Air Force Life Cycle Management Center
Standard Process
For
Intelligence Supportability Analysis (ISA)
Process Owner: AFLCMC/IN
Date: 1 February 2015
Version: 1.2
Version
1.0
Effective Date
18 October 2013
1.1
1.2
6 November 2013
1 February 2015
Record of Changes
Summary
Standard process reviewed by S&P Board on 19 Sep 2013.
Requested revisions were made and process was sent out
to S&P Board members. Final approval granted at S&P
Board on 17 Oct 2013.
Added minor clarifications to SIPO, Para 4.1
Modified section 5 (Measurement) to better capture
meaningful data/metrics for the IN. Approved in S&P
Board on 19 Mar 2015.
i
Intelligence Supportability Analysis (ISA) Process
1.0 Description
1.1 Intelligence Supportability Analysis (ISA) is the process by which USAF
intelligence, acquisition, and operations analysts identify, document and plan for
requirements and supporting intelligence infrastructure necessary to successfully
acquire and employ USAF capabilities, thereby ensuring intelligence supportability.
The ISA results provide stakeholders with needed info to compare a capability’s
stated or derived intelligence (data and infrastructure) support requirements with the
intelligence support capabilities expected throughout a capability’s lifecycle.
1.2 ISA outputs are the identification of derived intelligence requirements (DIRs) and
deficiencies, along with associated impacts risk to both acquisition and operational
capability if the required intelligence is not provided. Through ISA, stakeholders
identify, document, and plan for derived requirements and supporting intelligence
infrastructure necessary to successfully acquire and field Air Force capabilities.
1.3 All ISA process elements can be tailored to best support each unique acquisition
effort and the Air Force. The outcome of ISA is documented in an Intelligence Health
Assessment (IHA) memorandum for record (MFR) and/or briefing, as well as within
programmatic documents such as the Intelligence Appendix to the Information
Support Plan (ISP), Lifecycle Mission Data Plan (LMDP), Acquisition Strategy,
Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), or solely as a DIR, COLISEUM Production
Requirement (PR), or other appropriate authoritative documents. This compilation of
documentation results in an ISA Packet (ISAP) stored in GLADIATOR. The IHA, an
authoritative document for purposes of recording the results of ISA, is created by an
intelligence support working group, and approved by the supporting intelligence
division senior intelligence officer, or the Director of Intelligence, AFLCMC/IN.
Ensuring ISA is part of programmatic documents is critical to solving intelligencerelated issues and concerns discovered during the analytic process.
2.0
Purpose
2.1 Intelligence integration in support of USAF and Joint systems development has never
been more important or challenging than it is in today’s environment. When
intelligence is not fully integrated into the acquisition lifecycle processes, the results
often include scheduling delays, costly work-arounds, and unplanned adjustments to
operations & maintenance and pre-planned product improvements (P3I). As future
systems become more intelligence-dependent, it is imperative intelligence
requirements are integrated as early as possible to avoid prohibitive costs.
2.2 The desired effect of the intelligence function as a whole is to provide qualitative and
quantitative improvements in survivability, performance, and capability and to reduce
acquisition time and cost.
2.3 The ISA process provides the following elements necessary to effectively integrate
intelligence into the efforts acquisition life cyle process:
2.3.1
A common understanding of efforts intelligence needs across the intelligence,
operations, and acquisition communities.
1
3.0
2.3.2
A working familiarity of intelligence infrastructure and threat analysis among
acquisition/operational authority’s products or customer-funded alternatives.
2.3.3
Integration of the intelligence community stakeholders into planning,
programming, and decision activities to weigh costs/benefits/tradeoffs.
2.3.4
An ability to analyze and compare a variety of intelligence requirements and
deficiencies across numerous efforts to be able to recommend and advocate
prioritized, efficient solutions at reasonable cost.
Entry/Exit Criteria and Inputs/Outputs
3.1 Entry Criteria (can be one or the other, or both)
3.1.1
Work effort is determined intel sensitive by an Intelligence Sensitivity Survey
(ISS).
