POLICY,
STANDARDS, MANAGEMENT & ACQUISITION 2008 Abstracts
Automating Assessment of Joint Training
Early Adapters’ Lessons: How Other Government
Sectors Implemented Open Source Software
New
Training Content and Production Support in the S1000D Technical Data
Specification, ver4
Simulation Based Acquisition – The
European Way
Standardized Documentation for
Verification, Validation, and Accreditation
A
New Paradigm for Successful Engineering Staff Telecommuting
Addressing the Challenge of Integration
Management Through Government/Industry Collaboration
Working with Geographically Dispersed
Subject Matter Experts: A Large-Scale Model
DIACAP
– Information Assurance, Evolved
How
to Connect an Unclassified Trainer to a Classified Trainer in Five “Easy” Steps
Cross Domain
Solution Policy, Management, and Technical
Challenges
A
Process for Modeling and Simulation Capability Gap Analysis
Assessing the Longevity of Simulation &
Training Architectures
Joint
After Action Review Resource Library Open systems Architecture Approach
M&S
Training for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The Training Capabilities Analysis of
Alternatives Innovative Acquisitions Prototype
Automating Assessment of Joint Training
2008 Paper No. 8140 Annie Patenaude Office
of the Secretary of Defense (USD(P&R)) Washington,
DC The Training Transformation (T2)
program instituted systematic assessment as an integral part of the Joint
Training System (JTS), in concert with a goal of better enabling integrated
operations. As a result, the 2007 Block Assessment provided leadership insights
into the impact of T2 on joint training readiness when it was completed in
December 2007. Supporting the Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD), the assessment team developed issue statements to link the
assessment to program goals and strategic guidance. The team supported the
issues with metrics and data elements that provided rigor for analytic
assessments of processes and procedures. They strived for outcome measures to
show the results of joint training, as well as measures of efficiency. Among
the hurdles overcome through the cooperation of the military Services and
combatant commands were the lack of automated data collection and reporting
tools. The team developed interim solutions that met the short-term
requirement and resulted in lessons for longer-term solutions. The 2007 Block Assessment provided
leadership with many indications of the impact of joint training and the T2
program. It also included recommendations to improve future assessments, such
as: (1) Develop an automated framework (tools and processes) to support both
internal and leadership assessments; (2) Organizations should develop
performance measures to support assessment of the Combatant Commander
Exercise and Engagement program and Training Transformation (CE2T2); and (3) Combat
Support Agencies should be included in future assessments to better indicate
the full scope of “training the way we intend to operate,” a goal of the T2
program. In both block assessments, analysts spent the
majority of their effort collecting, screening, and collating data. To become
more efficient, analysts need to automate the process in two ways – by
setting up links to electronically collect data from existing sources and by
establishing a framework to use available data. This paper will report on
OSD’s experience, results, and lessons learned automating an enterprise-level
joint training assessment framework. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
Early Adapters’ Lessons: How Other
Government Sectors Implemented Open Source Software
2008 Paper No. 8381
At I/ITSEC
2007, Dr. Paul Mayberry said during the Flag and General Officer Panel,
“Proprietary solutions are short sighted… proprietary is essentially an
anathema to those criteria of responsiveness… When I can only go back to one
source and their sort-of dedicated workforce, it really is not getting at the
fundamental criteria that we have for all of training transformation effects,
and that is a notion of being agile, adaptive, responsive, timely and
trainable.” The US Navy has also been at the forefront of these changes: for
example the Department of Navy Chief Information Officer released a policy on
accepting the use of open source software (OSS) and Vice Adm. Mark Edwards
reiterated it stating, “The days of proprietary technology must come to an
end. We will no longer accept systems that couple hardware, software and
data.” Likewise, OSD in a recent report on Open Technologies has recently
begun to see the light and understand that good technologies eventually
become a commodity and there is a pronounced requirement to move toward open
source software platforms to better respond to the needs of the warfighter. Taken together, it is obvious
that the modeling and simulation community is going to have to implement more
open source solutions in order to meet the future needs of the Department of
Defense. Like any major change in business practices, this will not always be
an easy or popular transformation. However, examining how other sectors of
government and industry are incorporating OSS into their products can be
instructive to the modeling and simulation industry. The authors present case
