(U) As-Is FG IT Governance Processes Summary Final.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

NGA Enterprise Engineering (NEE) Foundation GEOINT Mission Planning

As-Is Process Model Suite:

Foundation GEOINT (FG)

Information Technology (IT)

Governance Processes

Foundation GEOINT Technology Division (SFCA)

Version 1.0

November 8, 2024

The Overall Classification of this document is UNCLASSIFIED

8 November 2024 Foundation GEOINT Technology Division FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

2 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND

RECORD OF CHANGES

FOUNDATION GEOINT (FG) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) GOVERNANCE PROCESS AS-IS OVERVIEW MODEL

INTRODUCTION

ASSUMPTIONS

FG IT GOVERNANCE AS-IS OVERVIEW MODEL

FG CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT PREPARATION SUB-PROCESS AS-IS PROCESS MODEL

FG CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT PREPARATION INTRODUCTION

FG CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT PREPARATION SUB-PROCESS MODEL

SF MISSION ASSESSMENT SUB-PROCESS AS-IS PROCESS MODEL

SF MISSION ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION

SF MISSION ASSESSMENT SUB-PROCESS MODEL

APPENDIX A: FG CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT PREPARATION SUB-PROCESS NUMBERED MODEL AND DEFINITIONS

FG CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT PREPARATION SUB-PROCESS MODEL DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX B: FG CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT PREPARATION SUB-PROCESS AS-IS TABLE VIEW

APPENDIX C: SF MISSION ASSESSMENT SUB-PROCESS NUMBERED MODEL AND DEFINITIONS

SF MISSION ASSESSMENT SUB-PROCESS MODEL DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX D: SF MISSION ASSESSMENT SUB-PROCESS AS-IS TABLE VIEW

APPENDIX E: ‘HAPPY PATH’ OVERVIEW MODEL VIEW

OVERVIEW MODEL – “HAPPY PATH” VIEW

APPENDIX F: BPMN 2.0 LEGEND

APPENDIX G: GLOSSARY

APPENDIX H: ACRONYM LIST

APPENDIX I: FG IT GOVERNANCE AS-IS PROCESS SOCIALIZATION

INPUTS FROM RESEARCH GROUP AND SFN ENGAGEMENTS – SPRING 2024

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

3 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

Background NGA’s Foundation GEOINT Group (SF) and the Mapping, Charting & Geodesy (MC&G) Program Management Office (PMO)1 have been working together since 2021 to continuously evolve an effective Foundation GEOINT (FG) Information Technology (IT) governance model. The goal of IT governance is to enable better informed and more transparent IT investment decisions across both organizations and ensure compliance with SF-level standards for IT development and maintenance.

The need for IT governance exists because; 1) SF has historically decentralized IT investment decision making at the Office level; 2) CIO-T has executed a separate, FG IT budget to support development as well as operations and maintenance for SF mission requirements; and 3) Coordination between SF and MC&G budgets is imperative to maximize spending efficiency and ensure execution of high-priority requirements. IT investment decisions occurring at the SF Office level rather than the Group level, while seemingly more expeditious, have resulted in multiple issues such as an unnecessary growth in IT contracts that often results in costly integration and sustainment challenges, sometimes years after initial contract award; stand-alone IT that is not properly maintained and is not always part of the GEOINT Enterprise Architecture (GEA) or the configuration management baseline.

SF must improve on this legacy IT governance model and can do so by leveraging a centralized governance framework that ensures all FG IT is procured, developed and maintained effectively through the MC&G PMO. This governance framework consists of the Foundation GEOINT Information Technology Requirements Board (FIRB) managed at the SF Group-level, the MC&G PMO Technical Review Board (TRB), and the MC&G PMO Risk and Opportunities Management Board (ROMB).

There are three key factors, which will determine the effectiveness of FG IT governance: 1) Established standards that communicate how FG IT will be governed by positioning the FIRB as the “Front Door” for all FG IT requirements in SF; 2) the coordination and collaboration between the FIRB, TRB, and the ROMB; and 3) the future process established and coordination between the SF IT Governance and Transition Mission Manager and the Capability Mission Manager.

This artifact provides the existing processes and captures Pain Points and To-Be Notes to support the future evolution of the FG IT Governance process. Further, the artifact contains a description of two of the sub-processes that comprise the FIRB-focused sections of the governance process. Finally, this artifact documents Pain Points in the current process, as well as topics for further investigation to evolve the process (To-Be Notes), collected from governance stakeholders, to include the SF IT Governance Team, NGA Research, SF Production Office Technical Executives (TXs), and the MC&G PMO.

