Presentation on theme: "Requirements Executive Overview Workshop Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Systems Management College Defense Acquisition."— Presentation transcript:
1Requirements Executive Overview Workshop Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)Defense Systems Management CollegeDefense Acquisition UniversityFort Belvoir, Virginia14 November 2012
2Developing Requirements The Requirements EnvironmentEvolution of Capabilities Based PlanningSequence of eventsAnalysisInitial DocumentationTransitions to actions that provide solutionsNon-Materiel solutionsJCIDS interactions with developing materiel solutionsRequirements Approval structureRecent Changes to the ProcessRapid Response Lanes for JCIDSJCIDS ReviewDoD initiated the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) to support the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) in identifying, assessing, and prioritizing joint military capability needs as specified in title 10, United States Code, sections 153, 163, 167, and 181. The overriding goal of the JCIDS process is to support the warfighter by identifying and developing capabilities consistent with Capabilities-Based Planning (CBP).This presentation will discuss the sequence of events that turns warfighters’ needs into requirements and the subsequent requirements into action that provides solutions. This sequence begins with analysis. The analysis is documented in documents like Initial Capabilities Documents (ICDs) and non-materiel change recommendations, called DOTLMPF Change Recommendations (DCRs).When the JCIDS process concludes DoD needs to develop new materiel solutions, the JCIDS requirements process must interact with the Defense Acquisition System and the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBS) system to provide effective solutions.
3The Requirements Environment Finding the balance between:CCMD near-term requirements to support CONPLANs and current missionsandServices’ long range vision & investment plansVersatile, joint systemsSystems optimized for service missionsGrowing demandsFiscal & political constraintsGeographic specificityWorldwide applicabilityAmbitious requirementsAchievable acquisition strategyQuantity mattersHigh-end capabilities
4Threat vs Capabilities-Based Planning Requirements Generation System (RGS) ~30 years of experienceJoint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) ~ Since 2003Partially InteroperableCapabilitiesStrategic DirectionJoint Warfighting Concept DevelopmentLate IntegrationJoint Experimentation, Assessment & Analysis, Validation, Selection of SolutionsServices Build SystemsThe new Capabilities-Based Planning is helping shape the American military. Our purpose is to address the system depicted on the left and suggest a new way of doing it as shown on the right.Prior to JCIDS, the DOD employed a threat-based force-planning construct to develop forces, systems, and platforms based on a specific threat and scenario. Requirements were often developed, validated, and approved as stand alone solutions to counter specific threats or scenarios, not as participating elements in an overarching system of systems.This fostered a “bottom-up, stovepiped” approach to acquisition decisions that, in a joint context, was neither fully informed by, or coordinated with, other components; nor were they clearly linked to the National Military Strategy.New programs often failed to foster interoperability; and in the end, had to be deconflicted either by the warfighter or at Department level.Additionally, acquisition management frequently focused on materiel solutions without considering potential non-materiel implications that DOTMLPF changes may hold for the advancement of joint warfighting.In contrast a capabilities-based construct as shown on the right facilitates force planning in an uncertain environment and identifies the broad set of capabilities that DoD will require to address the challenges of the 21st century. Additionally, the senior leadership is involved earlier in the process. The Aldridge study helped establish a process to get the DepSecDef and SecDef involved earlier in the process for decisions.This methodology defines the strategic direction of the department and considers the full range of DOTMLPF (materiel and non-materiel) solutions to develop joint warfighting capability.The intent is to employ a synchronized, collaborative, and integrated approach that links strategy to capabilities.Bottom up refinement from the services is a critical component to the joint approach of CBP, given the services are the Title X domain experts.CCMDs, Services’Unique Strategic VisionsService Experimentation, Assessment & Analysis, Validation, Selection of SolutionsJoint CapabilitiesService Unique Strategic Visions and Requirements
5Delivered Capability to the Capabilities-Based Planning (CBP)Strategic GuidanceAnd Desired EffectsStrategic Guidance (OSD (P))Spt for Strategic Analysis (OSD (P)/J-8)Joint Concepts (J7)National Security StrategyNational Defense StrategyNational Military StrategyQDR ReportGEFDPPG/DPG**New strategic guidance for DOD (Jan 2012)Defense Planning ScenariosIntegrated Security ConstructsMulti-Service Force DeploymentOperational Availability StudiesGlobal Force ManagementCJCSI CJoint ConceptsJoint Concept Development & Experimentation Process GuideJCDE Campaign PlanForce ManagementCBPAdaptive PlanningJCIDS (J8)DoD 5000 (OSD AT&L)PPBE (OSD (C/CAPE))CJCSI /JCIDS ManualJROC Validation and Approval of JCIDS DocumentsJoint Capabilities BoardFunctional Capabilities BoardsEvaluation of CCMD Needs (lessons learned, joint urgent needs, CGA/IPL, etc.)Defense Acquisition BoardsMateriel Development DecisionMilestone DecisionsAcquisition Decision MemosRoot Cause AnalysisSelected Acquisition Reports/ Defense Acquisition Executive SummariesProgram Objective Memorandum/ Budget Estimate SubmissionProgram and Budget ReviewResource Management DecisionsPresident’s BudgetDelivered Capability to theJoint WarfighterCommon Lexicon – Joint Capability Areas
6JCIDS is…A key supporting process for DoD acquisition and PPBE processesThat supports “the statutory responsibility of the JROC to validate joint warfighting requirements”And supports the CJCS advising the Secretary of Defense in identifying, assessing and prioritizing joint military requirementsA Staffing method enabling the Joint Staff to ensure Sponsors’ needs meet the Chairman’s intent (Joint force needs)JCIDS is not… the entire “Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management System”“Requirements”(JCIDS)AcquisitionPPB&E
7JCIDS and Acquisition Military Services President, SECDEF & Chairman:Technology DemonstratedInitial Key Performance Parameters/Key System Attributes (KPPs/KSAs)Acquisition StrategyT&E Master Plan (TEMP)SEPFinal DesignDevelopmental T&E (DT&E)Operational AssessmentsRevise KPPs/KSAsAcquisition StrategyAcquisition Program Baseline (APB)TEMPSEPLow Rate Initial Production (LRIP)Initial Operational T&E (IOT&E)Acquisition StrategyAPBTEMPSEPIdentification of Capability RequirementsAnalysis of Alternatives (AoA)Technology Development Strategy (TDS)Test & Evaluation (T&E) Strategy (TES)System Engineering Plan (SEP)Strategic GuidanceOperational PlanningCBAs & Other StudiesExercises/Lessons LearnedJCTDs/JUON/JEON/ ExperimentsJIEDDO InitiativesDefense Business SysOSD/Joint StaffSSA ProductsIntegrated Security ConstructsJoint ConceptsOutputsLRIPFOT&EMission & ProblemCapability GapsTasksPerformanceConditionsOperational RiskNon-Materiel ApproachesMateriel ApproachesRecommendationsMaterielDevelopmentDecisionMS “A”MS “B”MS “C”ActivitySelect JointConceptDevelop CONOPSCapabilities-Based Assessment /OtherICDMateriel Solution AnalysisSponsor-ApprovedCDDTechnology DevelopmentCDDEngineering &ManufacturingDevelopmentCPDProduction & DeploymentCCMDAnalysis ofAlternatives (AoA)CompetitivePrototypingEvolutionary AcquisitionThe CBA process produces a validated ICD. The ICD summarizes the results of the CBA’s identification of warfighting capability gaps, and potential solutions to mitigate or resolve those gaps. ICD’s that recommend a materiel approach to resolving the capability gaps support a Material Development Decision (MDD) by an acquisition milestone decision authority. The ICD then becomes the basis for the Material Solution Analysis (MSA) phase. During the MSA phase, an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to consider the potential solutions to the capability gaps identified in the ICD.Military ServicesValidates ICDReviews AoA ResultsValidates CDDValidates CPDJROC action for JROC Interest programs (ACAT I & IA)SECDEFJoint Staff / Joint Requirements Oversight Council / OSDOSD (AT&L, CAPE), Services and OSD (DOT&E) Joint Staff (JROC)Develop, Test, Produce &FieldPolicyIdentify Capability RequirementsSelect MaterielSolutionGetting The Front End Right is Key7
8Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) NEEDSGAPSSOLUTIONSExistingGuidanceThe problemsand the risksWhat we need for the missionWhat should wedo about it?Where does thisneed rank?How soon do we need it?This chart illustrates the relationship between the three major analyses within a Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA). Most CBAs are maintained by the analytic department or agency within a Service that performed the analysis.This is what your staff needs to be doing to do a complete Capabilities-Bases Assessment (CBA). We see people try to skip steps too often as they try to immediately prescribe solutions. This approach gets the acquisition into trouble.An approver or a validating authority needs to be able to ask the right questions for each area of analysis to be sure we deliver the right capabilities.The previous terms for these analysis steps were the Functional Area Analysis (FAA), Functional Needs Analysis (FNA), and Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA).
9Identifying Needs and Potential Solutions CBA Recommendations:Transformational solutionsEvolution of existing capabilitiesInformation technology solutionsInformation for an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)Managers must communicate to avoid disconnects over seams between JCIDS, DAS, and PPBECBA Documentation:Initial Capabilities DocumentDOTmLPF-P Change RecommendationWhat can we do with the results of a CBA?The CBA can offer new solutions that transform the battlefield into areas we can dominate. For example, developing nuclear weapons and stealth technology played to our technological strengths and transformed warfare.The CBA can lead to DOTMLPF, non-materiel solutions that help our existing systems evolve into more effective capabilities. For example, we may modify or improve our information technology systems to be more effective in different threat environments. How many of us – right now – can be tracked via our cell phones?The results of a CBA can feed the Analysis of Alternatives, which defines a weapons system development.The risks here emphasize the seams between the requirements, acquisition, and funding communities. If managers in these communities do not communicate, the warfighter suffers.9
10CBA Output Documents Joint DCR – DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendation When DoD decides a Joint Non-Materiel Solution is appropriateNon-Materiel SolutionsChange doctrineReorganizeTrain DOD personnel differentlyAcquire commercial or non-developmental items, or additional quantities of existing itemsAdjust the professional development of the joint leaderAdd or reassign personnelMove or realign facilitiesChange policy
11CBA Output Documents Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) (MS A) Documents Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Results – specifically Capability GapsIdentifies relevant operational performance attributesDocuments the recommendation on the need for a materiel solution and potential non-material solutionsPredecessor for the Capabilities Development Document
12Operational Performance Attributes Attributes Necessary to Design a Proposed SystemEstablish a Performance BaselineGuide Development and DemonstrationGuide Development of Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) for Inclusion in Capabilities Development DocumentThe CDD provides the operational performance attributes necessary for the acquisition Program Manager and the acquisition community to design a proposed system and establish a program baseline. The CDD identifies the performance attributes, including Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), that will guide the development and demonstration of any proposed increments in the acquisition strategy.
