to support conflict identification and adjudication

Strategic Sub-Team Overview

Need: Align FAA strategy and priorities, leading to more effective investments and better tactical implementation of funded programs

Objective: Recommend methods to integrate strategic decisions and align business rules that guide FAA capital investment decisions

Activities: Collect data and conduct interviews about FAA decision boards: JRC, CIT, ORB, SIG

• Learn about roles, strategic planning, inputs/outputs, decision processes, connections among boards, timing of activities

Outcomes: Perform process analysis and relationship mapping of decision boards; identify process improvement and alignment opportunities to influence program planning and project execution

Next Steps

• June – Develop first set of integrated recommendations and early wins and present to ISC for endorsement

• July – Present recommendations further review and discussion at CPI Summit

What Does All This Mean For You?

• Tell us about coordination efforts and integration initiatives that are similar in nature

– Goal is to connect with other similar efforts to avoid duplication

• Capture opportunities and needs that could be addressed by the IPT

• Support us when we reach out to you (e.g., for input, statements of support, recommendations)

• Contact Jeremy Aaronson with comments/questions

– Jeremy.aaronson@faa.gov

– 202-267-7171 mailto:Jeremy.aaronson@faa.gov

Backup

Integrated Portfolio Team (IPT)

DRAFT

IPT Members Organization Name Title/Role Org Code

Co re

Te am

ATCF/ES –

Facilities

Martha Christie* Strategic Management Group Manager AJW-2A Kim Merchant Program Manager AJW-2A Jim Soriano Manager (Acting) Program Management Team AJW-2A

ATCF/ES – ES Jeffrey Jones ESA, Manager, Navigational Aids Engineering Group AJW-2E14 PMO Jeremy Aaronson* Manager Integrated Program Planning & Control AJM-0

Jere Hayslett (Acting) Deputy Director AJM-2 Patrick Cavanaugh Systems Engineer AJM-212 Molly Vorce Program Management and Integration AJM-3

Mission Support Michelle Lott* Planning & Requirements Group Manager in CSA AJV-C4 Patricia Horan Manager Operational Concepts AJV-7 Tamisha Thomas (Nicolas Sanders) PBN & Metroplex AJV-14

David Caudle (Coffee Bowe) NAS Planning and Integration (NPI) North (PRG) AJV-E33

NextGen (ANG) Rita Estrada Cavallini (Jeffery Christoff)

Manager NAS System Engineering Business Operations

ANG-B5

Ex te nd ed

Te am

ATCF/ES (ES) Nurhan Tan WSA, Manager, NAVAIDS Engineer Center - Seattle AJW-2W14B Joe Peta CSA, Manager, Terminal/Surveillance/Weather Group AJW-2C11

Tech Ops David Meusel National Operations Manager, FAA NEO Telco Services AJW-B11 Finance Jim (George) Lane Management and Program Analyst ABP-360 Airports Elliott Black

(Jesse Carriger) Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming Manager, Planning/Programming, Great Lakes Region ARP-1

Safety & Tech.

Training Tracy Umstead ISD Executive Secretariat AJI-321

ATO Mgmt Srvcs:

Finance

Michael Ortiz Financial Manager for Tech Ops AJG-R33 Marya Blicharz Management & Program Analyst AJG-R33

System Ops Stephen Ryan Manager, Systems Engineering, Surface Operations AJR-E Air Traffic Kathy Heet Senior Advisor Director of Operations HQ AJT-2

Administration Monthly

ERAM NPI Status Meeting

July 30, 2015

ERAM New Program Integration Schedule – One Year Outlook

FY 2015

TFDM

IM-S AA&C

April July

CATMT/

TFMS WP4

Pr e

FI

D

W at ch

It em s SWIM Seg 2B

(SFDPS)

Oct

Last update July 27, 2015

FID Mar 2016

IARD July 2015

FID April 2015 (TSAS)

FID Sep 2015, SWIM 2B, without FDPS – FID for FDPS TBD

FID Sep 2015

FID

Sep 2016

FID

Oct 2017

In S ol ut io n

Im pl em en ta tio n

GIM-S *

PDRR/ABRR

DataComm S1P1

FID Sep 2015 Sector Enh.

(EnRoute WP1)

* Awaiting milestone info

IID June 2015

SE/TR

(ERAM TR1)

Today

ER

AM

B as el in

FID TBD (path stretch, runway)

Terminal WP1 IARD Sep 2015

FIDI** IARD Dec 2015

SIM

TBFM WP3

** Flight and Interfacility Data Interface

ATOP WP1 IARD Mar 2016

FY 2016

Jan

DataComm S1P2

FID Full Services Nov 2015

IOC

July 2015 (Challenge Date)

Operational Milestones (Nov 2015 – Feb 2016)

E-IDS IARD Mar 2016

IARD Dec 2015 Offshore***

*** Non-Continental US Automation

April

Current Milestone

Old Milestone Date

July

3 Federal Aviation Administration July 30, 2015

Agenda

• Program Updates

– SIM – Reggie Bastiampillai

– IM-S AA&C – Denise DeLozier

– FIDI – Pete Hawkins

– Data Comm S1P2 – Mark Boyd

– TSAS (TBFM WP 3) – Sakena Greene

– CSS-Wx – Reggie Bastiampillai

• Process and Development Updates

– Solution Implementation SIPOC (Margit Jochmann, Tim Rosato)

– Requirements Management Plan (Elizabeth Roseboro)

4 Federal Aviation

Assessing Impact and Timing

System ERAM SW Test Training Keysite/Ops DataComm S1P2

SIM

TSAS

CSS-Wx

FIDI

ERAM SE

ERAM Tech Refresh

NVS

• Goal: Understand impact and timing for each system, so as to identify resource needs and possible conflicts

5 Federal Aviation

Agenda

• Program Updates

– SIM – Reggie Bastiampillai

– IM-S AA&C – Denise DeLozier

– FIDI – Pete Hawkins

– Data Comm S1P2 – Mark Boyd

– TSAS (TBFM WP 3) – Sakena Greene

– CSS-Wx – Reggie Bastiampillai

• Process and Development Updates

– Solution Implementation SIPOC (Margit Jochmann, Tim Rosato)

– Requirements Management Plan (Elizabeth Roseboro)

6 Federal Aviation

NPI Process for Solution Implementation Overview

• Purpose

– Provides guidelines for activities during the Solution Implementation phase of a new program/application requiring integration with ERAM

– Improves consistency for engaging with new programs

• Approach

– Aligns with AMS process

– Provides detailed information on Supplier, Input, Process, Output, and the

Customer for each step in the process = SIPOC

– Identifies responsibilities at the group level, distinguishing between new program, SLE, ERAM HQ, and prime contractor – not at a person or functional level

– Provides framework applicable to most cases; however, tailoring is expected on a program by program basis – thus requires thorough review in each case

7 Federal Aviation

NPI Process for Solution Implementation Defining SIPOC

• S = Supplier

– Primary organization(s) that provide(s) inputs into the subprocess, activity, task or decision

• I = Input

– Material, service and/or information used by the process to produce the outputs

• P = Process

– Subprocess/activity/task or decision; typically defines a sequence of activities/tasks that usually add value to inputs to produce outputs for the customer organization

• O = Output

– Typically a product, information, service, and/or decision produced as a result of the process execution that is valuable to the customer organization

• C = Customer

– User(s) of the outputs produced by the process

8 Federal Aviation

NPI Process for Solution Implementation Process Map

9 Federal Aviation

NPI Process for Solution Implementation Process Map – Initial Steps

5.1 Entry Point:

Successful Final

Investment Decision

(FID)

5.3 New Program

Integration (NPI) Kick off Meeting

5.4 Develop Prime

Contractor Request for

Proposal (RFP)

5.2 ERAM Internal

Kickoff meeting

10 Federal Aviation

NPI Process for Solution Implementation Process Documentation – Initial Steps

Subprocess / Activity/

Task or Decision

Title

Primary Supplier

Organization Input Process Description

Org.

Performing Subprocess, Activity, Task, or Decision

Output Customer

Organizatio n

5.1 Entry Point:

Successful Final Investment Decision

(FID)

• New Program

• Acquisition program baseline

• Final Program Requirements Document (RD)

• Final Business Case

• Final Implementation

Strategy and Planning Document (ISPD)

• Updated architecture products and amendments

• Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP) Document

New Program has obtained Joint Resource Council (JRC) approval, which approves and baselines the investment program at the Final Investment Decision.

• New Program

• JRC Record of Decision (includes assignment of designated In Service Decision

(ISD)

authority)

• New Program

• ERAM

Program Office

11 Federal Aviation

NPI Process for Solution Implementation Process Documentation – Initial Steps

Subprocess / Activity/

Task or Decision

Title

Primary Supplier

Organization Input Process Description

Org.

Performing Subprocess, Activity, Task, or Decision

Output Customer Organization

5.2 ERAM

Internal Kickoff Meeting

• ERAM

Program Office

• New Program

FID

ERAM Program Office and the Second Level Engineering (SLE) hold an internal kickoff meeting to establish roles and responsibilities for the ERAM Program Office and SLE as well as to establish the agenda for the New Program Integration (NPI) Kickoff Meeting. Key agenda items include:

• Overview of the ERAM NPI Solution Implementation Process

• Discussion of shared expectations

• New Program provides updated program documentation based on FID (may include RFP)

• Draft NPI Solution Implementation schedule

• Sharing of ERAM Lessons Learned

• Discussion on union involvement

• ERAM

Program Office

• SLE

• Kickoff meeting agenda

• ERAM

Program Office

• SLE

12 Federal Aviation

NPI Process for Solution Implementation Development Status – Feedback Requested

• Mature draft, developed with several ERAM SMEs, conducted several review cycles, involving ERAM SMEs and managers

• Seeking further feedback to ensure we all perspectives are captured, in particular SLE perspective

• Goal is to ensure a shared message and approach between ERAM HQ and SLE with respect to how we engage with new programs during their Solution Implementation phase