studies of other government open source implementations and how the lessons
learned from these can be applied to modeling and simulation. Additionally,
they discuss successful business models companies can use to profit from this
new business model. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
New Training Content and Production Support
in the S1000D Technical Data Specification, ver4
2008 Paper No. 8059
The international S1000D technical data
standards community has recognized the requirement to support DoD training content. During 2007, the S1000D
training subcommittee developed key and fundamental proposals to support
technical data and training content integration for the newest edition of
S1000D. This presentation will detail how S1000D version 4 supports
training, including new learning-oriented information models, a SCORM oriented
aggregation model using native S1000D processing, instructional design
codes for use in S1000D-based filenames, and guidelines for
preplanning reusable data. The presentation will also present learning
content in S1000D and in its SCORM-conformant output. Emphasis will be
placed on how the use of S1000D ensures that learning content is in
sync with products and systems it supports. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
Simulation Based Acquisition – The
European Way
2008 Paper No. 8080
Due to growing complexity of systems,
acquisition/procurement programs tend to grow in complexity, required effort,
costs and time. It has been recognized that the way to save money and improve
operational effectiveness is to shorten the time from the decision to procure
products and services to the time they enter service. Simulation Based
Acquisition (SBA) promises a better grip on the complexity and a reduction of
procurement and development efforts, cost and time by the application of
simulation. However, currently a structured approach in the application of
Modeling and Simulation for Acquisition is not commonly applied and efficient
tooling to support this approach has not been well identified. From November
2005 until November 2007, 7 European countries joined in an initiative, to
investigate a structured approach to SBA, to develop a Common Technical
Framework (CTF) supporting this approach and to study the value of SBA The paper starts with an introduction on
current aspects and requirements on acquisition projects as experienced by
the acquisition departments. The results of the initiative are presented,
which provide insights into the defined approach for SBA, as laid down in the
SBA process. The CTF, developed by the consortium and which supports the SBA
process, is presented as the means to efficiently apply Modeling and
Simulation during acquisition. The evaluation of the CTF by a realistic case
on the upgrade of a Main Battle Tank is addressed and special attention is
given on the identified value of SBA, taken existing approaches
(US-SMART/UK-SMART) into account. The paper concludes with findings on the use
of the process and the CTF and with the way ahead on how to incorporate the
SBA process and Common Technical Framework within the acquisition departments
of the Ministry of Defense. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
Standardized Documentation for
Verification, Validation, and Accreditation
2008 Paper No. 8197
Using modeling and simulation (M&S)
technology that provides credible results to inform the Department of Defense
(DoD) decision making process is crucial to the
security and prosperity of the United States. Because the role that M&S
serves in military training and training systems is critical, it is vitally
important that M&S provide positive training and can be employed with
confidence. Credibility and confidence in the application of M&S can be achieved
only through the implementation of Verification, Validation, and
Accreditation (VV&A) processes. Implementing VV&A ensures an M&S
is correct, is used correctly, and can produce results that can be trusted. The
DoD Modeling and Simulation Steering Committee's
Acquisition Community Lead sponsors the project, "Standardized
Documentation for Verification, Validation, and Accreditation." This
paper will update the Training Community on that project. It will provide
information about MIL-STD-3022, which recommends standardized content and
format requirements for four core VV&A documents; the DoD
VV&A Documentation Tool, which is the technology that automates the
production of the four VV&A documents to ensure standardization across
the DoD and Military Departments; and the
development of VV&A XML schemas that enable the sharing of VV&A information
via the Global Information Grid enterprise anywhere in the world and at
anytime. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
A New Paradigm for Successful Engineering
Staff Telecommuting
2008 Paper No. 8029 Paul E. Hanover, CMSP SAIC Orlando, Florida An effective telecommuter-based business
model delivers new levels of employment flexibility, access to talent, and responsiveness
to changing customer requirements. It is worth the effort to design and
implement a valid model prior to the initiation of any project executed by
telecommuters – especially a project involving complex or extended engineering.
The demonstrated advantages of this model, if not properly conceived and
executed, can be offset by the numerous challenges that increase as the
technical complexity of the work increases. Our team has worked for the past
five years in an almost 100% telecommuting environment, working as the Army’s
Battle Lab Collaborative Simulation Environment (BLCSE) engineering support
team and performing the simulation interface engineering required to migrate
BLCSE from a DIS-based interface standard to an HLA-based standard. This work
included significant elements of requirements analysis, simulation
application baselining, software development, and
product testing and integration. This paper explains our lessons-learned,
beginning with discussion of the business case for implementing an
“engineering staff telecommuter work model” and suggests criteria by which
the efficacy of that model can be evaluated. It then tackles the employee
infrastructure requirements and collaboration tools and processes to ensure
high-quality production. The concluding discussion is of the special
sensitivities associated with maintaining a viable customer relationship when
the customer cannot easily monitor progress or task accomplishment. The paper
provides specific guidelines, together with their rationale, for expanding
the scope of practical telecommuting-based projects and enabling their
success. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
Addressing the Challenge of Integration
Management Through Government/Industry Collaboration
2008
Paper No. 8303 Mark Adducchio & Tony DalSasso Training
Systems Product Group Wright-Patterson
AFB, Ohio Many Air Force training
simulation programs currently encounter integration issues that corrupt test
schedules, resulting in late trainer deliveries, trainers fielded with
significantly degraded performance, or both. While the implementation and
testing of individual hardware and software components generally proceeds as
expected, unanticipated problems begin surfacing when subsystem integration
begins. Issues cascade as the system proceeds through successive stages of
integration and test. Hardware-software integration is rarely completed on
the timetable laid out in the Integrated Master Schedule, and subsequent
testing often reveals problems that should have been detected earlier.
Consequently, trainer programs which had been on-track throughout the entire
design phase suddenly stumble, resulting in late delivery and/or unresolved
deficiencies. The Training Systems Product Group (TSPG) is frustrated by this
problem. There are a number of reasons an integration plan can go awry, and
we are able to deal with many of them effectively- but we have never examined
our acquisition and development processes to determine and prevent such late
breaking problems. The NTSA Ohio Chapter recently hosted a Technical Forum
with Air Force and Industry simulator engineers, to discuss causalities of
our integration woes and some possible adjustments the TSPG can make in its
acquisition management processes, to reduce the risk of delays. The Forum
addressed a set of questions that ranged from identifying the keys to
successful integration experiences, to relating integration horror stories.
It addressed the addition of formal reviews specifically for integration, and
examined how well we execute our current reviews (SRR, PDR, and CDR). This
paper summarizes the discussions of the Forum, and identifies specific issues
agreed upon by the group, along with initiatives being examined and
instituted by the TSPG. It also addresses management strategies useful to
both Government and contractor developers to mitigate integration risk in
their programs. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
Working with Geographically Dispersed
Subject Matter Experts: A Large-Scale Model
2008 Paper No. 8351
The content of this paper aligns with
this year’s I/ITSEC theme, LEARN - TRAIN -
WIN. However, the focus is not directly on the Soldier, but rather on the
individual responsible for designing and developing the training - defined as
what the Soldier will learn and be trained to do, so that winning is achieved
by accomplishing the task and/or mission. The evolution of complex and distributed
governmental and business challenges require the implementation of training
design and development models that capture and mold the expertise of subject
matter experts (SMEs). This paper describes the unique issues, and potential
risks, along with solutions to work with a large number of geographically
dispersed SMEs (separated from one another due to their respective locations),
whose efforts are standardized and synchronized. The focus of this paper is a
solution, based on a collaboration model implemented and led by an
integration team whose role and responsibility was to allow the SMEs to
achieve consensus, efficiency, and standard of quality in both products and
processes. The model will be exemplified using a current large-scale military
eight-year initiative to design and develop Training Support Packages (TSPs)
to prepare Soldiers to use advanced technologies and employment concepts in a
blended delivery format of live, virtual, and constructive. Therefore, this
paper will provide a detailed examination of the existing education and
training development fundamentals by providing a 3-step approach or framework
to meet the requirements of this training design and development challenge. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
DIACAP – Information Assurance, Evolved
2008 Paper No. 8094
Many inconsistencies and
misconceptions exist throughout government and industry concerning what
Information Assurance (IA) is and why it is important for training systems.
