Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Requirements Executive Overview Workshop Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Systems Management College Defense Acquisition.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Requirements Executive Overview Workshop Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Systems Management College Defense Acquisition."— Presentation transcript:

1 Requirements Executive Overview Workshop Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Systems Management College Defense Acquisition University Fort Belvoir, Virginia 14 November 2012

2 Developing Requirements
The Requirements Environment Evolution of Capabilities Based Planning Sequence of events Analysis Initial Documentation Transitions to actions that provide solutions Non-Materiel solutions JCIDS interactions with developing materiel solutions Requirements Approval structure Recent Changes to the Process Rapid Response Lanes for JCIDS JCIDS Review DoD 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.

3 The Requirements Environment
Finding the balance between: CCMD near-term requirements to support CONPLANs and current missions and Services’ long range vision & investment plans Versatile, joint systems Systems optimized for service missions Growing demands Fiscal & political constraints Geographic specificity Worldwide applicability Ambitious requirements Achievable acquisition strategy Quantity matters High-end capabilities

4 Threat vs Capabilities-Based Planning
Requirements Generation System (RGS) ~30 years of experience Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) ~ Since 2003 Partially Interoperable Capabilities Strategic Direction Joint Warfighting Concept Development Late Integration Joint Experimentation, Assessment & Analysis, Validation, Selection of Solutions Services Build Systems The 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 Visions Service Experimentation, Assessment & Analysis, Validation, Selection of Solutions Joint Capabilities Service Unique Strategic Visions and Requirements

5 Delivered Capability to the
Capabilities-Based Planning (CBP) Strategic Guidance And Desired Effects Strategic Guidance (OSD (P)) Spt for Strategic Analysis (OSD (P)/J-8) Joint Concepts (J7) National Security Strategy National Defense Strategy National Military Strategy QDR Report GEF DPPG/DPG **New strategic guidance for DOD (Jan 2012) Defense Planning Scenarios Integrated Security Constructs Multi-Service Force Deployment Operational Availability Studies Global Force Management CJCSI C Joint Concepts Joint Concept Development & Experimentation Process Guide JCDE Campaign Plan Force Management CBP Adaptive Planning JCIDS (J8) DoD 5000 (OSD AT&L) PPBE (OSD (C/CAPE)) CJCSI /JCIDS Manual JROC Validation and Approval of JCIDS Documents Joint Capabilities Board Functional Capabilities Boards Evaluation of CCMD Needs (lessons learned, joint urgent needs, CGA/IPL, etc.) Defense Acquisition Boards Materiel Development Decision Milestone Decisions Acquisition Decision Memos Root Cause Analysis Selected Acquisition Reports/ Defense Acquisition Executive Summaries Program Objective Memorandum/ Budget Estimate Submission Program and Budget Review Resource Management Decisions President’s Budget Delivered Capability to the Joint Warfighter Common Lexicon – Joint Capability Areas

6 JCIDS is… A key supporting process for DoD acquisition and PPBE processes That 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 requirements A 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) Acquisition PPB&E

7 JCIDS and Acquisition Military Services
President, SECDEF & Chairman: Technology Demonstrated Initial Key Performance Parameters/Key System Attributes (KPPs/KSAs) Acquisition Strategy T&E Master Plan (TEMP) SEP Final Design Developmental T&E (DT&E) Operational Assessments Revise KPPs/KSAs Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) TEMP SEP Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Initial Operational T&E (IOT&E) Acquisition Strategy APB TEMP SEP Identification of Capability Requirements Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Test & Evaluation (T&E) Strategy (TES) System Engineering Plan (SEP) Strategic Guidance Operational Planning CBAs & Other Studies Exercises/Lessons Learned JCTDs/JUON/JEON/ Experiments JIEDDO Initiatives Defense Business Sys OSD/Joint Staff SSA Products Integrated Security Constructs Joint Concepts Outputs LRIP FOT&E Mission & Problem Capability Gaps Tasks Performance Conditions Operational Risk Non-Materiel Approaches Materiel Approaches Recommendations Materiel Development Decision MS “A” MS “B” MS “C” Activity Select Joint Concept Develop CONOPS Capabilities-Based Assessment / Other ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Sponsor-Approved CDD Technology Development CDD Engineering & Manufacturing Development CPD Production & Deployment CCMD Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Competitive Prototyping Evolutionary Acquisition The 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 Services Validates ICD Reviews AoA Results Validates CDD Validates CPD JROC action for JROC Interest programs (ACAT I & IA) SECDEF Joint Staff / Joint Requirements Oversight Council / OSD OSD (AT&L, CAPE), Services and OSD (DOT&E) Joint Staff (JROC) Develop, Test, Produce & Field Policy Identify Capability Requirements Select Materiel Solution Getting The Front End Right is Key 7

8 Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA)
NEEDS GAPS SOLUTIONS Existing Guidance The problems and the risks What we need for the mission What should we do about it? Where does this need 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).

9 Identifying Needs and Potential Solutions
CBA Recommendations: Transformational solutions Evolution of existing capabilities Information technology solutions Information for an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Managers must communicate to avoid disconnects over seams between JCIDS, DAS, and PPBE CBA Documentation: Initial Capabilities Document DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendation What 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

10 CBA Output Documents Joint DCR – DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendation
When DoD decides a Joint Non-Materiel Solution is appropriate Non-Materiel Solutions Change doctrine Reorganize Train DOD personnel differently Acquire commercial or non-developmental items, or additional quantities of existing items Adjust the professional development of the joint leader Add or reassign personnel Move or realign facilities Change policy

11 CBA Output Documents Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) (MS A)
Documents Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Results – specifically Capability Gaps Identifies relevant operational performance attributes Documents the recommendation on the need for a materiel solution and potential non-material solutions Predecessor for the Capabilities Development Document

12 Operational Performance Attributes
Attributes Necessary to Design a Proposed System Establish a Performance Baseline Guide Development and Demonstration Guide Development of Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) for Inclusion in Capabilities Development Document The 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.

13 Key JCIDS Development Documents
Capability Development Document (MS B) Defines Performance Requirements to Achieve the Capability Identifies KPPs, KSAs, and additional attributes Attributes should be Authoritative, Measurable and Testable Describes DOTmLPF-P constraints associated with the solution May describe multiple increments Provides operational capabilities for the acquisition strategy and the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) Insert all CDD KPPs and Sustainment KSAs verbatim into the APB

14 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs)
Performance Attributes of a System Critical To Develop an Effective Military Capability KPPs Must be Measurable, Testable, and Quantifiable in a Practical and Timely Manner Enable feedback from T&E; support decision making Mandatory KPPs Force Protection, Survivability, Sustainment, Net Ready, Training, Energy Validated by the JROC for JROC Interest Documents Failure to Meet a KPP Results in Reevaluation or Reassessment of the Program Key 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.

15 Key System Attributes (KSAs)
Attributes or Characteristics Considered Essential to Achieving a Balanced Solution Not Critical Enough to be Selected as a KPP Also Measurable, Testable, and Quantifiable Identified by the Sponsor; Should be Kept to a Minimum Sponsor Senior Leadership can Change a KSA KSAs 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.

16 Key JCIDS Development Documents
Capability Production Document (CPD) (MS C) Supports Production and Development of one increment Documents Authoritative, Testable Capabilities Support Production, Testing, and Deployment May describe Incremental Production and Deployment No New Requirements Must meet Operational Performance Attributes

17 Differences Between the CDD and the CPD
Focus on Design Focus on Production All Increments A Specific Increment KPPs to Help Evaluate Alternative Designs KPPs Refined and Tailored to the Proposed System The 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.

18 JCIDS Document Tracks JROC JCB Sponsor Joint Staffing Designator (JSD)
FCB review & prioritization JROC Interest JCB Review JROC KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT I/IA programs & Joint DCRs FCB review & prioritization JCB Interest JCB KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT II & below with impact on interoperability FCB review & prioritization Sponsor Joint Integration KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT II & below that require endorsements & certifications The 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 & prioritization Joint Information KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT II & below that do not require endorsements & certifications Independent Validation Authority FCB prioritization All others KM/DS: Knowledge Management/Decision Support tool

19 A Streamlined Process (Deliberate)
Acquisition (and/or DCRs) Functional Capability Board SME inputs from DoD Prioritization within this portfolio CCMD Inputs Allied/Partner Nation equity Non-material recommendations Gatekeeper FCB Chair: Ready Validation Discussion? Sponsor JCB JROC Termination Combined “Staffing” 4 days Est. 21 days Commenting/30 days Adjudication/7 days to FCB Chair Est. 7 days to JCB/14 days to JROC Total: 83 days Prep Brief Functional Capability Board DJ8 Gatekeeper FCB Draft Prep for mtg Joint Capabilities Board Sponsor SME inputs from DoD Prep for JCB/JROC Phase 1 Staffing Gatekeeper Joint Requirements Oversight Council FCB Chair: Phase 2? Sponsor O-6 level coord from across DoD Termination Acquisition (and/or DCRs) Phase 2 Staffing GO/FO lvl coord from multiple agencies Total: 95 – 160+ days 4 days 21 days 45+ days days 15 days Variable 26 – 35 days

