United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Space and 

Aeronautics, Committee on Science, 

House of Representatives 

NEXT GENERATION AIR 

TRANSPORTION SYSTEM 

Preliminary Analysis of the 

Joint Planning and 

Development Office’s 

Planning, Progress, and 

Challenges 

Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST 

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

 

GAO-06-574T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

March 29, 2006

NEXT GENERATION AIR 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

Preliminary Analysis of the Joint 

Planning and Development Office’s 

Planning, Progress, and Challenges 

Highlights of GAO-06-574T, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Space and 

Aeronautics, Committee on Science, 

House of Representatives 

The health of our nation’s air 

transportation system is critical to 

our citizens and economy. 

However, the current approach to 

managing air transportation is 

becoming increasingly inefficient 

and operationally obsolete. In 2003, 

Congress created the Joint 

Planning and Development Office

(JPDO) to coordinate the federal

and nonfederal stakeholders 

necessary to plan and implement a 

transition from the current air 

transportation system to the “next 

generation air transportation

system” (NGATS). JPDO, although 

housed within the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), has seven 

partner agencies: the Departments 

of Transportation, Commerce, 

Defense, and Homeland Security;

FAA; the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA); and 

the White House Office of Science 

and Technology Policy. This 

testimony provides preliminary

results from GAO’s ongoing study 

of the status of JPDO’s efforts. 

GAO provides information on (1) 

the extent to which JPDO is

facilitating the federal interagency

collaboration and aligning the

human and financial resources 

needed to plan and implement the 

NGATS, (2) the actions taken by

JPDO to adequately involve 

stakeholders in the planning

process, and (3) the extent to

which JPDO is conducting the 

technical planning needed to 

develop the NGATS. 

JPDO is implementing a number of practices that GAO’s work has shown 

facilitates collaboration among federal agencies, but faces a challenge in 

sustaining this collaboration over the longer term. These practices include

defining and articulating a common outcome, establishing mutually 

reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve that outcome, and identifying and 

addressing needs by leveraging resources among partner agencies. 

However, JPDO faces a challenge in leveraging resources because it is 

fundamentally a planning and coordinating body that lacks authority over 

the key human and financial resources needed to continue developing plans 

and system requirements for the NGATS. To its credit, JPDO is working 

with its partner agencies to align their fiscal year 2008 budget requests to 

support NGATS and is working with the Office of Management and Budget 

to develop a budget review process that easily identifies partner agencies’

NGATS-related programs. 

JPDO has involved federal and nonfederal stakeholders throughout its 

organization. Federal stakeholders from the partner agencies work with 

JPDO throughout multiple levels of the organization. The NGATS Institute 

has been established as the mechanism for involving nonfederal 

stakeholders. The Institute has obtained participation from industry and 

other nonfederal stakeholders and has assigned them to work with JPDO. 

However, JPDO has experienced difficulties with soliciting the participation 

of current air traffic controllers, who will play a key role in the NGATS. 

Additionally, JPDO could face a challenge in sustaining nonfederal 

stakeholders’ participation in an effort where tangible benefits may not be 

realized until several years in the future. 

JPDO is using an iterative technical planning process that appears to be 

reasonable in light of the NGATS’ complexity. The process includes iterative 

modeling—a technique that mathematically represents the NGATS’ system 

performance parameters, demand, and economic factors—to narrow the 

range of potential options. This fall, JPDO plans to have an initial version of 

its enterprise architecture—a blueprint to guide NGATS development—and 

will refine the architecture as the NGATS effort moves forward. 

Seven Partner Agencies Form the Joint Planning and Development Office 

Source: GAO.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-574T.

To view the full product, click on the link 

above. For more information, contact Dr. 

Gerald L. Dillingham, at (202) 512-2834 or 

dillinghamg@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing to discuss 

the status of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) after its 

first 2 years of existence. The health of our nation’s air transportation 

system is critical to our citizens and economy. However, the current 

approach to managing air transportation is becoming increasingly 

inefficient and operationally obsolete. In November 2002, the 

congressionally chartered Commission on the Future of the United States 

Aerospace Industry recommended transforming the U.S. air transportation 

system as a national priority.1

 Transforming the system to accommodate 

what is expected to be three times the current amount of traffic by 2025, 

providing adequate security and environmental safeguards, and doing 

these things seamlessly while the current system continues to operate, will 

be an enormously complex undertaking. 

In 2003, Congress passed the Vision 100 - Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act, which created JPDO within the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to manage work related to the creation of a “next 

generation air transportation system” (NGATS). JPDO has responsibility 

for coordinating the research efforts of its partner agencies—the 

Departments of Transportation (DOT), Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD), 

and Homeland Security (DHS); FAA; and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). JPDO is also working with its final partner 

agency—the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy—to 

coordinate funding with the Office of Management and Budget. 

Additionally, JPDO has responsibility to consult with the public; to 

coordinate federal goals, priorities, and programs with those of aviation

and aeronautical firms; and to ensure the participation of stakeholders 

from the private sector, including commercial and general aviation, labor, 

aviation research and development entities, and manufacturers. JPDO is 

jointly funded through FAA and NASA. The JPDO Director reports to the 

FAA Administrator and to the Chief Operating Officer of FAA’s Air Traffic 

Organization.2

 1

Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, Final Report (Nov. 

2002). 

2

The Air Traffic Organization is FAA’s business unit that is responsible for operating, 

maintaining, and modernizing the nation’s current air traffic control system. 

