Technology Transfer in the Defense

dotardhousesΜηχανική

18 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

109 εμφανίσεις

Technology Transfer in the Defense
Acquisition System


Strategic Planning and Prioritization
Overview

Dr. Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole

Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory

Georgia Institute of Technology

2

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Georgia Tech Program Organization


Founded in 1992, ASDL was created to bridge
the gap between academia and industry’s
research perspectives


School of AE was one of the seven original
Guggenheim Aeronautics schools, founded in
1930


GT consistently ranked 3rd or 4th best college
of engineering in the country based on US
News & World Report


*
Aerospace, Transportation & Advanced Systems Laboratory


3

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Integration of Strategic Planning, Technology Transition
and Technology Development Tools


Program
Planning

Strategic Prioritization &
Planning (SP2) Tool


Program
Definition

Technology Assessment
& Transition Mgt
(TATM) Tool

Project
Execution

Technology Program
Management Model
(TPMM) Tool

Primary
Outputs

Primary
Outputs

Primary
Outputs

Refined
Program
Roadmap

Programmatics
Programmatics
System Engineering
System Engineering
Transition Management
Transition Management
Programmatics
Programmatics
System Engineering
System Engineering
Transition Management
Transition Management
FRP
Decision
Review
Concept
Refinement
Technology
Development
PEO/PMO
B
A
C
(Program
Concept
Decision
Design
Readiness
Review
Initiation)
System Development
& Demonstration
Production &
Deployment
Operations &
Support
LRIP/IOT&E
Joint
Capabilities
Documents
Initial Capabilities
Document (ICD)
Capabilities
Development
Document (CDD)
Capabilities Production
Document (CPD)
Technology Transitions Throughout
The Life Cycle
Science and Technology Development
ARMY AND AVIATION DEFINING DETAILS OF IMPLEMENTATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH DOD DIRECTIVES, POLICY, INSTRUCTIONS AND GUIDANC
E
User Requirements
Definition &
Technology
Transition
Opportunities
TRL
1
TRL
2
TRL
4
TRL
5
TRL
6
TRL
3
TRL
8
TRL
9
TRL
7
Technology
Readiness
Levels
Reasonable but not prescribed TRL levels
S & T Project Name
S & T POC
Agency
Interest
Intent
Commitment
Applicability
PM
S&T
User
Sust
TTA
App
PM
S&T
Adaptive Joint C4ISR Node
Gruen, Mr. Michael
CERDEC
0
0
0
2
X
Advanced Antennas
Goodall, Mr. Steve
CERDEC
0
0
0
3
1*
2
3
X
2*
3
Advanced RF Components for the Future
Force
Viveiros, Mr. Edward
ARL
0
0
0
3
2*
X
2*
Advanced Rotor System Development
Mantay, Mr. Wayne
AMRDEC AATD
0
0
0
1
Advanced Sensor Modeling and Simulation
Self, Mr. Mid
CE RDEC NVESD
0
0
0
3
2*
X
2*
Aerial Delivery of Effects from Lightweight
Aircraft (ADELA)
Burcher, Mr. Ernest
AMRDEC AATD
2
0
0
2
3*
3
3
MPI
L 0.0
X
Autonomous Digital Flight Control System
Tischler, Mr. Mark
AMRDEC AFDD
0
0
0
2
X
C3 on the Move
Kornwebel, Ms. Norma
CERDEC
0
