Enterprise Process Improvement and Collaboration [EPIC]

ARMY ENGINEERING = Put your hand out and shake it all about! - Read on!

Capability Maturity Model Integration ( CMMI )

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ( IEEE )

EPIC is the software engineering "process" being developed by the Army Systems Simulation, Software & Integration Directorate ( S3I ) - AMRDEC Redstone Arsenal.  EPIC has been going on for decades and is on its 6th or 7th reboot (best guess).  The norm for the Army is do it over and over again but never getting it right.  EPIC was on Version 2 (last reboot) which was totally different than EPIC 3 (current reboot).  A few (handful) programs did stated their "intentions" to follow EPIC 2.  Although at this very moment the Army would have absolutely no idea if any program is actually following any version of EPIC (or CMMI) because the Army stopped all assessment work done to determine if they were actually meeting it.  Last year when tasked by Susan Davis (Chief Software Quality/CM/Safety Division) to do gap analysis, which when I provided my write-up upset her so much she wrote me up for it.  She did not like the stated technical implications and obvious failure of her lengthy oversight of organizational processes.  I pointed out to Susan and S3I management (Jeff Langhout + Phil Howard)  that the assessments (that were being done then) showed that the majority of programs did not did not meet EPIC 2.  So they stopped the assessments.  No news is good news!  Right?

Reboot EPIC 3.  Totally different from EPIC 2.  EPIC 3 is basically an empire building scheme.   I do plan on addressing empire building in the Army as the main path for ascension in a future post.  Susan Davis, Michael Gilsdorf and Phil Howard are the creators, conspirators and primary instigators of EPIC 3.  The Empire know as EPIC 3 [reboot 8?].  Please I don't want anything stated here to impugn the individuals working under them on EPIC 3.  The process team, both the government employees (the DB3s) and contractors, are doing their absolute best to implement this derived on the fly primarily "process" by Michael.  Don't get me wrong anything that supports better engineering is a good thing and a really good thing when it comes to the Army, which I hope I am illumining just how bad that is to some extent by my posts.  EPIC 3 does not meet EPIC 3.  Doesn't meet EPIC 2 either.  Which is substantiated in the emails below since the requirements are not even documented nor traceable.  EPIC 2 did actually attempt to meet EPIC 2 and CMMI but could never actual figure out Army/Gov. requirements and have traceability.  When I pointed this out over a year ago in writing to Susan and  S3I management (Jeff Langhout + Phil Howard) that it was becoming apparent from the work I was doing.  Mapping Army Regulation cover to EPIC 2 the work was immediately stopped.  No news is good news!

EPIC is really just basic engineering and in many ways more of a format than a "process."  EPIC 3 is an admitted rip off of a Lockheed Martin (LM) process, which Michael freely stated when he was initially pimping the idea.  I asked Michael what data is there to support this "process" as beneficial.   He said there was no data.  He's statement was that it had been used at Lockheed Martin for 10 years and there was no data on impact.  So sign me up!  "They use it."  Was his single reason and only support for embracing this process and wait for it... Army management bought it!   Now S3I is going full tilt to develop a hacked mashup version of Susan's and Michael's interpretation of this LM process without requirements or traceability to requirements.  Documented by the email exchange below.  Interestingly Michael is now lamenting that management won't buy into the process (duh - Program Management controls $) and stated it should be called the "unofficial process."  But this is the norm for the Army.  Once in Susan's office I asked her about the traceability of the "checklists" she develops and subordinates use.  She put her right hand up in the air waved it about and said about the same thing as in the email below: "from IEEE to CMMI, best engineering practices, and Army Regulation."  Yet no traceability exist?  None.  This from the Chief of Software Quality/CM/Safety Division that has overseen the software "process" for decades.  Absolutely no traceability, or even requirements documented.  From no less than one of the stewards of Army software engineering violating those very references while she was claiming with a wave of her arm to meet.

I ask Susan and Michael in a 17 July 2019 email once again to be directed to or supplied the requirement and traceability documents for EPIC 3.  Susan's response (19 Jul 2019) "requirements has not changed for the attached email sent to you in April."  Referring to the email below which she sent as an attachment.  Soooo if anyone wants to know EPIC 3 requirements or traceability simply put your hand up in the air and shake it all about. 

Least we forget the gentleman in charge and overseeing this "process" Phillip Howard.  Phil Howard is the Associate Director Software Mission Assurance at S3I.  Phil has overseen software airworthiness for decades and still does.  We won't bring up firmware which the Army ignores: EPIC 3 software process!  Especially for airworthiness [See other posts].  Phil not only oversees airworthiness but Quality/CM/Safety too.  So the fact that this "process" is being developed under his oversight without ANY requirements or traceability documentation speaks volumes about his decades of technical stewardship.  In case you notice him missing from the emails below, there was no need to email Phil.  He has not responded to a single email I have sent him in over 4 years.  Besides Susan and Michael should know where the documents are.  Right? 

You put your hand out and shake it all about!   Standard Army engineering.

I will not go into CMMI since that's DOA as documented above.  Airworthiness [DO-178] don't get me started [blog] is not addressed but EPIC 2 did not address it either other than to refer the program to seek "advise."  Heck no not firmware [neither process] don't even think about that.

They are considering a name change... like that will help anything.

ME being yours truly, the author.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ME  CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA) 
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 11:55 AM
To: Davis, Susan L CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA); Gilsdorf, Michael V CIV USARMY CCDC AVMC (USA)
Subject: RE: EPIC 3.0 (UNCLASSIFIED)

Susan,
Sooooo you will have complete traceability from these "IEEE to CMMI, best engineering practices, and Army Regulation."  Of course you won't.  Your standard smoke and mirror answer.  I have pointed that out to you before in emails multiple times you don't have traceability for your processes (e.g. your checklists I wrote you about, EPIC 2 Army Regulation traceability also) that you have overseen for decades. Including EPIC 3 (what the 7th reboot?)  that you and Michael are currently overseeing.  
ME.

-----Original Message-----
From: ME CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA) 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 2:39 PM
To: Davis, Susan L CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA); Gilsdorf, Michael V CIV USARMY CCDC AVMC (USA)  
Subject: RE: EPIC 3.0 (UNCLASSIFIED)

Susan,
Soooo you don't have it and you are doing EPIC 3.0 right now this moment without the documentation you would expect from a program and specifying in EPIC.  So EPIC doesn't meet EPIC. 
Normal process for here.
Thanks
ME.

-----Original Message-----
From: Davis, Susan L CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA) 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 2:21 PM
To: ME CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA); Gilsdorf, Michael V CIV USARMY CCDC AVMC (USA)
Subject: RE: EPIC 3.0 (UNCLASSIFIED)

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

ME,

The update of EPIC is planned to address many areas from IEEE to CMMI, best engineering practices, and Army Regulation.  All of these to the extent possible for what this organization does  for its customers and the Army.  The requirement to have a process came from our front office.

Susan 

-----Original Message-----
From: ME CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA) 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 2:28 PM
To: Davis, Susan L CIV USARMY FUTURES COMMAND (USA); Gilsdorf, Michael V CIV USARMY CCDC AVMC (USA)
Subject: EPIC 3.0

I do have a question where will I find the requirements documents for EPIC 3.0?
Thanks 
ME

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED