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.
Appendix F Biennial Iterative Review of the 6.2 and 6.3 Programs at the Margin The following is an example of an approach that the Air Force could use for biennial review of 6.2 and 6.3 programs at the margin. This approach, illustrated in Figure F-1, is modeled on a process applied success- fully in planning S&T work in the defense industry. As shown in Figure F- 1, two iterative reviews would be conducted in each biennium industry experience has shown that two reviews are needed in each cycle- in preparation for the biennial Program Objectives Memorandum (POM). (The review process could, of course, be applied on the alternate years if a sufficient change in the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) POM indicates the need.) In preparation for the first iteration, AFRL could prepare for the POM much as it currently does, including the Scientific Advisory Board's (SAB's) quality review. AFRL could nomi- nate the program elements (PEs)/projects/tasks to be considered at the margin, and the directors of the AFRL technology directorate could champion or advocate their projects/tasks as they come under consideration in the review. In the first iteration, the review could focus on projects or tasks that AFRL ranks within about +20 per- cent of the annual planning and programming guidance (APPG) funding line by reprioritizing "gold watches" and projects/tasks of high interest and eliminating those of little interest, with the aim of reducing the focus for the second iteration to within about +10 percent of the APPG funding line. Action items could also be as- signed to support the second iteration. In the second iteration, the review could refine the programs at the margin to form the recommended S&T program and the most compelling unfunded require- 63 meets in preparation for a review of the 6.3 advanced technology demonstrations (ATDs) by the Applied Technology Councils (ATCs) and for submission of the AFRL POM to the Air Force Materiel Command. In the second iteration, the focus could be on the op- portunities pursued or lost through funding or not fund- ing programs at the margin. Those shown in the following list are the individuals who could conduct the iterative review: · Co-chairs: Director, Air Force Strategic Plan- ning, and AFRL Commander · Members: Directors of Requirements for ACC, AMC, AFSPC, AFSOC, and AFMC Observer: SAF/AQRT · Advisors: Directors of Development (Capability) Planning for AF Product and Logistic Centers and members of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) There are two reasons for a key role for the director of Air Force Strategic Planning. First, he or she can contribute detailed knowledge of the Air Force strate- gic plan and the associated thinking of the Air Force senior leadership, which is essential if the S&T pro- gram is to be linked to the Air Force's vision for the future. Second, the detailed view of the opportunities offered by the S&T program provided by the review- ers' deliberations should be valuable in the continuing development of the Air Force vision and strategic plan. The AFRL commander can serve as a champion of both technology push and the remaining "seed corn." The directors of requirements for the major commands can
64 Program Proposed by AFRL APPENDIX F t Biennial Iteration 2n~ Biennial Iteration FIGURE F-1 Process for biennial iterative review of 6.2 and 6.3 programs at the margin. provide operational pull. The directors of development planning can provide advice, since they are in unique positions to identify the technology needed by the cur- rent and anticipated acquisition programs. Members of the SAB who have become intimately familiar with the ATCs AFRL POM Review Submission S&T program as a result of the SAB's quality review could offer a valuable "outsider's" perspective to the review. After the first cycle, the Air Force could document the lessons learned and institutionalize the process.