0
0
2
2*
3
3
X
Class II Electro-Optical Payloads -
Lightweight Laser Designator
Nettleton, Mr. John
CE RDEC NVESD
0
0
0
1
2*
Common Control Element
Yerby, Mr. Steve
AMRDEC USI
0
0
0
3
X
Common Human/Machine Interface
Shively, Mr. Jay
AMRDEC AFDD
3
0
0
3
4
4
4*
SPI
L 0.0
X
4*
4
Crew Integration & Automation Test Bed
Orlando, Mr. Andrew
TARDEC
0
0
0
3
3
3
X
1
Detection and Identification of Camouflaged
and Concealed Targets
Sztankay, Mr. Zoltan
ARL
0
0
0
2
X
Directed Energy/Non-Lethal Weapons
Integration
Burcher, Mr. Ernest
AMRDEC AATD
1
0
0
4
X
1
2
Enhanced Rotorcraft Drive System
Lau, Mr. Ming
AMRDEC AATD
2
0
0
3
2
3
2*
MPI
L 0.0
X
Fatigue Intervention and Recovery Model
Balkin, Dr. Thomas
MRMC
0
0
0
2
2*
X
FCS Standoff Mine Detection System
Smith, Mr. Thomas
CE RDEC NVESD
0
0
0
2
X
Geospatial Information Integration &
Generation Tools
Kabinier, Ms. Debra
USA Corps of Engineers ERDC
0
0
0
3
3*
X
3*
Ground Control Station Wireless Network
Yerby, Mr. Steve
AMRDEC, AMRDEC USI
0
0
0
3
X
Hunter Standoff Killer Team (HSKT) ACTD
Johnston, MAJ Robert
AMRDEC AATD
2
0
0
2
2*
5
4
SPI
L 0.0
X
Intelligent Control Concepts - Flight Control
HQ&FC
Lakinsmith, Mr. Barry
AMRDEC AFDD
0
0
0
4
X
Light-Weight Active Rotor Concept (LARC)
Mantay, Mr. Wayne
AMRDEC AFDD
1
0
0
1
Manned/Unmanned Common Architecture
Program (MCAP)
Walsh, Mr. Martin
AMRDEC AATD
2
0
0
3
2
5
5*
SPI
L 0.0
X
Manned/Unmanned Rotorcraft Enhanced
Survivability (MURES) ATO
Dinning, Mr. Malcolm
AMRDEC AATD
1
0
0
1
Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) ACTD
Tousley, Dr. Brad
DARPA
0
0
1
2
Precision Autonomous Landing Adaptive
Control Experiment (PALACE)
Lakinsmith, Mr. Barry
AMRDEC AFDD
2
0
0
2
4*
5
Quick-Meds
Cole, Mr. Mike
AMRDEC USI
0
0
0
3
X
Robotics Collaboration ATO - Unmanned
Autonomous Collaborative Operations
Arthur, Mr. Keith
AMRDEC AATD, AMRDEC AFDD
3
0
0
3
2*
4
4
SPI
L 0.0
X
3*
3
Rotorcraft Drive Systems for the 21 st
Century (RDS-21)
Lau, Mr. Ming
AMRDEC AATD, USARL VTD
2
0
0
2
2
3
2*
II
L 0.0
X
Rotorcraft Survivability
Wall, Mr. Ray
AMRDEC AATD
0
0
0
1
SARAP ATO (Survivable, Affordable,
Repairable Airframe Program)
Schuck, Mr. Jon
AMRDEC AATD, USARL VTD
2
0
0
2
1*
3
2
SPI
L 0.0
X
Small UAV Engine Program (SUAVE)
Mishoe, Mr. Brian
AMRDEC AATD
0
0
0
1
UAV Technology Demonstrations
Lau, Mr. Ming
AMRDEC AATD
1
0
0
1
Wide Area Airborne Minefield Detection
(WAAMD)
Miller, Ms. Miranda
CE RDEC NVESD
0
0
0
2
2*
X
Totals
24
0
1
127
25
8
0
0
TTA Commitment =
TTA Commitment =
S&T in Intent TTA =
S&T in Intent TTA =
S&T in Interest TTA =
S&T in Interest TTA =
S&T Applicability =
S&T Applicability =
Summary
Summary
Extended Range/Multi Purpose
FCS Class I UAV
TTA Level
Criticality
Criticality
4

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Foundation of SP2 Approach


The Strategic Planning and Prioritization Calculator (SP2) is an expert
-
based series
of
decision (or planning) matrices

that are related qualitatively through different
levels of abstraction and is the detailed process for program planning


The subjective
qualitative relationships

may then be mapped to
quantitative
scales

to allow for a rapid prioritization based on the level of abstraction desired


The process is an
evolution of accepted quality engineering methods

(i.e. Quality
Function Deployment) and incorporates various dynamic aspects to form a portable
and powerful decision making environment


This approach has been effectively used in several recent applications


A Congressional study for an integrated 5 year R&T plan for U.S. aeronautics (NIA)


The NASA Space Exploration Systems Architecture Study


The NASA Vehicle Systems Program (VSP)


The Office of Naval Research Science and Technology


A Homeland Defense technology application for America’s Shield Initiative (SAIC)


An upgrade prioritization for the next generation Bradley vehicle (BAE)


AIAA Strategic Planning for future activities

5

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Process for Building the Calculator


The process by which SP2 is developed is fairly
generic

and may be tailored for the specific
problem at hand and is based on accepted Quality Engineering Methods


The “Calculator” is the visual front end


Regardless of the application, the following elements are necessary to execute the process:


Definition
of top level needs or requirements


Description of the

information

desired to facilitate
decision making
, which may include:


Schedule, annual or total budgets, source of funding, sensitivity level of abstraction, risk, specific time frames, rack
and stack of priorities, etc.


Decomposition

of the needs to the appropriate
level of abstraction


Qualitatively

relate each level of the decomposition through a series of
planning matrices


Definition of a
quantitative scale

for each level of decomposition and translation to quantitative scales


Identification

of the appropriate domain area
experts

for each level of the decomposition to provide
necessary information


Elements needed for the process can be defined through various techniques and methods including
brainstorming, workshops, affinity diagrams, voting methods, relevance trees, Delphi technique,
etc.


The only requirement placed on the process is that a
link

exists between each level of the
decomposition


6

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Features Enabled in SP2


Program Planning and Technology Selection


Optimization of partial funding and benefit to cost identification


Multi
-
year funding profile capabilities


Quantification of Technological Risk


Quantification of Schedule Risk


Optimization based on Risk


Identification of Technology and Portfolio Gaps


Scenario Generation and saving/loading of scenarios


Statistical Studies (what
-
if games)

Most common feedback on SP2 has been that communication between
different departments now have a forum for communication and collaboration.

7

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Case Study: NIA Aeronautics Calculator

Congressional
Earmark

National Institute of Aerospace

Bob Whitehead,
Project Manager

Amanda Wright,

Assistant

Technical Consultants

Final Plan to Congress

Resulting Sector
Plans

National Strategy
Team

Final Integrated
Plan

Planning

Subcontracts

Final product objective:

Develop and deliver to Congress
an aggressive 5 year investment
plan as a first step to restore
aviation and aeronautics
technology capabilities to a
robust level commensurate with
a global leadership position


With guidance that:

The plan should uniformly seek
to mature high
-
risk, potentially
high
-
payoff technologies to a
readiness level sufficient for
NASA to transition out of
government
-
sponsored status for
adaptation by private industry

8

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

From Vision to Roadmap

Program
Vision


Customer
Requirements


Definition

Engineering
Characteristics
Definition

Data Call

Technology
Presentation

Validation of
Mappings

Execute
Calculator

Create Strategic

Roadmap

Technology

Information Sheet

FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
HALE Project
Pathfinder Plus

14
-
day Demonstrator
60
-
day Demonstrator
Earth Science & Technology Demonstrations
(Pathfinder Plus, Predator
B, others)
Annual Demonstrations/Campaigns
ASE Tools
Science (Mars Scout)
5/07
TBD
TBD
Exploration
Tech Development
(AuRA, ITAS)
Planetary Aircraft Risk Reduction Demo

s
Risk Reduction
Mission Demo
Mission Demo
1st Flt
1st Flt
1st Flight
on Mars
AO
P
-
A
DS
MS
Launch
V
V
V
V
V
Mars Scout 2007
Opportunity
Other NASA
Directorates
Build Decision
EAV Demonstrator
Non
-
competed
HALE
EAV
(?)
(?)
Competed
Technology Investment Areas
-
Concepts & Technologies
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
HALE Project
Pathfinder Plus

