2.5.5. Section 5: Final Recommendations. Discussion in this section should be tailored to the software solution.

2.5.5.1. Briefly outline the plan for the sponsor, operational commands, and users to capture, prioritize, and continuously refine the lower-level needs that will guide the software development. This may include a Product Roadmap that elaborates on the vision and planned capabilities to be delivered over the next few years as well as dynamically prioritized program backlogs contain the more detailed user needs.

2.5.5.2. Include alignment with legacy systems (and any retirements), related systems, software, and platforms in development or planned. Identify the approach to scope, develop, and demonstrate a Minimum Viable Product - an early version of software demonstrated to users and anticipated to continuously evolve, accelerate learning/user feedback, and shapes requirements, designs, and strategies.

2.5.5.3. Identify how user commitment and active, continuous engagement will be valued throughout software development. This commitment can be elaborated in a user agreement (and not in this document) between the sponsor, decision authority, and program manager to ensure close alignment between operational and acquisition communities. The user agreement will also detail specific roles, responsibilities, and the cadence of user engagements (including requirements management).

2.5.5.4. Identify DOTmLPF-P recommendations to be considered as part of a materiel solution and independent of a materiel solution. Include how the evolution of software requirements, development, and operations align and evolve with DOTmLPF-P efforts.

2.5.5.5. Acceptance of operational risk. Not every identified capability gap needs to be immediately addressed by a capability solution or S&T effort. A relatively low priority of the capability to the overall joint force may not justify the lifecycle costs of taking further action at the present time.