SYST/OR 699 Master s Project Final Report

Transcription

1 SYST/OR 699 Master s Project Final Report Department of Defense Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool Enhancements Prepared by Craig Jayson, Josh Singh, and Phillip Sutton

2 Table of Contents Table of Figures... iii Table of Tables... iii Problem Definition... 1 Sponsorship... 1 Background... 1 Problem Statement... 4 Needs Statement... 4 Mission Statement... 4 Project Objective... 4 Stakeholders... 5 Scope... 6 Requirements... 7 Use Case Diagrams... 9 Use Case 1: Load R-2 PE and Project Level Data into BEAT... 9 Use Case 2: Load R-2 PE and Project Level Data into BEAT Structural Analysis Functional Decomposition Activity Modeling (IDEF0) Data Modeling (Entity Relationship Diagram) Rule Modeling (Decision Tables) Technical Approach and Expected Results BEAT Model Changes BEAT Version 1.0 (Fall 2016 Capstone Project) BEAT Version Database Update BEAT Visualization (Program and Project Analysis Dashboard) Program Analysis Dashboard Program Selection Contextual Program Information Program Visualizations and Statistics Project Analysis Dashboard Project Selection Contextual Project Information and Visualizations i

3 Additional Project Visualization Reporting Functions Delta Analysis New or Recently Ended Program/Project Identification Third Offset Strategy U.S. Army High Energy Laser (PE: Advanced Weapons Technology) U.S. Airforce Cyber Technology Pattern Recognition and Autonomous Learning (PE: Aerospace Sensors) Conclusion Way Forward Recommendations Appendix A- References... I Appendix B- Definitions... II Budget Activity 1, Basic Research... II Budget Activity 2, Applied Research... II Budget Activity 3, Advanced Technology Development (ATD)... II Budget Activity 4, Advanced Component Development and Prototypes (ACD&P)... III Budget Activity 5, System Development and Demonstration (SDD)... III Budget Activity 6, RDT&E Management Support... III Budget Activity 7, Operational System Development... III Appendix C- Acronyms... IV Appendix D- Use Cases in Detail... V Use Case 1: Load R-2 PE and Project Level Data into BEAT... V Use Case 2: Perform Visualization of Project Level Data in BEAT... VII Appendix E- Deliverables...IX Appendix F- Program Management... X Appendix G- Recognition... XIV ii

4 Table of Figures Figure 1: DoD Budget (source DoD.gov)... 1 Figure 2: Example Project Level Data Figure 3: BEAT v1.0 Visualizations Figure 4: BEAT v2.0 Methodology Figure 5: MS Access Data Tables Figure 6: XML Program Element Tree Example Figure 7: XML Project Element Tree Example Figure 8: Program Analysis Dashboard Figure 9: Program Selection Fields Figure 10: Program Search User Form Figure 11: Program Information Figure 12: Program Budget Chart Figure 13: Program Summary Statistics Figure 14: Program Budget Heat Map Figure 15: Project Selection Fields Figure 16: Project Search User Form Figure 17: Project Analysis Dashboard Figure 18: Project Analysis Pie Chart Figure 19: Delta Analysis Reporting Figure 20: New" Program/Project Report Figure 21: "Ended" Programs/Projects Figure 22: BEAT Roadmap Figure 23: Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)... X Figure 24: Project Schedule...XI Figure 26: EVM Graph... XIII Table of Tables Table 1: Earned Value Management (EVM) Breakdown... XII iii

5 Problem Definition Sponsorship Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc. (SPA) is a professional services contractor located in Alexandria, VA. SPA has been in business since 1972 with the organization first working with the Department of the Navy. Since then, SPA has expanded its customer base to include supporting clients such as the services that make up the Department of Defense (DoD), Homeland Security, and the Department of Energy. This project is a continuation of a capstone project selected last year that supported categorizing and analyzing past, present, and future budget submissions. The original problem statement had been derived from conversations with Operations Support Analysis Group (OSAG), the original client of the project. The proposal presented by OSAG was addressed during the fall 16 Capstone project. Subsequently, SPA took over as the lead for sponsorship and has presented this year s team with guidance on the below problem statement. The remainder of the paper will cover where the team started, what the team did, and detail recommendations for future work. Background The DoD budget, is an annual appropriation allocation that makes up the largest portion of the U.S. government s discretionary spending; in FY 2015, the DoD consumed over 50% of discretionary spending. The U.S. defense outlay is equivalent to the next seven largest military budgets combined India, the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China. In 2016, over $580 billion was allocated to fund the DoD seen in Figure 1 (source defense.gov). Figure 1: DoD Budget (source DoD.gov) Since post war WWII, the budget has fluctuated with peaks (overseas contingency operations, war-time operations) and troughs (defense cuts, interwar periods). Over the past decade plus the DoD budget has seen a precipitous decline in the budget as operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have slowed. This decline has been of some concern for some pundits in the defense industry with their opinion that the U.S. has lost a decade or more of technological advancements. While the U.S. has focused on counterinsurgency and Congressional budget squabbles, peer competitors have continued to advance their militaries. The figure below provides a visual of the ebbs and flows of the DoD budget over time. 1 P a g e

6 Figure 2: DoD Budget from in FY16 dollars (source: gmuseorspa.wordpress.com) The budget is nested with the National Military Strategy and the President s budget request and reflects the strategic outlook and operational commitments necessary to fight and win in any future conflicts. Addressing the multiple strategic challenges and threats, whether it is North Korean aggression or China island building, the budget considers new and innovative ways to meet mission requirements. The U.S. must remain a modernized, technologically superior global force with the capability to project power and respond to contingences. As former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter stated, even as we fight today s fights, we must also be prepared for the fights that might come in 10, 20, or 30 years. Since 2014, following Secretary of Defense Hagel s Innovation Initiative, there has been a push to invest monies in finding capabilities that have the potential to provide a technological offset against near peer competitors. This offset strategy has led to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Robert Work, creating a deterrence panel that continues to evaluate an offset strategy. One of the major efforts that the deterrence panel is mandated to focus on is the evaluation of technologies and capabilities that are intended to address both capability gaps and technological opportunities that would reinvigorate the U.S. dominance in power projection. Capabilities of interest for the panel include: multi-domain fires, electronic and cyber warfare, manned-unmanned systems, robotics, undersea warfare, hypersonic munitions, advanced engineering, among others. The DoD budget is divided into seven distinct budget appropriation categories. One of the categories is the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) budget; which is that portion of the DoD budget that focuses on Science and Technology (S&T) and prototype development. Since FY00, the amount appropriated to the DoD RDT&E budget has patterned itself to fall in line with national security concerns and overseas military activities. Currently, this appropriation is 11.8% of the total DoD budget, or $69 billion. 2 P a g e Figure 3: FY16 Budget By Appropriation (source DoD.gov)

7 It is this RDT&E appropriation category that the previous GMU Capstone Group gathered DoD Budget data on and developed a tool, known as the Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool (BEAT), to begin analyzing multi-year budget data. 1 The previous group drilled-down to the Program Element (PE) level for each service agency. The specifics regarding scoping of the project and last year s work can be found at the following website: The figure below summarizes the level of detail at which the previous project group scoped the problem to. Figure 4: Budget Activity Scoping The PE is the primary data element in the FYDP and normally the smallest aggregation of resources used by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for analysis. PEs are designed and quantified to be comprehensive and mutually exclusive. Each PE has a distinct numbers/letter identifier. The first number, in our scope above is 06, is the DoD Program of Research and Development. The second number, 3, is related to the budget activity (BA). The BA is a category within each appropriation and fund account that identifies the purposes, projects, or types of activities financed by the respective appropriation or fund. The BAs are explained in more detail in Appendix B of this document. The BAs that were in-scope for this project are seen highlighted in Figure 3. The next number, in this case 28, is a unique serial number assigned by OSD for each PE. These numbers are in sequential order based on the PE. Following the serial number is the equipment/activity type. The equipment/activity type is another way in which OSD categorized RDT&E programs. Following the equipment type is the only letter identifier in the PE. This letter identifier represents a code for a specific service/agency. Figure 4 below provides the listing of equipment/activity type and code for service/agency. Figure 5: PE identification last number and letter 1 The Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool allows users to quickly identify Program Elements within RDT&E using historic data and to visualize the individual budget trends over time using Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) projected data. 3 P a g e

8 Problem Statement Prior to the efforts of the Fall 2016 Capstone team, there was no known method or available tool to digest and depict multiple budget cycles (the current year plus four future years known as the Program Objective Memorandum 2 ) to facilitate the analysis and characterization of past, current, and/or future budget information. The Fall 2016 Capstone team was successful in aggregating budget data into a database and creating an Excel tool that preformed such analysis at the PE level. Understanding that there is valuable information available at the more granular project level, the BEAT analysis has the capacity to provide further information and insights, but currently that capability has not been realized. Needs Statement There is a need to advance the BEAT system to analyze project level budget data in order to project future trends for better decision making. Mission Statement The BEAT will provide a mechanism for capturing and analyzing past, present, and future DoD, Research Development, Testing & Evaluation (RDT&E) Presidential Budget (PB) submissions. The figure below displays the concept of operations portraying the several organizations that interact with the BEAT system. These organizations are detailed in the stakeholders section of this paper. Figure 6: Operational Concept Diagram Project Objective The objective of this project is to enhance the BEAT to incorporate project level data to facilitate a finer analysis of budget trends. The enhancements will allow the stakeholders and users to identify and view trends happening to select projects that support the DoD s strategy initiatives or other documents. The BEAT will maintain its current ability to ingest new data as it becomes available and the new project data will be mapped to the appropriate program data. Additionally, new visualizations and user interface will be developed to provide additional information and ease the use of tool application. ID projects of interest within the program elements based on DoD policy on future techs that support an offset strategy. Forecast future budget trends of predetermined projects over next 5 years. Detailed notes included with each project that highlight trends. Compare a new Program Budget (PB) ingestion to the previous year s PB to determine if new program/project/accomplishments have started anew or have ended. 2 The Program Objective Memorandum is the 5-year Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) and presents the Services and Defense Agencies proposal on how they will balance their allocation of available resources. The POM includes an analysis of missions, objectives, alternative methods to accomplish objectives, and allocation of resources. 4 P a g e

9 Stakeholders 5 P a g e Figure 7: Stakeholder Interaction The President and Congress- The DoD submits an annual budget request to the President for review. The President then submits a budget request to Congress. This request is reviewed and subjected to a process of revisions before it is returned to the President, at which point it is either signed into law or vetoed. The President and Congress have a vested interest in seeing that budget meets policy. Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)- Primary defense policy advisor to the President and responsible for formulating and executing policy through the DoD. The secretariats within OSD handle and submit the final DoD budget to the President. The BEAT can potentially support DoD decision analysis. Services (DoD)- This includes the Services and the S&T community. They receive the tech. and support and collaborate with multiple stakeholders. They are the end users and the primary recipients of the RDT&E dollars. Communities of Interest (COIs)- A network of technical groups that integrate with experience and technical expertise within DoD. They serve a collaboration mechanism to get interested stakeholders to communicate on projects in future tech. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), and University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs)- Research partnerships in which the DoD is the sponsor of a research facility which is under the administration of either a corporate entity (FFRDCs) or a University. They provide the backbone of studies as it relates to RDT&E and application to policy. Industry- Private entities whose interests and level of involvement with the DoD vary significantly. Some provide the product or service, prototype development, or test data of a specific or system of systems. There are also contractors who provide consulting or advising services. This is the military industrial complex that support the development of the specific idea, component, or end item.

10 Scope As previously mentioned, the Fall 2016 Capstone team led an effort to obtain DoD budgeting data from the RDT&E appropriation level to the PE level for all services and accounting lines within DoD. The team created the BEAT to analyze the data using charts and graphs. Additionally, the team scoped the project to include only three of the seven budget activities: BA 2, 3 and 4. Overall, this initial effort was the first of many future endeavors to develop a Decision Management System using the BEAT and DoD budgeting data to better predict future RDT&E investment dollars. The scope of this project is to continue with the work of moving toward final development of a Decision Management System for DoD budget analysis. The project team for Spring 2017 Capstone team will focus on taking the PEs and continuing to add to the database by including all project level data for all PEs that are in scope. For instance, the PE associated with Advanced Aerospace Systems is a PE that OSD-Policy is interested in potentially adding future dollars towards in meeting future deterrence requirements and is within BA 2, 3, and 4. Figure 8: Program Element Example The team will drill one level down into the project level of Advanced Aerospace Systems and gather all project The team will also highlight notes and accomplishment level data in the notes which is one level down from project level data. The figure below provides an illustration of what the scope will entail. Figure 9: Illustration of Budget Levels There are natural scoping mechanisms built into the budget nomenclature and taxonomy used to build the budget documents. The team will use this scoping mechanism to continue work from previous Capstone Team. 6 P a g e

