1. DoDI 5000.02 Approved 8 December 2008
Changes from the May DoDI
Policy Flowing from Numerous New/Revised sections of Public Law since 2003 (some with Multiple Requirements)
Approved Policy Appearing in over 25 Policy Memos and DoD Responses to the GAO, IG, and Congress
Reference to 10 Updated or Newly Issued DoD Publications
Consideration of Over 700 Defense Acquisition Policy Working Group (DAPWG) Comments
-Content of has grown from 37 to 79 pages. About 113%.
-Although there are new policies that originated at OSD, the majority are a result of a very active Congress from 2004 thru 2008.
-This includes six National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) for FY’s 2004 through 2009.
DoDI

2. Comparison of 2003 vs. 2008 Defense Acquisition Management
User Needs &
Technology Opportunities
Defense Acquisition Management
Framework- 2003 A B
Program
Initiation C
IOC
FOC
Concept
Refinement
Technology
Development
System Development
& Demonstration
Production &
Deployment
Operations &
Support
Design
Readiness
Review
FRP
Decision
Review
Concept
Decision
User Needs
Defense Acquisition Management System
Technology Opportunities & Resources
The major differences between the 2003 and 2008 versions of the DoDI are:
-The Materiel Development Decision (MDD) replaces the Concept Decision (CD). A MDD is required regardless of where the program intends to enter the acquisition process.
NOTE: The arrows from User Needs/Technology Opportunities now point to the MDD at the extreme left: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY PROGRAM MUST ENTER AT THE MATERIEL SOLUTION ANALYSIS PHASE. This is illustrated better on chart 4.
-The Materiel Solution Analysis Phase (MSA) replaces the Concept Refinement (CR) Phase. MSA is not “refinement” of the preferred solution(s) identified in the ICD. The JCIDS process no longer includes an Analysis of Materiel and Non-Materiel Alternatives. Non-materiel solutions will be handled IAW JCIDS; however, all analysis of alternative materiel solutions will be accomplished by the AoA during MSA. The MDA will approve the materiel solution at Milestone A.
-Technology Development: This phase now includes a mandatory requirement for competitive prototyping of the system or key-system elements. A Preliminary Design Review (PDR) must be conducted for the candidate designs, and a PDR report will be provided to the MDA with recommended requirements trades. (The final CDD should contain trade-offs determined during the TD phase).
-Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) replaces System Development and Demonstration (SDD). There is more emphasis on systems engineering and technical reviews. The two major efforts have been renamed. The PM may provide a PDR report, and must provide a Critical Design Review (CDR) report to the MDA (more on this later). A Post-CDR Assessment replaces the Design Readiness Review. The MDA will determine if the results of the CDR warrant continuing EMD to Milestone C.
SE is much more robust throughout all phases, with mandatory technical reviews. A B
Program Initiation C
IOC
FOC
Materiel Solution Analysis
Technology Development
Engineering and
Manufacturing Development
Production & Deployment
Operations &
Support
Materiel Development Decision
FRP Decision
Review
Post PDR
Assessment
Post-CDR
Assessment
Focus of major changes
DoDI
3 Dec 2008 2

3. User Needs & Technology Opportunities Technology Opportunities
Defining Desired Capabilities
User Needs & Technology Opportunities
Source of User Needs
Technology Opportunities
Joint Capabilities Integrated Development System (JCIDS)
Joint Concept of Operations
Joint integrated architectures
DOTMLPF analysis
Which lead to:
Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)
Science & Technology (S&T) activities
ATDs
JCTDs
Joint Warfighting Experiments

