Technology Readiness Level, Schedule Risk and Slippage in Spacecraft Design: Data Analysis and Modeling

Dubos, Gregory F.; Saleh, Joseph H.; Braun, Robert D.

doi:10.2514/6.2007-6020

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 3 shows the effect of the maturity of technology or lack thereof on the risk of schedule slippage. We note that both Dubos et al 38 and Valerdi 39 correlate the schedule with cost benefits without considering any costs associated with obtaining higher levels of technology maturity. While this may limit the benefit of their findings to real policy change, it does allow the ability to quantify this potential intervention within an overall process model.…”

Section: 22mentioning

confidence: 94%

Intervention strategies for the Department of Defense acquisition process

Worger

Jalao

Wirthlin

et al. 2014

Journal of Defense Modeling & Simulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition system is often challenged by schedule overruns that can be attributed to a complex acquisition process. This process drives great research interests in exploring intervention strategies that would help reduce program development delays. Recent studies indicate that policies that address (1) scope growth, (2) acquisition process variability and (3) program technology maturity should be investigated as they may have significant impact on reducing program completion time. However, quantitatively evaluating the impact of a new policy has been limited due to the lack of system models with appropriate fidelity. The application of a simulation model to address this challenge thus becomes a promising approach. In this research, we explore the benefits of the Enterprise Requirements and Acquisition Model, a discrete event simulation of the DoD acquisition system to quantitatively examine the temporal effects of scope growth, technology maturity, and decreased variation and means process times in post-Design Readiness Review contractor activities. The insights gained from the simulation experiments can potentially help formulate new policies to improve the complex DoD acquisition process.

show abstract

Section: 22mentioning

confidence: 94%

Intervention strategies for the Department of Defense acquisition process

Worger

Jalao

Wirthlin

et al. 2014

Journal of Defense Modeling & Simulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is a quantitative model that does not communicate the maturity of technology at a certain point in time but instead leverages the TRL metric to identify the appropriate schedule margins associated with each TRL level in order to mitigate schedule slips (Dubos et al 2007). …”

Section: Trl Schedule Risk Curvementioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual role of TRLs and MRLs in technology management.

Fernández¹

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) have been used extensively from the 1970s, especially in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Their application was recommended by the General Accounting Office in 1999 to be used for major Department of Defense acquisition projects. Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) have been proposed for improving the way manufacturing risks and readiness are identified; they were introduced to the defense community in 2005, but have not been used as broadly as TRLs. Originally TRLs were used to assess the readiness of a single technology. With the emergence of more complex systems and system of systems, it has been increasingly recognized that TRLs have limitations, especially when considering integration of complex systems. Therefore, it is important to use TRLs in the correct context. Details on TRLs and MRLs are reported in this paper. More recent indices to establish a better understanding of the integrated readiness state of systems are presented. Newer readiness indices, System Readiness Levels (SRLs) and Integration Readiness Levels, are discussed and their limitations and advantages are presented, along with an example of computing SRLs. It is proposed that a modified SRL be considered that explicitly includes the MRLs and a modification of the TRLs to include the Integrated Technology Index (ITI) and/or the Advancement Degree of Difficulty index proposed by NASA. Finally, the use of indices to perform technology assessments are placed into the overall context of technology management, recognizing that factors to transition and manage technology include cost, schedule, manufacturability, integration readiness, and technology maturity. 4This page is intentionally left blank.5

show abstract

“…If testing reveals that the battery lifetime will significantly reduce the spacecraft life, the system may have lower value than if the heavier legacy battery is used. Saleh 17 provides useful data of the impact of technology readiness level, and implicit technology risk, on development schedule.…”

Section: Technical Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value-Centric Design Methodologies for Fractionated Spacecraft: Progress Summary from Phase I of the DARPA System F6 Program

Brown

Eremenko

Collopy³

2009

AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference &Amp; Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most ambitious efforts in value-centric design of a military aerospace system undertaken to date has been the parallel development by four performer teams, headlined by major space industry primes, of design tools for fractionated space architectures under DARPA's System F6 program. The goal of the System F6 program is to replace traditional, highly-integrated, monolithic satellites with wirelessly-networked clusters of heterogeneous modules incorporating the various payload and infrastructure functions. Such fractionated architectures can deliver a comparable or greater mission capability than monolithic satellites, but with significantly enhanced flexibility and robustness. In order to design an optimal fractionated architecture, the potential cost penalties due to the overhead of such a design must be balanced against the value enhancement due to improved flexibility and robustness. The first, preliminary design phase of the System F6 program, simultaneously awarded to four competing industry teams led by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Orbital Sciences, commenced in February 2008 and included a significant effort for the development, validation, and demonstration of a Value-Centric Design methodology and associated tool suite that can support the design of optimized fractionated satellite systems based on a net lifecycle value metric and a probabilistic distribution thereof. This phase concluded in February 2009 and the Value-Centric Design methodology development to date is documented in a series of papers by the industry performer teams. This paper, from the System F6 Program Office, summarizes the overarching objectives of the Value-Centric Design effort, details and rationalizes the requirements for the methodology, discusses the relationship between Value-Centric Design and the traditional industry-standard systems engineering process, and fills any gaps in the performers' own presentations of their efforts, tools, and results. 1 The views expressed herein are the authors' own and do not necessarily represent those of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. Approved for public release. Distribution unlimited.

show abstract

Technology Readiness Level, Schedule Risk and Slippage in Spacecraft Design: Data Analysis and Modeling

Cited by 18 publications

References 3 publications

Intervention strategies for the Department of Defense acquisition process

Intervention strategies for the Department of Defense acquisition process

Contextual role of TRLs and MRLs in technology management.

Value-Centric Design Methodologies for Fractionated Spacecraft: Progress Summary from Phase I of the DARPA System F6 Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About