How Do Our Clients Use CONOPS?

How Do Our Clients Use CONOPS?

Instructor:
Mack McKinney

ATI Course Schedule: http://www.ATIcourses.com/schedule.htm

ATI's CONOPS: http://www.aticourses.com/Technical_CONOPS_Concepts.htm

www.ATIcourses.com

Boost Your Skills 349 Berkshire Drive
Riva, Maryland 21140
with On-Site Courses Telephone 1-888-501-2100 / (410) 965-8805

Tailored to Your Needs
Fax (410) 956-5785
Email: ATI@ATIcourses.com

The Applied Technology Institute specializes in training programs for technical professionals. Our courses keep you
current in the state-of-the-art technology that is essential to keep your company on the cutting edge in today’s highly
competitive marketplace. Since 1984, ATI has earned the trust of training departments nationwide, and has presented
on-site training at the major Navy, Air Force and NASA centers, and for a large number of contractors. Our training
increases effectiveness and productivity. Learn from the proven best.

For a Free On-Site Quote Visit Us At: http://www.ATIcourses.com/free_onsite_quote.asp

For Our Current Public Course Schedule Go To: http://www.ATIcourses.com/schedule.htm

CONOPS Can Uncover Requirements
“I recently released a CONOPs developed in parallel with an
early requirements-and-design concept development effort.
This CONOPs was initially resisted, believed unnecessary by
several principals. When it was completed two months later
(using the outline and training provided by Solid Thinking),
we had identified a number of mismatched (and unspoken)
expectations, and identified on the order of forty new
requirements. One of the key original skeptics [said], "This is
one of the best CONOPS I've ever seen". The CONOPs is now
a key system document.”
(Lockheed Martin engineer, 2006)

Copyright STC March 2008. All
2
rights reserved.

Organizations Now Using
STC’s CONOPS Outlines
• UAE GHQ
• HQ USAF Air Combat Command A2
• USN Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City, FL
• Defense Intelligence Agency
• US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
• Swedish Submarine Forces
• Italian General Staff and Center for Defense Innovation
• Hungarian Ministry of Defense
• Danish MOD, Intelligence Directorate
• Boeing, Raytheon Missiles, Northrop Grumman, MITRE, Booz
Allen Hamilton, Sikorsky, Lockheed Martin, others

3
rights reserved.

Your Clients Know Good CONOPS
• Are required for all DOD/DHS programs
• Can rally users and politicians to help save a threatened
program
• Save money
• Save time
• Deliver better product/service to USERS, sooner, with
living documentation, training, employment tips, support
community
• Provide faster, less expensive upgrades that are easier
to justify and fund
• Sometimes save lives

Your Clients Already
Benefit From CONOPS
• Used throughout federal
and state government
agencies (assisted by
BAH, MITRE, SAIC,
others)
• Used for system
development,
reorganizations,
exercises, missions, etc.

5
rights reserved.

So Clients Expect You to . . .

• Help build effective CONOPS

• Participate on CONOPS teams

• Guide R&D, modeling & sim

• Counsel to avoid common pitfalls

6
rights reserved.

In DOD an OpCon and Future
Standard Operating
User- Focused CONOPS Concepts
Procedures (SOP),
Are the Linchpins (e.g. JOpsC) OPORDS, EXORDs,
Ops Assessments
Evolutionary Scenarios, Current
System/Situation,
Increments: Justif for Delta, Scenarios
P3I & ECPs Summary of Impacts
Training
Features Left Out & Personas Programs
Obsolescence Analyses & Scenarios
Personas,
Use Cases
OpCon CONOPS & Scenarios User Manuals *

OpCon Text, Scenarios, Effects-Based Solutions, Lessons
Regular Input From Users Regular Input From Users, Learned
Modeling & Simulation TTPs
Copyright STC 2010.
All rights reserved.

Architecture Requirements
DODAF CBAs JCIDS
DOD/DHS
Reviews
AV-Xs OV-Xs SV-Xs Effects-Based SE
7
* Operators, maintainers, rights reserved.
SysAdmin & downstream product users all need User Manuals

CONOPS Important for
Long-Duration Dev’t Projects
“ Mack, the real benefit to doing thorough CONOPS
here is continuity. On programs that last for years we
have a turnover of PMs, lead engineers, in fact of the
ENTIRE staff, sometimes several times. Our CONOPS
now provide an easy-to-understand, unbiased record
of what we did, why we did it, why we are doing
what we have underway at any given time. CONOPS
here are a “touchstone” for EVERYONE on our major
projects.”
(Sr. Engineer at Raytheon, 2008)

Copyright STC March 2008.
8

Special Supplement
to Technical CONOPS Courses
“Users” Exist in Lots of Flavors

To Which of Them Should We Listen As We Build
CONOPS and Design Systems?

US DOD Photo

If I could just find a better
way to initially treat What we need is a
wounded troops without machine to carry 100
For the next exposing medics to small pounds of water and
war, we need to arms fire! ammo for each of us!
design a much
better MEDIVAC
chain with faster
response time,
even under fire!

These People Are Users
and Operators With
Valid Viewpoints

Basic Definitions
• User does something with the output of a system (for
example “operations”), or supports those who use
that output (“maintenance”).
• Surrogate User: Not a current user of the system
(headquarters staffer; retired military and now a
defense contractor)
• Operator (always also users): Manipulates some
aspect of the system, especially its controls (fly it,
drive it, or otherwise employ it)
• All operators are also users
• Very few users are also operators

Deeper Definitions

• End Users: Far end, downstream users of the output of the
system

• Mid-Stream/Dispersed Users: Use some output of the system
but may not directly control it’s employment

• Requirements Writers (often Surrogate Users):
Headquarters/COCOM staffers who set requirements that
procurement system finds and buys

• Operators (always Users): Manipulate some aspect of the
system (fly it, drive it, or otherwise employ it)

Example: Unmanned Aerial Systems in DOD
• End Users: US Army Lieutenant
and his troops watching video
and in contact with hostile forces

US Army Photo

• Mid-Stream/Dispersed
Users: US Army
Colonel at Air
Operations Center
using imagery for raid
planning

US Air Force Photo

• Requirements Writers (often
Surrogate Users): Air Combat
Command A8/9 planning
exercises and recommending new
procurements

STC Photo

Hunter Airfield Controls (STC Photo)

Shadow Downlink & Controls (US Army Photo)
Predator Control Van (USAF Photo)

• Operators (also Users): Remote
“pilots” flying the air vehicles and
operating sensors

Warrior Alpha Control Van (US Army Photo)

To Which “Users” Should We Listen?
• End Users?

• Mid-Stream/Dispersed Users?

• Requirements Writers (often
Surrogate Users)?

• Operators (also Users)?

End Users Mid-Stream Requirements Operators
Users Writers

Pros of • The Real • Visible • Write req’ts • Immediate
Recruiting/ people at tip advocates, and can impact on
Listening to of spear able to drive/divert combat effort
• Rewarding to impact $$$ • Rewarding to
Them
support req’ts • Drive long term support
combat • Can drive contracts for operators
troops/1st new system dev’t
responders COCOM
IPLs
Cons of • Focused on High pressure • Focused on • System OEM is
Recruiting/ fighting job, many equipping king
Listening to today’s war, “bosses”, troops to fight • Other programs
not often often at odds future wars (5- can be threat to
Them
impacted by with 15 years out) current system
R&D established • Requires and its
• Often have contractors dedicated, long improvements
no $$$ and programs term effort to long term
influence

Good CONOPS Gets Support From Each
Group With Special Emphasis When Needed
• End Users when your system/enhancement fixes a problem for
troops in contact on today’s battlefield (make CONOPS section 3
especially strong since end users will focus on this)

• Mid-Stream/Dispersed Users when your system improves
effectiveness of system’s utility for non-operators and non-end-
users who use its outputs

• Requirements Writers (often Surrogate Users) when your
system/enhancement will help force posture or combat capabilities
for conflicts 5-15 years in future

• Operators (are also Users) when your system/enhancement
improves controllability or flexibility of the system by its
manipulators.

Lastly: Inputs From Surrogate Users
Should ALWAYS Be Welcomed
• Viewpoints can vary widely
with backgrounds and
experiences
• Even (sometimes especially)
dated experience can be
instructive
• Weight the advice based on
source’s level of experience,
span of experience,
reputation and the input’s
applicability to the
system/issues
• Always capture and retain the
advice/ideas.

End User’s Real Interests*
• I don’t speak “contracts” or “requirements” and I don’t
completely trust people who do
• I don’t really trust people who have no military experience
because I doubt if they understand my needs
• I want a system that works as advertised, first time and every
time; is easy to upgrade in the field; links seamlessly with other
systems/networks
• I need the system to be easy to use when I am stressed out and
sleepless for 48 hours
• I want the government to buy a full-up system, with training and
spares and factory support whenever I need it
• The headquarters folks do not understand current users’ needs
and they don’t really speak for me and the other end users
• I seldom get asked about system requirements and even then my
words are watered down (made “P.C.”) by MAJCOM or others

* Results from Solid Thinking’s ongoing survey of defense professionals
21

To Work Best With End Users
• Show effort to fix broken
systems
• Listen to their
frustrations and help
tackle them
• Go visit field units,
observe ops, ask
questions & listen: be
empathic

22

Failure-Proofing Your
Project/Program
SBI Example (of 5 examples discussed
in the CONOPS course)

Solid Thinking’s “Fielding Probability”
Assessment System
• Meets Key Users’ Need - saves lives, saves money, answers a long-standing
need, meets serious emerging need, makes current job easier, permits new
capability against today’s threat, permits new capability against tomorrow’s
threat, meets validated COCOM/MAJCOM requirement, has clear OpCon &
CONOPS

• Answers Key Organizations’ Needs - preserves service/agency’s budget
and/or power base, visibly supports parent org’s goals, lets service visibly
support other service/coalition partner), Joint Service, employs people in
key Congressmen’s districts

• Offers an Executable Program - helps fight today’s conflict, has senior
decision makers’ support (who have discretionary budget), has mid-level
managers’ support (aka Iron Majors), has ops users’ support, championed
by thought leaders, affordable now, fits existing force structure, supportive
of other strong program(s), non-competitive with other strong programs,
ties to ongoing and successful science and technology programs

24
rights reserved.

Solid Thinking’s Scoring System

0 – Normal text on slides: Did not meet criteria

1 - Underlined text: Met criteria

2- Bold text on slides: Exceeded criteria

Copyright STC March 2008. [brackets]
All show key points
25
rights reserved.

Solid Thinking’s Fielding “Probability Assessment
System” (PAS)
Teaching Examples
• Automated Feature Extraction for Imagery
• Radar Processing Mode
• Hyperspectral Imaging System
• Acoustic Absorbent Tile for Armored Vehicles
• Tactical ELINT System *
• Border Surveillance System in Southern US *
• ATC Systems in Europe *
• ISR Information Service: Doing it Right! *
* Discussed in 2-day and 3-day courses

Without discussing specific nations, firms or technologies, what went wrong or what
should have been done?
26
rights reserved.

Project 28 – Launch “Prototype”
for $860M DHS Program
• Nine mobile radar/sensor towers
• Four unattended ground sensors
• Seventy SAT phones
• Fifty Vehicles with secure laptops and comms
• Data fused at C2 Center

27
rights reserved.

Project 28 – Launch “Prototype”
for $860M DHS Program

• Nine mobile radar/sensor towers
• Four unattended ground sensors
• Seventy SAT phones
• Fifty Vehicles with secure laptops and comms

28
rights reserved.

Project 28 Problems Cited
in Feb 08 Report from GAO

• Cameras working at less than ½
expected ranges (drives total
numbers and locations of towers
required, other sensors, etc.)
• Radars being falsely triggered by
rain
• Radar data taking too long to
display at C2 nodes
• COTS C2 S/W probably not
appropriate for intended use
• Wrong contract vehicle used: FFP
Task Order contract used for an
R&D / demo project
29
rights reserved.

What Did
Boeing and the
US Border Patrol
Do Right?
• Realized they were
building a complex
system in a politically-
charged atmosphere

• Talked to users

• Got feedback from
users on overall
system capabilities

• Suitability-tested
components rights reserved.
30

What Went Wrong?
Copyright Solid Thin
All Rights Reserved.

User-inputs did not catch errors of omission and commission. Why not? We
don’t know. Some possible reasons:
• Wrong “users” were involved (perhaps surrogate users)?
• Users were involved at the wrong times to impact system design?
• Wrong (subtly biased?) questions were asked of the users?
• Users were not involved in building subsystem requirements or test plans?
• Entire requirements approach was unstructured, users’ inputs were not
properly solicited, timed or managed and no CONOPS was generated?????
31
rights reserved.

Project 28 Prototype’s Score 0-1-0
0- Meets Key Users’ Need - saves lives, saves money, answers a long-standing
need (border security), meets serious emerging need, makes current job
easier, permits new capability against today’s threat, permits new capability
against tomorrow’s threat, meets validated COCOM/MAJCOM requirement,
has clear OpCon & CONOPS

1- Answers Key Organizations’ Needs - preserves service/agency’s budget
and/or power base, visibly supports parent org’s goals, lets service visibly
support other service/coalition partner), Joint Service, employs people in
key Congressmen’s districts

0- Offers an Executable Program - helps fight today’s conflict, has senior
decision makers’ support (who have discretionary budget), has mid-level
managers’ support (aka Iron Majors), has ops users’ support, championed
by thought leaders, affordable now, fits existing force structure, supportive
of other strong program(s), non-competitive with other strong programs,
ties to ongoing and successful science and technology programs

32
rights reserved.

Result: Prototype Rejected
Biggest Loser: US Citizens, now less secure

• Government’s position: We trusted the US’s premier
integrator of complex systems (Boeing) who had the DHS
Director’s support and plenty of money to do this.

• Developer’s probable position: This was a prototype, from
which we were learning about technologies, system
integration enhancements needed, etc. We should have
stressed that “prototype” status. And we should have taken a
CPFF development contract for the R&D part of this job.)

33
rights reserved.

Project 28 Prototype’s Score 0-1-0
What Else SHOULD Have Been Done?
0- Meets Key Users’ Need - saves lives, saves money, answers a long-
standing need (border security), meets serious emerging need, makes
current job easier, permits new capability against today’s threat,
permits new capability against tomorrow’s threat, meets validated
requirement, clear OpCon and CONOPS
A. Should’ve
controlled
1 - Answers Key Organization’s Need - preserves service/agency’sNo brainer
expectations B.
budget
a la “prototype” base, visibly supports parent org’s goals, lets service
and/or power
C. Boeing should have implemented
visibly support other service/coalition partner
status
process for frequent “rudder check”
0 - Offers an Executable Program - helps fight today’snot just HQ folks
from USBP FIELD AGENTS, conflict, has senior
decision makers’ support (who have discretionary budget), has mid-
level managers’ support (Border Patrol Agents), has ops users’ support,
championed by thought leaders, affordable now, fits existing force
structure, supportive of other strong program(s), non-competitive with
other strong programs, ties to ongoing and successful science and
technology programs accepted prototype, then made
D. DHS
Boeing dump it: makes Chertoff’s supporters look silly
34
rights reserved.

To learn more please attend this ATI course

Please post your comments and questions to our blog:
http://www.aticourses.com/blog/

Sign-up for ATI's monthly Course Schedule Updates :
http://www.aticourses.com/email_signup_page.html

How Do Our Clients Use CONOPS?

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à How Do Our Clients Use CONOPS?

Similaire à How Do Our Clients Use CONOPS? (20)

Plus de Jim Jenkins

Plus de Jim Jenkins (11)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

How Do Our Clients Use CONOPS?