4. The Defense Acquisition Management System 2008
Technology Opportunities & Resources
User Needs A B C
Operations & Support
Strategic Guidance
Joint Concepts
Capabilities - Based Assessment
ICD
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
Engineering & Manuf
Development
CDD
CPD
Production & Deployment
O&S
MDD
Technology
Development
FCB
Incremental Development
OSD/JCS
COCOM
For some, this chart better illustrates that programs may enter the process at points further to the right than the MSA phase. The change from 2003 is that now an MDD is required to determine what the appropriate entry point will be.
Note: is not clear on the exact process, e.g., if it is desired to enter at MS C with a mature Joint Capabilities Technology Demonstration program, is it necessary to first have a MDD to get a decision to come back for a full-up MS C? Or, will the MDA conduct a combined MDD/MS C decision review? Important discussion with the OIPT for DAB/ITAB programs and the MDA staff for others.
This chart also shows the JCIDS process at the front end. The policy for JCIDS is under revision, with a revised CJCSI G due out soon.
CJCSM C will be cancelled and replaced with a “manual” posted on the J8 website on the SIPRNET. Non-SIPRNET access is not known at this time.
JCIDS
Acquisition Process
“Following the Materiel Development Decision (MDD), the MDA may authorize entry into the acquisition management system at any point consistent with phase-specific entrance criteria and statutory requirements.”
DoDI

5. Achieving Full Capability
Two strategy approaches to full capability: evolutionary and single-step.
Particular approach chosen depends on:
Availability of time-phased capabilities in the CDD
Technology maturity
Cost/benefit of incremental fielding vs. single step
Cost of fielding multiple configurations
Retrofit decisions & cost
Training
Supportability
Acquisition strategy shall address chosen approach
Evolutionary acquisition is the preferred strategy for rapid acquisition of mature technology

6. Evolutionary Acquisition
From two processes…
To one process…
Incremental Development: End-state is known; requirements met over time in several increments
Spiral Development: End-state is not known; requirements for increments dependent upon technology maturation and user feedback.
Capability delivered in increments, recognizing up front need for future capability improvements
Each increment:
depends on mature technology
is a militarily useful and supportable operational capability
Successive Technology Development Phases may be needed to mature technology for multiple increments
No spirals!
-EA now just one process as shown. No “spirals”. Term spiral development no longer used as an EA strategy term.
“Spirals” are out. “Spiral Development” is an engineering term that will continue to be used for software development. However, using it as a “strategy” term caused problems
“Increments” are in.
-Each increment is a militarily-useful and supportable operational capability that can be developed, produced, deployed, and sustained.
-Each increment will have its own set of threshold and objective values set by the user.
-Block upgrades, pre-planned product improvement, and similar efforts that provide a significant increase in operational capability and meet an acquisition category threshold specified in this document shall be managed as separate increments. .

7. Evolutionary Approach
AoA
EMD
Increment 1
Materiel Solution
Analysis
DAB
JROC
Gap Analysis
ICD
CPD1
CDD2 C
Increment 2
CPD2
CDD3
Increment 3
CPD3 B
Joint Operating Concepts
Joint Functional Concepts
DoD
Strategic Guidance A
MDD
Continuous Technology Development and Maturation
Technology
Development
CDD1
This is Figure F2., DoDI
Key Point: While EA should get systems to the field faster, there are some complex areas that need attention:
-The user needs to specify timing of requirements leading to full capability over a selected number of increments/period of time. The PM must be involved in the development of the requirements documents (CDD/CPD).
-Sustainment must consider how feedback from fielded systems will be captured to determine impact on sustainment, not just on warfighting capability. The sustainment strategy must also consider PBL, and must consider any need to upgrade fielded systems or to manage various configurations.
Note: The “gap analysis” is short-hand for the JCIDS Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) process. As previously pointed out: CBA is under revision, and will not longer include a detailed analysis of materiel alternatives. The ICD is being modified to eliminate the priority listing of materiel alternatives. The assessment of materiel alternatives is being shifted to the AoA process.
Milestone A. Major systems that have technology development phase must have a MS A to authorize entry. This applies to ACAT I and II programs and is likely to be extended to other ACATs by the CAEs. Also applies to subsequent increments of an EA program that need a TD phase to mature technology (not all will).
DoDI

8. The Defense Acquisition Management System
The Materiel Development Decision precedes entry into any phase of the acquisition management system
Entrance Criteria met before entering phase
Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability
User Needs
Technology Opportunities & Resources A C B
IOC
FOC
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
Technology Development
Engineering and
Manufacturing Development
Production & Deployment
Operations &
Support
ICD
CDD
CPD
Materiel Development
Decision
Post PDR
Assessment
Post CDR
Assessment
FRP
Decision
Review
AoA
PDR
PDR
CDR
Pre-Systems Acquisition
Now we will use the structure show here to briefly go thru each decision point and phase to point out key activities. or
Systems Acquisition
Sustainment
Initial Capabilities
Document (ICD)
Capability Development
Document (CDD)
Capability Production
Document (CPD)
Relationship to JCIDS
PDR: Preliminary Design Review
CDR: Critical Design Review
FRP: Full Rate Production
IOC: Initial Operational Capability
FOC: Full Operational Capability
DoDI