13Key JCIDS Development Documents Capability Development Document (MS B)Defines Performance Requirements to Achieve the CapabilityIdentifies KPPs, KSAs, and additional attributesAttributes should be Authoritative, Measurable and TestableDescribes DOTmLPF-P constraints associated with the solutionMay describe multiple incrementsProvides operational capabilities for the acquisition strategy and the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)Insert all CDD KPPs and Sustainment KSAs verbatim into the APB
14Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) Performance Attributes of a SystemCritical To Develop an Effective Military CapabilityKPPs Must be Measurable, Testable, and Quantifiable in a Practical and Timely MannerEnable feedback from T&E; support decision makingMandatory KPPsForce Protection, Survivability, Sustainment, Net Ready, Training, EnergyValidated by the JROC for JROC Interest DocumentsFailure to Meet a KPP Results in Reevaluation or Reassessment of the ProgramKey Performance Parameters (KPPs) are those attributes or characteristics of a system that are considered critical or essential to the development of an effective military capability and those attributes that make a significant contribution to the characteristics of the future joint force as defined in the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations. KPPs must be testable to enable feedback from test and evaluation efforts to the requirements process.The JROC validates KPPs for JROC Interest documents. The DOD component validates KPPs for Joint Integration, Joint Information, and Independent documents.
15Key System Attributes (KSAs) Attributes or Characteristics Considered Essential to Achieving a Balanced SolutionNot Critical Enough to be Selected as a KPPAlso Measurable, Testable, and QuantifiableIdentified by the Sponsor; Should be Kept to a MinimumSponsor Senior Leadership can Change a KSAKSAs are those system attributes considered most critical or essential for an effective military capability but not selected as a KPP. KSAs provide decision makers with an additional level of capability prioritization below the KPP. Changing a KSA requires a sponsor 4-star, a Defense agency commander, or a Principal Staff Assistant.
16Key JCIDS Development Documents Capability Production Document (CPD) (MS C)Supports Production and Development of one incrementDocuments Authoritative, Testable CapabilitiesSupport Production, Testing, and DeploymentMay describe Incremental Production and DeploymentNo New RequirementsMust meet Operational Performance Attributes
17Differences Between the CDD and the CPD Focus on DesignFocus on ProductionAll IncrementsA Specific IncrementKPPs to Help Evaluate Alternative DesignsKPPs Refined and Tailored to the Proposed SystemThe big difference between the CDD and the CPD is the focus of each document. The CDD was to help design and develop a new system; the CPD must be more specific because the acquisition program is going to start producing specific products that will go to the warfighters.The CDD addressed design and development parameters for all increments. The CPD addresses the capabilities of a specific increment.The Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) in the CDD helped evaluate alternative designs and strategies. The CPD offers the opportunity to apply lessons learned from previous phases and previous analysis to refine performance attributes for the current increment.
18JCIDS Document Tracks JROC JCB Sponsor Joint Staffing Designator (JSD) FCB review &prioritizationJROCInterestJCBReviewJROCKM/DS staffing & commentACAT I/IA programs & Joint DCRsFCB review &prioritizationJCBInterestJCBKM/DS staffing & commentACAT II & below with impact on interoperabilityFCB review &prioritizationSponsorJointIntegrationKM/DS staffing & commentACAT II & below that require endorsements & certificationsThe J-8 Gatekeeper (J-8/Deputy Director for Requirements) assigns a Joint Staffing Designator (JSD) after the Sponsor submits a JCIDS document to the Knowledge Management/Decision Support (KM/DS) tool on the SIPRNET.The Gatekeeper will also assign the document to the appropriate Functional Capability Board (FCB) for review, assessment, and prioritization.The FCB (often assisted by other supporting FCBs), will conduct their review concurrent with the review of the document by all other stakeholders via KM/DS. The Sponsor will adjudicate comments from those stakeholders, and when necessary ask the FCB for assistance.Comments submitted to KM/DS in response to document staffing are expected to be signed out at the GO/FO, or civilian equivalent, level.For documents with JSDs below JCB or JROC Interest, the JROC delegates validation authority to the Sponsor organization, and Sponsors may use their own internal staffing processes for review and validation. Sponsor processes must accommodate the time required to obtain Joint Staff endorsements and/or certifications where applicable.Endorsements and certifications include: J-7 (Training KPP and non-materiel solutions); J-2 (Threat validation and intelligence certification); J-8 (weapon safety endorsement and Net-Ready KPP certification); J-4 (review and endorsement of sustainment and energy KPPs); Protection FCB (review and endorsement of Force Protection and Survivability KPPs)FCB review &prioritizationJointInformationKM/DS staffing & commentACAT II & below that do not require endorsements & certificationsIndependentValidationAuthorityFCBprioritizationAll othersKM/DS: Knowledge Management/Decision Support tool