1 Formerly known as the Integrated Program Office - Foundation GEOINT (IPF)

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

4 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

Record of Changes Version Date Description Author Approver

1.0 8 Nov

SF IT Governance Processes Summary NEE TO14 – FGMP Jordan Gibb, SFCA, SF IT Governance Mission Manager

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

5 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

Foundation GEOINT (FG) Information Technology (IT) Governance Process As-Is

Overview Model

Introduction This Overview Model illustrates the high-level, end-to-end process from IT need or capability identification to disposition and provides the framework for the overarching FG IT Governance process. Development of this artifact was driven by the Foundation GEOINT Group Corporate Operations and Technology Office (SFC) desire to formally document the existing business processes governing the assessment and implementation of IT capabilities in support of Source

Foundation GEOINT Group (SF) mission. This technology-agnostic process is expected to facilitate socialization with stakeholders associated with the Foundation GEOINT Information Technology Requirements Board (FIRB). The overarching goal of this process is to realize improved, more transparent IT capability-related activities, which include prioritization, funding, and acquisition of capabilities to effectively support the ever-evolving SF Mission.

The FIRB, the TRB and the ROMB comprise a three-board governance framework. The FIRB, run by SFC, is positioned as the “front door” for all FG IT requirements and serves two primary purposes: 1) Vetting new and emerging IT capabilities and validating mission requirements via proposals to all SF Technical Executives and other leadership stakeholders across the organization during a public forum; and 2) Facilitating the prioritization of IT requirements by the MC&G

Mission Owner (MO) to allow for optimal application of engineering and program management resources. The TRB, run by the MC&G PMO, is essentially the implementation arm of the process, providing engineering, integration, and transition support to validate the feasibility of IT capabilities to satisfy SF-validated requirements and develop implementation solutions. The ROMB, run by the MC&G PMO, is responsible for tracking and managing related risks and opportunities; however, it is not currently fully integrated into the FG IT Governance Process.

This artifact clarifies the As-Is FG IT governance process and identifies opportunities for improvement, using input garnered from key stakeholders. An initial round of engagements with FG IT Governance stakeholders was completed in

2024. Results of these engagements can be found throughout this document as Pain Points and To-Be Notes, both in the process models sections and the Appendices (see Appendix I).

Assumptions

1. The FIRB is a mission-focused governance board for SF; therefore, all capability introductions and assessments must have an SF Technical Executive (TX) sponsor for submission to the FG IT Governance Process.

2. The FIRB is the ‘front door’ for capability enhancements, new capability requests, and any other FG IT requirements requiring resources for SF production offices.

a. The TRB conducts capability transition assessments and engineering analyses of alternatives (AoAs) for capabilities that have been vetted by the FIRB.

b. TRB assessments of acquisition packages do not require FIRB review, though they do require execution of their own approval process and may be brought to the FIRB for informational purposes, if desired.

c. SF TXs and their designated SMEs attend the FIRB. Since the goal of the FIRB is to gather input on pre-vetted capabilities, regular FIRB attendance by these SF subject matter experts (SMEs) is essential.

3. MC&G PMO representatives are not required to attend the FIRB. They are also not intended to engage in a mission-centric discussion at the FIRB; however, their attendance is encouraged as it allows them to hear business cases and SF responses from the FG SMEs and keep potentially impacted MC&G PMO projects properly informed.

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

6 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

4. From a governance process perspective, the process ends once a request (e.g., for a new capability, an enhancement, etc.) has been approved through the SF Mission Assessment process (FIRB), the MC&G Engineering Assessment Process (via the TRB) is completed, and the recommendation is validated for implementation by the MC&G Mission Owner. See the definition of FG IT Governance in the Glossary (Appendix F).

5. Mission Owner decisions are made based on a series of guiding principles2 as well as the SF Priorities (e.g., 1-to-n list) to ensure optimal support to FG Mission needs.

FG IT Governance As-Is Overview Model

FG IT Governance As-Is Overview Description

This Overview model provides a high-level visual representation of the FG IT Governance As-Is process, including the identification, assessment, and prioritization of IT capabilities supporting the FG mission. The process is characterized by two potential paths: the most common path beginning with the identification of a new need for an IT capability enhancement or a new capability, generally by an SF production office. The governance process can also begin when a status update has been requested for a capability which already has full SF support via the FIRB. The activities within the

Overview model illustrate the key components of the governance process. This includes how SF identifies and explores potential IT needs, how capabilities are prepared for SF assessment at the FIRB, and how the FIRB facilitates assessment

2 Guiding Principles are not yet a formalized artifact and may change over time as goals are accomplished and new focus areas are defined. Currently these include integration of processes and data across FG domains, maximizing the use of FG enterprise solutions, improved data-centricity, addressing fiscal efficiency (i.e., “do more with less”) and enabling modernization leading to Foundation Digital Twin (FDT). See To-Be Note #1 in the SF Mission Assessment Sub-Process section of this document for the recommendation to formally document these principles.