9. Materiel Solution Analysis New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
Purpose: Assess potential materiel solutions
Materiel
Development
Decision
Enter: Approved ICD and study guidance for conducting AoA.
Activities: Conduct AoA, develop Technology Development Strategy (TDS) & draft CDD
Guided by: ICD and AoA Plan
Exit: Materiel solution to capability need in ICD recommended by lead component conducting AoA, and phase-specific exit criteria have been satisfied
Point out requirements to enter and leave (exit) each phase
-Note the activities, and importance of JCIDS documents (ICD) to guide each phase.
-The enter and exit bullets on these charts are “generic” to all programs. Read about program specific “exit criteria” in the DAG.
Materiel Solution Analysis: The purpose of this phase is different from Concept Refinement (CR). The AoA during CR was conducted to “refine” the materiel solutions prioritized in the ICD. The ICD no longer does this, so the AoA is now focused on alternative solutions provided from a number of sources: “a diversified range of large and small businesses”.
Revisions to JCIDS: Because portions of the , like the MSA phase, take into account upcoming changes to JCIDS, these changes should be pointed out.
-The Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA) part of the Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) has been eliminated.
-ICD will no longer contain a prioritized list of potential materiel alternatives. The ICD will define non-materiel options, DOTMLPF and policy changes that may lead to a Joint DCR. If non-materiel approaches are not sufficient to mitigate the warfighting capability gap, and a materiel solution is required, the ICD will make a recommendation on the type of materiel solution preferred: IT system, evolution of existing systems with significant capability improvement, or a transformational approach for “breakout” systems that differ significantly in form, function, operation and capabilities from existing systems and offer significant improvement over current capabilities or transform how the mission is accomplished.
-These materiel options will be investigated during the MSA phase during the AoA. Concurrent with the AoA, a draft CDD (see draft CJCSI G) will be prepared to guide the TD phase activities.
New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
DoDI

10. Material Solution Analysis Phase
OUTPUTS
INPUTS
DoDI

11. Technology Development New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
Purpose: Reduce Technology Risk, Demonstrate Critical Technology on Prototypes, Complete Preliminary Design
Technology
Development
Enter: MDA approved materiel solution and TDS; funding for TD phase activities
Activities: Competitive prototyping; develop RAM strategy; conduct Preliminary Design Review (PDR)
Guided by: ICD & TDS and supported by SE planning
Exit: Affordable increment of military-useful capability identified; technology demonstrated in relevant environment; manufacturing risks identified; PDR conducted for candidate solutions; system or increment ready for production within short time frame (normally less than 5 years for weapon systems)
The blue bold items in italics highlight the emphasis on systems engineering in technology development.
Competitive Prototyping: Two or more competing teams producing prototypes of the system and/or key system elements.
RAM Strategy: Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability strategy that includes a reliability growth program is documented in the SEP, in the LCSP, and assessed during tech reviews, T&E and Program Support Reviews.
Preliminary Design Review (PDR).
-A PDR will be conducted for the candidate design(s) to establish the allocated baseline (hardware, software, human/support systems) and underlying architectures and to define a high-confidence design.
-A successful PDR informs requirements trades; improves cost estimates; and identifies remaining design, integration, and manufacturing risks.
-The PDR will be conducted at the system level and include user representatives and associated certification authorities.
-A PDR Report is provided to the MDA at Milestone B and includes recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk.
-Note: The CDD KPPs and other performance attributes should reflect the trades from the PDR report; however, the CDD must be approved before MS B. The requirements trades recommended at MS B could be the “derived” technical requirements, not sure.
New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
DoDI

12. Technology Development Phase
INPUTS
•ICD, Draft CDD
•Approved Materiel Solution
•Exit Criteria
•T&E Strategy
•Support & Maintenance
Concepts & Technologies
•SEP • TDS
OUTPUTS
•Sys Allocated Baseline • PDR Report • Live-
Fire T&E Waiver request (if appropriate)
•SEP • PESHE • TRA • TEMP • PPP • LCSP
• Risk Assessment • Validated Product
• Support & Maint. Objectives & Reqmts
• NEPA Compliance Schedule (as required)
Inputs to:
- Info Support Plan - Acquisition Strategy
- CDD -Sys Threat Assessment
- Affordability Assessment
- Cost & Manpower Est.- KPPs / KSAs
DoDI

13. Engineering & Manufacturing Development
Purpose: Develop a system or increment of capability, develop an affordable manufacturing process, minimize logistics footprint B C
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
Integrated System Design
System Capability & Manufacturing Process Demonstration
Post PDR
Assessment
Post CDR
Assessment
Enter: Mature Technology; Approved Requirements; Full Funding in FYDP
Activities: Define system of system functionality & interfaces, complete detailed design, system-level PDR (as needed)/CDR, establish product baseline,
Guided by: CDD, Acq Strategy, SEP & TEMP
Exit: Complete system-level CDR and Post-CDR Assessments by MDA
Enter: Post-CDR Assessment and establishment of initial product baseline
Activities: Developmental Testing (DT) assesses progress against technical parameters, and Operational Assessments (OA) Against CDD
Guided by: CDD, Acq Strategy, SEP & TEMP
Exit: System demonstrated in intended environment using production-representative articles; manufacturing processes demonstrated; meets exit criteria and MS C entrance requirements
PDR conducted if not conducted prior to MS B. Applies to programs that enter at MS B, or if design changes occur during TD that require PDR after EMD contract award. PDR report provided by PM to MDA.
Post-PDR Assessment required if PDR conducted after MS B. Same rules as for pre-MS B PDR (see Technology Development chart), to include ADM.
Post CDR Assessment:
-System-Level CDR Conducted as soon as practicable after Program Initiation
-PM Provides a Post-CDR Report
-MDA Reviews the Post-CDR Report and the PM’s Plans to Resolve or Mitigate Issues/Risks
-Results of the Post-CDR Assessment are Documented in an ADM
Note use of Production-Representative articles. Previous said, “prototypes or EDMs”. Even though DAU defines EDMs as production representative, there is no DoD-level standard use of the term. The use of production-representative articles is particularly important for those programs that do not have LRIP and MS C is the production decision.
New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
DoDI

14. Engineering & Manufacturing Development Phase
OUTPUTS
• Initial Product Baseline
• Test Reports
• SEP • PESHE • TRA • TEMP
• Risk Assessment
• Product Support Element Reqmts
• Inputs to:
- CPD - Sys Threat Assessment
- ISP - Cost & Manpower Est.
MS B
INPUTS
• System Performance Specification
• Exit Criteria for the EMDD Phase
• Validation Sys Sup & Maint. Objectives & Reqts
• Acquisition Program Baseline
• CDD • SEP • TEMP • Information Support Plan
• Programmatic Environment, Safety, &
Occupational Health Evaluation
• Product Support Strategy
• PPP, System Threat Assessment
• Cost & Manpower Est.
DoDI

15. Production & Deployment New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
Purpose: Achieve an operational Capability that satisfies mission needs
Production & Deployment
FRP
Decision
Review
Full-Rate Production & Deployment
LRIP/IOT&E
Enter: Acceptable performance in DT & OA; mature software; no significant manufacturing risks; approved CPD; refined integrated architecture; acceptable interoperability and operational supportability; demonstration of affordability; fully funded; phased for rapid deployment.
Activities: IOT&E, LFT&E (If Required) and interoperability testing of production-representative articles; IOC possible
Guided by: CPD, TEMP, SEP
Exit: System operationally effective, suitable and ready for full-rate production
Enter: Beyond LRIP & LFT&E reports (OSD T&E/LFT&E programs) submitted to congress
Activities: Full-rate production; fielding and support of fielded systems; IOC/FOC
Guided by: Acq strategy & life cycle sustainment plan
Exit: Full operational capability; deployment complete
Essentially same as the 2003 DoDI
Guided By: DoDI indicates what documents “guide” the phase activities for MSA, TD and EMD; however, it does not state what documents guide Production and Deployment. So, shown here some obvious documents that guide the activities.
New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
DoDI

