Develop Program Structure

The structure of the program should depend on the desired outcome. For instance, when a Project’s intent is to investigate a scientific principle as a technology demonstration of its applicability for addressing a specific need (or capability gap), then the Program outcome is no more than a relevant environment prototype demonstration at TRL5 and the Program deliverables are curtailed accordingly. If, on the other hand, the outcome is to develop (or adapt) a technology for the purpose of transition into a Program of Record then the Program structure should be more rigorous and the end state is more mature (TRL6) and the Program Deliverables more complete to include detailed design, manufacturing and production plans, specifications, and cost models.

The Decision Point metrics represent one of the best tools with which to gather the appropriate data and support the case for building the appropriate Program Structure.

Below is a metrics table with an example user's self-evaluation data entered into the "Rating" column:

Decision Point Raw Metric Score = 18

Armed with the data resulting from metrics collection, PM’s are in a better position to argue for a given Program structure:

• The Technology Advancement Degree of Difficulty (TAD2) measures the complexity and assigns risk based on difficulty.
• The Risk measure tells the decision maker whether there is a preponderance of risk that remains unmitigated or conversely, whether the identified Risks have been properly anticipated and that there is a plan in place to manage them.
• The time identified remaining to the "Next TRL" provides another factor that adds weight to an investment decision when "time-to-market" is the of higher critical need.
• Similarly, when the TRL Roadmap metric is developed and scored, then the decision maker can be confident that the plan and path to transition for development has been considered and the termination or duration for the Project lifecycle is known.
• Adding to the roadmap to transition, the metric that tracks the initiation and specific level of the Technology Transition Agreement (TTA) signifies the level of commitment that crosses the valley of death when the project that was being "pushed" changes status to being "pulled" by a Program Office or other certified acquisition authority.
• Cataloging the Phase Cost (which is the remaining cost attributed to the current phase of technology development) is particularly relevant when the key decision point is cost relative to projected performance.
• A significant factor in support of pursuing a Technology Project is the Measure of Effectiveness (MoE) metric. The way MoE is interpreted depends greatly on whether the capability being developed is for current thresholds or future needs. So MoE is either a measure of how effective the technology is expected to operate at (“meets or exceeds”) when compared to the performance of the current solution or, when compared to performance needs expressed by a capability gap. In many cases, the technology promises a greater than 100% improvement over the existing solution but only a partial percentage of the performance needed to fully address a documented capability gap.
• Correlating closely with MoE, the Requirements Trace metric identifies the level of formality existing in the traceability back to a documented user-based capability need. Having your technology directly traced to meeting or addressing such a need, greatly enhances the project's desirability