Capabilities-Based Assessments (CBAs) SLIDE 1: Lesson Title, Capabilities-Based Assessments (CBAs) Initiation to Materiel Development Decision (MDD)

Lesson Objectives Explain the importance of Capabilities-Based Assessments (CBAs) to the Joint Capabilities Integration Development System (JCIDS) and the Defense Acquisition System Summarize the essential characteristics and qualities of CBAs Examine the major tasks of an effective CBA effort Examine CBAs and their relation to the DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendation (DCR) and Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) SLIDE 2: Lesson Objectives TAKEWAY: At the end of this lesson, you will know the major characteristics of a CBA and its impact on the JCIDS and acquisition processes. TIME PER ELO: 1) 25 Min; 2) 20 Min; 3) 15 Min QUESTION: Before we begin, has anybody worked a CBA? Written an ICD? Please describe your experience… STORY OR ARTICLE: None

CBAs in JCIDS FCB MS C MS B Incremental Development MS A AoA Full Rate Prod Decision Review Joint Concepts Capabilities - Based Assessment MS C MS B FCB Strategic Guidance Incremental Development MS A Technology Development Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment AoA Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Opportunities & Resources ICD O&S User Needs MDD CDD CPD SLIDE 3: CBAs in JCIDS TAKEWAY: You’ve seen this chart before and you’ll see it throughout the course. The circled area is where we’re concentrating for this lesson. QUESTION: Does anybody know of an instance where a CBA ended prior to the ICD or the FCB? STORY OR ARTICLE: None DEFINITIONS: AoA: The AoA is an analytical comparison of the operational effectiveness, suitability, and life-cycle cost (LCC) or total ownership cost (TOC) of alternatives that satisfy established capability needs. Source: Defense Acquisition Guidance (DAG) , Chapter 3.3., paragraph 3.3.1. CDD: The CDD is the sponsor’s primary means of proposing capability solutions to satisfy validated capability requirements and close capability gaps. Source: 14 Oct 2011 Staffing Draft, JCIDS Manual, p. B-28. CPD: The CPD is the sponsor’s primary means of providing authoritative, testable capabilities for the Production and Deployment (P&D) phase of an acquisition program. Source: 14 Oct 2011 Staffing Draft, JCIDS Manual, p. B-38. FCB: The FCBs support the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (hereafter referred to as “Chairman” or “CJCS”) and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) in identifying, assessing, and prioritizing (if required) joint military capability needs as specified in title 10, United States Code (USC), sections 153, 154, 163, and 181. Source: CJCSI 3137.01D, 26 Nat 2009, p. 1. ICD: The ICD documents one or more new capability requirements, generally identified as the result of a CBA or other analysis, where there are capability gaps associated with the identified capability requirements. The ICD also documents the intent to address some part of the identified capability gap(s) with a non-materiel solution, materiel solution, or some combination of the two. Source: 14 Oct 2011 Staffing Draft, JCIDS Manual, p. B-9. MDD: The Materiel Development Decision review is the formal entry point into the acquisition process and shall be mandatory for all programs. Source: DoDI 5000.02, 8 Dec 2008, p. 15. O&S: The purpose of the Operations and Support Phase is to execute a support program that meets materiel readiness and operational support performance requirements, and sustains the system in the most cost-effective manner over its total life cycle. Source: DoDI 5000.02, 8 Dec 2008, p. 28. AoA: Analysis of Alternatives CDD: Capability Development Document CPD: Capability Production Document FCB: Functional Capabilities Board ICD: Initial Capabilities Document\ MDD: Materiel Development Decision O&S: Operations & Support

