Presentation - SEDC Conference 2014

Report
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING APPLIED TO
CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING
SEDC 2014, SoS-8
Richard Chipman
Technical Lead, Surveillance & Reconnaissance Group
Leidos, Inc., Reston, Virginia
Outline




Background
Objective
The Corporation as a SoS
Application of SE to Restructuring
−
−
−
−
−
−


2
Requirements and Concept Development
Analysis and Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Development / Implementation
Integration and Verification
Validation
Go-Live/Transition
Conclusions and Lessons Learned
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Background

2012: Science Application International Corporation (SAIC)
−
−
−
−

Science, engineering, and technology applications company
$11 billion of annual revenue
38,000 employees
Customers in national security, energy and the environment, critical
infrastructure, and health
Problem
− Potential conflicts of interest between various SAIC business segments,
limited business opportunities that could be pursued >> Limit on growth

Corporate Business Decision
− Split the company into two independent corporations
• Solutions-focused business
• Services-focused business
3
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Project Gemini


BlueCo
Solutions focus

WhiteCo
Services focus

Leidos

SAIC

4
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Challenge

Restructuring of this magnitude historically took > 18 months

Prolonged process >> turmoil and uncertainty >> impacts to stock
price and customer confidence

Inadequate planning & faulty execution >> business decline after the
restructuring

Solution enacted by COO >> Application of SE
− Core competency of legacy company >> practice what you preach

Objective
− Split legacy company into two separate publically-traded corporations
− Plan and execute the split within a single year
− Assure both corporations are fully functional on “Day One”
5
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Composition of a Modern Corporation
Operational Components
 Aka, Line Organizations
 Produce products &
service sold to customer
Corporation
Operational
Components
• Develop
• Produce
• Deliver
• Products & Services
6
Functional
Components
• Provide & care for resources
• Address financial & legal needs
• Manage corporate health
• Provide vision & strategy
Functional Components
 Aka, Functions
 HR, Finance, Legal, etc.
 Administer the overall
corporation
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The Corporation as a System of Systems


7
Large corporations have
multiple loosely coupled
Line segments and many
largely autonomous
Segment
D
Functions
Each is a system of its
own, operating within the
parent corporation
Finance
Contracts
Corp
HQ
IT
Segment
A
Segment
C
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
HR
Segment
B
Each Organization as a System
Controls
• External Constraints (e.g. laws)
• Controls from other functions
• Policies
Inputs
Interfaces to:
Function
• Structure
• Processes
• External systems
• Internal systems
Interfaces to:
• External systems
• Internal systems
Mechanisms
• Personnel & roles
• IT systems
• Equipment
8
Outputs
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Application of SE to Restructuring
9
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
One-Year Goal Time Line
10
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Requirements and Concept Development

Senior corporate management developed a succinct set of top level
requirements based on business objectives

Project Gemini team and senior leadership developed CONOPS
document describing how each company would operate after split

Gemini sub-teams analyzed and decomposed the top-level
requirements to derive detailed requirements, an organizational
architecture, and a mapping of each requirement into that
architecture using SE-defined template

Total number ~ 5,000 requirements for the two companies

SE team captured those requirements in DOORS®
11
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sample of HR Requirements Mapped to
Organization Level in SE Template
Corp Org Levels
Function
Reqt #
Human Resources 1
Human Resources 1.1
Human Resources 1.1.1
Human Resources 1.1.2
Human Resources 1.1.3
Human Resources 1.1.3.1
Human Resources 1.1.3.2
Human Resources 1.1.3.3
Human Resources 1.1.4
Human Resources 1.1.5
12
Statement of Requirement
HR Sub-Function
The company shall have a human resources function
providing services for the hiring, retention, compensation
and administration of all personnel.
All
Talent management and OD sub-function shall 6.1 Develop
and manage human resources (HR) planning, policies, and
strategies (10409)
Talent Management and OD
Talent management and OD sub-function shall 6.1.2.4
Develop succession plan (10426)
Talent Management and OD
Talent management and OD sub-function shall manage
Communications
Talent Management and OD
Shared Service Center sub-function shall manage
Orientation attendance (NEO)
Shared Service Center
Shared Service Center sub-function shall manage
Orientation and Support
Shared Service Center
Shared Service Center sub-function shall manage
Orienation - New Hire Paperwork
Shared Service Center
Shared Service Center sub-function shall manage New
Hire Database Sharepoint® Access
Shared Service Center
Talent management and OD sub-function shall manage
M&A Activities
Talent Management and OD
Talent management and OD sub-function shall manage
Compliance Related activities
Talent Management and OD
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
L1
L2
MT
MT
MT
U
U
U
U
C
MT
L3
L4
Sample of Requirements Captured in DOORS®
13
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Preliminary Design of Both Companies and
Their Components