11 There are several critical assumptions that are required to scope the problem to the needs of the sponsor. 1) The Project Data is readily accessible and does not require infeasible time for download and transfer to the database. 2) The team will have access to DTIC website and other website for download of data. 3) The team will be able to relate OSD-Policy offset techs/capabilities to PE and follow-on project level data. 4) The accomplishment level data is available; and is included in the notes. Requirements Mission Requirements MR1: The BEAT system shall be able to ingest project level information and data from DoD documents that summarize PEs. MR2: The BEAT system shall ingest project level description information for each project. MR3: The BEAT system shall ingest five future years of expected project level data. MR4: The BEAT system shall be able to ingest accomplishment level data for specific projects. MR5: The BEAT system shall visualize RDT&E, specifically project level data, over a pre-determined period. MR6: The BEAT system shall be able to display PB new program/project/accomplishments have started anew or ended. System Requirements SR1: The BEAT system shall generate project level data (R-2) for predetermined Program Elements. SR2: The BEAT system shall generate project level description for Program Elements. SR3: The BEAT system shall generate accomplishment level data based on specific project level. SR4: The BEAT system shall aggregate budget data for each Program Element. SR5: The BEAT system shall display project level data over time. SR6: The BEAT system shall display new PB ingestion to the previous year s PB to determine if new program/project/accomplishments have started anew or have ended. Functional Requirements FR1: The BEAT system shall have ability to create a plot that visualizes specific project level data over time. FR2: The BEAT system shall have the ability to create a plot that visualizes significant outliers of project level data. FR3: The BEAT system shall have the ability to create a plot that visualizes accomplishment outliers. FR4: The BEAT system shall monitor a minimum of five RDT&E budget cycles. FR5: The BEAT system shall aggregate specific project level data. FR6: The BEAT system shall not consider discontinued PEs in project level analysis. FR7: The BEAT system shall consider PB data and determine which program/project/accomplishment data has started new or have completed. 7 P a g e

12 8 P a g e Figure 10: Project Requirements Diagram

13 Use Case Diagrams After the first IPR with the sponsor use cases were developed to formalize the viability of the system design and to meet the agreed upon requirements. The use cases primary purpose is to capture the functional requirements of the BEAT system; they are a means of specifying the usage of a system. The following two main use cases capture the interaction of the user with the BEAT. Additionally, and part of behavioral component of structured analysis, sequence diagrams have been included to represent how the user and actors interact with the BEAT. The reason for the early introduction of the sequence diagrams is to show how they are influenced and representative of the use cases. Appendix D provides greater detail for each of the main use cases. Use Case 1 displays the BEAT which has the capability to load R2 PE and project level data. The primary actor of the database is the user with the trigger event being the downloading of data from DTIC website. Use Case 1: Load R-2 PE and Project Level Data into BEAT Figure 11: Use Case 1 User Interface Diagram Schedule: Main Use Case; must be tested before providing to sponsor Priority: Top, must be executed Performance Target: All project level, unclassified budget level data is available from FY 11 through FY 20 Frequency: Every release of new Presidential Budget for corresponding FY The sequence diagram below was developed to support Use Case 1. This diagram ensures the operations were occurring in an orderly fashion with what made sense during the downloading process and the interactions between the BEAT and the Access database. After the downloading of data from DTIC website the user begins to interact with the BEAT. Subsequently, the BEAT then begins communicating with the Access Interface. The Access Database then completes the storing of PE and project level data and communicates back to the BEAT through the interface. This downloading process is behind the scenes; the user will only need to wait a few minutes before all PB data is loaded into BEAT and stored in Access. 9 P a g e

14 Figure 12: Use Case 1 Sequence Diagram Use Case 2 displays the BEAT visualization tool and the interaction with the user and the queries, buttons, and filters dispersed throughout the tool. The primary actor of the visualization tool is the user with the trigger event being the user beginning to conduct exploratory analysis. The BEAT visualization has the capability to interact with PE and project data and provides many unique dashboard features. 10 P a g e

15 Use Case 2: Load R-2 PE and Project Level Data into BEAT Figure 13: Use Case 2 User Interface Diagram Schedule: Main Use Case; must be tested before providing to sponsor Priority: Top, must be executed Performance Target: All project level, unclassified budget level data is available from FY 11 through FY 20 Frequency: Every time a query and filter for specific project level data is executed The sequence diagram for Use Case 2 describes the dynamics of the user interacting with the many facets of the BEAT visualization tool. This includes buttons, graphs, displays, and dashboard functions that the user can manipulate. The sequence diagram begins with the user receiving feedback from BEAT that all R2 PE and project level data has been saved. The user then opens the visualization tool and begins exploration of either PE or project level data. The program and project analysis dashboard section of this paper will describe in detail the many user interfaces that the BEAT visualization tool provides. Below is a visual of the sequence diagram that supports Use Case P a g e

16 Figure 14: Use Case 2 Sequence Diagram Structural Analysis After agreeing on the mission, operational concept, and primary use cases with the sponsor the team then focused efforts on the structural analysis (functional decomposition and the functional architecture) of the BEAT. The structured analysis approach was chosen because this approach best defines what the BEAT must do. The approach provides a decomposition of the top-level functions, summarizes inputs and outputs, and provides a road map to the actual upgraded design of the BEAT. The functional decomposition is the first diagram of the structured analysis. It consists of all high-level functions that must be accomplished by the BEAT. 12 P a g e

17 Functional Decomposition Figure 15: Functional Decomposition of BEAT 13 P a g e

18 Activity Modeling (IDEF0) The IDEF0 model was chosen to represent the activity model due to its ability to best represent the BEAT inputs, outputs, and controls at each functional decomposition level. The BEAT IDEF0 A-0 diagram details the activities associated with taking PB data and importing the data into a displays/dashboard that lend itself to streamlined follow-on analysis. The IDEF0 and subordinate diagrams are at the viewpoint of the user. Below is the A-0, A0, and A5 (over next three pages) diagrams that supported and summarized the activities associated with the BEAT. Each diagram builds on the other and is nested with the functional decomposition. Figure 16: A-0 diagram of BEAT (Highest Level) 14 P a g e

19 Figure 17: A0 diagram of BEAT (highlights A1-A5 activities of the BEAT) Figure 18: A5 diagram of BEAT (highlights A51 through A53 activities of the BEAT) 15 P a g e

20 Data Modeling (Entity Relationship Diagram) The ERD primary purpose is to analyze the BEAT data structures and relationships based on the activities from the BEAT IDEF0 diagrams. The BEAT ERD has five primary entities (DTIC website, User, Visualization Tool, Access Interface, and Excel Interface) that interact with the BEAT. There are multiple relationships and attributes associated with each entity. The below picture provides a depiction of the BEAT ERD. 16 P a g e

21 17 P a g e Figure 19: BEAT Entity Relationship Diagram (Dataflow Model)