16. Production and Deployment Phase
OUTPUTS
INPUTS
DoDI

17. Life Cycle Sustainment New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
Operations & Support
Purpose: Execute a support program that meets materiel readiness and operational support performance requirements, and sustains the system in the most cost-effective manner over its total life cycle.
FOC
Operations & Support
Life Cycle Sustainment
Disposal
Entrance: Approved CPD; approved LCSP; successful FRP Decision
Activities: Performance-Based Life-Cycle Product Support (PBL) planning, development, implementation, and management; initiate system modifications as necessary; continuing reviews of sustainment strategies
Guided by: Acquisition Strategy/LCSP
Activities: Demilitarize and dispose of systems IAW legal and regulatory requirements, particularly environmental considerations and explosives safety
Guided by: Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE)
Performance-Based Life-Cycle Product Support (PBL), has the same meaning as Performance-Based Logistics (PBL) and uses the same acronym.
Guided By: DoDI indicates what documents “guide” the phase activities for MSA, TD and EMD; however, it does not state what documents guide Operations and Support. So, shown here are some obvious documents that guide the activities.
New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
DoDI

18. Operations and Support Phase
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
DoDI

19. The Defense Acquisition Management System
The Materiel Development Decision precedes entry into any phase of the acquisition management system
Entrance Criteria met before entering phase
Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability
User Needs
Technology Opportunities & Resources A C B
IOC
FOC
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
Technology Development
Engineering and
Manufacturing Development
Production & Deployment
Operations &
Support
ICD
CDD
CPD
Materiel Development
Decision
Post PDR
Assessment
Post CDR
Assessment
FRP
Decision
Review
AoA
PDR
PDR
CDR
Pre-Systems Acquisition
Now we will use the structure show here to briefly go thru each decision point and phase to point out key activities. or
Systems Acquisition
Sustainment
Initial Capabilities
Document (ICD)
Capability Development
Document (CDD)
Capability Production
Document (CPD)
Relationship to JCIDS
PDR: Preliminary Design Review
CDR: Critical Design Review
FRP: Full Rate Production
IOC: Initial Operational Capability
FOC: Full Operational Capability
DoDI

20. DoDI 5000.02 & Space Acquisition Policy
NSS referenced specifically in the DoDI , dated 8 Dec 08, as follows:
Enclosure 1, References: National Security Space Acquisition Policy 03-01, "Guidance for DoD Space System Acquisition Process"
Table 7, Unique Decision Forums: referencing the DSAB
Mr. Young (USD/AT&L) rescinded NSS effective 23 Mar 08
Interim guidance is copy of NSS with DSAB changed to DAB and Key Decision Point changed to Milestone
120 days to come up with Annex/Enclosure to DoDI
Space Programs With USD/AT&L As MDA
Operate Under Interim Guidance
Space Policy

21. “Back to Basics” and Implementing Block Approach
Space Policy

22. Tailored Process for Space: Life Cycle Comparison
Typical DoD Life Cycle Cost Curve
Notional Space Life Cycle Cost Curve
Production,
Operations & Support
System Acquisition
System
Development
& LRIP
Approx
70%
72%
Operations & Support
Approx
30%
28%
Life Cycle Curve DSMC Acq Log Guide 1997
Notional Life Cycle Curve MS
“A” MS
“B” MS
“C” MS
“A” MS
“B” MS
“C”

23. Space is Different Aircraft test, land, fix and refly
Takeoff
Land, fix
Test
Refly
Launch/leave for yrs – perfect first time, every time
Launch
Leave

24. Space Acquisition Life Cycle
Phase A
Concept
Development
Pre -
Systems Acquisition
Sustainment
1st Launch
FOC
IOC
Pre KDP A
Studies
Upgrade
Decision
Key
Points:
Phase B
Preliminary
Design
Phase C
Complete
Phase D
Build & Operations B
PHASE B
Approval
PHASE A C
PHASE C
Build
Follow
On Buy
Initial
CDD
Pre-Phase A
Milestones
JROC
CPD
ICD
SRR
SDR
PDR
CDR
TEMP
System CONOPS
Architecture
AoA Report
Space Policy