14
-
day Demonstrator
60
-
day Demonstrator
Earth Science & Technology Demonstrations
(Pathfinder Plus, Predator
B, others)
Annual Demonstrations/Campaigns
ASE Tools
Science (Mars Scout)
5/07
TBD
TBD
Exploration
Tech Development
(AuRA, ITAS)
Planetary Aircraft Risk Reduction Demo

s
Risk Reduction
Mission Demo
Mission Demo
1st Flt
1st Flt
1st Flight
on Mars
AO
P
-
A
DS
MS
Launch
V
V
V
V
V
Mars Scout 2007
Opportunity
1st Flight
on Mars
AO
P
-
A
DS
MS
Launch
V
V
V
V
V
Mars Scout 2007
Opportunity
Other NASA
Directorates
Build Decision
EAV Demonstrator
Non
-
competed
HALE
EAV
(?)
(?)
Competed
Technology Investment Areas
-
Concepts & Technologies
9

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Integration Team Objective

National
Strategy
Team

Subsector

reports

Filters

Integrated Plan Calculator

Super

Sub

U.S Economic Competitiveness
Freedom of Air Travel
Protect the Environment
Flight Safety
Secure and Defend the Nation
Educate the Future Workforce
Community Noise
M
H
H
L
L
Emissions - NOx
M
H
H
L
L
Emissions PM, HC and CO
L
L
H
L
L
Fuel Burn & CO2
H
L
H
L
L
Reliability
M
L
EROC minus Fuel Burn
H
L
L
Cabin Noise
L
L
0
0.5
1
1
U.S Economic Competitiveness
Freedom of Air Travel
Protect the Environment
Flight Safety
Secure and Defend the Nation
Educate the Future Workforce
Community Noise
M
H
H
L
L
Emissions - NOx
M
H
H
L
L
Emissions PM, HC and CO
L
L
H
L
L
Fuel Burn & CO2
H
L
H
L
L
Reliability
M
L
EROC minus Fuel Burn
H
L
L
Cabin Noise
L
L
0
0.5
1
1
U.S Economic Competitiveness
Freedom of Air Travel
Protect the Environment
Flight Safety
Secure and Defend the Nation
Educate the Future Workforce
Community Noise
M
H
H
L
L
Emissions - NOx
M
H
H
L
L
Emissions PM, HC and CO
L
L
H
L
L
Fuel Burn & CO2
H
L
H
L
L
Reliability
M
L
EROC minus Fuel Burn
H
L
L
Cabin Noise
L
L
0
0.5
1
1
U.S Economic Competitiveness
Freedom of Air Travel
Protect the Environment
Flight Safety
Secure and Defend the Nation
Educate the Future Workforce
Community Noise
M
H
H
L
L
Emissions - NOx
M
H
H
L
L
Emissions PM, HC and CO
L
L
H
L
L
Fuel Burn & CO2
H
L
H
L
L
Reliability
M
L
EROC minus Fuel Burn
H
L
L
Cabin Noise
L
L
0
0.5
1
1
Subsector goals

