Cost VS Credibility: How Much V&V Is Enough?
Abstract
This paper addresses the perennial issue, 'How much V&V is enough for an accreditation'? or, perhaps more to the point, 'How much do you have to spend to convince someone that your model is any good'?. The answer is discussed in terms of our experience in providing accreditation support for weapons system programs within the Department of Defense (DoD). We begin by describing an integrated V&V process developed by the SMART Project, both in overview and in detailed Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) form. We then describe how V&V tasking over the life of the project was tracked and related to WBS elements, and how average costs of each V&V task and product were developed. A table showing levels of effort (LOEs) and fully loaded costs for each phase of V&V is also presented. The V&V process is then embedded within the context of a five-step accreditation support mechanism, whose focus is on the development of application specific M&S acceptance criteria prior to setting V&V requirements. By relating V&V requirements to objective acceptance criteria, and by structuring the accreditation plan around these requirements, precious V&V resources are not wasted chasing unneeded V&V products. The paper concludes by demonstrating that the cost of establishing M&S credibility is governed by two factors: (1) development of unambiguous M&S acceptance criteria prior to V&V, and (2) the availability of prior V&V results. Absent either of these two factors the cost of accreditation must rise substantially, either due to overscoping of the V&V effort, or to lack of synergism between current and prior accreditation efforts, or both.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Aug 01, 2001
- Accession Number
- ADA405130
Entities
People
- Paul R. Muessig
Organizations
- Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division