Different Organizational Cultures, Funding Arrangements, and Requirements Processes Present a Challenging Environment in Which to Coordinate DOD and National Intelligence Activities

The complex context of different organizational cultures, funding  arrangements, requirements processes, and diverse missions of other  members of the intelligence community that DOD supports presents a  challenge for DOD in integrating its ISR enterprise, as highlighted by  previous efforts to achieve greater ISR integration within DOD. For example, Congress found in the past  that DOD and the national intelligence community may not be well- positioned to coordinate their intelligence activities and programs,  including ISR investments, in order to ensure unity of effort and avoid  duplication of effort, and a congressionally chartered commission that  reviewed the management and organization of national security space  activities—known as the Space Commission—noted that understanding  the different organizational cultures of the defense and national space  communities is important for achieving long-term integration. However, DOD also coordinates with the Office of the Director of National  Intelligence, which uses separate budgeting and requirements  identification processes to manage the national intelligence budget. For example, the Mission  Requirements Board did not approve a proposal for a new ISR capability  to ensure that the proposal incorporated certain changes, even though  DOD had already given its approval to the proposal through the JCIDS  process. DOD Has Initiatives to Improve the Integration of Its Future ISR Investments, but the Initiatives Do Not Provide Key Management Tools Needed to Effectively Guide ISR Investments

To improve the integration of its ISR investments, DOD has developed two  initiatives—the ISR Integration Roadmap and a test case for managing ISR  investments as part of a departmentwide portfolio of capabilities. The ISR Roadmap Does Not Provide a Clear Vision of a Future ISR Enterprise That Lays Out What Capabilities Are Required to Achieve DOD’s Strategic Goals

Based on our review and analysis, DOD’s ISR Integration Roadmap does  not yet provide (1) a clear vision of a future integrated ISR enterprise that  identifies what ISR capabilities are needed to achieve DOD’s strategic  goals, or (2) a framework for evaluating tradeoffs between competing ISR  capability needs and assessing how ISR capability investments contribute  toward achieving those goals. The Roadmap states  that the department will conduct a study to define DOD’s complete  requirements for achieving global persistent surveillance. For example, such a framework would  allow ISR decision makers to identify areas where ISR collection  capabilities are sufficiently robust or even saturated—areas where further  investment may not be warranted given priority needs in other less robust  collection areas. Specifically, our review of 19 proposals for new ISR  capabilities that sponsors submitted to the BA FCB since 2003 showed  that 12 sponsors did not complete the capabilities-based assessment of  current and planned ISR systems called for by Joint Staff policy in order to  identify possible solutions to meet warfighters’ needs. We also found that,  for the 7 sponsors who did conduct these assessments, the assessments  varied in completeness and rigor. The BA FCB did not implement these activities because it lacks a readily  available source of information that identifies all ISR capabilities that  would serve as a tool for reviewing the efficiency of sponsors’  assessments, and because the BA FCB does not have a monitoring  mechanism, which could ensure that key oversight activities are fully  implemented, as described in Joint Staff policy. In addition, BA FCB  officials said that they lack adequate numbers of dedicated, skilled  personnel to engage in early coordination with the sponsors and review  the sponsors’ capabilities-based assessments. To this end, managers should use both ongoing  monitoring activities as well as separate evaluations to identify gaps, if  any, in performance. DOD partially agreed with our recommendation to develop a  comprehensive source of information on existing and developmental ISR  capabilities. We also obtained  information from and discussed DOD’s ISR Integration Roadmap and DOD  ISR integration efforts and challenges with senior officials from the Office  of the Secretary of Defense, Arlington, Va.; the Joint Staff, Arlington, Va.;  the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Arlington,  Va.; the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and  Information Integration, Arlington, Va.; the National Security Space Office,  Fairfax, Va.; U.S. Strategic Command’s Joint Functional Component  Command for ISR, Washington, D.C.; the Defense Intelligence Agency,  Washington, D.C.; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,  Washington, D.C.
To evaluate the extent to which DOD has implemented key activities  within the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)  to ensure that proposed new ISR capabilities fill gaps, are not duplicative,  and use a joint approach to filling warfighters’ needs based on a thorough  analysis of existing capabilities, we identified 19 ISR capability proposals,  described in table 1, that were submitted to the Joint Staff since the  implementation of JCIDS in 2003 and for which the Battlespace Awareness  Functional Capabilities Board was designated the lead Functional  Capabilities Board.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Defense's (DOD) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities-such as satellites and unmanned aircraft systems-are crucial to military operations, and demand for ISR capabilities has increased. For example, DOD plans to invest $28 billion over the next 7 years in 20 airborne ISR systems alone. Congress directed DOD to fully integrate its ISR capabilities, also known as the ISR enterprise, as it works to meet current and future ISR needs. GAO was asked to (1) describe the challenges, if any, that DOD faces in integrating its ISR enterprise, (2) assess DOD's management approach for improving integration of its future ISR investments, and (3) evaluate the extent to which DOD has implemented key activities to ensure proposed new ISR capabilities fill gaps, are not duplicative, and use a joint approach to meeting warfighters' needs. GAO assessed DOD's integration initiatives and 19 proposals for new ISR capabilities. We supplemented this analysis with discussions with DOD officials.

What GAO Found

DOD faces a complex and challenging environment in supporting defense requirements for ISR capabilities as well as national intelligence efforts. Past efforts to improve integration across DOD and national intelligence agencies have been hampered by the diverse missions and different institutional cultures of the many intelligence agencies that DOD supports. For example, DOD had difficulty obtaining complete information on national ISR assets that could support military operations because of security classifications of other agency documents. Further, different funding arrangements for defense and national intelligence activities complicate integration of interagency activities. While DOD develops the defense intelligence budget, some DOD activities also receive funding through the national intelligence budget to provide support for national intelligence efforts. Disagreements about equitable funding from each budget have led to program delays. Separate military and intelligence requirements identification processes also complicate efforts to integrate future ISR investments. DOD does not have a clearly defined vision of a future ISR enterprise to guide its ISR investments. DOD has taken a significant step toward integrating its ISR activities by developing an ISR Integration Roadmap that includes existing and currently planned ISR systems. However, the Roadmap does not provide a long-term view of what capabilities are required to achieve strategic goals or provide detailed information that would make it useful as a basis for deciding among alternative investments. Without a clear vision of the desired ISR end state and sufficient detail on existing and planned systems, DOD decision makers lack a basis for determining where additional capabilities are required, prioritizing investments, or assessing progress in achieving strategic goals, as well as identifying areas where further investment may not be warranted. DOD policy calls for the services and agencies that sponsor proposals for new ISR capabilities to conduct comprehensive assessments of current and planned ISR systems, but GAO's review of 19 proposals showed that 12 sponsors did not complete assessments, and the completeness of the remaining 7 sponsors' assessments varied. GAO found that the DOD board charged with reviewing ISR proposals did not consistently coordinate with sponsors to ensure the quality of the assessments supporting their proposals or review the completed assessments. There were three key reasons for this. First, the board did not have a comprehensive, readily available source of information about existing and developmental ISR capabilities that could help identify alternatives to new systems. Second, the board has no monitoring mechanism to ensure that key activities are fully implemented. Third, DOD board officials said that the board lacks adequate numbers of dedicated, skilled personnel to engage in early coordination with sponsors and to review sponsors' assessments. Without more complete information on alternatives and a monitoring mechanism to ensure these key activities are fully implemented, DOD is not in the best position to ensure that investment decisions are consistent with departmentwide priorities.