The primary goal of an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) is to evaluate the military utility of mature advanced technology(s), and to develop the concept of operations that will optimize effectiveness. This evaluation will be accomplished in a real-time operation, and on a scale large enough to clearly establish operational utility and system integrity. The demonstration is jointly sponsored and implemented by the operational user and materiel development communities, with approval and oversight guidance from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Technology (DUSD(AT)).
The principal management tool for the ACTD is the ACTD Management Plan, the guidelines for which are given in this document. A tenet of the ACTD philosophy is to maintain a flexible approach to the advanced development process and to avoid excessive rigidity and formality in documentation and process. Hence, it is intended that this Management Plan be an executive-level document (preferably less than 25 pages), written in informal language. The Management Plan will generally be drafted jointly by the primary acquisition and user organizations for the ACTD, with assistance from other participants. The Management Plan is a plan; it is not intended to be immutable, as modifications may be warranted from time to time. However, all substantive (i.e., schedule, funding, content, objectives) changes require approval and documentation by the Oversight Group, as discussed below.
The ACTD Management Plan provides for each ACTD a top-level description of the demonstration with sufficient detail that the vital objectives, approach, critical events, participants, schedule, funding, and transition objectives are understood and (by endorsement) agreed upon by all relevant parties. Measures of evaluation, to be considered in addressing both effectiveness and suitability of the capability being evaluated, should be defined. The parties who approve/endorse the ACTD Management Plan include, at a minimum: the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Technology (DUSD(AT)), the Commander(s) of the sponsoring operational user organization(s) (e.g., United States Atlantic Command (USACOM), Special Operations Command (SOCOM), Air Combat Command (ACC), Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Naval Operations (OPNAV), etc.,), the Acquisition Executive(s) of the executing service(s) or the Director(s) of the executing agency(s) (e.g., DARPA), and the authorized representative of all key participants (e.g., supporting service components in joint activities, Program Managers of all included entities, test ranges, intelligence assets, troops for exercises, etc.,). Furthermore, since a key product of an ACTD is the experience base developed by the service applied to the development of the Operational Requirements Document (ORD), active involvement of the operational requirements developer is vital to the success of the ACTD. Multiple service participants would be represented as appropriate in joint interest ACTDs. The goal is to minimize the number of signatures, while ensuring that all essential participants are included. In effect, the parties identified in the ACTD Management Plan constitute an Integrated Product and Process Development Team and the Management Plan serves as a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) among all the participating parties to be used for evaluation of progress and guiding management decisions.
The content of each Management Plan should be tailored to meet the diverse needs of that ACTD. Specific items which may be addressed within the plan include the following:
An ACTD must demonstrate a proposed response to an critical military need. This section should include a discussion of the military need, whether it be to counter a new threat, to provide a significant improvement (e.g., eliminate a serious deficiency or reduced life cycle or acquisition costs, casualties, etc.) in performing an existing mission, or to introduce a fundamentally new approach to warfare. The objectives of the ACTD should be spelled out in terms of the need, the new or improved military capabilities, and corresponding concept(s) of operations (CONOP(s)) which would be employed with the capability to be demonstrated. This section should also discuss the post-ACTD objective, assuming a positive decision to acquire the capability.
A summary description of the demonstration is to be provided in terms of the broad context, the operational mission, the scenario in which the demonstration occurs, the hardware and software elements involved (including those already within the force structure or under development, as well as, those novel elements of sufficient technical maturity to be deemed low risk), the operational user(s) and their CONOPs, the physical/synthetic locus (loci) of the demonstration, the number of actual exercises envisioned, the purpose and scope of supporting simulations, and the roles of all of the participants. In addition, the expected time frame (up to four years) and overall funding (including sources) required to complete the demonstration phase will be summarized.
Concept and Technical Approach
Scenario(s) and Initial Concept of Operation: The operational scenario, or set of scenarios, which provide the context of the demonstration will be described. Typically, the sponsoring user(s) will be responsible for defining the specific mission and scenario(s) to be addressed. The initial CONOP anticipated for using the elements in a military operation for each specified scenario will be defined and described by the user organization, with the assistance of the appropriate development office(s) when necessary. Alternative, innovative CONOPs should be included if possible. (It is expected that the very nature of the demonstration is likely to lead to discovery of ways to improve the initial CONOP, thereby emphasizing the appropriateness of the word initial in this context.)
Emerging Technologies: Emerging technologies are hardware and software technologies which are not in the force structure. Typically, these technologies are the products of the S&T programs (e.g., Advanced Technology Demonstrations) or possibly Non-Developmental Item (NDI) insertions from the commercial world. The ACTD may also include emerging technologies that are already in the formal acquisition process, i.e., beyond Milestone I, if needed to provide a valid operational context. Emerging technologies must be relatively mature (i.e., acceptably low technical risk, including engineering integration) with a high probability of significant military capability. This section of the plan will identify all of the emerging technologies planned to be included in the demonstration (or sequence of exercises). For each emerging technology identified, this section should identify the party responsible for providing it, required dates, anticipated availability, and the expected top-level performance characteristics (including the range for each parameter which impacts operational utility). The responsible party for each technology element is a vital participant in the ACTD and indicates commitment to the timely availability of that technology (including adequate funding allocation) by endorsing the plan.
Measures of Effectiveness (MoE) and Measures of Performance (MoP): It is vital that the limited resources available to an ACTD be directed toward the evaluation of the military utility of the capability being evaluated. There are two aspects of military utility. The first deals with the question of how important the intended mission is to the outcome of the conflict or the military operation. This question can only be addressed from the integrated perspective of the operational user. The second deals with the issue of how effectively the capability under evaluation performs the intended mission and how suitable is it for use in military operations. To address this second aspect, it is important to define at the beginning of the ACTD those measures of effectiveness and performance (MoEs & MoPs) that will be considered to determine effectiveness and suitability. MoEs are high level indicators of operational effectiveness or suitability. MoPs are technical characteristics that determine a particular aspect of effectiveness or suitability. The user should define the relevant MoEs with support from the Demonstration Manager and the appropriate service Operational Test Agency (OTA). Likewise the Demonstration Manager should quantify the MoPs with support from the user and the OTA. The Management Plan should establish these responsibilities and the associated schedules. When simulations are proposed to quantify effectiveness or to show the relationship of the mission to the outcome of the conflict, the process should be described.
Technical Risk Assessment: ACTDs are intended primarily to explore operational and cost effectiveness issues of mature technologies; high technical risk is normally not acceptable. A discussion of the technical risks will be provided to ensure that all parties understand and accept those risks. Technologies with unacceptable technical risk should not be included within an ACTD.
Affordability: ACTDs are intended to facilitate the transition of concepts using mature or emerging technologies into the operational force structure. One potential roadblock to a successful transition is the lack of understanding of likely acquisition and ownership costs (Operation and Support--O&S). A discussion of affordability issues associated with potential acquisition and follow-on O&S costs of the objective system(s) should be provided in the Plan. This discussion should address the maturity of the life cycle cost estimate for the capability being demonstrated and plans to refine this estimate early enough in the ACTD to identify cost drivers and assess affordability. The plan should focus on affordability issues that could potentially block successful transition. Affordability may not be as important an issue with procurement of small numbers of items unless they are very costly unique items or unless the O&S cost is an issue. In particular, the plan should identify known affordability issues and indicate how they will be quantified and/or mitigated in the ACTD. If affordability is not expected to be an issue, it should be clearly stated as such.
Interoperability: Interoperability refers to the ability of systems, units, or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units, or forces; and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together. It addresses the interfaces to other systems and equipment, as well as logistics and other support. While not all interoperability issues are expected to be resolved during the ACTD, the Management Plan should identify the known issues and specify those which will be resolved, describing as well the approach envisioned for addressing the remainder. Conformance to the Joint Technical Architecture should be addressed where relevant.
Equipment: All operational equipment which is expected to be involved in the demonstration, including any programmed systems currently in acquisition, will be described. In the event the actual hardware or the necessary quantity thereof is not available, some equipment may participate in the exercise(s) via simulation. The intent is to create as realistic an operational environment as possible, one with sufficient scope to ensure that the lessons learned are valid and can lead to an informed user evaluation and acquisition decision.
Training: It is envisioned that in most cases the emerging systems or technologies will actually be operated by operational forces, not contractors. This implies that the personnel designated to conduct the operations must receive adequate training prior to the actual exercises. As a matter of principle, the Department encourages the maximum use of embedded training capability in all equipment. This approach could simplify the task of training the operational forces participating in the ACTD. The approach for training (embedded and otherwise) should be discussed.
Participating Forces: If possible, all operational blue (i.e., US plus allied/coalition) force units expected to participate in the demonstration exercise(s) will be identified. Typically, provision of US forces would be the responsibility of the sponsoring user organization(s). In some cases it may be appropriate and desirable to conduct ACTD exercises in coordination with one or more foreign nation or alliance. Any proposed or planned foreign involvement in the ACTD will be identified and summarized. If the foreign participation is central to meeting the objectives of the ACTD, the commitment of such involvement, including necessary funding, will be provided by the responsible representative(s) of the foreign participant(s) in the form of Memoranda of Agreement (MoA) as a supplement to this Plan.
Opposing Forces (OPFOR): In order to ensure the maximum realism and operational lessons learned as a result of the demonstration, an independent, intelligent, reactive opposing force (OPFOR) may be included to implement operational and possibly materiel countermeasures to the new capability being demonstrated. If applicable, the provider of such forces should be identified, along with a commitment to their availability.
Participating Test Organizations: Each ACTD should integrate the appropriate elements of the DoD test community (e.g., service OTAs) into the program from the start. The test organizations and functions should be spelled out in the plan. Particular attention needs to be paid to the involvement of the operational test community in the development of measures of effectiveness and measures of performance and in planning for the collection of data necessary to address these areas.
Site; Range Facilities: The locus (loci) of the ACTD demonstration exercise(s) will be identified, including a listing of major support equipment/activities required from each site.
Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS): If Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) plays a major role in the ACTD, identification of all DIS support requirements will be listed, along with the party(s) responsible for providing that support (this includes all the DIS compatible entities that are to be included within the demonstration). DIS may provide a means of mutual interaction among ongoing or planned ACTDs.
Programmatic and Organizational Approach
Streamlined acquisition and management processes are strongly encouraged for all ACTD efforts. The ACTD managers will employ an Integrated Product Team (IPT) to integrate all key participants into the planning and management of the ACTD. Acquisition initiatives such as performance based procurement requirements, Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV), use of commercial standards and products, contractor logistic support concepts, integration of development and operational testing, etc., should be applied where practical. The Management Plan should identify the streamlining measures that are planned. It is desired that all personnel who have a key decision role in the program be identified in the plan, with a goal of minimizing the number while assuring that the list is complete.
Oversight Group: Each ACTD will have an Oversight Group, which is chaired by DUSD(AT) or his/her designated representative and including decision-empowered representatives of each principal co-sponsoring user and development organization, along with a representative from the Joint Staff. The object of the Oversight Group is to provide a forum for discussion among the key managers from the participating developer and user organizations to identify and address issues, concerns and problems and to facilitate parallel decision-making. In addition, the Oversight Group must approve all substantive deviations from the approved Management Plan. The charter for the Oversight Group is defined in a separate document.
Executing Agent: The lead development organization (service acquisition organization or defense agency or organization) is the executing agent and provides the day-to-day management of the ACTD. The executing agent will designate the ACTD Demonstration Manager (DM), who is responsible for planning, coordination, and direction of all development community activities related to the demonstration project. Within the structure of the executing agency, the DM will manage all funds from that organization (including ACTD-Program Element (PE) funds provided from OSD) and will monitor and coordinate the funding and expenditures from all other RDT&E participants. The executing agent will normally provide a significant portion of the ACTD funding from its own resources, although joint programs with joint funding are strongly encouraged. The SAE (for a service) or Director (for an agency or other organization), or his/her designated representative, will serve as a member of the Oversight Group on behalf of the lead development organization. The executing agent will be identified, and as a signatory party to the Plan, indicate commitment to providing the necessary management and funding resources. Other development organizations with a significant involvement in the demonstration project should also endorse the Plan.
User Sponsor(s): The active participation of one or more user sponsors from the operational (war-fighting) community is an essential element of an ACTD. The sponsoring user(s) are expected to provide the context, operational mission and scenario(s), active force element participants and equipment, and post-demonstration analysis (AAR--"after-action review"), including an assessment of military utility of the demonstrated capability (including the importance of the capability under evaluation to the outcome of the conflict or military operation) and a recommendation for follow-on action (i.e., procurement, modification, or termination). The principal sponsoring user will also designate the Operational Manager (OM), who is responsible for all planning, coordination, and direction of user activities related to the demonstration project. The OM may also serve as the Deputy Demonstration Manager (DDM). Additional user sponsors may participate in the ACTD, either through active involvement or strong interest and support. The senior commanding officer of the principal sponsoring user organization, or his/her designated representative, will be a member of the Oversight Group.
ACTD Managers: The ACTD Demonstration Manager (DM) and the ACTD Operational Manager (OM), will provide the day-to-day direction of the overall demonstration project. They will prepare and deliver periodic reports to the Oversight Group and other reviewing authorities. The individuals selected to serve as DM and OM/DDM should be identified by name in the Plan. The ACTD Managers will bring to the attention of the Oversight Group any potential deviations from the Management Plan for discussion and resolution, and concomitant modification of the Plan. Any change in the managers or management structure will be approved by the Oversight Group.
Acquisition and Contracting Strategy: The overall acquisition strategy for the system or capability being demonstrated should be described, including the intended follow-on activity (e.g., purchase of additional quantities of commercial items, entry into LRIP) as well as any Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I). The plan should also include a description of the overall contracting strategy for the ACTD and any intended follow-on activity. This strategy should identify each major contract needed to execute the ACTD, including a description of the competition plans, contract type, contract options, and schedule. If a sole source contract is planned, the contracting strategy should provide brief rationale and identify the source. Definition of support for additional field testing by the user(s) should also be provided. There is a strong emphasis on streamlined procurement approaches. and industry participants.
Critical Events: A list of all the critical events necessary for successful and timely completion of the demonstration will be provided. These events will serve as decision milestones for the Oversight Group, with continuation of the ACTD contingent upon successful completion. Such events would typically include the approval of the detailed implementation plan, completion of enabling ATDs, major contract awards, critical pre-demo readiness assessment tests, the actual demonstration(s), and final assessment and acquisition recommendations.
Residual Operational Capability: ACTDs are normally expected to leave behind a limited operational capability. This capability should provide at least a minimum operational utility for the user so that it is included in his planning and training activities. The scope and role of the residual capability (e.g., contingency operation) should be described, together with the technical support to be provided during the two years following completion of the ACTD.
