“Should S1000D be Required by the Department of...

“Should S1000D be Required by the Department of Defense?”

A report prepared by The Naval Postgraduate School, MOVES Institute, Monterey, California

for The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

Your Source for S1000D Information

Lou IuppaVP Strategic Business Development and SDL S1000D Business OwnerBusiness Owner

S1000D Adoption Survey

The MOVES Team

Curtis Blais, [email protected]

Prof Michael McCauley memccaul@nps eduProf Michael McCauley, [email protected]

John Falby, [email protected]

Report BriefingReport Briefing

Curtis L. Blais, Research AssociateMOVES Institute, Naval Postgraduate SchoolMOVES Institute, Naval Postgraduate School

Should S1000D Be a DoDShould S1000D Be a DoD Requirement?

Curtis Blais, Michael McCauley and John Falbyy yMOVES Institute

Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey CaliforniaMonterey, California

1 June 2011

YYes.

Questions?Q

However…O “Fi di ”Our “Findings:”

For S1000D to be required DoD needs to beFor S1000D to be required, DoD needs to be prepared to:• Manage/Govern itManage/Govern it• Promote it• Support it• Enforce it

This must not be a blind mandate, but supported from the top and founded on the business case!!!

Management/Governance

Establish a management organization for di ti / i ti ll D Dcoordination/communication across all DoD

organizationsDevelop guidelines for useDevelop guidelines for use

• New acquisitions• Legacy systems

B i i h l i f h d dBe active in the evolution of the standard• Joint Service IETM Technology Working Group• S1000D Defense Working Group (S1000D-DWG)g p ( )• Ensure defense requirements are brought forward to the

S1000D Steering Committee and Council

Promotion

Develop a transition/adoption planFacilitate adoption through

• Training & educationGuidance• Guidance

• Business rules• Tools

Begin developing an enterprise solution, across Services, Organizations and Acquisition, O ti L i ti M i t T i iOperations, Logistics, Maintenance, Training Communities

Support Activities

Develop mechanisms to upgrade materials d l d d li S1000D i tdeveloped under earlier S1000D issues to current issue

Be ti e in e g o p nd fo mBe active in user groups and forumsPublish issues/concerns and DoD-supported

changes to S1000Dchanges to S1000DMonetary support to reach uniformity

Enforcement

Legacy systems: Do not convert to S1000D unless a business case is made to do so

New acquisitions: Require S1000D unless a business case can be made for not using S1000D

R i S1000D f t f ll i t h dRequire S1000D format for all interchange and sharing of technical publications

Ens e compatibilit ac oss soft a e toolsEnsure compatibility across software tools

Basis for the Findings

Background ResearchBackground ResearchStructured InterviewsWeb-Based QuestionnaireWeb Based QuestionnaireAnalysis and Synthesis

Background ResearchPrior Study: An Analysis of S1000D and Its Adoption by the Department of

Defense, LMI Government Consulting, November 2008• Response to AIA White Paper recommending DoD adoptionResponse to AIA White Paper recommending DoD adoption• “Many of the challenges associated with adopting the more complex aspects

of S1000D are directly related to the lack of definition about the enterprise…”

• …”we believe the applicability of S1000D to information management within DoD must be considered within the framework of the goals and objectives of the broader enterprise.”“ d h ( ) h h l• “We recommend that OUSD(AT&L), in cooperation with the military services, determine a structure for developing a comprehensive approach to product data.”

• Limitations of the LMI study: In principal, we agree• Limitations of the LMI study: • Short term study• Input only from Navy organizations

In principal, we agree that an Enterprise-wide solution is needed, but perhaps differ on how b t t ti l t tibest to stimulate action toward that solution.

The NPS Study:Structured InterviewsStructured Interviews

20 interviews / 25 interviewees0 te e s / 5 te e ees• All services represented• Approximately 1 hour per interview• Court reporter generated transcripts (570 pages)

Questions/discussions primarily addressed Q / p yperceived benefits, challenges, whether S1000D should be required, and responsibilities of DoD if it is requiredresponsibilities of DoD if it is required

Structured Interviews: S1000D BenefitsS1000D Benefits

• Data reuse… it should reduce the lifecycle of that yinformation because you’re only creating it once and using it many [times]

• The capability of reusing the data creating data once• The capability of reusing the data, creating data once and using it multiple times for various products.

• The fact that my systems change so rapidly, I have to come out with new versions of IETMs on a very rapid, repeatable basis. S1000D enables me to reuse the portions of the IETMs that are applicable tothe portions of the IETMs that are applicable to earlier versions without having to redevelop them.


• …the neutral format has allowed content to be used in different formats The neutral format allows us toin different formats. The neutral format allows us to use it in different viewers.

