The U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) is responsible for the operational testing and evaluation of Army systems in development. ATEC requested that the National Research Council form the Panel on Operational Test Design and Evaluation of the Interim Armored Vehicle (Stryker) to explore three issues concerning the initial operation test plans for the Stryker/Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT). First, the panel was asked to examine the measures selected to assess the performance and effectiveness of the Stryker/IBCT in comparison both to requirements and to the baseline system. Second, the panel was asked to review the test design for the Stryker/IBCT initial operational test to see whether it is consistent with best practices. Third, the panel was asked to identify the advantages and disadvantages of techniques for combining operational test data with data from other sources and types of use. In this report the panel presents findings, conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to the first two issues: measures of performance and effectiveness, and test design. The panel intends to prepare a second report that discusses techniques for combining information.

The U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) is responsible for the operational testing and evaluation of Army systems in development. ATEC requested that the National Research Council form the Panel on Operational Test Design and Evaluation of the Interim Armored Vehicle (Stryker). The charge to this panel was to explore three issues concerning the IOT plans for the Stryker/SBCT. First, the panel was asked to examine the measures selected to assess the performance and effectiveness of the Stryker/SBCT in comparison both to requirements and to the baseline system. Second, the panel was asked to review the test design for the Stryker/SBCT initial operational test to see whether it is consistent with best practices. Third, the panel was asked to identify the advantages and disadvantages of techniques for combining operational test data with data from other sources and types of use. In a previous report (appended to the current report) the panel presented findings, conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to the first two issues: measures of performance and effectiveness, and test design. In the current report, the panel discusses techniques for combining information.

For every weapons system being developed, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) must make a critical decision: Should the system go forward to full-scale production? The answer to that question may involve not only tens of billions of dollars but also the nation's security and military capabilities. In the milestone process used by DOD to answer the basic acquisition question, one component near the end of the process is operational testing, to determine if a system meets the requirements for effectiveness and suitability in realistic battlefield settings. Problems discovered at this stage can cause significant production delays and can necessitate costly system redesign. This book examines the milestone process, as well as the DOD's entire approach to testing and evaluating defense systems. It brings to the topic of defense acquisition the application of scientific statistical principles and practices.

An operational test and evaluation is an assessment of mission performance in a system's intended environment when operated, maintained, and supported by personnel with qualifications similar to those who will perform these functions in the field. The Air Force Test and Evaluation Center (AFTEC), established in 1974, is responsible for managing operational test and evaluation and providing an independent assessment on test results to the Secretary of the Air Force and Air Force Chief of Staff. AFTEC has improved Air Force operational testing, and further improvements are being planned. However, there are several limitations in the testing programs. The operational testing conducted by AFTEC was generally not performed in an environment that the systems would encounter when deployed, and the systems were not always operated and maintained by personnel with qualifications of expected users. Also, AFTEC had little control over the resources necessary to conduct initial operational testing. The Air Force practice of combining initial operational test and evaluation programs, while it may save costs, makes it unlikely to achieve the very different objectives of the two types of testing. AFTEC evaluations of operational effectiveness have been limited because they were not based on the most current operational concept. A new policy to provide concepts that will serve as a "contract" between developers and users and will provide current criteria has been incorporated into Air Force regulations.