Javelin Missile Computer Resources Life Cycle Management Plan (CRLCMP).

Susan Davis asked me to review MIS-42597W 29 April 2016 Mission Critical Computer Resource (MCCR) CSCI of the Javelin Antitank Weapon System.  I provided written comments on just how bad the document was (earlier post).  Susan was funded by the program to provide the Javelin Missile program with a Computer Resources Life Cycle Management Plan (CRLCMP).  A program document needed to check the box per Army requirements.   So Susan oversaw the development of the CRLCMP.  I was provided the CRLCMP to review.  The document was being generated by coping the technical documents that the program office had provided.   One of the documents that was being copied for technical content was the MIS-42597W 29 April 2016 Mission Critical Computer Resource (MCCR) CSCI of the Javelin Antitank Weapon System.  In a meeting with Susan and all the members of her branch I stated that the CRLCMP should be disapproved since they were just coping crap and therefore the CRLCMP was basely crap too.   She asked me to map my comments onto the CRLCMP.  Which I had previously provided to her and she herself validated indicating in a meet with others just how bad it was since it had absolutely no requirement traceability.  I provided a mapping to her (provide below) with comments.  As I previously stated the Army has no problem with taking horrifically inadequate technical documentation and just coping it into another required technical document to enable the program to proceed, as illustrated by the comments below.  The Army Software Engineering Division (SED) coping total crap to create a new document of crap (CRLCMP) and sanctioning it to check the block and allowing the program to proceed.  Goes on all the time in the Government.  It's the way it works.  Of course nothing was changed in the CRLCMP despite my recommendations and documented comments of the inadequacy of the data being used to generate it although supplied directly to the individual tasked to oversee Army software, Susan Davis.  Business as usual for the Army.

To:  Susan Davis

Subject: Mapping of comments supplied to Computer Resources Life Cycle Management Plan (CRLCMP)

First off the documentation for the Javelin is absolutely inadequate technically in all aspects (see comments attached) so why would it be right or appropriate to copy horrible totally inadequate documentation into another document just to check a block but this is essentially what is being done to facilitate the release.  There is not integrity in perpetuating totally inadequate documentation just to charge another program for work.  Disapproved.

1.     The software and hardware in the tools table are undefined.  Versions are not provided. An example of the deficiently is: Table 2 2: SW Tools and HW Items for Missile development of the CRLCMP. Another example 2.1.2.5 Supportability Elements Computer Resources.  As environments are not defined.

2.      The document is full of TBDs.

3.      Referenced Documents does not provide document numbers or versions or dates for many of the documents.

4.      Language(s) used is undefined.  Ada is referenced in the Gov. document section MIL-STD-1815A but is never specified in the document.  As stated none of the Gov. docs. are invoked.  Unit testing refers to possibly Ada, C and Assembly whatever at the time.  So precise.  As pointed out in part 3 WI is pointed to as defining process.  Once again indicating Ada, C and Assembly and documented by a single line entry.   For e.g. Table 2 5: Missile and CLU Software Development activities and methods

5.      In the CLU Life Cycle Support Environment the hardware required are not defined.

6.      Software Version Description (SVD) was not provide and the versions were not provided for any of software blindly copied into the CRLCMP.

7.     Configuration Management Plan is not specified.  How is it adequate to reference a title?

8.     Quality Assurance Program Plan is not referenced by the other documents and actually quality is woefully specified in the documents.

9.      There is a bunch of high level documentation overview supplied but none of the actually products part numbers specified.  Software or hardware. E.g.:  Table 2 1: Javelin Mission Critical Computer Resources

10.   A whole lot of folks referenced with not contact information.  Missing essential technical information but listing a whole lot of folks with no contact information that will not be there tomorrow. 

11.   Javelin Spiral 2 SDP DF Comments - Simulations required – verification – 3.2.2 – Perform Guidance Capability – Section g. but not addressed In the CRLCCMP.

12.   Coping questionable nonspecific technical data to certify adherence to DA PAM 700-28 criteria.

13.   Appendix A – provides the Referenced Documents but clearly as my comments indicate Referenced Documents are for the most part not instantiated in the body of the document itself is meaningless: e.g. Javelin Spiral 2 SDP DF Comments: 2.1 Government Documents – MIL-STD-1521B and MIL-STD-498 and DI-IPSC-31427A called out but never used in the document.   None of the Government Documents referenced are used in the document. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Referenced technical comments provided for some reason has to be mapped to the CRLCMP and not self-evident to follow engineers.

Copied directly from Javelin Spiral 2 SDP DF Comments.  Which contains numerous  comments that document how bad the Javelin documentation is being totally technically inadequate but appears adequate enough for the Army as proved by the Army’s actions.  The Javelin Spiral 2 MCCR DF Comments has equal if not worse comments on the Javelin documentation.  The Mission Critical Computer Resource (MCCR) which shows that the Javelin has almost no requirements traceability.