2015 2017

Today

Aug Oct Dec 2016 Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec

Process SOP Oct 31

Dec Supp - Criteria & Application

Jan 7

Metrics & Comm Mechanism Dec 31

Integration Process Oct 2015 - Oct 2016

5. ID Process Pilots 6a. Draft Process SOP

6b. Coord Draft SOP 6c. ISC Approval & Publication

6d. Link w/ Other Teams & Institutionalize 6e. Change Mgmt Plan

6f. Adherence Measures 6g. R&R Coordination

9. CIT Joint Reviews Conflict Resolution Process

Jan 2016 - Dec 2016

10a. Draft Escalation Process 10b. CPIG Review of Process

10c. Add Escal Process to SOP 10d. CPIG Resolves Conflicts

11a. Define Metrics for Integ Success 11b. Add Metrics to SOP

11c. Estab Comm Mech for Metrics

11d. CPIG Comm to ISC Decision Support Aug 2015 - Oct 2016

19a. Define/Test Dec Supp Criteria 19b. Incorp Criteria into SOP

19c. ISC Approval & Appl at Strat Level

PIT Lead

IPT/PIT Co-Lead

IPT/IMT Co-Lead

PIT/IMT Co-Lead

IPT Lead

IMT Lead

IPT/PIT/IMT

IPT Themes

2015 2016

Aug Oct Dec 2016 Apr Jun Aug

Key Data Elements List Aug 15

All FY17-18 Data Updated in CWP Jan 31

Std Data Set Reqs to IMT

Aug 31

CWP Modified for Rsc Mgmt Planning Dec 31

Update of Key Data Mar 31

IPT Data Requirements Aug 2015 - Aug 2016

1. ID/Define Key Data Elements 2a. Update Data (FY16)

2b. Update Data (FY17) 3a. Lessons Learned from Data Update

3b. Reval Key Data Elements 3c. Devel Reqs for IMT

PIT Data Requirements Aug 1 - Jan 31

ERM-1. Req CWP for All NAS Programs & Projects ERM-2. Enable CWP Reports for Resource Mgmt

DIR-4. Incr Work Plan Data Accuracy

PIT Lead

IPT/PIT Co-Lead

IPT/IMT Co-Lead

PIT/IMT Co-Lead

IPT Lead

IMT Lead

IPT & PIT Data Requirements

2015 2015

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Integrator's Toolbox Dec 31

Communication Aug 2015 - Dec 2015

16.

Integrator 's Toolbox

18. Capability-Focused Comm Strategy

PIT Lead

IPT/PIT Co-Lead

IPT/IMT Co-Lead

PIT/IMT Co-Lead

IPT Lead

IMT Lead

PIT Themes

CPI Recommendations – Initial Action Planning

Th em e Rec.

No.

Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other

Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Roles & Action Owners

PIT IMT

Integrated Portfolio Team (IPT)

Da ta

1 Current State: Identify and define key data elements that support scheduling and enable the identification and resolution of planning conflicts or alignment opportunities.

FY15+ N/A QW a. Define key data elements and identify data owners

b. Socialize w/ CPI orgs

c. Report back to IPT

d. Provide requirements to

IMT to start addressing the need for a centralized location

Aug 15, 2015

IPT (Jeremy & David) to create initial list of integration data requirements

IPT will then coordinate w/ PIT for their data requirements

IMT to then identify authoritative sources for key data elements

X X

2 Current State: Appropriate organizations should update and maintain those key data elements for projects planned for FY16 and FY17 in currently used data management systems.

FY16+ #1 MH a. Data owners provide update for key data elements for FY16

b. Data owners provide update for key data elements for FY17

Oct 1, 2015

March 31, IPT to coordinate w/ data owners to update data

Coordinate w/ PIT

(ERM-1)

X -

3 Desired State: Establish a standardized data set that is required for implementation across portfolios, programs and projects, available in a centralized location. This data set should use a common taxonomy w/ standardized definitions and be technically accessible to all integrators, in order for them to work effectively w/ the data. It should also be a common resource for both F&E and Operations data.

FY16+ #1 MH a. Capture lessons learned from rec #2 (e.g., variations in data usage)

b. Revalidate set of key data elements, further expand if needed

c. Develop requirements document to be handed off to the IMT to address access requirements (e.g., centralized location)

June 30, 2016

July 31, 2016

Aug 30, 2016

IPT to review lessons learned w/ data owners, then update list of key data elements and hand over requirements to

IMT

IMT to then address requirements

- X

4 Correspondingly, develop and implement a data management process that ensures

FY17+ #3 MH a. Transfer to PIT to address as part of DTR-1, DTR-2, PIT to lead, w/ input from IPT

X X e Rec.

No.

Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other

Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Roles & Action Owners

PIT IMT

data accuracy and reliability through adherence to consistent and repeatable practices throughout the organization.

& CRR-4;

b. IMT to address system and tool needs

c. ISC to address policy change needs

IMT to address systems/tools

ISC to address policy

In te gr at io n

Pr oc es s

5 Expand application of processes designed by the IPT Tactical Sub-Teams to share program and project data, identify conflicts, and reconcile alignment opportunities, for further maturation.

FY15+ #2 QW a. Expand by identifying pilot (e.g., Core 30 Airports?)

• Program level

• Service Area level

• Airspace &

Procedures

b. Identify POCs to work the pilot

c. Develop plan for pilot

Start once FY16 key data elements are updated; Dec

31, 2015

IPT tactical sub-teams; possible connection with

TAMR IV&V

6 Phase 1: Establish a standard, repeatable integration process for ATCF/ES, PMO, PRG, Airports, and Airspace & Procedures Resources (reinforced by policy changes as needed), which includes trigger points for utilization of the process.