3.1.2
Program manager requests support in identifying intelligence supportability
needs.
3.2 Exit Criteria
3.2.1
An effort’s intelligence needs are documented, shortfalls addressed,
resolutions planned for, or mitigation plans developed and agreed upon by all
stakeholders.
3.2.2
If there is a significant change in the effort that affects ISA, the effort will
return to the ISS process.
3.2.3
If threat environment significantly changes and that affects ISA, the effort will
return to the ISS process.
3.2.4
Effort is terminated or retired by USAF.
3.3 Inputs
3.3.1
Workload master list (WML) and division-level portfolios.
3.3.2
Initial capabilities document (ICD), capability development document (CDD),
capability production document (CPD), 1067, analysis of alternatives (AoA),
transition support plan (TSP), staffing actions with regard to programs.
3.3.3
Operational plan (OPLAN), concept of operations (CONOPS), acquisition
strategy panel (ASP), capabilities-based assessment (CBA), studies,
DOTMLPF studies.
3.3.4
Analysis, joint capabilities technology demonstration (JCTD), JUON, joint
emergent operational needs (JEON), QRCs, and roadmaps.
3.3.5
ISS documentation, ISD, ISS checklist long form and intelligence sensitivity
tier matrix.
3.3.6
Derived Intelligence Requirements (DIRs), Production Requirements (PRs),
Critical Intelligence Parameters (CIPs), and Request for Information (RFI),
intelligence infrastructure results, and DOTMLPF results.
2
3.4 Outputs
4.0
3.4.1
Listing and documenting all DIRs (including potential deficiencies) to support
program objectives and identify any unique program requirements (document
results of requirements analysis into applicable format. This may include
MFR, TEMP, BBP, Intel Appendix to ISP, RAWs, etc).
3.4.2
Listing of Intelligence Mission Data (IMD) elements required to support
program objectives and identification of any IMD gaps (IMD elements will be
used to develop a LMDP and/or incorporate IMD into program documents,
ICD, CDD, SEP, Acquisition Strategy, etc).
3.4.3
List of foreign threat capability requirements (e.g. threat roadmap, EWIR,
STAR/STAs, local generated Threat Assessments, etc).
3.4.4
Intelligence information and/or infrastructure needs to meet program lifecycle
requirements are identified and documented.
3.4.5
Provision and/or method for long-term intel support established.
3.4.6
Risk assessment to the effort if DIR deficiency is not satisfied (Program Risk
Matrix - IHA) (AFLCMC/IN Decision Point).
3.4.7
Associated intelligence supportability cost estimate to satisfy individual DIRs,
and/or provide input to program office lifecycle cost estimate.
Process Workflow and Activities:
4.1 Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs & Customer (SIPOC), Table 1.
Table 1. SIPOC
Suppliers
PM or project leads.
Intelligence Divisions provide
acquisition intelligence analysts
(AIA). Intelligence Divisions //
SIO // Intelligence Community
PM or project leads //
Intelligence Community
Inputs
Process
Program/initiative
documentation
Conduct
Requirements
Analysis
Program/initiative
Conduct Risk
documentation, DIRs,
Assessment and
ISA; Intel data needed to
Identify
meet program
Deficiencies
requirements
Outputs
Customers
Intel data needs to
meet program
PM / PEO
requirements
Action plan to
resolve DIRs
PM / PEO
PM or project leads
Action plan to resolve
DIRs
Resolve
Deficiencies
Provide data to
PM
PM
PM or project leads.