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

7 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

and socialization of SF-related capabilities, leveraging SF expertise to assist in informing IT decisions made by the MC&G

Mission Owner. The process also describes how the engineering teams supporting the MC&G PMO provide technical evaluations and engineering expertise to assist in capability implementation planning and monitoring, and documents the existence of the SF Prioritization processes, and the need to evolve it to integrate with the rest of the governance framework more deliberately in the future. The overall process is complete when the capability has successfully been socialized, assessed, and approved for implementation, or when it has been deferred by any of the decision-makers during execution of the process (e.g., SF Office TX/sponsor, MC&G Mission Owner). Each of the tasks and sub-processes are further summarized below.

New SF Capability Exploration Sub-Process

This SF-centric sub-process depicts the coordination required to acquire office-level sponsorship (i.e., an SF Production

Office TX) of a potential IT capability, work with the development organization to complete initial coordination activities and determine whether the capability should proceed further in the overall FG IT governance process. The primary trigger that initiates this sub-process is the identification of a new capability or existing capability enhancement to benefit the SF mission. Development of a new capability identified at this stage may be via Research, DevCorps, or SF, and will generally undergo SF Mission Assessment at the FIRB, either as an introduction briefing (informational only) or for a formal capability assessment, if funding and/or other engineering activities are required from the MC&G PMO.

Internally developed solutions are not required to execute the SF Mission Assessment Sub-Process (i.e., go to the FIRB) unless funding and/or sustainment are required. Any capabilities approved to move forward will proceed to the FG

Capability Assessment Preparation Sub-Process, where the SF IT Governance Team will assist in managing the development of the appropriate SF Mission Assessment artifacts (e.g., Capability Introduction briefings, Business Cases, etc.) prior to appearing at the FIRB.

FG Capability Assessment Preparation Sub-Process

After SF has identified a TX sponsor and it is ready to move forward in the process, they begin to prepare the capability / need for presentation to the MC&G MO and SF stakeholders at the FIRB. This presentation may be for a formal decision

(e.g., request for a transition assessment, engineering analysis, or implementation approval) or for collaboration (e.g., FIRB introduction, status update). The SF IT Governance Team will work with the requestor to assign a FIRB date and ensure that the Business Case is complete, to include the specific type of engineering assessment being requested, if applicable. If the SF IT Governance Team determines that the Business Case is not ready for presentation, they will work with the requestor to reschedule a future FIRB date. The Business Case must be completed and approved by the SF IT

Governance Team at least 7 days prior to the scheduled board meeting.

In addition to the primary flow described above, this sub-process will also be used to prepare a capability to return to the FIRB at appropriate times in the engineering lifecycle. This is often needed to socialize progress and solicit SF input for the MO to determine the next steps. In these cases, the requestor will work with the SF IT Governance Team to develop an updated business case. See expanded sub-process below for additional details.

SF Mission Assessment (FIRB) Sub-Process

This sub-process details the steps to execute a FIRB session, to include presenting the business case, stakeholder review and comments, and documentation of any outcomes or decisions made during the meeting. On the scheduled date, the

FIRB, led by the SF Mission Owner and SF IT Governance Team, convenes. The SF requestor and/or SF TX sponsor presents the business case to the forum. SF representatives are encouraged to ask questions and provide input that may

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

8 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

assist the Mission Owner in making any required decisions on whether to advance the capability further. The MO and SF

IT Governance Team encourage participation from the SF TXs to foster collaboration and build consensus on the path forward. A business case is either approved or deferred by the MC&G MO at the FIRB. When approved, the capability proposed will be forwarded to the MC&G TRB for assignment to an engineer. The MC&G PMO engineering lead will perform the appropriate engineering activities [e.g., analysis of alternatives (AoA) or a transition assessment (see MC&G

Engineering Assessments sub-process)3]. If a request is missing vital information, does not align in terms of timing, or is not deemed to be a high enough priority, it may be deferred for future consideration and may persist on the FIRB backlog indefinitely. See expanded sub-process below for additional details. If the briefing was a Capability Introduction, the FIRB may determine that the capability should be monitored and that the MC&G PMO should begin planning for eventual transition into operations (see Engineering Integration Monitoring/Planning Sub-Process)4.

MC&G Engineering Assessments (TRB) Sub-Process5

Once a capability or capability need has been reviewed by SF and approved by the MC&G Mission Owner for further study, this sub-process begins an engineering assessment by the MC&G PMO. The FG-related engineering efforts are overseen by the MC&G PMO engineers via the Technical Review Board (TRB), led by the MC&G Deputy Program

Director. Once the required artifacts have been received, the MC&G PMO will board the request at the TRB to further understand the capability brief. The MO has already decided on whether to conduct an Engineering Analysis of

Alternatives (AoA) or a Transition Assessment. The decision of which of these two types of TRB-directed assessment options is based on the level of maturity of the capability and how much information is known. The presentation provided to the TRB helps to inform the MC&G PMO and other stakeholders of the action required and way forward.

After the assessment is completed (typically 30-90 days), the TRB reviews and approves a recommendation, and it is provided to the MC&G Mission Owner for a final decision.

