Evaluation of U.S. Air Force Preacquisition Technology Development (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 The Current State of the Air Force's Acquisition Policies, Processes, and Workforce
2 The Current State of the Air Force's Acquisition Policies, Processes, and Workforce
Pages 33-61
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 33... ...
Air Force Acquisition: Return to Excellence. Alexandria, Va.: CNA Analysis & Solutions.
|
From page 34... ...
s . a i r f o rc e P r e ac q u i s i t i o n t e c h n o lo g y d ev e lo P m e n t s 34 of including the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System, DoD Instruction 5000.02, the Air Force Acquisition Improvement Plan, the Joint Capa bilities Integration and Development System, and DoD and Air Force competitive prototyping policies to comprehend their impact on the execution of pre-program of record technology development efforts" (for the full statement of task, see Box 1-1 in Chapter 1)
|
From page 35... ...
Intent Potential Unintended Consequences or Shortfalls R01861 AF PTD -- CS4 final.indd 35 PPBES, OUSD Yes Yes No No Institute a rigorous Technology development not adequately May 22, 1984 (C) budgetary process addressed JCIDS, CJCS/J8 Yes Yes No No Include COCOM Technology development "how-to's" not June 2003 priorities in addressed modernization efforts Section 852 of the Congress Yes Yes No Yes Recruit, retain, Recruiting focused on systems engineers, 2008 NDAA, educate, and train DoD contracting officers, and cost estimators; January 28, 2008 acquisition workforce insourcing of work done by support contractors; lack of flexibility; increased program office cost; recruiting in high-cost areas; loss of quick response specialized domain expertise CP, OUSD Yes Yes Yes Yes Preserve competition Preserves industry design teams; all critical core December 8, 2008 (AT&L)
|
From page 36... ...
and full funding for the technology development phase of the acquisition program. The new DoD Instruction 5000.02 includes two additional mandates that need to be addressed in future Air Force acquisition programs.
|
From page 37... ...
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01G describes the need for requirement support in concert with the resourcing and acquisition processes, to support the preacquisition program phase as well as Milestone B and beyond.9 However, CJCSI 3170.01G describes the need and directs the strong involvement of the requirements community in the preacquisition phase, but the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)
|
From page 38... ...
Accessed August 13, 2010. 18 The Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund under Title X
|
From page 39... ...
increased rules and regulations Defense Acquisition Congress Yes Yes Yes Yes Improve acquisition While attempting to enhance the Workforce Improvement Act, workforce professionalism of the acquisition November 5, 1990 corps, it has made these professionals more insular from the warfighter and other service professionals. DoD Instruction 5000.2, OUSD Yes Yes Yes No Instill acquisition discipline; Growth in the complexity of major April 5, 2002 (AT&L)
|
From page 40... ...
22 Dwyer Dennis, Brigadier General, Director, Intelligence and Requirements Directorate, Head quarters Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force.
|
From page 41... ...
Ever-increasing oversight resulting from this lack of trust has greatly added to the workload of the people at the execution level, further reducing the time 27 Dwyer Dennis, Brigadier General, Director, Intelligence and Requirements Directorate, Head quarters Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
|
From page 42... ...
Personal communication with the committee, August 27, 2010. bitmap with vector bottom label available to them to manage technology development and acquisition programs responsibly.30 One result of this declining trust has been the passage of WSARA, directing independent assessments of Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)
|
From page 43... ...
A Report by the Assessment Panel of the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Project for the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Available at https://acc.dau.
|
From page 44... ...
, and acquisition Product Centers. According to the Kaminski report, the use of Development Planning, coupled with systems engineering, resulted in the delivery of needed capability to the warfighter in a timely and affordable manner.32 In addition to Development Planning, there exist two other significant tools in the quest for clear, realistic, trade-off-tolerant, stable, and universally understood requirements.
|
From page 45... ...
-- so that only when a technology is well defined and demonstrated does it make the transition from the laboratory world to become part of a major system acquisition program. Each of these -- Development Planning, Applied Technology Councils, and Technology Readiness Assessments -- is discussed below.
|
From page 46... ...
SOURCE: Dwyer Dennis, Brigadier General, Director, Intelligence and Requirements Directorate, Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
|
From page 47... ...
Appendix D provides background information on the Vanguard process. The Decline of Applied Technology Councils At one time, Applied Technology Councils were an effective tool for integrating warfighter requirements with acquisition priorities and technology maturation ef forts.
|
From page 48... ...