22 Rule Modeling (Decision Tables) The rules model is used to model what BEAT activities/processes in the IDEF0 are going to do. The rule model for the BEAT depicts what is to be done when a set of conditions evaluates as true and what conditions lend themselves to be false. To do this, the team decided on using a decision table. The decision table includes all possible conditions based on the A0 diagram of the BEAT IDEF0. The decision table provided the best way to formulate and evaluate relationships among the relevant data elements. The decision table was the easiest and most suited way to specify what actions to take based on the complexities of the BEAT system. Below highlights each of the Decision Tables that supported the BEAT. Figure 22: BEAT Decision Table (Load PE and Project Level Data in BEAT A1) Figure 20: BEAT Decision Table (Identify and Parse Data A2) Figure 21: BEAT Decision Table (Store PE and Project Data A3) 18 P a g e

23 Figure 22: BEAT Decision Table (Display Query Dropdowns A4) Figure 23: BEAT Decision Table (Provides Visualization Tool A5) 19 P a g e

24 Technical Approach and Expected Results Because of the work done in the previous semester, there is an existing database architecture in place that stores the DoD budget information at the PE level. The database is created using the XML files that are available from the DoD through DTIC which are then parsed via an XML parser. Currently the database only ingests program level data, however, the project and accomplishment data is also available in the same XML files. The DoD budget information is available in two different formats R-1 and R-2. The R-2 data contains data specific to each program and serves as the item justification for each program. That justification also provides detailed information on the projects within each program. Therefore, our analysis will be most interested in dissecting the R-2 XML files to retrieve the requisite project level information. Figure 2: Example Project Level Data The initial effort of this project will be to expand the current data absorption from only program level data to include project and accomplishment information. In order to accomplish this, an XML parsing script will be developed in Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) to absorb the program and project information and store that data in a MS Access database. Once the data file is updated, the Access database will house all required information in a structured format to be easily exported into the Excel BEAT. Once the data has been properly housed, part two of the project will be to expand the capabilities within the BEAT tool to visualize the latest information. Additional visualizations will be developed and integrated into a single dashboard to provide a visual representation of the quantitative data, as well as display the qualitative contextual information that is embedded within the budget data files. VBA will be used to facilitate the data handling and visualization creation to provide a streamlined user friendly interface to automatically create and modify the visualizations. Upon completion of our support, the database will have an updated structure and parsing program to ingest project level data. That new data will be housed in a structured format that can be easily exported into a csv file for upload into additional data analysis programs, specifically the BEAT. Additionally, the BEAT tool will contain new visualizations pertaining to the project level information to provide meaningful insights into trends within the RDT&E community. 20 P a g e

25 BEAT Model Changes BEAT Version 1.0 (Fall 2016 Capstone Project) Visualization R2 Output R1 Data Figure 3: BEAT v1.0 Visualizations The figure above represents the BEAT system that the previous Capstone team developed based upon the sponsor needs at that time. In version 1.0, the BEAT data was stored in a MySQL database that was populated using a JAVA program to parse through the R1 and R2 budget XML to extract the required information. That data was then queried and incorporated into the BEAT. The BEAT is a MS Excel based tool that allows the user to select and visualize BAs, Services/Agencies, and PB years to visualize and gain insights. The R1 data visualization provide many different charts and graphics that provide insights as to how programs stack against each other in the R1 data. The R2 Data visualization allowed the user to select multiple programs in a single PB year and compare those programs against each other. Those visualizations answer the question How does this program compare against others? but doesn t provide much insight about what s going on within each of those programs across all available budget submissions. In BEAT v2.0, we aim to answer that question, as well as provide insights at the more granular project level. BEAT Version 2.0 BEAT version 2.0 is a redesigned version of BEAT v1.0. After discussions with the sponsor, the database was moved to MS Access and the XML parsing scripts rewritten in VBA and enhanced to ingest the project level data in addition to the program data. Additionally, more visualizations accompanied by contextual information provided in the data files are displayed in a consolidated dashboard, described later. 21 P a g e

26 Download PB data from DTIC (Manual Process) Open BEAT and Select Upload new R2 files BEAT (Excel) Opens Access and runs the XML parsing Code Input Cells for scoping data Visualization User conducts exploratory analysis and informs management Descriptive Information Visualization Tool within BEAT that allows user to graphically display data based on inputs Excel Sheets Update Existing Queries and Connections Figure 4: BEAT v2.0 Methodology In BEAT version 2.0, the process for updating and loading information starts the same as version 1.0, by downloading the PB data from DTIC. From there, the user can open the BEAT and select Upload new R2 files from the homepage menu. That process will then open the linked Access Database in the background and launch the XML parsing algorithm. From there the user is prompted to select the folder containing the XML files, and the parsing commences. Once completed the BEAT will then update queries and tables within the tool that are linked to the database to ensure the most up to date information is available. The user is then free to explore and gain insights to hundreds of programs and projects across all available budget submissions. Database Update In BEAT v1.0, the PB data was stored in a MySQL database that was populated using a JAVA program that parsed through the budget XML files. The new, improved database was moved to MS Access and the XML parsing program was implemented in Visual Basic for Applications (VBA). That process moved the data gathering process under one roof and allowed the BEAT (implemented in MS Excel) to more seamlessly integrate with another MS Office product. To extract the data from the XML files, the VBA script relies on the tree structure inherent to XML file types. The script identifies the root program nodes, and then cycles through each child node passing the name of the child node through a switch (or select) statement to identify and place the data value to the appropriate field in Access. When the Project node is identified, it passes that sub tree structure through a similar process. The Access database contains two tables, one for the PE data and the other for the Project Level data named Program Data and Project Data, respectively. The composite key for the Program Data table are the 22 P a g e

27 Program Numbers and Budget Years. The Project Data composite key consists of the Program Number, Project Number, and Budget Year. The tables are linked through the program number to allow for specific SQL scripting. The BEAT has been linked to the Access Database and two new worksheets have been created to query the data each time the workbook is opened, or the database imports new data. Currently, the data set goes back to 2011 and contains 4366 Program records across the DoD comprising of 9388 Project Records Figure 5: MS Access Data Tables 23 P a g e

28 R2 Exhbit List (Program List) Program Element Number Program Element Title Budget Year Service Agency Name Appropriation Code Appropriation Number Program Element Funding Project List Prior Year Current Year Budget Year One Budget Year Two Budget Year Three Budget Year Four Budget Year Five Figure 6: XML Program Element Tree Example 24 P a g e