National needs

Integrated mapping

Integrated Aeronautics Plan to
deliver to Congress

Intelligent, adaptive engines
and systems
Integrated Power and
Propulsion Systems
High Efficiency, Highly
Loaded Airfoils
Innovative Nacelle Drag
Reduction Techniques
Advanced Low noise fan
Advanced Noise
Suppression Liners
99
83
80
68
67
60
0.095
0.079
0.076
0.065
0.064
0.057
Sub-sector Goals
(not all inclusive)
Goal Weighting
Scale
Community Noise
5
L
H
H
Emissions - NOx
3
L
Emissions PM
1
L
Fuel Burn & CO2
7
M
M
M
H
L
Reliability
3
M
L
EROC minus Fuel Burn
9
M
M
M
Cabin Noise
3
M
M
Total Impact
Relative Impact
Intelligent, adaptive engines
and systems
Integrated Power and
Propulsion Systems
High Efficiency, Highly
Loaded Airfoils
Innovative Nacelle Drag
Reduction Techniques
Advanced Low noise fan
Advanced Noise
Suppression Liners
99
83
80
68
67
60
0.095
0.079
0.076
0.065
0.064
0.057
Sub-sector Goals
(not all inclusive)
Goal Weighting
Scale
Community Noise
5
L
H
H
Emissions - NOx
3
L
Emissions PM
1
L
Fuel Burn & CO2
7
M
M
M
H
L
Reliability
3
M
L
EROC minus Fuel Burn
9
M
M
M
Cabin Noise
3
M
M
Total Impact
Relative Impact
Intelligent, adaptive engines
and systems
Integrated Power and
Propulsion Systems
High Efficiency, Highly
Loaded Airfoils
Innovative Nacelle Drag
Reduction Techniques
Advanced Low noise fan
Advanced Noise
Suppression Liners
99
83
80
68
67
60
0.095
0.079
0.076
0.065
0.064
0.057
Sub-sector Goals
(not all inclusive)
Goal Weighting
Scale
Community Noise
5
L
H
H
Emissions - NOx
3
L
Emissions PM
1
L
Fuel Burn & CO2
7
M
M
M
H
L
Reliability
3
M
L
EROC minus Fuel Burn
9
M
M
M
Cabin Noise
3
M
M
Total Impact
Relative Impact
Planning matrix

Subsector goals

Subsector technologies

Technology Area Budgets (in $k)
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
Area Total
Cycle / Integration
333


334


333


1,000


500


2,500


Emergency Power Tech
Turbomachinery
1,800


2,500


4,200


5,500


1,800


15,800


Counter Rotating LPT
CMC LPT Blades
Variable Diffuser
Combustion
2,200


3,500


1,100


1,000


2,200


10,000


Compact Combustor
Controls / Secondary Systems
3,500


3,300


3,200


2,000


2,000


14,000


Hi Temp Electronic
Foil Air Bearing
Foil Face Seal
Annual Total
7,833
9,634
8,833
9,500
6,500
42,300
Technology Area Budgets (in $k)
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
Area Total
Cycle / Integration
333


334


333


1,000


500


2,500


Emergency Power Tech
Turbomachinery
1,800


2,500


4,200


5,500


1,800


15,800


Counter Rotating LPT
CMC LPT Blades
Variable Diffuser
Combustion
2,200


3,500


1,100


1,000


2,200


10,000


Compact Combustor
Controls / Secondary Systems
3,500


3,300


3,200


2,000


2,000


14,000


Hi Temp Electronic
Foil Air Bearing
Foil Face Seal
Annual Total
7,833
9,634
8,833
9,500
6,500
42,300
Technology Area Budgets (in $k)
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
Area Total
Cycle / Integration
333


334


333


1,000


500


2,500


Emergency Power Tech
Turbomachinery
1,800


2,500


4,200


5,500


1,800


15,800


Counter Rotating LPT
CMC LPT Blades
Variable Diffuser
Combustion
2,200


3,500


1,100


1,000


2,200


10,000


Compact Combustor
Controls / Secondary Systems
3,500


3,300


3,200


2,000


2,000


14,000


Hi Temp Electronic
Foil Air Bearing
Foil Face Seal
Annual Total
7,833
9,634
8,833
9,500
6,500
42,300
Finalized subsector plans

10

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Aeronautics Calculator Demo

11

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Extending Functionality: Technology to Capability

Technology Push


S&T programs develop technologies
that could be of potential military
benefit


Those technologies must be
successfully transitioned to operating
units to improve military capability

Capability Pull


Capability gaps identified by JCIDS


Pre
-
Milestone A includes
Technology Development Summary


Outlines the technologies
required for achieving the
capability with the alternative
selected


Provides the plan for maturing
those technologies to a TRL of 6


Technology maturation becomes
very closely coupled with the
capability and cost of the System
-
of
-
systems (SoS)

