Value of Design Assurance in Acquisition - Improvements in Cost, Schedule and Quality

For quite some time, military and civil aviation acquisition communities have been facing challenges and opportunities in addressing cost, schedule, and quality of safety critical systems. Regulatory guidance and the contract management processes are not adequately nimble to keep up with each other and with the pace of complexity in systems. Aviation is a connected system of systems with shared responsibilities on the ground, space, and airplanes. Even though there are common standards in use for the systems of systems in aviation, there is an uneven focus on how these standards are applied because some systems are put into service using acquisition programs. Acquisition programs generally have different sets of controls with responsibilities for cost, schedule, and system performance. These programs usually do not use safety assurance like the Aircraft Certification Holders although there is a safety budget that is shared by these interconnected systems. To create a more efficient and safer system, the safety oversight in acquisition programs must adapt collaborative risk-based practices in line with the Safety Management System (SMS) that is promoted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the aviation regulatory authorities throughout the world including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Since the 1935 Cutting Air Crash, the aviation community has recognized that the safety assurance practices used to certify the design of aircraft also need to be used to assure the safety of navigational aids since the aircraft flight safety depends upon Navigational Aid (NAVAID) design and operations. NAVAID technology has evolved from Four Course Radio Ranges and Light Beacons to Instrument Landing Systems (ILSs) and VHF Omnirange (VOR) Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN), and now, Global Positioning System (GPS) augmentations. Likewise, the design techniques for safety have evolved, from failsafe designs implemented in tubes then transistors and TTL logic to the assured software and complex hardware designs of today. Such design assurance practices for software (RTCA/DO-278A) or complex electronic hardware (RTCA/DO-254) have been used in conjunction with the system safety assurance standards SAE ARP 4754A and SAE ARP 4761 on FAA navigation acquisition programs since the standards were first developed. The practices have proven to be useful for extracting early indicators for technical, cost, and schedule risks. Once risk indicators are noted, risk mitigation decisions can be taken, minimizing disruption to the project since the key is to extract early indicators and take prompt actions which are less severe and less drastic than if the risk is allowed to persist until a later stage in the project. Although, acquisition contractors strive to increase maturity in compliance activities, these efforts appear to be ad hoc from an external perspective and are not adequately standardized to be used as metrics. Once such metrics are formulated and embedded in the acquisition process, they are expected to transform acquisition into a risk-based certification oversight environment. This paper proposes a method, that could be used to extract project risk metrics using an example application of software, electronic hardware, and safety standards. This method is based on design assurance audits which in turn are based on principles of manufacturing quality, key characteristics, and monitoring to find non-conforming parts, non-conforming tools, and non-conforming processes. Design assurance audits offer a quantitative and a qualitative assessment of project risk. These risk indicators are superimposed on acquisition processes using project risk metrics. The acquirer organization may use this method irrespective of the organizational standard practices of the acquisition contractor to control risk from a project point of view. The melding of technical management of audit findings and project management assures that time and effort spent on design assurance lead to the expected product with integrity, continuity, safety, and dependability. This paper recommends a business case for increased product quality, increased work efficiency, and better control over schedules because of focused involvement.