. "5 Barriers to Virtual Design and Manufacturing in DoD Acquisition." Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production
preconcept design and technology development;
manufacturing and supply system design;
requirement definition and analysis;
system development and demonstration (including system integration);
live-fire test and evaluation (LFT&E);
effectiveness testing and analysis;
system logistics;
system interoperability;
production;
deployment;
sustainment;
upgrades and refitting;
end of life—decommissioning and disposal.
The multiple steps of the acquisition process are schematically shown in Figure 5-1. Several DoD-sponsored studies within the last few years have examined these factors that limit more effective and timely utilization of modeling and simulation in defense acquisition. The 2002 NRC study Modeling and Simulation in Manufacturing and Defense Systems Acquisition—Pathways to Success shares a particularly significant synergy with the focus of this report.3 The recommendations of that study in regard to modeling and simulation in acquisition identified the importance of (1) "building the right thing," (2) development of guidelines concerning model, simulation, algorithm, and data ownership to enhance collaboration and facilitate reuse, (3) effort to define how modeling and simulation is to be integrated into DoD acquisition including use of simulation support plans, (4) incentives for managers to adopt best practices for the use of modeling and simulation, and (5) development of pilot efforts sponsored by the OSD to advance the use of modeling and simulation.
The findings of the current report are based upon extensive insights from DoD programmatic experts and industrial leaders4-7 and show a strong correlation with the recommendations of the 2002 NRC study.8 Several of the topics identified in the current study directly mirror those of the 2002 NRC study, specifically the importance of developing and implementing simulation support plans (SSPs) to assist requirement definition. The development of incentives for program managers to adopt SBA, SSPs, and utilization of
pp. 25-29, 2001; E.A. Seglie, "The Future of Test and Evaluation," ITEA Journal, September/October, pp. 21-28, 2002.
3
National Research Council, Modeling and Simulation in Manufacturing and Defense Systems Acquisition—Pathways to Success, Committee on Modeling and Simulation Enhancements for 21st Century Manufacturing and Acquisition, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2002.
4
Martin R. Sambur, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Air Force Print News, April 14, 2003, Washington, D.C., 2003.
5
J.W. Hollenbach, Simulation Strategies, Inc., "Modeling and Simulation in Aerospace," presented to the Committee on Bridging Design and Manufacturing, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 24, 2003.
6
W.H. Lunceford, Jr., Director, Army Model and Simulation Office, "The Institutionalization of Modeling and Simulation or Making M&S All It Can Be," presented to the Committee on Bridging Design and Manufacturing, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., April 29, 2003.
7
R.K. Garrett, Jr., TCG-I Coordinator, Naval Surface Warfare Center, "Opportunities in Modeling and Simulation to Enable Dramatic Improvements in Ordnance Design," presented to the Committee on Bridging Design and Manufacturing, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., April 29, 2003.
