Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Addressing JCIDS Criticism

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Addressing JCIDS Criticism"— Presentation transcript:

0 Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Changes
Patrick Wills Associate Dean, Executive Programs, Requirements Management, and International Acquisition Defense Systems Management College  Defense Acquisition University work: cell: revised 19 Oct 2012 Sources: CJCSI H, 10 Jan 2012 CJCSI F, 10 Jan 2012 JCIDS Manual, 19 Jan 2012 JCIDS Manual Errata, J-8, 20 Sep 2012 Joint Staff, J-8 Joint Staff, J-6

1 Addressing JCIDS Criticism
Major Criticisms 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 (Combatant Commands (CCMDs)) in the decision process Does not have tracking mechanisms to trace developments from gap identification through solution fielding

2 …. 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 Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) shall assist the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (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 Emphasized in the JROC Charter (CJCSI 5123 series) More Than Any Other Body, …. the JROC is charged with shaping the force

3 What Has Happened in the Past
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

4 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!!

5 How We are Getting There
Limit the Audience so Determinative Discussion/ Decisions can be Made More Tank-like JROC Principals+1, Combatant Command (CCMD) Principals+1 Statutory Advisors or their Deputy: Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics) (USD(AT&L), Under Secretary (Policy) (USD(P), Under Secretary (Comptroller ) (USD(C), Director, Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation (CAPE), and Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) Joint Staff J-7 Functional Capability Board (FCB) Chair Minimal others by invitation only… Cost vs. Capability vs. Risk – Better Upfront Analysis of Alternatives FCB 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 (SAP) in the portfolio review Solution Centric Vice Document/Process Centric – Faster Timelines

6 Recent 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 Issues and Providing Portfolio-Level Assessment Incorporated SAP Aspects into the discussion Requires FCB Joint Prioritization of all Capability Requirements Within Their Portfolio Stand Up of the SAP Integration Group to Comprehensively Integrate Requirements/Capabilities and Provide Recommendations for Joint Capability Board (JCB)/JROC Consideration

7 Recent Changes to JCIDS (Con’t)
Validation Decision Considers Cost, Schedule, Performance and Quantity Targets in JROC Memoranda (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 “Information Technology Box” (IT Box) Construct to Initial Capabilities Documents (ICDs) – Information System (IS) ICD, to Allow Greater Flexibility and Response to Evolving Technologies Require Studies Notification and Repository Use of Capability Development Tracking & Management (CDTM) Tool for Document Generation (exceptions: Information Systems Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), Urgent Operational Needs documents, and above SECRET documents). Formalized Capability Gap Assessment (CGA) Process – Review and Assessment of CCMD Integrated Priority Lists (IPLs) by FCBs Validation by any validation authority means: The capability requirements and proposed IOC/FOC for capability solutions meet the national military strategy and the needs of the CCMDs. The capability requirements are prioritized and do not represent unnecessary redundancy in capabilities across the Joint force. Capability solutions have had appropriate consideration of tradeoffs between cost, schedule, and performance. Estimated resource levels required to satisfy the capability requirement are consistent with the priority of the capability requirement. Gatekeeper (J-8/DDR) maintains a study repository in KM/DS. Sponsors post notices of study initiation, study results, terminations, and assessments of JCTDs, UONs/JUONs/JEONs.

8 Recent Changes to JCIDS (Con’t)
Incorporates Pre-Milestone A Review of AoA Results in Support of Providing Cost/Schedule/Performance Recommendations to the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) Requires Draft Capability Development Document (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 Streamlines Joint Staff Procedures and Timelines by 50% to Increase Effectiveness and Responsiveness of the Requirements Development Process Provides Three Lanes to Requirements Development to Respond to Capability Gaps within Acceptable Timeframes and Risks…Deliberate, Urgent, and Emergent Alternate Document Formats Approved by J-8 in July 2012 – Reduces ICD, CDD, CPD, DCR, JUON and JEON document sections For programs of JROC or JCB Interest, the appropriate FCBs review the AoA and recommended alternative, and together with the Sponsor, brief the JCB or JROC on the AoA recommendations and FCB assessment to facilitate the JCB or JROC providing informed advice to the MDA on the best approach to satisfy the capability requirement(s). The FCB AoA review must be completed in sufficient time to permit preparation of a draft CDD, not submitted to JCIDS for validation at this time, to inform the Technology Development Strategy (TDS) and the RFP for the Technology Development Phase.

