Modernization Planning Process (MPP) Overview (U)
1. (U)Planning Process (Figure A-1) is described in AFPD 10-14 (Modernization Process Overview: The Modernization Planning) and AFI 10-601 (Air Force Mission Needs and Operational Requirements). Long-range plans for force modernization are derived from national, DoD and Air Force strategy guidance. The planning process begins with a strategy review ensuring the capabilities and attributes of each mission area reflect this guidance.
Figure A- 1 Modernization Planning Process (U)
2. (U) Strategy-to-Task/Task-to-Need: The strategy-to-task (STT) and task-to-need processes are used to conduct a Mission Area Assessment (MAA) and Mission Needs Analysis (MNA). A comparison of mission tasks with current doctrine and tactics, coupled with weapon/system performance against the current and future threats determines non-materiel and materiel needs. Comparisons are made using time phasing to allow for a near, mid, and far-term assessment of capabilities, which assists tactics developers, technology developers, and far-term planners to more accurately match investments to documented needs during the Mission Solution Analysis (MSA). After needs are identified, an integrated product team process (combination of the AFMC Technical Planning Integrated Product Team (TPIPT) and the user Mission Area Team (MAT)) ensures modifications, new acquisitions, and key technologies are integrated into modernization roadmaps. One result of this process is the Mission Area Plan (MAP).
2.1. (U) Mission Area Assessment: The Air Staff, Major Commands (MAJCOMs), and Field Operating Agencies identify mission tasks (disabling activities) and functions (enabling support activities) through the MAA process. This process is a STT evaluation, linking mission tasks and functions requiring certain capabilities (current and programmed) to the military strategy provided by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During the MAA phase, MAJCOMs review tasking and assigned missions under the operational concepts for the various regional plans which assign specific operational objectives for Air Force assets. MAJCOMs continually evaluate plans and Joint Staff guidance for changes in assigned missions and objectives which may change the tasks and functions required for that mission.
2.2. (U) Mission Needs Analysis: Once tasks and functions are identified, MAJCOMs conduct a MNA by analyzing the factors which impact our current and programmed capability to accomplish those activities. The task-to-need process evaluates our force structure, tactics, the environment, and the threat we expect to encounter while conducting the assigned mission. The result of the MNA is a common list of needs which detail the shortfalls in our mission capability. If modifications to current systems or the acquisition of new systems are required, a Mission Need Statement (MNS) and/or an Operational Requirements Document (ORD) describes the required characteristics of the new system.
The methodology applied is an integrated approach combining Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and the STT framework to develop weights and priorities for identified needs. The integrated QFD design addresses some very basic but essential questions. Which operational objective has the most contribution to theater campaign objectives? Which tasks have higher contribution to operational objectives and thus to campaign objectives? What is our current ability to perform the necessary functions to fulfill the task? What is the relative importance of the Combat Air Force needs across the command? Thus, the desired output at every stage in the process shapes the final matrix designs. The command defined needs are prioritized through this cascading (deploying) of objectives from strategies to task analysis using inter-linked QFD Houses of Quality (Figure A-2). This method is not foolproof, but does provide structured process for capturing intuition and knowledge that is documented and repeatable.
At the end of the MNA phase, the prioritized and weighted command needs are generated. The next step is to adjust the weighting of the need by platform (aircraft/major system). The question to be answered at this step is: Where (which platform) does this capability need to be developed/improved? Needs are not equally relevant across platforms. A need that is critical to the mission of one aircraft may have a lower applicability to another, because of the mission of that platform. The intent of this step is to add platform relevance to the need score. The needs, by the previously designed matrices, would already have a command priority and weighting, relative to all of the other needs. The desired outcome of this process is to increase or decrease weights of specific prioritized needs according to platform (aircraft type/system), by considering the mission performed, and projected requirements. This assessment would result in separate lists of need weights. These needs and their adjusted weightings are "deployed" (QF"D") in the design to the next evaluation level, the solution assessment phase.
Figure A- 2 QFD House of Quality (U)
2.3. (U) Mission Solution Analysis: Once needs are identified, doctrine, tactics, and training (non-materiel solutions) are examined to determine if changes in these areas can solve the capability shortfall. The needs which cannot be satisfied by non-materiel solutions are provided to AFMC for a solution search. The MAT, in coordination with the TPIPT, match and evaluate each of the candidate technology solutions against each of the needs. The question to be answered by this step in the integrated matrix design is: What is the overall relative worth of the solutions in providing the capability prescribed in the need descriptions? The design is meant to capture the total contribution value of each solution. A solution which could greatly assist in solving (alleviating) capability shortfall over a large number of needs should receive a high score by this design. A solution which contributes to only one or a few needs would receive a lower resultant weighting. This relative, marginal contribution value is referred to as a combat capability measure. Thus, at this step, every modification proposal is examined to determine which needs it would help alleviate and to what degree. The results are weighted scores which are used as a measure of the potential, relative combat capability offered by that solution. This score is attributable to strategies to task, developed using a systematic analytical approach, reproducible, and consistent for each of the modifications. In addition, critical enabling technologies which directly support the matched solutions are identified by the AFMC scientific community. These technologies help meet mid- and far-term needs. The MPP ensures investments are made in the right technologies to address missions in the near (1-6 years covered by FYDP), mid (7-12 years), and far-term (13-25 years).
3. (U) Mission Area Plan: The MAP is the primary planning document for AF acquisition strategies, national and Air Force laboratory efforts, and industrial IR&D programs, providing a focus for limited investment dollars. The MAP summarizes and uses the products of the MAA, MNA and MSA processes to identify weapon system modernization efforts and key technologies required to satisfy known needs. The modernization programs required to alleviate needs in each weapon system are balanced against available funding, resulting in an acquisition strategy.
4. (U) Modernization Investment Plan (MIP): The MIP is a product of the MPP and is intended to provide senior leadership a starting point for funding deliberations. The document is a result of a computer model using goal programming methodology. Goal programming is a multiple objective approach which allows the trade-off of different goals which are not commensurate and often conflicting. The model attempts to maximize the combat capability contribution and cost sharing capability of a solution set while simultaneously minimizing acquisition cost, cost of ownership and technical risk (Figure A-3). The tools used to produce the MIP will be used as decision support tools by decision makers when building the ACC POM submission.
Figure A- 3 Modernization Investment Plan model inputs (U)
5. (U) MPP Cycle: The MPP process is on a two-year cycle and may be used to support the POM process (See Figure A-4). For example the FY (Even Year) MAP will provide information that can be used to work the FY (Even Year +2) POM. There may also be an update in the intervening year, if necessary, that highlights any major changes in investment strategy.
Figure A- 4 MPP 2-Year Schedule (U)