Organizational structure to align with market needs
Key corporate processes and policies
For each Function and Line org
− Internal org, policies and processes
− Interfaces to other internal & external orgs
− External and internal constraints
− Staff size, roles, responsibilities, authority
− Key IT systems and equipment


Used SE templates to guide & document
SE developed RTM & used DOORS® to analyze traceability
− Verified all requirements were allocated
− Verified each org component had been allocated at least one requirement
14
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

Covered BlueCo and WhiteCo designs

PDR Contents
− Organizational structure & CONOPS
− Changes to processes and policies
− Roles, responsibilities and authority
− Major changes to each Function with benefits, cost impacts, potential
negatives, and risks
− Cost savings projections
− Risks
− Initial implementation schedule
15
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Detailed Design

Detailed organization structures and with full headcount by level

Job descriptions for top positions (line and function)

Indirect costs for each function to meet affordability envelopes

Key changes required for policies

Process maps for processes changing due to the reorganization
− Used model format most familiar to each organization

Descriptions of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between
Functions and both companies

Detailed Integrated Mater Schedule (IMS) up through separation

Completion gate: Critical Design Review (CDR)
16
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Example of Process Map (Swim Lane Model)
17
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Example of Process Map (IDEF0 Model)
18
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Organization Design Captured in DOORS®

19
Captured each design artifact in DOORS
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Process Design Captured in DOORS®
20
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Traceability Report: Requirements to Design

21
SE analyzed traceability of each requirement to the design
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Development / Implementation

Personnel
− Reassignment, retraining, staff reductions and some additional hires

Operational policies
− Develop and promulgate modified /new corporate & functional policies

Operational processes
− Create, test, refine, document, train, communicate

Legacy information
− Determine BlueCo/WhiteCo custody and access rights

Transactional tasks
− Multi-functional tasks related to legal aspects of separation
− Example: SEC Form 10 required input from all functions and senior mgmt

IT Systems
− Clone and configure applications and data
22
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Separation Agreements
Interface Control Documents between BlueCo & WhiteCo


Agreement on allocation of customer contracts to each company
Transition Service Agreement (TSA)
− Service that functions in one company supplies to the other company

Distribution Agreement
− Division of real estate, facilities, equipment, IP

Tax Matters Agreement,
− Responsibilities and liabilities of each company

Employee Matters Agreement,
− Employee equity, incentive and compensation plans, benefits, etc.

IP Licensing Agreement,
− Licenses granted to one company for IP retained by the other

Preservation of Records
− Legacy information
23
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
IT Systems: Major Challenge



Identify systems, data sets, and computer HW needed by each
company
Modify & test interfaces with external IT systems
Duplicate/divide/mask data for PPI and business concerns
− Systems that use data relating to employees, contracts & organizations
need correct subsets of existing data applicable to the specific company.
− Example: Computation of revenue from existing contracts


24
Restricting employee access to the systems and data of the other
company
Mechanics and phasing of the cutover from a single set of IT systems
to two differentiated sets
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
332 IT Systems Provided by Internal and
External Sources

Every Function, including the
Line, had multiple businesscritical IT systems

Provided / hosted by Corp
ITS, external vendors and
internal Line organizations

Majority had interfaces to
other systems

All had business sensitive
data
25
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Complexity of Migrating IT Systems
Install cloned applications and
databases
 Reconnect each application with
its own databases
 Reconnect each application to
other databases
 Re-establish interfaces between
applications
 Convert data to BlueCo or
WhiteCo only
 Modify applications for BlueCo or
WhiteCo business logic

