|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 63
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
OCR for page 64
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.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
biennial iteration