Engineering Integration Monitoring/Planning Sub-Process

This sub-process captures what is required to monitor and plan for potential new capabilities that the FIRB has committed to track through transition into operations or sustainment under the purview of the MC&G PMO. Today, these capabilities are almost always new Research technologies. The MC&G PMO Transition Lead will identify a PM to be responsible for monitoring and planning for eventual integration of this capability. The PM works with the development team to generate estimates for the eventual O&S costs and identifies the integration tasks that are required to transition the capability. Once the development team is ready to transition the capability to O&S, they seek approval from the appropriate SF Product Owner (PdO) and the SF Office TX. Once their approval is secured, the SF sponsor will update the business case and seek final approval from the MC&G Mission Owner (see Determine Implementation

Decision).

Determine Implementation Decision (Mission Owner)

In addition to serving as the decision authority for SF Mission Assessments (i.e., FIRB requests), the MC&G Mission

Owner is also the decision authority for FG IT capabilities based on the outcomes of MC&G Engineering Assessments

3 Technical recommendations developed by the TRB may come back to the FIRB for discussion, but this full process cycle has not yet been executed on in its entirety.

4 Many of these capability introductions may be Research capabilities which will require a Research Technology Transition Agreement (TTA). Further discussion is required between SF and Research to finalize the policy and processes for how TTAs are handled, see To-Be Notes for more detail.

5 See the TRB Charter for a full description of this sub-process.

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

9 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

(i.e., TRB recommendations). New capabilities that are ready for incorporation into the MC&G PMO operational baseline and have gone through the appropriate governance steps are ready for a Mission Owner implementation decision (e.g., approval of TRB Engineering Assessment recommendation or deferral). This presentation is known as the Acceptance

Briefing. The Mission Owner decision is made primarily based on the assessed readiness of the capability, SF priorities, and available funding. Technical trades or reprioritization of MC&G PMO activities and/or funding may be required to implement the recommended solution.

SF Prioritization

Twice a year SF reviews and updates the IT priorities for the entire FG Group. In May, the annual process begins and an initial “1-to-N” list of priorities, as well as priority groups (i.e., bins) are created. The MC&G Mission Owner provides the initial list to all of SF to solicit feedback and recommendations. The priorities are updated and presented to the SF

Director for final prioritization and approval. In October, the MC&G MO leads an effort to review and update the priorities, with the SF Offices and then with the SF Director again as the final decision authority. These priorities directly influence the FY spend plan, the FG IT Roadmap, and MC&G PMO engineering efforts. They are actively used in this process by the MC&G MO to make implementation decisions, both at the FIRB, and after receiving TRB engineering recommendations.

Risk/Opportunities Management Board (ROMB)

The ROMB is a board chaired by the MC&G PMO Deputy Director that systematically identifies, assesses, and manages risks and opportunities related to the management and execution of MC&G IT entities. It provides guidance on establishing proactive measures to mitigate potential threats, addressing current challenges, and exploiting opportunities to enhance program success. The ROMB is not fully integrated with the FG IT Governance process and is mentioned due to its overarching role concerning risks and opportunities.

Pain Points

Overarching Topics

1. The current FG IT Governance process is not focused on requirements. Instead, it is focused on implementation and sustainment of existing IT capabilities, without a trace back to the Foundation GEOINT products that they support. The MC&G PMO is currently structured based on IT contracts and tracks via systems, whereas the production offices are data/product focused. The MC&G PMO has recently announced a restructure; however, without careful consideration of the alignment with the requirements process and an effective governance process, it may continue to be largely ineffective in terms of supporting FG production. See related To-Be Notes

#7, #25, and #31.

2. The current governance process reflects a mixture of the new Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) and the traditional

“Systems Engineering V” Model. The role of the architecture team, as well as when and where cost and integration planning take place within the process is not well defined. With this combination of methodologies there are major gaps in the planning for and tracking/accountability of both requirements and IT capabilities.

See related To-Be Note #9, # 26, and #29.

3. The level of effort to bring a capability through the process, particularly in regards to the transition of IT capabilities from the Aeronautical Navigation Office (SFA) to the MC&G PMO, can be challenging and difficult to navigate. SFA has always managed its own requirements and has historically been successful. The future FG IT

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

10 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

Governance process must not introduce overly cumbersome hurdles for SF, who would like to streamline this process of transitioning capabilities without impacts to operations. See related To-Be Note #8 and #19.

4. SF needs a process for funding, implementation, and management of smaller tools (bigger tools we can go through Research, etc.), as procuring these tools within the SF organization is not permitted. It is important to take into account the fact that there is no clear process for how SF engages the NGA Commercial Operations

Group (SC) for a commercial capability. Currently the offices are responsible for figuring out how to address these smaller tools/capabilities on their own, making this much more challenging than it would be if a standard process existed. See related To-Be Notes #5 and #6.

