SECTION 5

LESSONS LEARNED

Lessons learned are based on observations, recommendations, solutions to situations encountered during the strap process. For Army IEW the lessons learned are as follow:

  1. Availability and participation of SMEs from all of the IEW disciplines is crucial. This allows the modeler to effectively capture the user view of functions, information, and data. SMEs from the entire IEW continuum are necessary.

  2. Participation of SMEs for the entire modeling effort minimizes time spent familiarizing new members to the working group. The continual availability of the same personnel made the working group more productive. An established core of experienced personnel with a vested interest in the project lent motivation to the effort and a desire to see it continue.

  3. Command emphasis is an important facet not to be ignored. During modeling sessions, when senior management supported the project vigorously, participation and exposure were ensured. A project of this scope and importance must have the support (willing or unwilling) of the entire chain of command.

  4. The long development period (2 years) validates the fact that the process and data models are companions. One serves to verify and validate the other. The age of the process model forced it to become and "AS-IS" representation. During the data modeling sessions, new tactics, doctrines, and emerging technologies surfaced requiring a future re-look of the process model. The two go hand-in-hand and maintenance is an interactive process that must occur for the full value of both models to be realized.

  5. The modeling group must include combat and materiel developers. The interactions and dialogue alone are invaluable. However, both bring expertise and an insight to problems that are often overlooked by the soldiers in the field. Both parties recognize the value of the strap and facilitate the establishment of a degree of support and acceptance for the project beyond the management level.

  6. The combination of process data models has demonstrated itself as an ideal vehicle for the communication of user requirements for future systems or planned improvements to existing systems. These models effectively capture user required functionality and data requirements that support those functions. These models are the perfect common ground, easily understood by both.

  7. The model author is not the definitive source for information. The modeler is merely the facilitator of the process. The modeler must guide the working group members in the methodology of the models. The modeler is also not the final decision authority for inclusions of items in the models. The models must be thought of as "our" model by the group. This lands some pride of authorship to members of the group. This pride, increases the quality of the final product.

  8. Continuing communication and exchange of information by members of the group is critical to success. Members return to their respective areas of duty and tap the experience and expertise of their coworkers become indispensable. This also expands the sample of the community providing input to the process.

  9. Regularly scheduled meetings of the group are critical to success. Agreement on the basic agenda and the dates for the next meeting allow members to fully prepare and be productive participants at subsequent meeting.

  10. Providing members with an updated version of documentation prior to arrival at the IPR streamlines the process. Members have had the opportunity to review areas that have been targeted for discussion. They are prepared to provide considered input and have justifiable reasons for its inclusion.

  11. The participation of outside agencies and other functional areas provides a well rounded group. Experiences are shared and potential solutions are offered by outside participants.

  12. Exchange of models and other documentation by working groups conducting similar efforts is invaluable. Just as participation in the working groups by cross-functional personnel benefits the effort, so does the import of the efforts of similar groups.

  13. The importance of this effort to the overall DOD effort must be effectively communicated. Cognizance of it’s importance by staff members at higher headquarters does not make up for those at the local not being informed. Without this information, local managers may not be inclined to lend their support.

  14. A configuration control board or some other mechanism must be created to manage the contents of the model. Continuation and maintenance of the model must be supervised and managed to ensure
Return to Previous Page Previous Section | Next SectionReturn to Previous Page