Space Acquisition - Air Force Space Command

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Senior Leader Perspective Requirements Generation: The Crucial First Step to Delivering Warfighter Capability Col Jay A. Moody, USAF Deputy Director of Requirements HQ Air Force Space Command Peterson AFB, Colorado Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) is responsible for providing our nation and its joint warfighting commands with critical space and cyber capabilities. With constantly increasing and changing threats, today’s fielded systems will not deliver the capabilities needed tomorrow. New systems and new ways of conducting operations must be developed. With limited resources available, requirements must be valid and feasible. The requirements generation process is the mechanism by which AFSPC continually works with its stakeholders to discern user needs and articulate them into operational requirements. This is the crucial front end work to generate validated requirements that drive successful space and cyber acquisition programs. Generating clear, feasible requirements in a timely manner is one key to delivering capability at the speed of need, and AFSPC is working to meet the challenge. Warfighter needs form the basis for the requirements generation process, but translating those needs is difficult. It is not as easy as simply asking what the warfighter wants. Space and cyber capabilities are global in nature and must serve many different customers simultaneously, and they must operate in context with terrestrial, maritime, and airborne forces within systems of systems. Sometimes, the warfighters do not know what they want or they lack a consistent voice regarding what needs must be fulfilled and when. Working with many customers to reconcile diverse and complex needs in a resource constrained environment to distinguish needs versus wants contributes to the lengthy process reflected in figure 1. Combatant commanders (CCDR) seek to accomplish their mission sets in support of the president’s overarching National Security Strategy (NSS). The NSS is further refined for the Department of Defense (DoD) in the form of policy and guidance contained in the National Military Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and Guidance for the Development of the Force. Policy documents are translated by the Joint Staff into a series of concept documents that which ultimately provide a “shopping list” of capabilities the joint force will need in the future. Given the list of desired capabilities, combatant commands, services, and major commands (MAJ- COM) analyze the “shopping list” and identify current and projected gaps and shortfalls in each capability area. The overall process for this analysis, called the capability-based assessment (CBA), is defined in Chairman Joint Chief of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01. Typically, a CCDR will initiate a CBA to look at a particular capability or mission area. The Air Force uses a similar methodology in its capabilities review and risk assessment (CRRA) process, but looks at a much broader set of capabilities across the entire Air Force portfolio, based on capabilities articulated in the seven Air Force operating concepts. AFSPC likewise uses the methodology in its integrated planning process (IPP) to analyze capabilities it can provide, which are documented in the AFSPC functional concepts. Each set of concept documents show linkage to the next level, that is AFSPC to Air Force, Air Force to joint. The key is to maintain the logical thread from the desired joint capability to all Air Force and AFSPC processes. The CBA is comprised of three basic steps: (1) Define specific tasks needed to be performed, (2) identify gaps/shortfalls, and (3) define solution recommendation. For CBAs conducted by the CCDR, the result is documentation of the analysis and recommendation for action by the services—either to pursue a materiel solution (i.e., a new system) or a non-materiel solution (i.e., changes in doctrine, organization, training, leadership, personnel, or facilities). This constitutes a validated warfighter gap/shortfall to be addressed. If the Air Force or AFSPC is conducting the CBA process (via the CRRA or IPP), the solution recommendation may be a bit more specific. The Air Force may task AFSPC to further explore space and/or cyber solutions. This task informs the IPP, and the capability solution analysis conducted by AFSPC will actually recommend potential systems for further analysis. AFSPC commander’s (CC) priorities are delivered as a product of the IPP in the Long Range Recapitalization Plan. In any case, the desired outcome is to have a set of clearly articulated, validated, warfighter needs. The expectation for the CBA process, Figure 1. Requirements Generation and Connection to Acquisition. 7 High Frontier
per CJCSI 3170.01, is no more than 180 days from start to finish. A CBA is not the only source for such needs, however. CCDRs annually publish integrated priority lists that identify the gaps and shortfalls the CCDR believes are hindering his ability to accomplish his missions. Gaps can be identified in top-down direction, where the Air Force Chief of Staff (CSAF) (or above) directs pursuit of a solution to an identified need. Joint Commanders involved in ongoing operations can identify an immediate need in the form of a joint urgent operational need (JUON), which may serve as a validated requirement in and of itself, and therefore does not require a lengthy review and validation process. JUONs may only be used in situations that require a “quick fix” to prevent loss of life or mission failure. AFSPC responds to JUONs. Once gaps are identified, the process begins in earnest. The first product in the requirements generation process is the initial capabilities document (ICD). The ICD is a concise document that captures the steps of the CBA, and it is essentially the mission need statement for the identified gap/shortfall. An ICD can be generated by a CCDR or by the services. In AFSPC, the directorate of requirements (A5) is responsible for producing the ICD, following the processes outlined in AFSPC Instruction 10-103, Capabilities-Based Operational Requirements Guidance. AFSPC uses an Integrated Concept Team (ICT) to bring together the requisite expertise to generate requirements documentation. The ICT must have membership from across the enterprise for the capability being pursued. This includes not only the Headquarters (HQ) AFSPC staff, but also product centers (e.g., Space and Missile Systems Center, Electronic Systems Center), test organizations (e.g., Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center), other services, CCDR representatives, other governmental agencies, and so forth. An action officer from AFSPC/A5, called the requirements lead (RL), will lead this diverse group to formulate the final products in support of the capability area command lead. As stated earlier, the process cannot begin without identified gaps, and the steps towards solution should not proceed without giving the gap some disciplined thought with respect to operational context. This is where enabling concepts come into play. Imagine building a car for a customer who has said he needs transportation without really delving into what the customer wants. You know he needs transportation, but do you know how he intends to use it Do you know who will use it, who has authority to say who can use it, what it will carry, and so forth This is the role of the enabling concept … to flesh out the need into some operational context and take a hard look at how the needed capability will be used, by whom, and what effects it will ultimately produce when used in conjunction with other existing capabilities. Articulating these ideas at some level of detail is absolutely essential to producing good requirements. The Air Staff provides oversight of all Air Force requirements activities to ensure gaps and shortfalls are being addressed appropriately, and to limit duplication of effort between MAJCOMs. To this end, AFSPC must present its strategy for developing any requirements document in the form of a Requirements Strategy Review briefing to the director of operational capability requirements (AF/A5R). Once approved, AF/A5R will provide a venue and the needed support from the Pentagon to draft the actual ICD in a small group known as a high performance team (HPT). The HPT usually meets in the Washington, D.C. area with the sole purpose of producing a staffing-ready document. In keeping with the objectives of the Joint Capability Integration and Development System defined in CJCSI 3170.01, a post-HPT requirements document receives the widest possible review from all MAJCOMs, services, staffs, CCDRs and other agencies as required. This process ensures all joint equities are considered prior to final validation and approval of the document. The RL will also initiate internal coordination with all AFSPC organizations, and gain AFSPC/A5 approval (as a minimum), to proceed to Air Force validation. Air Force validation takes place at the Air Force Requirements Oversight Council (AFROC), which is chaired by AF/A5R and is the CSAF’s governing body for all Air Force requirements. But even after Air Staff validation, we are not done. Every requirements document will undergo Joint Staff review, and those that could lead to large acquisition programs require approval by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), chaired by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A JROC-validated ICD allows the Air Force to formally engage the acquisition community in a forum called the Materiel Development Decision (MDD). This meeting is chaired by the probable acquisition executive, called the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). For large military space activities, the MDA is the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics. The MDA, with the advice and consent of the JROC representative, will decide if the validated ICD is worthy of entering the acquisition cycle, and at what step it should enter. The MDD is mandatory for all new potential acquisition programs. With MDA guidance, more analysis follows, usually in the form of an analysis of alternatives (AoA). An AoA takes inputs from a variety of sources, including development planning and science and technology efforts. The MDA reconvenes for a decision to either proceed with the effort or do more analysis at meetings called Defense Acquisition Boards (DAB). From this point on, the requirements and acquisition processes become intertwined in a series of DABs, each supported by a matured set of requirements. Time between DABs can be many months or even years. The next iteration of the requirements document is the Capability Development Document (CDD). This results from work done during the AoA and subsequent development planning efforts to define and prioritize the most critical requirements, known as key performance parameters. It also articulates the next level of requirements, called key system attributes as well as other system attributes desired. All defined requirements will be stated in terms of a threshold value (what is good enough to satisfy the warfighter need) and an objective value (the value beyond which there is limited operational value, and it doesn’t make sense to further expend resources). The acquisition community takes the CDD and translates the requirements into engineering terms. Prioritizing requirements through identifying KPPs and KSAs and providing thresholds and objectives provides the acquisition community with the needed trade space to execute successful programs. The CDD must undergo the same approval process as did the ICD described above. This may seem repetitive, but it ensures the warfighter need still exists, and that the requirements are indeed High Frontier 8
Page 1 and 2: INSIDE: Air Force Space Acquisitio
Page 3 and 4: Introduction General C. Robert Kehl
Page 5 and 6: Operationally Responsive Space In a
Page 7: From a technical perspective, the n
Page 11 and 12: Space Acquisition: Space and Missil
Page 15 and 16: years late to need). It was also on
Page 17 and 18: ooks, guides, and deliverable data.
Page 21 and 22: By relentlessly pursuing continuous
Page 25 and 26: Figure 2. Template knowledge points
Page 27 and 28: The primary focus will be to levera
Page 29 and 30: e hosted on the SIV, now referred t
Page 31 and 32: difference: public policy created t
Page 33 and 34: Space Acquisition Regaining Credibi
Page 35 and 36: tions. The 526 ICBMSG provides sing
Page 37 and 38: and acquisition of space systems; e
Page 39 and 40: curement practices that had ever be
Page 41 and 42: sume that if this old computer is e
Page 43 and 44: A Brief Example of the Value-Centri
Page 45 and 46: Space Acquisition The Cyberspace-De
Page 47 and 48: These observations all involve the
Page 49 and 50: the same capabilities within a larg
Page 51 and 52: Space Acquisition Is Acquiring Spac
Page 53 and 54: • Give up on trying to get a good
Page 55 and 56: • Establish quality program basel
Page 57 and 58: Imagery Architecture (FIA) programs
Page 59 and 60:
2. Execute, or suffer execution. As
Page 61 and 62:
ments are achieved. That said, mana
Page 63 and 64:
losing. As our nation has garnered
Page 65 and 66:
to the point; measurable; and empow
Page 67 and 68:
Legislative Perspective Weapon Syst
Page 69 and 70:
AFSPC and its acquisition arm at Sp
Page 71 and 72:
Book Review Arms and Innovation: En
show all

Space Acquisition - Air Force Space Command

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?