• …it can be used on multiple different software t lti l d t b d lti l l tfsystems, multiple databases and multiple platforms,

without having to alter or modify the actual information itself, so there’s no locking to a particular

f i l fsoftware view or platform.• Economy of scale; just have one S1000D tool – the

“Golden Spike” of technical information. The tool that pwe have provides the means to display multiple versions of S1000D data modules at the same time.


Integrate the production of technical manuals and training courses… with integration, there will be a reduction in the cost of producing future tech manuals and then training courses… the integration would reduce the possible incidence of disparate i f i i i h i l l d i iinformation given in technical manuals and training courses

…integration may speed up the production of technical manuals and training courses, and therefore that may reduce the

ibilit i i i i t thpossibility -- or give insurance, some insurance against the possibility of lags in the fielding of new systems and equipment upgrades, and the delivery of up-to-date technical manuals and training courses to the fleet the benefits in terms of reductiontraining courses to the fleet. …the benefits in terms of reduction in future costs far outweigh the investment and implementation costs.


• …once I’ve developed it in S1000D, if I have an engineering change or any other modernization or update it’s a muchchange or any other modernization or update, it s a much smaller piece of the equation [than] to actually do a complete IETM update.

• the ability to reuse data and not have to recreate data on a• …the ability to reuse data and not have to recreate data, on a very small scale, has saved me between 15 and 25 percent of my overall development cost. I see that that should go up significantly once all of my programs are doing S1000D.significantly once all of my programs are doing S1000D.

• …You may not save any money initially, but over the lifecycle• I can see where the standardization would be beneficial for all

of DoD because as we go forward we know our budgets areof DoD because, as we go forward, we know our budgets are going to get tighter and tighter, and if we’re out there using different software and different procedures to do the same job, it’s only going to cost DoD more money overall.it s only going to cost DoD more money overall.


So S1000D not only permits content reuse for training deliverables, it borrows content itself from engineering databases that are further back in the product lifecycle process. So it's an integral part of a wider set of specifications that, when you bring them ll h f d h h f ld f hiall together, are focused on the threefold support of this system

from its inception and design and manufacture through to its in-service and ultimately demilitarization phases. …the use of these complementary standards is now becoming what’sthese complementary standards is now becoming what s considered best practice in the U.S.

Structured Interviews:S1000D Risks/DownsidesS1000D Risks/Downsides

• …definitely a ramp-up cost to support the conversion y p p ppor the transition over to an S1000D implementation. Learning curve, lack of project business rules. There’s probably a lack of data module coding strategy… but p y g gythe big one is the learning curve and the business process piece.

• There is definitely a learning curve with S1000D It’sThere is definitely a learning curve with S1000D. It s a very big document, it’s a process, it’s a standard of handling tech data that’s different than what programs are used to doingprograms are used to doing.


• …like all standards, you need to make an investment up f t t t th t t d d it d ifront to move to that standard…it does require an investment in personnel, training, and infrastructure, because it’s a very advance information process and it’s y pnot until later on down the line you start to realize those benefits. … like all content reuse standards, the payoff comes downstreamcomes downstream.

• …there needs to be infrastructure in place to be successful, and that is IT infrastructure, software tools, and personnel and training… that’s probably the biggest challenge facing an organization who is looking at adopting S1000D.adopting S1000D.


• Policy has not caught up with use…. the y g precommendation that it be looked at for the capability of reducing lifecycle costs.

ith t OSD DOD li h• …without OSD or DOD policy, programs can choose not to implement the specification. There’s noting saying that they should look at it.

• What we in the industry have run into is that when we get to a certain level of leadership within the services the lack of understanding or knowledge ofservices, the lack of understanding or knowledge of the specification and what it can do has hindered that policy decision.


• The specification has been changing at a very rapid rate p g g y pin the last few years…the scope is expanding too fast to keep upM lti l i th UK i j t i t it h t 2 3• Multiple versions – the UK is just going to switch up to 2.3

• Two problems: One is the maturity of the tool sets. [Two] Not all vendors use it, support it.Not all vendors use it, support it.

• We've selected a tool set, we've developed business rules, we have style sheets or schemas that the program is

i Wh t t h I ti i t h iusing. Where you start -- or where I anticipate having some difficulties or possibly some issues is when we start interfacing with other programs or other communities.g p g

Structured Interviews:Requiring Use of S1000DRequiring Use of S1000D

• Enthusiastic “yes.” y• I think it would make sense for … new content. Anything

above ACAT Level II should be using S1000D. • [re enterprise-wide solution first] We don’t want to wait.

This is something that should occur simultaneously, so that the enterprise-wide approach can evolve using bestthat the enterprise wide approach can evolve using best practices from those programs with a head start, while launching the S1000D requirement to be phased in using logical stepslogical steps.


• …such a requirement would make sense for all new qsystems…by mandating or requiring that with the new systems, what the DoD is doing is they’re setting themselves up for success in the futurethemselves up for success in the future.

