Development Planning: A Strategic Approach to Future Air Force Capabilities (2014)

3

Improving Development Planning Support to U.S. Air Force Strategic Decision Making

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 discussed the history of development planning, what it was, and why it was abandoned in the Air Force. Chapter 2 described the status of development planning today in the military technology development complex. This chapter describes what development planning could be and should be for the Air Force and recommends specific steps the Air Force should take to strengthen, revitalize, and make development planning an ongoing and enduring Air Force process. Table 3-1 describes the specific objectives of the terms of reference and the committee’s corresponding findings and recommendations.

Chapter 1 identified the definitional ambiguity associated with the term “development planning.” In addition, Finding 2-4 identified the lack of cross-core function considerations. Clarity of the meaning, content, and definition of development planning is required to assure a common view throughout the Air Force. This report retains use of the term development planning, but the definition given in Recommendation 1 (below) has significantly broader scope than that in Air Force Instruction 63-101.

REDEFINE AIR FORCE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

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

TABLE 3-1 Terms of Reference and Corresponding Findings and Recommendations

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.”

The overall rhythm of the process will be dictated by the annual program objective memorandum and budget process. The seniority and experience of the personnel is key and needs to be developed as the process proceeds. Given the importance of development planning in providing data to allow strategic decisions to be made, it is essential that ownership of the direction and guidance originate from the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) and the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF), and their strong leadership engagement is required throughout the process.

AIR FORCE CO-CHAMPIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

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.

For development planning to be effective, it should be institutionalized as part of the existing Air Force strategic planning process, as shown in Figure 3-1. This current overall strategic planning process takes national strategies and joint capabilities assessment and distills them into various programs that are then submitted as part of the Air Force budget request. Within this process, development

FIGURE 3-1 Current Air Force Strategy, Planning, and Programming Process (SP3). SOURCE: Harry Disbrow, Senior Executive Service, Associate Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force.

planning provides data supporting fundamental program trades being performed across the Air Force core functions to determine what is needed to support the Air Force Strategic Master Plan. These trades, in turn, support Core Function Support Plans and planning choices to provide program guidance, recommendations, and updates to the Air Force Strategic Master Plan. In particular, development planning should affect the areas in the box identified in Figure 3-1.

ORGANIZATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Chief of Staff of the Air Force Planning Team

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.

Overall, the CSAF planning team (CPT) will advise, in particular, on areas that fall between or span functional areas and support trade-offs between core functions. The CPT’s primary responsibilities are envisioned to include the following:

• Assessing the potential impact of current and evolving threats on Air Force mission capability needs and defining corresponding responses. This should be done particularly with respect to understanding threats that cut across functional areas (e.g., cyberspace). This should leverage both the intelligence and operational communities so that the impacts across Air Force capabilities are identified and placed in a relevant operational context.

• Identifying new concepts utilizing emerging technologies with the purpose of informing operational concepts. There should be particular focus on cross-cutting technologies, and there should be collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and other Service laboratories, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, industry, federally funded research and development centers, and university applied research centers and academia.

• Assessing feedback from the Air Force major commands and the greater Air Force enterprise on program changes that impact warfighter effectiveness. The CPT should provide regular planning updates/revisions to the CSAF based on feedback received primarily from the major commands (MAJCOMs) with inputs from Headquarters Air Force, System Program Offices, and CFLs. This feedback should consist of assessments (metrics-based where possible) that need to be established and maintained by the MAJCOMs to address mission capabilities assessments after implementation. The CPT analyses should particularly emphasize interactions between programs.

Capability Collaboration Teams

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 (ACC), capability collaboration teams (CCTs) are formed as needed to explore potential solutions paths for filling known gaps.¹ These CCTs bring together representatives of the MAJCOM,

_________________

¹ The CCT concept was a product of the science and technology (S&T) Tiger Team, which included participation by all MAJCOMs, the Product Centers, Air Force Research Laboratory, and

acquisition, and science and technology (S&T) communities to complete development planning activities associated with identified capability gaps. The use of CCTs should be standardized as a best practice across all Service core functions. The decision to start a new CCT 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. CCT’s activities should become an integral part of the generation of Core Function Support Plans (CFSPs) regarding advancement of new concepts and capabilities.

The CCTs provide a focused forum for studying potential solutions to identified gaps and, as such, represent a logical path for consideration of emerging S&T, including the issues of cost and integration into the larger warfighting system. Thus, since a key component of the CCTs is the tie to the scientists and engineers in the Department of Defense community, representation of AFRL on CCTs is essential to ensure consideration of emerging new capabilities that are sufficiently matured for transition consideration. CCTs should also be used as a mechanism for consideration of game-changing technologies. As such, AFRL should identify potentially game-changing technologies and work within the core functions to establish CCTs addressing these technologies. By bringing together warfighter, acquisition expertise, and technologists, issues associated with introduction of a new technology can be addressed in a comprehensive manner.

Because the needed lifetime of a CCT may vary depending on the capability-development timeline and coordination issues across the CFSP, each CCT should be formally reviewed periodically by the CFL to assess whether or not the CCT activity should continue. A CCT activity may be terminated for a number of reasons, including the following: (1) the capability has sufficiently matured to advance the capability development in the acquisition process to a Milestone A decision, (2) the capability being addressed by the CCT is no longer needed due to changes in the environment, or (3) the determination is made that the capability being pursued by the CCT is based on an immature but promising technology that needs further early-stage research. While the CCTs may often operate at the early stages of development planning, the CCTs may also serve to support the CPT with needed analyses and concept definition as the CPT executes its responsibility to balance development planning across the Air Force.

