President’s Word

First, I would like to extend my apology for miss-

ing the meeting. I care too much for our members’
health and well-being to attend the meeting under
the weather. However, I did hear that everything
went well and that we were able to over the chal-
lenges from the previous month. Now it is official,
Experiment Trial #2 was a success.

I look forward to seeing everyone at the

April Issue next meeting.

Upcoming Events Sincerely,

May 11th: Monthly Meeting @ Brio
Steven H. Dam
Join Lesley Painchaud for a presentation on “Implementing
the Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter.”

Defense programs that need to connect to the network are Steven H. Dam
required to meet net-readiness requirements, to WMA Chapter President
include Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter
(NR-KPP) compliance.

6:00 p.m.– 8:00 p.m. @ the Brio Tuscan Grille Banquet

Room, 7854L Tysons Corner Center McLean, VA.
Language the Program
By Jorg Largent with inputs from James R. van Gaasbeek
reprinted courtesy of the Los Angeles INCOSE Chapter
INCOSE Fellow Jack Ring has been cited as a source of some insight into the challenge.
An observation attributed to Mr. Ring is that he has, on several occasions, defined the
May Presentation Overview systems engineer’s job as:

Implementing the Net-Ready 1. Language the program

2. Define the problem
Key Performance Parameter 3. Drive the development effort to a balanced solution
Presented by Lesley Painchaud 4. Show the customer that what you delivered is what he or she thought
President of the Central Virginia Chapter of INCOSE he or she was buying.

Defense programs that need to connect to the network are

required to meet net-readiness requirements, to include Net-Ready
The first item is critical to reduce the confusion and babble when you have a multi-part customer
Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP) compliance. Programs have (joint programs) and numerous other stakeholders. It is also critical within the contractor community.
generally had difficulty in developing derived requirements from the
Remember also that he who defines the terms of the argument controls the argument. Words have
NR-KPP Compliance Statement. meaning, and it helps to have a common understanding.

The Navy’s Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP) Implemen- One of the INCOSE working groups, focusing on how best to support a particular industry,
tationGuidebook, developed by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the is addressing the “language the program” challenge and is developing an answer tailored to the
Navy (ASN) [Research, Development, and Acquisition (RDA)] Chief Systems needs of that industry. An inquiry for suggestions from outside that industry’s community prompted
Engineer (CHSENG), clarifies the definitions of net-readiness and the a response with two points of note:
NR-KPP. It also describes a refined NR-KPP Compliance Statement that
programs can use as a template for their derived NR-KPP requirements. 1. Rather than looking to other systems engineers to develop the message, perhaps soliciting
This Guidebook provides Program Managers, Systems Engineers, and Test the input from those in the community will yield a more compelling one.
Engineers with a methodology for decomposing the NR-KPP Compliance 2. In order to be understood, the message needs to be in the language of the customer. The
Statement into measurable and testable derived requirements that they can message should be based on his or her needs and crafted in their terminology.
address using their normal Systems Engineering Process. The Four-Step
Process includes the following activities:
Very little, if any, scientific data-gathering and analysis are needed to recognize the
vulnerability any activity involving two or more people has to misunderstanding due to a lack
• A Mission Analysis (MA) to determine derived NR-KPP Operational
of mutual understanding at the onset. The relationship is axiomatic. Given that “language the
Requirements in terms of missions, mission activities, and associated
program” is important as the first step in communicating the systems engineering process, the question
Mission Effectiveness and Operational Performance Measures.
becomes, “What does it look like?”
• An Information Analysis (InA) to determine the derived • The message should be crafted in the language of the project.
Operational Information Requirements in terms of required networks, • The language should facilitate defining the problem, driving the development effort to a
mission thread, Information Elements, and associated Operational balanced solution, and managing customer expectations.
Performance Measures.
So while the importance of “language the problem” is axiomatic, the discussion above provides no
• Systems Engineering (SE) to decompose the derived requirements clear definition of the qualifications of a systems engineer to meet the challenge, nor does it include
defined in theMA and InA into System Performance Requirements for use any metrics to measure the challenge. For example: Would one metric be that only those immersed in
during System Design and Realization. the community convey the systems engineering message in the language of the project? And if so, how
would a systems engineer qualify for the role on a complex project involving multiple communities
• Documentation of the Four-Step Process according to (manufacturing facilities, operational facilities, training of producers, users and maintainers,
engineering best practices and Compliance Measures in the NR-KPP operations, maintenance, et al).
Compliance Statement.
The discussion above is not comprehensive. Rather it is intended to provide a snapshot of
one of the challenges faced by those of us in the systems engineering profession. Comments and
differing perspectives are welcome.

Please send your comments to Jorg Largent at jorg.largent@incose.org.

If you would like to contribute to this newsletter, please
contact Chris Ritter, WMA Communications Chair.
 What’s In It For You?
An Article Our Military and Government Members
By Laurie Nasta
INCOSE-WMA Director
We have shared feedback from last year’s member survey with our members in the March Monthly Meeting, and of course your Board of Directors has been
busily working to try and figure out the best ways to make chapter activities engaging for ALL our members. However, what many of you might not know
is we also have metrics on the makeup of our membership. While
a large proportion comes from the contracting/consulting community, and from academia,
there is a sizable contingent representing most all branches of the services and of course government civilians. Nevertheless, we have noticed that among
participants at monthly meetings, and in tutorials, the participation from this group is typically quite low. So I set out to try and investigate why (in a
perfectly non-scientific way), and add some theories of my own based on my many years in the chapter and general observations as a contractor working for
government and military clients (again non-scientific).

Therefore, I decided to interview a government civilian staffer at one of our Intelligence Agencies who is a dues-paying member, and asked him, “What’s
up?” In this unscientific survey, I uncovered no real deep dark secret as to why his participation was low to non-existent to date, with the possible exception
of the fact that he has had no real incentive from his ‘employer’ (i.e. the government agency) to engage in INCOSE or INCOSE-related training. As this
individual was a contractor for a number of years before he went government, he noted his association with INCOSE actually predated his government hire.
However, he was able to identify that his former employer (Northrop Grumman) actively promoted participation in INCOSE and in becoming certified as a
systems engineer. He noted he was encouraged to take courses at DAU (for DAWIA certification), and participate in college cohort/master program for SE
but that INCOSE was not noted as a training resource.

His points seemed to align more with my own observations:

•Private employers are much more likely to encourage/require their staff members to participate in INCOSE and INCOSE activities such as the meetings
and tutorials because: 1) CSEPs help them win proposals; 2) tutorials offered by INCOSE cover relevant SE topics; and 3) the tutorials are
typically significantly less expensive then commercial courses.

•While government managers/supervisors know about DAU and DAWIA certification, they know less about the content/basis for the INCOSE
certifications, because the government spaces or even by DAU do not adequately publicized or socialized it. (Did you know that government staffs who
have successfully passed the CSEP-Acquisition exam could waive two required DAU courses towards DAWIA certification?)

•Many military services and government agencies develop their own ‘in-house’ training and mandate it for staff rather than utilize training/education
that may already be readily available and affordable and (potentially) more leading edge then what they offer internally. Maybe this could even save
taxpayer dollars, or maybe someone should do a study?

We (INCOSE or the WMA Chapter) need to communicate the ‘value proposition’ of

INCOSE-WMA Monthly Meetings and Tutorials better and using
other communication methods and modes to our military and government members. (Look for an upcoming Monthly Meeting on the INCOSE SE certification
program by yours truly! Also, look for information on our “Ambassador” Program!)

I hope that this article is a step in the right direction and will garner your attention. We would love to hear from you, please feel free to send the
Board your comments in reply to this article.

Your
Building Your Concept of Operations (CONOPS)
Presented by Dr. Steven H. Dam
President of Washington Metro Area Chapter of INCOSE

Ad
One of the lost arts in Systems Engineering is the development and use of
the Concept of Operations (CONOPS). Dr. Steven Dam along with Dr. Dinesh
Verma authored a chapter on this subject in a recent Joint DoD/NASA-sponsored
book entitled “Applied Space Systems Engineering.” Dr. Dam will use this text
and recent experience in developing CONOPS for the Department of Defense

Here
to discuss how to develop a CONOPS using architectures and scenarios. This
tutorial will discuss how to:

•Validate the mission scope and the system boundary;

•Describe the operational environment, and primary constraints and drivers;
•Develop key operational scenarios, and associated timelines;
•Synthesize, analyze, and assess key implementation concepts;
•Validate and baseline the operational architecture for the system of interest;
Contact the WMA Board of Directors •Document and iterate through Architecture and the DoD Architecture
Framework.
For More Information on Ads.
Come participate in this dynamic and interesting tutorial.

Last Word

“ Successful architecture development is as much about the roadmap as it is about the design”

from the INCOSE WMA April Meeting:

“Why Great Architectures Fail and Adequate Architectures Succeed?”
By Dr. Paul Montgomery