Appendix 2: Mapping of LEfSE onto INCOSE SE Processes
Besides the SE Processes, at the time of this writing several other frameworks for defining program life cycle exist: Enterprise Architecting and Engineering [e.g. Wilson et al., 2010]; DoD Architecture Framework [DODAF, 2009], CMMI [2010]; Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management Framework [DoD, 2003], and several others issued by the individual military branches. Most are mandatory in DoD contracts, while others are not. This is all in addition to about 60 Military Standards that have been mandated for most DoD programs. Usually, these frameworks compete with others for the top position in the program management hierarchy, decision priority and resource allocation. Most of them contain excellent ideas which are helpful in program management. However, developed in uncoordinated manner by competing organizations they struggle for the “top position” adding immeasurable amount of waste and bureaucracy. As a result, the number of requirements defined for programs grow into thousands. The programs struggling to satisfy this massive number of competing frameworks, standards, and requirements waste a significant portion of program budget and schedule, leaving fewer resources for the most important part of the program: real engineering. In the opinion of this author, this situation is unsustainable. It makes U.S. programs less and less competitive globally, vastly more expensive, longer, and ...