SF Prioritization

5. There is not a formal connection between the official SF prioritization process and the FG IT Governance process. Development of SF priorities occurs too late for Research to plan for and allocate funding and is not always coordinated with other priority inputs (e.g., ‘hard problems’ lists), which prevents Research from effectively planning for the development of new capabilities to meet high-priority SF requirements. See related

To-Be Notes #14, #15.

6. There are multiple issues associated with how and by whom the capability prioritization process is executed today. Some of the concern is simply lack of awareness around how decisions are made with respect to each office’s top priorities. A single source for SF priorities is needed in order to consistently make appropriate decisions on which FG IT capability needs should be explored, funded, and developed. Without a streamlined, well-socialized prioritization process, frustration with unexpected funding decisions will continue, and SF Offices will be more limited in their ability to plan alternatives or mitigation strategies for capabilities falling below the line for development and funding by the MC&G PMO. See related To-Be Note #16.

7. Research does not have clear guidance from SF on the IT capability needs that would help them meet their high-priority requirements. Additionally, the drivers [i.e., priorities, hard problems lists, Statement of Capabilities

(SOC)/ Intelligence Capability Baseline Description (ICBD)] are not clearly aligned across different efforts, adding complexity to the process of determining which IT capabilities are the true high value needs that should be focus areas for development. Currently, Research performs a significant amount of outreach and research to solicit needs and evaluate the potential for successful integration into the operational baseline, but these needs should ideally be flowed to Research from mission areas (e.g., SF) in a more uniform, consistent manner. Recently

Research has been focused on the GEOINT hard problems, which were developed but not widely disseminated by NGA leadership. They also received a set of Geodesy hard problems during a meeting with the Office of

Geomatics (SFN); however, they do not align with the GEOINT hard problems, and it was unknown how they align with SFN and/or SF priorities. In addition, the SOC/ICBD effort provides a large amount of information on capability needs; however, potential solutions are not always clearly defined; alignment with SF priorities is sometimes lacking, and there is no alignment with the GEOINT hard problems. Without an integrated and complete set of priorities to guide Research, potential opportunities to achieve efficiency are missed. See related To-Be Notes #16 and #17.

Engineering Integration Monitoring/Planning

8. There is currently a lack of transparency or visibility associated with the process to secure funds to transition a capability to sustainment; in particular, the origin of the funds and whether they will in fact be secured at a later

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

11 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

date, if applicable. Moreover, once a capability is approved by the engineering team, the cost estimate may go to the SF Production Office, but there are no further updates regarding the commitment of funds. There is also confusion regarding what happens to a capability if MC&G has to prioritize a new capability over something already in work. This lack of clarity often leads to confusion and delays in transitioning a capability to operations and/or sustainment. The process to secure funds to transition a capability to sustainment, to include next steps when an attempt to secure funding hits a wall, needs to be more clearly defined and communicated. Without more clarity and transparency in the acquisition of transition funding, there is continued risk for capability delays or failure to implement capabilities altogether. These issues also negatively impact buy-in for the FG IT

Governance processes and introduce uncertainty to resource and program planning. See related To-Be Note

#21.

MC&G Engineering Assessments / PMO

9. MC&G’s program build does not include Research and Development (R&D) planned transitions and hasn’t for the last several years. None of R&D’s FY26 transitions were included in MC&G’s FY26 program build, even though components of the program build are aligned with FG strategic documents such as the Statement of

Capabilities (SOC) and the Intelligence Capability Baseline Description (ICBD) and were brought to the FIRB by SF sponsors. Ideally, the future governance process should influence the program build and have contingencies in place regardless of the outcome of the program build to support transition of key capabilities. Utilization of the

NGA/R Technology Transition Agreement (TTA) could be a piece of this future process. See related To-Be Note

#32.

10. Currently there is not a trace between the systems and services the MC&G PMO manages and the products that are produced by the SF Production Offices. The Production Offices track mission success based on data and product coverage, while the PMO tracks by systems. Production of data and products is the core mission of the

Production Office, and without a direct tie to those, the FG IT Governance process is at risk of being ineffective.

MC&G struggles to manage duplicative efforts, because each Office tailors their architecture, solutions, software, contracts to their own requirements. Managing the trace between products and enabling systems/services will increase efficiencies that will reduce costs & duplications. See related To-Be Notes #27 and

#28.

11. There are not enough engineers within the MC&G PMO to support all the engineering needs of the Production

Offices. These engineers are critical to identifying a complete solution to the established requirements, putting together a cost estimate, and determining an integration plan for new capabilities in development. The engineers are often siloed by the mission execution phase (e.g., get it, make it, manage it, share it), which is not ideal for all engineering activities. The appropriate volume (and organizational structure) of MC&G PMO engineering support needs to align with the needs of SF or else critical engineering support will not be available to inform capability development. See related To-Be Note #23

12. Critical communication from the MC&G PMO related to software changes must be provided further in advance to minimize reactive activities to perform software fixes (i.e., Adobe, ArcMap to ArcPro transition, etc.). The lack of dependable, timely communication on software requirements leaves production offices at a disadvantage, often having to scramble at the last minute to implement changes and try to minimize impacts to the mission.