Fundamental goal is to recommend action or accept risk Solving Gaps Paths to solving capability requirements GFM: for materiel (“little m”) approach available in Joint Force DCR: for materiel (“little m”) approach existing in Joint Force but must be organic or non-materiel approach ICD: when both materiel and non-materiel approach is needed CBA is the typical analytical basis to identify capability requirements and associated capability gaps Recapitalization or replacement: NLT 90 days More complex or new mission area: NLT 180 days No extensive detail or pre-determined solution SLIDE 4: Solving Gaps TAKEWAY: There’s essentially three different options for the military to solve military problems. QUESTION: What are examples of systems that bear the scars of inadequate up-front analyses? STORY OR ARTICLE: Read selections from the Inside Air Force article on MM III Follow-on (actually GBSD) CBA & AoA DEFINITIONS: CBA: The CBA is the typical analytic basis to identify capability requirements and associated capability gaps for submission into the JCIDS process. Source: 14 Oct 2011 Staffing Draft, JCIDS Manual, p. A-3. DCR: A DCR documents the intent to address some part of an identified capability requirement and associated capability gap with a non-materiel solution. The recommend changes to existing capabilities may be in one or more of eight DOTmLPF-P areas. Source: Source: 14 Oct 2011 Staffing Draft, JCIDS Manual, p. B-20 GFM: An organizing construct of processes, policies, organizational information, and tools that informs senior leader decision-making on the global joint sourcing of the defense strategy. Source: DoD Manual 8260.03, Vol II, 14 Jun 2011, p. 96. Fundamental goal is to recommend action or accept risk CBA: Capabilities-Base Assessment DCR: DOTMLPF-P Change Recommendation GFM: Global Force Management

CBA Overview CBA: Initiated by: Becomes basis for: Validating capability needs ANY DoD organization CBA: Typical analytic basis of JCIDS Based upon: Recommends: CCJO SLIDE 5: CBA Overview TAKEWAY: The CBA is the typical first step to fixing military problems. QUESTION: What are examples of systems that bear the scars of inadequate up-front analyses? STORY OR ARTICLE: IEDs’ impact on ground vehicle design. Relate EFV example from Mike Bohn. DEFINITIONS: CCJO: 1. Sub element of Support for Strategic Analysis (SSA), critical mid- & longer-term challenges DoD must address. A DPS provides a depiction of a threat to international security, a corresponding mission for U.S. military forces, and a strategic-level concept of operation for carrying out that mission. The SECDEF approves a single set of scenarios intended to serve as a standard by which the senior leadership of the Department can gauge the sufficiency of the Defense Program. A single set of scenarios ensures DOD consistency for studies, war games, and experimentation. 2. The Capstone Concept for Joint Operations describes in broad terms the (CJCS’s) vision for how the joint force circa 2016-2028 will operate in response to a wide variety of security challenges. It proposes that future joint force commanders will combine and subsequently adapt some combination of four basic categories of military activity -- combat, security, engagement, and relief and reconstruction -- in accordance with the unique requirements of each operational situation. The concept is informed by current strategic guidance, but because it looks to the future, it is intended to be adaptable, as it must be, to changes in that guidance. Source CCJO, v3.0, 15 Jan 2009. CONPLAN: 1. Any plan for the conduct of military operations prepared in response to actual and potential contingencies. Source: JP 5-0. 2. A complete and detailed joint plan containing a full description of the concept of operations, all annexes applicable to the plan, and a time-phased force and deployment data. Also called OPLAN. See also operation order. Source: JP 5-0 DPS: 1. The DPS is a Sub element of Support for Strategic Analysis (SSA), critical mid- & longer-term challenges DoD must address. A DPS provides a depiction of a threat to international security, a corresponding mission for U.S. military forces, and a strategic-level concept of operation for carrying out that mission. The SECDEF approves a single set of scenarios intended to serve as a standard by which the senior leadership of the Department can gauge the sufficiency of the Defense Program. A single set of scenarios ensures DOD consistency for studies, war games, and experimentation. 2. The Defense Planning Scenarios (DPS) include problem descriptions, assumptions and variations of key parameters developed by OSD, threat descriptions developed by the intelligence community, and outlines of concepts of operations for U.S. forces developed by a Joint Staff-led team of Service and other subject-matter experts. DOD uses the scenarios, along with their associated databases, in developing the Support for Strategic Analysis. Source: DAU Acquisition Community Connection (ACC), DPS definition. OPLAN: In the context of joint operation planning level 3 planning detail, an operation plan in an abbreviated format that may require considerable expansion or alteration to convert it into a complete operation plan or operation order. Also called CONPLAN. See also operation plan. Source: JP 5-0 Endorsed CONOPS Formally- tasked OPLANS and CONPLANs ACTION w/o excessive rigor DPSs CCJO: Capstone Concept for Joint Operations CONPLAN: Concept Plan DPS: Defense Planning Scenarios OPLAN: Operation Plan

CBA to MDD JCIDS Acq Conduct of a CBA Capabilities Requirements ICD ID tasks, conditions, & standards “What’s the military problem” MDD “Bridge” ID capability gaps & redundancies “Look at the programmed force structure / doctrinal approaches” ID possible non-materiel & materiel solutions “Address gap or accept risk” Seam Between Capabilities & Acquisition ICD AoA SLIDE 6: CBA to MDD TAKEWAY: Three basic analytical phases – “Analysis 101” - identify the environment, identify the gaps, identify possible solutions – form the CBA. These feed into the ICD which the MDA uses to decide whether to cross over into the acquisition process at the MDD bridge. QUESTION: Any real-world examples of good, bad, or dated up-front analyses? STORY OR ARTICLE: Relate mundane, everyday analysis (house, car, college) to this “big picture” process. JCIDS Acq Conduct of a CBA Capabilities Requirements

CBA Breadth: How Wide the Analysis? Scenarios: OPLANs CONPLANs & DPSs CONOPS: Objectives, Tactics, Orgs, etc Functions: (tasks) JCAs Solution Types: Materiel Non Materiel Capabilities Required: Reduce Operational Risk Performance Attributes: General enough so as not to prejudice Scenarios: Oplans & DPSs CONOPS: Objectives, Tactics, Orgs, etc Functions: JCAs Solution Types: Policies & Treaties Capabilities Desired: Meet Operational Objectives Performance Attributes: Metrics > precision = more analyses = more time ? CBA SLIDE 7: CBA Breadth: How Wide the Analysis? TAKEWAY: Depends on these six interacting factors. Scenarios are THE most important component in scoping a CBA – opponents, environments, & whether it’s near, mid, or far term. The ICD is written to the CONOPS whenever it’s available. QUESTION: What scenarios have you worked with in your job? How did this connect with current or future weapon systems? STORY OR ARTICLE: Iranian scenarios in Journal of International Security Affairs article. Scenarios – conditions – enemies, environments, & access challenges: OPLAN: Operations Plan - any plan (except SIOP) to conduct military ops. Prepared by unified or specified commander to meet JCS-established requirement. CONPLAN: Operation Plan in Concept Format - an abbreviated OPLAN. DPS: Defense Planning Scenario - critical mid- & longer-term challenges DoD must address. A DPS provides a depiction of a threat to international security, a corresponding mission for U.S. military forces, and a strategic-level concept of operation for carrying out that mission. The SECDEF approves a single set of scenarios intended to serve as a standard by which the senior leadership of the Department can gauge the sufficiency of the Defense Program. A single set of scenarios ensures DOD consistency for studies, war games, and experimentation. Concepts of operation (CONOPS - tasks) – describes the characteristics of a proposed system from the user’s viewpoint. Includes: goals & objectives; strategies, tactics, policies, & constraints; organizations, activities, & interactions; responsibilities & authorities; operational processes; processes for initiating, developing, maintaining, & retiring system Functions considered (ways) – how to get the job done - also known as Joint Capability Areas (JCAs). Types of solutions considered (means) – impacted by policy, treaties, etc that might narrow scope (space-based weapons may be ruled out the outset, no MIRVs). Capabilities desired (effects) - ability to meet a military operational objective. Performance Attributes (metrics & minimum values - standards) – what to measure & how. More precision = more analysis = more time. From Jeff – 31 Mar 2011: “The value of the DPSs / ISCs is that they are accepted by the Joint Staff and OSD and if everybody uses them as the input to a CBA, then everybody is working from the same set of assumptions; wrong or right. They level the playing field and essentially stop the entire staffing process from challenging your assumptions and scenarios; the easiest targets when you want to kill something or slow it down. If I, as an analyst, use the ISCs or DPSs as the basis for my CBA to set the tasks, conditions and standards, you can challenge me all you want and I just say, "Noted, but this is what OSD says is the baseline--next question".   I spent 5 years as both a deliberate and contingency war planner at both the COCOM and MAJCOM levels. We never looked at DPSs, they were too far out. Our war plans were based on "real" intel. We developed assumptions for any gaps in intel. Depending on the review cycle, COCOM OPLANs and CONPLANs have a 2-3 year shelf life so they are focused in the very near term and use JSCP-apportioned forces for planning purposes, not the MSFDs. OPLANs and CONPLANs really have no place in JCIDS due to their time horizon. Shortfalls in OPLANs and CONPLANs need to get addressed through the IPL process. We use to get tasked for Joint Monthly Readiness Reviews where the JS J7 would give us a scenario and we would see how well we could execute--they were a real pain in the ass. Any gaps/shortfalls would be fed into the IPL process. The last I heard they are now quarterly but serve the same purpose.” DEFINITIONS: JCA: Collections of like DOD capabilities functionally grouped to support capability analysis, strategy development, investment decision making, capability portfolio management, and capabilities-based force development and operational planning. Source: J7 Future Warfare website. or CBA OPLAN: Operations Plan CONPLAN: Concept Plan DPS: Defense Planning Scenario JCA: Joint Capability Area