26
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Integration and Verification

Applies to both IT and non-IT organizational systems

Non-IT example:
− Process for obtaining, recoding and updating contract-related information
pertaining to a contract involved multiple Functions & Line components
− Impacted by changes to components’ structures and processes
− Altered processes had to be integrated & verified across organizations

I&V of changes to IT systems required Functions’ participation
− Some dependencies between systems arose from the content and
semantics of data passed between the systems – unknown to ITS
− SE team helped uncover such instances, and plan the necessary I&V
27
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
I&V Activities

Developed integration plans and procedures for human processes,
as well as IT systems

Developed test plans for verifying the integrated systems

Performed system tests addressing dependencies and integration
issues

Performed preliminary and final end-to-end tests of the integrated
systems
28
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Challenges of Validation

Multiple aspects needed validation
− Systems function as intended
− Systems must use data & processes appropriate to each new company

Must run legacy systems up to cut-over
− Could not validate most systems completely until cutover was in process
− Could not complete validate for some systems until after cutover

External systems interfacing with ours
− Driven by their own business constraints
− Impossible for us to dictate schedule & details of their validation activities
29
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Pre-Cutover Validation Activities

Planning
− Test scenarios for each of the Function’s processes and integrated
scenarios for processes that interacted with one another
− Pass/fail criteria based on their business considerations
− Order and sequence of integration, data refreshes, and validation testing
for each process or set of integrated processes
− Cutover plans defining validation testing and Go-Live decision point

Testing
− Human simulations of changed processes not involving IT systems
− IT test using cloned systems in “sandboxes“ including vendor-hosted
systems, where possible
− End-to-end tests of sets of systems integrated in the sandboxes
− TCR of both ITS’ and Functions’ results
− Remediation plan for each issue encountered
30
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tracking Pre-Cutover Activities
31
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Transition and Go-Live

Many changes transitioned before cutover, such as
− Organization of Line components >> 8 months before
− Personnel & organization of Functions >> 6 months before
− Many non-IT Functional processes >> 5 months before (Soft Split)

Other pre-cutover activities:
− Dress rehearsal
− Readiness Review
− Sequenced communications with entire workforce of each company

IT ”go-live” did not occur on a single day to allow for
− System interdependencies
− Data refreshes
− Final system validation
32
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Success


33
Official split and corporate go-live within 13 months (one more than
goal; but five less than normal)
Final validation of non-critical IT systems in weeks following
corporate go-live
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Conclusions and Lessons Learned
Critical success factors

Commitment of senior leadership and strong Project Gemini program management

Willingness of Functions to learn and apply SE

SE Team working daily alongside the Functions and Line Org implementation teams

Incremental application of SE process matched to project phases

Constant communication within Gemini team

Thoroughness of requirements analysis

Ability of SE to anticipate & identify integration points between systems, be they
human or IT

Multiple levels and iterations of testing

Extensive cutover planning, scripting, and rehearsal
34
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Other Lessons Learned

Learn each other’s technical language

Ask the same question multiple times, to multiple people, in multiple ways

Corporate Functions do not plan and schedule to the level of detail common in SE
− Important to work with them to get the granularity appropriate to the project

Deadline elasticity during Functions’ normal operational times can cloud forecasts
− Routine process changes normally can take much longer than predicted without
noticeable impact on a Function’s ability to perform work

Develop trust among the team

Great challenges provide motivation and enthusiasm necessary to work through
issues as a team to produce a joint win
35
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Acknowledgements


Systems Engineering was used on Project Gemini because of the
vision of Stu Shea, the Leidos COO
SE was successful because of
− Leadership of Charles Kanewske, (Leidos, Senior Vice President and
Director for Enterprise Risk Assessment & Execution), Douglas Wagoner
(SAIC, Services & Solutions Sector President)
− Efforts of the System Engineering Team headed by Chief Engineer
Stephen Fine.

Other members of the System Engineering Team
− The author, Patrick Kennedy, Eric Bott, Jesse Aronson, and Steven Baur
©2013 LEIDOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

similar documents