In the capabilities
-
based resource allocation environment, technologies need to be
evaluated based on their anticipated impact at the capability level

Capability

System
-
of
-

Systems

Systems

Subsystems

Technologies

Dictates Needs

Dictates Needs

Dictates Needs

Dictates Needs

Impact Performance

Combine to form

Combine to form

Drive Affordability

Behind enemy
radar
reconnaissance
and attack

endomoribu.shinshu
-
u.ac.jp

12

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Mitigating Risk


Many sources of uncertainty
exist with immature
technologies


Performance estimates


Cost to mature


Time to mature


These uncertainties have the
potential to greatly impact
the capability, cost, and
schedule of a defense
acquisition program


Ensuring robustness helps
mitigate risks

Time

Possible Scenarios

Robust solutions, both in Analysis of Alternatives and Technology
Selection, help mitigate the risk associated with immature technologies

In addition to a changing operational
environment, technology maturation to lower
-
than
-
expected performance played a large
role in the cancellation of the RAH
-
66

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
-2
-1
0
1
2
Distance from Design Condition
Performance
Optimal Solution A
Optimal Solution B
Optimal Solution C
Robust Solution A
Robust Solution B
13

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Evaluating Robustness


Robustness


Ability of a system, technology or process
to perform in off
-
design conditions


To evaluate robustness, different scenarios (or
possible futures) must be considered


Qualitative assessment


Quantitative assessment


The more possible futures examined, the higher
the confidence in the robustness of the solution


Computer aided scenario generation allows
consideration of many more possible
scenarios than previously available


A hierarchical approach to SoS evaluation allows
exploration of robustness at all levels of the SoS
hierarchy


Measures of merit must be established that
accurately reflect capability needs


Robustness is evaluated for those measures
of merit

ASDL is developing methods for the quantitative and qualitative
assessment of robustness for large numbers of possible futures

Filtered
Monte
Carlo
Technique

Evaluation of
Alternatives

SoS

Systems

Systems
Surrogates

SoS
Surrogate

Military
Capability

Capability

Scenarios

Parametric Environment

Identification of important
factors

Identification of important
factors

Identification of important
factors

Important
factors

Important
factors

Important
factors

Subsystems

Subsystems

Surrogates

MCS

Measures
of Merit

Create
Models

Combine
Models

Tim
e

Possible Scenarios

14

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

SP2 Payoff


SP2 provides a
structured, traceable, and transparent process

planning and
investment prioritization


The process can be
tailored

to any desired level of detail to enhance the
decision making process for investment strategies as more information
becomes available


Knowledgeable stakeholders

are involved throughout the process


Various solicitation schemes are used to reduce bias


The end product will allow for “
what if
” games to be played through a
dynamic and interactive environment


The results of the process can be the
foundation

for detailed
strategic road
mapping

and
investment prioritization

for budget development


SP2 is a living process that should guide strategic planning and be
continuously updated as a program evolves

15

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Contact Information


Dr. Daniel Schrage


Professor and Director of CASE


404
-
894
-
6257


Daniel.schrage@ae.gatech.edu


Ms. Kristin Kelly


Research Engineer


404
-
385
-
4252


Kristin.kelly@asdl.gatech.edu


Mr. Benjamin Poole


PhD Student


Benjamin.poole@asdl.gatech.edu


BACKUP

17

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Market Research
-

Software Capabilities

Side
-
by
-
Side Software Comparison with
SP2 as reference

18

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

PEO Aviation
-

Top Level Goals Visual

19

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

PEO Aviation
-

Top Level Goals & Weightings

20

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

PEO Aviation



Intermediate Categories and Bins of Technologies

21

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

PEO Aviation
-

Bins of Technologies

22

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Traditional Resources Allocation Approaches

Due to limited Research and Development (R&D) monies available, the decision
-
maker desires to know where to direct scarce resources to maximize technological
payoffs or substantiate strategic competitive decisions. Five traditional approaches
are (Cetron [1972]):


1)

Squeaking Wheel
: cut resources from every area and then wait and see which


area complains the most. Based on the loudest and most insistent, then


restore budget until ceiling is hit.