29 Project list Project Number ProjectTitle Poject Funding Project Note Project Mission Description Prior Year Current Year Budget Year One Budget Year Two Budget Year Three Budget Year Four Budget Year Five Figure 7: XML Project Element Tree Example 25 P a g e

30 BEAT Visualization (Program and Project Analysis Dashboard) The BEAT Program and Project Analysis Dashboards allows the user to visually analyze a specific program s or project s funding trends and relate those variations to the notes from the budgets in a consolidated environment. Figure 8: Program Analysis Dashboard 26 P a g e

31 Program Analysis Dashboard Program Selection The user can narrow the organizations and programs by selecting a (or all) BA of interest. From there, the user selects among the organizations and agencies that have programs under the selected BA. The Select Program options are then updated and the user can select a program belonging to the organization or agency by name of Program Number. Figure 9: Program Selection Fields Additionally, the user can search for a program using the Program Keyword Search function. Through that function, the user can filter all available programs by Service/Agency, BA (similar to the dashboard), or utilize Keyword Searches that will allow the user to search by a specific word or phrase to aid in identifying the program of interest. Once a program has been identified, the user can select that program and the Program Analysis Dashboard will update to the selected program. Figure 10: Program Search User Form 27 P a g e

32 Contextual Program Information Once a program is selected, information about the program selected is populated with information from the R-2 XML files that is housed in the Access database. That information includes program description, earliest/latest PB years available, and program notes per PB year. Additionally, there is a button below the Program Description to select the current program for analysis of its projects, described later. Figure 11: Program Information Program Visualizations and Statistics The top visualization included in the dashboard is a line chart that plots funding of the single program across the various PB years available in the database. This visualization provides the user a visual representation of the changes in funding across the budgets. The example below demonstrates a relatively steady funding and projection stream, illustrated by the funding lines falling close, if not on top of one another. A program with an unstable funding stream would have funding lines that do not fall relatively close to one another and have many increases and decreases in funding that are not consistent across PBs. Included at the bottom of the chart is the data that created the chart in a table to provide values for data to provide further information. 28 P a g e Figure 12: Program Budget Chart

33 Following the Program Budget Chart are basic summary statistics that have been generated on the available data set. The summary statistics provide metrics describing the behavior of each FYs budget projections. The statistics include Mean, Standard Deviation, Variance, Min, Median, Max, and Range. A stable budget will have minimal Standard Deviations and Variances between budget submissions. Note that these statistics are not generated across a single budget year to examine the stability or changes in a single PB s projections. Rather, these statistics are generated for a single FY across all the PBs that have an actual or projected value for that FY. Figure 13: Program Summary Statistics The final visualization is a heat map that highlights the various deltas between PB projections for a FY and their actual from that FY s PB. Each PB contains the prior FY s budget (FY-1), the current FY, and 5 out years (FY+1-5), tied to the POM. For example, in the heat map below, the first value for column FY_2014 was calculated as the absolute value of the difference between PB 2012 and PB 2013 projections for FY Figure 14: Program Budget Heat Map Given that there are only FY-1 to FY+5 years of data available in each PB, it is clearly not possible to calculate deltas for all FY for each pair of PBs. The #N/A is used to indicate those FYs where there is no delta to calculate between the selected PBs. For instance, in PB 2014, we have a prior year data point in FY However, in PB 2015, there is no value for FY13, resulting in an #N/A for the delta between PB14 and PB 15 for FY_2013. Project Analysis Dashboard The Project Analysis allows the user to investigate the different projects that belong to each program. These insights provide more granular detail of how budgets are behaving within each program. 29 P a g e

34 Project Selection The down selecting process follows the same as the Program Analysis Dashboard, but adds a Project Selection by Project Name or Project Number. Similar to the Program Analysis Dashboard, there is a Project Search function where the user can filter all available Projects by Service/Agency, Budget Activity, or search by Program and/or Project key words and phrases. Figure 15: Project Selection Fields Figure 16: Project Search User Form Contextual Project Information and Visualizations The Project Mission (analogous to the Program Description), Earliest and Latest PB Data Years, and Project Notes are all imported for the select project, similar to the Program Analysis Dashboard. Additionally, the tool provides the funding chart and heat map to highlight the deltas in funding using the same methodology outlined for the program funding chart and heat map. 30 P a g e

35 Figure 17: Project Analysis Dashboard Additional Project Visualization The Project Analysis Dashboard does not have the Summary Statistics that were provided at the program level. Instead, a pie chart that breaks down the most recent budget year s current year funding for each project across the parent program was included to provide context as to how the project in question stacks up against the other projects competing for funding in that program. Figure 18: Project Analysis Pie Chart 31 P a g e

36 Reporting Functions To facilitate the identification of programs or projects of interest, two reporting functions were included to flag programs and projects that meet certain criteria, the Delta Analysis and New/Recently Ended Program and Project Identification. Delta Analysis The Delta Analysis examines the FY+1 projections and FY actuals of all programs and projects to identify those that have differences in excess of a user defined budget variation percentage. In other words, any program or project whose projection was more (or less) that X% of the actual using the formula: Projection Actual Actual Those programs and projects that exceed the delta threshold are logged in a report that can be reviewed and then explored further utilizing the Program and Project Analysis Dashboards. Progam Projection vs Acutal Deltas greater than 35% Organization/Agency Program Number Program Name Year Projection Acutal Delta Air Force F Nuclear Weapons Modernization % Air Force F Service Support to STRATCOM - Spa Inf Air Force F Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Proces % Air Force F LAAR Squadrons % Air Force F A-10 Squadrons Inf Air Force F F-16 Squadrons % Air Force F F-35 Squadrons % Air Force F F-35 Squadrons % Air Force F F-15 EPAWSS % Air Force F Combat Rescue - Pararescue % Air Force F Precision Attack Systems Procureme % Air Force F Aircraft Engine Component Improve % Air Force F Air & Space Operations Center (AOC % Air Force F Control and Reporting Center (CRC) % Air Force F Three Dimensional Long-Range Rad % Air Force F Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Rad % Air Force F CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES % Air Force F Minimum Essential Emergency Com % Figure 19: Delta Analysis Reporting 32 P a g e

37 New or Recently Ended Program/Project Identification The BEAT will also parse through both program and project level data to identify programs/projects who s PB is new within the last three years or no longer have data in the most recent PB. Note that the beginning or ending of a program/project can be difficult to automatically define and flag. For example, a single PB s projections may go to zero for consecutive years but in a subsequent PB we may see that program/project regain a funding stream. Additionally, programs/projects may have a Cost to Complete, but get canceled prior to reaching that cost. It has also been observed that programs/projects may get rolled into others, and seemingly disappear from the data set. It is only with careful observation and human investigation that a program/project s start or end can be identified with certainty. Understanding those limitations, this report is generated under the following criteria: New Programs/Projects a. The first budget year within the dataset for a program/project (identified by program/project number) is greater than or equal 3 years prior to the current year (as defined by the user) Ended Programs/Projects a. The final budget year within the data set for a program/project (identified by its program/project number) is less than the current year (as defined by the user) Using these criteria, a new worksheet is created that lists all the programs/projects that violate those criteria for further inspection. *ASSUMPTION: A program/project is flagged as "Started" or "New" if there is not prior year data available Programs Started in Last 3 years Projects Started in Last 3 years Organization/Agency Program Number Program Name Organization/Agency Program Number Program Name Project Number Project Name Air Force F Air-Launched Cruise Missile Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS Bomber Tactical Data Link Air Force F B-1B Squadrons Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS INTERNAL WEAPONS BA Air Force F B-2 SQUADRONS Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS MODE S/5 IFF Air Force F Minuteman Squadrons Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS CONECT Air Force F Strat War Planning System - Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS ANTI-SKID Air Force F Night Fist - USSTRATCOM Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS GPS-IU Air Force F Worldwide Joint Strategic C Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS B-52 Radar Modernization Pro Air Force F UH-1N Replacement Progra Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS B-52 Low Cost Improvement ( Air Force F Region/Sector Operation Co Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS B-52 Weapon Sys Trainer Air R Air Force F Strategic Aerospace Intellig Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS B-52 Crypto Modernization Air Force F Service Support to STRATCO Air Force F Air-Launched Cruise Mis Flight Testing & Navigation En Air Force F Counter Narcotics Technolo Air Force F B-1B Squadrons B-1B Modernization Air Force F Warfighter Rapid Acquisitio Air Force F B-2 SQUADRONS B-2 Modernization Air Force F MQ-9 UAV Air Force F B-2 SQUADRONS BASELINE SUPPORT Air Force F Joint Counter RCIED Electro Air Force F B-2 SQUADRONS EHF SATCOM and Computer Figure 20: New" Program/Project Report Former Programs Not Included in Current FY Former Projects Not Included in Current FY Organization/Agency Program Number Program Name Last Data Year Organization/Agency Program Number Program Name Program Number Program Name Last Data Year Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS 2017 Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS B-52 System Improvem 2017 Air Force F Air-Launched Cruise Miss 2017 Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS Bomber Tactical Data L 2017 Air Force F Nuclear Weapons Moder 2017 Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS INTERNAL WEAPO 2017 Air Force F B-1B Squadrons 2017 Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS MODE S/5 IFF 2015 Air Force F B-2 SQUADRONS 2017 Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS CONECT 2017 Air Force F Minuteman Squadrons 2017 Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS ANTI-SKID 2015 Air Force F Strat War Planning System 2017 Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS GPS-IU 2017 Air Force F Night Fist - USSTRATCOM 2017 Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS B-52 Radar Modernizat 2017 Air Force F Worldwide Joint Strategi 2017 Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS B-52 Low Cost Improve 2017 Air Force F UH-1N Replacement Prog 2017 Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS B-52 Weapon Sys Train 2017 Air Force F Region/Sector Operation 2017 Air Force F B-52 SQUADRONS B-52 Crypto Moderniza 2017 Air Force F Strategic Aerospace Intel 2014 Air Force F Air-Launched Cruise M ALCM Upgrades 2017 Air Force F Service Support to STRAT 2017 Air Force F Nuclear Weapons Modernization B61 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM 2017 Figure 21: "Ended" Programs/Projects 33 P a g e

38 Third Offset Strategy Technological superiority has been a staple of the DoD strategy since post WWII. This philosophy and followon investment has allowed U.S. to outpace its peers and remain at the forefront of battlefield innovation. However, since the current budget drawdown and the military mission shift to counterinsurgency (COIN), it is no longer safe to assume technological superiority. The 3 rd offset strategy remained a top DoD priority in The 3 rd offset strategy is being pursued to counter great peer competitors like China and Russia. Its focus is on continuing U.S. military technological superiority. Released publicly, the President s FY2017 budget included over $18 billion over the course of the FYDP for 3 rd Offset Related investments. Some of the focus areas of this $18 billion are on anti-access technology, undersea warfare capability, human-machine collaboration or unmanned and manned systems, and asymmetric capabilities (Cyber, Space, EW, and Laser). Third Offset Strategy (if maintained) provides significant opportunities for future RDT&E investment- should observe trends of increased investments in these capabilities. The picture below shows the RDT&E budget authority by service during the counter-insurgency fight in Afghanistan and Iraq and the follow-on military drawdown. The below two charts provide an example of how the sponsor can utilize the BEAT to identify areas of interest in RDT&E investment. This is the part where the sponsor or user begins to match policy with trend development found in the BEAT. With the DII of 2014, and focus on a 3 rd Offset Strategy, there has been renewed emphasis in DoD investment in technology. The first chart, High Energy Laser, is a 3 rd Offset investment in laser energy as a means for force protection. Much emphasis has been placed on the need to counter rocket, artillery, and mortar munitions along with interdicting UAVs. This chart shows what will happen to an existing project (Army) that has an uptick in spending due policy changes and refocus on technical innovation. Trends like this could be identified by the sponsor by matching 3 rd Offset policy and capabilities with invigorated spending. 34 P a g e

39 U.S. Army High Energy Laser (PE: Advanced Weapons Technology) Existing Project with Uptick in future spending This second chart displays a capability that did not exist in any past PB. This capability is tied directly to Air Force investments in asymmetric capabilities with the 3rd Offset initiative. This capability focuses heavily on autonomous learning, which is a staple of future technology innovation. U.S. Airforce Cyber Technology Pattern Recognition and Autonomous Learning (PE: Aerospace Sensors) New Project Overall, the BEAT provides a unique, first-of-its-kind way to visualize PE and project level data. It will allow the user the opportunity to start matching policy changes to budgetary changes. Special emphasis should focus on the mapping of capabilities and technologies that support the 2014 Defense Innovation Initiative and the 3 rd Offset Strategy. 35 P a g e