19A Streamlined Process (Deliberate) Acquisition(and/or DCRs)Functional CapabilityBoardSME inputs from DoDPrioritization within this portfolioCCMD InputsAllied/Partner Nation equityNon-material recommendationsGatekeeperFCB Chair:Ready ValidationDiscussion?SponsorJCBJROCTerminationCombined“Staffing”4 daysEst. 21 days Commenting/30 days Adjudication/7 days to FCB ChairEst. 7 days to JCB/14 days to JROCTotal:83 daysPrepBriefFunctionalCapabilityBoardDJ8GatekeeperFCBDraftPrep for mtgJoint CapabilitiesBoardSponsorSME inputs from DoDPrep for JCB/JROCPhase 1StaffingGatekeeperJoint RequirementsOversight CouncilFCB Chair:Phase 2?SponsorO-6 level coord from across DoDTerminationAcquisition(and/or DCRs)Phase 2StaffingGO/FO lvl coord from multiple agenciesTotal:95 – 160+ days4 days21 days45+ daysdays15 daysVariable26 – 35 days
20Requirements Decision Chain JROC DECISION CHAINJROC MEMBERSHIPChair: VCJCSCouncil Members:Vice Chief of Staff, ArmyVice Chief of Naval OperationsVice Chief of Staff, Air ForceAssistant Commandant of the Marine CorpsCombatant Commands* (Commander or Deputy Commander)VCJCSJROC Chairman; Advises the CJCSJROCJROCOwns JCIDS; Validates JROC Interest documents; final authorityJCBValidates JCB Interest documents; assists JROCReviews documents; prioritizes within portfolio; makes validation recommendation to JCB/JROCFCBFCB WGReviews documents & prioritizes prior to FCB review*Unless otherwise directed to participate by the JROC Chairman, CCMD representatives are highly encouraged to participate as voting members of the JROC when matters related to the area of responsibility or functions of that command will be under consideration by the JROC. USD(AT&L), Dir, CAPE, USD(Comptroller), DOT&E, and USD(Policy) attend as JROC advisorsJROC: Joint Requirements Oversight CouncilJCB: Joint Capability BoardFCB: Functional Capability BoardFCB WG: Functional Capability Board Working Group
21Functional Capability Boards & Sponsoring Organizations C4/CyberIncludes NC andC2 JCAsBattlespace AwarenessForceSupportLogisticsBrig GenWeggemanJS J-6BGenO’DonohueJS J-8Mr. GareauJS J-2Mr. HawkinsJS J-4ForceApplicationProtectionAdditional JCAs:Building PartnershipsCorporate Management& SupportBGenO’DonohueJS J-8BG PolakowskiJS J-8The FCBs are boards below the JCB and provide review and assessment of documents and adjudication of lower level issues within their designated portfolios prior to review by the JCB, review/adjust Joint prioritization established by the FCB Working Groups (WGs), and perform other activities at the direction of the JCB or the JROC.The FCBs are aligned with the joint capability areas (JCAs), which define portfolios of functionally similar capabilities within which each of the FCBs can focus their efforts.FCB Membership: (O-6 level)ServicesCombatant Command RepsOSD (AT&L)OSD (I)USecAF (Space)DOD CIO OSD(Comptroller)D/CAPEDIA Rep (Threat)ODNI/IRBOther DoD Agencies as necessary
22Capability Development Tracking and Management (CDTM) IT system that transforms JCIDS capability tracking from document-centric to data-centric processDeveloped and deployed on NIPRNet and SIPRNet30 June 2011 mandated CDTM use for all JCIDS documents (ICD, CDD, CPD, DCR) has been relaxed until post JCIDS Manual re-writeCapability gap traceabilityProcess metricsEase of use enhancementsImproved search capabilityImproved document creationInput standardizationAbility to data share with other DoD applicationsCDTM greatly changes the way in which Services will enter documents into the JCIDS processPreviously documents were simply a word document where the length and breadth were at discretion of Service-- Great variation across Services and within Services on requirement document quality-- Limited ability to quickly search document and pull out most important elements-- Limited ability to determine document staffing times and measure JCIDS approval process as a wholeNew IT tool will move input from document-centric to info-centric-- Rather than attaching document, one will enter data into template-- Field length will limit long-run-on descriptions-- Mandatory fields will ensure that all aspects of describing a capability need/gap are included-- Report wizard will transform template inputs into complete JCIDS documentChange, yes, but change in the right direction. Mandated in Spring 2011
23Summary of the Deliberate JCIDS Process Materiel SolutionsInitial Capabilities Document (ICD)Capability Development Document (CDD)Capability Production Document (CPD)Non-Materiel Solutions – Joint DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendation (DCR)Operational Requirements Development is a Team Effort; All Stakeholders Should be Involved; Involve the User in Technical Requirements DevelopmentImplementing Major Changes to Improve the Process…
25Rapid Response Situations Urgent and Compelling Needs During Crisis and ConflictEach Service has Policies and Procedures, but …Service-Unique Approaches do not Address Theater-Wide Joint Urgent and Emergent Operational NeedsRequirements Managers Need to Stay Engaged in the ProcessThe DOD 5000 and CJCS 3170 series acquire weapons systems using a traditional, deliberate process, usually taking a few years even when the system uses maximum streamlining.Sometimes, the warfighters need a new capability as soon as possible. What does DOD and the JCIDS process do when warfighters need something NOW?Each Service uses various methods to shorten the acquisition timelines to meet urgent and compelling needs during crisis and conflict, but service policies and procedures do not provide an opportunity to address theater-wide multi-Service combatant commander joint urgent operational needs.The action officer or NCO who writes the JUON for the combat command becomes a de-facto Requirements Manager; however, Requirements Managers must be involved in follow-on actions for recurring or ongoing requirements.