Intelligence Divisions provide
acquisition intelligence analysts
(AIA). Intelligence Divisions //
SIO // Intelligence Community
All data from all
processes
Combine all data
into ISA packet
ISAP
PM
3
4.2 Process flowchart. The process flowchart below, Figure 1, represents the ISA process.
4
Figure 1. ISA Process
Flowchart
Cost Estimator
(21 IS)
Acquisition Intelligence
Senior Intelligence Officer Program Manager
Analyst
ISA Process Flowchart
Integrate Intel
Requirements
, Identify
Deficiencies
& Mitigate
Risk Program
Unique (1.9)
Receive Intel
Sensitivity
Determination
MFR
Receive Intel
Sensitivity
Determination
MFR
Advocate to IC/
Acq/OPS
Community to
Solve DIRs (1.8)
Review ISS/
Intelligence
Sensitivity Tier
Matrix and Plan
ISA (1.1 & 1.2)
Conduct
Requirements
Analysis (1.3)
Develop a
Risk
Assessment
(1.4)
Develop Action
Plan for
Deficiency
Resolution
(1.5)
Integrate Intel
Requirements
, Identify
Deficiencies
& Mitigate
Risk -Cross
Program
(1.9)
Implement
action plan to
resolve DIRs
(1.6)
Combine all ISA
data into "ISA
Packet" (1.10)
Document
(White paper, ISR
Cert, IHA, etc.)
ISA Complete
If there is a
significant
change in the
program
proceed to ISS
process
If threat
environment
changes
proceed to ISS
process
Estimate costs
associated with
identified DIRs
(1.7)
5
4.3 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The below WBS, Table 2, provides additional
detail for the activity boxes in the above flowchart. The MS Excel version of this
WBS with more detail is at Attachment 1.
Table 2. ISA WBS
Lvl WBS
Activity Name
1 1.0
Intelligence
Supportability Analysis
(ISA)
2 1.1
Review Intelligence
Sensitivity Survey
(ISS)/Intelligence
Sensitivity Tier Matrix
2 1.2
Plan ISA
2 1.3
Conduct Requirements
Analysis of efforts intel
data requirements
PM and AIA establish
schedule for
requirements analysis
meetings and PM/SIO
will provide oversight.
PM and AIA conduct
requirements analysis
meetings
3 1.3.1
3 1.3.2
3 1.3.3
3 1.3.4
3 1.3.5
3 1.3.6
Activity Description
This applies to all phases of acq lifecycle (pre-MS A to post- MS C)
Acquisition Intelligence Analyst (AIA) will review ISS long form, Intelligence Sensitivity
SIO and PM
Tier Matrix, and Intelligence Sensitivity Determination (ISD). The ISS associated checklist
items should be reviewed with the program office to determine specific requirements.
The ISD should be reviewed and updated as needed at each MS or major program change.
(e.g. Developmental Planning kick-off, AF Form 1067, etc.)
Determine top-level estimate of resources needed to conduct ISA. PM, working with the SIO
SIO/Intel Division, develops an estimate for the scope of work needed for ISA. Determine
program top-level ISA deliverables and deliverable dates; intelligence data requirements
and program skill set requirements as identified in the ISS long form checklist.
Duration
(Duty Days)
Varies by
program
and/or
initiative
5 days
5 days
Review program requirements and determine intel data needs to support program. (PM
and AIA will review requirements throughout lifecycle of program)
SIO and PM
30 days (Total
1.3 400 days)
PO, Operational MAJCOM and AIA will develop a tailored plan for Intel Support Working
Group (ISWG), Threat Steering Group (TSG), Threat Working Group (TWG) and Technical
Exchange Meetings (TEMs), as required. OPRs should provide oversight and provide a
representative to co-chair working groups. Schedule(s) should coincide with other
scheduled PO meetings to maximize efficiencies and TDY travel costs.
The following are the requirements analysis meetings: Intel Support Working Group
(ISWG), Threat Steering Group (TSG), Threat Working Groups (TWG) and Technical
Exchange Meetings (TEMs). The PM is responsible for bringing together functional
representatives from throughout the program vendor(s), MAJCOM and others in the
intelligence and acquisition communities to ensure all intelligence considerations for the
developing system or capability are addressed. AIA may use the Requirements Analysis
Workbook (RAWs) checklists. The ISWG should use the RAWs checklists to clarify
questions marked yes in the ISD. The AIA may utilize additional and/or other tools to
conduct Requirements Analysis such as Enclosure C to CJCSI 3312.01B.
