Almost 25 years ago, I made a mid-career transition into aerospace and the military-industrial complex. When I was hired into that position, I brought a solid background in software and systems engineering, a strong track record of architecting complex systems, and experience with managerial and technical leadership of large teams. What I didn’t have was any knowledge whatsoever of military aviation. At the time, saying that I knew next to nothing in that domain would be a gross overstatement. I didn’t know anything at all.
When I joined the F-35 program, there was already a copious amount of documentation on that aircraft. Although I came onboard shortly after the initial contract award, the program had already accumulated years of engineering work from the competition stage, culminating in a fly-off between concept demonstration aircraft from Boeing and Lockheed Martin. By the time I arrived on the scene, the program had accumulated a wealth of operational requirements and foundational engineering documentation.
While there was no shortage of technical material available to help me get up to speed, figuring out where to even begin was another matter entirely. It was tempting to deep dive into each of the aircraft’s individual systems and capabilities as I encountered them. However, much of the detailed information on the aircraft and its supporting ground systems lacked context on how the air system was to work as a collective whole. I needed a way to see the big picture.
Fortunately, the F-35 Program had produced a Concept of Operations, or ConOps. Finding and consuming that resource powered a rapid ascent up the learning curve. It was a scant year before the people around me seemed to forget that I didn’t grow up there and started treating me like one of their own. When I realized that I had turned that corner, it was one of my proudest moments.
A ConOps is a systems engineering document that describes how a system is expected to operate in its intended environment. It explains what the system is supposed to accomplish, who will use it, the circumstances under which it will operate, and how its capabilities are expected to work together. The emphasis is on understanding the system from an operational perspective.
I found the ConOps to be an extraordinarily useful tool for communicating a common understanding of a complex system, particularly when the people involved bring different backgrounds, responsibilities, and perspectives to the table.
This weekend, I am contemplating the idea that the USTA could benefit from producing a formal Concept of Operations for Adult Tennis.
The USTA and other tennis organizations deliver a large assortment of programmatic mechanisms that drive Adult engagement with the sport. Someone might discover tennis through an introductory event, take a few lessons, join a social group, and eventually decide to try organized competition. Another player might spend decades playing recreational doubles with friends. Others participate in Cardio Tennis, drop-in drills, USTA League, NTRP tournaments, or traditional age-group tournaments. Many adult tennis players participate in several of these activities simultaneously.
The USTA has programs and initiatives that address many of these activities. So do clubs, community tennis associations, parks and recreation departments, and independent organizations. Collectively, they form an extensive network of opportunities for adults to engage with the sport.
While the USTA may have developed a common operational concept for how all these opportunities are supposed to work together at some point, I have not seen any evidence of its existence. A ConOps is different from a strategic plan or a catalog of programs. There is a lot of documentation on how the individual tennis initiatives work in isolation. A resource focused on adult tennis players and the many ways they might engage with the sport over a lifetime would be extraordinarily useful. Explaining how the various programs and activities fit into the larger picture and work in synergy would be incredibly valuable. I feel like this is the missing common reference framework for people making decisions about individual programs.
If the USTA already has such a document, now would be a terrific time to dust it off, update it as needed, and distribute it more widely. A ConOps document should be front and center of every decision the organization is making about its programs. If a resource exists that achieves the purpose of a ConOps, it is useless if no one knows about it or reads it.
Based on my limited (and no longer active) committee experience with the USTA, much of the work associated with individual programs takes place within relatively isolated silos. League has its people, tournaments have theirs, and recreational participation has another set of stakeholders. USTA staff members work across these boundaries, but the implementation communities often seem to operate largely independently. In my Section, these committees meet separately and rarely consider what the others are doing.
There are good reasons for specialization. Each tennis engagement mechanism has its own requirements, administrative challenges, and participants. The people responsible for them need to understand those details. Still, I wonder how often decisions are evaluated in the context of the entire adult tennis experience, including their effects on other participation opportunities.
This is where a ConOps could be particularly useful. It would provide a common reference for the people responsible for developing, administering, and improving adult tennis programs. It could help national committees, sectional organizations, local tennis associations, and other stakeholders understand how their activities contribute to the larger system. It would also provide a basis for evaluating proposed changes beyond their effects on a single program.
The USTA wouldn’t need to operate every activity described in the document. Plenty of adult tennis happens outside its direct control. In fact, understanding those external relationships would be part of the exercise.
My experience coming up to speed on the F-35 taught me how much easier it is to understand a complex system when someone has taken the time to explain how it is intended to operate. The USTA is responsible for a very different kind of system, but it faces a similar challenge. Its programs involve different communities, serve different needs, and operate within an environment that changes as players move through their tennis lives.
Over the rest of this weekend, I want to explore what a ConOps for Adult Tennis might encompass and why a shared operational perspective could help the USTA make better decisions about the future of the sport.