Page 1 GAO-06-574T 
Vision 100 directed JPDO to develop an integrated plan for the NGATS and 

to include in the plan, among other things, a vision statement for an air 

transportation system that meets potential air traffic demand by 2025; a 

description of the demand and required performance characteristics of the 

future system; and a high-level, multi-agency roadmap and concept of 

operations for the future system. Key tenets of the plan are transitioning 

from the current largely ground-based navigation system to one that is 

more focused on aircraft and satellite-based navigation, and automating 

many of the routine air traffic control functions. In addition, the integrated 

plan discusses a strategy to harmonize the NGATS with equipage and 

operations around the world to enhance safety and efficiency on a global

scale. As directed by Vision 100, the FAA Administrator provided this 

integrated plan to Congress in December 2004 and issued the first annual 

progress report earlier this month. 

My statement today provides preliminary results from our ongoing study 

of the status of JPDO and focuses on three specific questions. (1) To what 

extent is JPDO facilitating the federal interagency collaboration and 

aligning the human and financial resources needed to define and perform 

the centralized planning function for the detailed implementation of the 

NGATS? (2) What actions or initiatives has JPDO implemented to ensure 

adequate involvement of stakeholders in the planning process? (3) To 

what extent is JPDO conducting the technical planning needed to develop

the NGATS? My statement is based on our analysis of documents provided 

by JPDO and its partner agencies; the perspectives of agency officials and 

stakeholders with whom we have spoken; the results of a panel of experts 

that we convened earlier this month; and our review of relevant literature, 

including the integrated plan and the progress report. We also draw upon 

our prior work on FAA’s national airspace system modernization program, 

which we have listed as a high-risk program since 1995. To assess JPDO’s 

prospects for facilitating collaboration among its partner agencies, we 

compared its practices to those that we have found to be effective in 

facilitating other federal interagency collaborative efforts.3

 We also 

reviewed the National Research Council’s 2005 report on JPDO, which 

provided a technical assessment of the research, development, and 

technology components of JPDO’s integrated plan.4

 In addition, we 

 3

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

4

National Research Council, Technology Pathways: Assessing the Integrated Plan for a

Next Generation Air Transportation System (Washington, D.C.: 2005). 

Page 2 GAO-06-574T 
reviewed relevant documents and interviewed officials and stakeholders

regarding Europe’s effort to harmonize and modernize its air traffic 

management system. Later this year, we expect to issue a detailed report 

that will provide our assessment of the status of JPDO’s efforts as it works 

to develop the NGATS. We are performing our work in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary: 

• JPDO is implementing a number of practices that our work has shown 

facilitates collaboration among federal agencies, but faces a challenge in 

maintaining this collaboration over the long term. These practices include

defining and articulating a common outcome, establishing mutually 

reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve that outcome, and identifying and 

addressing needs by leveraging resources among partner agencies. JPDO’s 

legislation established a common outcome—a transformed national 

airspace system by 2025—that JPDO expanded on in its integrated plan, 

which establishes an overarching framework and goals for its activities. 

The plan also laid out eight joint strategies for partner agencies to use as 

they help develop the NGATS. Additionally, JPDO is leveraging partner 

agency resources by staffing its organization with employees of the 

partner agencies, many of whom work for JPDO as a collateral duty. JPDO 

has also reviewed these agencies’ research and development programs to 

identify work that could support the NGATS. By using these practices for

facilitating collaboration, JPDO has gotten off to a positive start. However, 

because JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating body, it does 

not have authority over the partner agencies’ human and financial 

resources that it needs to continue performing the centralized, interagency 

planning function for detailed implementation of the NGATS. 

Consequently, leveraging resources will continue to be critical to JPDO’s 

success, particularly in future years as partner agencies begin to 

implement projects on a larger scale. JPDO was successful in prompting 

FAA to request funding to accelerate system development for two key 

NGATS systems in its fiscal year 2007 budget request. However, JPDO 

officials told us that, while FAA did receive an increase, it did not receive

the full amount requested in the budget formulation documents submitted 

to the Office of Management and Budget. Our work on FAA’s current air 

traffic control modernization program has shown that receiving fewer 

resources than planned was a contributing factor in schedule delays and

subsequent cost increases. To its credit, JPDO is working with its partner 

agencies to align their fiscal year 2008 budget requests to support the 

NGATS. JPDO has also opened a dialog with the Office of Management 

and Budget to develop a systematic means of reviewing partner agency 

budget requests so that NGATS-related programs can be easily identified.

Page 3 GAO-06-574T 
• JPDO has incorporated representatives from federal and nonfederal 

stakeholders throughout its organization. Federal stakeholders from the 

partner agencies work with JPDO throughout multiple levels of the 

organization. The NGATS Institute was created as the mechanism for 

involving nonfederal stakeholders and has obtained their participation and 

assigned them to work with JPDO’s federal stakeholders. The NGATS 

Institute Management Council, composed of top officials and 

representatives from the aviation community, provides a means for 

advancing consensus positions on critical NGATS issues. However, a 

critical stakeholder in the nation’s air traffic control system has yet to 

become an active participant in this forum. Air traffic controllers, who 

work in the current system and will play a key role in the NGATS, have not 

been involved in JPDO’s efforts. In the past, FAA’s failure to adequately 

involve air traffic controllers in its acquisition of new technologies, such 

as the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System—a 

workstation for air traffic controllers—contributed to costly rework and 

schedule delays. A challenge for JPDO could be sustaining nonfederal 

stakeholders’ participation in an effort where tangible benefits may not be 

realized until several years in the future. JPDO also faces the challenge of 

convincing nonfederal stakeholders that the government is financially 

committed to the NGATS. Additionally, JPDO could face a challenge in 

resolving the divergent perspectives that are represented by its nonfederal 

stakeholders. 

