Defense Space Activities: Organizational Changes Initiated, but Further Management Actions Needed
Published: 2003-04-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In January 2001, the congressionally chartered Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization--known as the Space Commission--reported that the Department of Defense (DOD) lacked the senior-level focus and accountability to provide guidance and oversight for national security space operations. Congress mandated that GAO provide an assessment of DOD's actions to implement the Space Commission's recommendations. Thus, GAO (1) updated its June 2002 assessment of DOD's actions to address the Space Commission's recommendations, (2) ascertained progress in addressing other long- term management concerns, and (3) assessed the extent to which DOD has developed a results-oriented management framework for space activities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since June 2002 when we reported that DOD intended to implement 10 of the Space Commission's 13 recommendations to improve the management and organization of space activities and had completed implementation of 6, DOD has completed action on 3 more recommendations. The only action intended but not completed at the conclusion of our work is designation of the Air Force as the executive agent for DOD space programs. Most of the changes represent organizational actions to improve DOD's ability to manage space. For example, DOD has: (1) created a focal point for integrating DOD space activities by appointing the Under Secretary of the Air Force also as Director, National Reconnaissance Office; (2) realigned Air Force space activities under one command; and (3) created a separate position of Commander, Air Force Space Command, to provide increased attention to the organization, training, and equipping for space operations. It is too early to assess the effects of these organizational changes because new institutional roles, processes, and procedures are still evolving. DOD still faces challenges in addressing long-term management problems, such as increasing its investment in innovative space technologies, improving the timeliness and quality of acquisitions, and developing a cadre of space professionals. DOD has initiated some actions to address these concerns, such as increasing resources for research on space technology and developing a new acquisition process, and the services have begun some plans for developing space professionals. However, most planned actions are not fully developed or implemented. Further, DOD has not developed an overarching human capital strategy for space that would guide service plans to ensure all requirements for space professionals are met. DOD does not have a comprehensive, results-oriented management framework for space activities. The Air Force is developing some policies and guidance that could be part of a management framework for space activities. However, we did not have access to the draft documents to determine whether they will contain results-oriented elements--such as a strategy, performance goals and measures, and timelines--that will enable DOD to better focus its efforts and assess its progress in attaining its space goals. Further, no single department-level entity has been charged with providing oversight of the Air Force's management of its executive agent for space responsibilities to assess its progress in achieving space goals while ensuring that all services' requirements for space capabilities are fairly considered.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The United States depends on space to underpin many national security  activities as well as for civil and commercial purposes. The Department of  Defense (DOD) employs space assets to support a wide range of military  missions to include intelligence collection; battlefield surveillance and  management; global command, control, and communications; and  navigation assistance. Commercial use of space extends to activities in  transportation, health, the environment, communications, commerce,  agriculture, and energy. However, the United States’ increasing national  dependence on space-borne systems creates new vulnerabilities that  potential adversaries may seek to exploit.
Since the early 1990s, Congress has expressed concerns about DOD’s  organization and management of space activities, in particular its ability to  fully exploit space in support of warfighting. In October 1999, Congress  chartered the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space  Management and Organization—known as the Space Commission—to  review the organization and management of national security space  activities and provide recommendations for improvement. In January 2001,  the Space Commission reported that DOD was not properly organized to  provide direction and oversight for national security space operations. The  commission’s recommendations suggested actions that could be  implemented in the short- or mid-term to better position national security  space organizations and provide needed flexibility to realize longer-term  space goals. Thirteen of the Space Commission’s recommendations  addressed actions DOD could implement to improve coordination,  execution, and oversight of DOD’s space activities. The Space Commission  also identified some long-standing management challenges, including  insufficient investment in innovative space technologies, a cumbersome  acquisition process, and an inadequate program to develop and maintain a  cadre of space professionals for leadership roles in all aspects of   space-related activities.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Congress  mandated that we provide an assessment in 2002 and 2003 of the actions  taken by the Secretary of Defense in implementing the Space  Commission’s recommendations. Our June 2002 report stated that DOD  had completed or was in the process of implementing most of the Space  Commission recommendations. Our objectives for this subsequent report  were to (1) update the status of the actions DOD has taken to implement  the Space Commission’s recommendations, (2) ascertain the status of  DOD’s efforts to address long-term management challenges, and (3) assess  the extent to which DOD has developed a results-oriented management  framework for space activities that includes critical elements to foster  program success.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: America’s interests in space, according to the National Space Policy, are to  support a strong, stable, and balanced national space program that serves  our goals in national security, foreign policy, economic growth,  environmental stewardship, and scientific excellence. DOD policy states  that space—like land, sea, and air—is a medium within which military  activities shall be conducted to achieve national security objectives.
The national security space sector is primarily comprised of military and  intelligence activities. The Air Force is DOD’s primary procurer and  operator of space systems and spends the largest share of defense space  funds, annually averaging about 85 percent. The Army controls a defense  satellite communications system and operates ground mobile terminals.  The Navy operates several space systems  that contribute to surveillance  and warning and is responsible for acquiring the Mobile User Operations  System, the next generation Ultra High Frequency satellite communication  system. The U.S. Strategic Command is responsible for establishing  overall operational requirements while the services are responsible for  satisfying these requirements to the maximum extent practicable through  their individual planning, programming, and budgeting systems. The Air  Force Space Command is the major component providing space forces for  the U.S. Strategic Command. The NRO designs, procures, and operates  space systems dedicated to intelligence activities. The National Security  Space Architect develops and coordinates space architectures for future  military and intelligence activities. The Office of the Secretary of Defense,  the Marine Corps, and other DOD agencies also participate in national  security space activities. The Office of National Security Space Integration,  which reports to the Under Secretary of the Air Force and Director, NRO,  facilitates integration of military and intelligence activities and coordinates  implementation of best practices among agencies.
The management and organization of national security space programs  and activities has received continual congressional attention since the  early 1990s. In 1995, DOD responded to congressional concerns about the  lack of a coherent national security space management structure by  consolidating certain space management functions within a new Office of  the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space. However, in 1998, under  a defense reform initiative, DOD abolished this office and dispersed the  management functions among other DOD offices, primarily the Assistant  Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and  Intelligence and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,  Technology, and Logistics.
The Space Commission noted that the United States has an urgent  interest in protecting the access to space and developing the technologies  and capabilities to support long-term military objectives. It stressed the  need to elevate space on the national security agenda and examine the  long-term goals of national security space activities. The Space  Commission provided a total of 16 recommendations, including a call for  presidential leadership to set space as a national security priority and  provide direction to senior officials. However, 13 of the Space  Commission’s recommendations were directed at DOD and focused on  near- and mid-term management and organizational changes that would  merge disparate activities, improve communication channels, establish  clear priorities, and achieve greater accountability.
section_title: DOD Has Made Further Organizational and Management Changes to Implement Space Commission Recommendations
paragraphs: The Secretary of Defense directed a number of organizational changes to  improve leadership, responsibility, and accountability for space activities  within DOD in response to the Space Commission’s report. After some  delays, most are complete or nearing completion, although it is too early  to assess the effects of these changes. The Space Commission found that  DOD’s organization for space was complicated with various  responsibilities delegated to different offices within the department. For  example, the Space Commission determined that it was not possible for  senior officials outside DOD to identify a single, high-level individual who  had the authority to represent DOD on space-related matters. Further, the  commission noted that no single service had been assigned statutory  responsibility to “organize, train, and equip” for space operations. The  commission provided 13 recommendations to DOD intended to improve  the focus and accountability within the national security space  organization and management.
As we reported in our June 2002 assessment, the Secretary of Defense  decided to implement 10 of the Space Commission’s 13 recommendations  while opting to take alternative actions for the remaining 3. In a May 8,  2001, letter to the defense and intelligence oversight committees, the  Secretary stated that the department would not implement the Space  Commission’s recommendation to create an Under Secretary of Defense  for Space, Intelligence, and Information. DOD also did not seek  legislation to give the Air Force statutory responsibility to organize, train,  and equip space forces, as recommended. Rather, the Secretary said the  department would address these organizational and leadership issues with  alternative actions. For example, DOD elected not to create a new office to  integrate military and intelligence research efforts, deciding instead to  increase coordination among existing offices. At the time of our last  report, DOD had completed action to implement six of the  recommendations, and four were in the process of being implemented.  DOD has now completed action on three more, with actions on the  remaining recommendation still in progress. See appendix I for  information on the status of each of the Space Commission’s 13   DOD-specific recommendations.
To address some of the Space Commission’s specific recommendations as  well as additional opportunities that the department identified for  improving the organization and management of its space activities, the  Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum in October 2001 that directed  actions to:    assign the Under Secretary of the Air Force as Director, NRO;    designate the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the Air Force  Acquisition Executive for Space;    delegate program milestone decision authority for DOD space major  defense acquisition programs and designated space programs to the Under  Secretary through the Secretary of the Air Force;  realign the Office of the National Security Space Architect to report to the  Director, NRO (who is also the Under Secretary of the Air Force) and  make the Architect responsible for ensuring that military and intelligence  funding for space is consistent with policy, planning guidance, and  architectural decisions;    designate the Secretary of the Air Force as DOD executive agent for space  with redelegation to the Under Secretary of the Air Force;    assign the Air Force the responsibility for organizing, training, equipping,  and providing forces as necessary for the effective prosecution of  offensive and defensive military operations in space;  realign Air Force headquarters and field commands to more closely  integrate space acquisitions and operations functions; and    assign responsibility for the Air Force Space Command to a four-star  officer other than the Commander of the U.S. Space Command (now  merged with U.S. Strategic Command) and North American Aerospace  Defense Command to provide dedicated leadership to space activities.
By appointing the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the Director, NRO,  and the Air Force acquisition executive for space, as well as designating  the Under Secretary DOD’s executive agent for space, the Secretary of  Defense provided a focal point for DOD space activities. The Space  Commission recommended the designation of a single person as Under  Secretary of the Air Force; Director, NRO; and Air Force acquisition  executive for space to create a senior-level advocate for space within DOD  and the Air Force and represent space in the Air Force, NRO, and DOD  planning, programming, and budgeting process. In addition, the authority  to acquire space systems for the Air Force and NRO is intended to better  align military and intelligence space acquisition processes. In explaining  the rationale for this change, senior DOD officials told us that the barriers  between military and intelligence space activities are diminishing because  of the current need to support the warfighter with useful information from  all sources. In an effort to improve space acquisitions and operations, joint  Air Force and NRO teams have been working to identify the best practices  of each organization that might be shared, according to Air Force and NRO  officials. These teams have recommended what they believe to be 37 best  practices to the Under Secretary of the Air Force in the areas of  acquisition, operations, launch, science and technology, security, planning,  and programming. Joint efforts to identify best practices are continuing in  the areas of requirements, concepts of operation, personnel management,  financial management, and test and evaluation.
The Space Commission recommended formal designation of the Air Force  as executive agent for space with departmentwide responsibility for  planning, programming, and acquisition of space systems, and the  Secretary of Defense stated in his October 2001 memorandum that the Air  Force would be named DOD executive agent for space within 60 days.  However, the directive formally delineating the Air Force’s new roles and  responsibilities and those of the other services in this area has not been  finalized. Air Force officials said they hoped it would be finalized in early  2003. Until the directive designating the Air Force as executive agent for  DOD space is signed, the Air Force cannot formally assume the executive  agent duties that the Space Commission envisioned. In the meantime, the  Air Force has begun to perform more planning and programming duties.
During the delay in the formal delegation of authority, the Air Force and  other services and defense agencies have begun collaborating on space  issues in accordance with the Secretary’s intent. After the directive is  released, the executive agent for space expects to be tasked to develop an  implementation plan that will articulate processes and procedures to  accomplish DOD’s space mission.
The Air Force has realigned its headquarters to support the Air Force  Under Secretary’s efforts to integrate national security space activities and  perform new duties as the executive agent for DOD space. The Under  Secretary of the Air Force has established an Office of National Security  Space Integration to implement the executive agent duties across DOD,  coordinate the integration of service and intelligence processes and  programs, develop streamlined national security space acquisition  processes, and lead the development of a management framework for  space activities. Although this office is located within the Air Force and  NRO, it will consist of members from all the services and some defense  agencies. Figure 1 shows DOD’s and the Air Force’s new organization for  supporting national security space activities.
Also in response to a Space Commission recommendation, the Air Force  reorganized its field commands to consolidate the full range of space  activities—from concept and development, to employment and  sustainment of space forces—within the Air Force Space Command. To  consolidate the acquisition and operations functions, the Air Force Space  and Missile Systems Center was separated from the Air Force Materiel  Command and became part of the Air Force Space Command. According  to the Commander, Air Force Space Command, the consolidation of these  functions in the same command is unique and should improve  communications while exposing personnel to both acquisition and  operations. According to Air Force officials, this new arrangement will  enable space system program managers who have been responsible for  acquiring space systems—such as the Global Positioning System—to help  generate new concepts of operations. Conversely, the arrangement will  also enable space system operators to develop a better understanding of  the acquisitions processes and acquire new skills in this area.
To provide better visibility of DOD’s and the Intelligence Community’s  level and distribution of fiscal and personnel resources, as the Space  Commission recommended, DOD and the Intelligence Community  developed a crosscutting or “virtual” major force program by aggregating  budget elements for space activities across DOD and the Intelligence  Community. This virtual space major force program identifies and  aggregates space-related budget elements within DOD’s 11 existing major  force programs. According to DOD officials, having a crosscutting major  force program for space activities is logical because space activities span  multiple program areas, such as strategic forces and research and  development. The space major force program covers spending on  development, operation, and sustainment of space, launch, ground, and  user systems, and associated organizations and infrastructure whose  primary or secondary missions are space-related. DOD included the space  major force program in its Future Years Defense Program for fiscal years  2003 to 2007 and identified $144 billion in space spending planned for this  period. The Under Secretary of the Air Force said he used the virtual  major force program to facilitate examination of the services’ space  program plans and budgets.
The Secretary of Defense tasked the National Security Space Architect  with reporting on the consistency of space programs with policy, planning,  and architecture decisions. During the spring and summer of 2002, the  Architect led the first annual assessment of the programs included in the  space virtual major force program and some related programs. Teams of  subject matter experts from DOD, Intelligence Community, and civilian  agencies involved in space programs reviewed the services’ and  Intelligence Community’s proposed budgets for future space spending to  identify capabilities gaps and redundancies while evaluating whether  budget requests adhered to departmental policy and guidance. The  Architect provided the classified assessment results to the Under  Secretary, as well as the Secretary of Defense, the Director of Central  Intelligence, and other senior DOD and Intelligence Community leaders, to  support decision-making on space programs during the fiscal year 2004  budget review.
It is too early to assess the effects of DOD’s organizational changes for its  space programs because new institutional roles, processes, and  procedures are still evolving, and key documents are not yet finalized.  According to DOD officials, some delays in implementing the  recommendations can be attributed to the time needed to select and  confirm the pivotal senior leadership for national security space, and for  the new leaders to direct changes in processes and procedures. For  example, the Senate confirmed the Under Secretary of the Air Force on  December 7, 2001, and new directorates within his office were established  on April 15, 2002, to begin national security space integration and  acquisition activities. Similarly, DOD created a separate four-star position  of Commander, Air Force Space Command, separating the command of  the Air Force Space Command from the Commander, U.S. Space  Command/North American Aerospace Defense Command. However, the  new Commander, Air Force Space Command, did not assume command  until April 19, 2002. Developing policy and guidance to implement  organizational changes took longer than the 30 to 120 days specified in the  Secretary of Defense’s memorandum of October 18, 2001 (see app. II for a  time line of major events in the reorganization). For example, the directive  that would designate the Air Force as executive agent for DOD space is  still in draft over a year after the memorandum.
section_title: Progress in Addressing Long-Term Management Challenges Varies
paragraphs: As DOD’s efforts to build a more coherent organizational structure for  managing national security space activities near completion, the  department’s progress in addressing long-term management challenges  has varied. DOD increased funding for space science and technology  activities in fiscal year 2004 and plans future increases. Also the  department is drafting a new acquisition process for space systems that is  intended to reduce the time to develop and acquire space systems, but the  process has not been fully tested and validated. Finally, DOD has not  established a human capital strategy to develop and maintain a cadre of  space professionals that will guide the space program in the future, and  none of the services has developed and implemented its own space cadre  plans or established time frames for completing such plans.
subsections: section_title: Increased Investment in Space Research and Technology Planned
paragraphs: Between fiscal years 2003 and 2007, DOD plans to increase its budget for  space science and technology by almost 25 percent, from about   $975 million in 2003 to over $1.2 billion in 2007. In addition, DOD plans by  2009 to spend over $1.8 billion for space science and technology, or almost  two times the fiscal year 2003 budget. According to the Director of the  Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Space  Commission’s report’s emphasis on increased investment in space-based  technology was the impetus for significant increases in space research and  development funding over the next 5 years—from $235 million in fiscal  year 2003 to $385 million by fiscal year 2007 as shown in the fiscal year  2004 President’s budget request. Under current plans, DARPA will receive  most of these funds. The Director said that over the years the agency’s  concentration on space-based technologies varied and that just prior to  the Space Commission report, ongoing space efforts were at a low point.  The Director also said that investments in space are consistent with the  agency’s charter to solve national-level technology problems, foster   high-risk/high-payoff military technologies to enable operational  dominance, and avoid technological surprise. Innovative space technology  studies currently underway, including the “Responsive Access, Small  Cargo, Affordable Launch” and “Orbital Express” efforts, are a direct  result of the Space Commission report. The Air Force is the next largest  recipient of increased funding for space research and engineering with an  expected budget increase of more than $89 million between 2003 and 2007.
The Army and the Navy have smaller shares of space-related research  funding and, according to service officials, project small budget increases.  DOD recently completed a departmentwide assessment of space science  and technology that it intends to use to direct the priorities of future  research. However, whether planned funding increases will become  available in view of other departmental priorities is uncertain.
section_title: Draft Space Acquisition Process Not Validated
paragraphs: DOD is taking steps it hopes will streamline the acquisition process and  reduce the time it takes to acquire space-based systems required by the  national security space community. The Air Force has developed a new  space system acquisition decision process designed to shorten time frames  for technical assessments and facilitate faster decision-making. This  approach will establish key decision points based on program maturity  and provide more oversight earlier in the development of complex satellite  technology. It will also reduce the number of independent cost estimates  performed at each key decision point from two to one and employs a full  time, dedicated independent assessment team to perform technical  reviews in less time at each decision point. Having milestone decision  authority, the Under Secretary of the Air Force determines whether major  space systems should proceed to the next phase of development. The  Under Secretary serves as chair of the Defense Space Acquisitions Board,  which oversees the new acquisition process. However, the guidance for  executing acquisition procedures is still in draft, and the draft acquisition  process is still being validated. DOD has used the new process for  milestone decisions on three space systems—the National Polar-Orbiting  Operational Environmental Satellite System, the Mobile User Objective  System, and the latest generation of Global Positioning System satellite  vehicles—that had been started under the previous acquisition system.  Officials said that the process had been successful in that it enabled the  Air Force to make better and faster decisions by identifying problems  early that needed to be resolved before the system proceeded into the next  development phase. The Space Based Radar promises to be the first  system to begin the acquisition process under the new system.
Early identification of potential problems is essential in the acquisition  process, particularly in regard to issues such as design stability, sufficient  funding, requirement stability, realistic schedules, and mature technology.  As we have previously reported, DOD programs, including some space  programs, have experienced problems when these elements have not been  sufficiently addressed. For example, the Advanced Extremely High  Frequency satellite program continued to move through the acquisition  process despite frequent changes to its requirements and experienced cost  overruns and schedule delays. The Space Based Infrared systems also  experienced increased cost and schedule delays. Congress has repeatedly  expressed concerns about the cost overruns and schedule delays of these  defense space programs and expected that any changes underway to  reduce decision cycle time for space programs should not detract from the  ability of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint  Requirements Oversight Council to provide meaningful oversight of  space programs. Consequently, in the National Defense Authorization Act  for 2003 (section 911(b)), Congress directed the Office of the Secretary of  Defense to maintain oversight of space acquisitions and submit a detailed  oversight plan to Congress by March 15, 2003.
section_title: DOD and Services Lack a Strategic Approach to Build and Maintain Cadre of Space Professionals
paragraphs: DOD does not have a strategic approach for defense space personnel that  could better guide the development of the individual services’ space cadre  plans to support the department’s strategic goals. The Space Commission  noted that from its inception the defense space program has benefited  from world-class scientists, engineers, and operators, but now many  experienced personnel are retiring and the recruitment and retention of  qualified space personnel is a problem. The net effect of a workforce that  is not balanced by age or experience puts at risk the orderly transfer of  institutional knowledge. Further, the commission concluded that DOD  does not have the strong military space culture—including focused career  development and education and training—it needs to create and maintain  a highly trained and experienced cadre of space professionals who can  master highly complex technology as well as develop new concepts of  operation for offensive and defensive space operations. In October 2001,  the Secretary of Defense directed the military services to draft specific  guidance and plans for developing, maintaining, and managing a cadre of  space professionals to provide expertise within their services and joint  organizations. However, the Secretary did not direct development of a  departmentwide space human capital strategy to ensure that national  security space human capital goals, roles, responsibilities, and priorities  are clearly articulated so that the service implementation plans are  coordinated to meet overall stated requirements.
The Army, Navy, and Air Force have each produced initial guidance on  developing and managing their own space professionals. However, none  of these provide details about how the individual service will proceed with  developing and implementing plans for addressing service and joint force  requirements in future years, or time frames for implementing space cadre  management plans. The services’ plans are still being developed, and we  were not afforded access to the draft plans to assess their completeness  and viability nor were we given firm estimates of when they might be  completed and implemented. However, service officials told us that  planning to date has focused on the military officer corps and has not  included the enlisted or civilian personnel who also support space  operations. In conjunction with space cadre planning, the services  outlined some initiatives to increase space education for all military  personnel, but these have not been fully implemented. While each service  has separately begun planning to build and maintain a service space cadre,  the services have not yet begun to coordinate their plans across DOD to  ensure a shared direction and time frames. The Under Secretary of the Air  Force said that other areas of space operations, such as acquisitions, have  taken priority but that he plans to devote more attention to this area to  achieve greater progress.
section_title: Space Program Lacks Results-Oriented Management Framework
paragraphs: The Department of Defense has produced some policies and guidance to  implement its space program, but it has not completed a comprehensive  strategy or an implementation plan to guide the program and monitor its  results. DOD is in the process of developing some elements of a   results-oriented management framework, such as a national security space  strategy, an annual national security space plan, and a directive  formalizing the Air Force’s role as an executive agent for space. According  to officials in the Office of National Security Space Integration responsible  for developing the strategy and plan, these documents along with the  annual assessment of the services’ space budget proposals will enable the  executive agent for DOD space to track the extent to which resources are  supporting national security space priorities. Officials also said that as  executive agent for space, the Air Force plans to report on its progress to  officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense although the content and  process that will be used is still being developed. However, DOD did not  provide us drafts of the national security space strategy and plan or the  executive agent directive; therefore, we could not assess whether these  documents comprise a results-oriented management framework or  specifically how DOD will provide department-level oversight of the Air  Force’s activities as executive agent for space.
Management principles embraced in the Government Performance and  Results Act of 1993 provide agencies at all levels with a framework for  effectively implementing and managing programs, and shift the program  management focus from measuring program activities and processes to  measuring program outcomes. Table 1 more fully describes these  principles and their critical elements.
These principles and critical elements, when combined with effective  leadership, can provide a results-oriented management framework to  guide programs and activities at all levels. These management tools are  designed to provide the agencies, Congress, and other decisionmakers a  means to understand a program’s evolution and implementation as well as  to determine whether initiatives are achieving their desired results.
DOD has established some elements of a results-oriented management  framework for space programs that are embedded in various directives,  guidance, and instructions. For example, the Sept. 30, 2001, Quadrennial  Defense Review forms the backbone for the development and integration  of DOD’s missions and strategic priorities, and details six operational  goals including one to enhance the capability and survivability of U.S.  space systems. DOD views the review as its strategic plan, in compliance  with Government Performance and Results Act requirements, and, as  such, the review forms the foundation from which DOD’s results-oriented  performance goals are identified and progress is measured. Additionally,  the September 1996, National Space Policy prepared by the White House  National Science and Technology Council provides broad guidance for  civil, commercial, national security, and other space sectors.
Although DOD’s space goals are linked to the overall national military  policies, DOD has not developed all elements of a management framework  to effectively manage DOD’s space operations or measure their progress.  The Office of National Security Space Integration is in the process of  developing a national security space strategy and plan that will set out  priorities to guide planning and budgeting across the department and  better integrate military and intelligence space activities. The strategy and  plan will form a roadmap for achieving space goals in the near- and mid- term, according to an official developing these documents. These  documents will be key to setting research, development, and operational  goals and integrating future space operations in the military and  intelligence communities. According to National Security Space  Integration Office officials, the national security space strategic plan will  be linked to the overarching National Space Policy and existing long-range  space strategies and plans such as those of the NRO, National Security  Space Architect, and the military services. These officials told us that the  national security space strategy and plan and the annual assessment by the  National Security Space Architect of whether the services’ budgets are  consistent with policy, planning guidance, and architectural decisions, will  be key components of their space management approach. However,  officials said that they have not yet determined performance goals and  measures to assess program implementation progress and ascertain  whether program initiatives are achieving their desired results. Until such  plans are finalized, DOD cannot be sure that it is investing its resources in  the best way possible to support current and future requirements for space  operations. National Security Space Integration Office officials said they  hope to release the national security space strategy and plan in early 2003,  but they did not provide us a copy of the draft strategy or plan. Therefore,  we could not determine the extent to which these documents contain all  the key elements of a results-oriented management framework.
A framework to lead and manage a space program effectively requires a  program-specific strategy and performance plan to implement actions.  However, to date DOD has not established specific space objectives that  are linked to overall program goals and resource requirements, nor has it  established specific performance goals or other mechanisms to measure  program outcomes. In its 2000 Annual Report to the President and  Congress, DOD provided a performance plan for achieving its annual  performance goals, but it did not include performance goals and  measures for space activities in that report.
Without a results-oriented management plan, linked to higher-level  strategies, the services do not have clearly defined space objectives and  milestones to guide their initiatives, nor does DOD have a mechanism to  ensure successful accomplishment of integrated efforts without gaps and  duplications. For example, lacking an integrated national security space  strategy and plan, the services developed their fiscal year 2004-09 program  budget plans without clearly defined objectives and milestones for space  activities. In addition, the National Security Space Architect’s assessment  of defense and intelligence space programs’ planned budgets for fiscal  years 2004–2009, was complicated by the lack of an integrated overall  strategy with performance measures. Instead, the Architect relied on  multiple policies, studies, architectures, and guidance to identify overall  effectiveness goals. Without an overall space strategy, including   results-oriented goals and performance measures, DOD cannot fully gauge  its progress toward increasing the effectiveness of national security space  activities.
Moreover, it is not clear which DOD office will be responsible for  assessing the efficacy of the Air Force as executive agent for space or  evaluating progress in achieving performance goals, once they are  established. Witnesses before the Space Commission expressed concerns  about how the Air Force would treat space activities and the extent to  which it would fully address the requirement that it provide space  capabilities to the other services. Several organizations within the Office  of the Secretary of Defense participate in ongoing oversight of space  activities, including Offices of the Assistant Secretary of Defense  (Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence); the Under  Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); the Under Secretary of Defense  (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics); and the Under Secretary of  Defense (Policy); and the Director (Program Analysis and Evaluation).  While each office has oversight responsibilities for different aspects of  space activities, no one office is charged with ensuring that the Air Force’s  space program is having the desired results. DOD’s guidance on executive  agents specifies that the principal assistant(s) in the Office of the  Secretary should assess executive agents’ performance no less frequently  than every 3 years, although it does not specify the mechanism to be used  for the assessment. According to DOD officials, the principal assistants  for the executive agent for space—the Air Force—are the offices named  above, and the issue of how the progress of the Air Force as executive  agent should be assessed is being discussed, and the process and content  by which the national security space program will be independently  evaluated or whether one office will be designated to lead such an  independent evaluation has not been decided. In commenting on a draft of  this report, DOD said that currently the Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence has responsibility  to establish policy and provide direction to the DOD components on  command, control, communications and intelligence-related space  systems and serves as the primary focal point for staff coordination within  DOD and other government agencies. However, it is not clear from the  comments whether this office will be tasked with oversight of activities of  the Air Force as executive agent for DOD space.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOD has charged the Air Force with leadership responsibilities for space  activities and has taken some actions that have the potential to improve its  management ability. While DOD plans to increase investment in  technology, has developed a new acquisition strategy, and has directed the  services to begin some initial planning on the national security space cadre  issue, more remains to be done to meet these long-term management  challenges critical to success in national security space activities. In the  area of creating a space cadre, however, DOD lacks an overall human  capital strategic approach to manage the space forces, leaving the services  at risk of developing human capital plans that do not meet the overall  national security space needs of the department. Moreover, no time frames  have been established for developing coordinated plans. Furthermore, the  department does not have a complete results-oriented management  framework to assess the results of the changes in its organization and  processes and gauge its progress toward achieving its long-term goals in  the future. Therefore, the services and Intelligence Community continue to  develop national security space programs based on their own  requirements without the benefit of overarching guidance on national  security space goals, objectives, and priorities. Also, in its fiscal year 2000  performance report that accompanied its budget, the department did not  include performance goals and measures for space activities, which would  be a mechanism to highlight program progress and signal the relative  importance of national security space activities. Although the Under  Secretary of the Air Force, as DOD’s focal point for space, is responsible  for leading the implementation of the national security space strategy and  plan, questions have been raised about the extent to which the Air Force  will fairly address the needs of the other services and defense agencies.  Furthermore, DOD has not specified an oversight mechanism at the  Secretary of Defense level to periodically assess the progress of the Air  Force in achieving the department’s goals for space activities and in  addressing the requirements of the other services and defense agencies.  Without such oversight, it will be difficult for DOD to know whether the  changes made are having the desired results of strengthening national  security space activities.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Actions
paragraphs: To improve the management of national security space activities, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following actions:  require the executive agent for DOD space, in conjunction with the  services, to establish a departmentwide space human capital strategy that  includes goals and time lines to develop and maintain a cadre of military  and civilian space professionals;  require the executive agent for DOD space to develop a comprehensive  management framework for space activities that includes a results- oriented national security space strategy tied to overall department-level  space goals, time lines, and performance measures to assess space  activities’ progress in achieving national security space goals;  include performance goals and measures for space activities in DOD’s next  departmentwide performance report; and    designate an oversight entity in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to  periodically assess the progress of DOD’s executive agent in achieving  goals for space activities.
We further recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries  of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to review, and as necessary,  adjust service cadre plans to ensure they are linked to the department’s  space human capital strategy when completed.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In its comments on our draft report, DOD agreed with our  recommendations to establish a departmentwide space human capital  strategy; develop a management framework for space activities that  includes a results-oriented national security space strategy tied to overall  department-level space goals, time lines, and performance measures;  include goals and measures for space activities in the department’s next  performance report; and designate an oversight entity in the Office of the  Secretary of Defense to assess the progress of DOD’s executive agent in  achieving goals for space activities. In its comments, DOD stated that it is  already in the process of developing strategies and plans to address the  issues of strategic planning—including goals, time lines, and performance  measures—and developing space professional personnel. DOD partially  agreed with our recommendation that the military services’ space cadre  plans be linked to the department’s space human capital strategy when  completed, stating that the services are already drafting separate plans  that will be synchronized and linked to an overall national security space  plan, and that the services should not wait to complete their own plans.  We agree that development of an overall plan can logically take place  concurrently with service planning and have reworded our  recommendation accordingly. The intent of our recommendation to  develop an overall human capital strategy and service plans that are  appropriately linked to the overall strategy is to ensure that the services  and defense agencies provide adequate training to meet service and  defensewide requirements. Furthermore, with an integrated approach, the  service plans should offer training programs that minimize duplication of  effort and reduce critical gaps of coverage to effectively create and  maintain a capable space cadre across the department. DOD’s comments  are included in this report in appendix III. DOD also provided technical  clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Our scope and methodology are detailed in appendix IV. We performed  our work from June 2002 to February 2003 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.  Contacts and staff  acknowledgements are listed in appendix V.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees, the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, the  Navy, and the Air Force; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the  Commander, U.S. Strategic Command; the Director, Defense Advanced  Research Projects Agency; and the Director, Office of Management and  Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In  addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512- 6020 if you or your staff have any questions  concerning this report.
section_title: Appendix I: Status of Actions Taken to Implement Short- and Mid-Term Space Commission Recommendations
paragraphs: The Secretary of Defense agreed with the Space Commission’s finding that  the Department of Defense (DOD) needed a new and comprehensive  national security space management approach to promote and protect  U.S. interests in space. In a May 8, 2001, letter to the leaders of the defense  and intelligence oversight committees, the Secretary informed Congress  that he would take actions to improve DOD’s management structure and  organization for national security space actions. These actions largely  represented organizational and management changes the Space  Commission recommended to improve DOD’s focus on national security  space activities and better coordinate military and intelligence space  activities.
We reported in June 2002 that DOD had implemented or was in the  process of implementing 10 of the 13 recommendations the Space  Commission directed to it. At that time, DOD had completed action on six  recommendations and was in the process of implementing four others.  The Secretary of Defense chose not to implement three of the  commission’s recommendations and instead opted to (1) establish a focal  point for space within the Air Force rather than create an Under Secretary  of Defense for Space, Information, and Intelligence; (2) increase the Air  Force’s responsibilities by department directive rather than requesting  legislative change; and (3) direct existing organizations to conduct  innovative space research and development rather than create a new  organization to do so.
As table 2 shows, DOD has implemented or is nearing implementation of  these 10 recommendations. DOD has completed actions to implement  three recommendations that were categorized as “in progress” in our June  2002 report, as designated by the arrows in the table. Only the  recommendation that the Air Force be named executive agent for DOD  space remains to be finalized. However, the Air Force has taken on more  leadership responsibilities over the last year based on a memorandum that  expressed the Secretary’s intent to have the Air Force become the DOD  executive agent for space.
section_title: Appendix II: Time Line of Major Events in DOD’s Implementation of Space Commission Recommendations
paragraphs: Event  Space Commission report published.  Secretary of Defense sent letter to Congress detailing intended  actions.  Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center realigned from Air  Force Materiel Command to Air Force Space Command  Secretary of Defense issued memorandum directing actions and  time lines for implementing selected Space Commission  recommendations.
December 13, 2001  Under Secretary of the Air Force sworn in, after confirmation by  the Senate, and appointed Director, National Reconnaissance  Office, by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central  Intelligence.  Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and  Logistics) promulgated policy memorandum directing DOD  research community to undertake research and demonstration of  innovative space technologies and systems.  Under Secretary of the Air Force designated to be Air Force  Acquisition Executive for space.
February 14, 2002  Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and  Logistics) delegated milestone decision authority for DOD major  space programs to the Secretary of the Air Force with authority to  redelegate to the Under Secretary of the Air Force.  “Virtual” major force program for space included in DOD’s Future  Years Defense Program.  Commanding general assumed command of the Air Force Space  Command separate from U.S. Space Command and North  American Aerospace Defense Command.  GAO interim assessment of the status of DOD’s reorganization of  space activities.  National Security Space Architect space program assessment.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To update the status of actions the Department of Defense (DOD) has  taken to implement the Space Commission’s recommendations, we  identified and monitored changes in DOD’s organization and management  of space by reviewing DOD and service briefings and internal department  directives and memoranda that identified issues and directed initiatives for  improving management of space activities. We held discussions with  officials from the Offices of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command,  Control, Communications and Intelligence) and the Under Secretary of  Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) and the Under Secretary  of Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer) to discuss department  guidance on implementing the recommendations and implementation  activities. To identify actions the services took to improve management of  space activities, we reviewed documentation of implementation actions  and held discussions with Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps  officials. Offices represented were the Under Secretary of the Air Force;  the National Security Space Architect; the Air Force Space Command; the  Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center; the 14th Air Force; the Army  Space and Missile Defense Command; the Naval Network and Warfare  Command; and Headquarters Marine Corps. Sites visited included the  Pentagon, Washington, D.C; Peterson Air Force Base and Schriever Air  Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado; Los Angeles Air Force Base, Los  Angeles, California; and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc, California.  The National Reconnaissance Office provided written answers to  questions we submitted.
To determine progress in addressing some of the long-term space  management challenges, we discussed challenges DOD, the Space  Commission, other experts, and our previous reports have identified with  officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense; the Army; the Air  Force; the Navy; the National Security Space Architect; the U.S. Strategic  Command; the U.S. Northern Command; the Joint Staff; and outside  experts. Given time and resource limitations, we focused our work on  three of the many long-term management challenges to DOD’s space  program—investing in science and technology, improving the timeliness  and quality of space acquisitions, and building and maintaining a cadre of  space professionals. To assess progress in investing in technology, we  reviewed documentation and held discussions with officials from the  Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; the Office of the Director,  Defense Research and Engineering; the Office of Under Secretary of  Defense (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology); Naval Network and  Warfare Command; the Naval Research Laboratory; and the Air Force  Research Laboratory. To assess progress in implementing its acquisition initiatives, we reviewed documentation and discussed the initiatives with  officials representing the Office of the Under Secretary of the Air Force  and the Air Force Space Command. In addition, we discussed education  and training initiatives with officials from the Air Force Space Command;  Air University; Air Force Academy; the Army Space and Missile Defense  Command; Army Command and General Staff College; the Office of the  Chief of Naval Operations; the Naval Academy; the Naval Postgraduate  School; and Headquarters Marine Corps.
To assess whether DOD had a management framework that will foster the  success of its improvement efforts, we reviewed departmental plans and  strategies that set organizational goals and discussed oversight and  management activities—including setting strategic goals, developing  measures of progress, and planning time lines—with senior DOD and  service officials from offices that have major responsibilities for managing  space activities, including the Offices of Assistant Secretary of Defense  (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence), the Under  Secretary of the Air Force, and the Air Force Space Command. We used  the principles embodied in the Government Performance and Results Act  of 1993 as criteria for assessing the adequacy of DOD’s management  framework to effectively manage and oversee the space program.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the names above, Margaret Morgan,   MaeWanda Micheal-Jackson, Robert Poetta, and R.K. Wild made key  contributions to this report.