INTRODUCTION
The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.
—Attributed to Socrates
Nowhere is this Socratic wisdom more apparent than in the world of Air Force development planning. In all the months of study, research, and discussions that went into the preparation of this report, it seemed that every source had a different definition of development planning. Indeed, there was not even agreement on the term itself: Some called it “development planning,” while others referred to “developmental planning.” Yet a third term was “planning for development.” These differences may sound trivial, but they are not. The semantic disagreements surrounding the term “development planning” are symptomatic of all the different ways that the act of planning for future Air Force capabilities is perceived, even by those closest to the process.
DEFINITION OF AIR FORCE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
This definitional ambiguity dates back decades, at least as far back as the former Air Force Systems Command’s establishment of Vanguard, the first comprehensive, formal development planning system. Established in 1978, Vanguard was composed of two major aspects that are illustrated in Figure S-1.
FIGURE S-1 The concepts of “planning for development” and “development planning.”
One aspect, called “planning for development,” was acquisition based and included translating user requirements into the systems, costs, schedules, and plans needed to meet those requirements. The other half of Vanguard was called “development planning,” which was technology focused, coordinating all research and development in the Air Force. Development planning, in Vanguard’s lexicon, focused most directly on Exploratory Development (budget category 6.2) and Advanced Development (budget category 6.3). These investments eventually either transitioned to new programs or were terminated to enable investments in more promising technologies. Vanguard is discussed in detail in Chapter 1. However, it is appropriate to say simply that the terminological differences between “planning for development” and “development planning” were symptomatic of a definitional “haziness” that has survived to this day.1,2,3 While all of the various development
_________________
1 U.S. Air Force, Integrated Life Cycle Management, Air Force Instruction (AFI) 63-101, March 7, 2013, http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_aq/publication/afi63-101/afi63-101_20-101.pdf.
2 Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Systems Engineering, “Initiatives,” http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/initiatives/init_devplng.html, accessed July 15, 2014.
3 Air Force Materiel Command, 2010, Development Planning (DP) Guide, June 17, http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/DevelopmentPlanningGuide-Jun2010.pdf, p. 2.
planning definitions may make sense individually, the multiple variations combine to lead to a loss of clarity, in terms of what is and what is not included within the boundaries of development planning. As a result, the committee added what it believes to be the appropriate definition (see Recommendation 1).
Development planning was practiced in the Air Force and throughout the Department of Defense (DoD) until the program element was zeroed by Congress in the late 1990s. At its height, development planning was a primary planning process focused on answering key capability questions of the Air Force. It was codified in 1978 in a process called “Vanguard” that was initiated and promulgated by General Alton D. Slay, the Air Force Systems Command commander. The process answered a critical and basic question for the Air Force and the Air Force’s leadership: Over the next 20 years in 5-year increments, what capability gaps will the Air Force have that must be filled? Under Vanguard, a group was assembled to answer this question. The group consisted of representatives from the intelligence community, warfighters, acquisition professionals, the science and technology community, industry and independent research and development, cost estimators, logisticians, and some of the nation’s best analysts who, together, identified the gaps, proposed solutions to mitigate the gaps, and built capability roadmaps that integrated technology needs and program needs over a 20-year period. The Vanguard product was briefed to all the Air Force four-star generals, briefed to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, approved by the Secretary of the Air Force, and was used to justify the annual Air Force budget submitted to Congress.4
Given how development planning was viewed and used in the past, and given what the committee learned during this study of development planning, the committee is able to recommend an organizational construct, which is fully described in Chapter 3 and shown in Figure S-2.5 The process begins with strategic inputs from the national, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Air Force level. The Air Force published its new Strategic Plan in July 2014 that will play an important part in “setting the stage” for the work to be done in the process shown in Figure S-2.6 A key proposed construct is the establishment of a Chief of Staff of the Air Force planning team to provide the development planning needed across the Air Force core functions.
_________________
4 General Alton Slay, Sr. (USAF, Ret.), “Historical Perspectives,” presentation to the committee on January 30, 2014; Frank Campanile, U.S. Air Force (retired), Joe Lusczek, Jr., Technical Director of Air Force Aerospace Systems Design and Analysis (Ret.), Jim Mattice, SES (Ret.), Former SAF/AQ, Former DAS for Research and Engineering, and Former ASC/XR, panel discussion with the committee on February 26, 2014.
5 A complete description of the recommended process for Air Force development planning is provided in Chapter 3.
6 U.S. Air Force, America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future, July 2014, http://airman.dodlive.mil/files/2014/07/AF_30_Year_Strategy_2.pdf.
FIGURE S-2 Suggested enhancements (shown in green) to current Air Force Strategy, Planning, and Programming Process (SP3), indicated with green arrows and text.
This report is comprised of three chapters. Chapter 1 discusses the history of development planning: what it was and why it was abandoned in the Air Force. Chapter 2 describes the status of development planning today in the Air Force, other military services, and industry. Chapter 3 describes what development planning could be and should be for the Air Force. The findings, which support the recommendations immediately following and those in Chapter 3, are provided in Chapter 2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1. The Air Force should redefine development planning as “a key process to support the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force in strategic decisions that guide the Air Force toward mission success today and in the future, within available funds and with acceptable risk.”
Recommendation 2. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force should claim ownership of development planning in the Air Force and provide top-level guidance and leadership to all Air Force organizations responsible for carrying out development planning. This leadership should encourage and facilitate interaction among these organizations.
Recommendation 3. The Air Force should enhance its strategic planning and programming process with a Chief of Staff of the Air Force planning team function that reports to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force with the primary responsibility for integrating development planning across Air Force core functions and coordinating it with Core Function Leads.
The Chief of Staff of the Air Force planning team will advise, in particular, on areas that fall between or span functional areas and support trade-offs between core functions. This should include (1) assessing the potential impact of current and evolving threats on Air Force mission capability needs and defining corresponding responses, (2) identifying new concepts utilizing emerging technologies with the purpose of informing operational concepts, and (3) assessing feedback from the Air Force major commands and the Air Force enterprise on program changes that impact warfighter effectiveness.
Recommendation 4. The Air Force should develop and standardize the use of capability collaboration teams across all Service core functions as a means to facilitate development planning.
As originally established by Air Combat Command, capability collaboration teams are formed as needed to explore potential solutions paths for filling known gaps.7 These capability collaboration teams bring together representatives of major commands and the acquisition and science and technology communities to complete development planning activities associated with identified capability gaps. The use of capability collaboration teams should be standardized as a best practice across all Air Force Service core functions. The decision to start a new capability
_________________
7 The capability collaboration team concept was a product of the science and technology Tiger Team, which included participation by all major commands, the Product Centers, Air Force Research Laboratory, and Headquarters Air Force representatives, that developed the current science and technology planning process and governance structure, which was subsequently codified in Air Force Instruction 61-101. Air Combat Command was the first major command to formally establish capability collaboration teams and the major command that most enthusiastically incorporated the capability collaboration team concept into their planning process (Stephen Munday, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering, personal communication to National Research Council staff member Carter Ford, September 29, 2014).
collaboration team should be made following a formal selection process to focus attention on the most pressing challenges and should be chartered and resourced to address the needed development planning activities to include warfighting capability analyses, advanced technology development and demonstration, early prototyping, and warfighter concept refinement. Capability collaboration team activities should become an integral part of the generation of Air Force Core Function Support Plans regarding advancement of new concepts and capabilities.
Recommendation 5. The Air Force should align adequate resources to ensure the success of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force planning team and its interactions with the capability collaboration teams to enhance Air Force development planning. The key element of the development planning process provided by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements is the targeted Core Function Support Plan, which starts with the 12 Core Function Leads identifying and prioritizing capability gaps. The resources needed should provide focused support from the Core Function Leads, the necessary analytical and technical capabilities of the personnel comprising and supporting the Chief of Staff of the Air Force planning teams and the capability collaboration teams, and the financial means to achieve the desired planning analysis and recommendations.
Workforce development is essential to provide the human resources necessary for robust development planning, and senior Air Force leaders need to instill a corporate commitment to this career field that, in turn, attracts personnel with high potential.
Recommendation 6. The Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force should emphasize development planning as a key workforce development tool for Air Force science and technology, acquisition, and operational personnel. In emphasizing this development, lessons learned from initiatives such as the U.S. Special Operations Command GHOST (Geurts Hands-On Support Team) initiative and its related “Revolutionary Acquisition Techniques Procedure and Collaboration” forum should be captured and examined for application to the broader development planning tool set. In this sustained emphasis on development planning, analytical skills, technical innovation, concept development, systems engineering rigor, and excellence become part of the broader Air Force culture.
Recommendation 7. The Air Force should periodically assess how well development planning is meeting its overall objective of providing the necessary support for the strategic decisions that guide the Air Force toward mission
success, within available funds and with acceptable risk. A systematic approach would include identifying weaknesses, shortcomings, and failures; the causes of these; and ways to address them in the next stages.
BOTTOM LINE
Development planning, properly used by experienced practitioners, can provide the Air Force leadership with a tool to answer the critical question, Over the next 20 years in 5-year increments, what capability gaps will the Air Force have that must be filled? Development planning will also provide for development of the workforce skills needed to think strategically and to effectively define and close the capability gap.