• JPDO is using an iterative process to address the technical planning 

needed to develop the NGATS that appears reasonable in light of the 

system’s complexity. The office has assembled a suite of models to 

iteratively analyze and understand the interactions among system 

performance parameters, demand, and economic factors, and has 

developed an enterprise architecture, or “blueprint,” for the NGATS. JPDO 

is testing the adequacy of its suite of models, publishing the results, and 

seeking peer review opportunities. However, these modeling efforts, 

including those addressing human factors, are currently in the early stages, 

and more time and field testing will be needed to increase confidence that 

the final range of solutions for the NGATS is based on realistic 

assumptions. With respect to enterprise architecture, JPDO has 

established the organizational structure for enterprise architecture 

development—an important first step—and anticipates having an initial 

version of the architecture by the end of fiscal year 2006. Recognizing that

further work will be required, JPDO is using a multiyear phased planning 

approach in which the enterprise architecture will be continuously 

refined. This “build a little, test a little” approach is similar to a process 

that we have previously advocated for FAA’s major system acquisition 

programs. 

Page 4 GAO-06-574T 
FAA, with research assistance from NASA, has had the primary 

responsibility for planning and implementing national airspace system 

modernization since these efforts began more than 20 years ago. Recently, 

FAA placed the modernization program under a new Air Traffic 

Organization, headed by a Chief Operating Officer. JPDO’s approach 

differs from FAA’s past modernization efforts in that its scope is “curb-tocurb,” encompassing in-terminal passenger and baggage security screening 

and environmental issues. Additionally, JPDO’s approach will require 

unprecedented consensus and cooperation among many stakeholders—

federal and nonfederal—about necessary system capabilities, equipment, 

procedures, and regulations. JPDO seeks to leverage the resources of 

NASA and the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and 

Homeland Security, each of which has expertise and technology that will

play a part in the NGATS. For example, the Department of Defense has 

deployed “network centric” systems, originally developed for the 

battlefield, which are being considered as a framework to provide all users 

of the national airspace system—FAA and the Departments of Defense and 

Homeland Security—with a common view of that system. 

Concurrent with JPDO’s efforts, the European Commission5

 is conducting

a project to harmonize and modernize the pan-European air traffic 

management system. Known as the Single European Sky Air Traffic 

Management Research Programme (SESAR), the project is being managed

by the Air Traffic Alliance, an industry partnership that was awarded the 

management contract by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air 

Navigation (Eurocontrol).6

 Eurocontrol develops, coordinates, and plans 

for the implementation of pan-European air traffic management strategies. 

While the U.S. and European efforts are both directed at modernization, 

Europe faces the additional challenge of harmonizing its air traffic control

system—currently operated through a patchwork of national air 

navigation service providers. The work of the SESAR effort, which was 

scheduled to officially start this month, is being done by a 30-member 

consortium of airlines, air navigation service providers, airports, 

manufacturers, and others. The consortium is receiving 60 million euros 

Background 

 5

The European Commission is a politically independent institution that prepares and

implements legislative instruments. 

6

Eurocontrol is an autonomous organization established in 1963 with the intention of 

creating a single upper airspace. 

Page 5 GAO-06-574T 
($73 million)7

 to conduct a 2-year definition phase and produce a master 

plan for SESAR. The next steps following the definition phase, from 2008

to 2013, are currently under discussion. One proposal would develop the 

technologies for the new system and would be funded annually at 300 

million euros ($363 million) per year, with equal contributions being 

provided by the European Commission, Eurocontrol, and other parties. 

Our work to date shows that JPDO has engaged in practices to facilitate 

federal interagency collaboration, including defining and articulating a

common outcome; establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; 

and beginning to leverage the partner agency resources needed to perform 

the centralized, interagency planning function for the detailed

implementation of the NGATS. However, JPDO faces a challenge in 

leveraging resources because it is fundamentally a planning and 

coordinating body that lacks authority over the key human and financial

resources needed to continue developing plans and system requirements 

for the NGATS. Additionally, JPDO faces the challenge of clearly defining

roles and responsibilities among its partner agencies. Our work has shown 

that collaborating agencies should work together to define and agree on 

their respective roles and responsibilities, including how the collaborative 

effort will be led. To its credit, JPDO is taking some actions to mitigate 

these challenges. 

JPDO’s integrated plan provides a vision statement that elaborates on the 

broadly stated common outcome set forth by the Vision 100 legislation—

an air transportation system that meets potential air traffic demand by 

2025. In working together to develop JPDO’s integrated plan, the partner 

agencies agreed upon a broad statement of future system goals, 

performance characteristics, and operational concepts. Our research 

shows that, for interagency collaborative efforts to overcome significant 

differences in agency missions, cultures, and established ways of doing 

business, the agencies must have a clear and compelling rationale to work 

together. JPDO’s partner agencies agreed to a vision statement: a 

transformed air transportation system that provides services tailored to 

JPDO Is Engaging in 

Effective Practices for 

Interagency 

Collaboration, but 

Faces Challenges in 

Leveraging Resources 

and Defining 

Responsibilities 

JPDO Has Articulated a 

Common Outcome, 

Established Mutually 

Reinforcing or Joint 

Strategies, and Begun to 

Leverage Resources 

 7

A portion of this funding is in-kind services from Eurocontrol. To convert euros to U.S.

dollars, we used 1.2098, the foreign exchange rate for Tuesday, March 21, 2006, as 

published in The Washington Post. 

Page 6 GAO-06-574T 
individual customer needs, allows all communities to participate in the 

global economy, and seamlessly integrates civil and military operations. 