26Three Requirements “Lanes” Deliberate RequirementsService, CCMD or Agency DrivenTraditional route for capabilities that require significant tech development and/or are not urgent or compelling in natureEmergent RequirementsCCMD DrivenSupports accelerated acquisition of capabilities needed for an anticipated or pending contingency operationVCJCS verifies, JCB or JROC validatesUrgent RequirementsUrgent and compelling to prevent loss of life and/or mission failure during current operationsRequire little tech development and can be resolved in less than two yearsDDR validates“Keep right, except to pass”DELIBRATMGNU0 – 2YRS0+ to 5 YRSCONFLICTLANEONLYPOTENTIAL2-6+
27Joint Urgent & Emergent Operational Needs Every Service has a Rapid Response ProcedureThe Joint Rapid Response Lanes are the Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON) and Joint Emergent Operational Needs (JEON)JUON/JEON Validation and Resourcing InvolvesVCJCS/JCB/JROCThe Gatekeeper (J8 Deputy Director for Requirements (DDR))The Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC)Functional Capabilities Boards (FCBs) and Working GroupsThe Military Services, Defense Agencies, ISR TF and Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO)When warfighters report situations that put life at risk or risk mission failure, every service has its own Rapid Response procedure. When the situation is a joint problem, the joint Rapid Response procedure is the Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON).JUON validation and resourcing involves:The GatekeeperThe Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC)Functional Capabilities Boards (FCBs)The Joint Capabilities Board (JCB)Working Groups, andThe Budget Office Director’s Board (BOD)
28Who Initiates an Urgent/Emergent Need? An Urgent/Emergent Request Must Come from:A Joint Force CommanderA Service Component CommanderA commander’s delegated representativeService or Services Must Validate Service-Unique Urgent/Emergent NeedJUONs/JEONs are Endorsed by the Combatant Commanders and Validated by the Joint StaffA JUON must be initiated by a Joint Force Commander, a Service Component Commander, or a commander’s delegated representative. An urgent need specific to an individual Service is handled within that Service. The headquarters of at least one Service must validate any theater-wide multi-Service joint urgent needs.
30JUON / JEON Process Flow From Generation to Delivery to Assessment Assessment of Operational UtilityWarfighterOriginatesCCMD CoSCertifiesJS J-8/RMDReceivesFCBTriagesSenior Integration Group (SIG):Oversight Body for DoD Urgent NeedsJS J-8 DDR or JCB/JROCValidatesSolution DeliveryServices/AgenciesNon C-IED SolutionsThis slide examines the flow between the generation and vetting phases. After J-8 receives the JUON, the Functional Capabilities Boards (FCBs) triages the JUON it meets the necessary criteria.After the triage analysis confirms the need is urgent and compelling, J-8 validates the JUON and forwards it to the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) to determine the resourcing strategy, and then to forward the JUON to the appropriate Service or Agency for action. Improvised Explosive Device (IED) problems go directly to the Joint IED Defeat Office (JIEDDO).Per DTM 45, SIG is to be the single authority for prioritizing and directing action to fulfill DoD urgent needs.Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC)Determines Resourcing StrategyAssigns to JIEDDO or Service/Agency for sponsorshipJoint IED Defeat OfficeC-IED Solutions
31The SponsorService or Agency Recommended by the Gatekeeper and Named by the JRACThe Sponsor Develops an Initial Course of ActionImplementation recommendationFunding strategy recommendationThe Sponsor Manages the Approved JUON / JEON EffortThe Sponsor designated by JRAC develops an initial course of action. The Sponsor provides an implementation and funding strategy recommendation to the Functional Capabilities Board Working Group (FCB WG) and the JRAC. The Sponosr subsequently becomes responsible for the overall management and execution of the approved JUON effort.
32Challenge of Rapid Acquisition Future FocusedVery Structured ProcessEvolved RequirementsAnalysis of AlternativesLengthy DevelopmentHigh Visibility on ProgramLarge InvestmentADeliberateNow-focusedMore ad hoc processBroad requirementQuick assessment of alternativesLimited developmentHigh visibility on resultsLimited investmentVery Limited FeedbackTransition to PoRimmediatea
34…. the JROC is charged with shaping the force Law and PolicyTitle 10 Responsibilities (as modified by 2009 Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act and 2011 National Defense Authorization Act)The JROC shall assist the VCJCS…In making cost, schedule, and performance tradesIn prioritizing joint military requirementsThe JROC must…Consider input from Combatant Commanders on joint requirementsConsider cost, schedule and performance tradeoffs in establishing requirementsSet an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) schedule objective for each requirementAll the above further emphasized in the JROC Charter (CJCSI 5123 series)More than any other body,…. the JROC is charged with shaping the force
35What Has Happened in the Past Current construct ineffective; does not encourage/promote incisive questions/discussionsLittle consideration of cost/schedule/performance tradeoffsNo prioritization within and across portfolios…little to no risk analysisDocument and process intensive -- bureaucratic and time consumingLittle impact on shaping the forceCongressional Question for the Record (GEN Dempsey Confirmation Hearing)“General Dempsey, what’s the remedy for Admiral Mullen’s belief that DoD has ‘lost the ability to prioritize, to make hard decisions, to do tough analysis, to make trades’?”JROC Criticisms (Defense Science Board, Defense Business Board, Government Accountability Office,…)Not making the hard decision regarding cost/schedule/performancePerceived as not timely and too document centric
36Where are We Going Take the Lead in Shaping the Force: Debate the difficult issues and make difficult choices earlierBetter upfront fidelity on cost/schedule/performance tradeoffsMore analytic rigor and risk/portfolio analysisStronger emphasis on prioritizing requirements/capabilitiesMore dynamic/iterative process throughout a program’s lifecycle. (Revisit as necessary…strategy shifts, threat changes, etc.)Create a more dynamic and iterative process…Make difficult choices throughout the requirements process continuum!!!
37How We are Getting There Limit the audience so determinative discussion/ decisions can be madeMore Tank-likeJROC Principals+1, CCMD Principals+1Statutory Advisors or their Deputy (AT&L, CAPE, OT&E, OSD(P), OSD (C))JS J7FCB ChairMinimal others by invitation only…Cost vs. Capability vs. Risk – better upfront analysis of alternativesReview of Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) prior to Milestone AHighlight non-materiel approaches as alternative or in conjunction with materiel solutionsTee up the appropriate debateTougher decisions on the 80% solution (i.e. knee in the curve)More portfolio analysis to determine riskInclude Special Access Programs in the portfolio review; established JRADSolution centric vice document/process centric – faster timelines
38Changes to JCIDSConsolidated Four Instructions Into Two and JCIDS ManualCJCSI 5123 (JROC Charter) and CJCSI 3170 (JCIDS), 10 Jan 2012JCIDS Manual, 19 Jan 2012Cancelled: CJCSI 3137 (FCBs) and CJCSI 3470 (JUONs)Adjusted JROC Venue to be More Tank-like with FCBs Briefing Issue and Providing Portfolio-Level AssessmentIncorporated SAP aspects into the discussionRequire FCB Joint Prioritization of Capability Requirements Within Their PortfolioStand Up the SAP Integration Group to Comprehensively Integrate Requirements/Capabilities and Provide Recommendations for JCB/JROC Consideration
39Changes to JCIDS (con’t) Validation Decision Considers Cost, Schedule, Performance and Quantity Targets in JROCMs as Appropriate with Expanded Tripwire ProcessClarified the Ability of the JROC to Call for a Review of Previously Validated Requirements/ProgramsMandated Shorter Document LengthsApplied “IT Box” Construct to ICDs (IS ICD) to Allow Greater Flexibility and Response to Evolving TechnologiesRequire Studies Notification and RepositoryCapability Development Tracking & Management (CDTM) Tool Available for Document Generation; Will be Mandated Again When Updates Completed (exceptions: Urgent/Emergent Operational Needs documents, and above SECRET documents)Formalized Capability Gap Assessment (CGA) Process – Review and Assessment of CCMD IPLs by FCBs/JCB for JROC Decisions
40Changes to JCIDS (con’t) Incorporate Pre-Milestone A review of AoA Results in Support of Providing Cost/Schedule/Performance Recommendations to the MDARequire Draft CDD (Component-Level; Not Submitted to Joint Staff) to Support Technology Development PhaseGreater J-7 Role to Emphasize Non-Materiel Solutions and Considerations to Capability GapsStreamlined Joint Staff Procedures and Timelines by 50% to Increase Effectiveness and Responsiveness of the Requirements Development ProcessEstablished Three Lanes to Requirements Development to Respond to Capability Gaps within Acceptable Timeframes and Risks…Deliberate, Urgent, and Emergent
41New IT Box $ JROC Approved IS ICD Applications & System Software Development & AcquisitionDesired Investment levelHardware Refresh & System Enhancements & Integration$Requirements Organization & OversightCapabilities RequiredCapability statements and required performance from ICDJROCApprovedIS ICDProposed GO/FO-level Body or Component Requirements Oversight Council (AFROC, AROC, R3B, MROC, etc.) with authority to further delegateNo return to the JROC unless new core capabilities added to the ICDFurther definition of capabilities through Requirements Definition Packages/Capability Drops
43Capabilities-Based Planning CBA AnalysisWarfighter FeedbackFielded CapabilitiesSet the Strategic StageDo NothingTake riskMateriel SolutionsNon-Materiel SolutionsSet PrioritiesRequirements development often begins with warfighter feedback. The CBP analysis steps are: 1) Set the strategic stage, 2) Set priorities, and 3) Identify needs and solutions. Once CBP analysis identifies needs and solutions either DOD provides non-materiel solutions, or the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) and Defense Acquisition System (DAS) provides materiel solutions to augment our fielded capabilities.Remember that the JCIDS requirements process is a work in progress. The goal is to support the warfighter by moving capabilities through the “Big A” acquisition systems. DoD also has rapid response procedures which we discuss in a later presentation.Streamlining the JCIDS process remains a priority. Your challenge as an approver is to consider what you can do to strreamline your processes as a requirement goes through JCIDS.ASK – What are your experiences with streamlining the process within your service? J-8 is revising CJCSI How is your Service plugged into making changes? What are the changes important for your Service’s requirements?Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE)Identify NeedsAcquisition
44Urgent Situations Urgent Situations (Current Guidance) Ongoing conflict or crisisUnforeseen military requirementsMust resolve as soon as possibleThese Situations Must Result in:Direct enemy-action related loss of life and/orCritical mission failureWarrior feedback from a conflict or crisis situation identifies urgent situations. Units in conflict or crisis may face unforeseen military requirements that DOD must resolve as soon as possible. When these situations threaten the lives of United States or allied personnel, or if these situations threaten mission accomplishment, commanders may initiate the Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) process.
45Emergent Situations Emergent Situation Supports accelerated acquisition of capabilities needed for an anticipated or pending contingency operationVariation of the JUONs processDriven by “pending” or “imminent” operations and require capability in short timeframes to avoid loss of life an/or mission failure when operations commenceVerification by VCJCS is required prior to staffing as an emergent candidateValidation at the JCB or JROCStaffing goal of 31 daysWarrior feedback from a conflict or crisis situation identifies urgent situations. Units in conflict or crisis may face unforeseen military requirements that DOD must resolve as soon as possible. When these situations threaten the lives of United States or allied personnel, or if these situations threaten mission accomplishment, commanders may initiate the Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) process.