Formerly Rec #7 – Phase 2: Leverage the integration processes developed above to design and implement a standardized and repeatable process across all FAA Lines of Business under the CPI umbrella

FY16+ #5 MH a. Document Draft SOP (for

ATCF/ES, PMO, PRG,

Airports, and Airspace & Procedures Resources)

• Complete rec #12 –

R&R for integrator functions

b. Coordinate review of Draft SOP w/ all CPI org and update SOP

c. Obtain approval from ISC on Final SOP and publish

d. Identify linkage w/ other teams (e.g., R&R, training, communication) to institutionalize the process

e. Develop change management plan

Sep 30, 2016

Oct 31, 2016

In parallel w/ draft SOP dev’t

IPT to develop;

CPIG to review; PIT to address R&R;

also coordinate w/ integrators external to CPI (e.g., ANG)

IPT to coordinate across CPI and outside CPI

ISC to approve

IPT to coordinate w/ PIT & IMT

Jim Lane e Rec.

No.

Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other

Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Roles & Action Owners

PIT IMT

Formerly Rec #8 – Reinforce integration process by defining, tracking, and reporting measures that indicate adherence to the process and promote consistent collaboration, including measures related to the usage of data management tools (e.g., CWP).

FY16+ f. Define measures for adherence to process and incorporate into SOP

TBD IPT, PIT & IMT X X

Formerly Rec #12 – Identify roles and responsibilities for existing functions and positions w/in the FAA that play a critical role in planning and implementation integration across projects, programs, and portfolios. Provide answers to the following questions:

• Who performs integration functions; at what level?

• What organizations and personnel do they coordinate w/; how do they do so?

• When are they coordinating; what is the frequency and schedule of this collaboration?

• What information do they share or receive; how do they share/receive it;

what do they do w/ it?

What are their goals?

FY16+ #5 QW g. Coordinate R&R component of SOP w/ PIT R&R

Aug 30, 2016 IPT w/ PIT X -

9 The Capital Investment Team (CIT) should consider joint program reviews during budget formulation. For example, two or more programs supporting the same Service or Capability could present their budget proposals concurrently to highlight interdependencies.

FY16+ N/A - 1. Host IPT training session on F&E budget formulation (by Wilson/Townsend)

2. Develop approach for selecting program cohorts for joint reviews

3. Refine/verify approach w/ CIT

4. Apply approach w/ 2-3 test cases for FY18

To be confirmed:

Sep 30, 2015

Nov 30, 2015

Dec 31, 2015

Feb 28, 2016

IPT - -

e Rec.

No.

Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other

Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Roles & Action Owners

PIT IMT

reviews

5. Refine approach and institutionalize process, supported by education at program level and communication at executive level by CIT

Feb 28, 2017

Co nf lic t R es ol ut io n Pr oc es s

10 Establish an escalation process to resolve integration issues (i.e., conflicts and alignment opportunities) related to program deployment that are not resolved through adherence to integration processes.

FY16+ N/A

(related to #5)

QW a. Develop draft escalation process

b. Review draft escalation process w/ CPIG

c. Add escalation process to draft SOP for the integration process (rec #6)

d. Interim: Bring conflicts to the CPIG to help facilitate resolution (e.g., TAMR & IDSR), use decision support criteria to guide decision-making

May 31, 2016

June 15, 2016

Now

IPT

CPIG w/ Six-Pack & PMO Field Technical Advisors as SMEs

11 Examine solutions to the need for a mechanism to initiate strategic changes in response to frequent or prominent integration issues. An information channel is needed between integrators at the program and project levels and executive-level decision-makers to ensure that implementation realities (e.g., constraints, conflicts, alignment opportunities) inform investment decisions.

FY17+ #10 QW a. Define metrics to assess whether we are integrating successfully

b. Update integration and escalation process to include the metrics

c. Establish communication mechanism (e.g., to communicate savings, trends)

d. Interim (until process is final): CPIG communicates to ISC

Dec 31, 2016

Dec 31, 2016

Now

IPT to coordinate w/ IMT (specifically Metrics sub-team) and other SMEs

IPT to update process

CPIG

- X

Co m m un

16 Sponsor and facilitate information sharing across the agency in support of portfolio

FY16+ #12 QW a. Establish “integrator’s toolbox” (e.g., on KSN or

Dec 31, 2015 IPT to design w/ integrators as SMEs e Rec.

No.

Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other

Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Roles & Action Owners

PIT IMT

integration and program implementation, at FAA Headquarters, Service Areas, and Service Delivery Points (SDPs). The types of information that should be developed/shared include documentation for integration processes, best practices documents, templates, and other materials to assist personnel in integrator roles and to promote adherence to integration and conflict resolution processes. This information could be captured in an accessible repository for integrators (e.g., “The Integrator’s Toolbox”). Additionally, integrators should be encouraged to create a community of practice (CoP) to foster collaboration across the Agency (e.g., to exchange lessons learned and best practices, and to conduct training).

other portal)

b. Establish CoP; then coordinate w/ or move to

PIT ELC

Coordinate CoP w/

PIT & IMT

18 Sponsor and facilitate a strategic communications initiative to support the FAA’s paradigm shift from program-focused implementation to Service- and Capability-focused implementation. Executive management at the LOB level should provide ongoing reinforcement of the need to make investment decisions and corresponding deployment decisions w/ consideration of program interdependencies and capability implementation.

FY16+ N/A QW Identify avenues for communication of capability focus

Oct 30, 2015 IPT w/ CPIG coordination e Rec.