PM /SIO/
Operational
MAJCOM
10 days
Determine intel Mission Identify and determine IMD (included but not limited to) : Signature data, Electronic
Data (IMD)
Warfare Integrated Reprogramming (EWIR), Order of Battle, Foreign Systems Capabilities
& Performance data, and GEOINT. (Determine if PM requires a stand alone LMDP or
identify IMD in JCIDs documents):
Identify and document Requirements Working Groups will research and establish DIRs, Priority Intelligence
derived intelligence
Requirements (PIRs) and doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and
requirements (DIRs)
education, personnel and facilities (DOTMLPF) requirements and document all program
related intelligence requirements to a common AFLCMC/IN repository. Additionally, these
requirements should be incorporated into relevant program and JCIDs documentation (i.e.
Technology Readiness Development Document (TRD), Life-cycle Mission Data Plan
(LMDP), Information Support Plan (ISP), ICD/CDD/CPD, etc.
Verify whether current WGs will research current intelligence capabilities to satisfy DIRs (IC websites/databases,
data capabilities satisfy industry, academia, etc.)
DIRs.
Submit DIRs into
AIA will submit requirements into applicable databases
databases
4 1.3.6.1 Submit DIRs into AFMC
centralized database
OPR
Program
Manager
(PM)
PM
180 days or as
required and
defined in
subtask 1.3.1
(Review
throughout
each phase of
acq lifecycle
(pre-MS A to
post- MS C)
PM
60 days
PM and/or
SIO
45 Days
PM and/or
SIO
15 days
PM and/or
SIO
10 days (Total
1.3.6 - 55
days)
5 days
AIA will submit threat data (Non-COLISEUM) into AFLCMC/IN and/or AFMC/A2 centralized PM and/or
database, Virtual Threat Portal, Centralized SharePoint, etc.) as applicable.
SIO
6
Lvl WBS
Activity Name
Activity Description
4 1.3.6.2 Draft and coordinate and
AIA will ensure COLISEUM submissions have timely suspense to support PM's schedule by
then submit unsatisfied DIRs working with product centers' ability to meet suspense. Submit STAR/STA PRs and CIPs into
as Production Requirements COLISEUM; support Threat Steering Group (TSG) and STAR/STA reviews.
(PRs) and Critical
Intelligence Parameters
(CIPs) into COLISEUM
1.3.6.3 Submit unsatisfied DIRs to
(NGA and NSA) via MFR
4 1.3.6.4 Submit program specific
threat RFIs into AFMC
centralized database as
applicable.
4 1.3.6.5 Submit Intelligence
infrastructure and DOTMLPF
gaps and shortfalls (DIRs)
into current AFMC DIR
database
3 1.3.7 Tracking and documentation
of DIRs
2 1.4
Develop a Risk Assessment
2 1.5
Develop Action Plan for
Deficiency Resolution
2 1.6
Implement action plan to
resolve DIRs and document
2 1.7
Estimate costs associated
with identified DIRs
2 1.8
Advocate to IC/Acq/OPS
Community to Solve DIRs
2 1.9
Integrate Intel
Requirements, Identify
Deficiences, and Mitigate
Risk
2 1.10
2 1.11
OPR
PM and/or
SIO
Duration
(Duty Days)
15 days
Some Intelligence Communities do not utilize COLISEUM for DIRs; in this situation, the AIA
will submit a MFR through A2 Functional Chain. NGA: AFMC/A2 will follow NGA's method of
submitting requirements; NSA: AFMC/A2 will coordinate with SIGINT Collection Manager to
leverage off of existing NSA Intelligence Needs (IN) or to create and submit a new IN
PM and/or
SIO
15 days
AIA will submit threat data (Non-COLISEUM) into AFLCMC/IN and/or AFMC/A2 centralized
database, Virtual Threat Portal, Centralized SharePoint, etc.) as applicable.
PM and/or
SIO
5 days
AIA will submit DIRs into an AFLCMC/IN and/or AFMC/A2 centralized database. 21 IS conducts PM and/or
cross-program analysis (CPA) across all intel divisions and submit to higher headquarters for SIO
resolution.
5 days
PM and AIA will track DIRs [PRs, Infrastructure & DOTMLPF] and deficiencies that affect cost,
schedule and performance and will record results of WGs by MFR. Tracking DIRs is continuous
process.
After a DIR is assessed as a deficiency, the next step is to determine the risk to the effort if
the deficiency is not satisfied. Program/system stakeholders of the effort need to understand
the impact of not satisfying the deficiency in order to make resource prioritization decisions.
Additionally, the IC needs to understand the impact so they can prioritize their support based
on customer needs. Risk is analyzed from cost, performance, and schedule perspectives over
the lifecycle of the program/system. Depending on the risk, Acqusition and Operations
stakeholders may decide to assume the risk, employ more resources to reduce the risk,
employ a different tactic or product design, or find another way to mitigate the risk. (quantify
the impact to the performance and operational effectiveness of the capability of
missing/degraded intelligence)
An action plan can include determining who to advocate to in order to satisfy the shortfall,
budgeting or reallocating resources, holding TEMs with potential shortfall suppliers to
determine a CoA, working with other organizations to resolve the shortfall, etc. The proposed
strategy to satisfy the shortfall needs to be developed and documented in the applicable ISA
repository.
Depending on the action plan, implementation documentation may include producing a
white
paper, advocacy briefing, ISR-CART input, IHA, intelligence support shortfall (in the impacted
effort’s CDD/CPD Paragraph 9), ISP (Issues' section or, if necessary, Intelligence Appendix),
and/or other programmatic products (such as a Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP), ASP
briefing, etc) type of document.
PM and/or
SIO
5 days
PM and/or
SIO
5 days
PM and/or
SIO
5 Days
PM and/or
AIA
5 days
AFLCMC 21 Intelligence Squadron cost estimators, in coordination with PM and SPC/IPC will
support and/or develop cost estimates of intelligence supportability requirements, for
inclusion in PM life cycle cost estimate; IMD and related PCPED costs will be determined by
the IMD producer (DIA, NASIC, etc.)
Once an action plan is developed, agreed upon by OPRs and documented, support the PO and
Operational MAJCOM to inform the applicable intelligence, acquisition, test, and operational
communities’ leadership and obtain approval on the resolution plan.; support the PO,
Operational MAJCOM and other mitigation OPR/OCR/POCs to implement the action plans.
PM and/or
SIO, 21 IS
costers, AIA,
SPC/IPC
PM and/or
SIO
120 Days
PM and SIO
5 days
PM and/or
SIO
5 days
PM, SIO
and/or AIA
Continuous
Once a resolution is agreed upon to satisfy the shortfall, the decision needs to be acted on by
the program manager if the shortfall is unique to the program. If the shortfall falls within
several programs then the SIO will coordinate with the 21 IS for cross program anaylisis. In
this situation, the program managers/leadership need to be informed of the plans and kept
apprised of the status.
Combine all ISA data into
Once all ISA steps have been attempted/completed, AIA will compile all ISA data (ISS, ISD,
"ISA Packet"
DIR, CIP, PR, DOTMLP-F, IHA, memos, schedules, meeting minutes, PSR reviews,etc.) and
place in AFLCMC/IN and/or AFMC/A2 centralized database
Continuously monitor threat Assigned / applicable intel support orgs stay involved in program/system activity, as
environment and program
authorized by PO and/or Operational MAJCOM. Intel support orgs continue to review the
activity
foreign threat environment, key program documentation deadlines and status of program
intelligence deficiencies, providing updates to stakeholders as required and resourced. If
significant modification/upgrade to program, must go back to the ISS WBS.
10 days
7
4.4 Work Guidance Package
5.0
4.4.1
Acquisition Intelligence Guidebook
https://org.eis.afmc.af.mil/sites/FOWRALC/ING/AIS/Forms/AllItems.aspx
4.4.2
AFLCMC/IN Toolset
https://intelshare.intelink.sgov.gov/sites/acqintel/ (SIPRNet)
Process measurement
5.1 Process Results: The goal is to have all (100%) of Intelligence Sensitive programs
complete the ISA process, including having the ISAP posted in GLADIATOR.
