AFSPCI

"Series Number"

10-606

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER

AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND

"Date of Instruction - Spell Month Out Completely"

2 May 1996

Operations

"Series Title"

"Long Title - Type In All Capital Letters"

DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF CONCEPTUAL DOCUMENTS

This Instruction implements AFPD10-6 Mission Needs and Operational Requirements, by providing guidance and procedures for developing and processing Air force Space Command (AFSPC) conceptual documents. It provides general guidance regarding the development and use of the various types of conceptual documents in support of AFSPC's mission areas and systems. This instruction applies to HQ AFSPC, its numbered Air Forces (NAF), and their space and missile wings. This Instruction does not apply to Air Force Reserve nor Air National Guard units.

1. List of Acronyms. See Attachment 6.

1.1. Concept of Operation/Concept of Employment (CONOPS/COE). Each of these documents identifies the relationship, dependencies, and desired interfaces envisioned between the new or upgraded system and other existing or planned systems. Each may address an operation or a series of operations.

1.2.MissionNeeds Statement (MNS). This is a brief document which identifies and documents needs to be satisfied by a materiel or software solution to a mission deficiency or to enhance operational capabilities.

1.3.Operational Requirement Document (ORD). This is a document prepared by the respective using command that describes pertinent quantitative and qualitative performance, operation, and support parameters, characteristics, and requirements for a specific candidate weapon system as defined in AFI 10-601, Mission Needs and Operational Requirements Guidance and Procedures.

1.4.Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA). This analysis provides an analytical basis for the selection of a possible solution on the basis of cost and operational effectiveness and to justify the need for starting or continuing an acquisition program.

2. Overview. This document establishes responsibilities for the preparation, coordination, and dissemination of all AFSPC conceptual documents. These documents are operationally oriented and are designed to assist AFSPC operations, planning, and execution, and to support the acquisition of new weapon systems. The conceptual document should provide a discussion on the mission(s) being addressed, a system description to include characteristics and capabilities, break-down of operational criteria to include employment/deployment/redeployment considerations, future considerations, and support elements to include security, safety, and logistics.

2.1 Commander's Concept. The Commander's Concept, sometimes referred to as a CONOPS, is defined as a verbal or graphic statement, in broad outline, of a commander's assumptions or intent in regard to an operation or series of operations as defined in Joint Publication 1-02. It is normally embodied in campaign plans and operation plans. The concept is designed to give an overall picture of the operation. It is included primarily for additional clarity of purpose. It is not part of the CONOPS documentation system and should not be confused with a CONOPS as described by this AFSPCI.

3. Objectives/Goals. Provide guidance and procedures for developing and processing conceptual documents.

3.1.Uses of CONOPS. There are various uses and users for CONOPS. The primary purpose of the CONOPS is to provide the vision for the AFSPC/DO on how systems/capabilities are operated and utilized. Various directorates within the command also utilize the CONOPS. HQ AFSPC/DR, for example, extracts operational requirements from the CONOPS and uses it as a framework for developing their Operational Requirements Document (ORD). Other directorates may use the CONOPS for developing their internal documents. The wings use the CONOPS when developing their COEs and the NAFs may use the CONOPS for Operation Plan (OPLAN) development. Agencies outside the command also have a vested interest in the CONOPS. The system program offices (SPO) use the CONOPS as guidance to direct the contractors in system architecture development as part of the acquisition process. Contractors use the CONOPS as guidance for developing internal architectural documents to meet requirements. The Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) uses the CONOPS when conducting their operational assessment (OA) and as part of the operational test and evaluation (OT&E) concept development. In general, the CONOPS provides guidance to those users requiring direction and/or information on developing their own documents.

3.2.TypesofConceptualDocuments. There are two basic types of conceptual documents, the CONOPS and the COE. Unless specifically identified (i.e. Mission CONOPS, COE, ORD CONOPS, etc.) the term "CONOPS" will refer generically to all conceptual documents within the context of this AFSPCI.

3.2.1 CONOPS. The CONOPS is a high level document which is used by the MAJCOM headquarters to describe how a system should be operated. It describes the operating command's approach to the deployment, employment, and operation of a new or upgraded system or capability they are advocating to meet identified tasks or missions. In addition, CONOPS are not limited to single systems, commands, or Services, but can rely on other systems and organizations, as required. The operational factors identified in a CONOPS form the core of ORDs and the Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) study. The CONOPS document is developed, approved and signed by the AFSPC/DO. There are two types of CONOPS developed at the headquarters: mission and acquisition.

3.2.1.1. Mission CONOPS. A mission CONOPS is an overarching document which is broad in scope and describes capabilities/systems supporting a specific mission. This document describes the operational structure, capabilities, basing, integration, and the interoperability of all the operational and supporting systems. It is consistent with the direction given in the Mission Area Plan (MAP) documented by HQ AFSPC/XP. It provides an AFSPC coordinated position to aid a commander in understanding a particular mission or operational area of application.

3.2.1.2. Acquisition CONOPS. An acquisition CONOPS will fall into one of three types: new system CONOPS, system upgrades/modifications CONOPS, or ORD CONOPS. Based on a validated MNS, these documents relate directly to the development, change or modification of a weapon system, component, or piece of equipment. They will be used to describe the need, intended use, and required support of the system/equipment. An acquisition CONOPS will become more detailed and refined as the system progresses through each acquisition milestone. It will provide a system description, characteristics, capabilities, deployment, and describe support aspects to include security, maintainability, manpower, and logistics. Concept development for acquisition purposes is defined by AFI10-601.

3.2.1.2.1 New System CONOPS. A new system CONOPS is created for new system acquisitions and is based on a validated MNS. This CONOPS is updated at each milestone of the acquisition process, biennially, or as necessary.

3.2.1.2.2. System Upgrades/Modifications CONOPS. The system upgrades or modifications CONOPS is created when an approved system upgrade or modification acquisition will significantly alter the current operational concepts.

3.2.1.2.3. ORD CONOPS. The ORD CONOPS is created as part of the ORD development process. It is a summary of a system specific CONOPS specifically written to be included in the ORD. This CONOPS will be updated concurrently with ORD updates.

3.2.2. The COE. The COE is a document produced by the operating space or missile wing. It describes how a specific system or systems will be, or is currently being employed to meet mission accomplishment. By its nature, it's more detailed than the MAJCOM CONOPS but follows the same organizational structure. In addition to the areas covered by the CONOPS, the COE discusses the user segment, crew force management, training, exercises, surge capabilities, and wartime operations to include specific tasks identified in OPLANS. The NAF Commander is the approving authority for COEs. The COE should document realities (limitations, constraints, and deficiencies) of current systems and identify processes to maximize operability in spite of existing system deficiencies or constraints. The COE is a key document which reinforces the need for system upgrades to mitigate existing deficiencies. It will be consistent with the mission and system specific CONOPS, and will serve as a baseline to drive future MNS development.

4. Responsibilities:

4.1.The Director of Operations (HQ AFSPC/DO). DO has overall responsibility for the development and approval of CONOPS documents IAW AFSPCHOI 10-1. DO will coordinate all CONOPS with the appropriate NAFs and agencies/offices within the command and other agencies when applicable. The Operational Plans Division (AFSPC/DOX) is the AFSPC office of primary responsibility (OPR) for the development and coordination of operational related CONOPS documentation. However, other offices with subject matter experts may be delegated to develop CONOPS as well.

4.2. The Director of Requirements (HQ AFSPC/DR). DR is responsible for conducting the COEA and the development and coordination of the ORD and MNS IAW AFSPCHOI 10-1.

4.3. The Director of Plans (HQ AFSPC/XP). XP has overall responsibility for MAPs IAW AFSPCHOI 10-1. This document drives and forms the basis for developing the MNS.

4.4 Numbered Air Force (NAF) Commanders. NAF commanders have overall responsibility for approval of COE documents. The NAF commander will task the appropriate wing for development and coordination of the COE. The NAFs will task the appropriate wing(s) to provide comments for applicable CONOPS. The NAFs will consolidate all wing CONOPS comments and forward to HQ AFSPC. The NAF OPR for coordinating CONOPS/COE documents is the plans office.

4.5. AFSPC Wing Commanders. Wing commanders have overall responsibility for the development and coordination of COE documents. The Wing commander may select the OPR for COE document development and coordination from the appropriate operational squadron or from within the Operations Group. After wing coordination on the COE is complete, the Wing Commander will submit the COE to the NAF for approval. Wing Commanders will submit CONOPS comments to the NAF for consolidation.

5. Concept Exploration and Definition:

5.1. Developing a CONOPS. CONOPS development starts when a deficiency is identified by higher headquarters, the MAJCOM, the operating Wings, or the warfighters. This deficiency is correlated to a mission need. This need is formalized and validated with the issuance of a MNS IAW AFI 10-601. For major programs, a concept studies Program Management Directive (PMD) is issued by HQ USAF/XOR directing concept exploration. Based on the MNS, a CONOPS is then developed as a source of guidance which describes the operating command's approach to the development, employment and operation of a new or upgraded system. As the program evolves, additional PMDs may be issued at critical decision points, possibly affecting the development of the CONOPS. Attachment 1 identifies where the CONOPS fits into the overall system documentation process for the acquisition of a new weapon system.

5.2. Relationship to the COEA. Prior to ORD development, a COEA study will be conducted for Acquisition Category 1 (ACAT-1) and other designated programs to compare potential alternative operational concepts per DoD 5000.2 and as outlined in AFI 10-601. These alternative concepts will be compared to the MAJCOM CONOPS to determine the most cost effective solution for accomplishing the mission.

5.3. Relationship to the ORD. The CONOPS is used to drive development of the ORD. A summary of the CONOPS is included in the ORD. IAW AFI 10-601, the ORD is used to describe a system to be fielded, or upgrades to an existing system, based on the guidance provided by the CONOPS.

6. CONOPS Development Process:

6.1. There are six phases in the process of developing a conceptual document: the Initiation Phase, the Drafting Phase, the Coordination Phase, the Approval Phase, the Distribution Phase, and the Review Phase. Attachment 2 shows the flow chart for CONOPS development. Attachment 3 shows the generic timeline for developing the CONOPS. Use these only as a guide.

6.1.1. The Initiation Phase. This is where the tasking for the conceptual document is originated. For MAJCOM CONOPS, the tasking could be internal but in most cases it originates in DR, XP, NAF, USSPACECOM, or at the Air Staff. For Space/Missile Wing employment concepts the tasking can be internal or it could originate at the NAF. Also during this phase, the scope, schedule, and resource requirements are determined.

6.1.1.1. Agencies desiring conceptual guidance must submit a CONOPS request through HQ AFSPC/DO and COE requests through the appropriate NAF/DO. Command/NAF personnel will coordinate with the requester to determine if (or which type of) document would be appropriate to meet the requester's need. The AFSPC/DO or appropriate NAF/DO will make the final decision on what type of conceptual document (if any) to develop based on requirement.

6.1.1.2. Concepts requested on a specific aspect of an operational system, subsystem, or support system (e.g. training, communications, logistics) will be developed by the functional agency most knowledgeable in that area (e.g. DOT for training, LGM for maintenance, and SCO for communications).

6.1.2. Drafting Phase. The OPR conducts extensive research to determine the scope of the conceptual document and its objectives using the general operational elements discussed in this AFSPCI as an outline. Working groups, initially from HQ AFSPC staff personnel for CONOPS and squadron personnel for COEs, should be formed to develop a strawman concept. Group members are identified to focus on their area of expertise when contributing to the development of a CONOPS. These members generally are representatives of the concept action group (CAG) as defined in AFSPCHOI10-1. Assistance may be requested from the NAFs, Wings, other MAJCOMs, sister services, etc., as needed. Internal or outside agencies will be requested to provide ideas when needed. Once a workable draft is completed, it is reviewed and modified. This process may go through a few iterations before a good working draft is sent out for initial coordination.

6.1.2.1. Key CONOPS Elements. The key elements to consider for a successful CONOPS are shown in attachment 1. The listed elements which form the document are not all inclusive and may vary depending on the concept subject and its complexity. Other elements may be included or omitted to tailor the CONOPS to the particular system being addressed.

6.1.2.1.1. Capacity. Address how the system will optimize assigned resources, support mission growth, and meet surge requirements.

6.1.2.1.2. Command and Control. Address how the system will integrate into the existing command and control structure. Identify clear lines of communications to meet the proper command and control requirement.

6.1.2.1.3. Operability/Flexibility. Address how the system will transition from peacetime operations through all levels of conflict to include, when necessary, post-war operations. Address to what extent the system will be self-contained.

6.1.2.1.4. Survivability/Endurability. Address the level of conflict the system will survive/endure to assure mission accomplishment.

6.1.2.1.5. Standardization/Interoperability. Address how the system will be standardized and interoperate with existing infrastructure. Identify procedural and technical interface standards to be incorporated into the system or operational design to ensure the required degree of interoperability between the system or operation. A system should be designed to conduct normalized operations and maintenance consistent with the mission and responsibilities delegated to it. Areas to address may include how standard commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware/software may be utilized for mission execution and for enhancing commonality of replacement parts with other like units. Address considerations for government-off-the-shelf and non-developmental item (NDI) hardware and software. This commonality of hardware/software will enable systems with compatible and/or similar missions to share the same resources.

6.1.2.1.6. Reliability/Maintainability. Address any reliability/maintainability issues which may include single point failures, common maintenance support, and operation & maintenance (O&M) or life-cycle costs.

6.1.2.1.7. Manpower/Basing/Strategy/Force Structure. Address basing and manning constraints and identify expected force structure. Areas to consider may include automation to minimize manning requirements and collocation with other AFSPC units to take advantage of economies of scale. Facility considerations must also be addressed.

6.1.3. Coordination Phase. The document should receive the widest coordination and dissemination possible, but be coordinated only with those offices having possible inputs or being impacted by the document. All CONOPS require 3 letter (division level/2 letter NAF) coordination, and 2 letter (HQ Directorate/NAF Commander/other agency when applicable) coordination with AFSPC/DO approval before being published. NAF requires a minimum of 3 weeks to staff and consolidate comments from the NAF staff and its wings upon receipt of the CONOPS. All COEs require squadron, group and wing coordination with NAF CC approval before being published. The staff summary sheet (SSS) or official memorandums used to coordinate and obtain approval will be maintained with the master document as document approval authority. All comments submitted to the OPR should have justification/rationale associated with each comment. Conversely, all comments should be addressed by the OPR, usually in the form of a comment resolution matrix which provides feedback to coordinating agencies on why their comments were or were not incorporated into the document, along with the justification/rationale. When the document is in the coordination and review cycle, the following criteria will be used to determine the severity of the comments provided:

6.1.3.1. Critical. Critical comments will result in a nonconcur by the coordinating agency if not satisfactorily resolved.

6.1.3.2. Substantive. Substantive comments identify areas that appear or are potentially unnecessary, incorrect, incomplete, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with command policy or the Mission Area Plan.

6.1.3.3. Administrative. Administrative comments generally deal with typographical or grammatical errors.

6.1.4. Approval Phase. The OPR prepares a briefing to the approving authority (e.g. AFSPC/DO) of the CONOPS. During this phase, the OPR will schedule a briefing, prepare the briefing charts, prepare a final draft of the document for signature, do any required briefing dry runs, and finally brief. At this point, all comments should have been resolved and incorporated into the document for final approval and signature.

6.1.5. Distribution Phase. The signed document is ready for reproduction and distribution to all applicable agencies.

6.1.6. Review Phase. Reviews are normally conducted biennially or at the beginning of each new milestone, as applicable. When conducting the review of approved conceptual documents, the OPR should circulate the document to the appropriate three letter offices. The OPR must ensure widest dissemination of the document to applicable offices/agencies. If significant changes are required, the action officer (AO) must accomplish the coordination phase as described above. If only minor or administrative changes are required, the AO may incorporate those changes and have the three letter OPR sign out the document for distribution. In both cases, a new cover sheet for the CONOPS must be generated to reflect the revised date. If a review was conducted and it was determined that no significant changes are required, then a memo for record (MFR) should be accomplished to document that the review was conducted and the outcome of that review. The MFR should be filed with the basic document working file.

7. General Format:

7.1. Standardized Format (see atch 4). The body of the concept will vary in length from normally two pages for an ORD CONOPS, to 20 pages for a system CONOPS, and 60 pages for a mission CONOPS. This is inclusive of the executive summary. Length of employment concepts will be dependent on the complexity of the system being addressed. Note that these lengths are to be used only as guidelines and may vary based on requirement.

7.2. Documents should use the "Times New Roman" font and character size of 12 with bold print for section headers. Margins will be 1 inch left and right, 1 inch top and bottom. Use only left justification.

7.3. Each paragraph should be numerically labeled for flexibility and ease of identification (e.g., 1.1, 2.3, 3.1.2, etc.).

7.4. Page numbers should be centered at the bottom and in numerical sequence. Page numbering preceding the main body should be numbered in sequence in lower case roman numeral format beginning with "ii" on the second page, since the title page is not labeled with a page number. Roman numeral page numbering again is only applicable to those pages preceding the main body of the document (e.g. table of contents and executive summary).

7.5. On classified documents, classification authority and declassification instructions will be displayed on the title page (see Atch 5). For all new classified information, assign a declassification date not to exceed 10 years from the original classification of the information. For documents classified from derivative sources and marked "Originating Agency's Determination Required (OADR)", the date of origin of the source document or classification guide shall be included. This marking will permit the determination of when the classified information is 25 years old and subject to automatic declassification under section 3.4 of Executive Order 12958. Each page will be properly annotated with the security classification in accordance with AFI 31-401 and USAFINTEL 201-1. The inside of the last page of each classified document will be blank except for the following annotation, "THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK." Additionally, this annotation will be used for any blank page throughout the classified document. Copy numbers must be included with each addressee showing what copy number goes to what addressee per DoD 5200.1-R/AFPD 31-4 (security classifications).

7.6. All stand alone conceptual documents will be bound with blue cardstock for unclassified documents and red cardstock for classified documents. Documents which accompany the signed CONOPS for distribution include the distribution letter and customer satisfaction survey. A distribution letter will be used to release the CONOPS or COE once signed by the appropriate approving official. This letter authorizes release of the AFSPC approved document and will contain any special instructions required for distribution such as restrictions on releasability to contractors or foreign nationals for classified documents. A customer satisfaction survey should be used when a CONOPS or COE is released to provide feedback and better support to the users of the documents.

8. CONOPS Release Policy.

8.1.A conceptual document is an integral part of program documentation supporting the Air Force and DoD. Draft concepts normally are not released outside the Department of the Air Force or other participating services due to potential source selection sensitivity and the possibility the information may be misinterpreted or changed. Following its approval and inclusion of recommended revisions, a published concept document may be released to other U.S. government and non-government agencies who are authorized to receive such information and who have a valid need to know. However, if proprietary rights could be jeopardized or conflicts of interest appear to be possible, the related information must be deleted or sanitized. Using commands must clearly state the constraints they want placed on the review and distribution of a concept document.

8.2. Release of the concept document, in part or whole, is governed by AFI 61-204. Multi-command, multi-service, and joint concept document initiatives require concurrence of all users before such documents can be released. Draft documents released prior to AFSPC approval must clearly state that they do not necessarily reflect AFSPC policy or approval and are subject to change. The top and bottom of concept document pages will be clearly marked "DRAFT".

DONALD G. COOK

Brigadier General, USAF

Director of Operations

Attachments

1. CONOPS Association Flow

2. CONOPS Development Process

3. CONOPS Timeline

4. CONOPS/COE Document Format & Samples

5. Cover Page & Signature Page Examples

6. List of Acronyms