_________________

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. ACC was the first MAJCOM to formerly establish CCTs and the MAJCOM to most enthusiastically incorporate the CCT 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).

The CPT and CCT development planning process supports the Air Force overall planning process in several locations, as illustrated in Figure 3-2. At the strategic level, CCTs are an integral component to the development of the CFSPs, and the CPTs are integral to providing the supporting analysis for the planning choices to be made across the core functions. Further, information developed through either the CCTs or CPT should be used to feed future variants of the Air Force Strategic Master Plan.

At the program planning and development level, the CCTs are used support program trade-offs, develop new capabilities, and assess technology readiness. Properly executed, the CCTs should provide key inputs to the program objective memorandum development. Finally, the CCTs and CPT efforts are key to the process of defending program decisions. By thoroughly considering new capability development through analyses, experimentation, and demonstration,

FIGURE 3-2 Suggested enhancements (shown in green) to current Air Force Strategy, Planning, and Programming Process (SP3), indicated with green arrows and text.

recommendations regarding programs will be based on a solid foundation of supporting information.

RESOURCES FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Finding 2-2 indicates that the current level of funding is inadequate to ensure effective influence of the development planning process. Moreover, Finding 2-12 states the studies that were funded could not be completed with sufficient analysis and assessment to confidently advise the leadership of the viability of the solutions. Of particular note, the strategy for funding cross-cutting areas common to several Service core functions, such as cyber operations, appears to be insufficient (see Finding 2-8). The lack of stable and dedicated funding, highlighted in Chapter 2, makes it difficult to operate the development planning process from year to year.

Defining an oversight role for the CPT, where it reports to the CSAF and SECAF, ensures timely and accurate assessment of adequacy of funding for development planning. This assessment should include the adequacy of funding for individual projects as well as funding availability to address the following: (1) gaps identified from the current threat base, (2) technical analysis capability, (3) multidisciplinary concepts, and (4) maturation of innovative S&T concepts. This assessment would be provided regularly to the CSAF and SECAF in support of the decision-making process.

The Navy’s development planning approach, led by N81, possesses a number of desirable traits. It has many of the features of a sound planning process and appears funded at a stable and appropriate level to accomplish the mission at hand. N81 holds significant influence with the Chief of Naval Operations. For these reasons, N81 plays a pivotal role in Navy’s equivalent process. Air Force consideration of an entity that couples long-range strategic planning with resources could prove useful to the Air Force.

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 13 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 ensure robust development planning. Senior Air Force leaders need to instill a corporate commitment to this career field that, in turn, attracts and retains personnel with high potential. This will lead to future Air Force leaders who are strategic thinkers that understand how to use development planning to define the future of the Air Force. This leadership background should include a deep appreciation for innovation, including disruptive innovation, and the ability to solve the complex demands of the current and future Air Force. Following Finding 2-12, prototyping, experimentation, and the familiar use of analysis tools are critical to the acquisition and operation of systems exhibiting the desired performance at an appropriate cost. This important maturation of the acquisition and operational workforce will not take place without the support of senior leadership. Box 3-1 provides a model for Air Force consideration.

There is a strong linkage between development planning and strategic thinking. Formal training in development planning needs to begin early in the career of future Air Force leaders and needs to be incorporated in the curricula of professional military education and advanced education for civilians. It is imperative that the Defense Acquisition University, the Air Force Institute of Technology, and other training organizations make development planning education a priority (see Finding 2-13). Select assignments, on a rotating basis, should be offered to promising future leaders with a strong development planning mindset. Finally, the monitoring

of career development and assessing the adequacy of training of the development planning workforce should be an ongoing process.

Analysis is the basis for much of what occurs in development planning. There are rapid advances occurring in the capabilities of these tools. For example, the CREATE (Computational Research Engineering Acquisition Tools and Environments) program couples complex, multi-physics simulations to high-performance computing capability to enable the assessment of designs and concepts in support of development planning activities.² Therefore, the Air Force needs a strategy for investing in and training personnel on the use of these tools.

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.

ASSESSMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

The recommended definition of development planning and the establishment of the CPT process, along with the enhanced CCT responsibilities, would be implemented and assessed throughout the Air Force strategy, planning, and programing cycle. It is anticipated the process will mature as experience is gained early in the implementation. To facilitate improvements and provide feedback to participants, periodic assessments need to be made. The objective is to assess if development planning is meeting CSAF and SECAF needs and has been communicated, accepted, and acted upon throughout Air Staff, core functions, and MAJCOMs. In addition, it will provide guidance and feedback to execution teams. This assessment process will most likely start as a qualitative assessment by CSAF and SECAF of the value of the development planning process and how it could be improved. Over time, as the maturity of the process increases, a transition to more quantitative measures (e.g., metrics) may be possible.

_________________

² Douglass Post, Chief Scientist, Department of Defense High Performance Computing Modernization Program, Associate Director for the CREATE Program, “Computational Research and Engineering Acquisition Tools and Environments program,” presentation to the committee on June 18, 2014.

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 a 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.