|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 27
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee has four major recommendations to make to the Air Force
i n thi s i nterim report.
Recommendation #l - Phase IY Post-Implementation Enchancement Plan.
Prepare a Phase IV post-implementation enhancement plan.
The Air Force recognizes it needs a short-term software improve-
ment program, with the objectives of replacing the Air Force On-Line Data
System (AFOLDS) operating system, speeding up performance on the current
hardware, and completing many other fixes or enhancements in the next two
to three years. The Air Force has a list of fixes to be made, a feeling
for priorities, and estimates of resources required. However, the Air
Force does not have a plan to carry out such fixes. The Air Force has not
put priorities, justification, resources, and the detailed technical design
together in one document. Such a document could be used to get Air Force
approval and funding, and to elicit commitments to specific improvements by
specific dates. Instead, the Air Force has a "best efforts" program under-
way, using available resources and promising no specific dates or
improvements.
The Committee proposes the Air Force 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. The plan should
cover a number of disparate subjects, including at least the following:
o Training of base personnel in the operation of current system;
0 Improving operating procedures, including debugging and
simplification as appropriate;
o Replacing obsolete systems software or programs left from the
pretransition software, such as AFOLDS and FRAMES;*
* FRAMES is software developed by the DSDO for use on the Burroughs systems
to generate screen-formatted data entry forms. The software has been
transitioned to the Phase IV system and is considered by the Air Force to
be highly inefficient.
-27-
OCR for page 28
o Modernizing data entry procedures and media, such as the
elimination of card readers where appropriate;
Using Phase IV hardware and system software features to
extend the functionality of current applications systems
(on-line data entry and error correction and files for
on-line inquiry are examples of possible efforts); and
o Improving software maintenance procedures.
Appendix C provides an outline of the contents and organization
of such a plan; in effect, it is a simplified statement of work for such a
planning effort. The Committee believes the potential benefits are clear:
o Better and more uniform operation of Phase IV systems
throughout the Air Force, faster response times, improved
availability, and fewer aborted runs,
o Better information exchange among all interested parties;
o Increased functional capabilities for more users;
o Release of functional resources--both people and machine
capacity--for other tasks; and
Evidence--to the fie10--of a top-1eve] commitment to make
Phase IV work and to improve it.
We strongly recommend the Air Force prepare such a written plan
within 90 days.
Recommendation #2 - Standard Base-Leve] 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, LANs,
and off-base interfaces that will be present at Air Force
bases, so that systems designers will know that at J east the
minimum facility will be present and can design accordingly.
A necessary precursor is the promulgation of a policy
statement, in which the Air Force should indicate its
intentions for base-level automation.
-- The necessity for an increase in the present system
capacity also must be considered.
O Develop a list of approved hardware and system software, and
strictly limit any other equipment or software from being
installed at standard operating bases. In particular, the
-28-
OCR for page 29
systems to be deployed in wartime or threat of war should be
developed and operated on equipment that is the same as or
similar to that used by the wings and squadrons in peacetime.
We are not suggesting the restriction of one-of-a-kind
installations at major command headquarters, ALCs, the
Air Force Academy, etc., but do wish to restrict the
variety of equipment which would be available to support
wartime operations, even for command-specific base-level
functions.
This list would include the configuration to be specified,
minicomputers and microcomputers available on requirements
contracts, and particular applications which as a prac-
tical matter should be "grandfathered."
o Develop both the strategy and procedures to monitor, support,
update and upgrade the standard configuration for bases that
have more than the minimum workload, and to accommodate
improvements in technology. Provisions should be made to
accommodate upgrades within the approved families of
equipment even if the hardware has not yet been developed
and, therefore, cannot yet be specified. Deployment and
non-nuclear warfare considerations should be addressed as an
integral part of such planning. (That is, which parts of the
hardware and systems software would deploy with the
squadrons?)
o Establish and maintain a testbed for this concept of "standard
Air Force base-level automation facility," perhaps at an
Advanced Concepts Base. The testbed should evaluate the pos-
sibilities for such modification and improvements as: more
processing Power; more channels, memory, storage, and other
peripherals; microcomputers; mu1tistation supermicrocomputers,
a LAN, improved system software, including a DBMS and a fourth
generation language, distributed processing technology; and an
architecture to tie al] these elements together.
O Specify the standard configuration by 198S, and start imple-
menting it in 1990.
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.
a. Base-Leve] Logistics. The Committee believes serious study and
design work is merited by the concept of an integrated base-level
logistics system for the l99Os, to embed and/or replace the current
-29-
OCR for page 30
("stovepipe") maintenance, supply and transportation systems. This work
should begin with a re-examination of the base-level logistical needs for
that time period, not constrained by currently defined components.
