Framework for Assessing Cost and Technology

  • Tommer R. Ender
  • Daniel C. Browne
  • Michael ONeal
  • William W. Yates
Chapter
Part of the Simulation Foundations, Methods and Applications book series (SFMA)

Abstract

A shrinking defense budget and constant demands in the Department of Defense (DoD) for efficiency mandates new processes be developed to help our decision makers and designers. The Framework for Assessing Cost and Technology (FACT) intends to help DoD perform the analysis, conduct trades, and make hard decisions being better informed. FACT was initiated at a time when the Marine Corps had just terminated the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program and was initiating an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle to fulfill a similar mission. The Marine Corps Systems Command surveyed the tools available to make the AoA process more efficient and to answer the fundamental acquisition questions: How well will the system perform? How reliable will it be? How much will it cost? When can we get it? FACT approaches these questions through collaborative model-based systems engineering processes with the capability to answer these questions concurrently rather than in a stove-piped, independent fashion. Its enabling algorithms recognize the interdependence of de-sign and maintenance and procurement philosophy on the tradespace. The options in the tradespace represent the interrelated impacts of cost, performance and reliability based on the multitude of design options available to decision makers. Based on the options selected, the framework leverages available models to calculate the procurement cost for the system and projects the operational and support costs for the system versus a level of performance and associated reliability metrics.

Keywords

Radar Dial 

References

  1. Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information Integration) and Chief Information Officer (2009) Clarifying guidance regarding open source software (OSS), Department of Defense MemorandumGoogle Scholar
  2. Browne D, Kempf R, Hansen A, O’Neal M, Yates W (2013) Enabling systems modeling language authoring in a collaborative web-based decision support tool, Proceedings of the Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), Atlanta, GA, 19–22 March 2013Google Scholar
  3. Defense Acquisition Guidebook (2013) https://dag.dau.mil. Accessed 1 Nov 2013
  4. Ender TR (2006) A top-dow, hierarchical, system-of-systems approach to the design of an air defense weapon. PhD Disertation, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  5. Ender TR, Browne DC, Yates WW, O’Neal M (2012) FACT: an MS framework for systems engineering, Proceedings of Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012, Orlando, FL, 3–6 December 2012Google Scholar
  6. Forrester A, Sóbester A, Keane A (2008) Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  7. O’Neal M, Ender TR (2011) Framework for assessing cost and technology: integrating MS into ground vehicle acquisition. Proceedings of the 14th NDIA Systems Engineering Conference, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  8. O’Neal M, Ender TR, Browne D, Bollweg N, Pearl CJ, Bricio JL (2011) Framework for assessing cost and technology: an enterprise strategy for modeling and simulation based analysis. Proceedings of MODSIM World 2011 Conference and Expo, Virginia Beach, VAGoogle Scholar
  9. Pincus W (2011) Marines’ amphibious vehicle program could end under House budget plan. Washington PostGoogle Scholar
  10. Zang TA, Hemsch MJ, Hilburger MW, Kenny SP, Luckring J, Maghami P, Padula SL, Stroud WJ (2002) Needs and opportunities for uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design methods for aerospace vehicles. Technical Report TM-2002-211462, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tommer R. Ender
    • 1
  • Daniel C. Browne
    • 1
  • Michael ONeal
    • 2
  • William W. Yates
    • 3
  1. 1.Georgia Tech Research InstituteAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Marine Corps Systems CommandQuanticoUSA
  3. 3.Program Manager Training SystemsUnited States Marine CorpsOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations