Exploring the Challenges of Implementing and Sustaining Cross-Platform NAS Capabilities

September 29, 2014

Agenda

Understanding WHY implementing cross-platform capabilities presents challenges

Discussing HOW these capabilities underpin the Agency’s success with NextGen

Reviewing WHAT the Agency and Aviation Community can and should be doing to mitigate risks and explore opportunities

Describe WHERE there have been some successes and where the Agency is headed from here

2

Framing WHY NextGen is So Critical to the FAA

(From the NextGen 2014 report)

“The movement to the next generation of aviation is being enabled by a shift to smarter, satellite-based and digital technologies and new procedures that combine to make air travel more convenient, predictable and environmentally friendly

As the nation’s largest airports continue to experience congestion, NextGen improvements are enabling the FAA to guide and track aircraft more precisely on more direct routes. NextGen efficiency enhances safety, reduces delays, saves fuel and reduces aircraft exhaust emissions. NextGen is also vital to preserving aviation’s significant contributions to our national economy.”

3

A capability-based approach to modernizing the NAS Many elements of NextGen’s backbone are platform-

specific (ERAM, TAMR) and many rely on their own new hardware and software infrastructure (including those listed below).

4

Other NextGen components rely on orchestrated changes to software (and sometimes hardware) in multiple domains, across multiple systems.

This capability-based approach to implementing incremental changes to the NAS presents unique challenges for the work of the Agency.

Defining a Capability

Capabilities can be thought of as NAS concepts incorporating multiple functions to deliver an operational benefit.

Implementing a capability that requires integration across multiple NAS systems presents unique challenges.

5

System View

Cap

abili

ties

–M

ay in

ters

ect

on

e o

rm

ore

sys

tem

s. Capability

Capability

Capability

System 1 System 2 System 3

Unique Challenges Implementing NextGen Capabilities

Scenario Examples Challenges

Cost, Schedule, and Work to be Performed in Single Program Baseline

Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), En-Route Automation Modernization (ERAM), Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM)

N/A

Cost and Schedule reside in Singular Program; Work to be Performed spans Multiple Programs

Data Communications (DataComm), System-wide Information Management (SWIM)

• Coordinated planning• (potentially mis-aligned)

Requirements priorities • Domain- or platform-specific test

approaches• Domain-specific needs identified

through implementation• (potentially varied) Sustainment

philosophies and practicesCost, Schedule, Execution spans Multiple Programs

Performance-Based Navigation (PBN), Airborne Re-Route (ABRR)

6

Exploring Challenges in the Context of AMS

7

Service Analysis –Pre Baseline

Establish Capability Baseline

Allocate Capability req’s to Systems

System Engineer

NextGen Capability

Defined

Integrate and Test

Deploy

System Engineer

Establish Program Baseline

Software Dev’tProgram Defined

System Operational

Integrate and Test

Deploy

AMS Process – per System

NextGen i2i AMS Process – Operational Capability (multiple Systems)

System Engineer

Integrate and Test

Deploy

Capability Operational

(multiple Systems)

Capability Benefits Analysis/ Reporting

Mission Analysis Investment Analysis Solution Implementation

Service Analysis CRD, Solution Development & Commitment Solution Implementation – per System Solution Implement – per Capability

Software Dev’t

Software Dev’t

Solution Implementation & Sustainment – Critical Coordination Stages

8

Point #1Capability Baseline EstablishedFor all Systems

Point #2Software Development StartMay vary by System*

Point #3Development Test Milestone CompleteMay vary by System*

Point #4Deploy System to SiteOn-site transition and test

Point #5Site Capability OperationsFor all Systems

- Requirements traceability

- Implementation and integration approach accounts for platform-unique needs

- Aligned contracting strategy and practices

- Technical interchange meetings (TIMs)

- Integrated engineering reviews

- Requirements management processes within and across platforms

- Information sharing of vendor approaches and test results

- Consistency in status, priority, impact, and other rating scales

- Coordinated test planning and result disposition activities

- Coordinated communication and in-briefs to site(s) from platform-specific and capability perspectives

- Coordinated test and certification planning activities

- Coordinated outreach events and site implementation plans

- Clear first level, second level, and third level maintenance procedures

- Nationally coordinated approach to issue identification, triage, and system ‘fixes’ for sites

Additional Challenges to Consider

Integration activities (multi-vendor design, test, and multi-organizational deployment) drive increased integration and lifecycle costs while placing a premium on early and accurate planning activities

Safety Risk Management (SRM) activities require both coordination and consistency across capabilities and lines of business

Developing a consistent approach to requirements management across the lifecycle of the capability – differentiating between a refined, existing requirement vs. a new requirement vs. a potential future enhancement to an existing system

Cost estimation approaches that balance prime vendor and Agency-driven work in implementation and sustainment activities

9

Best-Practices and Lessons-Learned

Reflecting on the design of the ATO PMO

Opportunities for continued collaboration across the ATO PMO, ATO Requirements (AJV), and FAA NextGen (ANG) organizational units

10

NextGen

PMO

NAS Modernization

Success

ATO Req’s

Balancing deployment challenges & opportunities with requirements of the operation

Best-Practices and Lessons-Learned (ctd)

11

Implementation of new roles (such as application leads, capability managers) to centralize coordination and accountability for capability components within individual programs.

Established successes with programs like Ground Interval Management and Spacing (GIM-S), ABRR, PDRR, and early work on DataComm have yielded innovations to be leveraged by future programs.

Institutional stability within ANG, AJV, and AJM since the creation of the PMO and the creation of Air Traffic Services (AJT) has allowed for more robust institutional understanding of NextGen’s portfolio and the necessary planning and integration points.

New processes for activities later in the AMS lifecycle – including portfolio risk management, capability-focused program reviews, capability-focused management forums, and new reporting techniques –promote early awareness and opportunities for resolution.

Questions?

12