The following is a lengthy excerpt from the Defense Innovation Board’s Software Acquisition and Practices (SWAP) appropriations subgroup. I think it is an excellent expression of one of the central themes discussed on this blog — that modern technological development requires a budgeting system that provides greater flexibility in program choice and redirection. However, the study limits its recommendations to software, and essentially asks for a new appropriation to provide some — but not all — of this flexibility for software. It still requires detailed programming, it just appears that the program decisions can be made much later, during the budgeting cycle, and presumably skips many layers of approval that hardware would normally go through.
Yes, software is important, and differs from hardware because it has zero cost of reproduction. But software isn’t all that different from hardware R&D (where the output is information and designs, not working hardware for the field), nor is it different from other intangible assets such as databases, supply chains, business processes like lean manufacturing, employee training, and so forth. With that being said, here is the DIB’s recommendation:
The Department’s current Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) system framework and process uses defined Program Elements (PEs), is categorized by lifecycle phased appropriations, and requires two years or more in lead time from plan to execution. This approach was designed and structured for traditional waterfall acquisition used to deliver monolithic platforms such as aircraft, ships, and vehicles. The PPBE framework and process is challenging when leveraging agile and iterative acquisition methodologies to deliver software intensive, information-enabling capabilities through a continuous engineering process. The current process limits the ability to quickly adapt systems against rapidly changing threats and increases the barriers for integrating advancements in digital technology in a timely and effective manner.
Pain points and Obstacles
Appropriation methods were intended for hardware systems and platforms. DoD continues to acquire and fund information-centric systems using processes designed for hardware-centric platforms. Current funding decision processes and data structures do not effectively support leading software development practices. As a result, the DoD is not effective in leveraging and adapting to the pace of innovation seen in industry. Differentiating continuous iteration and continuous delivery of software workload as Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Procurement, or Operations and Maintenance (O&M) is meaningless as software is never done, and there should be no final fielding or sustainment element in continuous engineering. System defined program elements hinder the ability to deliver holistic capabilities and services and do not enable real-time resource, requirements, performance, and schedule trades across systems without significant work.
Establishing a culture of experimentation, adaptation and risk-taking is difficult. The Department requires a process that supports early adoption of the most modern information-centric technologies and enables continuous process improvement….
Desired state. The desired state for the Department would be one in which continuous engineering throughout a software program’s lifecycle is possible, and the lengthy two-plus year lead times for programming and budgeting is removed. This would provide flexibility to execute desired features with the speed and agility necessary to meet the rapid changes in threats, information technologies, processes, and services. The single appropriation across the lifecycle of a capability will enable continuous development, security, and operations (DevSecOps);
In the Department of Defense, the different primary appropriations, like RDT&E, Procurement, O&M, etc., are called “colors of money.” Their colors are represented in the famous “Spruill Chart” template used in DAB milestone reviews. I heard that the new software appropriation might be called the “white” appropriation. In any case, it is yet to be seen how Congress will react to such proposed legislation.
Leave a Reply