5.1.1
This is a phased, multi-year effort. All ACAT programs nominally have at
least 4 updates to the ISAP accomplished before milestone C (Pre-AoA,
before milestones A, B, C). Furthermore, in the operations and sustainment
(A&S) phase, additional updates to the ISAP occur through the remaining
lifecycle.
5.2 Process Evaluation
5.2.1
6.0
Data will be collected and displayed on the IN Standardized Process
Dashboard located on GLADIATOR on SIPRNET. The dashboard contains
the ISA status of: the program; the outcome of the required
JCIDS/programmatic documentation (CDD inputs, LMDP, IHA, IMD, etc.);
and the ISAP documents posted in GLADIATOR.
Roles and Responsibilities
6.1 Process Owner AFLCMC/IN.
6.1.1
Maintains and coordinates any changes to this process.
6.1.2
Leads and/or assigns personnel to work on any process improvement.
6.1.3
Secures approval for changes to this process with the Standards and Process
Board.
6.2 Program Executive Officer (PEO)
6.2.1
Acknowledge the intelligence sensitivity of assigned programs, as determined
by the Director of Intelligence.
6.2.2
Ensure Program Managers request sufficient acquisition intelligence and
Special Security Officer support throughout the lifecycle of intelligence
sensitivity programs.
6.2.3
Ensure intelligence-related metrics are incorporated into intelligence sensitive
portfolio efforts.
6.3 Program Managers (PMs).
6.3.1
Ensure local intelligence division receives full notification of any capability
changes to efforts which will affect intelligence sensitivity.
6.3.2
Provides programs/initiative reference material for review.
8
6.3.3
Provides additional documents for review when there are non-concurrences
with SIOs.
6.3.4
Partner with local intelligence division support with ISA for their
programs/initiative.
6.3.5
Requests Center SIO assistance in conducting ISA and to lead the effort to
document and resolve deficiencies.
6.4 Senior Intelligence Officers (SIOs).
6.4.1
Review ISD/Intelligence Sensitivity Tier Matrix and plan ISA
6.4.2
Maintain oversight of AIAs within their intelligence division during ISA
process for all programs
6.4.3
Advocate to the Intelligence Community, Acquisition and Operational
Communities to assist in solving program/initiatives DIRs
6.5 Acquisition Intelligence Analyst (AIAs).
7.0
6.5.1
Review ISS/Intelligence Sensitivity Tier Matrix and plan ISA.
6.5.2
Conduct requirements analysis
6.5.3
Submit PRs and Input DIRs into AFLCMC/IN and/or AFMC/A2 centralized
database
6.5.4
Develop a risk matrix (Intelligence Health Assessment)
6.5.5
Develop an action plan for deficiency resolution in coordination with PM.
6.5.6
Implement the action plan to resolve DIRs and document (white paper, ISR
certification, IHA, etc).
6.5.7
Combine all ISA data into an ISAP
6.5.8
If there is a significant threat environment change, AIA will return to the ISS
process to determine possible change in level of intelligence sensitivity, and if
required, restart ISA process to ensure all intelligence needs are identified,
documented and worked.
Tools.