25. Tailored Process for Space: Acquisition Phase Comparison
Comparison of Space and DoD 5000 Life Cycle
Space Policy
DoDI (8 December 2008)
Decision
Decision
Materiel Development
Decision or
Concept
Concept
Decision
Decision
Concept
Refinement
Technology
Development
System Development &
Demonstration
Production
Materiel Solution
Analysis
Technology Development
Phase
Engineering &
Manufacturing Development
Production
Operations
Concept
Technology
System Development &
and
and Support
Operations
Deployment
and
Refinement
Development
Demonstration
and Support
PDR
Post PDR
Assessment
Post CDR
Deployment
Assessment
JROC
JROC
JROC
JROC C A
JROC
JROC B
JROC
JROC C A C
JROC
JROC B B
JROC
JROC C C
IOC
FOC
ICD
ICD
ICD
ICD
CDD
CDD
CDD
CDD
CPD
CPD
CPD
CPD
IOC
IOC
IOC
IOC
FOC
FOC
FOC
FOC
T&E STRAT
T&E STRAT
Technology
Technology - - - -
TEMP - -
Full Rate
Full Rate
Full Rate
Full Rate
Development
Development
Tech Dev Strategy
TEMP
Production
Production
Production
Production
Approval
Approval
TEMP
Approval
Approval
Approval
Approval
Milestones:
Milestones:
DoDI
(May 2003)
DoDI
DoDI
(May 2003)
(May 2003)

26. Similarities Between DoD 5000 & Space Policy
Key Documentation: ICD, CDD, CPD, AS, ADM, APB, TEMP
Requirements Process: JCIDS
Reporting: DAES, SARs, and UCRs
DoD Directive is guiding acquisition policy document
Dollar thresholds for acquisition categories established by statute
Space – Major Defense Acquisition Program
Non-space – Acquisition Categories I-III
DoD 5000 and NSS have many similarities and many of them will be covered in ACQ 201B
ICD—Initial Capabilities Document
CDD—Capability Development Document
CPD—Capability Production Document
AS—Acquisition Strategy
ADM—Acquisition Decision Memorandum
APB—Acquisition Program Baseline
TEMP—Test and Evaluation Master Plan
JCIDS—Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
DAES—Defense Acquisition Executive Summary
SARs—Selected Acquisition Reports
UCRs—Unit Cost Reports

27. Key Reasons for Tailoring DOD Acquisition Policy for Space Systems
“Fly Offs”
Low Rate Initial
Production
Hardware mods
after launch
Increased Risk
Feb 03

28. Key Differences Between DoD 5000 & Space Policy
New Acquisition Model tailored for space systems:
More emphasis on earlier phases of program development
Program Review Process:
Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) with single Independent Program Assessment “Peer Review” vs. DAB with OIPT and multiple IIPTs & WIPTs
Space Policy alters timing of Milestone Reviews

29. Pre-Systems Acquisition
Concept Studies
Enter: Approved ICD and AoA plan
Activity: Conduct AoA based on studies of alternative solutions to the initial concept; Develop Acquisition Strategy
Exit: MDA selects preferred solution to be pursued
Space Policy

30. Pre-Phase A Concept Studies
Activities in this phase conducted by Joint Chiefs of Staff and User Major Command (MAJCOM)
There is no System Program Office (SPO) yet
Concept planning to define a new operational capability
Requirements developed through the Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System (JCIDS) process
Key Documentation:
Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)
System level Concept of Operations (CONOPS)
Architecture
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Report
Test & Evaluation (T&E) Strategy
Space Policy

31. Phase A Concept Development
Enter: PM has possible technical solution but has not matured technology; approved ICD
Activities:
Mature Technology
Reduction of integration risk
System Spec and Functional Baseline
Exit: Independent Program Assessment validates strategy
Space Policy

32. Phase A Concept Development
Develop a mature concept and architecture for system baseline. Activities include:
Concept & system architecture development
Technology development and maturity assessment
Trade studies
Vulnerability assessment
Risk reduction
Requirements and functional baseline development
Industrial capability assessments for key technologies
Key Documentation:
Capability Development Document (CDD)
Test and Evaluation Management Plan (TEMP)
Space Policy