46Rapid Response Framework The JUON / JEON Process Consists of Four Phases:GENERATIONVETTINGEQUIPPINGOPERATIONS ANDPHASEPHASEPHASESUPPORT PHASEForce Commander IdentifiesUrgent /Emergent NeedCCMD Staff determines themost suitable processCCMD CoS certifies and submitsto Joint Staff (J-8 RMD)J-8 RMD Receives and verifies thatJUON / JEON meets submission criteriaJoint staff reviews and validatesJUON or JEONIdentify solutionsJRAC determines a resourcingStrategy and assigns SponsorSponsor creates aSimplified Acquisition PlanProcures and delivers solutionto the WarfighterProvide Progress ReportsOn Performance, Cost, andScheduleSponsor sustains solutionand monitors performance fortwenty- four monthsSponsor, CCMD, andFCB prepare Capability Review toaddress final disposition of fieldedsystemThe JUON Process consists of Four Phases:During the Generation Phase:The Force Commander identifies the urgent needThe Combatant Staff determines the most suitable processThe CCMD Chief of Staff (CoS) certifies the JUON and submits it to the Joint Staff (DJ-8 CAD)The Vetting Phase consists of an initial review and the selection of a resourcing strategyVetting routes the JUON to the appropriate boards and officesThe JUON Working Group (WG) makes a solution recommendation. The working group represents the OSD, Services, Combat Support Agencies (CSAs), the Joint Staff, and the originating CCMDThe JRAC Core convenes and determines a resourcing strategyThe Equipping Phase is the delivery of JUON Solution to the WarfighterThe Interim Sponsor submits an abbreviated acquisition plan to JRAC and to the JSThe Interim Sponsor acquires a materiel solution and provides it to the warfighterInitial feedback provides progress reports on performance, cost, and scheduleIn the Operations and Support Phase:The Interim Sponsor supports the JUON solution in the fieldFeedback elements continueThe FCB, Interim sponsor, and CCMD conduct a capability review. This review informs the final disposition of the materiel solution.SPEED IS LIFE
47Rapid Response Summary An Urgent / Emergent Situation that Results inDirect enemy-action related loss of life and/orCritical mission failureEach Service has Its Own Approach to Urgent NeedsJUONs / JEONs Support Joint Urgent / Emergent NeedsInitiating JUONs / JEONs is a Requirements ProcessRequirements Managers will Need to be Involved with Follow-On ActivitiesUrgent needs either threaten the lives of our personnel or prevent mission accomplishment.Each service has its own approach to urgent needs, but the combatant commands have the Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) process to support joint, theater-wide urgent needs.For all practical purposes, whoever prepares a JUON becomes a de-facto Requirements Manager. Requirements Managers will need to track changes from urgent requests when those changes affect the requirements of other, non-urgent, programs going through normal channels.
48Addressing JCIDS Criticism Major criticism of the JCIDS process:Solution development and delivery are not timelyDecisions are made late to need or with poorly scoped informationProcess is complex, cumbersome and too document-centricLacks mechanisms to focus review across portfoliosDoes not control “requirements creep”Does not include key customers (CCMDs) in the decision processDoes not have tracking mechanisms to trace developments from gap identification through solution fielding48
50The “IT Box” Key Points: Applications & System SoftwareDevelopment & AcquisitionHardware Refresh & System Enhancements & IntegrationRequirements Organization & OversightCapabilitiesRequiredJROCApprovedIS ICDKey Points:Describe the overall bounds of an IS program in order to reduce return trips to the JROC for approval of improved capabilities.Provide to FCB/JCB/JROC as part of the approval process for an IS program’s ICD.$Only applies to programs who do not need to develop hardware systems (leveraging COTS/GOTS hardware).Once ICD is approved, no need to return to the JROC with a CDD or CPD, unless the IS ICD results in a MDAP.
51Discussion QuestionsWhat Urgent Situations Call for a Joint Response and Which Situations Call for Individual Service Responses?What Sort of Funding for Urgent Situations Would be Most Responsive and Effective?Can you share some of your experiences with urgent situations and solutions?
52Discussion QuestionsWhat analysis is going to work best to deliver effective solutions to warfighters?How can we be sure non-materiel solutions are going to be effective?What subsequent analysis is going to help deliver effective materiel solutions?What is your experience with analysis and the results of analysis?
53D O T m L P F - P The Acronym D – Doctrine O – Organization T – Trainingm – MaterielL – Leadership and educationP – PersonnelF – Facilities-P – PolicyIf the CBA concludes DoD should implement a non-materiel solution, the follow-up action is a DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR).The acronym DOTMLPF stands for [use animation in full screen]:Doctrine: the fundamental principles by which the military forces or military elements guide their actions in support of national objectives.Organization: how DOD organizes to fight.Training: how DOD prepares to fight tactically; this definition ranges from basic training to advanced individual training.Materiel: all the "stuff" necessary to equip DOD forces so those forces can operate effectively. Materiel includes ships, tanks, self-propelled weapons, aircraft, related spares, repair parts, and support equipment, but excludes real property, installations, and utilities.Leadership and education: the professional development leaders need to lead the fight. This education ranges from educating squad leaders to educating four-star generals and admirals.Personnel: those individuals required in either a military or a civilian capacity to accomplish the assigned mission.Facilities: the real property, installations, and industrial facilities that support DOD forces.53