7.1 SharePoint (SIPRNet): https://intelshare.intelink.sgov.gov/sites/acqintel/
8.0 Training.
8.1 HAF/A2 Acquisition IFTU (Mandatory for SIOs and AIAs) and associated MTTs.
8.2 AFLCMC/IN MTT (Mandatory for SIOs and AIAs)
8.3 REQ 111 – Capabilities Based Requirement Course:
http://www.dau.mil/pubsca%20ts/Pages/risk_management.aspx
8.4 Office of Aerospace Studies – AoA Training:
https://centernet.hanscom.af.mil/acqdev/PMTB/AoA/AoA.htm
9
8.5 AFIT Developmental Test and Evaluation (SYS 229) http://www.epublishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI14-111.pdf
8.6 AFIT Center for Systems Engineering:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500002p.pdf
8.7 SYS 031 Course site is currently down (Mandatory for SIOs and AIAs)
8.8 ACQ 101 http://icatalog.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/courses.aspx?crs_id=2 (Mandatory for
SIOs and AIAs)
8.9 SYS 101 http://icatalog.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/courses.aspx?crs_id=2 (Mandatory for
SIOs and AIAs)
8.10 RQM 110 http://icatalog.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/courses.aspx?crs_id=2
(Mandatory for SIOs and AIAs)
9.0 Definitions, Guiding Principles and/or Ground Rules & Assumptions
9.1 Definitions
Acquisition Intelligence Analyst (AIA): Intelligence personnel who provide
acquisition intelligence support to intelligence sensitive AFMC managed programs
and systems. This support is provided to programs and systems throughout the
lifecycle.
Cross Program Analysis: CPA involves an analytical effort designed to “look across”
all intelligence-sensitive efforts and the related intelligence deficiencies. The purpose
of CPA is to identify common requirements and achieve synergies within resulting
common solutions. Synergies between efforts and cost savings are realized when
solutions are identified that support multiple programs/systems. An additional aspect
of CPA is to identify system or program integration issues. In addition, linkage of
documented requirements with multiple customer sets serves to strengthen AF
requirements forwarded to the larger Intelligence Community for action. (AFI 14111).
Intelligence Community (IC): The federation of executive branch agencies and
organizations that conduct foreign and/or counter-intelligence activities necessary for
conduct of foreign relations and protection of national security. IC members include
the Service intelligence organizations (NGIC, ONI, NASIC, MCIA, and Service
intelligence staff/support units), NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA (including MSIC and AFMIC),
NRO, and NGA, as well as the intelligence components of the US Coast Guard,
Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State,
Department of Commerce, and Department of Treasury.
Intelligence Sensitive: Efforts that require intelligence data during development or to
perform their mission, require the direct support of intelligence personnel, or influence
intelligence data at any point in the PCPAD cycle. Any program/initiative that
produces, consumes, processes, or handles intelligence information, thereby requiring
threat or intelligence infrastructure support. If it is likely that, in the future, the
program/initiative would produce, consume, process, or handle intelligence
information, then it should be considered intelligence-sensitive.
10
Intelligence Supportability Analysis: ISA is the process by which AF intelligence
plans for and documents the requirements and supporting intelligence infrastructure
necessary to successfully acquire and employ future Air Force capabilities. ISA should
begin as early as possible and continue during all phases of the acquisition lifecycle
for intelligence sensitive efforts. As a minimum, ISA should identify as specifically
and completely as possible, projected requirements for intelligence products,
information, or services to include required performance, descriptive, or qualitative
attributes.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capabilities, Planning and
Analysis (CP&A): The ISR CP&A outlines how the AF will create ISR capabilities to
meet the demands of today and into the future. It incorporates guidance from the
current AF Strategic Plan, AF ISR Strategy and the AF ISR Operational Concept and
defines how ISR development will progress, including end to end management for ISR
capabilities and weapon systems. The ISR CP&A is a critical input to the GIISR
CFMP and is the foundational process to guide execution of the AF ISR Strategy.
Planning and direction, Collection, Processing and exploitation, Analysis and
production, and Dissemination (PCPAD):
Planning and direction — In intelligence usage, the determination of intelligence
requirements, development of appropriate intelligence architecture, preparation of a
collection plan, and issuance of orders and requests to information collection agencies.
(JP 2-01)
Collection — In intelligence usage, the acquisition of information and the provision
of this information to processing elements. (JP 2-01)
Processing and exploitation — In intelligence usage, the conversion of collected
information into forms suitable to the production of intelligence.
Analysis and production — In intelligence usage, the conversion of processed
information into intelligence through the integration, evaluation, analysis, and
interpretation of all source data and the preparation of intelligence products in support
of known or anticipated user requirements. (JP 2-01)
Dissemination and integration — In intelligence usage, the delivery of intelligence
to users in a suitable form and the application of the intelligence to appropriate
missions, tasks, and functions. (JP 2-01).
Program Manager: Designated individual with responsibility for and authority to
accomplish program objectives for development, production, and sustainment to meet
the user’s operational needs. The PM shall be accountable for credible cost, schedule,
and performance reporting to the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). (DoDD
5000.1)
Workload Master List (WML): The WML will be a consolidation of information
from various sources designed to provide AFLCMC with the most current and
comprehensive list of programs and other requirement efforts driving resource
allocations and support activities. The WML is currently in development by
AFLCMC/XP as part of an overall strategic planning effort.
11
9.2 Ground Rules and Assumptions
9.2.1
PMs are partnering with AIAs in local SIO’s office for advice and
counsel on how to conduct ISA.
9.2.2
PM, single manager, product director, technology director, team leader, or
initiative lead are working closely with center SIO or their designated
representatives to identify intelligence requirements.
9.3 Acronyms
ACAT
Acquisition Category
AFISRA Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency
AFI
Air Force Instruction
AFMC
Air Force Materiel Command
AFLCMC Air Force Life Cycle Management Complex
AFRL
Air Force Research Laboratory
AoA
Analysis of Alternatives
CBA
Capabilities-Based Assessment
CDD
Capability Development Document
CONOPS Concept of Operations
CP&A
Capabilities, Planning and Analysis
CPA
Cross Program Analysis
CPD
Capability Production Document
DOTMLPF Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel,
Facilities
GDIP
General Defense Intelligence Program
IC
Intelligence Community
ICD
Initial Capabilities Document
IPT
Integrated Product Team
IS
Intelligence Squadron
ISA
Intelligence Supportability Analysis
ISAP
Intelligence Supportability Analysis Packet
ISD
Intelligence Sensitive Determination
ISP
Intelligence Sensitivity Prioritization
ISS
Intelligence Sensitivity Survey
ISTM
Intelligence Sensitivity Tier Matrix
JEON
Joint Emergent Operational Need
JCTD
Joint Capability Technology Demonstration
JUON
Joint Urgent Operational Need
MAJCOM Major Command
MWL
Master Workload List
MFR
Memorandum For Record
MIP
Military Intelligence Program
NIP
National Intelligence Program
OPLAN
Operational Plan
ORD
Operational Requirement Plan
PCPAD
Planning and Direction, Collection, Processing and Exploitation, Analysis
and Dissemination
12
PEO
PM
QRC
SIO
TSP
Program Executive Officer
Program Manager
Quick Reaction Capability
Senior Intelligence Officer
Transition Support Plan
10.0 References to Law, Policy, Instructions or Guidance.
AFI 10-601
Operational Capability Requirements Development
AFI 14-111
Intelligence Support to the Acquisition Life-Cycle
AFI 14-111_AFMC Sup 1 Intelligence Support in Force Modernization
AFI 63-101/20-101
Integrated Life Cycle Management
AFI 63-114
Quick Reaction Capability Process
AFI 99-103
Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation (Chapter 4.11, 5.14)
AFI 99-114
Foreign Materiel Program (on SIPR)
AFPAM 63-128
Guide to Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management
CJCSI 3170.01H
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, 10 Jan 12
CJCSI 3312.01B
Joint Military Intelligence Requirements Certification.
Clinger-Cohen Act Summary: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a453958.pdf
DAG
Defense Acquisition Guidebook
DoDI 4630.8
Procedures for Interoperability and Supportability of Information
Technology (IT) and National Security Systems (NSS)
DoDI 5000-02
Operation of the Defense Acquisition System
DoDI 5200.39
Critical Program Information Protection Within the DoD
DoDD 5250.01
Management of Intelligence Mission Data (IMD) in DoD Acquisition
<http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/525001p.pdf>
Attachment 1: MS Excel version of WBS
ISA_WBS_MASTER_
24 Sep 13.xlsx
13