40 Conclusion In conclusion, the BEAT version 2.0 provides the user with a Decision Management Support Tool that allows for exploratory analysis of RDT&E PE and project level data. The BEAT can present data in minutes, run surface level analytics by displaying requested query information in a user-friendly way to identify trends/changes, and provide a visual and statistics of beginning/ending PE/project funding. The BEAT Version 2.0 has been created in such a way that SPA and future users can import future data and immediately start using the tool. Overall, the team met all deliverables and has provided a way forward in moving the project from Mile Marker 2.5 to Mile Marker 5.0 (see Figure below). Way Forward Recommendations The BEAT and the analysis it provides is an ongoing endeavor to provide further analysis to the sponsor and other stakeholders. Future recommendations for development of the BEAT include: Retrieve and house accomplishment data in the database Improve the database by creating more tables and linking them appropriately Explore and incorporate predictive analytics tools such as Linear Regressions, Support Vector Machines, K-Nearest Neighbors, etc. to better analyze data (may require more advanced analytical software packages/programming languages e.g. Julia, Python, R, SAS) Explore and incorporate textual analytics on the program/project descriptions and notes to investigate correlations between keywords/phrases and budget projections (may require more advanced analytical software packages/programming languages e.g. Julia, Python, R, SAS) Continue to link policy (National Military Strategy, Defense Innovation Initiative) to budgetary trend analysis using BEAT (Significant opportunity for future RDT&E investment if current administration and DoD continues to invest in a Third Offset Strategy) Upgrades to BEAT: o Heat Chart with conditional formatting based on relative changes o Link each program to its page in the corresponding budget file Figure 22: BEAT Roadmap 36 P a g e

41 Appendix A- References American Association for the Advancement of Science 2016 [3] - Govini. No Date. DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 2B, Chapter 5 Department of Defense, Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) Structure, April 2014 at Department of Defense (DoD) Releases Fiscal Year 2017 President s Budget Proposal Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) GMUSEORSPA at Military budget of the United States, Wikipedia U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget at "US Department of Defense Third Offset Standard Market Taxonomy." Analyst Report, Washington, D.C. I P a g e

42 Appendix B- Definitions Budget Activity 1, Basic Research Basic research is systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in mind. It includes all scientific study and experimentation directed toward increasing fundamental knowledge and understanding in those fields of the physical, engineering, environmental, and life sciences related to longterm national security needs. It is farsighted high payoff research that provides the basis for technological progress. Basic research may lead to: (a) subsequent applied research and advanced technology developments in Defense-related technologies, and (b) new and improved military functional capabilities in areas such as communications, detection, tracking, surveillance, propulsion, mobility, guidance and control, navigation, energy conversion, materials and structures, and personnel support. Program elements in this category involve pre-milestone A efforts Budget Activity 2, Applied Research Applied research is systematic study to understand the means to meet a recognized and specific national security requirement. It is a systematic application of knowledge to develop useful materials, devices, and systems or methods. It may include design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new processes to meet general mission area requirements. Applied research translates promising basic research into solutions for broadly defined military needs, short of system development. This type of effort may vary from systematic mission-directed research beyond that in Budget Activity 1 to sophisticated breadboard hardware, study, programming and planning efforts that establish the initial feasibility and practicality of proposed solutions to technological challenges. It includes studies, investigations, and non-system specific technology efforts. The dominant characteristic is that applied research is directed toward general military needs with a view toward developing and evaluating the feasibility and practicality of proposed solutions and determining their parameters. Applied Research precedes system specific research. Program control of the Applied Research program element is normally exercised by general level of effort. Program elements in this category involve pre- Milestone B efforts, also known as Concept and Technology Development phase tasks, such as concept exploration efforts and paper studies of alternative concepts for meeting a mission need. Budget Activity 3, Advanced Technology Development (ATD) This budget activity includes development of subsystems and components and efforts to integrate subsystems and components into system prototypes for field experiments and/or tests in a simulated environment. ATD includes concept and technology demonstrations of components and subsystems or system models. The models may be form, fit and function prototypes or scaled models that serve the same demonstration purpose. The results of this type of effort are proof of technological feasibility and assessment of subsystem and component operability and producibility rather than the development of hardware for service use. Projects in this category have a direct relevance to identified military needs. Advanced Technology Development demonstrates the general military utility or cost reduction potential of technology when applied to different types of military equipment or techniques. Program elements in this category involve pre-milestone B efforts, such as system concept demonstration, joint and Service-specific experiments or Technology Demonstrations. Projects in this category do not necessarily lead to subsequent development or procurement phases. II P a g e

43 Budget Activity 4, Advanced Component Development and Prototypes (ACD&P) Efforts necessary to evaluate integrated technologies, representative modes or prototype systems in a high fidelity and realistic operating environment are funded in this budget activity. The ACD&P phase includes system specific efforts that help expedite technology transition from the laboratory to operational use. Emphasis is on proving component and subsystem maturity prior to integration in major and complex systems and may involve risk reduction initiatives. Program elements in this category involve efforts prior to Milestone B and are referred to as advanced component development activities and include technology demonstrations. Completion of Technology Readiness Levels 6 and 7 should be achieved for major programs. Program control is exercised at the program and project level. A logical progression of program phases and development and/or production funding must be evident in the FYDP. Budget Activity 5, System Development and Demonstration (SDD) SDD programs have passed Milestone B approval and are conducting engineering and manufacturing development tasks aimed at meeting validated requirements prior to full-rate production. This budget activity is characterized by major line item projects and program control is exercised by review of individual programs and projects. Prototype performance is near or at planned operational system levels. Characteristics of this budget activity involve mature system development, integration and demonstration to support Milestone C decisions, and conducting live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) and initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) of production representative articles. A logical progression of program phases and development and production funding must be evident in the FYDP consistent with the Department's full funding policy. Budget Activity 6, RDT&E Management Support This budget activity includes research, development, test and evaluation efforts and funds to sustain and/or modernize the installations or operations required for general research, development, test and evaluation. Test ranges, military construction, maintenance support of laboratories, operation and maintenance of test aircraft and ships, and studies and analyses in support of the RDT&E program are funded in this budget activity. Costs of laboratory personnel, either in-house or contractor operated, would be assigned to appropriate projects or as a line item in the Basic Research, Applied Research, or Advanced Technology Development program areas, as appropriate. Military construction costs directly related to major development programs are included. Budget Activity 7, Operational System Development This budget activity includes development efforts to upgrade systems that have been fielded or have received approval for full rate production and anticipate production funding in the current or subsequent fiscal year. All items are major line item projects that appear as RDT&E Costs of Weapon System Elements in other programs. Program control is exercised by review of individual projects. Programs in this category involve systems that have received Milestone C approval. A logical progression of program phases and development and production funding must be evident in the FYDP, consistent with the Department's full funding policy. III P a g e