9 Three Requirements “Lanes”
“Keep right, except to pass” 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 J-8, Deputy Director for Requirements (DDR) validates 0 – 2 YRS 0+ to 5 YRS 2-6+ YRS U R G E N T E M R G N T D E L I B R A T The Deliberate Requirements process is characterized by the traditional route to identifying capability gaps and proposed solutions – the CBA process, documenting the CBA results in an ICD and/or DCR, and proceeding to a Materiel Development Decision and an Analysis of Alternatives to support a materiel solution decision. This is followed by prototyping, design, development and production. Emergent Requirements. Planning for anticipated contingency operations may identify operational needs which represent potential mission failure or unacceptable loss of life once operations commence, if not satisfied by a rapidly acquired capability solution. These capability requirements may qualify for submission as Joint Emergent Operational Needs (JEONs) or DOD Component UONs for expedited validation and rapid acquisition efforts. Urgent Requirements. Planning for ongoing contingency operations may identify urgent operational needs (UONs) which represent potential for critical mission failure or unacceptable loss of life if not satisfied by a rapidly acquired capability solution. These capability requirements may qualify for submission as Joint UONs (JUONs) or DOD Component UONs for expedited validation and rapid acquisition efforts. Rapid acquisition includes activities to develop and implement capability solutions in a shorter timeframe than typical of deliberate DAS processes. Rapid acquisition activities may also include expedited procurement of COTS/GOTS/NDI solutions, or modification/ acceleration of existing development programs initiated under the Deliberate process. Specific acquisition process to be followed for each validated capability requirement will be determined by the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). CONFLICT LANE ONLY POTENTIAL CONFLICT LANE

10 (format in JCIDS Manual)
Urgent vs. Emergent Situations Urgent Situations (Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON)) Ongoing conflict or crisis Failure to act will result in: Direct enemy-action related loss of life and/or Critical mission failure JUON Validated by J-8, DDR Staffing goal of 15 days Emergent Situations (Joint Emergent Operational Need (JEON)) Anticipated or pending contingency operation Must act before operations commence to avoid: Enemy-action related loss of life and/or Critical mission failure Must be verified by VCJCS VJCS designates JEON validation authority, 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 Urgent Operational Need (UON) process – either for joint needs (JUONs), or if only applicable to one military service – component level UON process. JEONs are UONs affecting two or more DOD Components and are driven by anticipated contingency operations. JEONs are submitted by CCMDs in accordance with the JCIDS Manual. JEONs are first confirmed by the VCJCS, via the Gatekeeper and DJ-8, due to the unique nature of capability requirements associated with anticipated contingency operations. The VCJCS will also identify the validation authority as the JCB or JROC. Once the VCJCS provides confirmation that the JEON may use the emergent process, JEONs are assigned to a Lead FCB and JRAC for collaborative review. Sponsors must provide an assessment of operational utility within 90 days of initial fielding (format in JCIDS Manual)

11 Deliberate and Urgent/Emergent Staffing

12 A Streamlined Staffing Process
New Deliberate Process (Streamlined) 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 Old Prep Brief Functional Capability Board DJ8 Gatekeeper FCB Draft Prep for mtg Joint Capabilities Board The new deliberate staffing process begins when the Gatekeeper receives a new document via the KM/DS system. The Gatekeeper has 4 calendar days to perform initial review of the document and assign the new document to a Lead and supporting FCBs. Initial staffing of documents is conducted for 21 calendar days from the assignment of the document to the lead FCB. Staffing consists of two parallel activities: The lead FCB forms a working group (WG) from lead and supporting FCB subject matter experts from across DOD. FCB and FCB WG activities include: Performing an assessment of the document, including comparison of capability requirements within the document against existing capability requirements, development programs, and fielded capability solutions within their FCB portfolio. The FCB Joint priority list will be updated to reflect the new capability requirement. (2) In parallel with the FCB assessment, documents with JSDs other than Independent are available to Services, CCMDs, and other DOD Components for commenting via the KM/DS system. Comments are due by the end of the initial 21 day staffing period. Following FCB review and KM/DS staffing, the Sponsor has 30 calendar days to adjudicate comments from the FCBs, certifying or endorsing organizations, or KM/DS staffing. Following Sponsor comment adjudication, the FCB has 7 calendar days to review the changes, ensure certifying or endorsing organizations concur with Sponsor adjudication and assist the FCB Chair in reaching a validation recommendation. Once receiving a positive validation recommendation from the Chair of the lead FCB, validation by the JCB/JROC takes no longer than 21 calendar days. 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

13 Urgent/Emergent Staffing
JUON and JEON staffing begins when the Gatekeeper receives the document from the Sponsor. The Gatekeeper has one day to perform initial review. Following confirmation that the JUON meets the appropriate entry criteria, JUONs are assigned directly to a Lead FCB for review. JEONs are first confirmed by the VCJCS, via the Gatekeeper and DJ-8. The VCJCS will identify the validation authority as the JCB or JROC. Once the VCJCS provides confirmation that the JEON may use the emergent process, JEONs are assigned to a Lead FCB and JRAC for collaborative review. The Lead FCB, in collaboration with the JRAC, assesses the validity of the JUON or JEON and identifies potential solution approaches which could satisfy the capability requirement in the requested timeframe. The Lead FCB updates the FCB Joint prioritization to reflect the placement of the new capability requirement(s) within their priority list. At the end of their assessment, the Chair of the lead FCB, with a JRAC representative makes a recommendation to the validation authority either for or against validation. The validation authority will make one of the following decisions: 1) Validate and proceed to a solution sponsor. 2)Validate part – proceed through a mix of urgent and deliberate processes. 3)Reject – recommend accept risk, adopt a non-materiel approach, or pursue through deliberate process.

14 Joint Prioritization Each FCB Will Establish Joint Priorities for all Capability Requirements Submitted for Their Portfolios in ICDs, JEONs, JUONs, or DoD Component UONs Successor Documents – CDDs, CPDs, and Joint DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendations (Joint DCRs) Do Not Require Additional Prioritization Unless Submitted Without a Preceding ICD Joint Priorities are Established During the FCB JCIDS Document Staffing Process Sponsor Priorities “will not be considered during FCB assessments of joint priorities” DOTmLPF-P: Doctrine, Organization, Training, materiel, Leadership & Education, Personnel Facilities and Policy

15 JCB/JROC Tripwire JROC/JCB Tripwire is a JROC Process Established to Review JROC and JCB Interest Programs That Deviate From Cost, Schedule, or Quantity Targets Established at the Time of Validating CDDs or Capability Production Documents (CPDs). Programs Must Return to the JROC or JCB for Revalidation if they Experience: Cost. Cost growth equal to or greater than 10 percent over their current baseline or 25 percent over their original baseline as defined in the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). Schedule. Schedule slip for Initial Operational Capability (IOC) or Full Operational Capability (FOC) equal to or greater than 12 months from IOC and FOC targets set in the validation JROC Memorandum (JROCM). Quantity. Reduction in end-item quantities equal to or greater than 10 percent from a quantity target set in the validation JROCM. Lead FCB Initiates a Tripwire Review Based Upon First Knowledge of Cost, Schedule, and/or Quantity Changes Reaching the Tripwire Values.

16 Interaction With Other Processes
JCIDS Manual Describes JCIDS Interaction with the Following Processes. Integrated Priority Lists (IPLs)/Capability Gap Assessment (CGA) JROC/JCB Tripwire Nunn-McCurdy Cost Breaches Major Automated Information System (MAIS) Critical Change Reports Program and Budget Review Chairman’s Program Recommendation/Assessment Chairman’s Risk Assessment Capability Portfolio Management Post-Validation Processes and Interactions are Summarized for Each Phase of the Acquisition Process

17 Changes to JCIDS Documents
All – Additional Net-Ready KPP Architecture Products Required IAW CJCSI & DoDAF Link to Architecture Repository for All Except OV-1. Page Count Constrained: ICD – 10 Pages; DCR – 30 Pages; CDD – 45 Pages; CPD – 40 Pages (Page Count Includes Appendix A (Operational Viewpoint 1 (OV-1)), Does Not Include Appendix C (Acronym List) and Appendix D (Glossary) DCR, CDD & CPD – Added “Summary of Resources Required” Table: Resources Required FY xx (e.g. 12) (e.g. 13) (e.g. 14) (e.g. 15) (e.g. 16) (e.g. 17) FYDP Total Life Cycle Cost O&M RDT&E Procurement Personnel MILCON Total Funding

18 JCIDS Alternate Document Formats
Reorganization of content within JCIDS documents Provides better logical flow and reduced redundancies within documents, making it easier to meet document page limits. Provides better traceability from source of requirements through ICD to successor documents. No content has been removed, so all equities are still addressed without need for official re-staffing. ICD Format: Sections reduced from seven to five. IS-ICD length and content now same as regular ICD. CDD/CPD Format: Sections reduced from sixteen to twelve. IS-CDD format added. DCR Format: Sections reduced from nine to five. JUON/JEON Format: Sections reduced from thirteen to eight. General Alternate document formats are intended to reorganize/streamline content for interim efficiencies until next JCIDS update. CDTM ver. 2.0 reflects alternate document formats JCIDS document formats, with required contend are found in the JCIDS Manual. Alternate document formats are located at in section 4 of the Contents, DJ-8 Approved Alternate JCIDS Document Formats. Upon the next JCIDS update, the alternate formats are expected to become the primary format.

19 Mandatory Key Performance Parameters (KPPs)
and Key System Attributes (KSAs) Force Protection KPP (all manned systems) Survivability KPP (all manned; may be applicable to unmanned ) Sustainment KPP (all ACAT I ) Materiel Availability Operational Availability Supporting KSAs Materiel Reliability Operation & Support Costs Net Ready KPP (all IS & NSS) Training KPP (all ACAT I) Energy KPP (all where provisions of energy impact operational reach, or protection of energy infrastructure or energy resources is required) No change All O&S costs now included Operation & Support Cost KSA: Previously called “Ownership Cost” KSA. Did not include all elements of O&S costs – specifically, did not include cost of system specific training, or any indirect costs. Now includes all CAPE specified elements of O&S costs. The Manual now includes specific instructions for development of the Training an Energy KPPs. Major changes No longer termed “selectively applied”. Detailed instructions added to Manual.

20 Net-Ready KPP Elements Net-Ready KPP Attributes
Net-Ready KPP Changes 2012 Net-Ready KPP Elements CJCSI E, 15 Dec 2008* Net-Ready KPP Attributes JCIDS Manual, 19 Jan 2012) Compliant Solution Architecture Compliance with Net-Centric Data & Services Strategies Compliance with Applicable Global Information Grid (GIG) Technical Guidance (GTG) Compliance with DOD Information Assurance (IA) Requirements Compliance with Supportability Requirements to Include Spectrum Utilization & Information Bandwidth Requirements, Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) & the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), as Applicable Supports Military Operations Is Entered and Managed on the Network, and Effectively Exchanges Information Three-Step Development Process Step 1. Mission Analysis – Determines Attribute Details for Supports Military Operations Step 2. Information Analysis – Determines Attribute Details for Entered & Managed on the Network, and Effectively Exchanges Information Step 3. Systems Engineering & Architecture – Supports all 3 attributes The NR-KPP is used to address: Requirements. Evaluate interoperability and net-centric requirements for the system. Information Exchanges. Verify the Information System (IS) supports operationally effective producer to consumer information exchanges according to the Sponsor’s validated capability requirements and applicable reference models and reference architectures MOEs and MOPs. Provide MOEs and MOPs to evaluate IS’s ability to meet the threshold and objective or initial minimum values when testing the system for joint interoperability certification. Interoperability Issues. Analyze and identify potential interoperability issues early in the IS’s life cycle and identify joint interfaces through systems engineering and architecture development. IS architecture in JCIDS documents is developed according to the current DODAF. Compliance. Determine whether IS complies with network operations (NETOPS) for the GIG direction, GIG 2.0 goals and characteristics, and is integrated into system development. Spectrum Requirements. To obtain a NR-KPP certification, all IS must comply with spectrum management and E3 direction. The spectrum requirements process includes Joint, DOD, national, and international policies and procedures for the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum. J-8 Deputy Director, C4 conducts interoperability certification of JCIDS Documents. Interoperability test certification is conducted by the Joint Interoperability Text Command. CJCSI F, Net-Ready KPP, 21 March 2012, reflects these changes

21 Key Performance Parameter
Net-Ready KPP Example Attribute 1. Support to Military Operations NR-KPP Attribute Key Performance Parameter Threshold Objective Support to military operations Mission: Tracking and locating (Finding, Fixing, Finishing) High-Value Target (HVT) Measure: Timely, actionable dissemination of acquisition data for HVT Conditions: Targeting quality data to the neutralizing/ tracking entity 10 minutes Area denial of HVT activities Near-real-time HVT tracked, neutralized Mission Activities: Find HVT Measure: Location accuracy Conditions: Individual differentiation 100 meter circle Identify armed/ not armed 25 meter circle Identify individual

22 Key Performance Parameter
Net-Ready KPP Example Attribute 2. Enter and Be Managed in the Network NR-KPP Attribute Key Performance Parameter Threshold Objective Enter and be managed in the network Network: SIPRNET Measure: Time to connect to an operational network from power up Conditions: Network connectivity 2 minutes 99.8 1 minute 99.9 Network: NIPRNET 99.8 99.9

23 Key Performance Parameter
Net-Ready KPP Example Attribute 3. Exchange Information NR-KPP Attribute Key Performance Parameter Threshold Objective Exchange information Information Element: Target Data Measure: Dissemination of HVT biographic and physical data Measure: Receipt of HVT data Measure: Latency of data Measure: Strength of encryption Conditions: Tactical/Geopolitical 10 seconds Line of Sight (LOS) 5 seconds NSA certified type 1 Permissive environment Beyond LOS 2 seconds Non-permissive environment

24 Required Architecture Data To Support the Net-Ready KPP
CJCSI E, Dec 2008 DoDAF 1.5, 2007 JCIDS Manual, Jan 2012 DoDAF 2.02, 2010 ICD CDD CPD ICD CDD CPD OV-1 AV-1 AV-2 OV-1 OV-2 OV-3 OV-4 OV-5 OV-6c SV-2 SV-4 SV-5 SV-6 TV-1 TV-2 AV-1 AV-2 OV-1 OV-2 OV-3 OV-4 OV-5 OV-6c OV-7 SV-2 SV-4 SV-5 SV-6 SV-11 TV-1 TV-2 AV-1 AV-2 CV-2 CV-6 OV-1 OV-2 OV-4 OV-5a AV-1 AV-2 CV-1 CV-2 CV-3 CV-4 CV-5 CV-6 DIV-2 DIV-3 OV-1 OV-2 OV-3 OV-4 OV-5a OV-5b OV-6c PV-2 SV-1 or SvcV-1 SV-2 or SvcV-2 SV-4 or SvcV-4 SV-5a or SvcV-5 SV-6 or SvcV-6 SV-7 or SvcV-7 StdV-1 (TV-1) StdV-2 (TV-2) AV-1 AV-2 CV-1 CV-2 CV-3 CV-4 CV-5 CV-6 DIV-2 DIV-3 OV-1 OV-2 OV-3 OV-4 OV-5a OV-5b OV-6c PV-2 SV-1 or SvcV-1 SV-2 or SvcV-2 SV-4 or SvcV-4 SV-5a or SvcV-5 SV-6 or SvcV-6 SV-7 or SvcV-7 StdV-1 (TV-1) StdV-2 (TV-2)

25 Required Architecture Data To Support the Net-Ready KPP (con’t)
All Viewpoint (AV): AV-1, Overview & Summary AV-2, Dictionary of Terms Capability Viewpoint (CV) CV-1, Vision CV-2, Capability Taxonomy CV-3, Capability Phasing CV-4, Capability Dependencies CV-5, Capability to Organizational Development Mapping CV-6, Capability to Operational Activities Mapping Data & Information Viewpoint (DIV) DIV-1, Conceptual Data Model DIV-2, Logical Data Model DIV-3, Physical Data Model ICD CDD CPD AV-1 X X X AV-2 X X X CV-1 R X X CV-2 X X X CV-3 R X X CV-4 R X X CV-5 X X CV-6 X X X DIV-2 X X DIV-3 X X R = Recommended Blue = New Program Responsibility JCIDS Sponsor Responsibility Joint Program/Sponsor Responsibility

26 Required Architecture Data To Support the Net-Ready KPP
Operational Viewpoint (OV): OV-1, High-level Operational Concept Graphic OV-2, Operational Resource Flow Description OV-3, Operational Resource Flow Matrix OV-4, Organizational Relationships Chart OV-5a, Operational Activity Decomposition Tree OV-5b, Operational Activity Model OV-6a, Operational Rules Model OV-6c, Event-Trace Description Project Viewpoint (PV) PV-2, Project Timelines ICD CDD CPD OV-1 X X X OV-2 X X X OV-3 X X OV-4 X X X OV-5a X X OV-5b O X X OV-6a X X OV-6c X X X PV-2 X O = Optional Blue = New Program Responsibility JCIDS Sponsor Responsibility

27 Required Architecture Data To Support the Net-Ready KPP
Systems Viewpoint (SV): SV-1, Systems Interface Description SV-2, Systems Resource Flow Description SV-3, Systems-Systems Matrix SV-4, Systems Functionally Description SV-5a, Operational Activity to Systems Function Traceability Matrix SV-6, Systems Resource Flow Matrix SV-7, Systems Measures Matrix Services Viewpoint (SvcV) SvcV-1, Services Context Description SvcV-2, Services Resources Flow Description SvcV-4, Services Functionality Description SvcV-5, Operational Activity to Services Traceability Matrix SvcV-6, Services Resource Flow Matrix SvcV-7, Services Measures Matrix Standards Viewpoint (StdV) StdV-1, Standards Profile StdV-2, Standards Forecast ICD CDD CPD SV-1 or SvcV-1 X X X SV-2 or SvcV-2 X X X SV-4 or SvcV-4 X X SV-5a or SvcV-5 X X X SV-6 or SvcV-6 X X X SV-7 or SvcV-7 R X X StdV-1 (TV-1) X X StdV-2 (TV-1) X X R = Recommended Blue = New Program Responsibility Joint Program/Sponsor Responsibility JCIDS Sponsor Responsibility

28 Information System (IS) ICD
IS ICDs Implement the “Information Technology (IT) Box” Model IS ICDs are Required When the Solution Requires Research and Development, and Acquisition of Applications with a Projected Software Development Cost of Over $15 Million Not Used for Software Embedded as a Subset of a Capability Solution Developed IAW Other Validated JCIDS Documents IS ICD Applies to: Commercial off the Shelf (COTS)/Government off the Shelf (GOTS) software, and associated hardware without modification Commercial capability solutions with integrated, DoD-specific performance standards Additional production or modification of previously developed U.S and/or Allied or interagency systems or equipment Development, integration, and acquisition of customized application software IS ICDs are used to document capability requirements and associated capability gaps where the intended solution approach involves research, development, and acquisition of applications system software, and the projected software development costs exceed $15 million. IS with development costs less than $15 million are not subject to JCIDS process. Biennial FCB Review. For all IS programs with a valid IS ICD, the lead FCB shall receive a brief every second year following the validation. The lead FCB will determine if the JROC or JCB should review the following briefing items, and will make appropriate recommendations for action. Progress in delivering capability solutions within the required timeframe and available funding. Compliance with applicable enterprise architecture and data standards. Other items identified by the IS ICD validation memo. “IT Box” model calls for fewer iterations of validating documents through the JCIDS process by describing the overall IS program in the IS ICD, and delegating validation of detailed follow-on requirement and solution oversight to a flag-level organization other than the JROC or JCB.

29 Information System (IS) ICD (Con’t)
CDDs & CPDs are Not Required as Successor Documents for non-MDAP IS; for non- MDAP IS Sponsors Have Management Flexibility for Alternate Documents JCIDS Manual Provides Examples of Potential non-MDAP IS ICD Follow-On Documents (Actual Names, Content, and Approval TBD by the Delegated Validation Authority): Requirements Definition Package (RDP) – identifies KPPs and non-materiel changes Capability Drop (CD) – lower level document that specifies the characteristics of a “widget” or “app” for partial deployment of the solution FCB is Briefed Every 2nd Year After Validation on Progress Toward Delivering the Solution (May Recommend JROC Oversight) If the Information System is not a Major Defense Acquisition Program (ACAT I), CDDs and CPDs are not required as successor documents to an IS ICD. Requirements Definition Packages (RDPs) and Capability Drops are examples of Sponsor documents used for managing follow-on efforts but are not intended to limit potential flexibilities provided by the IS ICD, or a previously validated ICD or CDD which the validation authority has approved for transition to the IT Box model. Business IS are not normally subject to JROC Review – However, FCBs have visibility of business case documents posted to KM/DS and if FCB decides the system has “joint equities” can recommend joint oversight.

30 JCIDS – Major Changes Summary
Three Processes – deliberate, urgent, emergent JCIDS Documents – ICD, CDD, CPD, DCR page count restricted. Information Systems ICD – new document supports IT Box; non-MDAP IS do not require CDD/CPD follow-on. Cost Tables – required for IS ICD, CDD, CPD and DCR. Staffing – streamlined. Deliberate (83 days) & urgent/emergent (15/31 days). Role of FCB Strengthened – FCB Chair briefs JROC, not the JCIDS Sponsor and not the PM. FCB will review AoA results. Prioritization – new process. FCBs will prioritize capability requirements within their portfolios – input from the Sponsor will not be considered. KPPs – six “mandatory” (Force protection, survivability, sustainment, net-ready (major changes), training, and energy). If not used, must justify why not. Draft CDD Required for TD Phase – Component level; not submitted to KM/DS. Affordability – cost considered in document review and validation processes. Tripwires – Return to JROC or JCB for cost growth over 10% (current APB) or 25% (original APB), and for IOC or FOC slips of 12 months or greater, and for quantity reductions greater than 10% (of targets set in document validation JROCM).

Download ppt "Addressing JCIDS Criticism"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google