No.

Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other

Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Roles & Action Owners

PIT IMT

De ci si on

S up po rt

19 Decision support guidance is needed to serve as the basis for decisions related to portfolio integration and program implementation, from strategic planning to conflict resolution. In support of this need, evaluate and select criteria to support integration and implementation decisions, including the following:

• Safety of operations

• Service to the flying public

• Efficient and effective use of resources

• Advancement toward NextGen

• Global interoperability

• Risk management and mitigation

• Investment in human capital

• Capitalization on portfolio, program, and project interdependencies

The selected criteria should be integral to decisions at all levels of the organization, but applicable to a variety of decision-makers. For that purpose, after selecting these criteria, determine a method for applying them for use as decision support guidance throughout the FAA, from investment review to project management.

FY16+ N/A

(related to #10)

QW a. Define and test criteria

b. Incorporate criteria into escalation process

c. Define how criteria can be applied at the strategic level, and obtain approval by ISC

Jan 31, 2016 March 31, Oct 30, 2016

IPT; ISC & SIG as SMEs e Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Action Owners

IPT IMT

e Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Action Owners

IPT IMT

Program Implementation Team (PIT)

Po lic y

DTR-1 & -2 – Endorse and hold all FAA organizations accountable for the AMS Policy and its full implementation

Key Enabler for all Rec. Success

DTR1 = QW

DTR2 = MH

a. Develop the Program Management business rules for Agency

• develop scope

• develop detailed rules

b. Executive sponsorship

Sep 1, 2015

Next ISC Meeting

DTR - -

DIR-3 – Establish a policy regarding the accurate coding of Activity 5 travel funds

Draft policy for ISC Review and Concurrence to be in place by FY16

Sep 1, 2015

DIR - -

DIR-1 – Change the methodology for quarterly Activity 5 allocation

Further define the information needed to support program Activity 5 requirements in the future

DIR - -

CRR-4 – Follow the Corporate Work Plan (CWP Process), Service Area Project Management (SAPM) Process, and Program Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).

ERM-1

ERM-2

DIR-4

CRR4 = MH

Develop the minimum information requirements for all programs

New Sub Team

PIT to coordinate w/ IPT and

IMT

X X

ERM-1 – Require the CWP be used for all Programs/Projects that are implemented into the NAS

DIR-4

CRR-4

MH Identify the data entry role to support the missing program information

PIT to coordinate w/ IPT and

IMT

X X

DTR-7 - Update the In-Service Decision (ISD) Policy/Process to include training for Installers not just Maintainers in the In-

CRR-1 CRR-3

DTR-3

e Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Action Owners

IPT IMT

Service Review (ISR) Checklist [*ISD Policy should apply to all equipment implemented into the NAS (i.e., Sustainment and Service Life Extension Programs (SLEP)] ELC -1 - Commit to changing our culture to one that values early and on-going program communications that are inclusive and collaborative

DTR-2 CRR-3 PIT and IPT to coordinate

X -

Da ta

DIR-4 – Increase accuracy of out-year work plan data to ensure it aligns with program needs

ERM-1 CRR-4 MH Ensure all FY17 and FY18 projects are entered in

CWP

Feb 1, 2016

Link w/ Activity 5 work

DIR-1 – Change the methodology for quarterly Activity 5 allocation requests

DIR-3 QW Further define the information needed to support program Activity 5 requirements in the future

DIR

Link w/ Activity 5 work

ERM-2 – Modify the CWP to enable practitioners to run planning and forecasting reports for resource management directly from the CWP portal

ERM-1 ERM-3 MH Modify the CWP Dec 31, 2015 Transition to

IMT

X

DIR-2 - Educate community on how travel is obligated [*Travel authorizations obligate the entire estimated cost of the trip upon approval (especially important for long term TDY);

increase vigilance for timely authorization/voucher funds de-obligation]

DIR-3

DIR-1

g, li ne s of co m m ELC-2 – Establish a Program

Communication Plan early within the program lifecycle in

CRR-1 CRR-3 ELC2 = in between MH and

a. Draft guidance for ISC concurrence

b. Program offices to

Sep 1, 2015

Dec 1, 2015

ELC

Coordinate

X e Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Action Owners

IPT IMT

collaboration with project execution stakeholders

QW initiate drafts w/ IPT

DTR-4 – Develop a Project Management curriculum for Engineering Services

DTR-3 QW a. Discussion with AAP

b. Review existing courses with reps from ES, PRG, LR

Aug 30, 2015 Sep 30, 2015

DTR

DTR-5 – Establish Quarterly Program Manager’s Informal Forums (i.e., Brown Bags)

ELC-2 DTR5 = in between QW and Low Hanging Fruit

a. Identify the topic of discussion and develop the invitation and scheduling process

b. Trevor Henry to host first one

Nov 1, 2015 DTR

CRR-1 : Develop/refine a single program/project management process and control deviations from the process

CRR-2 CRR-3

CRR-4

CRR1 = MH a. Distribute draft matrix for review

b. Comments received

c. Resolve

d. Publish

e. Establish the process to engage PRG, ES, and acquisitions earlier in the Program Deployment Planning

Aug 15, 2015

Sep 15, 2015 Nov 1, 2015 Dec 1, 2015 Starting with FY18 budget formulation phase (i.e., now))

CRR

CRR-2 : Include PRG/ES/Acquisitions in the planning and implementation of all programs implemented within the Service Areas

CRR-1 CRR-3 CRR2 = QW

CRR-3: Develop and coordinate Program/Project Implementation Plans with PRG, DS, and facilities prior to commencement of work

CRR-1 CRR-2 CRR = MH

ERM-3 - Develop a resource plan for execution of Air/Ground Communication Projects for FY16-

FY22

[*Establish the “right

Consider the development and best practice as a PIVV (roles/data/training) e Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Action Owners

IPT IMT

implementation planning team” (i.e., PO, PRG, ES); consider training requirements and schedule]

ELC-3 - Publish a quarterly Capital Programs Newsletter [*Content contributed by each major organization that plans, manages and executes programs/projects on behalf of the

FAA]

ELC-2 ELC3 = in between Low Hanging Fruit and

HARD

DTR-3 - Managers to include the required certification and/or training for their employees in their yearly Performance Plan [*Ensure identified Program and Project Managers pursue the appropriate level of FAA P/PM certification]

DTR-4 CRR-1 DTR3 = in between HARD and Low Hanging Fruit

DTR-6 - Establish a Mentorship Program for Program Managers (Peer-to-Peer) [*Teaming junior Program Managers with more experienced Program Managers]

DTR-3 CRR-1

M et ric s

ESG-2 – Develop shared goals for FY16 (within AJW, AJM, AJV); would then need to go into program level

Key Enabler for success of all recommendations

QW a. Finalize FY16 shared goal set

b. Kick off telcon

c. Weekly telcons

d. Gain executive endorsement

e. Goals communicated

f. Next Steps; engage with PMO, OPS, AT, TO, ACQ

Early Aug 2015

Sep 15, 2015

Shared Goals e Rec No.

Recommended Actions (based on Charter – Outcomes)

FY

Impact

Dep. on other

Actions

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Action Owners

IPT PIT

Information Management Team (IMT)

Cu rr en t S ta te

A na ly si s

1 Identify and document current state of information management systems and tools determined to be within the scope of the CPI effort (e.g., CWP, NAS Systems Engineering Portal, SPIRE, etc.)

2 Identify current documented authoritative sources and stewards for program and project key data (e.g., AMS milestones, schedules, cost estimates, facility types, service delivery points)

X -

3 Assess current CWP usage and functionality (e.g., organizational use, update or extraction practices and frequency) throughout the Agency, from headquarters through the field level, to determine opportunities for improvement

4 Assist in determination of inaccuracies and inconsistencies of data (e.g., schedules, cost estimates, facility types, service delivery points) within information management systems and tools

X X

IP

T/

PI

T

Re qu ire m en t

5 Collect business needs and requirements from the IPT and PIT for modification of existing or provision of new information management systems and tools

Deferred Recommendations em e Rec.

No.

Recommended Actions FY Impact

Dep. on other

Actions

Summit Priority Assess.

Tasks/Steps Completion Date

Action Owners

Integrated Portfolio Team (IPT)

Ro le s & R es po ns ib ili tie s

13 Create an integration staffing plan, based on assessing the current state with roles and responsibilities of existing integration personnel as well as based on identifying needs for new positions or functions to satisfy integration needs. The plan should be a resource for standardization of integration roles and responsibilities across all organizations.

FY16+ #6, #12 -

DEFERRED

(these recommendations were assessed as low priority at the CPI Summit, most of these recommendations build on recommendations further above, thus deferred for now)

14 Align performance assessment and incentives for critical integration roles and responsibilities to drive accountability.

FY17+ #13 -

15 Ensure that funding requirements to support integration activities are included in base requirements requests (e.g., Activity 5).

FY15+ N/A -

Co m m un ic at io n s

17 Establish shared awareness within the agency on critical integrative roles and responsibilities.

FY16+ #12 -

CPI Business Priority – Action Plan [Action Title & Ref. No.] [Team: IPT/PIT/IMT]

Action Overview

Problem Statement [What problem is the team trying to solve?]

Business Need / Impact

[What business need is driving this action? What impact is this problem having on the current environment? What would happen if this action is not completed?]

Objective [What is this action seeking to accomplish, what is the goal?]

Scope [Describe the scope of this action.]

Team Sponsor: [CPIG lead(s)] Team Lead: [name, organization] Team Members/Stakeholders/SMEs:

• [name, organization, role]

• [name, organization, role]

• [name, organization, role]

Support Staff Needs: [name, FTE estimate]

Approach [Describe how the team plans to solve this problem, including process and methodology to be used in developing the solution.]

Deliverable [Describe the main deliverable/product(s) to be developed.]

Success Criteria [Define quantitative and/or qualitative metrics for how project success will be measured.

Describe targeted end-state to determine whether/when need/opportunity has been addressed.]

Assumptions, Constraints, Risks

[Identify any assumptions, constraints, and/or risks that could impact the success of this project.]

Dependencies with Other CPI Actions

[Identify and describe dependencies with other CPI actions.]

Related External Initiatives

[Identify any related external initiatives and describe the plan for aligning with them.]

Projected Completion Date

[Month, Day, Year]

Level of Effort [Estimate the average number of hours per week needed to accomplish the objective, on a team and individual basis.]

Executive Leadership Support Need

[Identify any needs you have for executive leadership to support this action.]

[Use the table below for detailed action planning down to the task level, and include the communications approach needed to successfully plan and execute this action.]

Detailed Action Planning Phase Tasks Deliverable Task Owner Projected

Start Projected

Finish Communications

I. Planning • Develop Action Plan

• Coordinate with stakeholders and related initiatives

• [Identify other tasks]

• Action Plan • IPT/PIT/IMT

• CPIG

II. Analysis & Design

• [Identify tasks] • Business Deliverable(s)

• Status Briefing/Report

III. Execution • [Identify tasks] • Business Deliverable(s)

• Status Briefing/Report

IV. Impact Assessment & Closure

• Perform success evaluation

• Capture lessons learned

• Close action (determine if transition is needed)

• [Identify other tasks]

• Impact Documentation • IPT/PIT/IMT

• CPIG

Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) Program Office

Quality Assurance (QA) Audit Report

SBS Requirements Management PMO-048, Rev. 01

May 13, 2015

Approved by:

David Gray Date SBS Program Manager

Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services QA Audit Report, SBS Requirements Management

PMO-048, Rev. 01 May 13, 2015 Page 2 of 18

Revision History for

QA Audit Report, SBS Requirements Management

PMO-048, Revision 01

Revision # Description Document Date

Rev. 01 CM Baseline Version, DCR-QA-010 May 13, 2015

Printed copies of this document are uncontrolled and for reference use only.

Latest approved version can be found on KSN in the SBS Program Support Library (PSL).

FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services QA Audit Report, SBS Requirements Management

PMO-048, Rev. 01 May 13, 2015 Page 3 of 18

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Scope

1.3 Evaluation Team

1.4 Practice Area Participants

1.5 Audit Rating Categories

2 Audit Findings

2.1 Findings Summary

2.2 Recommended Corrective Actions

2.3 Observations

Appendices Appendix A List of Acronyms

Appendix B Detailed Audit Findings

FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services QA Audit Report, SBS Requirements Management

PMO-048, Rev. 01 May 13, 2015 Page 4 of 18

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

The SBS Best Practices Team conducts Internal Quality Assurance Audits in accordance with the policy and practice described in the SBS Quality Assurance Plan. The purpose of the internal audit is to assess program compliance with relevant FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) guidance, as detailed in the Acquisition Practices Discipline-Based Toolkits1.

1.2 Scope

This report documents findings from the evaluation of the Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) Program’s Requirements Management practice area.

1.3 Evaluation Team

The audit was performed by Margit Jochmann (SBS QA Lead) and Beth Jakub (SBS Best Practices Team Member). The evaluators are internal to the SBS program. Evaluators leverage their expertise in various quality and Process Improvement models, the AMS, the Acquisition Practices model, and system lifecycle-phase disciplines to conduct process and product reviews.

The evaluators’ experience within SBS informs their evaluation of the practice areas, and helps further the program’s overall goal of fostering an environment that encourages continuous process improvement. See the SBS Quality Assurance Plan for more information.

1.4 Practice Area Participants

The primary contacts for the Requirements Management practice area are Carla Furr, SBS Requirements Management Lead, and Ruth Kirui, SBS Requirements Management Database Administrator.

1.5 Audit Rating Categories

Five rating categories describe the compliance condition. The following table defines the categories, color codes, and meanings.

1 Audit Requirements are drawn from AMS guidance, using the Acquisition Practices toolkits/templates posted on the KSN at https://ksn2.faa.gov/faa/AcquisitionProfessions/Practices/Pages/Discipline.aspx

FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services QA Audit Report, SBS Requirements Management

PMO-048, Rev. 01 May 13, 2015 Page 5 of 18

Category Meaning

Evident All requirements of a practice activity are met, supported by program artifacts (documents, records, tool outputs) containing sufficient proof of performance and compliance

Largely Evident

Most requirements of a practice activity are met, supported by program artifacts (documents, records, tool outputs) containing sufficient proof of performance and compliance

Partially Evident

Some requirements of a practice activity are met, supported by program artifacts (documents, records, tool outputs) containing reasonable proof of performance and compliance

Not Evident None of the requirements of a practice activity is met. A Not Evident rating means that the evaluators did not see a given artifact, not that it does not exist.

Not Rated Due to some condition, the requirements of a practice are not determinable

2 Audit Findings

The audit began on January 28, 2015 with the kickoff meeting for the SBS Requirements Management practice area. The evaluation was completed on April 27, 2015. The summary findings were presented to the SBS Leadership Team on May 5, 2015.

2.1 Findings Summary

The SBS Requirements Management practice area is operating at a very high level of compliance with AMS requirements. All but one rated items were given the highest rating of Evident, and one item was rated Largely Evident. The results also show improvement compared to the last internal QA audit conducted in February 2013.

See below for a summary of the audit findings and the corrective action to address an area identified for improvement. The SBS Requirements Management POCs have reviewed and concurred with this corrective action. We also include a summary of observations resulting from the audit.

Appendix B of this report contains a full description of each audit requirement and the evaluators’ assessment of each, including information on artifacts reviewed and rationale for each rating.

Appendix B also includes details on the prior assessment of the practice area that was performed in 2013.

FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services QA Audit Report, SBS Requirements Management

PMO-048, Rev. 01 May 13, 2015 Page 6 of 18

Audit Requirement2 Current Audit Rating

Prior Audit Rating (Feb 2013)

Es ta bl is hi ng eq u.