20 Requirements Decision Chain
JROC DECISION CHAIN JROC MEMBERSHIP Chair: VCJCS Council Members: Vice Chief of Staff, Army Vice Chief of Naval Operations Vice Chief of Staff, Air Force Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Combatant Commands* (Commander or Deputy Commander) VCJCS JROC Chairman; Advises the CJCS JROC JROC Owns JCIDS; Validates JROC Interest documents; final authority JCB Validates JCB Interest documents; assists JROC Reviews documents; prioritizes within portfolio; makes validation recommendation to JCB/JROC FCB FCB WG Reviews 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 advisors JROC: Joint Requirements Oversight Council JCB: Joint Capability Board FCB: Functional Capability Board FCB WG: Functional Capability Board Working Group

21 Functional Capability Boards & Sponsoring Organizations
C4/Cyber Includes NC and C2 JCAs Battlespace Awareness Force Support Logistics Brig Gen Weggeman JS J-6 BGen O’Donohue JS J-8 Mr. Gareau JS J-2 Mr. Hawkins JS J-4 Force Application Protection Additional JCAs: Building Partnerships Corporate Management & Support BGen O’Donohue JS J-8 BG Polakowski JS J-8 The 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) Services Combatant Command Reps OSD (AT&L) OSD (I) USecAF (Space) DOD CIO OSD(Comptroller) D/CAPE DIA Rep (Threat) ODNI/IRB Other DoD Agencies as necessary

22 Capability Development Tracking and Management (CDTM)
IT system that transforms JCIDS capability tracking from document-centric to data-centric process Developed and deployed on NIPRNet and SIPRNet 30 June 2011 mandated CDTM use for all JCIDS documents (ICD, CDD, CPD, DCR) has been relaxed until post JCIDS Manual re-write Capability gap traceability Process metrics Ease of use enhancements Improved search capability Improved document creation Input standardization Ability to data share with other DoD applications CDTM greatly changes the way in which Services will enter documents into the JCIDS process Previously 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 whole New 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 document Change, yes, but change in the right direction. Mandated in Spring 2011

23 Summary of the Deliberate JCIDS Process
Materiel Solutions Initial 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 Development Implementing Major Changes to Improve the Process…

24 Rapid Response

25 Rapid Response Situations
Urgent and Compelling Needs During Crisis and Conflict Each Service has Policies and Procedures, but … Service-Unique Approaches do not Address Theater-Wide Joint Urgent and Emergent Operational Needs Requirements Managers Need to Stay Engaged in the Process The 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.

26 Three Requirements “Lanes”
Deliberate Requirements Service, CCMD or Agency Driven Traditional route for capabilities that require significant tech development and/or are not urgent or compelling in nature Emergent Requirements CCMD Driven Supports accelerated acquisition of capabilities needed for an anticipated or pending contingency operation VCJCS verifies, JCB or JROC validates Urgent Requirements Urgent and compelling to prevent loss of life and/or mission failure during current operations Require little tech development and can be resolved in less than two years DDR validates “Keep right, except to pass” D E L I B R A T M G N U 0 – 2 YRS 0+ to 5 YRS CONFLICT LANE ONLY POTENTIAL 2-6+

27 Joint Urgent & Emergent Operational Needs
Every Service has a Rapid Response Procedure The Joint Rapid Response Lanes are the Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON) and Joint Emergent Operational Needs (JEON) JUON/JEON Validation and Resourcing Involves VCJCS/JCB/JROC The Gatekeeper (J8 Deputy Director for Requirements (DDR)) The Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) Functional Capabilities Boards (FCBs) and Working Groups The 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 Gatekeeper The Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) Functional Capabilities Boards (FCBs) The Joint Capabilities Board (JCB) Working Groups, and The Budget Office Director’s Board (BOD)

28 Who Initiates an Urgent/Emergent Need?
An Urgent/Emergent Request Must Come from: A Joint Force Commander A Service Component Commander A commander’s delegated representative Service or Services Must Validate Service-Unique Urgent/Emergent Need JUONs/JEONs are Endorsed by the Combatant Commanders and Validated by the Joint Staff A 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.

