Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Summary of Findings At this interim stage in our study, the Committee has several principal findings to report. Finding #] - Air Force Progress on Base-Leve] Automation. Within the limits of its current resources, strategy, and approach the Air Force is doing a good job of base-level automation, but much more remains to be done. a. The concept of a standard base-level automated support system is sound. The Committee agrees with the original decisions made by the Air Force over 20 years ago: o To establish the air base as the point of focus for the build- ing of automated support systems; 0 To maintain a set of standard configurations for ADP hardware and software at a] ~ bases. b. The Phase IV capital replacement program is going well, but additional, well-directed efforts are needed to bring it to an orderly conclusion. O Obsolete hardware has been reps aced and pre-Phase IV functions have been fully transferred to new hardware without degrada- tion or loss of service. O Some "fixes" are needed, and many desirable, short-term improvements have been identified. There exists no specific, documented plan, schedule, or funding to address the Phase IV fixes and improvements. c. The Air Force has taken important initial steps to evolve toward a more powerful post-Phase IV base-level system, but significant tasks remain. Examples of the steps taken are: 5
Imaginative use of requirements contracts by Air Force facilitates timely acquisition of smaller systems. Significant steps are being taken to provide broader and more efficient functional capabilities with the present Phase IV hardware. o The Advanced Concepts Base Program* allows for testing new base-level applications in a meaningful way. However, The Air Force needs an explicit policy statement to provide direction for future base-level automation efforts. O A first cut has been made at defining a framework or system architecture for future base-level information systems, but difficult technical issues** have yet to be addressed. O The capacity of the system is now being strained, and there is no plan to show how the future requirements wild be met over the next decade. O There are a number of technical arguments to support standard- ization and configuration control but the fundamental point is a military one: As time goes on, both wing and base functions become more and more dependent on automation support, to the point that the wing/base cannot operate without base-level ADP. Unless the tease-1 eye] automation system configuration*** is standardized, with strict controls over the number of different hardware and software options that can be em- ployed, the future development and maintenance of hard- ware and software will become a nightmare and hardware backup prohibitively expensive. Finding f2 - A Window of Opportunity. The Air Force has a window of opportunity to rethink and reorganize several of the base-level functions for the 1990-1995 time period, and to specify information systems to support these functions. * The Advanced Concepts Base Program is discussed on p. 22 ** Examples of technical issues are mentioned in the discussion on page 16. *** As used in this report, "automation system configuration" includes various computer hardware and system software (including, but not limited to, Phase IV), and the communications arrangements among them. 6
o In particular, there are opportunities for a significant reorganization of supply, maintenance, and transportation into an integrated ("seamless") base-level logistics process suppported by an integrated base-level logistics information system. o Similar though presently less well defined opportunities exist, on a Major Command by Major Command (MACCOM) basis, for merging the wing and squadron level operations/combat support system with some of the base-level functional systems, as the basis for a significantly enhanced wing-level mission support system. Finding #3 - Dependence of Wing/Base-Leve] Units on Automation Support. . Air Force wing/base-level units are critically dependent on ADP sup- port to fight effectively, but the necessary actions have not yet been taken to ensure these system capabilities are available for combat deploy- ment and operations. O The Air Force is now critically dependent on ADP to support its normal peacetime mission. With new systems such as CAMS, the future Air Force will be even more dependent on ADP. Since wartime operations obviously wild stress support systems to their limits, the ADP systems available for use in wartime must be the same as those used to support normal operations, and they must be available when needed. O However, the Air Force has not taken the necessary steps to insure that deployed forces will have ADP support from the operational peacetime systems. Planning for such requirements has either been lacking or handled in a piecemeal manner. Finding #4 - Development/Maintenance of Base-Leve] Information Systems. The Air Force can realize significant technological improvements (and probably save money and manpower in the long run), if it changes the way it develops and maintains base-level information systems. O The Committee observed little use (or planning for the use) of modern software productivity fools, commercially available applications packages, or prime contractors in a base-level software development rode. O This failure to use modern, available tools and capabilities appears to stem from internal Air Force policies and tradi- tions, a major hardware replacement without modernization of application software, and the fragmentation of responsibility for the base-level automation environment.