M gm t.

C ap ab ilit y

1 Review AMS Policy Evident Evident

2 Review Requ. Mgmt. Processes Evident Evident

3 Identify Roles & Assign Staff Evident Evident

4 Identify & Meet Training Needs Largely Evident Largely Evident

Pe rfo rm in g R eq u.

M gm t.

Su pp or tin g

Ac tiv iti

5 Identify Requ. Mgmt. Work Products Evident Evident

6 Identify & Involve Stakeholders Evident Evident

7 Document Requ. V&V Process Evident Evident

8 Track & Report Metrics Evident Largely Evident

9 Review Process & Products Evident Evident

10 Review Requ. Mgmt. Status with Mgmt. Evident Evident

Pe rfo rm in g R eq u.

M gm t.

Ac tiv

29 Develop Type A Specification Evident Evident

30 Maintain Requ. Traceability Evident Evident

31 Manage Change Requests Evident Evident

32 Document Change Decisions Evident Evident

33 Update Baseline & Documents Evident Evident

34 Periodic Review of Requ. Process Evident Evident

35 Document Configuration Mgmt. Plan Evident Evident

36 Analyze Change Requests Evident Evident

37 Document All Change Decisions Evident Evident

38 Capture Change Impacts Evident Evident

39 Review Requ. Process Evident Evident

2 Audit Requirements are drawn from AMS guidance, using the Acquisition Practices toolkits/templates posted on the

FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services QA Audit Report, SBS Requirements Management

PMO-048, Rev. 01 May 13, 2015 Page 7 of 18

2.2 Recommended Corrective Actions

One corrective action is recommended to address a gap for improvement identified during the audit, related to updating documentation to reflect current practice. The SBS Practice Area Leads have reviewed and concurred with this corrective action.

Recommended Corrective Actions

ID

Audit Requirement

Finding Corrective Action

4 Identify & Meet Training Needs

The Requirements Management Plan lists training for SBS Leadership and spec owners/authors in the requirements change process as well as training for spec owners/authors in writing good requirements;

however, current practice differs, as there is no need for such training, based on the maturity of the program in its lifecycle. Rather, any training for SBS Leadership and spec owners/authors is provided on a one-on-one basis, as needed (typically via phone or email). Sample guidance/training emails provide evidence for this practice.

Rating is Largely Evident.

Requ-01: Update SBS Requirements Management Plan, Section 3, to better reflect current practice with respect to training needs and conduct for SBS Leadership and spec owners/authors.

Responsible: Carla Furr and Ruth Kirui

Due Date: 6/15/2015

2.3 Observations

The primary focus of this audit is on AMS compliance. In addition, observations regarding opportunities for improvement are also noted in the audit findings (marked in blue font); however, these do not represent a gap to AMS compliance. Very few observations were made during this audit. The table below lists the observations identified through the audit.

# Audit Step Observations Suggested Action 2 Review Requ.

Mgmt.

Processes

… The SBS CM Plan also describes the processes for baselining and changing requirements; however, the document was last updated in 2010.

Update to CM Plan is already captured as a QA action through other audits.

3 Identify Roles & Assign Staff

… The SBS Orientation Brief identifies the Requirements Lead, SBS Leadership Team, and several of the extended RRB members. Assignment of the RM Database Administrator is not evident.

Suggest documentation of assignment for RM Database Administrator role in an appropriate space (e.g., KSN).

FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services QA Audit Report, SBS Requirements Management

PMO-048, Rev. 01 May 13, 2015 Page 8 of 18

Appendix A List of Acronyms

AMS Acquisition Management System

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

KSN Knowledge Services Network

PMO Program Management Organization

QA Quality Assurance

SBS Surveillance and Broadcast Services

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

Color legend for audit findings shown in Appendix B:

- Black = indicates compliance with AMS requirements

- Red = indicates non-compliance with AMS, identifies an element of a process item that shows a gap, triggering a corrective action to close it

- Blue = compliance with AMS, however, there is an opportunity for improvement from a best practice standpoint; these items generally do not result in corrective actions

FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services QA Audit Report, SBS Requirements Management

PMO-048, Rev. 01 May 13, 2015 Page 9 of 18

Appendix B Detailed Audit Findings Audit Requirement Artifacts Provided Current Evaluation Results Previous Evaluation Results

ID Activity Description April

SBS QA

Rating

April 2015 SBS QA Rating Comments Corrective Actions Related to April 2015 Findings

Jan

SBS QA

Rating

Jan 2013 SBS Internal QA Audit Rating Comments

Establishing Requirements Management Capability (Steps 1-4)

1.

Review AMS Policy

Understand the AMS policies related to requirements.

SBS Requirements Management Plan (2013), SBS Systems Engineering Management Plan

(SEMP) (2014),

All other audit artifacts

Evident

The SBS Requirements Management Plan and SEMP reference AMS as the governing policy. Audit artifacts demonstrate understanding of AMS policies for requirements management, in particular as it relates to documenting and utilizing the various requirements management processes.

Rating is Evident.

Evident

The SBS Requirements Mgt Plan v2.0, section 1.1 references that the AMS as the governing policy and guidance for system acquisition. The SE Mgt Plan v3.1 also notes that the SEM supports the AMS Policies and Guidance.

Rating is still Evident.

2.

Review…