s . a i r f o rc e P r e ac q u i s i t i o n t e c h n o lo g y d ev e lo P m e n t s 48 of HQ AFSPC S&T Providers HQ AFSPC S Fratrate me g i c AFRL / Nat'l Labs wo rk Industry IR&D Processes DARPA Development Planning SERB Innovative & PEO/TEO Reviews SBIR Pervasive Requirements SMC System Wings Industry Workshops Technologies SMC System Wings Collaborate w/ Mission National S&T MilSatCom National S&T MilSatCom GPS Partners & Other Srvs Funding GPS Funding Launch Systems Launch Systems Space Superiority Space Superiority SBIRS SBIRS lls Space Dev & test Space Dev & test t fa ICBM Products r ICBM ho Eng & Architecture Eng & Architecture S y New Programs i lit Prioritized Tech Needs New Programs Guidance Demonstrations ab Demonstrations Technology Roadmaps p Ca HQ AFSPC HQ AFSPC Tech Trans Plans Capability Areas Integrated Capability Areas Solutions SBIR Topics Integrated Prioritized SSA & C2 Space& C2 SSA Protection & IO Solutions SERB Topics Tech Needs Integrated Space Protection & IO ISR Solutions ISR Deterrance & Strike Deterrance & Strike PNT PNT MILSATCOM MILSATCOM Launch Ranges & Networks Launch Ranges & Networks ORS ORS FIGURE 2-5 In the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC)
|
From page 49... ...
Presentation to the committee, June text FINDING 2-3 The decline of Development Planning and, in some quarters, the deteriora tion in the effectiveness of ATCs have greatly reduced the ability to integrate successfully the interests of warfighters, the S&T community, and acquisition leadership. Assessing the Maturity of Technology Technology maturity is a central factor in program risk.37 Objective measure ment of Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
|
From page 50... ...
It will be instructive to observe the extent to which future assessments yield consistent programmatic results. The requirement for Technology Readiness Assessments is contained in DoD Instruction 5000.02;42 the Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E)
|
From page 51... ...
To preserve The current DDR&E is placing strong emphasis on Development Planning and prototyping, as well as on the role of systems engineering in the developmental process, to include risk assessment.43 The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 established several new requirements relating to technological maturity that are summarized below. Among its other provisions, WSARA requires the following: · Periodic review and assessment of the technological maturity and integra tion risk of critical technologies of Major Defense Acquisition Programs 43 Zachary Lemnios, Director, Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense.
|
From page 52... ...
During 2009, DDR&E completed 11 Technology Readiness Assessments of MDAPs and 1 special assessment. The more robust technology readiness oversight role required by the legislation should serve to reinforce the initiatives taken re cently by the Air Force to improve the technology maturation process.
|
From page 53... ...
Public reports indicate that some of the cost increase for the EMD phase of the program has resulted from unanticipated technology maturation during full scale development of the production configuration.48 The F-35 EMD program was structured to develop three variants with a high degree of commonality, and cost and schedule were based on assessments of Technology Readiness Levels above TRL 6. For example, one critical technology adopted for the JSF is the electro-hydrostatic actuation system used to power the flight controls.
|
From page 54... ...
The developmental planners at each Product Center strive to identify and prioritize technology development activities to match the require 49 NeilKacena,Vice President, Advanced Development Programs Deputy, Lockheed Martin Aero nautics Company.
|
From page 55... ...
Balancing modern ization needs and existing program support with available resources is a constant challenge. Pressures from oversubscribed Air Force budgets repeatedly drive short suspense reprogramming actions on research and development funding, often with little in the way of rational analysis.52 Absent a technology strategy and prioritized list of technology maturation needs, the Air Force POM and budget process will not provide a solid foundation for future acquisition program success, as illustrated in Figure 2-8.
|
From page 56... ...
Current technology development funding is spread across multiple budget panels without an overarching investment strategy or prioritization. This could result in technology gaps in multiple acquisition programs.
|
From page 57... ...
Such a process is needed if the Air Force is ever to have a strategic technology planning process. Air Force leadership, after watching the number of funded Advanced Technol ogy Demonstrations dwindle from 65 in 2000 to just 2 in 2009, recently chartered a Tiger Team to examine options for strengthening the S&T strategy planning process.53 The Tiger Team will identify opportunities for improvement in com munication and governance that can lead to consistent S&T and transition pri orities across all organization levels and to improved visibility and accountability of S&T needs and solutions.
|
From page 58... ...
Program elements in this category in volve efforts prior to Milestone B and are referred to as advanced component development activities and include technology demonstration. Completion of Technology Readiness Levels 6 and 7 should be achieved for major programs.
|
From page 59... ...
The size of the Air Force acquisition workforce, as currently defined, was decreased from a total of 43,100 in 1989 to approximately 25,000 in 2001 where it has remained since.56 The cumulative impact of all of the reductions and changes to the workforce can best be summarized in the following statements from a 2009 report of Business Executives for National Security (BENS) : Today the government too often finds itself with minimally experienced and transient individuals leading major acquisition programs, able to attract new people only after long delays, unable to couple rewards to performance, and with many senior positions simply unoccupied.
|
From page 60... ...
The resultant technology development and maturation vacuum was, to some extent, filled by aerospace industry firms, advisory and assistance support contractors, and other ad hoc efforts, many of which lacked the focus and coherence of previous DP organizations and processes. Product Centers recognized the risk to program success caused by this situation 58 Dwyer Dennis, Brigadier General, Director, Intelligence and Requirements Directorate, Head quarters Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
|
From page 61... ...
Recently passed legislation and resultant DoD policy initiatives -- for example, Section 852 of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) , competitive prototyping, DoD Instruction 5000.02, AIP, and WSARA -- appear to address some of the negative impacts of the dissolution of DP organization and processes.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.