Abstract

Investigation of the engineering trade-space associated with complex capabilities and system-of-systems (SoS) solutions is often pursued outside the purview of an over-arching Major Defense Acquisition Program. As a result, many of the mandates associated with the United States Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition process may not be levied upon such activities. However, since establishing an operational context for system or capability development remains a systems engineering best practice, the requirement for a concept of operations document should be given favorable consideration. Unfortunately, the myriad variants of CONOPS in the DoD (and the organizational pedigree associated with each) can generate misunderstanding and disagreement over authorship, ownership, approval authority, and the intended purpose of the document. The title alone can undermine the utility of an operational context document and result in its misinterpretation or rejection. This paper compares guidance on the development of operational concept documents from industry, DoD and U.S. military services and compares them with related documents that are sometimes confused with (or inappropriately substituted for) CONOPS. A new method for establishing an operational context for SoS-based capability development is presented as an alternate to the aforementioned documents.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call