54The Defense Acquisition Management System The Materiel Development Decision Precedes Entry Into Any Phase of the Acquisition Management SystemEntrance Criteria Met Before Entering PhaseEvolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full CapabilityUser NeedsTechnology Opportunities & ResourcesABProgram InitiationCIOCFOCMateriel Solution AnalysisEngineering andManufacturing DevelopmentTechnology DevelopmentProduction & DeploymentOperations &SupportMateriel Development DecisionFRP DecisionReviewPost-CDRAssessmentLRIP/IOT&EPre-Systems AcquisitionThe appropriate decision authority must validate and approve the CDD before Milestone B. Recall how Milestone B ends Technology Development and begins Engineering and Manufacturing Development & Demonstration.The CDD supports Milestone B, the Critical Design Review, and the Engineering and Manufacturing Development & Demonstration (EMDD) phase of an acquisition program. This timing establishes DOD needs a staffed, validated, and approved CDD prior to Milestone B, which is the Program Initiation.A common misconception is that the CPD is an entirely new document, separate from the CDD. The KPPs, KSAs, and other attributes from the CDD flow into the CPD. The appropriate decision authority must validate and approve the CPD before Milestone C. Recall how Milestone C ends Engineering and Manufacturing Development & Demonstration and begins Production and Deployment.The Capability Production Document supports all of the efforts in the Production and Deployment phase. Production and Deployment begins with Milestone C and includes the Full-Rate Production (FRP) Decision Review. The FRP decision splits Production and Deployment into Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Full-Rate Production and Deployment.Systems AcquisitionSustainmentInitial CapabilitiesDocumentCapability DevelopmentDocumentCapability ProductionDocumentRelationship to JCIDSCDR: Critical Design ReviewFRP: Full Rate ProductionIOC: Initial Operational CapabilityFOC: Full Operational Capability
55Capability Based Process and Acquisition JCBReviewJROCApproveJICJICICDJCDCapability Gap ValidationCBA PlanCBAJCBReviewCBAJCBApprovalTechnical ApproachDoneChangeDOTmLPFICDJCDKPPsJROCApproveRiskOKDoneJROCApprovalCDDKSAsCostScheduleRiskOSDGapValidatedAdditional AnalysisServicesDecision MeetingsJS/CCMDSJCBReviewAffordabilityRefine & Produce SystemICDJCDCDDCPDProductionWeaponSystemPerformanceTechnical &Programmatic AnalysisJCBReviewJROCApprovalMilestoneATechnologyDevelopmentSystem Development& DemonstrationMilestoneBMilestoneCProduce & DeployLRIPFRP
56JCIDS Gatekeeper Perform an initial review of all JCIDS proposals The Gatekeeper will determine:Joint Staffing DesignatorJROC InterestJCB InterestJoint IntegrationJoint InformationIndependentLead and supporting Functional Capabilities BoardsFormal Staffing begins after Gatekeeper decisionsThe function of the JCIDS Gatekeeper was created to ensure that proposals are evaluated for joint warfighting impact and assigned to the correct staff for analysis and coordination.When the Joint Staff receives a JCIDS document, the Gatekeeper will determine the joint potential designator, the lead Functional Capabilities Board, and the lead Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment Team. This determination will be based on input from Joint Forces Command, each of the Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment teams, the J-7, the J-8 Requirements and Acquisition Division, and the J-8 Warfighting Concepts and Architectures Integration Division.The joint potential designator will be reevaluated when each ICD, CDD, and CPD is submitted because changes in the proposed capability may require a change in joint designation.
57Focus of The CBA What does the CBA identify? The mission Concept of OperationsAssumptionsTimeframeCapability definitionUse SWarF identified attributesGapsOperational riskPrioritiesDesired solution typeBreakout – 5x improvement over current, fundamental changeIncremental – modify an existing systemIT systemNon-materielRecommendationsSets the conditions for the ICD and AoAICD
58What is JCIDS? What is a JCIDS responsibility… What is NOT a JCIDS responsibility …Ensures the joint force has the capabilities to perform across the range of operationsIs a primary interface to the DoD acquisition systemImplements an integrated process to guide new capabilities developmentA key linkage on how the future joint force will fightProvides the analytic baselines to support studies to inform capability developmentLeverages expertise to identify improvements to existing capabilities and to develop new warfighting capabilitiesIs not capabilities-based planningIs not DoD 5000The JROC is not JCIDSJoint Concepts are not JCIDSThe Analytic Agenda is not JCIDSIs not designed to obtain or address near-term funding or urgent warfighting needs (JRAC) but some changes are being considered to make more agileThis chart describes how JCIDS links to the other pieces of the CBPAnd explains some of the common misperceptions about what JCIDS does and does not do.
59Waivers Deviations from the process are approved by DDR Waivers have been used for:Request to develop a CDD without an ICD (ACAT II and below)Request to use an ORD for an upcoming MS C rather than submitting a new CPDApproval processRequests are submitted by Services/AgenciesCAD/AO coordinates throughLead FCBRMD Div Chief
60CDTM Wizard and Automated Document Creation Document is created with data filled in from wizard entries
61Capability Development Tracking and Management (CDTM) Transforms JCIDS from document-centric to data-centric processDeveloped and deployed on NIPRNet and SIPRNet in August 2010First enhancements Nov 2010, additional enhancements in Feb, May, Aug, Nov 2011Current ProcessCDTMTraceability of Capability GapsGaps buried in documents; no way to track or report status of individual gapsAbility to track and report individual gaps from entry to fielded capabilityProcess metricsNo measurement of length of time to complete documentsBenchmark data and workflow tracked to identify time to complete documentsSearch capabilityLimited keyword search capability (full text search) which may not return relevant resultsAbility to search specific areas and specific data categories in a document to get relevant resultsEase of useCan only search higher-tier JCAs at the document levelSearch for relevant gaps at all JCA tier levelsDocument creation and standardizationManually create word document; leads to verbosity and no limit to document length; required sections often missing or incomplete“Turbo-tax” wizard interface prompts for inputs; automatically creates and formats document; standardization of JCIDS document formatting & lengthInteroperabilityRequires input in multiple stove-piped systems to navigate JCIDS process; results in duplication of effortAbility to share common data with other DoD applications