29 Urgent/Emergent Staffing

30 JUON / JEON Process Flow From Generation to Delivery to Assessment
Assessment of Operational Utility Warfighter Originates CCMD CoS Certifies JS J-8/RMD Receives FCB Triages Senior Integration Group (SIG): Oversight Body for DoD Urgent Needs JS J-8 DDR or JCB/JROC Validates Solution Delivery Services/Agencies Non C-IED Solutions This 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 Strategy Assigns to JIEDDO or Service/Agency for sponsorship Joint IED Defeat Office C-IED Solutions

31 The Sponsor Service or Agency Recommended by the Gatekeeper and Named by the JRAC The Sponsor Develops an Initial Course of Action Implementation recommendation Funding strategy recommendation The Sponsor Manages the Approved JUON / JEON Effort The 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.

32 Challenge of Rapid Acquisition
Future Focused Very Structured Process Evolved Requirements Analysis of Alternatives Lengthy Development High Visibility on Program Large Investment A Deliberate Now-focused More ad hoc process Broad requirement Quick assessment of alternatives Limited development High visibility on results Limited investment Very Limited Feedback Transition to PoR immediate a

33 JCIDS Review

34 …. the JROC is charged with shaping the force
Law and Policy Title 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 trades In prioritizing joint military requirements The JROC must… Consider input from Combatant Commanders on joint requirements Consider cost, schedule and performance tradeoffs in establishing requirements Set an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) schedule objective for each requirement All the above further emphasized in the JROC Charter (CJCSI 5123 series) More than any other body, …. the JROC is charged with shaping the force

35 What Has Happened in the Past
Current construct ineffective; does not encourage/promote incisive questions/discussions Little consideration of cost/schedule/performance tradeoffs No prioritization within and across portfolios…little to no risk analysis Document and process intensive -- bureaucratic and time consuming Little impact on shaping the force Congressional 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/performance Perceived as not timely and too document centric

36 Where are We Going Take the Lead in Shaping the Force:
Debate the difficult issues and make difficult choices earlier Better upfront fidelity on cost/schedule/performance tradeoffs More analytic rigor and risk/portfolio analysis Stronger emphasis on prioritizing requirements/capabilities More 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!!!

37 How We are Getting There
Limit the audience so determinative discussion/ decisions can be made More Tank-like JROC Principals+1, CCMD Principals+1 Statutory Advisors or their Deputy (AT&L, CAPE, OT&E, OSD(P), OSD (C)) JS J7 FCB Chair Minimal others by invitation only… Cost vs. Capability vs. Risk – better upfront analysis of alternatives Review of Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) prior to Milestone A Highlight non-materiel approaches as alternative or in conjunction with materiel solutions Tee up the appropriate debate Tougher decisions on the 80% solution (i.e. knee in the curve) More portfolio analysis to determine risk Include Special Access Programs in the portfolio review; established JRAD Solution centric vice document/process centric – faster timelines

38 Changes to JCIDS Consolidated Four Instructions Into Two and JCIDS Manual CJCSI 5123 (JROC Charter) and CJCSI 3170 (JCIDS), 10 Jan 2012 JCIDS Manual, 19 Jan 2012 Cancelled: CJCSI 3137 (FCBs) and CJCSI 3470 (JUONs) Adjusted JROC Venue to be More Tank-like with FCBs Briefing Issue and Providing Portfolio-Level Assessment Incorporated SAP aspects into the discussion Require FCB Joint Prioritization of Capability Requirements Within Their Portfolio Stand Up the SAP Integration Group to Comprehensively Integrate Requirements/Capabilities and Provide Recommendations for JCB/JROC Consideration

39 Changes to JCIDS (con’t)
Validation Decision Considers Cost, Schedule, Performance and Quantity Targets in JROCMs as Appropriate with Expanded Tripwire Process Clarified the Ability of the JROC to Call for a Review of Previously Validated Requirements/Programs Mandated Shorter Document Lengths Applied “IT Box” Construct to ICDs (IS ICD) to Allow Greater Flexibility and Response to Evolving Technologies Require Studies Notification and Repository Capability 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

40 Changes to JCIDS (con’t)
Incorporate Pre-Milestone A review of AoA Results in Support of Providing Cost/Schedule/Performance Recommendations to the MDA Require Draft CDD (Component-Level; Not Submitted to Joint Staff) to Support Technology Development Phase Greater J-7 Role to Emphasize Non-Materiel Solutions and Considerations to Capability Gaps Streamlined Joint Staff Procedures and Timelines by 50% to Increase Effectiveness and Responsiveness of the Requirements Development Process Established Three Lanes to Requirements Development to Respond to Capability Gaps within Acceptable Timeframes and Risks…Deliberate, Urgent, and Emergent

41 New IT Box $ JROC Approved IS ICD
Applications & System Software Development & Acquisition Desired Investment level Hardware Refresh & System Enhancements & Integration $ Requirements Organization & Oversight Capabilities Required Capability statements and required performance from ICD JROC Approved IS ICD Proposed GO/FO-level Body or Component Requirements Oversight Council (AFROC, AROC, R3B, MROC, etc.) with authority to further delegate No return to the JROC unless new core capabilities added to the ICD Further definition of capabilities through Requirements Definition Packages/Capability Drops

42 Backup Slides

43 Capabilities-Based Planning
CBA Analysis Warfighter Feedback Fielded Capabilities Set the Strategic Stage Do Nothing Take risk Materiel Solutions Non-Materiel Solutions Set Priorities Requirements 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 Needs Acquisition

44 Urgent Situations Urgent Situations (Current Guidance)
Ongoing conflict or crisis Unforeseen military requirements Must resolve as soon as possible These Situations Must Result in: Direct enemy-action related loss of life and/or Critical mission failure Warrior 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.

45 Emergent Situations Emergent Situation
Supports accelerated acquisition of capabilities needed for an anticipated or pending contingency operation Variation of the JUONs process Driven by “pending” or “imminent” operations and require capability in short timeframes to avoid loss of life an/or mission failure when operations commence Verification by VCJCS is required prior to staffing as an emergent candidate Validation at the JCB or JROC Staffing goal of 31 days Warrior 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.

46 Rapid Response Framework
The JUON / JEON Process Consists of Four Phases: GENERATION VETTING EQUIPPING OPERATIONS AND PHASE PHASE PHASE SUPPORT PHASE Force Commander Identifies Urgent /Emergent Need CCMD Staff determines the most suitable process CCMD CoS certifies and submits to Joint Staff (J-8 RMD) J-8 RMD Receives and verifies that JUON / JEON meets submission criteria Joint staff reviews and validates JUON or JEON Identify solutions JRAC determines a resourcing Strategy and assigns Sponsor Sponsor creates a Simplified Acquisition Plan Procures and delivers solution to the Warfighter Provide Progress Reports On Performance, Cost, and Schedule Sponsor sustains solution and monitors performance for twenty- four months Sponsor, CCMD, and FCB prepare Capability Review to address final disposition of fielded system The JUON Process consists of Four Phases: During the Generation Phase: The Force Commander identifies the urgent need The Combatant Staff determines the most suitable process The 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 strategy Vetting routes the JUON to the appropriate boards and offices The 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 CCMD The JRAC Core convenes and determines a resourcing strategy The Equipping Phase is the delivery of JUON Solution to the Warfighter The Interim Sponsor submits an abbreviated acquisition plan to JRAC and to the JS The Interim Sponsor acquires a materiel solution and provides it to the warfighter Initial feedback provides progress reports on performance, cost, and schedule In the Operations and Support Phase: The Interim Sponsor supports the JUON solution in the field Feedback elements continue The FCB, Interim sponsor, and CCMD conduct a capability review. This review informs the final disposition of the materiel solution. SPEED IS LIFE

47 Rapid Response Summary
An Urgent / Emergent Situation that Results in Direct enemy-action related loss of life and/or Critical mission failure Each Service has Its Own Approach to Urgent Needs JUONs / JEONs Support Joint Urgent / Emergent Needs Initiating JUONs / JEONs is a Requirements Process Requirements Managers will Need to be Involved with Follow-On Activities Urgent 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.

48 Addressing JCIDS Criticism
Major criticism of the JCIDS process: Solution development and delivery are not timely Decisions are made late to need or with poorly scoped information Process is complex, cumbersome and too document-centric Lacks mechanisms to focus review across portfolios Does not control “requirements creep” Does not include key customers (CCMDs) in the decision process Does not have tracking mechanisms to trace developments from gap identification through solution fielding 48

49 Overview of Updated JCIDS Manual

50 The “IT Box” Key Points:
Applications & System Software Development & Acquisition Hardware Refresh & System Enhancements & Integration Requirements Organization & Oversight Capabilities Required JROC Approved IS ICD Key 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.