See related To-Be Note #30.

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

12 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

13. The IT Portfolio is not currently well diversified. SF missions would be better served with more options of vendors and contractors. Additionally, it is a challenge to understand which capabilities are managed by MC&G, and which are not – transparency into this status (e.g., binning of all capabilities into appropriate categories) is lacking. See related To-Be Note #31.

To-Be Notes

Overarching Topics

1. The SF IT Governance Team should determine whether SF dissemination requirements are part of this governance process. Dissemination capabilities, executed primarily by the Source GEOINT Information Group

(ST), have a critical role in ensuring that SF content is made available to the end users; however, these capabilities are broader than SF. If dissemination requirements become part of this process, rules should be established to determine when a capability should be assessed by SF at the FIRB, and whether it should come through the full assessment process or be presented as an informational briefing. The addition of a

Dissemination Mission Owner and Dissemination Project to the MC&G PMO, and their relationship to this FG IT governance process, should also be addressed. Inclusion of dissemination requirements in the governance process would incorporate coordination and collaboration that does not exist today. The coordination would also contribute to transparency and visibility.

2. To help facilitate the discussions on the future of the Research Forum Working Group (RFWG), the SF IT

Governance team should define the process functions accomplished by the RFWG, in order to capture those related to FG IT Governance (particularly those which are part of the Capability Exploration Sub-Process). The

RFWG itself is not a governance body, but it is a forum that helps to inform/drive capability exploration and should therefore be better understood to ensure that the essential functions of the RFWG required as interactions with the governance process are properly captured.

3. The SF IT Governance team should draft and disseminate a list of the benefits of adhering to the FG IT

Governance processes to increase support, advocacy, participation and enthusiasm across the stakeholders and leader groups, in response to GEOINT Mission Managers’ and SGAs’ desire to cultivate authority and championing of capabilities/efforts.

4. The SF IT Governance team should consider leveraging a use case (such as the Bathy self-service topic that recently came to the FIRB) to expand the FG IT Governance process for the future.

5. The SF IT Governance team should work with the SF Production offices to discuss how SF can best utilize the governance process to secure funding for, implement, and manage smaller tools and capabilities that generally would not be developed by Research. The current process may require changes, or potentially establishing a separate process thread to more effectively and rapidly address these smaller capabilities, which could include commercially available solutions (see related Pain Point #4).

6. The SF IT Governance team should consider working with the Office of Geography (SFG) to explore the development of a process for SFG to purchase, implement, and transition Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) tools to meet capability needs that are not currently available nor in development elsewhere across the enterprise.

Incorporating a process to address COTS capabilities, as well as working with SC to develop commercial

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

13 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

capabilities, would broaden the FG IT governance process to more explicitly include the commercial use case, and enable easier utilization of commercial development capabilities that meet cost and performance needs.

7. The SF IT Governance team should consider aligning its activities to enable the ability to trace back to the

Foundation GEOINT products that they support, in order to more effectively support FG production.

8. The SF IT Governance team should schedule additional socialization activities to explore opportunities to collaborate on evolution of FG IT Governance process (e.g., schedule follow-up socialization discussions with production offices, discussions with MC&G PMO, and coordinating with additional stakeholders beyond TXs.

These conversations should include ensuring that changes to process are well understood and no longer perceived of as cumbersome by the Production Offices).

9. The SF IT Governance team should work with the appropriate parties to further define the role of the architecture team and more clearly highlight cost and integration activities in the process. Furthermore, a discussion on how best to structure its approach as either SAFe or the traditional Systems Engineering V model is needed to address gaps in the planning for and tracking of requirements and IT capabilities.

10. Further discussion is desired between SF and Research to formalize the TTA process and establish its relationship to FG IT Governance. This will require finalization of both the policy and processes for how

Technology Transition Agreements (TTAs) are handled.

a. Exploration of the TTA process, along with similar processes utilized by SF production offices, will be a valuable input to developing a more mature Capability Monitoring and Planning governance process.

The team would like to work with Research to decompose the TTA process into functions to identify which components are valuable to the governance process in general, and to identify gaps in the as-is

TTA process to be addressed by the To-Be process. As part of this exploration, the governance team would like to engage with the SF TXs to identify which, if any, processes they currently have within their offices to monitor and track potential capabilities in development, which could be integrated into the governance process, and evaluate which aspects of the TTA process could be replicated to monitor capabilities developed outside of Research. Note: Recommendation from R is to start with EGM-TNG and

Magneto, section 1 completed in Nov 2023.

b. A codified TTA would enable the formal documentation of the TTA process, which would ensure standardization, consistency and rigor, which could enable the transition of more solutions into operations to enhance the SF mission. Ideally, either the TTA (or an agreed-upon alternative) will be codified via a formal NGA Instruction (NGAI) and included as part of this governance process. Key milestones in the TTA process could trigger appropriate governance processes to more consistently ensure that appropriate capabilities enter the governance process at the right time to properly support the socialization, development, and transition of these capabilities to the MC&G PMO. In lieu of an

NGAI, an official agreement (i.e., SOP) could be written between SF and R to formally document the TTA process to ensure consistency.