33. Phase A Concept Development, Con’t
Key Reviews:
System Readiness Review (SRR)
Ensures system requirements are identified and complete
System Design Review (SDR)
Defines system performance, functional characteristics, and component interfaces
IPA and MS-B Approval
Goal: Solid program baseline for Phase B
Space Policy

34. Phase B Preliminary System Design
Enter: PM has specific technical solution ready for design and integration
Activities:
Mature Technology to TRL 6
Reduction of integration risk
PDR
Exit: Independent Program Assessment validates Design Readiness
Space Policy

35. Phase B Preliminary Design
Formal program initiation
Conduct risk reduction
Complete technology development
Technology should be demonstrated in the relevant environments
Increase confidence in alternative(s)
Assess estimated risk levels
Assess projected performance
Key Documentation:
TEMP
Space Policy

36. Phase B Preliminary Design
Key Reviews:
Preliminary Design Review (PDR)
Evaluates selected design approach and risk resolution
IPA and MS-C Approval
Goal: Complete design - Phase C
Space Policy

37. Phase C Complete Design
Enter: PM has specific design solution ready for detailed development and CDD
Activities:
Mature Technology
Reduction of integration risk
CDR
Exit: Independent Program Assessment validates Design
Space Policy

38. Phase C Complete Design
Complete design activities. Extra design emphasis allows us to:
Increase confidence in alternatives identified in Phase B
Mitigate risks
Key Documents
Capability Production Document (CPD)
Required to proceed to Build Approval
Space Policy

39. Phase C Complete Design
Key Reviews
Critical Design Review (CDR)
Evaluates detailed design
Build Approval
Authorizes fabrication, testing, deploying and supporting operations for new system
Marks end of design development
Goal: Ready to Build & Deploy
Space Policy

40. Phase D Build and Operations
Enter: PM has detailed design ready for construction and CPD
Activities:
Spacecraft Construction
1st Launch
IOC
IOT&E
Space Policy

41. Phase D Build and Operations
Contractor builds system to design
Fabrication, integration, testing, and deployment
Conduct studies to:
Assess reliability, maintainability, and availability
Resolve hardware or software problems
Maintain performance over the system’s planned life
Conduct testing of system
Developmental Test and Evaluation
Operational Test and Evaluation
Launch or deploy system
Sustainment
Provide operations support
Dispose at the end of useful life
Space Policy

42. Phase D Build and Operations
Key reviews:
Follow On Buy Approval
Authorizes additional procurements of system
Upgrade Decision
Authorizes improvements to system
Key events:
1st Launch
Initial Operational Capability declaration
Full Operational Capability declaration
Goal: Operational/Sustainable/Affordable System
Space Policy

43. Launch Work with the range you’ll be using
Vehicle, Schedule, Design, Cost, Safety, Support
Space Policy

44. Operational Capability
Initial Operational Capability (IOC)
An event defined by the User’s MAJCOM
Represents fielding of the first operationally effective production unit(s)
Fully Operational Capability (FOC)
All production units fielded
Systems are supportable and capable of performing their mission
AFSPC/CC is the sole authority to declare IOC for an AFSPC system. It is declared when an acquired system meets the IOC evaluation criteria as defined in the CDD.
IOC is the first attainment of the capability to effectively employ a weapon, item of equipment or system of approved specific characteristics, which is manned and operated by a trained, equipped and supported military unit or force.
Depot maintenance must be ready at IOC.
Generally, IOC is declared when, in the commander’s opinion, the system is capable of performing its mission even though it has known deficiencies. These deficiencies are well documented and the SPO has a detailed plan to work them off.
Typically, satellite and launch systems will have IOC criteria based upon having a few satellites launched with rudimentary capabilities in place (e.g., GPS, EELV).
References:
AFI , “Mission Needs and Operational Requirements and Procedures,” 13 Aug 1999, Para 4, (New version in draft)
AFSPCI , “Declaration of IOC and FOC,” 2 Dec 1997,
AFI , “Depot Maintenance Management,” 19 Jul 1994,
Space Policy