INCOSE WMA Newsletter

April 2010
Presidents Word
First, I would like to extend my apology for missing
the meeting. I care too much for our members
health and well-being to attend the meeting under
the weather. However, I did hear that everything
went well and that we were able to over the
challenges from the previous month. Now it is
official, Experiment Trial #2 was a success.
I look forward to seeing everyone at the next
meeting.
Upcoming Events
May
May 11th: Monthly Meeting @ Brio
Join Lesley Painchaud for a presentation on
Implementing the Net-Ready Key Performance
Parameter. Defense programs that need to
connect to the network are required to meet net-
readiness requirements, to include Net-Ready Key
Performance Parameter (NR-KPP) compliance.

Sincerely, 6:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. @ the Brio Tuscan Grille

Banquet Room, 7854L Tysons Corner Center
McLean, VA.
Steven H. Dam
INCOSE WMA President

INSIDE THIS ISSUE Language the Program

1 Presidents Word
Author: Jorg Largent with inputs from James R. van
1 Upcoming Events Gaasbeek
1-2 Language the Program
INCOSE Fellow Jack Ring has been cited as a
3 Whats in it for You source of some insight into the challenge. An
observation attributed to Mr. Ring is that he has, on
4 May Overview
several occasions, defined the systems engineers
4 Building your CONOPS job as:
1. Language the program
2. Define the problem
3. Drive the development effort to a balanced
solution
4. Show the customer that what you delivered

is what he or she thought he or she was
buying.
The first item is critical to reduce the confusion
and babble when you have a multi-part customer
(joint programs) and numerous other
stakeholders. It is also critical within the contractor
community. Remember also that he who defines
the terms of the argument controls the argument.
Words have meaning, and it helps to have a
common understanding.
One of the INCOSE working groups, focusing on
how best to support a particular industry, is
addressing the language the program challenge
and is developing an answer tailored to the needs
of that industry. An inquiry for suggestions from
outside that industrys community prompted a
response with two points of note:
1. Rather than looking to other systems
engineers to develop the message, perhaps
soliciting the input from those in the
community will yield a more compelling
one.
2. In order to be understood, the message
needs to be in the language of the
customer. The message should be based on
his or her needs and crafted in their
terminology.
Very little, if any, scientific data-gathering and
analysis are needed to recognize the vulnerability
any activity involving two or more people has to
misunderstanding due to a lack of mutual
understanding at the onset. The relationship is
axiomatic. Given that language the program is
important as the first step in communicating the
systems engineering process, the question
becomes, What does it look like?
2
The message should be crafted in the
language of the project.
The language should facilitate defining the
problem, driving the development effort
to a balanced solution, and managing
customer expectations.
So while the importance of language the
problem is axiomatic, the discussion above
provides no clear definition of the qualifications
of a systems engineer to meet the challenge, nor
does it include any metrics to measure the
challenge. For example: Would one metric be that
only those immersed in the community convey
the systems engineering message in the language
of the project? And if so, how would a systems
engineer qualify for the role on a complex project
involving multiple communities (manufacturing
facilities, operational facilities, training of
producers, users and maintainers, operations,
maintenance, et al).
The discussion above is not comprehensive.
Rather it is intended to provide a snapshot of one
of the challenges faced by those of us in the
systems engineering profession. Comments and
differing perspectives are welcome. Please send
your comments to Jorg Largent at
jorg.largent@incose.org.
Reprinted courtesy of the Los Angeles INCOSE
Chapter.

Whats in It for You: to our Military and
Government Members
Author: L.Nasta, INCOSE-WMA Director
Therefore, we have shared feedback from last years
member survey with our members in the March Monthly
Meeting, and of course, your Board of Directors has been
busily working to try and figure out the best ways to make
chapter activities engaging for ALL our members. But what
many of you might not know is we also have metrics on the
makeup of our membership. While a large proportion
comes from the contracting/consulting community, and
from academia, there is a sizable contingent representing
most all branches of the services and of course government
civilians. However, we have noticed that among
participants at monthly meetings, and in tutorials, the
participation from this group is typically quite low. So I set
out to try and investigate why (in a perfectly non-scientific
way), and add some theories of my own based on my many
years in the chapter and general observations as a
contractor working for government and military clients
(again non-scientific).
Therefore, I decided to interview a government civilian
staffer at one of our Intelligence Agencies who is a dues-
paying member, and ask him whats up? (his identify will
remain a secret just to keep you guessing). I uncovered no
real deep dark secret as to why his participation was low to
non-existent to date, with the possible exception of the
fact that he has had no real incentive from his employer
(i.e. the government agency) to engage in INCOSE or
INCOSE-related training. As this individual was a contractor
for a number of years before he went government, he
noted his association with INCOSE actually predated his
government hire. However, he was able to identify that his
former employer (Northrop Grumman) actively promoted
participation in INCOSE and in becoming certified as a
systems engineer. (Northrop Grumman has an active
training program to encourage their staff to get the CSEP,
as does other contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton.) He
noted he was encouraged to take courses at DAU (for
DAWIA certification), and participate in college
cohort/master program for SE but that INCOSE was not
noted as a training resource. On a more personal note, he
did indicate he lived in MD and was more likely inclined not
to participate due to timing/location than anything else.
His former points seem to align more with my own
observations, to wit:
3
private employers are much more likely to
encourage/require their staff members to
participate in INCOSE and INCOSE activities such
as the meetings and tutorials because: 1) CSEPs
help them win proposals; 2) tutorials offered by
INCOSE cover relevant SE topics and are typically
significantly less expensive then commercial
courses.
While government managers/supervisors know
about DAU and DAWIA certification, they know
less about the content/basis for the INCOSE
certifications because it is not publicized or
socialized enough in the government spaces or
even by DAU. (Did you know that government staff
who has successfully passed the CSEP-Acquisition
exam can waive two required DAU courses
towards DAWIA certification?)
Many military services and government agencies
develop their own in-house training and mandate
it for staff rather then utilize training/education
that may already be readily
available and affordable and (potentially) more
leading edge then what they offer internally.
Maybe this could even save taxpayer dollarsheh,
maybe someone should do a study?
We (the collective INCOSE we and the Chapter
we) need to communicate the value
proposition of INCOSE-WMA Monthly Meetings
and Tutorials better and using other
communication methods and modes to our
military and government members.
I hope that this article is a step in the right direction, and it
will garner your attention (if not a chuckle here and there).
We would love to hear from you. Therefore, it is your turn;
please feel free to send the Board your comments in reply
to this article.
 4

May Presentation Overview Building your Concept of Operations

Implementing the Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter Author: Dr. Steven H. Dam, WMA Chapter President
Presenter: Lesley Painchaud, CV Chapter President One of the lost arts in Systems Engineering is the
development and use of the Concept of Operations
Defense programs that need to connect to the network (CONOPS). Dr. Steven Dam along with Dr. Dinesh
are required to meet net-readiness requirements, to Verma authored a chapter on this subject in a recent
include Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR- Joint DoD/NASA-sponsored book entitled Applied
KPP) compliance. Programs have generally had Space Systems Engineering.
difficulty in developing derived requirements from the
NR-KPP Compliance Statement. Dr. Dam will use this text and recent experience in
developing CONOPS for the Department of Defense to
The Navys Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR- discuss how to develop a CONOPS using architectures
KPP) Implementation Guidebook, developed by the and scenarios.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN)
This tutorial will discuss how to:
(Research, Development, and Acquisition (RDA)) Chief
Systems Engineer (CHSENG), clarifies the definitions of 1) Validate the mission scope and the system
net-readiness and the NR-KPP. It also describes a boundary;
refined NR-KPP Compliance Statement that programs
2) Describe the operational environment, and
can use as a template for their derived NR-KPP
primary constraints and drivers;
requirements. This Guidebook provides Program
Managers, Systems Engineers, and Test Engineers with 3) Develop key operational scenarios, and
a methodology for decomposing the NR-KPP associated timelines;
Compliance Statement into measurable and testable
4) Synthesize, analyze, and assess key
derived requirements that they can address using their
normal Systems Engineering Process. The Four-Step
implementation concepts;
Process includes the following activities: 5) Validate and baseline the operational
architecture for the system of interest; and
A Mission Analysis (MA) to determine derived NR-KPP
Operational Requirements in terms of missions, mission 6) Document and iterate through Architecture
activities, and associated Mission Effectiveness and and the DoD Architecture Framework.
Operational Performance Measures. Come participate in this dynamic and interesting
An Information Analysis (InA) to determine the derived tutorial.
Operational Information Requirements in terms of
required networks, mission thread Information
Elements, and associated Operational Performance
Measures.
Systems Engineering (SE) to decompose the derived
requirements defined in the MA and InA into System
Performance Requirements for use during System
Design and Realization.
Documentation of the Four-Step Process according to
engineering best practices and Compliance Measures in
the NR-KPP Compliance Statement.

For more information on INCOSE WMA, please visit www.incose-wma.org