DOD’s Space S&T Strategy Addresses the Act’s Requirements

The act required DOD to develop a strategy for its space S&T efforts that  identified short- and long-term space S&T goals; a process for achieving  the goals, including an implementation plan; and a process for assessing  progress made toward achieving the goals. The strategy, yet to be  delivered to the Congress at the time of our review, met four of nine  requirements, and plans are in place to meet the remaining five. However, since the strategy has only recently  been issued, it is too early to assess whether the direction and processes  outlined in the strategy will be effective in supporting and guiding future  space S&T efforts. Details on both of these mechanisms are still being  worked out, according to the developers of the strategy. Even though they all have ties to space, these organizations  have different views as to what overall goals the space community should  strive for and how they should be achieved. Additional Criteria Are Not Included in the Act That May Enhance the Strategy

In addition to the requirements specified by the act, we found that  optimizing space S&T efforts also depends on whether (1) the strategy is  clearly linked to other strategies and plans; (2) all DOD space S&T efforts  are covered by the strategy; and (3) the strategy identifies metrics beyond  TRLs that focus on success. Linkage to other strategies and plans is  important to providing clear guidance to S&T laboratories and other  organizations making investments since there are a number of DOD-wide  “strategies” for S&T as well as a number of space-related higher level  strategic plans as well as tactical plans relating to S&T. If DOD does not explicitly include acquisition programs in the  space S&T strategy, it will not be able to ensure the S&T community has  oversight over a considerable amount of ongoing technology development. Such metrics  would help provide a foundation for assessing progress in achieving  strategic goals. Moreover, the space  S&T strategy itself merely lays out goals for workforce without identifying  actions or resources needed to achieve those goals. Funding Process Encourages Technology Development to Occur within Acquisition Programs

We have previously reported that an S&T environment is more forgiving  and less costly than a delivery-oriented acquisition program environment. Moreover, there are formidable barriers  that stand in the way of achieving and measuring progress, including  inadequate funding visibility, decreased testing resources, workforce  deficiencies, and long-standing incentives that encourage technology  development to take place within acquisition programs rather than the  S&T community. By using the strategy as a tool for assessing and  addressing these challenges, DOD can better position itself for achieving  its goals and also strengthen the S&T base supporting space. Establish protocols and mechanisms for enhancing coordination and  knowledge sharing between the DOD S&T community, acquisition  programs involved in space, and DOD intelligence agencies. V for DOD’s comments.) Active research and development is initiated. Appendix IV: Organizations That Participated in Developing the Space Science and Technology Strategy

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Defense (DOD) is depending heavily on new space-based technologies to support and transform future military operations. Yet there are concerns that efforts to develop technologies for space systems are not tied to strategic goals for space and are not well planned or coordinated. In the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004, the Congress required DOD to develop a space science and technology (S&T) strategy that sets out goals and a process for achieving those goals. The Congress also required GAO to assess this strategy as well as the required coordination process.

What GAO Found

DOD's new strategy for space S&T met four of the nine requirements set out by the Congress and plans are in place to meet the remaining requirements. These included requirements for setting short- and long-term goals and a process for achieving those goals as well as requirements that focused on ensuring the strategy was developed with laboratories, research components, and other organizations involved in space S&T and ensuring the strategy would be reviewed by appropriate entities and revised periodically. In addition to meeting these requirements, GAO found that development of the strategy itself helped spur collaboration within the DOD space S&T community since it required diverse organizations to come together, share knowledge, and establish agreement on basic goals. Since the strategy has only recently been issued, it is too early to assess whether the direction and processes outlined in the strategy will be effective in supporting and guiding future space S&T efforts. Moreover, DOD officials are still working out the details of some implementation mechanisms. However, in order to better position DOD for successful implementation, GAO believes that the plan should contain stronger linkages to DOD's requirements setting process, identify additional measures for assessing progress in achieving strategic goals, and explicitly cover all efforts related to space S&T. Moreover, there are formidable barriers that stand in the way of optimizing DOD's investment in space S&T. DOD does not have complete visibility over all spending related to space S&T, including spending occurring within some S&T organizations and acquisition programs. Without a means to see where funding is being targeted, DOD may not be able to assure all spending on technology development is focused on achieving its goals. The S&T community itself may not have resources critical to achieving DOD's goals. In recent years, funding and opportunities for testing for the space S&T community have decreased. And, concerns have grown about the adequacy of the space S&T workforce. DOD acquisition programs continue to undertake technology development that should be occurring within an S&T environment, which is more forgiving and less costly than a delivery-oriented acquisition program environment. Until this is done, cost increases resulting from technology problems within acquisitions may keep resources away from the S&T community. By using the strategy as a tool for assessing and addressing these challenges, DOD can better position itself for achieving its goals and also strengthen the S&T base supporting space.