tion of risks with stakeholders. These steps generally are similar to the risk management process currently used by the USSF except that trade-offs are required among multiple mis- sion assurance objectives as shown in Figure 2. USSF program managers and lead- ership should expand the mission assurance objectives as needed to reflect new operational and program- matic goals. Effective implementation of the risk management framework also requires senior leadership recog- nition of and attention to the issues, a focus on early and frequent com- munication across stakeholder com- munities, and a plan for and sustained attention to implementing change. Synchronizing the broader space enterprise is critical to faster deliv- ery of space capabilities to outpace adversary threats. This includes both vertical synchronization (i.e., across space, ground, and user segments) and horizontal synchronization (i.e., across the stakeholder community, including Services, other government agencies, and industry). Improving Integration and Synchronization To examine these issues, the team interviewed more than 60 subject- matter experts and senior decision-
makers across DoD, other federal agencies, and the private sector. They also mapped approximately 90 stakeholders in the then-current USSF acquisition ecosystem and the relationships among those organiza- tions to understand how the current system functions and identified dis- connects. A 2023 report, Improving Integration and Synchronization of Space Acquisition ,” described their findings, and researchers identified several areas that have a measurable effect on integration and synchronization in space acquisition: building resiliency to budget instability, defining capabil- ity or mission architectures, aligning acquisition and operational organiza- tions, and transitioning innovation to operational capabilities. Budget resiliency. Program-level budget instability and inflexibility make it difficult to execute and deliver integrated and synchronized capabili- ties. Budget uncertainty, including fre- quent use of continuing resolutions, has a particularly large effect on the transition of technology from ex- perimentation to programs of record because generally the new programs cannot be funded. To address this problem, the USSF needs to create resource-loaded road- maps of mission capability architec- tures and conduct sensitivity analy-
ses, improve its understanding, and prepare for the effects of budget ac- tions, changed funding levels, or pro- gram cancellations. An understand- ing of the effect of budgetary volatility on the space defense industrial base must also be part of investment plan- ning, and Congress must be part of that conversation. The USSF likely will need to also adopt tools and techniques that allow it to manage the resilience of its in- vestment planning to budget uncer- tainties. In the short term, this will require a cultural change that values more open communication with Con- gress and the White House and builds alignment across the USSF (including field commands and acquisition com- munity), the DAF, the Pentagon, and the greater U.S. space enterprise. Architectural focus. Many USSF organizations are involved in or with space-related architectural decisions; however, the research team found significant confusion about the roles and responsibilities of those organi- zations. At the time the research was completed in 2022, no organization had ownership of the capability archi- tecture or roadmaps. To formalize accountabilities for architecture, the USSF needs to define what architecture consists of and use that definition to document the roles
Figure 2. A Framework for Balancing Risks
1. Determine the mission assurance objectives, risk posture, and approach or plan. The mission assurance objectives should include metrics that are linked to mission success from a technical, programmatic, and operational perspective and capture the key elements that are required for the operators to perform their mission successfully. 2. Identify and assess risk items and risk mitigation options. This step is intended to build on the risk assessment that the program office is already performing with the DoD Risk Management Framework but uses more granular risk categories that reflect mission assurance objectives. 3. Construct and assess courses of action and select the one that is optimal. This step involves prioritizing the risks and making trade-offs to balance the risks to the mission assurance objectives because not all risks can be mitigated given schedule and resource constraints. 4. Communicate courses of action, associated risks, and the impact on mission assurance to stakeholders. Ideally, the stakeholder communities should be involved throughout the entire risk assessment process to provide inputs and facilitate alignments of the risk posture and processes that affect rapid acquisition. 5. Monitor, iterate, and refine, as necessary. As the programs proceed, new or unanticipated risks might be introduced, and the risk assessment processes will need to be repeated. Program offices should determine a frequency for routine risk monitoring and assessment.
Source: Authors.
March-April 2025 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION | 39
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker