Joint Planning and Development Office: Progress and Key Issues in Planning the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation System
Published: 2007-03-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The skies over America are becoming more crowded every day. The consensus of opinion is that the current system cannot be expanded to meet projected growth. In 2003, recognizing the need for system transformation, Congress authorized the creation of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), housed within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), to lead a collaborative effort of federal and nonfederal aviation stakeholders to conceptualize and plan the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)--a fundamental redesign and modernization of the national airspace system. JPDO operates in conjunction with its partner agencies, which include FAA; the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. GAO's testimony focuses on the progress that JPDO has made in planning the NextGen initiative and some key issues and challenges that JPDO continues to face. This statement is based on GAO's November 2006 report to this subcommittee as well as ongoing work. In our November 2006 report, we recommended that JPDO take actions to institutionalize its collaboration and determine if it had the involvement of all key stakeholders. JPDO said it would consider our recommendations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: JPDO has made progress in several areas in its planning of the NextGen initiative, but continues to face a number of challenges. JPDO's organizational structure incorporates some of the practices that we have found to be effective for federal interagency collaborations, and includes an institute that facilitates the participation of nonfederal stakeholders. JPDO has faced some organizational challenges, however. Leadership turnover at JPDO and the Institute have raised concerns about the stability of JPDO and the impact of the turnovers on its progress. Additionally, we and JPDO officials have heard concerns from stakeholders about the productivity of some integrated product teams and the pace of the planning effort. In response, JPDO officials are currently proposing several changes to JPDO's organizational structure aimed at improving the organization's effectiveness. JPDO has also made progress toward releasing several key planning documents, including a Concept of Operations, an Enterprise Architecture, and an Integrated Work Plan, although in some cases on a revised and extended timeline. JPDO is focusing on the right types of key documents for the foundation of NextGen planning, although the current draft Concept of Operations still lacks important details. In our November 2006 report, we noted that JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating body that lacks authority over the key human and technological resources of its partner agencies. Consequently, institutionalizing the collaborative process with its partner agencies will be critical to JPDO's ability to facilitate the implementation of NextGen. JPDO has identified several tasks including aligning the enterprise architectures of its partner agencies, working with OMB to establish a cross-agency mechanism for NextGen funding decisions, and working with FAA to revamp a key planning document to focus on the NextGen effort. JPDO has made progress in developing cost estimates for NextGen, recently reporting that it estimates the total federal cost for NextGen infrastructure through 2025 will range between $15 billion and $22 billion. Questions remain, however, over which entities will fund and conduct some of the necessary research, development, and demonstration projects that in the past were often conducted by NASA, and which will be key to achieving certain NextGen capabilities. For example, JPDO's investment simulation capability, which relies heavily on a NASA modeling platform, may be constrained unless the JPDO or another partner agency can assume the modeling work. JPDO also faces a challenge in addressing questions concerning how human factors issues, such as the changing roles of air traffic controllers in a more automated NextGen environment, will be researched and addressed. Finally, JPDO has a continuing challenge in ensuring the involvement of all key stakeholders, including controllers and technicians. Similarly, issues have arisen over whether conflict of interest issues could chill the participation of industry stakeholders.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to discuss the  progress of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) in  conceptualizing, planning, and facilitating a transformation of the current  national airspace system to the Next Generation Air Transportation  System (NextGen). Our nation’s current airspace system is under growing  strain as the demand for air travel is steadily increasing, from over 740  million passengers flying in fiscal year 2006 to an estimated 1 billion  passengers by 2015, according to  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)  estimates. The system is also expected to absorb a growing variety of  aircraft, from the jumbo A380 which can hold more than 500 passengers to  very light jets which will transport six or fewer passengers per flight. The  consensus is that the current system cannot be expanded to meet this  projected growth. Without a timely transition to NextGen capabilities,  JPDO officials estimate a future gap between the demand for air  transportation and available capacity that could cost the U.S. economy  billions of dollars annually.
In 2003, recognizing the need for system transformation, Congress  authorized the creation of JPDO, housed within FAA, to lead a  collaborative effort of federal and nonfederal aviation stakeholders to  conceptualize and plan the NextGen system. NextGen is envisioned as a  major redesign of the air transportation system that will move from largely  ground-based radars to precision satellite-based navigation and includes  digital, networked communications; an integrated weather system;  layered, adaptive security; and more. In addition to FAA, JPDO operates in  conjunction with multiple federal partner agencies, including the  Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland  Security; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and  the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
My testimony today focuses on the following question: What is the status  of JPDO’s planning and facilitation of NextGen with respect to its  organizational structure, technical planning, and initial research and  development? My statement is based on our November 2006 report to this  subcommittee as well as on-going work. We conducted this work in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
JPDO has made progress in several areas in its planning of the NextGen  initiative, but continues to face a number of challenges. JPDO’s  organizational structure incorporates some of the practices that we have  found to be effective for federal interagency collaborations, and includes  an institute that facilitates the participation of nonfederal stakeholders.  JPDO has faced some organizational challenges, however. Leadership  turnover at JPDO and the Institute have raised concerns about the stability  of JPDO and the NextGen initiative. Additionally, we and JPDO officials  have heard concerns from stakeholders about the productivity of some  integrated product teams (IPTs) and the pace of the planning effort at  JPDO. In response, JPDO officials are currently proposing several changes  to JPDO’s organizational structure aimed at improving the effectiveness of  the organization. We believe that these changes could help address  stakeholder concerns, but the effectiveness of these changes will have to  be evaluated.
JPDO has also made progress toward releasing several key planning  documents, including a Concept of Operations, an Enterprise Architecture,  and an Integrated Work Plan, although in some cases on a revised and  extended timeline. JPDO is focusing on the right types of key documents  for the foundation of NextGen planning, although the current draft  Concept of Operations still lacks important details. In our November 2006  report, we noted that JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating  body that lacks authority over the key human and technological resources  of its partner agencies. Consequently, institutionalizing the collaborative  process with its partner agencies will be critical to JPDO’s ability to  facilitate the implementation of NextGen. JPDO has identified several  tasks that will help institutionalize collaboration, including aligning the  enterprise architectures of its partner agencies, working with OMB to  establish a cross-agency mechanism for NextGen funding decisions, and  working with FAA to revamp a key planning document to focus on the  NextGen effort.
JPDO has made progress in developing cost estimates for NextGen,  recently reporting that it estimates the total federal cost for NextGen  infrastructure through 2025 will range between $15 billion and $22 billion.  Questions remain, however, over which organizations will fund and  conduct some of the necessary research, development, and demonstration  projects that in the past were often conducted by NASA, and which will be  key to achieving certain NextGen capabilities. For example, JPDO’s  investment simulation capability relies heavily on a NASA modeling  platform that NASA does not plan to upgrade for 2 years. As a result,  JPDO’s investment simulation capability might be constrained. JPDO also  faces a challenge in addressing questions concerning how human factors  issues, such as the changing roles of air traffic controllers in a more  automated NextGen environment, will be researched and addressed.  Finally, JPDO has a continuing challenge in ensuring the involvement of all  key stakeholders. For example, active air traffic controllers and  technicians are not currently involved in NextGen planning. Similarly,  issues have arisen over whether conflict of interest issues could chill the  participation of industry stakeholders.
In November 2006, we recommended that the Secretary of Transportation  direct JPDO to take actions to institutionalize the partner agencies’  collaboration in supporting NextGen, including action on a Memorandum  of Understanding among the partner agencies, actions to finalize  procedures to leverage partner agency resources, and actions to develop  procedures for dispute resolution.  We also recommended that the  Secretary direct JPDO to determine whether key stakeholders and  expertise are not currently represented in JPDO planning efforts.  JPDO  officials neither agreed nor disagree with our recommendations, but said  they would consider them.
subsections: section_title: JPDO Has Made Progress in Planning NextGen, but Continues to Face a Number of Challenges
paragraphs: JPDO has continued to make progress in facilitating the collaboration that  is central to its mission and in furthering its key planning documents.  However, JPDO faces a number of challenges involving its organizational  structure, institutionalization of its efforts, research and development  activities, and stakeholder participation.
subsections: section_title: JPDO’s Organizational Structure Facilitates Collaboration, but Continues to Evolve
paragraphs: Vision 100 includes requirements for JPDO to coordinate and consult with  its partner agencies, private sector experts, and the public. JPDO’s  approach has been to establish an organizational structure that involves  federal and nonfederal stakeholders throughout the organization. This  structure includes a federal interagency senior policy committee, a board  of directors, and an institute to facilitate the participation of nonfederal  stakeholders. JPDO’s structure also includes eight integrated product  teams (IPT), which is where the federal and nonfederal experts come  together to plan for and coordinate the development of technologies for  NextGen. The eight IPTs are linked to eight key strategies that JPDO  developed early on for guiding its NextGen planning work (see table 1).
JPDO’s senior policy committee is headed by the Secretary of  Transportation (as required in Vision 100) and includes senior-level  officials from JPDO’s partner agencies. The Next Generation Air  Transportation System Institute (the Institute) was created by an  agreement between the National Center for Advanced Technologies and  FAA to incorporate the expertise and views of stakeholders from private  industry, state and local governments, and academia. The Institute  Management Council (IMC), composed of top officials and representatives  from the aviation community, oversees the policy, recommendations, and  products of the Institute and provides a means for advancing consensus  positions on critical NextGen issues. The IPTs are headed by  representatives of JPDO’s partner agencies and include more than 200  nonfederal stakeholders from over 100 organizations, whose participation  was arranged through the Institute. Figure 1 illustrates JPDO’s position  within FAA and the JPDO structures that bring together federal and  nonfederal stakeholders, including the Institute and the IPTs. To meet  Vision 100’s requirement that JPDO coordinate and consult with the  public, the Institute held its first public meeting in March 2006 and plans to  hold another public meeting in May 2007.
Deprtment of Trporttion (chir)
Hrmoniztion  (FAA)
Infrastrctre   (FAA)
Situationl  Awreness  (DOD)  (DOC)
Mgement  (FAA)
In November 2006, we reported that JPDO’s organizational structure  incorporated some of the practices that we have found to be effective for  federal interagency collaborations—an important point given how critical  such collaboration is to the success of JPDO’s mission. For example, the  JPDO partner agencies have worked together to develop key strategies for  NextGen and JPDO has leveraged its partner agency resources by staffing  various levels of its organization with partner agency employees. Also, our  work has shown that involving stakeholders can, among other things,  increase their support for a collaborative effort, and the Institute provides  a method for involving nonfederal stakeholders in planning NextGen.
Recently, JPDO officials told us they have proposed to FAA management  and the IMC executive board a change in the IPT structure and operation  to improve the efficiency of the organization. JPDO has proposed  converting each IPT into a “work group” with the same participants as the  current IPT, but with each work group led by a joint government and  industry steering committee. The steering committee would oversee the  creation of small, ad hoc subgroups that would be tasked with short-term  projects exploring specific issues and delivering discrete work products.  Under this arrangement, work group members would be free of  obligations to the group when not engaged in a specific project. According  to JPDO officials, if these changes are approved, the work groups would  be more efficient and output- or product-focused than the current IPTs.  JPDO officials also noted that they are proposing to create a ninth work  group to address avionics issues.
We believe that these changes could help address concerns that we have  heard from some stakeholders about the productivity of some IPTs and  the pace of the planning effort at JPDO. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of  these changes will have to be evaluated over time. Also, JPDO’s director  has pointed out the need for the office to begin transitioning from planning  NextGen to facilitating the implementation of NextGen. We believe that  these changes are potentially useful in supporting such a transition.  However, it will be important to monitor these changes to ensure that the  participation of stakeholders is neither decreased nor adversely affected.  Maintaining communications within and among work groups could  increase in importance if, as work group members focus on specific  projects, they become less involved in the overall collaborative planning  effort.
Finally, while the organizational structure of JPDO and the Institute have  been in place and largely unchanged for several years now, both of these  entities have suffered from a lack of stable leadership. As JPDO begins its  fourth year in operation, it is on its third director and operated during  most of 2006 under the stewardship of an acting director. The Institute  pointed out in its recent annual report that JPDO’s leadership turnover had  made it a challenge for JPDO to move out more aggressively on many  goals and objectives, as the office waited on a full-time director. The  Institute also stated that JPDO’s leadership turnover had limited the ability  of the IMC executive committee to forge a stronger relationship with  JPDO leadership and work jointly on strategic issues and challenges.  However, the Institute has also had issues with turnover and is currently  functioning under an acting director due to the recent departure of its  second director, who had been in the position less than two years. The  leadership turnovers at both JPDO and the Institute raise concerns about  the stability of JPDO and about the impact of these turnovers on the  progress of the NextGen initiative.
section_title: JPDO Has Made Progress Toward Releasing Key Planning Documents, although Further Work Remains
paragraphs: JPDO’s authorizing legislation requires the office to create a multi-agency  research and development plan for the transition to NextGen. To comply,  JPDO is developing several key documents that together form the  foundation of NextGen planning. These documents include a NextGen  Concept of Operations, a NextGen Enterprise Architecture, and an  Integrated Work Plan.
The Concept of Operations is the most fundamental of JPDO’s key  planning documents, as the other key documents flow from it. Although an  earlier version was delayed so that stakeholder comments could be  addressed, Version 1.2 of the Concept of Operations is currently posted on  JPDO’s Website for review and comment by the aviation community. This  226-page document provides written descriptions of how the NextGen  system is envisioned to operate in 2025 and beyond, including highlighting  key research and policy issues that will need to be addressed. For  example, some key policy issues are associated with automating the air  traffic control system, including the need for a backup plan in case  automation fails, the responsibilities and liabilities of different  stakeholders during an automation failure, and the level of monitoring  needed by pilots when automation is ensuring safe separation between  aircraft. Over the next few months, JPDO plans to address the public  comments it receives and issue a revised version of the Concept of  Operations.
In addition to the Concept of Operations, JPDO is working on an  Enterprise Architecture for NextGen—that is, a technical description of  the NextGen system, akin to blueprints for a building. The Enterprise  Architecture is meant to provide a common tool for planning and  understanding the complex, interrelated systems that will make up  NextGen. According to JPDO officials, the 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. JPDO plans to issue an early version  of its Enterprise Architecture next month, although it was originally  scheduled for release in September 2006.
Finally, JPDO is developing an Integrated Work Plan that will describe the  capabilities needed to transition to NextGen from the current system and  provide the research, policy and regulation, and schedules necessary to  achieve NextGen by 2025. The Integrated Work Plan is akin to a project  plan and will be critical for fiscal year 2009 partner agency budget and  program planning. According to a JPDO official, the office intends to issue  its initial draft of the Integrated Work Plan in July 2007.
We have discussed JPDO’s planning documents with JPDO officials and  examined both an earlier version of JPDO’s Concept of Operations and  the current version that is out for public comment.  Based on our analysis,  JPDO is focusing on the right types of key documents for the foundation of  NextGen planning. As for the Concept of Operations, the current version is  much improved from the prior version, with additional details added.  Nonetheless, we believe that it still does not include key elements such as  scenarios illustrating NextGen operations, a summary of NextGen’s  operational impact on users and other stakeholders, and an analysis of the  benefits, alternatives, and trade-offs that were considered for NextGen. In  addition, it lacks an overall description that ties together the eight key  areas that the document covers. As noted, JPDO does plan to release  another version of the Concept of Operations later this year.
In fact, JPDO plans further versions of all of its key planning documents.  We see the development of all three of JPDO’s key documents as part of an  iterative and evolutionary process. Thus, it is unlikely that any of these  documents will ever be truly “finalized,” but rather will continue to evolve  throughout the implementation of NextGen to reflect, for example, the  development of new technologies or problems uncovered during research  and development of planned technologies.
Finally, while each of the three key documents has a specific purpose, the  scope and technical sophistication of these documents makes it difficult  for some stakeholders to understand the basics of the NextGen planning  effort. To address this issue, JPDO is currently drafting what the office  refers to as a “blueprint” for NextGen, meant to be a short, high-level, non- technical presentation of NextGen goals and capabilities. We believe that  such a document could help some stakeholders develop a better  understanding of NextGen and the planning effort to date.
section_title: Institutionalizing the Collaborative Process Poses a Continuing Challenge for JPDO
paragraphs: In our November 2006 report, we noted that JPDO is fundamentally a  planning and coordinating body that lacks authority over the key human  and technological resources of its partner agencies. Consequently,  institutionalizing the collaborative process with its partner agencies will  be critical to JPDO’s ability to facilitate the implementation of NextGen.  As we reported in November, JPDO has not established some practices  significant to institutionalizing its collaborative process. For example, one  method for establishing collaboration at a fundamental level would be for  JPDO to have formal, long-term agreements among its partner agencies on  their roles and responsibilities in creating NextGen. Currently, there is no  mechanism that assures the partner agencies’ commitment continuing  over the 20-year timeframe of NextGen or their accountability to JPDO.  According to JPDO officials, they are working to establish a memorandum  of understanding (MOU), signed by the Secretary or other high-ranking  official from each partner agency, which will broadly define the partner  agencies’ roles and responsibilities. JPDO first informed us of the  development of this MOU in August 2005; in November 2006 we  recommended that JPDO finalize the MOU and present it to the senior  policy committee for its consideration and action. However, as of March  28, 2007, the MOU remained unsigned by some of the partner agencies.
Another key method for institutionalizing the collaborative effort is  incorporating NextGen goals and activities into the partner agencies’ key  planning documents. For example, we noted in November 2006 that NASA  and FAA had incorporated NextGen goals into their strategic plans. These  types of efforts will be critical to JPDO’s ability to leverage its partner  agency resources for continued JPDO planning efforts. Even more  importantly, these efforts will be critical to helping ensure that partner  agencies—given competing missions and resource demands—dedicate the  resources necessary to support the implementation of NextGen research  efforts or system acquisitions.
Recognizing that JPDO does not have authority over partner agency  resources, FAA and JPDO have initiated several efforts to institutionalize  NextGen. For example, JPDO is working with FAA to refocus one of FAA’s  key planning documents on the implementation of NextGen—an effort  that also appears to be improving the collaboration and coordination  between JPDO and FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO), which has  primary responsibility for modernization of the air traffic control system.  FAA has expanded and revamped its Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)— renamed the Operational Evolution Partnership—to become FAA’s  implementation plan for NextGen. The OEP is being expanded to apply to  all of FAA and is intended to become a comprehensive description of how  the agency will implement NextGen, including the required technologies,  procedures, and resources. (Figure 3 shows the OEP framework.) An ATO  official told us that the new OEP is to be consistent with JPDO’s key  planning documents and its budget guidance to the partner agencies.  According to FAA, the new OEP will allow it to demonstrate appropriate  budget control and linkage to NextGen plans and will force FAA’s research  and development to be relevant to NextGen’s requirements. According to  FAA documents, the agency plans to publish a new OEP in June 2007.
In addition, to further align FAA’s efforts with JPDO’s plans for NextGen,  FAA is creating a NextGen Review Board to oversee the OEP. This Review  Board will be co-chaired by JPDO’s Director and ATO’s Vice President of  Operations Planning Services. Initiatives, such as concept demonstrations  or research, proposed for inclusion in the OEP will now need to go  through the Review Board for approval. Initiatives are to be assessed for  their relation to NextGen requirements, concept maturity, and risk. An  ATO official told us that the new OEP process should also help identify  some smaller programs that might be inconsistent with NextGen and  which could be discontinued. Additionally, as a further step towards  integrating ATO and JPDO, the administration’s reauthorization proposal  calls for the JPDO director to be a voting member of FAA’s Joint  Resources Council and ATO’s Executive Council.
While progress is being made in incorporating NextGen initiatives into  FAA’s strategic and planning documents, more remains to be done with  FAA and the other JPDO partner agencies. For example, one critical  activity that remains in this area will be synchronizing the NextGen  enterprise architecture, once JPDO releases and further refines it, with the  partner agencies’ enterprise architectures. Doing so should help align  agencies’ current work with NextGen while simultaneously identifying  gaps between agency plans and NextGen plans. Also, while FAA is making  significant progress toward creating an implementation plan for NextGen,  the other partner agencies are less far along or have not begun such  efforts. JPDO’s lack of authority over partner agency resources will be  minimized as a challenge if the partner agencies commit to NextGen goals  and initiatives at a structural level. By further incorporation of NextGen  efforts into strategic planning documents, the partner agencies will better  institutionalize their commitments to JPDO and the NextGen initiative.
Finally, another important method for institutionalizing the collaborative  effort will be for JPDO to establish mechanisms for leveraging partner  agency resources.  JPDO has made progress in this area, although further  work remains.  As we noted in our November report, JPDO is working  with OMB to develop a process that would allow OMB to identify  NextGen-related projects across the partner agencies and consider  NextGen as a unified, cross-agency program. We recently met with OMB  officials who said that they felt there has been significant progress with  JPDO over the last year. JPDO is now working on an OMB Exhibit 300  form for NextGen. This will allow JPDO to present OMB a joint business  case for the NextGen-related efforts within the partner agencies and will  be used as input to funding decisions for NextGen research and  acquisitions across the agencies. This Exhibit 300 will be due to OMB in  September 2007 to inform decisions about the partner agencies’ 2009  budget submissions.
Ultimately, the success of JPDO will have to be measured in the efforts of  its partner agencies to implement policies and procedures and acquire  systems that support NextGen. To date, JPDO can point to its success in  collaborating with FAA to fund and speed its rollout of two systems  considered cornerstone technologies for NextGen: Automatic Dependent  Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and System Wide Information  Management (SWIM). ADS-B is a new air traffic surveillance system that  will replace many existing radars with less costly ground-based  transceivers. SWIM will provide an initial network centric capability to all  the users of the air transportation system. This means that the FAA and  the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense will eventually share a  common, real-time, secure picture of aviation operations across the  airspace system. Identifying such NextGen programs across the partner  agencies and establishing implementation plans for them in JPDO’s  Integrated Work Plan will be critical going forward to creating  performance metrics for JPDO.
Although we recommended in our November report that JPDO develop  written procedures that formalize agreements with OMB regarding the  leveraging of partner agency resources, this is still a work in progress. For  example, OMB officials said they had not reviewed JPDO’s 2008 partner  agency budget guidance prior to its release to the partner agencies, which  highlights the need for JPDO to further develop its procedures for working  with OMB. Going forward, it will be important for Congress and other  stakeholders to evaluate the success of the 2009 budgets in supporting  NextGen initiatives, especially as 2009 is expected to be a critical year in  the transition from planning NextGen to implementing NextGen.
section_title: FAA and JPDO Have Begun to Release Early Cost Estimates for NextGen, but Questions Remain Over Who Will Conduct Necessary Research and Development
paragraphs: In our November report, we noted that JPDO had not yet developed a  comprehensive estimate of the costs of NextGen. Since then, in its  recently released 2006 Progress Report, JPDO reported some estimated  costs for NextGen, including specifics on some early NextGen programs.  JPDO believes the total federal cost for NextGen infrastructure through  2025 will range between $15 billion and $22 billion. JPDO also reported  that a preliminary estimate of the corresponding cost to system users, who  will have to equip with the advanced avionics that are necessary to realize  the full benefits of some NextGen technologies, produced a range of $14  billion to $20 billion. JPDO noted that this range for avionics costs reflects  uncertainty about equipage costs for individual aircraft, the number of  very light jets that will operate in high-performance airspace, and the  amount of out-of-service time required for installation.
FAA, in its capital investment plan for fiscal years 2008-2012, includes  estimated expenditures for 11 line items that are considered NextGen  capital programs. The total 5-year estimated expenditures for these  programs is $4.3 billion. In fiscal year 2008, only 6 of the line items are  funded for a total of roughly $174 million; funding for the remaining 5  programs would begin with the fiscal year 2009 budget. According to FAA,  in addition to capital spending for NextGen, the agency will spend an  estimated $300 million on NextGen-related research and development  from fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The administration’s budget for fiscal  year 2008 for FAA includes a total of $17.8 million to support the activities  of JPDO.
While FAA and JPDO have begun to release estimates for FAA’s NextGen  investment portfolio, questions remain over which entities will fund and  conduct some of the necessary research, development, and demonstration  projects that will be key to achieving certain NextGen capabilities. In the  past, a significant portion of aeronautics research and development,  including intermediate technology development, has been performed by  NASA. However, NASA’s aeronautics research budget and proposed  funding shows a 30-percent decline, in constant 2005 dollars, from fiscal  year 2005 to fiscal year 2011. To its credit, NASA plans to focus its  research on the needs of NextGen. However, NASA is also moving toward  a focus on fundamental research and away from developmental work and  demonstration projects, which could negatively impact NextGen if these  efforts are not assumed by others.  According to its 2006 Progress Report,  JPDO is building a research and development plan that will document  NextGen’s research needs and the organizations that will perform the  work.
For example, JPDO’s investment simulation capability relies heavily on  NASA’s NAS-wide modeling platform, the Airspace Concepts Evaluation  System (ACES). This investment simulation capability permits JPDO to,  among other things, evaluate alternative research ideas and assess the  performance of competing vendors. According to a JPDO official, this  capability, which is critical to NextGen research, is eroding as JPDO’s  investment simulation requirements are expanding. As part of its  fundamental research mission, NASA intends to upgrade to ACES-X (a  more sophisticated representation of the national airspace system), but  not for another two years. Until then, JPDO investment modeling  capability will be constrained unless the office or another partner agency  can assume the modeling work. While one option would be to contract  with private sector vendors to do this type of modeling on a per simulation  basis, this solution could be expensive for the government. Moreover,  JPDO might not be able to continue facilitating participation by both small  and large companies, thus giving both an equal opportunity to demonstrate  their ideas, because small companies would have to pay for access to this  proprietary modeling capability. This is an issue that needs to be  addressed in the short-term.
JPDO faces the challenge of determining the nature and scope of the  research and technology development necessary to begin the transition to  NextGen, as well as identifying the entities that can conduct that research  and development. According to officials at FAA and JPDO, they are  currently studying these issues and trying to assess how much research  and development FAA can assume. An FAA official recently testified that  the agency proposes to increase its research and development funding by  $280 million over the next 5 years. However, a draft report by an advisory  committee to FAA stated that FAA would need at least $100 million  annually in increased funding to assume NASA’s research and  development work, and establishing the necessary infrastructure within  FAA could delay the implementation of NextGen by 5 years. More work  remains to completely assess the research and development needs of  NextGen and the ability of FAA and the other JPDO partner agencies to  budget for and conduct the necessary initiatives. This information is  critical as the timely completion of research and testing of proposed  NextGen systems is necessary to keeping the NextGen initiative on  schedule.
section_title: Some Fundamental NextGen Capabilities Will Require Human Factors Research
paragraphs: Addressing questions about how human factors issues will affect the move  to some key NextGen capabilities is another challenge for JPDO. For  example, the NextGen Concept of Operations envisions an increased  reliance on automation, which raises questions about the role of the air  traffic controllers in such an automated environment. Similarly, the  Concept of Operations envisions that pilots will take on a greater share of  the responsibility for maintaining safe separation and other tasks currently  performed by controllers. This raises human factors questions about  whether pilots can safely perform these additional duties.
Although JPDO has begun to model how shifts in air traffic controllers’  workloads would affect their performance, it has not yet begun to model  the effect of how this shift in workload to pilots would affect pilot  performance. According to a JPDO official, modeling the effect of changes  in pilot workload has not yet begun because JPDO has not yet identified a  suitable model for incorporation into its suite of modeling tools. According  to a JPDO official, the evolving roles of pilots and controllers is the  NextGen initiative’s most important human factors issue, but will be  difficult to research because data on pilot behavior are not readily  available for use in creating models. In addition to the study of changing  roles, JPDO has not yet studied the training implications of various  systems or solutions proposed for NextGen. For example, JPDO officials  said they will need to study the extent to which new air traffic controllers  will have to be trained to operate both the old and the new equipment as  the Concept of Operations and enterprise architecture mature.
section_title: JPDO Faces A Continuing Challenge in Ensuring the Involvement of All Key Stakeholders
paragraphs: Some stakeholders, such as current air traffic controllers and technicians,  will play critical roles in NextGen, and their involvement in planning for  and deploying the new technology will be important to the success of  NextGen. In November 2006, we reported that active air traffic controllers  were not involved in the NextGen planning effort and recommended that  JPDO determine whether any key stakeholders and expertise were not  represented on its IPTs, divisions, or elsewhere within the office. Since  then, the head of the controllers’ union has taken a seat on the Institute  Management Council. However, no active controllers are yet participating  at the IPT planning level. Also, aviation technicians do not participate in  NextGen efforts. Input from current air traffic controllers who have recent  experience controlling aircraft and current technicians who will maintain  NextGen equipment is important when considering human factors and  safety issues. Our work on past air traffic control modernization projects  has shown that a lack of stakeholder or expert involvement early and  throughout a project can lead to costly increases and delays.
In addition, we found that some private sector stakeholders have  expressed concerns that participation in the Institute might either  preclude bidding on future NextGen acquisitions or pose organizational  conflicts of interest. FAA’s acquisition process, generally, precludes bids  from organizations that have participated in, materially influenced, or had  prior knowledge of the requirements for an acquisition. The Institute was  aware of this concern and attempted to address it through an amendment  to its governing document that strengthened the language protecting  participants from organizational conflicts of interest for participation in  the NextGen initiative. However, while the amendment language currently  operates to protect stakeholders, the language has never been tested or  challenged. Thus, it is unclear at this time whether any stakeholder  participation is being chilled by conflict of interest concerns.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond  to any questions from you or other Members of the Subcommittee.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
paragraphs: For further information on this testimony, please contact Dr. Gerald L.  Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Individuals making  key contributions to this statement include Kevin Egan, Colin Fallon, Rick  Jorgenson, Faye Morrison, and Richard Scott.
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.