♦ During FY2004, develop an SJFHQ model and validate and veriFYDOTMLPF recommendations for the common architectures, Joint TTPs, and SOPs for the SJFHQS.

♦ During FY2005, support each Regional Combatant Commander in the implementation of an SJFHQ within their region-i.e., Terminal Fury 04 (USPACOM) and Internal Look 05 (USCENTCOM).

Performance Results for FY2000. The first area of concern was the development of the concept to guide USJFCOM efforts in developing the SJFHQ. This effort is complete. On 23 January 2003, the JROC approved the "Joint Force Command and Control Concept to Guide Standing Joint Force Headquarters Development by 2005," which fulfills the Chairman's stated guidance. The concept was developed and staffed throughout most of 2002 with participation from the combatant commands, services and some defense agencies. One recommendation from the above concept is the establishment of a Functional Capability Board (FCB), chaired by USJFCOM, to facilitate SJFHQ implementation. The FCB roles and responsibilities will be delineated in the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01C, "Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System." USJFCOM is drafting the FCB charter in coordination with this instruction. The Joint Staff, Services, and combatant commands will continue to be involved in SJFHQ development through active participation on this board.

Performance Metric: Monitor the status of defense technology objectives
(DTOS)

હું અને મ

**Progressing satisfactorily includes DTO rated as "green" or "yellow."
The number of DTOs evaluated and the total number of DTOs are provided for information only and no
targets are established.

Metric Description. Technological superiority has been, and continues to be, a cornerstone of our national military strategy. Technologies such as radar, jet engines, nuclear weapons, night vision, smart weapons, stealth, the Global Positioning System, and vastly more capable information management systems have changed warfare dramatically. Today's technological edge allows us to prevail across the broad spectrum of conflict decisively and with relatively few casualties. Maintaining this technological edge has become even more important as the size of U.S. forces decreases and high-technology weapons are now readily available on the world market. Future warfighting capabilities will be substantially determined by today's investment in science and technology (S&T).

Our S&T investments are focused and guided through a series of defense technology objectives (DTOs) developed by the senior planners working for the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Each of these objectives highlights a specific technological advancement that will be developed or demonstrated, the anticipated date the technology will be available, the specific benefits that should result from the technological advance, and the funding required (and funding sources) to achieve the new capability. This list of objectives also distinguishes specific milestones to be reached and approaches to be used, quantitative metrics that will indicate progress, and the customers who will benefit when the new technology is eventually fielded. This metric measures the percentage of DTOs that are progressing satisfactorily toward the goals established for them.

V&V Method. Technology Area Review and Assessment (TARA) teams-independent peer review panels composed of approximately six experts in relevant technical fields from U.S. government agencies, private industry, and academia-assess the DTOs for each program every 2 years. The reviews are conducted openly; observation by stakeholders (typically, senior S&T officials, members of the joint staff, and technology customers) is welcomed.

The TARA teams assess the objectives in terms of three factors-budget, schedule, and technical performance and rate the programs as follows:

♦ Green-progressing satisfactorily toward goals.

Yellow-generally progressing satisfactorily, but some aspects of the program are proceeding more slowly than expected.

♦ Red-doubtful that any of the goals will be attained.

The benefits of these ratings are many. Not only do they reflect the opinions of independent experts, but also they are accepted and endorsed by stakeholders. These reviews result, and will continue to result, in near real-time adjustments being made to program plans and budgets based on the ratings awarded.

Performance Results for FY2002. The Department met both its FY2002 and FY2003 performance targets for DTOs. No shortfall is projected for FY2004. Although actual performance continues well above target, the target will be maintained at 70% due to the inherent high risk of failure in technology development.

Metric Description. The focus of the Department in the area of acquisition, technology and logistics has changed from one of “reform” to “excellence." "Excellence" stresses making the current system function better and then institutionalizing the improved process. AT&L faces many challenges in identifying, retailoring, and institutionalizing the system's strengths to perform better. For the future, AT&L has five goals:

1. Achieve credibility and effectiveness in the acquisition and logistics support process.

2. Revitalize the quality and morale of the DoD AT&L workforce.

3. Improve the health of the defense industrial base.

4. Rationalize the weapon systems and infrastructure with defense strategy.

5. Initiate high-leverage technologies to create the warfighting capabilities, systems, and strategies of the future.

V&V Method. Reviews and reporting occur periodically (monthly, annually, or as appropriate) to describe efforts on the five AT&L goals. The goals serve to focus daily efforts of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Component acquisition, technology, and logistics staffs.

Performance Results for FY2002. The following are examples of accomplishments over the past year:

The Department adopted a "full program funding" policy. The Department is committed to properly pricing programs up front.

The Department discontinued the Navy Area Wide program, which sent the message that it is no longer business as usual. From now on, programs must perform to survive. An important result was the improvement in resource allocation in the missile defense program.

• The Department created greater flexibility in hiring for our managers.

Goal 4:

The Department embraced the principle of “price-based acquisition," in which the government pays a fair market price for products, whenever possible. By doing so, smaller companies will be encouraged to compete for defense work.

The Department no longer expects contractors to invest their own funds in defense research and development contracts to cover shortfalls in government funding. This past practice was harmful to the bottom lines of defense contractors, and discouraged small companies from competing for contracts.

• The Department developed legislation (for another Base Realignment and Closure round) and submitted it to Congress to rationalize DoD infrastructure.

Goal 5:

• The Department developed and pursued program and budget issues to boost S&T funding.

The accomplishments over the past year have three common threads: they are designed to level the playing field for all contractors; they are designed to improve the fiscal health of the defense industry by allowing them the chance to improve their return for good performance; and they are designed to enhance competition, which is paramount in the Department's goal of a healthy industrial base.