• …why not start today and why not start with S1000D• I think that after a while you’re going to see more andI think that after a while you re going to see more and

more programs using it, and at that time, I think it would be very sensible to mandate something like this.


• … before I would recommend it becoming a requirement, g q ,I would again make sure it does everything that we think it is going to do.

t thi i t b bl t Y ld d t it f• …at this point, probably not… You could mandate it for new system. I think that would be more of a logical step as far as mandating anything. Mandating for legacy systems is going to be a big price tag that they’re not going to be able to pay for.

• The mandate is harsh Guidance yes you should look• The mandate is harsh. Guidance, yes, you should look into it and see if it makes sense.

Structured Interviews:What Must DoD DoWhat Must DoD Do

What we’ve struggled with, the industry has struggled gg , y ggwith, is that there are committees that both have industry representation and leadership as well as slots for Department of Defense and OSD leadership p pwithin those organizations, working groups, etc. for the S1000 work. And those DoD or OSD positions have basically been held temporarily by individuals, y p y y ,but no formal appointment has been assigned for those services or OSD. …we have no concurrence from the government in either one of the positions, g p ,whether they represent the entire DoD, OSD, or they represent their service.


• …mandating’s okay if you’ve got your …ducks in a row… g y y g yif you have a set of government business rules.

• ..if you had an OSD set of S1000 business rules, it really works At the top you would have the OSD set ofworks… At the top you would have the OSD set of business rules, and then that gets handed down to the services. And the services may have some unique

f h l f h d f hrequirements for their platforms, so they modify those business rules, and then they pass it down to the program. And the program may have a modification that p g p g ythey may be tightening the specification requirements you have, not loosening them up.


• If you’re doing something new, go ahead and use S1000D. If you are a legacy program that has a legacy system in place, consider a g y p g g y y p ,migration path, but there’s no reason for you to stop the presses and switch courses midstream

• But the business case tells me if I’ve got 5 years left on a weapons platform that I’m going to migrate all my data there’s no return onplatform that I’m going to migrate all my data, there’s no return on investment. That’s why the business case should be performed, to show if there is a return on investment or not.

• everything that we do whether it be in OSD or in industry should• …everything that we do, whether it be in OSD or in industry, should be backed up by a solid business case… I think there is a pretty solid business case to use S1000D for new programs, and for those programs going through midlife update or modernization. …make th t d i i b i b i th th d t it ththat decision on a business case basis, rather than mandate it. … the problem with a mandate is that if a mandate exists, then people follow it blindly, and it might not necessarily be the most sensible or cost effective decision to simply blindly follow a mandate.cost effective decision to simply blindly follow a mandate.

Business Case

Difficult to obtain actual data on the business case for or against use of S1000Dor against use of S1000D• Some industry users provided anecdotal evidence of 40-80%

savingsDifficult to identify all programs that are using S1000D and• Difficult to identify all programs that are using S1000D and to determine the business case basis for their decision?

• What is the cost of non-uniformity / proliferation of inconsistency across DoD?inconsistency across DoD?

• In Europe, Germany adopted one issue, UK another – barrier to sharing (unless the content is transformed)

Evolution of the standard can be influenced by DoDEvolution of the standard can be influenced by DoD needs• Army successfully introduced significant changes (Issue 4.0)

Cost Benefit Analysis• Former “Cost Estimator of the Navy” Dan Nussbaum

working at NPS• Sees the lack of CBA is a surprising analytical gap• CBA compares time-phased, economically-adjusted costs

and benefits of alternatives for a defined objectiveand benefits of alternatives for a defined objective• What is the problem that needs to be addressed or resolved?• What is the range of alternatives that could address this problem?• What are the costs, benefits, and risks associated with each

alternative?• Based on the above, what is the recommended course of action?,

CBA for S1000D Requirement• Develop a Work Breakdown Structure to provide the

framework for detailed cost estimating and, later, cost control

• Define the Basis of Estimate, the cost estimating methodologies and underlying datasets from which themethodologies and underlying datasets from which the S1000D cost estimates are developed

• Delineate the benefits and benefits structure: the qualitative and quantitative results expected in return for costs incurred for a chosen alternative

• Perform analysis to provide the link between cost and• Perform analysis to provide the link between cost and benefit data and the decision to be made

• Provide recommendation for decision

Web-Based Questionnaire

Developed after completion of structured interviewsp pQuestions based on the structured interview as well as

from insights obtained from intervieweesWeb link to the questionnaire was distributed to:

• S1000D User Group• All intervieweesAll interviewees• Both of the above were encouraged to distribute it to

colleagues knowledgeable in S1000D

Web-Based Questionnaire Results

Navy/USMCAir ForceArmyCoast GuardOther

Note: We did not collect data from 7 respondents who indicated their knowledge of S1000D was “weak”

Benefits from Using S1000D

Efficiencies from Reuse of Data: 83%

Links between Logistics/Technical Data and Training: 75%75%

Other Benefits: 71 respondents suggested one or more additional benefitsadditional benefits• Most commonly mentioned was standardization across

systems and military services• Potential cost savings also was mentioned frequently

Should S1000D be Required?

DoD Should Require S1000D for: Agree or q f gStrongly Agree

ALL DoD systems? 40.8%A o systems? 40.8%

New Acquisitions but not legacy? 64.2%

Large (ACAT I/II) but not small Acquisitions?

51.7%q

DoD Policy

In my opinion, DoD should: Agree or Strongly AgreeStrongly Agree

Allow Program Managers to decide whether to require S1000D

42.2%

Allow each Service to establish policy on whether to require S1000D

42.1%

Promote and encourage the use of S1000D but NOT require it

46.3%

Require S1000D but allow an “opt out” if the business case is not supported for specific program or system

76.3%

Risks or Downsides

Please rate your agreement with the following items: Agree or Strongly Agreeg y g

Software tools for implementing S1000D can create i ibili i

60.1%

incompatibilities

S1000D is changing rapidly; let’s wait until it becomes more stable

28.4%

The DoD should avoid using a Standard that is controlled by an International body

20.5%

DoD has not sufficiently investigated the adoption of the entire “S‐series” of Standards

38.8%

DoD/OSD ActivitiesSome people feel that DoD should participate more vigorously in activities related to the management of

t h i l d t Pl i di t t ith th

Agree or Strongly Agree

technical data. Please indicate your agreement with the following potential DoD/ OSD activities

Promote an enterprise‐wide solution to managing 83.8%p g gtechnical dataAdvertise and promote the use of S1000D 81.8%

Participate actively in S1000D international policy 89.1%Participate actively in S1000D international policy boards

89.1%

Provide funding for training and transition to S1000D usage

86.6%

S1000D usagePromote the consistency and compatibility of S1000D Business Rules (BREX) across services

89.2%

Limitations of Our Study

We did not have contact with many people y p popposed to S1000D

We did not conduct a cost/benefit analysisWe have insufficient familiarity with the range

of US technical publication standards available

How an S1000D Requirement Can FailCan Fail

Weak management/governance by DoDWeak management/governance by DoD• Programs opt out of providing materials in S1000D

for interchange format• Inadequate interaction with DoD organizational users

and failure to strongly represent their interests

Lack of resources for management, governance, promotion and coordination

What has been done since theWhat has been done since the report came out?

As far as we know, ,results have been briefed at various levels, but no specific actions have been taken.but o spec c act o s a e bee ta e

What have you seen or heard??What have you seen or heard??

Questions?Points of Contact:

C ti Bl i lbl i @ dCurtis Blais, [email protected]

Prof Michael McCauley memccaul@nps eduProf Michael McCauley, [email protected]

John Falby falby@nps eduJohn Falby, [email protected]

Report is available at: http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/TR/2010/NPS-MV-10-002.pdf

DoD Data Acquisition Strategy Survey

Should S1000D be required by the Department of Defense?

Wrap UpWrap Up

Lou Iuppa, VP Strategic Business Development

Where can I go from here?

SDL – “Your Source for S1000D Information” SDL S1000D Resources Page SDL S1000D Resources Page

• http://www.sdl.com/S1000DResources Upcoming Events – Conferences, Webinars, and Tours

J 6 8 S1000D U F 2011 i M l June 6 to 8 - S1000D User Forum 2011 in Montreal • July 27, 2011 – “Converting to S1000D” – DCL• Ask An S1000D Expert™ Tour• Register at: http://www.sdl.com/en/xml/events/

SDL’s Educational S1000D Recorded Webinars Series/Archive• http://www.sdl.com/en/xml/resources/resources-by-topic/topic-s1000d.asp

SDL S1000D Specification Education Series On-Site S1000D Workshop

A kA S1000DE t@ [email protected]

SDL’s Ask an S1000D Expert™ Tour

San Diego, CA – June 28, 2011 Naval Postgraduate School – “Should S1000D be required

by the Department of Defense”. • S1000D as an acquisition strategy.

Fort Worth, TX – September 2011 US Navy, PMS401 – Acoustic Submarine Program – “A TeamSub

S1000D Strategy”

Warner Robins, GA – October 2011, (Tentative) ADL – The case for integrating Tech Data and Training

Washington, DC - November 2011 Lockheed Martin – “S1000D, a tactical advantage.” A best practices

approach to integrating tech data and tactical systems.

// / / / /http://www.sdl.com/en/xml/events/

Contact Us!

[email protected]

“Should S1000D be Required by the Department of...

Documents

Transcript of “Should S1000D be Required by the Department of...