51 Discussion Questions What 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?

52 Discussion Questions What 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?

53 D O T m L P F - P The Acronym D – Doctrine O – Organization
T – Training m – Materiel L – Leadership and education P – Personnel F – Facilities - P – Policy If 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

54 The Defense Acquisition Management System
The Materiel Development Decision Precedes Entry Into Any Phase of the Acquisition Management System Entrance Criteria Met Before Entering Phase Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability User Needs Technology Opportunities & Resources A B Program Initiation C IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering and Manufacturing Development Technology Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Materiel Development Decision FRP Decision Review Post-CDR Assessment LRIP/IOT&E Pre-Systems Acquisition The 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 Acquisition Sustainment Initial Capabilities Document Capability Development Document Capability Production Document Relationship to JCIDS CDR: Critical Design Review FRP: Full Rate Production IOC: Initial Operational Capability FOC: Full Operational Capability

55 Capability Based Process and Acquisition
JCB Review JROC Approve JIC JIC ICD JCD Capability Gap Validation CBA Plan CBA JCB Review CBA JCB Approval Technical Approach Done Change DOTmLPF ICD JCD KPPs JROC Approve Risk OK Done JROC Approval CDD KSAs Cost Schedule Risk OSD Gap Validated Additional Analysis Services Decision Meetings JS/CCMDS JCB Review Affordability Refine & Produce System ICD JCD CDD CPD Production Weapon System Performance Technical & Programmatic Analysis JCB Review JROC Approval Milestone A Technology Development System Development & Demonstration Milestone B Milestone C Produce & Deploy LRIP FRP

56 JCIDS Gatekeeper Perform an initial review of all JCIDS proposals
The Gatekeeper will determine: Joint Staffing Designator JROC Interest JCB Interest Joint Integration Joint Information Independent Lead and supporting Functional Capabilities Boards Formal Staffing begins after Gatekeeper decisions The 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.

57 Focus of The CBA What does the CBA identify? The mission
Concept of Operations Assumptions Timeframe Capability definition Use SWarF identified attributes Gaps Operational risk Priorities Desired solution type Breakout – 5x improvement over current, fundamental change Incremental – modify an existing system IT system Non-materiel Recommendations Sets the conditions for the ICD and AoA ICD

58 What 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 operations Is a primary interface to the DoD acquisition system Implements an integrated process to guide new capabilities development A key linkage on how the future joint force will fight Provides the analytic baselines to support studies to inform capability development Leverages expertise to identify improvements to existing capabilities and to develop new warfighting capabilities Is not capabilities-based planning Is not DoD 5000 The JROC is not JCIDS Joint Concepts are not JCIDS The Analytic Agenda is not JCIDS Is not designed to obtain or address near-term funding or urgent warfighting needs (JRAC) but some changes are being considered to make more agile This chart describes how JCIDS links to the other pieces of the CBP And explains some of the common misperceptions about what JCIDS does and does not do.

59 Waivers 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 CPD Approval process Requests are submitted by Services/Agencies CAD/AO coordinates through Lead FCB RMD Div Chief

60 CDTM Wizard and Automated Document Creation
Document is created with data filled in from wizard entries

61 Capability Development Tracking and Management (CDTM)
Transforms JCIDS from document-centric to data-centric process Developed and deployed on NIPRNet and SIPRNet in August 2010 First enhancements Nov 2010, additional enhancements in Feb, May, Aug, Nov 2011 Current Process CDTM Traceability of Capability Gaps Gaps buried in documents; no way to track or report status of individual gaps Ability to track and report individual gaps from entry to fielded capability Process metrics No measurement of length of time to complete documents Benchmark data and workflow tracked to identify time to complete documents Search capability Limited keyword search capability (full text search) which may not return relevant results Ability to search specific areas and specific data categories in a document to get relevant results Ease of use Can only search higher-tier JCAs at the document level Search for relevant gaps at all JCA tier levels Document creation and standardization Manually 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 & length Interoperability Requires input in multiple stove-piped systems to navigate JCIDS process; results in duplication of effort Ability to share common data with other DoD applications

Download ppt "Requirements Executive Overview Workshop Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Systems Management College Defense Acquisition."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google