From Amorphous to Defined: Balancing the Risks of Spiral Development

Abstract : The DoD's evolutionary acquisition policy is directed against project risk, but bears inherent risks of its own. The DoD policy for evolutionary acquisition mandates multiple product releases via spiral (i.e., amorphous & unplanned) or incremental (i.e., defined & deferred) development methodologies for all programs. All amorphous spirals eventually become definitive increments Incremental development entails the deliberate deferral of work to a subsequent phase. Computational organizational modeling using systems dynamics reveals that this methodology introduces more concurrency during development, and more variety in production. The result is earlier delivery of the first increment, but with later and more costly delivery of subsequent increments than if conducted via a single-step methodology. Curtailments of scope by the exclusive use of mature technology enable more effective delivery of the first increment, further illustrated by two case studies. Duplication, rework, transaction costs, decision backlog and error are causes of inefficiency in the successive increments. Production variety and mixed configurations produce obvious implications for logistical supportability, training, failure causality, compatibility and interoperability, etc. Further, certain attributes of hardware products might help determine the suitability of this development methodology. Products that are nearly immutable, which have binary requirements for key capabilities, require man-rating, or are maintenance-intensive may not be good candidates for incremental development Mutable products with costless production, continuous requirements, low maintenance, or time criticality are more likely to reap advantages from this development approach. While modular open systems architecture facilitates system adaptation, modularity itself does not necessarily create evolutionary advantages, due to relative modular interdependency.

[1]  O. Hauptman,et al.  The influence of process concurrency on project outcomes in product development: an empirical study of cross-functional teams , 1996 .

[2]  Barry Boehm,et al.  Spiral Development: Experience, Principles, and Refinements , 2000 .

[3]  John T. Dillard,et al.  Computational Modeling of Project Organizations under Stress , 2007 .

[4]  Viswanathan V Krishnan,et al.  Managing the simultaneous execution of coupled phases in concurrent product development , 1996 .

[5]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[6]  Mohammad Hosseini,et al.  Time delayed control of structural systems , 2003 .

[7]  Terry Williams,et al.  System dynamics in project management: assessing the impacts of client behaviour on project performance , 1998, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[8]  Yong-Suk Kim,et al.  A decomposition-based approach for the integration of product development and manufacturing system design , 2002 .

[9]  Rachel Cooper,et al.  Creative product design , 2000 .

[10]  John D. Sterman,et al.  System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World , 2002 .

[11]  John T. Dillard,et al.  From Market to Clan: How Organizational Control Affects Trust In Defense Acquisition , 2005 .

[12]  Richard K. Sylvester,et al.  Conflict and Ambiguity: Implementing Evolutionary Acquisition , 2003 .

[13]  M. Mahmoud,et al.  Design of robust controllers for time-delay systems , 1994, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[14]  Mark A. Lorell,et al.  Evolutionary Acquisition: Implementation Challenges for Defense Space Programs , 2006 .

[15]  David N. Ford,et al.  Dynamic modeling of product development processes , 1998 .

[16]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[17]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Product development performance : strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry / Kim B. Clark, Tahahiro Fujimoto , 1991 .

[18]  James M. Lyneis,et al.  Strategic management of complex projects: a case study using system dynamics , 2001 .

[19]  Preston G. Smith,et al.  Developing products in half the time , 1995 .

[20]  David N. Ford,et al.  Effects of resource allocation policies for reducing project durations: a systems modelling approach , 2008 .

[21]  David N. Ford,et al.  Overcoming the 90% Syndrome: Iteration Management in Concurrent Development Projects , 2003, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl..

[22]  B Boehm A spiral model of software development and enhancement , 1986, SOEN.

[23]  Philip E. Agre,et al.  Hierarchy and History in Simon's "Architecture of Complexity" , 2003 .

[24]  Joan C. Woodward Management and technology , 1958 .

[25]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[26]  John T. Dillard Toward Centralized Control of Defense Acquisition Programs , 2005 .

[27]  C. Lindblom THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[28]  Kevin Forsberg,et al.  Visualizing Project Management , 1996 .

[29]  F. Heylighen The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution , 1999 .

[30]  Michael Boudreau,et al.  Acoustic rapid COTS insertion: a case study in spiral development , 2006 .

[31]  Kenneth Cooper Naval Ship Production: A Claim Settled and a Framework Built , 1980 .

[32]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Modular Interdependency in Complex Dynamical Systems , 2005, Artificial Life.

[33]  David N. Ford,et al.  Product development resource allocation with foresight , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[34]  Aruna Apte Spiral Development: A Perspective , 2005 .

[35]  W. Ashby,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957 .

[36]  John G. Drew,et al.  Unmanned Aerial Vehicle End to End Support Considerations , 2005 .