11. The SF IT Governance Mission Manager and Research leadership should hold discussions to evaluate the cadence of the monthly Research Forum Working Group (RFWG) sessions and assess whether they should be held on a different cadence or on an ad-hoc basis. The relationship, communications, and processes between

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

14 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

Research, SF, and the MC&G PMO have matured significantly, potentially surpassing the need for recurring monthly Working Group sessions and Quarterly Forums. The Working Group sessions have fostered dynamic, ad-hoc engagements to occur as needed. Research PMRs are now open to all stakeholders for updates and tracking purposes; SF and the MC&G PMO receive updates on all Research programs projected to transition to the MC&G PMO. Continued, routine coordination between Research and SF through SFC should inform as to the best time and venue for a working group discussion to ensure efficient utilization of limited resources.

12. The SF IT Governance Team needs a better understanding of how individual FG Production offices across SF engage with Research and the MC&G PMO today, in order to gather more ideas and lessons learned on how to streamline this process, especially in regards to leveraging a trace between systems/services and FG products.

The team should engage with production offices to identify this information to inform future updates to the FG

IT Governance process. See related Pain Point #9.

SF Prioritization

13. Further discussion is required to develop the process to create, update, and socialize the FIRB Backlog. Backlog entries need to clearly reflect funded capabilities, potential funded capabilities, and capabilities that are below the funding cut line. Socializing an updated FIRB backlog that clearly reflects the funding status of desired capabilities will enable and enhance the prioritization process. At a minimum, it will provide clarity as to which capabilities should be considered for prioritization and support consistent understanding of the status of capabilities within the governance process.

14. In the near term, the SF IT Governance Team needs to identify, and make available, the official Foundation

GEOINT Group priorities. Additional discussions must occur to ensure that the prioritization process is clear to the production offices. This will help ensure they can provide better input, know when to expect an approved list, be aware of any changes, and better understand how and why decisions are made during this governance process. Understanding the SF priorities and “hard problems” further in advance would enable Research to develop a more informed portfolio of planned activities to support SF needs and would help stakeholders involved in FG IT governance decisions to balance a variety of capability developments in terms of priority, size, and other variables (e.g., cost, complexity, and execution timelines).

15. The SF IT Governance Team should further develop the SF Prioritization process. Further definition of the SF prioritization process should include, at a minimum:

a. Identify the parties responsible for managing and approving the priorities list, as well as establish any required roles and processes that do not exist.

b. Incorporate more transparency, communication and coordination in the SF prioritization process, so that the production offices are aware of priority shifts and decisions. Earlier involvement of a broader set of SF stakeholders in the prioritization process would add transparency with respect to prioritization decisions.

c. Continue exploration of the role of the SF TX in the development of the SF prioritization framework, as well as the potential for groups (e.g., Research) to collaborate directly with MC&G MO to plan and prioritize specific activities.

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

15 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

d. Define the essential connection(s) between the SF Prioritization process and the current FG IT

Governance process to ensure that the relationship is clear and priorities are effectively utilized.

16. The SF Prioritization process (i.e., 1-n list) should consider incorporating the ability to identify which capabilities should be developed by Research, DevCorps, or even collaboratively between the two groups. This could be a step towards identifying intended allocation of capability development up front in the process and would incorporate additional transparency in process execution.

New SF Capability Exploration

17. When determining the earliest point in the FG IT Governance process to begin collecting information on a topic, SFC should consider utilizing the stages defined as part of the Research Forum Working Group. The descriptions of the stages on the wiki page detail the various steps for socializing and evaluating a potential capability for attention by the Research group. Currently, the majority of these stages are executed during the SF Capability

Exploration Sub-Process, far earlier than the current governance teams get involved. This could be started as early as the SF Proposals within the SF Capability exploration Sub-Process. Leveraging these stages, which are currently captured on the RWG wiki page, may identify opportunities to optimize coordination with Research.

See Related To-Be Note #12.

Engineering Integration Monitoring/Planning

18. The SF IT Governance Team should work closely with SMEs, particularly Research, on further expanding the

Engineering Integration Monitoring / Planning Sub-Process. Research endorses the documentation of capability monitoring and planning as a part of the governance process, because it aims to ensure that capabilities return to the FIRB at the right time and help to keep progress moving forward. This work should include considering the possibility of identifying whether a capability should be monitored or not and by whom, as a FIRB outcome.