The plan also provides eight strategies—again developed by the partner 

agencies—that broadly address the goals and objectives for the NGATS. 

JPDO has formed eight integrated product teams (IPTs), one for each 

strategy. Our work has shown that mutually reinforcing or joint strategies 

help in aligning the partner agencies’ activities, core processes, and 

resources to accomplish the common outcome. In addition to jointly 

identifying the strategies for the NGATS, the various partner agencies have

taken the lead on specific strategies. (See table 1.) JPDO is currently 

reevaluating whether all of these IPTs should be expected to create 

products. For example, the IPT that is addressing the global 

interoperability strategy might be more likely to have cross-cutting 

influence over the other seven IPTs, rather than developing a product of 

its own, according to JPDO officials. 

Table 1. JPDO’s Strategies and Responsible Agencies

Strategy Lead agency

Develop airport infrastructure to meet future 

demand 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Establish an effective security system 

without limiting mobility or civil liberties 

Department of Homeland Security 

Establish an agile air traffic system that 

quickly responds to shifts in demand 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

Establish shared situational awareness—

where all users share the same information 

Department of Defense 

Establish a comprehensive and proactive 

approach to safety 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Develop environmental protection that allows

sustained aviation growth 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Develop a systemwide capability to reduce 

weather impacts

Department of Commerce 

Harmonize equipage and operations globally Federal Aviation Administration 

Source: GAO presentation of JPDO data. 

The National Research Council, in its recent study of JPDO, noted the IPT

structure is oriented by discipline, which the Council believes works 

against a product orientation. The Council recommended that JPDO 

reorganize into three IPTs that parallel the way FAA currently organizes its 

operations—airport, terminal, and en route/oceanic. JPDO officials do not 

agree with this recommendation. They told us that the existing airspace 

Page 7 GAO-06-574T 
segmentation by phase of flight—airport , terminal, and en route—creates

inefficiencies. As aircraft transition from one phase of flight to the next, 

they encounter a “speed bump.” For example, operations are slowed as en 

route air traffic controllers transfer responsibility for aircraft to terminal 

controllers. This segmentation is not part of JPDO’s vision for the NGATS. 

In our view, if JPDO’s IPT structure begins to show evidence that it is 

hindering rather than promoting progress toward achieving NGATS goals, 

JPDO might look again at the Council’s recommendations to determine 

whether a different structure or fewer IPTs would help it achieve its goals. 

In the end, the progress and outcomes achieved by the structure are as 

important, if not more important, than the organizational model selected. 

JPDO has begun leveraging the resources of its partner agencies, which is 

another practice that we have found helps facilitate interagency 

collaboration. Our research shows that collaborating agencies should 

identify the human, information technology, physical, and financial 

resources needed to initiate or sustain their collaborative effort. To 

leverage human resources, JPDO has staffed its organization with partneragency employees, many of whom work for JPDO as a collateral duty. The 

JPDO board, which provides coordination between partner agencies and 

JPDO, is composed of key executives of the partner agencies who can 

facilitate bringing agency resources to bear on NGATS development. 

JPDO’s eight IPTs, which are developing the plans and requirements for 

the NGATS, include staff from the partner agencies. Additionally, Vision 

100 created the Next Generation Air Transportation Senior Policy 

Committee, composed of partner agency senior executives, to provide 

ongoing policy review and identify resource needs from the partner 

agencies. (See fig. 1.) 

Page 8 GAO-06-574T 
Figure 1: JPDO Organization Chart

To further begin leveraging resources, during the past year JPDO 

conducted an interagency program review of its partner agencies’ research 

and development programs to identify the work that could support the 

NGATS, as well as identify areas for more effective interagency 

collaboration. Through this process, JPDO identified early opportunities 

that could be pursued during fiscal year 2007 to produce tangible results 

for the NGATS. For example, JPDO noted that FAA had amassed 

considerable technical expertise in the standards, protocols, and nearterm air traffic applications for Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast (ADS-B). ADS-B is a technology through which an aircraft 

broadcasts information on its position to ground-based transceivers, 

Senior Policy Committee

FAA 

Administrator

Executive 

Committee,

Research, 

Engineering 

and 

Development 

Advisiory 

Committee

NGATS

Institute

Policy

● Studies

● IPT Expert 

Participation ● Agile ATM 

System 

(NASA)

● Airport 

Infrastructure 

(FAA)

● Aviation 

Security 

(DHS)

● Environmental 

Protection 

(FAA)

● Global 

Harmonization 

(FAA)

● Shared 

Situational 

Awareness

(DoD)

● Weather 

(DOC)

● Safety 

Management 

(FAA)

● Enterprise 

Engineering 

and Integration

● Portfolio 

Management

● Enterprise 

Architecture

● Evaluation and 

Analysis

Chief Engineer NGATS Institute

Executive Director

Partnership 

Management

Business

Management

Interagency 

IPT Leads

Technical 

Division Leads

Master IPT

JPDO Board

NGATS Institute 

Management 

Council

JPDO Director

Deputy Director

Source: JPDO.

Air Traffic 

Organization

Department of Transportation (chair)

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Defense

Department of Commerce

The White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy

NASA

Federal Aviation Administration

Page 9 GAO-06-574T 
rather than having its position detected by ground-based radars. JPDO 

envisions FAA beginning to purchase ADS-B transceivers, decommission 

obsolete ground-based radars, and develop air traffic procedures that 

would permit ADS-B-equipped aircraft to obtain near-term operational 

benefits such as routings that save fuel. 

Although JPDO’s legislation, integrated plan, and established governance 

structure provide the framework for institutionalizing collaboration among 

multiple federal agencies, JPDO is fundamentally a planning and 

coordinating body that lacks authority over the key human and financial

resources needed to continue developing plans and system requirements 

for the NGATS. Consequently, leveraging resources on a continuing basis 

will be critical to JPDO’s success. Our research has also shown that 

agreement on roles and responsibilities facilitates interagency 

collaboration. However, in JPDO’s situation, some important roles and 

responsibilities have not yet been clearly defined.

The challenge of leveraging resources will likely intensify beginning in 

2008, when JPDO expects a significant increase in the workload of its 

IPTs. JPDO anticipates needing more resources for the IPTs to, among 

other things, plan demonstrations of potential technologies to illustrate 

some of the early benefits that could be achieved from the transformation 

to the NGATS. JPDO officials told us that, although the partner agencies 

have not yet expressed concerns over the time that their employees spend

on JPDO work, it remains to be seen whether partner agencies are willing 

to allow their staff to devote larger portions of their time to JPDO as the 

office develops more detailed plans and requirements for the NGATS. 

Partner agencies have a variety of missions and priorities other than 

supporting the NGATS. Some partner agency employees, including some 

IPT directors, have been told by their partner agencies that their work for 

JDPO is approved so long as it does not interfere with their regular 

assigned duties. Such resource issues would ultimately go to the Senior 

Policy Committee for resolution. However, the role of the committee’s 

members, as stated in Vision 100, is only to make recommendations to 

their respective agencies for the required resources. 

The challenge of leveraging financial resources has already manifested 

itself. As JPDO requested, FAA included in its fiscal year 2007 budget

request to the Office of Management and Budget funding to accelerate 

JPDO Faces Challenges in 

Continuing to Leverage 

Resources and Defining 

Roles and Responsibilities 

Page 10 GAO-06-574T 
systems development of ADS-B and System Wide Information 

Management (SWIM),8

 which are two key systems identified for the 

NGATS. However, JPDO officials told us that, while FAA did receive an

increase, it did not receive the full amount requested in the budget 

formulation documents submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget.9

 Our past work on FAA’s national airspace modernization program 

has shown that, among other factors, receiving fewer resources than 

planned contributed to delays in implementing technologies and 

significant cost increases. For example, reduced funding was one factor 

that caused FAA to reduce the initial deployment of its ASR-11 digital 

radar system from 111 systems to 66 systems, and defer decisions on 

further deployment pending additional study. In the meantime, FAA will 

have to continue to maintain the aging analog radars that the new system 

was intended to replace.

JPDO also faces the challenge of clearly defining roles and responsibilities 

among its partner agencies. Our work has shown that collaborating 

agencies should work together to define and agree on the respective roles 

and responsibilities, including how the collaborative effort will be led. In 

JPDO’s case, there is no formalized long-term agreement on the partner 

agencies’ roles and responsibilities in creating the NGATS. According to 

JPDO officials, a memorandum of understanding that would define partner 

agency relationships was being developed as of August 2005, but has not 

yet been completed. 

Defining roles and responsibilities is particularly important between JPDO 

and FAA’s Air Traffic Organization, since both organizations have 

responsibilities related to planning national airspace system 

modernization. JPDO’s planning must build upon the Air Traffic 

Organization’s existing modernization program, while the Air Traffic 

Organization must ensure that its ongoing modernization efforts are 

consistent with JPDO’s plans. JPDO’s former director served concurrently

 8

SWIM would support the transition to network-centric operations by providing the

infrastructure and associated policies and standards to enable information sharing among 

all authorized users, such as the airlines, other government agencies, and the military. 

9

FAA’s fiscal year 2007 budget request for research and development includes about $18 

million for JPDO, which is supplemented by matching funds from NASA. NASA has 

committed to continuing this match in the future, according to a JPDO official. JPDO uses 

these funds to conduct planning and studies. Outyear funding plans for JPDO show a slight 

decline through fiscal year 2010. Vision 100 authorized $50 million annually for seven years 

for JPDO. 

Page 11 GAO-06-574T 
as the Air Traffic Organization’s Vice President for Operations Planning, 

which helped with coordination between the two organizations. However, 

FAA now plans to establish separate positions for the JPDO Director and 

the Air Traffic Organization Vice President for Operations Planning. Doing

so increases the importance of having a clearly defined relationship 

between these organizations. 

Ultimate decisionmaking authority is another role and responsibility that 

has not been clearly defined. According to JPDO, decisions are the 

collective responsibility of the government agencies. The Senior Policy 

Committee makes decisions through consensus of the members. If there 

are any issues that the committee cannot resolve among themselves, JPDO 

officials expect that the Secretary of Transportation would elevate these 

issues to the appropriate White House-level policy council, such as the 

Domestic Policy Council. Although JPDO strives to make decisions and 

resolve disputes through its collaborative bodies, its experience thus far is

limited. It is not clear whether this process will be effective as the NGATS

planning and implementation effort moves forward. As part of our ongoing 

work, we will further explore the decisionmaking and dispute resolution 

mechanisms within JPDO. 

To its credit, JPDO, in concert with the Air Traffic Organization, has begun 

to address these challenges. To assist with leveraging resources, JPDO has 

issued guidance to its partner agencies identifying areas that JPDO would 

like to see emphasized in their fiscal year 2008 budget requests. The Air 

Traffic Organization, in recognition of the need to align its plans with the 

20-year planning horizon of JPDO, has extended its planning horizon. 

Finally, JPDO is working with the Office of Management and Budget to 

develop a systematic means of reviewing partner agency budget requests 

so that the NGATS-related funding in each budget request is easily 

identified. Such a process would help the Office of Management and 

Budget consider NGATS as a unified program rather than as disconnected

line items across partner agency budget requests. To better define roles 

and responsibilities, JPDO planned to transmit the proposed memorandum 

of understanding to the JPDO board this month. 

Page 12 GAO-06-574T 
As required by Vision 100, JPDO developed and implemented mechanisms 

for soliciting the expertise and views of federal and nonfederal

stakeholders as it plans the NGATS. Although JPDO has obtained the 

involvement of over 180 participants from over 70 organizations for the 

IPTs, the current air traffic controllers—who will play a key role in the 

NGATS—have not been involved in JPDO’s efforts. In addition, JPDO may 

face challenges in sustaining stakeholder involvement over the long term. 

JPDO has structured itself in a way that involves federal and nonfederal 

stakeholders throughout its organization. Vision 100 directed JPDO to 

involve federal and nonfederal stakeholders as it fulfills its mission. Our 

work shows that involving stakeholders can, among other things, increase 

their support for the collaborative effort. Federal stakeholders from the 

partner agencies participate with JPDO through the Senior Policy 

Committee, the JPDO board, and the IPTs. To incorporate the expertise 

and views of stakeholders in private industry, state and local governments, 

and academia, the NGATS Institute (the Institute) was created by an 

agreement between the National Center for Advanced Technologies and

FAA.10

Within the Institute, the Institute Management Council (the Council), 

composed of top officials and representatives from the aviation 

community, oversees the policy and recommendations of the Institute. The 

Council provides a means for advancing consensus positions on critical 

NGATS issues. It is co-chaired by the president of the Air Transport 

Association, which represents commercial airlines, and the president of 

the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents airline pilots. The 

Institute has solicited participation from nonfederal stakeholders and 

assigned them to each IPT. Additionally, the Institute planned to hold its 

first public meeting on March 28, 2006, to solicit information from other 

interested stakeholders who are not involved in the Council or the IPTs. 

JPDO officials are generally pleased with the quality of stakeholder 

participation. Through the Institute, JPDO obtained the participation of 

over 180 stakeholders from over 70 organizations for the IPTs. The 

Institute received positive feedback from IPT directors on the skills, 

insight, and expertise of the private sector volunteers. Additionally, an 

JPDO Established 

Mechanisms to 

Involve Stakeholders 

but Faces Challenges 

JPDO Is Involving Federal

and Nonfederal 

Stakeholders 

 10The National Center for Advanced Technologies is a nonprofit unit within the Aerospace 

Industries Association. 

Page 13 GAO-06-574T 
official affiliated with the Institute told us that the collective quality and 

breadth of expertise of applicants for the IPTs has exceeded expectations. 

However, JPDO has experienced difficulties with soliciting the 

participation of current air traffic controllers, who will play a key role in 

the NGATS. The current air traffic control system is based primarily on the 

premise that air traffic controllers direct pilots to maintain safe separation 

between aircraft. In the NGATS, this premise could change and, 

accordingly, JPDO has recognized the need to conduct human factors 

research on such issues, including how tasks should be allocated between

humans and automated systems, and how the existing allocation of 

responsibilities between pilots and air traffic controllers might change. 

JPDO is tapping the expertise of former air traffic controllers, but current

air traffic controllers are not yet involved with JPDO. 

Specifically, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)—

the labor union that represents air traffic controllers—is not participating 

in the development of the NGATS. In July 2005, FAA terminated the 

controller liaison program, wherein active controllers were assigned to, 

among other things, provide input on national airspace modernization 

projects. At that time, the union disengaged from participating on all FAA

workgroups and technological projects, including JPDO. Although the 

Institute Management Council includes a seat for the union, an official of

that union told us that the union’s head had been unable to attend the 

Council’s meetings. According to JPDO officials, the Council has left a seat 

open in hopes that the controllers will participate in the NGATS effort at 

the end of the contract negotiations between FAA and NATCA. 

The lack of current air traffic controllers’ participation could result in 

future problems. The input of current air traffic controllers who have 

recent experience controlling aircraft is important in considering human 

factors and safety issues. Our work on FAA’s current national airspace 

modernization program has shown that early and continuing stakeholder

input is important, particularly concerning human factors, in avoiding 

costly rework and schedule delays late in system development efforts. For 

example, as FAA procured new air traffic controller workstations (known

as Standard Terminal Automation Replacement Systems (STARS)), not 

adequately including stakeholders during the development phase 

contributed to unplanned work which, in turn, contributed to cost growth, 

Page 14 GAO-06-574T 
schedule delays, and eventually a reduction in the number of systems to be 

deployed.

11

Another method for stakeholder involvement is through JPDO’s 

facilitation of technology transfer in its requests for studies to be 

contracted out through the Institute. For example, at JPDO’s request, the

Institute plans to analyze trade-offs between potential technologies to 

narrow the range of options that are most critical for the NGATS. JPDO 

has sent to the Institute its first request for studies, including an analysis of 

satellite navigation backup technology. 

The Institute also creates industry-government partnerships through 

advanced-technology demonstrations. These demonstrations provide a 

mechanism for collaboratively testing operational concepts, refining 

requirements, and sharing technology between the public and private 

sectors. To date, two demonstration projects have been conducted by 

JPDO partner agencies, including demonstrations on the Small Aircraft 

Transportation System and Network Enabled Operations. 

Although JPDO has developed the mechanisms for involving stakeholders

and brought stakeholders into the process, JPDO faces challenges in 

sustaining nonfederal stakeholder participation over the long term. Much 

as with the federal partner agencies, JPDO has no direct authority over the 

human and financial resources of its nonfederal stakeholders. To date, 

these stakeholders’ investment in the NGATS effort has been through their

pro bono participation on the IPTs and the Institute Management Council. 

The nonfederal stakeholders’ participation varies from approximately 10 

to 25 percent of their time per week on the IPTs and involves 

approximately one meeting per month for members of the Council. The 

challenge for JPDO is to maintain the interest and enthusiasm of these 

nonfederal stakeholders, who will have to juggle their own multiple 

priorities and resource demands in order to maintain this level of 

participation, when some tangible benefits may not be realized for several

years. For example, stakeholder support will be important for programs 

such as SWIM, which is a necessary prerequisite to future benefits, but 

may not produce tangible benefits in the near term. 

JPDO Faces Challenges in 

Maintaining Nonfederal 

Stakeholder Support Over 

the Long Term 

 11GAO, National Airspace System: Transformation will Require Cultural Change, 

Balanced Funding Priorities, and Use of All Available Management Tools, GAO-06-154 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 14, 2005). 

Page 15 GAO-06-574T 
Rather than obtaining voluntary, pro bono participation from nonfederal 

stakeholders, several members of our expert panel suggested JPDO should 

outsource the NGATS planning efforts, as Europe has done. As previously 

noted, the European SESAR effort is led by an industry consortium under 

a contract with Eurocontrol. The contract calls for the consortium to 

deliver a master plan at the end of a 2-year definition phase. JPDO officials 

told us that they considered various ways to structure their work, such as 

having the government formulate plans with industry comment, or having 

industry formulate plans and provide them to the government. JPDO 

settled on the existing model, which is a hybrid that involves initial 

government work with close industry participation. Because of the 

different circumstances surrounding the U.S. and European approaches 

(such as the European need to harmonize various national systems), we 

have not taken a position on which approach might be more effective. 

In the wake of past national airspace modernization efforts, JPDO also 

faces the challenge of convincing nonfederal stakeholders that the 

government is financially committed to the NGATS. While FAA’s major air 

traffic control acquisitions programs are currently on track, earlier 

attempts at modernizing the national airspace system encountered many 

difficulties. In one instance, for example, FAA developed a controller-pilot 

datalink communications system that transmitted scripted e-mail-like 

messages between controllers and pilots. One airline equipped its aircraft 

with this new technology, but because of funding cuts, FAA ended up 

canceling the program.12 In a similar vein, we have reported that some 

aviation stakeholders expressed concern that FAA may not follow through 

with its airspace redesign efforts and are hesitant to invest in equipment 

unless they are sure that FAA’s efforts will continue.13 One expert with 

whom we spoke suggested that a way to mitigate this issue would be for 

the government to make an initial investment in a specific technology 

before requesting that airlines or other industry stakeholders purchase 

equipment. 

Finally, JPDO could face a challenge in resolving the potentially divergent 

perspectives that are represented by its nonfederal stakeholders. The 

range of nonfederal interests that JPDO has solicited for this effort is 

 12JPDO noted that FAA used this technology to conduct an operational datalink 

demonstration that will provide valuable information for developing future requirements 

and reducing development and implementation risks. 

13GAO-06-154. 

Page 16 GAO-06-574T 
broad and varied, and potentially conflicting (for example, the interests of 

commercial airlines versus the interests of general aviation aircraft owners 

and pilots). While the intent is to ensure that all stakeholders are given the 

opportunity to participate in developing the NGATS, dissension among 

these stakeholders is nevertheless possible. A large portion of the 

nonfederal stakeholder participation is through the IPTs. JPDO officials 

told us that they expect IPT directors to resolve potential disputes among 

stakeholders and obtain a “convergence of opinion,” which is defined by 

JPDO as working toward as close to a single position as possible while 

recognizing that the IPT director might need to make a final decision. 

JPDO officials told us that depending on the issue, the IPT director may 

elect to elevate the different views to the collection of IPT directors and 

senior JPDO officials for resolution. In such a situation, JPDO will be 

challenged to settle the dispute without alienating those nonfederal 

stakeholders who might believe themselves to be adversely affected by the 

decision. 

JPDO is using an iterative technical planning process that appears to be 

reasonable in light of the complexity of the NGATS. The planning process 

includes conducting modeling—a technique that mathematically 

represents the NGATS’ system performance parameters, demand, and 

economic factors—as well as developing an enterprise architecture—a 

blueprint to guide NGATS development. 

JPDO has formed an Evaluation and Analysis Division (EAD), composed 

of FAA and NASA employees, and contractors, to assemble a suite of 

models that mathematically represent the interactions among system 

performance parameters, demand, and economic factors for the NGATS. 

These models iteratively test the relationships and interactions among 

factors based on a set of assumptions. For example, using models based 

on broad assumptions concerning fleet mix and passenger and flight 

demand, EAD has evaluated how the current air transportation system and 

proposed NGATS alternatives react. EAD has also used modeling to 

determine whether current airport capacity is sufficient to support a 

tripling of air traffic. The modeling results will help JPDO further refine its 

plans for the NGATS, leading to additional modeling that uses more 

precisely defined assumptions, all the while narrowing the range of 

potential solutions. In addition, EAD is modeling costs and benefits of 

proposed NGATS solutions, as well as interactions among system 

performance parameters, demand, and economic factors, to demonstrate 

to JPDO management and the Office of Management and Budget that the

JPDO Is Using an 

Iterative Technical 

Planning Process 

JPDO Has Begun to Use 

System Performance 

Modeling 

Page 17 GAO-06-574T 
proposed solutions are a cost-effective way to meet strategic goals and 

objectives. 

Rather than creating its own models, EAD is assembling a suite of existing

models from FAA, other agencies, and contractors. To assess the adequacy

of these models, EAD has compared the results obtained from them to 

known previous conditions. For example, to assess how accurately a 

model reflects the impact of adverse weather on airport capacity, EAD has 

compared the model’s results to what actually happened in a previous badweather event. In this case, the model proved to be accurate, thereby 

validating its further use. 

EAD recognizes the importance of human factors in designing the NGATS, 

but has just begun studying this issue. Specifically, EAD has used 

modeling to study how possible changes in the duties of key individuals, 

such as air traffic controllers, could affect the workload and performance 

of others, such as airport ground personnel. NGATS could shift some tasks 

now done by air traffic controllers to pilots. However, EAD has not yet 

begun to model the effect of this shift on pilot performance because, 

according to an EAD official, a suitable model has not yet been

incorporated into the modeling tool suite. According to EAD, addressing 

this issue is difficult because data on pilot behavior are not readily 

available to use in creating such models. Furthermore, EAD has not 

studied the training implications of various NGATS-proposed solutions 

because further definition of the concept of operations for these solutions 

has not been completed. As the concept of operations matures, it will be 

important for air traffic controllers and other affected stakeholders to 

provide their perspectives on these modeling efforts. 

EAD plans to use outside experts to review the adequacy of its work. EAD 

will continue to publish results of its work in peer-reviewed journals. EAD 

officials said they are also exploring the possibility of pursuing a peer 

review relationship with SESAR officials. So far, however, EAD’s modeling 

efforts are in the early stages and more time will be needed to conduct 

additional modeling and field testing to increase confidence that the final

range of solutions for the NGATS is based on realistic assumptions. 

An enterprise architecture is a tool, or blueprint, for understanding and 

planning complex systems. It can facilitate NGATS planning by providing a 

strategic and integrated approach to decisionmaking. For example, 

enterprise architecture can help planners decide between various 

scenarios that involve flight takeoff, flight landing, and en route flight in 

JPDO Has Taken the First 

Steps toward Developing 

an Enterprise Architecture 

Page 18 GAO-06-574T 
bad weather. The NGATS enterprise architecture will provide the means 

for coordinating among the partner agencies and private sector 

manufacturers, aligning relevant research and development activities, and

integrating equipment. The enterprise architecture will describe the 

current national airspace system, the NGATS, and the sequence of steps 

needed to transition between them. 

JPDO has taken the initial steps towards developing an enterprise 

architecture and plans to have an early version by the end of fiscal year 

2006. The office has established and filled a chief architect position and 

established an NGATS Architecture Council composed of representatives 

from each partner agency’s chief architect office. This provides the 

organizational structure and oversight needed to develop an enterprise 

architecture. While this is an important first step and consistent with 

effective practices that we have identified in enterprise architecture 

development, JPDO’s enterprise architecture development is currently a

work in progress. JPDO is working toward completing two tasks that we 

have also identified as effective practices. First, JPDO is planning to use 

the Federal Enterprise Architecture Security and Privacy Profile, currently

under development by the Federal Chief Information Officer Council, to 

help ensure effective integration of security and privacy requirements 

across NGATS enterprise architecture. Second, JPDO is developing 

metrics that are to be compliant with guidance from us and the Office of 

Management and Budget to measure the enterprise architecture’s progress 

in development and effectiveness-in-use by the end of fiscal year 2006.

JPDO recognizes that the development of the NGATS architecture will be 

a multiyear process that will involve a series of interim architectures. 

JPDO’s phased “build a little, test a little” approach for developing and 

refining its enterprise architecture is similar to a process that we have 

advocated for FAA’s major system-acquisition programs. After completing 

the initial version of its enterprise architecture, JPDO plans to undertake a 

comprehensive assessment to determine if additional efforts are necessary 

to improve the architecture and address any gaps that may have been 

identified. In addition, this phased development process will allow JPDO 

to incorporate evolving market forces and technologies in its architecture, 

and thus, to better manage change. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, ultimate responsibility for the success of JPDO 

and the broader NGATS effort is shared among JPDO and its partner 

agencies, nonfederal stakeholders, and the Congress. JPDO and its partner 

agencies have responsibility to develop a plan, test technologies through 

demonstrations, and implement technologies to transform the current 

Concluding 

Observations 

Page 19 GAO-06-574T 
national airspace system in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Nonfederal 

stakeholders, including industry representatives, state and local 

government officials, and members of academia, must actively participate

in developing the plan. Some of these stakeholders—such as commercial 

airlines and general aviation operators—will have to follow through by 

equipping their aircraft to realize the benefits of the NGATS. Finally, the 

success of the NGATS will undoubtedly require support from Congress to 

obtain the resources and authority necessary to complete the planning and 

testing stage, acquire the necessary technologies, and develop procedures.

Consequently, Congress will face difficult decisions on how to prioritize 

funding to support the NGATS with other national priorities. These 

responsibilities are substantial, but failure in any one of these areas will 

significantly affect JPDO’s chances of achieving a three-fold increase in 

airspace capacity by 2025. 

This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any 

questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at 

this time. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Gerald 

Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or by e-mail at dillinghamg@gao.gov. 

Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Nabajyoti 

Barkakati, Colin Fallon, David Hooper, Heather Krause, Elizabeth 

Marchak, Edmond Menoche, Faye Morrison, Richard Scott, and Sarah 

Veale. 

Page 20 GAO-06-574T 

Contact and 

Acknowledgements 

(540121) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER