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. 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. 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.