Is the CSB replacing the CCB process and if so can some documentation showing the policy to implement this change be provided?
"Configuration Steering Boards (CSB) and Configuration Control Boards (CCB) or Configuration Change Boards (CCB) all manages change but at different levels of our organization.
Open full Question Details
CSB have not replaced CCB. It depends on what level of change control you are dealing with. CSBs are used for Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) and Major Automated Information System (MAIS) programs (Acquisition Category (ACAT) I programs). They are meant to be executive level forums established at the service/agency level that work with the ACAT I program, MDA, and Combat Developer (warfighter representative) to manage significant requirements changes.
The new DoDI 5000.02 says that the CSB will be used for ACAT I (MDAP) and IA (MAIS) programs. The CSB helps the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) manage and control all requirement and technical changes with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) for these high visibility programs. All programs (all ACAT Levels) have to deal with a Combat Developer (warfighter) who built their Capability Development Document (CDD). At the ACAT I level, this group is called the CSB. At the ACAT II and below level, the Program Manger (PM) typically deals directly with their Service Combat Developer to manage changes to their CDD; there is no formal CSB at the lower ACAT levels.
CCBs are internal to the program; they are the Program Manager’s internal board to manage change at all levels of ACAT. CCBs execute the "control" function of configuration management (vetting and approval of Engineering Change Proposals (ECP), Requests for Variance/Deviation, etc.). All programs should have CCBs or some equivalent mechanism. CCBs are normally chaired by the PM.
NOTE: A Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) is a CCB approved methodology for standardized secure installation and maintenance of a software and hardware. A STIG is one example of an approved ECP that could change the software design or installation process.
NOTE: In addition to being changes to the requirements and to the configuration of the system, ECP's are also constructive changes to the contract. Therefor they involve not only the PM, engineering and configuration management, but also the Contracting Officer. ECP's often involve changing requirement in the vender’s favor. When this happens the change is not complete until the government gets some consideration (e.g., money savings to make schedule or decreased performance thresholds) for the change that we are giving the vender.
Mil-Hdbk-61A defines CCB as:
"A board composed of technical and administrative representatives who recommend approval or disapproval of proposed engineering changes to, and proposed deviations from, a CI’s current approved configuration documentation."
A configuration item (CI) is defined as anything that can change:
"A Configuration Item is any hardware, software, or combination of both that satisfies an end use function and is designated for separate configuration management. Configuration items are typically referred to by an alphanumeric identifier which also serves as the unchanging base for the assignment of serial numbers to uniquely identify individual units of the CI."
For example, if a Program’s CCB approves a recommended change (ECP) that requires a de-scoping in requirements, the PM must then reach outside of the Acquisition command to get approval for the requirements change. The warfighter owns the requirements and we have to get their approval to make a change via the Service’s Combat Developer. This process at the ACAT I level involves the CSB, or, in ACAT II and below, the PM goes directly to the Service’s Combat Developer. The end result is an update to the program’s CDD. This happens all of the time in that there are things that are just too costly to build or defy the “laws of physics” (just can’t be built) and if the Program Manager cannot meet the Threshold Requirements of the CDD, they must seek approval to have the threshold requirement in their CDD changed (via the CSB or Service Combat Developer).
New DoDI 5000.02 says:
"5.d.(5)(b). For ACAT I and ACAT IA programs, and following CDD Validation, the Acquisition Executive of each DoD Component will form and chair a CSB with broad executive membership including senior representatives from the Office of the USD(AT&L) (including the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition), the Joint Staff (DJ8), and the DoD CIO; empowered representatives from the Service Chief of Staff and comptroller offices of the Military Department concerned; representatives from other Military Departments where appropriate; the Military Deputy to the CAE; the PEO; and other senior representatives from OSD and the DoD Component, as appropriate, in accordance with section 814 of Public Law (P.L.) 110-417 (Reference (g)). DoD Components should also form appropriate level and composition CSBs for lower ACAT programs.
5.d.(5)(b)1. The CSB will meet at least annually, and more frequently as capability requirements or content trades are needed, to review all requirements changes and any significant technical configuration changes for ACAT I and IA programs in development, production, and sustainment that have the potential to result in cost and schedule impacts to the program. The CSB will review potential capability requirements changes and propose to the requirements validation authority those changes that may be necessary to achieve affordability constraints on production and sustainment costs or that will result in a more cost-effective product. Changes that increase cost will not be approved unless funds are identified and schedule impacts are addressed. Program requirements will fall under the cognizance of the CSB upon receipt of a validated CDD or other validated requirements document, and before the Development RFP Release Decision Point. CSBs may also be formed earlier in the program at the discretion of the CAE.
5.d.(5)(b)2. The Program Manager, in consultation with the PEO, will, on at least an annual basis, identify and propose to the CSB a set of descoping options that reduce program cost and/or moderate requirements. These options will be presented to the CSB with supporting rationale addressing operational implications. The chair of the CSB will recommend to the requirements validation authority and the DAE (if an ACAT ID or MAIS program and KPPs are affected) which of these options should be implemented. Final decisions on de-scoping option implementation will be coordinated with the capability requirements officials.””