44 Appendix C- Acronyms ACD&P ATD BEAT COIN CPI DII DoD DTIC ERD EVM EW FYDP GMU IPR JTAAD LFT&E MR OSAG OSD PB PE POM RDT&E SDD SOW SPA SPI SQL SR S&T UAV VBA WBS XML Advance Component Development & Prototypes Advance Technology Development Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool Counter Insurgency Cost Performance Index Defense Innovation Initiative Department of Defense Defense Technical Information Center Entity Relationship Diagram Earned Value Management Electronic Warfare Future Year Defense Program George Mason University In Process Review Joint Airforce and Analysis Division Live Fire Test & Evaluation Mission Requirement Operations Support Analysis Group Office of Secretary of Defense Program Budget Program Element Program Objective Memorandum Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation System Development and Demonstration Statement of Work Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc. Schedule Performance Index Structured Query Language System Requirement Science & Technology Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Visual Basic for Applications Work Breakdown Structure extensible Markup Language IV P a g e

45 Appendix D- Use Cases in Detail This appendix provides a more descriptive nature to each Use Case. Use Case 1: Load R-2 PE and Project Level Data into BEAT 1. BEAT Characteristic Information (Use Case 1) Goal in Context: Project level data from R-2 files downloaded into BEAT Scope: Access based Database, XML VBA, Excel Level: Primary Pre-Condition: R-2 project level data in XML available from DTIC website Success End Condition: Project level data loaded into BEAT Minimal Guarantees: BEAT has PE and project level data and is ready for analysis Primary Actor: User of the database Supplementary Actors: BEAT, Access Interface, Access Database, XML VBA Parse Trigger Event: R-2 (PE and project level data) downloaded from DTIC website 2. BEAT Main Success Story (Use Case 1) V P a g e

46 Include Use Case 1 3. BEAT Scenario Extensions (Use Case 1) 4. BEAT Related Information (Use Case 1) Schedule: Main Use Case; must be tested before providing to sponsor Priority: Top, must be executed Performance Target: All project level, unclassified budget level data is available from FY 11 through FY 20 Frequency: Every time a download is required due to release of new Presidential Budget for corresponding FY Super Use Case: This is the parent use case Sub Use Case: N/A Channel To Primary Actor: Reliant on R-2 project level data download without error Secondary Actors: Access Database Load R-2 PE and Project Level Data into BEAT Use Case Diagram for Use Case 1 System Boundary VI P a g e

47 Use Case 2: Perform Visualization of Project Level Data in BEAT 1. BEAT Characteristic Information (Use Case 2) Goal in Context: A manageable tool available for user to visualize, graph, and scope project level data Scope: The BEAT Visualization has the capability to interact with R-1/R-2 (down to project level) data Level: Primary or User-Goal Pre-Condition: Visualization tool built with VBA (In Excel) Success End Condition: User able to graph data using a number of visualization options. Minimal Guarantees: The BEAT Visualization code updated, the Access database has all current R1 and R2 data, all project level data and associations up to date Primary Actor: User of the data Supplementary Actors: BEAT Visualization Tool, Access Database Trigger Event: User requests to visualize project level data 2. BEAT Main Success Story (Use Case 2) Include Use Case 2 VII P a g e

48 3. BEAT Scenario Extensions (Use Case 2) 4. BEAT Related Information (Use Case 2) Schedule: Main Use Case; must be tested before providing to sponsor. Priority: Top, must be executed Performance Target: All project level, unclassified budget level data is available from FY 11 through FY 20 Frequency: Every time a query and filter for specific project level data is executed Super Use Case: This is the parent use case Sub Use Case: N/A Channel To Primary Actor: Reliant on project-level data stored in Access database and read by Excel VBA Secondary Actors: Access Database, BEAT Visualization Tool Perform Visualization of Project Level Data Use Case Diagram for Use Case 2 System Boundary VIII P a g e

49 Appendix E- Deliverables The team is currently scheduling a minimum of three customers+ facing meetings to review progress that is being made. The team will provide SPA with a written report and brief the results of the research and analysis obtained. The team will continue to refine and develop BEAT to fit the newly derived needs of SPA. The team will also update the BEAT user manual. Each deliverable will identify future budget trends that are nested with the Office of Secretary of Defense s offset strategy more specifically by identifying specific accomplishments of interest within applicable projects. The project team provided the following deliverables: 1) BEAT continued refinement and project level data uploaded 2) BEAT user interface improvement with ability to visualize new information 3) BEAT user manual updated 4) BEAT example using policy (3 rd offset examples) 5) Written report and briefing summarizing results of the analysis 6) Websites with all products 7) Listing of all sources 8) Visualization Tool that identifies when projects begin and end 9) Identification of future budget trends of projects that are nested with Office of Secretary of Defense s offset strategy (this deliverable is still on-going) IX P a g e

50 Appendix F- Program Management The team used Microsoft Project as the tool when developing the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and project schedule. The final WBS was broken into seven high level phases; Analysis, Design, Implementation, Verification, Final Deliverables, Management, and Research. The project schedule was broken up into the seven high level phases as shown in the WBS and then further defined into smaller tasks. This project was estimated to take a total of 75 days to completion starting from January 30, 2017 to May 12, This project took into the systems engineering lifecycle methodology as tasks ranged from problem formulation to architecture design and tool verification and validation. S&T Budget Project 1.0 Analysis 1.1 Design 1.2 Implementation 1.3 Verification 1.4 Final Deliverables 1.5 Management 1.6 Research 1.7 Define Problem Requirements Gathering Database Setup Test Data Integrity Deliver Final Report Deliverable: Preliminary Problem Definition Data Gathering Database Code Test User Interface Conduct Final Presentation Define Problem Scope Develop Tool Methodology Data Analysis QA Testing Produce Website Define Problem Overview Deliverable: Project Proposal Sponsor Meeting (IPR#2) Sponsor Meeting (IPR#3) Deliver Final Tool Product Initial Sponsor Meeting Sponsor Meeting (IPR#1) Deliverable: Progress Report Develop Use Cases Develop Engineering Diagrams Figure 23: Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) X P a g e

51 XI P a g e Figure 24: Project Schedule

52 The project budget and schedule was calculated using the Earned Value Management (EVM) method. The project length was a total of 15 weeks and each of the three-team members earned rate of $85.11 after a 2% overhead rate was added. The planned budget was calculated at a 30-hour work week. The team decided that the best approach was to follow the 50/50 method where 50% of the budget would be taken at the start of each of the seven high level phases derived from the WBS and once that phase was completed the other 50% was granted. Upon completion of the 15 weeks the teams remained under budget with a cost performance index (CPI) of The team remained on schedule meaning all tasks were completed by the May 12, 2017 deadline resulting in a schedule performance index (SPI) of Even though the CPI and SPI fluctuated throughout the 15 weeks the team managed to stay under budget and remain within schedule producing a decision support that the SPA sponsor was pleased with. Table 1: Earned Value Management (EVM) Breakdown XII P a g e