APPENDIX C: RATIONALE FOR PRIORITIZATION OF CONCEPTS/SOLUTIONS
The prioritized Concepts and Solutions lists were developed using analytical data from the 1998-1999 IPP. Factors such as technology availability, revised funding profiles due to POM and AFPP results and the AFSPC strategy to implement the Vision were also taken into consideration.
Initial Prioritization
During the IPP, the Mission Teams worked together to develop an integrated Value Model which defined AFSPC's tasks and determined the relative importance of each task (i.e., task "weights"). At the next level down, the Mission Teams also developed Value Model measures and value curves to enable the evaluation of how well a concept/solution performs a given task. Solutions defined during MSA were then scored against the Value Model, and cost profiles were developed.
Next, IIA employed the Space Command Optimizer of Utility Toolkit (SCOUT) and mission area expertise to determine the combination of concepts/solutions that optimized task coverage given our fiscal constraints. The initial concept/solution priorities were then determined based on the weighted sum of task coverage, output from SCOUT, for each concept/solution.
Final Prioritization
The initial near- and far-term priority lists generated from SCOUT were then pared down to reduce overlap and provide more useful and realistic prioritization lists for the two phases. Since the mid-term list closely mirrored the far-term list, it provided little added value and was not carried forward. For the near-term list, only concepts that were technically feasible by FY07 and had procurement funding planned or programmed against it within FY00–07 timeframe were included. The far-term list contained capabilities (versus concepts) that were technically feasible after FY07 and before FY25 and had development/procurement funding planned for sometime before FY25. In some cases, roll-up concepts or capabilities were included on both lists if the concept/capability included at least one program/capability meeting the criteria for each of the time periods. The pared-down lists were then reviewed, modified and validated by the Command leadership, with inputs from several external organizations, before being finalized. Changes were made based on criteria such as the AFSPC Commander’s stated priorities, SMP strategy to implement the AFSPC Vision, Congressional language and interest, the CINC IPLs, sustainment issues, urgency of needs, funding realities and technology availability, etc. (See Figure C-1.)
Figure C-1: These criteria were considered to finalize the priority lists
Executive Summary Table Of Contents
Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9