The goal should be the reorganization of the supply, maintenance,
and transportation functions into a single, seamless system, with a base
information architecture and a functional requirements statement to support
the reorganized structure. Project Harvest Resource and the CAMS func-
tional design are good beginnings but they do not go far enough. We
recommend:
o that the kind of thought embodied in the supply study be
extended to apply simultaneously to base-level supply,
maintenance, and transportation plus interfaces to the
wholesale logistics functions,
o that the type of information analysis done for CAMS be
extended to the combined logistics functions without being
constrained by the characteristics of today's information
systems;
o and that the benefits of implementing the resulting total
system be compared with the likely benefits of continuing the
incremental change from the currently approved, individual
base-level functional systems.
Conceptual redesign of base-level logistics processes, and the
development of an information specification to support these processes,
will be difficult and take time. We estimate it will take a group of
combined operations, logistics and information systems people about a year
to develop the integrated concept and estimate the costs and benefits of
implementation. But by that time, the benefits of continuing to develop a
new, integrated, and automated base-level process can be identified. If
benefits justify costs, it should take another year to develop the
information requirements for the new base-level logistical systems for the
early 199Os. The recommended target dates, then, are 1988 for completion
of the specification and 1990 for the start of the implementation phase.
b. Base-Level Operations/Combat Support. The Committee also
-
beileves it is time to begin work on defining the information needs of the
Wing Commanders, Squadron Commanders and battle and operations leaders and
of the base-level operations functions on a systematic basis. The specif-
ications should be performed MACCOM by MACCOM, to cover those functions
common to all bases and specific to the host MAdCOM. It is our judgment
that such requirements could be implemented by an incremental process, if
based on an integrated management information systems philosophy built
over the current "stovepipe" systems. First, however, it is recommended
that each MAdCOM provide a top-down description of the required
operations/combat support system, to serve as guidance to the wing
commanders. As the system emerges through a bottom-up, incremental
process, the parent MAdCOM should determine how and to what extent new
OCR for page 31
applications should be standardized throughout the command's Jike-type
wings and squadrons. Eventually there will have been established a
MACCOM-approved information system that will more likely be able to meet
the operations/combat support needs of the wings and squadrons because it
will have been generated by the wings and squadrons themselves.
The Committee strongly recommends that wing/squadron/base logis-
tics and operations support systems be designed, equipped, and operated in
a mode to be effective in both peace and conflict. But we believe such an
approach requires significant change in current equipment procurement
practices, and comprehensive system design at wing/squadron/base-level to
insure systems compatibility and interoperability.
Because of its complexity and necessarily evolutionary character,
it is unlikely such a process can move as quickly as that involving the
logistics function. However, it should be possible to complete the
initial steps fairly soon. Therefore, the recommended target dates are
1987 to complete the MAdCOM specification and 1995 to attain a reasonable
state of completion.
Recommendation t4 - System Program Office/Prime Systems Contractor
Concept.
Establish an Air Force System Program Office (SPO) for base-]eve]
information systems and, for major new base-level information systems,
shift to a prime systems contractor concept.
The Committee emphatically recommends the "normal" Systems
Program Office (SPO) concept be applied to the base-level Air Force
automation systems. In all dimensions of technical complexity, mission
essentiality, cost, and difficulty, the tote] base environment qualifies
for this kind of direct, specific management emphasis and control. The
SPO should be modeled after those established by the Air Force Systems
Command (AFSC). However, 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-1eve] automation program. Program
guidance can be maintained with appropriate Program Management Directive
(PMD) modifications. Personnel strength and skill levels should be
maintained by careful high-level selection of qualified staff.
Performance review of the SPO can be maintained through appropriate Air
Force acquisition review council reviews at appropriate milestones. The
approach should begin as soon as possible after suitable Air Force
directives can be prepared.
The Committee recommends that in all future base-level software
applications developments, a required step should be a determination of
the feasibility for use of a prime contractor. Criteria should be
developed regarding system specification, technical feasibility and cost
for this determination. The Committee believes that this concept would be
particularly useful in the development of automation systems to support
-31-
OCR for page 32
the integrated logistics system and operations/combat support systems
discussed earlier in this report.
The Committee recommends a survey of commercially available
software development and maintenance tools to include application
generators, relational data base management systems, graphics, decision
support tools, etc., and acquisition of those determined to be best
suitable at DSDO, the AFAFC, and the AFMPC. Those tools acquired in this
process which are applicable to software development within the MAdCOMs
should be made available for their use.
The Committee believes that commercially available off-the-shelf
software packages can be used in partial or complete fulfillment of a
number of base-level functions. Therefore, we recommend that the Air
Force conduct a survey of such software and that these packages be
utilized to the maximum extent practicable in future base-level system
improvements.
With these recommendations the Committee can foresee a much stronger
Air Force managerial control of the base-level automation environment.
This in turn will yield an improved Air Force readiness posture, including
a better rapid deployment capability.
-32-
Representative terms from entire chapter:
standard air