What began as a vague concept creating a great deal of confusion has evolved
into a mature, streamlined process resulting in increased levels of
understanding and preparedness. The paradigm has shifted; Program Managers
and Engineers are now much more aware of the security requirements their
systems must comply with to ultimately obtain authorization to operate.
Throughout this familiarization process, which included awkward acronyms,
cumbersome processes (DITSCAP), and antiquated artifacts (SSAA), the IA
process evolved into a new breed: DIACAP. Immediately following this
conversion, many complaints surfaced expressing well-founded concerns. If
this question lurks in your mind: “I just started understanding DITSCAP, now
there is the DIACAP, what does this mean to me?”, then you will want to read
this paper. This paper responds directly to those concerns. It analyzes the
DIACAP and addresses how the DIACAP ties into the program and acquisition
schedule from cradle to the grave. The paper documents two proven IA
methodologies, the preferred “Baked-in” approach and the alternative
“Bolted-on” approach. Additionally, the five DIACAP activities, accreditation
maintenance requirements, development of various artifacts, and
identification of necessary tasks to ensure success are discussed. The paper
increases understanding of the DIACAP evolution and identifies positive
outcomes of each, including efficiencies realized, roles defined, more
pertinent artifacts, and the change in type- vs. site-based accreditations.
IA is an ever-critical component that needs to be fully integrated into all
information systems, which ensures that confidentiality, integrity, and
availability are “Baked-in” and inherent in training devices. This paper will
prove that the IA process has evolved into a proven, streamlined
implementation ensuring training systems effectively and securely support
three crucial Warfighter objectives: Learn. Train.
Win! This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
How to Connect an Unclassified Trainer to
a Classified Trainer in Five “Easy” Steps
2008 Paper No. 8065
In
today’s evolving security environment, decreased live training budgets are
inevitably producing an increased need to connect their replacements: Classified and Unclassified training
systems. Connection solutions have
been limited because of specified, goal-driven requirements of achieving
security certification and accreditation and protecting the cross-classified
data. This paper defines five “easy”
steps required to connect a Classified trainer or simulator to an
Unclassified system. The five steps
include certifying and accrediting the system, identifying the appropriate
Multiple Security Level (MSL) and Cross Domain Solutions (CDS) solution,
obtaining the memorandum of agreements for connectivity, validating and
testing the solution, and operating the system securely throughout its
lifecycle. We will also demonstrate
the options used to accomplish this once rare and daunting connection. For
each identified issue, the discussion will include the security requirements
for the connectivity of systems at different classification levels and
recommend technical and procedural solutions.
Critical to understanding how connectivity is achieved are the
discussions of the meanings and detailed examples of MSL/CDS. The MSL and CDS solutions discussion will
focus on “baking in” security into the initial design so that an approved
solution can be implemented.
Requirements to secure trainers from corruption by malicious code and
to filter data traffic to ensure that only approved data types are passed
will be examined, including the need to protect the Classified data from
access by unauthorized persons. The
processes, tools, and configurations required for such connectivity have not
been used to their fullest extent. The
Department of Defense and industry team can achieve the Learn, Train, and Win
objectives by maintaining a paramount principle, the required protection for
Classified data, yet allowing Unclassified trainers to participate. All trainers, regardless of classification
can, with the proper MSL/CDS solutions, provide the training our military can
afford, requires, and deserves. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
Cross Domain Solution Policy, Management,
and Technical Challenges
2008 Paper No. 8343 Bonnie Danner, CISSP and Kelly Djahandari Northrop Grumman
Mission Systems Orlando, Florida Combat Air Force (CAF) Distributed Mission
Operation (DMO) is the foundation for revolutionizing training for the U.S.
Air Force. CAF DMO training systems are composed of high fidelity man-in-the-loop
virtual cockpits for training pilots, weapon system officers, and Command,
Control, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C2ISR) crew stations.
The CAF DMO training architecture has been successfully implemented to
provide a routine daily, global virtual-constructive training capability for
the warfighter. With the maturation of the CAF DMO
program over the past eight years, the architecture implementation has begun
addressing future training challenges to include coalition participation. This
paper presents several challenges the team faced integrating coalition assets
into the CAF DMO via the implementation of a Multi-National Security Solution
(MNSS). Significant management, policy, and technical challenges arise when
fielding a distributed, interoperable MNSS to allow training with coalition
countries. The authors describe the challenges in the security, policy, and
technical areas and how they have been addressed in the CAF DMO for a
coalition training event conducted in early 2008. Discussion of the technical
challenges spans interoperability (e.g. protocol, process, performance)
solutions/standards associated with the integration of disparate high-fidelity
man-in-the-loop simulators. This paper also describes the difficulties faced
in implementing a Cross Domain Solution (CDS) in the recurring team training
environment of CAF DMO. In particular, the authors explore some old and new
CDS security certification and accreditation and security engineering
challenges. They describe management, operational, and technical CDS
approaches to address inference concerns and classical security risks. In
conclusion, this paper presents some of the CDS lessons learned relating to
these efforts. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
A Process for Modeling and Simulation
Capability Gap Analysis
2008 Paper No. 8101 Sidney N. Antommarchi Dynamic Animation
Systems, Inc. Fairfax, VA The Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System (JCIDS) analysis process defines capability gaps, capability
needs and approaches to provide those capabilities within a specified
functional or operational area for the benefit of the Department of Defense (DoD) Acquisition community in general. However, this
process is tailored for the acquisition of systems and not particularly for
Modeling & Simulation (M&S) systems used in support of the
acquisition of systems. This paper uses an authoritative definition of the
term Capability and other key terms as a basis for discussion. A context for
Capabilities within the Requirements Development process area of the Software
Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI®)
process improvement maturity model is explored. Relationships to Planning
processes are also explored. Subject Matter Expert (SME) reliance,
subjectivity vs. objectivity, requirements vs. Capabilities in time
efficiency, normalization of data, and other relevant aspects are analyzed.
The aforementioned definitions, context, relationships, and analysis are then
used as a basis to detail a M&S Capability Gap
Analysis (CGA) process for the benefit to the Simulation Based Acquisition
(SBA) community at large. Finally, applicability of the CGA process presented
will be explored for both for Systems Engineering in Research and Development
(R&D) organizations and for Government Furnished Materiel (GFX) or Commercial-Off-The-Shelf
(COTS) selection in Experimentation related organizations. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
Assessing the Longevity of Simulation
& Training Architectures
2008 Paper No. 8225
Architectural longevity is a
frequently desired and rarely achieved goal of many simulation and training
systems. Requiring attention to detail with respect to openness, modularity,
reliability, performance, scalability, interoperability, and maintainability,
addressing architectural longevity from the onset of a project offers
potential for significant tangible and intangible benefits. The inevitability
of requirements changes, technology evolution, emerging standards, and
funding changes further complicates architecture longevity. Investing a
relatively small effort to establish an architectural assessment framework
from project start can yield a significant savings while also providing an
environment for informed decision-making by the collective development team. The Software
Engineering Institute offers several general techniques for assessing
software and system architectures. Tailoring these techniques to the unique
aspects of the military simulation and training community opens the potential
for improving training, enhancing analysis, and reducing support costs for
delivered systems. This paper offers a summary of methods for architectural assessment, lessons learned applying the methods, and a
recommended best practice for a new standard methodology for integrating
architectural assessment into the military simulation and training community. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
Joint After Action Review Resource Library
Open systems Architecture Approach
2008 Paper No. 8296
The Solutions Group of US Joint Forces
Command’s Joint National Training Capability is developing a Joint After
Action Review resource library (JAAR-RL) from Service GOTS tools. A
successful business and technical approach of using resources of all four
Services collaborating to build a new joint capability for use by all, a GOTS
open source solution. Architectures within the Department of Defense (DoD) are created for a number of reasons. From a
compliance perspective, the DoD is compelled by law
and policy (i.e., Clinger-Cohen Act, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-130) to develop architectures. From a practical perspective,
experience has demonstrated that the management of large organizations
employing sophisticated systems and technologies in pursuit of joint missions
demands a structured, repeatable method for evaluating investments and
investment alternatives, implementing organizational change, creating new
systems, and deploying new technologies. Towards this end, the JAAR-RL
Architecture and associated framework were developed as a guide for the
integration of service AAR tool sets to satisfy Joint training needs. The
JAAR-RL provides the guidance and rules for integrating, representing, and
understanding AAR tool sets based on a common denominator (framework) across
Joint training sites and facilities. It provides Joint training stakeholders
with insight into how to integrate the JAAR-RL into their training
environments. The JAAR-RL architecture ensures that system descriptions can
be compared and related across services, programs, mission areas, and
ultimately, the enterprise, thus, establishing the foundation for analyses that
supports decision-making processes throughout the DoD.
This paper will describe the four points of architecture allowing the
development of the Joint AAR Resource Library, and lessons learned from the
use and production of disparate systems into one integrated homogeneous
system. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
M&S Training for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS)
Computer models have been used extensively in
U.S. Government Federal agencies for decades. A study by the U.S. General
Accounting Office in 1982 lists 357 models being used to support policy
decisions from among 43 different Federal departments, agencies, and
entities. As computing power has grown and computing costs have declined
since the 1980’s, digital models and simulations have become increasingly
used to support analysis, acquisition, and training; however, only a few
agencies, most notably the Department of Defense, have agency-wide policy, standards,
training, or guidance on how these should be developed, managed, or
evaluated. DHS, created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, has several
dedicated M&S centers to support the Department’s mission. These include
the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) which
provides analysis for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). The
National Response Plan designates the DHS led Interagency Modeling and
Atmospheric Assessment Center (IMAAC) as the single Federal source of
airborne hazards predictions during an Incident of National Significance
(INS). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a DHS component, is
currently establishing a National Exercise Simulation Center that uses
M&S for training, exercises, and command and control functions at the
operational level, including a mix of live, virtual, and constructive
simulations to prepare elected officials, emergency managers, emergency
response providers, and emergency support providers at all levels of government
to operate cohesively. This paper discusses the development of M&S
training and guidance for DHS personnel which includes an overview of policy,
standards, guidance, and best practice from Federal agencies. This
paper is available on the 2008 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order
the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website. |
||||||||||||||||||||
The Training Capabilities Analysis of
Alternatives Innovative Acquisitions Prototype
2008 Paper No. 8010 Christopher Paul, Ph.D. RAND Corporation Pittsburgh, PA In the wake of JSIMS, OSD convened the
training capabilities analysis of alternatives (TC AoA)
to consider alternative business models for buying simulations and simulation
training. This paper describes the business model and current status of a
prototype effort of one of the alternatives considered, Alternative #4. This
model seeks to align the financial incentives of industry participants with
positive training and technology development outcomes. It proposes to do this
by turning what has traditionally been the acquisition of training simulators
into a service acquisition (the acquisition of training) with a
private-sector “tool vendor” marketplace to support it. The “old” business
model can be characterized as being both fiscally wasteful and a hindrance to
innovation. Under the new business model, DoD would
stop buying both tools and training support and would buy only training
support; also, DoD would stop buying training
support with cost-plus contracts and would start buying it on
firm-fixed-price contracts. To ensure competition and innovation in the
simulation tool market, the new model would separate the training support and
tool markets, would require compliance with adopted technical standards to
guarantee product interoperability, and would create a mechanism to inject
seed money into the tool market. |
||||||||||||||||||||