2)

Level Funding
: budget perturbations minimized and status quo maintained; if


this approach continues within a rapidly changing technology field, the


company, group, or agency will end up in serious trouble.

3)

Glorious Past
: "once successful, always successful". Assign resources solely on


past record of achievement.

4)

White Charger
: best speaker or last person to brief the boss wins the money or


whichever department has the best presentation.

5)
Committee Approach
: a committee tells the manager or decision
-
maker how


to allocate resources.


23

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

National Strategy Team


The purpose of the NST was to:


set the
Strategic Agenda

for the overall analysis, planning and integration activities


define 6 over
-
arching
National Needs

which were based on the blue
-
ribbon documents


set the research scope and priorities for each of the aviation sectors, including
target budgets

so as to frame
the scope of research


provide
oversight

of the planning activities


provide
guidance

for the preparation and roll
-
out of a final product


Members included:

Name

Title

Organization

Bob Krieger*

President

Phantom Works, The Boeing Company

Simeon Austin

Dir of Advanced Prgs

Pratt & Whitney

Mike Benzakein

General Manager

Advanced Technology Operations, GE Aircraft Engines

Earl H. Dowell

J. A. Jones Professor

School of Engineering, Duke University

Ed Glasgow

Technical VP

Advanced Development Programs, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Company

Norris Krone

President

University Research Foundation, Maryland Advanced Development Laboratory

Robert G. Loewy

Chair

School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

Walter O'Brien

J. Bernard Jones Prof

Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Kevin J. Riley

VP for Technology

Raytheon Company, Network Centric Systems

Bob Rosen

Crown Consulting

Rande Vause

Executive Director

Rotorcraft Industry Technology Association

* Chairman of the NST

24

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Integrating the Aeronautics Plan

Target Annual

Budget

1

2

3

.

.

.

Sector Plans

and Priorities

Subsonic

$300M

Supersonic

$150M

Hypersonic

$50M

Aviation Safety & Security

$100M

Airspace Systems

$200M

Workforce/Education

$100M

Rotorcraft

$100M

Integrated Planning Process

ASDL Involvement:


Contracted to be the
primary integrator of all
the sector plans


Interacted with each
contractor to provide
continuity amongst the
teams on a daily basis


Provided guidance and
information when needed


Provided a decision
making tool to the NST
to determine the final
plan to be presented to
Congress


Collaborated with the
production team on the
final product to circulate
on the hill

Increase
Mobility

Support National
Security

Explore New

Aerospace Missions

Protect the
Environment

25

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

The Aeronautics Plan

Courtesy of the Susan Flowers group


The final brochure was a 16 page document that highlights the plan and calls
out for our government to re
-
establish aeronautical funding in the U.S. to a
level commensurate with a global leadership position


The integrated plan was more than 1,100 pages


The brochure was distributed to congressional staffers for the past several
months and stimulated hearings and awareness of the budget crisis

26

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Calculator Functional Background


Much of the calculator background stems from the
Quality Functional Deployment (QFD)
Methodology (Sanchez [1993])


This technique combines many qualitative measurements of relationships and interdependencies
between different parameters into a clear representation of importance


Uses teamwork and creative brainstorming as well as market research to identify customer
demands and design parameters



1
-

Customer Requirements



2
-

Engineering Characteristics



3
-

Relationship (or planning) Matrix



4
-

Correlation Matrix



5
-

Importance Rating



6
-

Absolute Importance



7
-

Relative Importance



8
-

Competitive Assessment



9
-

Tech. Competitive Assessment



10
-

Technical Difficulty



11
-

Target Values


1

2

4

5

8

3

6

7

10

11

9

4

27

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Calculator Functional Background


Much like the QFD Methodology, the Calculator process allows for multiple layers of abstraction
to be combined


Final outcome allows technologies to be ranked based on impact to the overall needs when direct
relationships are not clear


While the mapping between levels in a matrix can be qualitatively done, there must be a conversion to qualitative
information before the data can be related a different level



Technologies

Vehicle
Attributes

Vehicle Attributes

Engineering or
Product
Characteristics

Engineering or Product
Characteristics

Customer Needs or
Requirements

28

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Notional Calculator Overview

Vehicle 4

Vehicle Attributes

Customer Requirements

Vehicle 3

Vehicle 2

Vehicle Attributes

Technology Options

Vehicle 1

Technology Data (Budget Profiles, Timeframes, Risk)

Program Data

( Program Budget,
Mission Timeframes,
Priorities)

29

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Technology Planning Matrices


The Technology Planning Matrix qualitatively relates how the technologies and the vehicle
attributes interact


Vehicle attributes are the qualities of the vehicle that are directly impacted by the technologies and
themselves affect the overall figures of merit


Technologies’ relations to the attributes are qualitatively assigned and can be quantized on a scale
fitted to the particular application



Vehicle attributes can be weighted in order to establish a relative priority amongst those identified

Qualitative to Quantitative

Conversion Scale

Vehicle Attributes Listing

Technology Listing

Vehicle Attributes

Weighting

Qualitative Mapping of
Technologies to Vehicle
Attributes

30

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Figure of Merit Mapping Matrix


The Figure of Merit Mapping Matrix qualitatively tracks the impact of the vehicle attributes to the
overall figures of merit


These figures of merit are the top level metric which will be used to rank and evaluate a portfolio
of technologies


Functional needs can be assigned criticality weightings based on their overall importance to
accomplishing the specified missions




Vehicle Attributes

Figures of Merit

Vehicle Attributes

Criticality Weightings

Vehicle Attributes to


Figures of Merit


Qualitative Mapping

31

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Technology Data


Proper budget and timeframe analysis requires certain types of data to be
supplied to the calculator for every technology of interest


Budget profile detailing the amount of funding required per year to obtain a TRL
of 6


If a budget profile is unavailable then one may be generated if the total cost of the
program and the time until TRL 6 is reached are given


Additional information such as risk and funding splits can be supplied for more
in depth visuals and decision making processes but are not required for initial
calculator computation

32

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Technology Prioritization


Once the mapping decisions are made and the data is provided for the technologies then
the front end can be used to perform various trade studies and find the optimum
technology portfolio


Variable sliders exist to allow the user to adjust rankings and budget profiles on the fly


The technologies can then be prioritized to meet the allocated budget


“Gotta have” technologies are automatically included in the portfolio such that they are
available for the mission cutoff date


“Wanna have” technologies are selected for inclusion based off their impact on the figures of
merit as calculated from the technology planning matrix and the figures of merit mapping
matrix


Total Program Budget

Profile

Mission Technology

Readiness Dates

Visuals for current

Technology Portfolio

“Gotta Have”
Technologies

In order of impact

“Wanna Have”
Technologies

In order of impact

33

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

Notional Calculator

34

Daniel Schrage, Kristin Kelly, Benjamin Poole
July 25, 2007

ASDL Visualization Research Facilities


Collaborative Design Environment (CoDE)


Work areas for integrated product teams


Includes computer workstations, interactive whiteboards, and a smaller display wall


Linked to CoVE for use by design disciplinarians in support of critical reviews


High
-
performance computational support


256
-
processor cluster with 512 GB RAM, 5 TB storage, gigabit Ethernet and Infiniband high
-
speed communication backbones


Supports CoVE, CoDE, and research requiring high
-
speed or parallel computing


Hardware provided through an ONR DURIP grant in 2004


Collaborative Visualization Environment (CoVE)


An 18’x10’ “war room” type display wall with 12 PCs at operator
consoles


Comprised of a “seamless” 4x3 matrix of 67” rear
-
projection LCD
screens


For use in critical reviews by design decision
-
makers and
stakeholders


Facilitates research in advanced engineering data visualization
techniques



CoVE