Transition Plan: Although a detailed transition plan is not required at the initiation of an ACTD, it is necessary to consider the implications of a decision to acquire during the formulation of the ACTD. In addition to the development of the acquisition and procurement strategy and life cycle cost estimate, as described earlier, the Management Plan should also address the assessment of military utility. It should describe the basis and methodology (including the role of simulation) for assessing the military utility (value to the warfighter). As a minimum, it must assign responsibility and define the schedule for the development of this methodology. In addition, the plan should describe the general approach proposed for achieving adequate supportability for the residual elements as well as for any systems that are proposed to enter directly into production and fielding following a successful ACTD. Assuming that the goal is to enter the formal acquisition process at the conclusion of the ACTD, this section of the plan should also identify the appropriate acquisition service, and describe the responsibility for the development of the ORD and the key inputs to that effort (e.g., the characterization of the system demonstrated during the ACTD, the life cycle cost estimates, and the acquisition implications of increased performance requirements). The nature of the transition may vary significantly from one ACTD element to another.
Safety/Hazards/Environmental Assessment: Since the ACTD exercises will likely involve operational personnel utilizing mature advanced technology systems, some of which may be left behind as a residual capability, it is necessary to assess the potential safety hazards which might arise in using the equipment, along with likely measures to minimize or mitigate these hazards, including adequate pre-test familiarization and training. The Management Plan should include a brief paragraph discussing these hazard/safety issues in anticipation of a more detailed, formal assessment (which may be required on a case-by-case basis prior to actual commencement of field exercises). In addition, potential environmental issues should be identified and addressed.
Schedule: The time scale of an ACTD is typically from a few months to four years, not including the two-year follow-on period for extended user operational evaluation required by the ACTD criteria. An overall schedule showing all the major milestones, including critical events (against which progress can be evaluated by the Oversight Group) will be provided.
Funding: Funding for the complete ACTD must be identified and committed for all fiscal years included. However, unlike the case for a formal acquisition phase decision, out-year funding beyond the ACTD and its two-year follow-on phase need not be committed. The funding from each participating party will be listed for the FYDP and POM cycles, with detail down to the PE and Project level. Advanced planning may be required to ensure adequate funding for an ACTD is provided in the Presidents Budget submission. The funding baseline should include all funds required for completion of the ACTD and, separately identified, the funding of supporting S&T efforts which are essential to the ACTD. The purpose of the latter is to identify the funding required to assure successful completion of the demonstration. Once this baseline Plan has been agreed to by all participating parties, changes to the funding plan, including the supporting S&T portion, will be made only with the understanding and concurrence of the Oversight Group.
Funding for field technical support and sustaining engineering for the post-ACTD user operational evaluation period (typically two years) will be provided out of RDT&E funds, and must also be identified for the appropriate fiscal years. In addition, the user must agree to support the O&S expenditures during that period, assuming of course that the demonstration is successful and that the user determines that it should remain with the operational forces. An explicit statement by the sponsoring user acknowledging this commitment is expected.
A table of fiscal year funding by PE and Project Number will be included in the Plan. In addition, all relevant prior year funding (for at least the prior three years), will be given in order to show the heritage of the work being demonstrated and to make clear the degree to which the effort is a new start or based upon prior work. This will also serve to identify the supporting S&T elements and their relevance to the ACTD. Only those supporting elements which are direct contributors are to be included in the funding break-out.
Final, top-level approval for each ACTD is given by the DUSD(AT), the Commander(s) of the principal sponsoring user organization(s), and the Service Acquisition Executive(s) or Agency Director(s) for each of the major participating acquisition organizations, and the representative from the Joint Staff. Such approval is indicated by signature of this Management Plan.
In addition to the executive-level approvals listed above, representatives of all other planned participants in the ACTD, including co-sponsoring CINC(s), operational service/support components, PMs responsible for providing military equipment or emerging technologies, commanders of ranges or test sites required for the demonstrations, etc., will indicate by endorsement their commitment to providing whatever appropriate participation and/or support is identified in this plan as their responsibility.
The Management Plan is meant to be a flexible document; it should reflect significant changes in the ACTD content which may occur over the course of several years, particularly as new insights are gained. Accordingly, it is expected that the plan will be updated and revised periodically. Any substantive modifications to the plan; including objective, funding, schedule, and content; must be understood and agreed upon by the members of the Oversight Group, which will give final written confirmation.