19. SF TXs should continue to work with the SF IT Governance Team to ensure that the process meets their needs and that the status of a request is tracked and communicated back to them as it progresses through the governance process. Since the current process requires improvement to meet SF needs, appropriate coordination on process changes is critical. This coordination will help SF production offices minimize the use of an internal path to develop new capabilities, in favor of working with the MC&G MO by way of the FG IT governance process. The SF IT Governance Team will define an approach to addressing this topic as the governance process evolves. Working within the FG IT governance process will avail the organization of all of the benefits anticipated by governance, which includes visibility, transparency, and follow through to track the status and disposition of topics once they have been presented to the FIRB and/or TRB. See Related To-Be Note

#24.

20. The SF IT Governance Team should work with the MC&G MO and the MC&G PMO to assess the cost and benefits of assigning an MC&G Project Manager to monitor new capabilities that have been determined at the

FIRB to have enough potential and support an SF priority. If the MC&G PMO is able to support this work, the specific monitoring duties and methodology need to be defined. For example, for Research capabilities, a TTA may be used, and the PM would be responsible for drafting sections two and three of this artifact as the capability proceeds through the process. This role would also include monitoring the maturity of the capability, engaging in transition planning in partnership with capability provider and briefing updates to required stakeholders (e.g., FIRB, Component Acquisition Executive (CAE), etc.). Research recommends that the PM

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

16 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

attend capability developer (i.e., Research, DevCorps) PMRs, and ensure that the capability developer is invited to MC&G, Program Executive Officer (PEO), CAE PMRs.

21. SFC would like to formalize the role of the SFC Liaison Officer (LO) in regard to the FG IT Governance process, to include their specific responsibilities in support of Capability Monitoring and Planning. These individuals, out of the Technology Integration Branch (SFCAA), act as facilitators between SF and their stakeholders in other groups

(e.g., MC&G), in addition to their function as Product Owners for the Foundation Digital Twin (FDT) Pillars. In the future, as a greater number of capabilities are identified for monitoring by the governance team, the LOs could play a valuable role in the monitoring, collaboration, and communication required to successfully bring capabilities back into the governance process at the appropriate times. SF representatives are needed to track potential solutions in a future capability monitoring process, and an alternative must be identified if the LO is determined not to be the appropriate role for this function.

22. The SF IT Governance Team and the MC&G PMO engineering teams should collaborate to define a more transparent, comprehensive (i.e., end-to-end) solution for managing transition of capabilities to the MC&G PMO for integration and/or sustainment. It is currently a difficult undertaking to transition Research-developed capabilities from Research to the intended user base/office/mission area; refinement to the process to identify the specific parties accountable for each step in the process would enhance FG IT Governance as a whole.

23. The SF IT Governance Team should further analyze how to support the integration & engineering needs of the production offices, and specifically determine if this handoff is something that should be an official part of the governance process. The SF IT Governance Team should not have to manage engineering; however, the SF leadership team needs to identify the appropriate individual/role to perform this function. SF needs to ensure that the Production Offices have the engineering support they need for the funded high-priority capabilities to ensure that the proper engineering and integration tasks can be completed in a timely fashion.

24. Develop the process for SF IT Governance leadership (i.e., SF IT Governance Team) to track progress/status of a capability after a decision is made, and the capability moves to implementation. This information would be valuable as a status update for SF and would enable the appropriate audience (e.g., FIRB) to address significant developments that may come up during project execution. Tracking could likely be done in Jira and would allow the governance team to better anticipate when a capability will return to the Capability Assessment Preparation

Sub-Process and subsequently, the SF Mission Assessment Sub-Process (i.e., FIRB). There is currently no formal means to track a capability end-to-end from initial identification to implementation, and this would ensure that appropriate topics remain “on the radar” until deemed complete. See Related To-Be Note #19.

a. Potential flow: The SF IT Governance Team will reach out periodically to determine whether there is enough movement to provide an update to SF. The process may vary depending on whether the project has recently reached a milestone.

MC&G Engineering Assessments / PMO

25. SF and the MC&G PMO should continue to consider the way the MC&G PMO is organized, and how that impacts the ability to execute against FG IT needs. The shift to PEOs may provide a good opportunity to re-evaluate having a single PM oversee each SF Production Office. The Production Offices produce a variety of data and products and have many complex processes and IT needs. It takes a significant amount of time to fully

FG Mission Planning [Final] As-Is Process Models

17 | P a g e

UNCLASSIFIED

understand each mission area, and this understanding directly contributes to the success of IT solutions to support the mission. The number of reviews and approvals by different leaders within the organization required for an IT solution to proceed to the sustainment phase should be minimized.

26. The MC&G PMO should continue to explore how the FG architecture can provide the most value to SF IT

Governance. The architecture could provide a view of individual services and how they are integrated and utilized across SF to meet the mission. If MC&G PMs could focus more time to understand the Offices’ future product transitions, then MC&G PMs could better align the Offices’ requirements to MC&G’s standard architectures & solutions.

27. The MC&G PMO should consider further defining the common architecture to capture individual services.