capability maturity model integration and its associated certifications. To ensure that the team includes the necessary modeling skills and experience, SLAD should consider re-competing the contract for S4 model development. For the next review, SLAD should provide a description of a representative low-level function in ultimate scientific detail, including any parameters that should be estimated by subject-matter experts (SMEs) and the meaning of those parameters to the SMEs. A good candidate here would be the function of shooting at equipment or troops with artillery.
Process and Methodology
SLAD should clearly identify both near- and long-term goals and work with its customers to establish a well-defined set of success metrics against which to evaluate progress. If S4 is to become an effective element of SLAD, then needed is a concise plan that includes the rationale for the use of system-of-systems analysis and S4 in SLAD and how S4 will contribute to the SLAD mission. The modeling effort should include clear definition of the survivability questions to be addressed, verification and validation issues, and the degree of confidence in the output. The value added by the modeling effort should be through the integration of the information from the engineering models, testing, and evaluations within SLAD. If S4 is to become a major tool for SLAD, then the goal should be to gain a balanced competence and credibility that is comparable to the other functional groups within the directorate.
SLAD’s plan should include milestones for the development process, implementation, and validation. Equipment, software, and certifications should be established, and collaborating partnerships should be identified. The S4 team should strive to become recognized as an independent analysis and evaluation organization that plays an important role in assessing and evaluating the survivability and vulnerability of military weapon systems. It is also necessary to build partnering and networking relationships with other modeling and simulation organizations, with SLAD’s unique contribution being that of integrating information from other programs within SLAD and from other ARL organizations (e.g., the Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate) into the S4 modeling efforts.
SLAD requires a dynamic technical leader for SoSA and S4 who will assume clear ownership of all aspects of the SoSA and S4 program and will be responsible for guiding and directing its development in a direction that demonstrates benefit to SLAD analysts and the Army in general. SLAD should adopt a professional software and model development process for S4 including a development plan that clearly identifies the following:
• Key customers, critical requirements, and long-term and short-term goals;
• A specific approach for attaining the goals, to include
— Program structure, framework, and description;
— Detailed descriptions of individual models contained within the framework or to be added, and how this will be done; and
— Inputs, uncertainties for all, and their treatment;
• A plan for software quality assurance and model verification and validation, to include performance metrics; and
• Identification of resource requirements and how the program is to be leveraged.
Most of SLAD’s core staff displays an impressive domain expertise. That expertise is not present in the S4 developers, who lack experience in system-of-systems analysis, development of large-scale