Anticipatory development processes for reducing total ownership costs and schedules

Abstract

Many systems and software processes overfocus on getting a project and product from an initial set of requirements to an Initial Operational Capability (IOC). Examples are most waterfall and V models. Projects following such processes may pass acceptance tests for functionality and performance, but may leave the product with serious maintainability shortfalls. Many agile processes focus on users' initial usage priorities, but often make development commitments for earlier needs that are incompatible with achieving later critical needs (eg, security, safety). Incremental development process models can do better, but often later increments may find that the earlier increments have not prepared them for ease of modification and repair. Besides increasing Total Ownership Costs (TOCs), long mean times to repair result in long downtimes, which can be critical to an organization's income and reputation. Furthermore, many of these shortfalls take the form of Technical Debt (TD), in that the later they are fixed, the more slow and expensive will be the fixes. This paper summarizes three process frameworks and tools providing more anticipatory ways to improve systems and software maintainability and life‐cycle cost‐effectiveness. The first framework is an Opportunity Tree for identifying and anticipating such ways. The second framework, Software Quality Understanding by Analysis of Abundant Data (SQUAAD), is a toolset for tracking a software project's incremental code commits, and analyzing and visualizing each commit's incremental and cumulative TD. The third framework is a Software/Systems Maintenance Readiness Framework (SMRF), that identifies needed maintenance readiness levels at development decision reviews, similar to the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) framework.

Acquisition strategy factors related to faster defense acquisitions

“…21 Boehm and Behnamghader identified process and non-technical sources of technical debt affecting program schedule, including undisciplined software development approaches and inadequate systems engineering resources. 22 Tate argued that DoD programs are increasingly software dependent and that Agile development could deliver products on reduced timelines. 5 Forney found that while larger unit size and less development work increased the likelihood of schedule success, Agile software development methods did not increase success likelihood.…”

Technical debt in systems engineering—A systematic literature review

“…show that poor documentation leads to increased maintenance costs and effort in software and hardware systems and component obsolescence is a concern in both fields 12 . Boehm and Behnamghader discuss how inadequate systems engineering resources can lead to “exponentially‐large amounts of TD due to poorly‐defined interfaces, unaddressed rainy‐day use cases and risks, and premature commitments to hopefully‐compatible but actually‐incompatible COTS products, cloud services, open‐source capabilities, and hopefully‐reusable components.” 13 Sharon et al. correlate systems engineering management and project management and identify that “careful management of the relationships between the product and the project is crucial to the successes of a project that aims to deliver a defined product.” 14 These sources all discuss critical elements of technical debt—unintended consequences, the impact of early decisions on the long‐term health of the system, and the need for adequate resourcing and careful decision‐making.…”