The Navy has launched a fresh effort intended to consolidate open architecture (OA) processes throughout the service to create a more common and defined approach within its acquisition community.
Mary Lacey, the deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, test and evaluation, announced the latest move in an interview with Defense Daily yesterday, saying the purpose of the “refresh” was to narrow the number of open architecture models in use to get programs on the same page, increase collaboration across the acquisition commands, and to capitalize on already employed successes.
“There were a lot of great things done in pockets throughout the department, and we finally got people talking to each other across the department, recognizing that they were doing great things and that they could do a better job together,” Lacey said.
“We’ve been trying to herd those cats and move forward,” she said.
For years, the Navy has identified OA as a priority in the development of platforms and systems, and has continuously looked to refine the implementation of OA standards. OA systems are seen as a way to promote innovation and enable more rapid technology insertions, reduce total ownership costs, phase out sole sourced legacy systems that become expensive to maintain and upgrade, and re-compete programs through their lifecycle.
Lacey said throughout the service there have been too many varying interpretations of what constitutes OA and how to go about it, so the goal is to arrive at a smaller number of models that can be applied throughout the service and then tailored for a program’s specific requirements.
“What we are trying to do is make sure that we have a shared understanding so that we can move forward in our execution,” she said.
The document, Open Systems Architecture (OSA) Strategy, calls on the acquisition officials to adopt and utilize OA models, identified as Technical Reference Frameworks (TRFs) and consisting of “an integrated set of components that provide a reusable architecture for a family of related applications.”
“TRFs should be capability-based to maximize employment and capability insertion on multiple platforms,” the document says. “Limiting the number of TRFs will increase interoperability and reuse opportunities, leading to life cycle cost savings.”
Lacey said a key part of the effort is reaching out to program managers seeking help in implementing OA solutions and providing them with the tools to integrate them into their programs.
“We have all kinds of (program managers) that have hit the ‘I believe’ button, but what we haven’t done is given them a button to say ‘I know how’ and we are making steps in that direction,” Lacey said.
Another key challenge in introducing OA standards into the acquisition process is overcoming an enduring culture of program managers saddled in the legacy model of developing systems exclusively suited to their programs but cannot be extended to other programs to leverage the technology and save costs.
Lacey said greater oversight from senior leadership can help change that mindset. “We’re telling them we’re paying attention. …“Usually what is interesting to senior leaders fascinates the program managers,” she said.
She said her office is taking a tougher look at programs through reviews and technical documents to ensure they are pursuing OA standards. “If it’s not there I send questions back saying: What are you doing?” she said, also warning that sole-sourced programs are and will continuously come under heavy scrutiny.
“Programs that are locked into sole source are getting tremendous scrutiny, not only in the Department of the Navy but the Department of Defense, and questions are being asked, why?” she added. “And not just why are you in the sole source, because we often know why, but what are you doing to break that vendor lock or to break that sole source situation over a period of time?”
“You don’t have to do it tomorrow. I am not going to hold you hostage until it’s totally done, but give me a schedule,” she said. “I’ll hold you hostage until you tell me how you are going to go about it.”
Breaking vendor lock also touches on the sensitive issue of data rights, which are coveted by defense companies wanting to protect their interests but needed by the government to re-compete programs. Lacey said the Navy is working to provide improved guidance to program managers to enable them to determine what data rights are needed and which are not. There is often a tendency on the part of program managers to ask for too much, leading to higher costs associated with maintaining the data, she said.
“We sometimes fall into the trap of asking for things we don’t need just because we can,” she said. “That can put an unexpected burden on the government, or a cost on the government that is really not necessary to bear.”
Lacey said distinguishing between what data is needed and not needed is “hard to do.”
“We need to be careful, because once that pendulum starts to move it tends to go pretty far before you understand what you did,” she said. “So we are trying to be measured.”