B. Summary of Recommendations The Committee has four major recommendations to make to the Air Force in this interim report. tRefer to Figure 2 on page ll for the correspondence between the findings and recommendations.] Recommendation #] - Phase IV Post-Implementation Enchancement Plan. Prepare a Phase IV post-implementation enhancement plan. O The Air Force should determine the short term resource requirements, decide which improvements can be afforded and should be done, and then commit to a resource plan and schedule. O Appendix C provides an outline of the suggested contents and organization of such a plan. The Committee strongly recommends the Air Force prepare such a written plan within 90 days. Recommendation #2 - Standard Base-Level Automation Configuration. Specify a standard Air Force base-level automation configuration, using the following suggestions as guidelines: o Specify the minimum set of hardware, system software, local area networks (LAN), and off-base interfaces that will be present at Air Force bases, so that systems designers wild know that at least the minimum facility wild be present and can design accordingly. Issue a Policy statement on base-level automation to clarify Air Force intentions. Consider the possible need for an increase in present system capacity. Develop a list of approved hardware and system software, and prohibit any other equipment from being installed at standard operating bases. Consideration must be given to deployment planning. Establish and maintain a testbed (perhaps at an Advanced Concepts Base, to evaluate new technology and architectures. Specify the standard configuration by 1988, and start implementing it in 1990. _S _
Recommendation #3 - Base-Level Logistics and Operations/Combat Support Functions. Reexamine the base-level logistics and operations/combat support functions; then produce new functional specifications for automation systems support. O Base-Leve] Logistics. Initiate a program to design and produce an integrated base-level logistics system and supporting information system for the 199Os. The recommended target dates are 1988 for completion of the specification and 1990 for the start of the imp~e- mentation phase. O Base-Leve] Operations/Combat Support. _ . . Begin work on defining the information needs of the Wing and Squadron Commanders, battle and operations leaders, and of the base-level operations functions on a systematic basis within each MAdCOM. The recommended target dates are 1987 to complete the MACCOM specifications and 1995 to attain a reasonable state of completion. O Wing/squadron/base logistics and operations/combat support systems should be designed, equipped, and operated in a mode to be effective in both peace and conflict. Recommendation f4 - System Program Office/Prime Systems Contractor Concept. Establish an Air Force System Program Office (SPO) for base-level information systems and, for major new base-level information systems, shift to a prime systems contractor concept. O The SPO should be modeled after those established by the Air Force Systems Command (AFSC), although the Committee is not suggesting that the SPO be assigned to AFSC. The SPO should be established for an indefinite duration, and it should be given the authority to manage, direct, and control all aspects of the base-level automation program. Program guidance can be maintained with appropriate Program Management Directive (P~D) modifications. _9 _
- - Performance review of the SPO can be maintained through appropriate Air Force acquisition review council reviews at appropriate milestones. O In all future base-level software application developments a required step should be a determination of the feasibility for use of a prime contractor. This concept would be particularly useful in the development of automation systems to support the integrated logistics system and operations/combat support systems. O Survey commercially available software development and main- tenance tools and acquire those determined to be most suitable . O Survey commercially available off-the-shelf software packages for possible use in partial or complete fulfillment of base- leve] functions. C. Correspondence of Findings and Recommendations Although there are four major findings and four major recommendations, they do not map on a one-to-one basis. Figure 2 shows the correspondence between the findings and recommendations. ~ O
FIGURE 2. CORRESPONDENCE OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS 1. ...the Air Force is doing a good job of base-level automation, but much more remains to be done. ib. The Phase IV capita] replacement program is going well, but... ic. The Air Force has taken important initial steps toward a more powerful post-Phase TV base-]eve] system, but... 2. Air Force has a window of opportunity to rethink and reorganize several tease-1 eye] functions... 3. Air Force wing/base-]eve] units are ... dependent on ADP support to fight effectively, but... 4. Air Force should change the way it develops and maintains base-]eve] information systems. \ / , _ / ~ / / _ ~ ~ _ RECOMMENDATIONS - . 1 ]. Prepare a Phase IV post-imp~ementation enhancement plan. 2. Specify a standard Air Force base-]eve] automation configuration. 3. Reexamine the base-1eve] logistics & operations/ combat support functions 4. Establish a SPO for base-1eve] information systems and ... shift to a prime systems contractor concept.