CBA Depth: How Deep the Analysis? Low Rigor High Rigor Complexity of assessment Solution resources required Consequences of operational failure Scenario (future) uncertainty Solution cost, schedule, performance risk Low High JROC CBA preference: avoid high rigor & time-consuming detail – concentrate on recommending action. CBAs focused on recapitalization or replacement should take 60 to 90 days. More complex CBAs dealing with large uncertainties should take no more than 180 days – NOT including staffing & approval. SLIDE 8: CBA Depth: How Deep the Analysis? BOTTOM LINE: Again, not too deep & not too shallow. Depends on these five interacting factors. However, THE MAIN point is the JROC is interested in action, not overly-analytical rigor. The goal outlined in the JCIDS Manual is a min of 60 days, a max of 90 days for recapitalization, to a max of 180 days for complex assessment topics. QUESTION: Anybody have a topic of interest? Let’s take a couple of minutes here & use it to figure a general idea of how deep the analysis might be. Do a quick exercise here… STORY OR ARTICLE: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrence (GBSD) versus a new squad-level defilade defeating capability (XM25 being tested in Afghanistan).

CBA Info Sources: Strategic Guidance QDR QDR NSS NSS NDS NDS NMS NMS CBA: Typical JCIDS analysis UCP JSCP UCP JSCP Classified Guidance SLIDE 9: CBA Info Sources: Strategic Guidance TAKEWAY: All research needs to gather data – at the top is strategic guidance. Consistency with the nation’s documentation is a great start. QUESTION: Has anybody used these documents in their jobs? How important was it to your program? STORY OR ARTICLE: None DEFINITIONS: The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) - mandated by law, DoD comprehensively examines its strategy and performance. Done in 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2010. QDR 2001 first flagged the idea of a capabilities-based approach that led to JCIDS. National Security Strategy (NSS) – issued by the President to meet public law, is an annual national security strategy report due 150 days after taking office. The National Defense Strategy (NDS) - signed by the SecDef, is substantial guidance on security challenges, key operational capabilities, and operational priorities. 2005 NDS divided all future security challenges into four categories: traditional, irregular, catastrophic, & disruptive The National Military Strategy (NMS) - signed by the CJCS, provides an operational context to the NDS. Classified CBA Strategic Guidance Guidance on Employment of the Force (GEF) - directs planning for foreseeable, near-term (FY 10-12) operational activities. Built concurrently with the CJCS’s Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP), it establishes linkages from strategy to operations by providing strategic context for planning. It also guides development and integration of campaign, campaign support, and contingency plans as well as integrates operational planning, force management, resources, and posture guidance. Source: Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF) & Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) briefing, www.dtic.mil/doctrine/training/wjtsc07_2feg_brief.ppt Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) - new document created in April of 2010, it replaces two previous strategic guidance documents: the Guidance on Development of the Force (GDF) and the Joint Programming Guidance (JPG). Will probably address planning & programming priorities. Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan - directs the Services to do strategic planning. The Services take the essence of the JSCP and develop their own Service-unique guidance. Unified Command Plan (UCP) – another SecDef-level document that provides basic guidance to the COCOMs. It defines their roles, missions, geographic responsibilities, functional responsibilities, and command relationships. The reason the UCP is important (or even central) to your CBA is that the mission or function you are assessing will be executed by a COCOM. The UCP may also define the mission or function and set standards for its execution, which is authoritative guidance you should exploit in your CBA. GEF DPG GEF DPPG QDR: Quadrennial Defense Review NSS: National Security Strategy NDS: National Defense Strategy NMS: National Military Strategy UCP: Unified Command Plan GEF: Guidance on Employment of the Force DPG: Defense Planning Guidance JSCP: Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan

CBA Info Sources: Conceptual Guidance JOE USJFCOM JOE** USJFCOM CCJO JOC CCJO JOC JOpsC Family of Documents* J7 - JFDID CJCSI 3010.02B CJCSI 3010.02B CBA: THE analytical basis of JCIDS JIC JCA JIC JCA SLIDE 10: CBA Info Sources: Conceptual Guidance TAKEWAY: Conceptual Guidance is geared toward future military operations, hence very useful to CBAs – typically 8 to 20 years. JCAs are important enough to the CBA process that we’ll go over those in more detail later. QUESTION: Does anybody have any experience with any of these documents? STORY OR ARTICLE: None DEFINITIONS: Joint Operations Concepts (JOpsC) - a family of joint future documents written using problem/solution. They visualize future ops & describe how future commanders might employ capabilities to meet future military challenges. Ideally, they produce military capabilities that render previous ways of warfighting obsolete and significantly change the measures of success. These go beyond the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), generally 8-20 years into the future. CJCSI 3010.02B, Joint Operations Concepts Development Process, 27 Jan 2006 - this instruction outlines the processes involved with joint operations conceptual development Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO) - describes in very broad terms how the future joint force will operate in response to a wide variety of security challenges. It proposes that future joint force commanders will combine and subsequently adapt some combination of four basic categories of military activity: Combat, Security, Engagement, Relief & Reconstruction. Joint Operating Concepts (JOCs) – (Going away – archived…) overarching concepts that guide the development of future joint force capabilities. They broadly describe how the joint force is expected to operate 10-20 years in the future in all domains, across the range of military operations, within a multilateral environment, and in collaboration with interagency and multinational partners. Used when there are no CONOPs to write the ICD to. Joint Integrating Concepts (JICs) – (Going away – archived…) a description of how a Joint Force commander 10-20 years in the future will integrate capabilities to generate effects and achieve an objective. A JIC includes an illustrative CONOPS for a specific scenario and a set of distinguishing principles applicable to a range of scenarios. JICs have the narrowest focus of all concepts and distill Joint Operating Concepts and Joint Functional Concepts (JFC)-derived capabilities into the fundamental tasks, conditions, & standards needed to conduct a CBA. Used when there are no CONOPs to write the ICD to. Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) - Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) constitute the DoD capability management language and framework. JCAs are collections of like DoD capabilities functionally grouped to support capability analysis, strategy development, investment decision making, capability portfolio management, and capabilities-based force development and operational planning. JCIDS also uses the JCAs as an organizing construct. Finally, the Functional Capabilities Boards (FCBs) are organized around the nine Tier 1 JCAs and the JCIDS documents link the capabilities identified to the applicable JCAs.   Joint Operating Environment (JOE) 2010 – (NOT going away…) USJFCOM – now J8 & J&, intends for the JOE to inform joint concept development and experimentation throughout the DoD. It addresses future trends, shocks, contexts, and implications for future joint force commanders and others in the national security field. It is speculative in nature and does not suppose to predict what will happen in the next 25 years. Rather, it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussions about the future security environment at the operational level of war. * Posted at J7 JFDID website - http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare/. Joint Force Development & Integration Division (JFDID) is responsible for developing & monitoring the implementation plans for joint experimentation & concept development for DoD. JOpsC: Joint Operations Concepts CCJO: Capstone Concept for Joint Operations JIC: Joint Integrating Concept JCA: Joint Capability Area JOC: Joint Operating Concept JOE: Joint Operating Environment

CBA Framework: Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) JCA Definition: “…currently the preferred method the DoD uses for reviewing and managing capabilities.” “Collections of like DoD capabilities functionally grouped to support capability analysis…” Proposed in 2003, there are currently nine JCAs, tiered as far as five levels: Force Support Battlespace Awareness Force Application Logistics Command & Control Net-Centric Protection Building Partnerships Corporate Management & Support SLIDE 11: CBA Framework: Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) TAKEWAY: The more a CBA maps to specific JCAs, the better support from the FCB & JROC. This may be the most difficult task a new RM faces: coming up with metrics & performance attributes that eventually translate into MOEs, MOPs, MOSs, test criteria, & the like. QUESTION: Any experience with using JCAs in day-to-day job? STORY OR ARTICLE: None

Sample JCA & Tiering 2 Battlespace Awareness – The ability to understand dispositions and intentions as well as the characteristics and conditions of the operational environment that bear on national and military decision-making. 2.1 Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance – The ability to conduct activities to meet the intelligence needs of national and military decision-makers. 2.1.1 Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Planning and Direction – The ability to synchronize and integrate the activities of collection, processing, exploitation, analysis and dissemination resources to meet information requirements of national and military decision-makers. 2.1.1.1 Define and Prioritize Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Requirements – The ability to translate national through tactical objectives and needs into specific information and operational requirements for ISR. … 2.2 Environment – The ability to characterize and exploit the meteorological, space and oceanographic information from the sub-bottom of the earth’s oceans up to and including space. SLIDE 12: Sample JCA & Tiering TAKEWAY: Each JCA is detailed – this is just one small area that becomes more & more specific. Environment – bottom of the Marianas Trench into Space. Remember, the J7 JFDID site describes all JCAs and all tierings. QUESTION: None STORY OR ARTICLE: None

Sets conditions for successful acquisition Value of the CBA & ICD Proper CBA documented in ICD is critical because it: Provides foundation for future requirements Identifies priorities Within Sponsor / Joint portfolio Identifies military problem being addressed Identifies timeframe when capability must be delivered Provides both materiel and non-materiel approaches In-Class ICD Review Exercise: Review an existing ICD Use Checklist derived from JCIDS Template Prep for actual ICD review and Capstone later this week… SLIDE 13: Value-Added of Prep & Analytical Work? TAKEWAY: It’s like any research project - a thorough job up front can pay big dividends later. This is where you set up the conditions to for a successful acquisition program. QUESTION: None STORY OR ARTICLE: None To find an organizing framework. The mission or function the CBA assesses probably covers an enormous range of potential military operations. The documents above offer a number of organizing frameworks (particularly the JCAs…) that will help make the assessment manageable. To identify overarching priorities. The GEF and the predecessors of the DPPG (GDF & JPG) have been quite aggressive in specifying areas where the DoD should improve, and areas where the DoD can take risk. If these documents offer such advice on areas related to your CBA, use them. To help set performance standards. A central issue you will have to settle in your CBA is setting the assessment criteria for how well DoD does (or should) perform a mission or task. These documents contain authoritative advice on such criteria, such as friendly losses and collateral damage. To secure unchallengeable guidance. The CBA team leader faces a number of serious bureaucratic challenges when conducting an assessment If a document signed by the SecDef supports the team’s position, it greatly increases it’s odds of winning the argument. To avoid pre-determined outcomes. Any DoD initiative has a constituency - they will press for narrowing the study to futures suited to their interests. Using authoritative strategic documents for a framework allows you to resist these pressures. Source: J8 CBA User’s Guide, citing 2008 DBB report Sets conditions for successful acquisition

1st Recommendation: Non-Materiel Approaches Doctrine Organization Training materiel Leadership & Education Personnel Facilities DCR Policy SLIDE 14: 1st Recommendation: Non-Materiel Solutions TAKEWAY: For obvious reasons aside from the regs say so, the CBA exhausts all non-materiel solutions first. QUESTION: What war stories do you have in fixing military problems using these 7 means? Any real-world good & bad examples? STORY OR ARTICLE: IEDs’ impact on squad urban operations. DEFINITIONS: Doctrine: how we fight – maneuver, combined air-ground campaigns. Organization: how we organize to fight - divisions, air wings, Marine-Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs), etc. Training: how we prepare to fight - basic training to advanced individual training, various types of unit training, joint exercises, etc. Materiel: the “stuff” necessary to fight – personal weapons, spares, uniforms, fuel, rations, etc. Don’t confuse this “materiel” – “Little M” with the “Big M” of an acquisition program. Leadership and education: how we prepare our leaders to lead the fight – from squad leader to 4-star general/admiral, professional development Personnel: availability of qualified people for peacetime, wartime, and various contingency operations Facilities: real property - installations and industrial facilities (e.g. government owned ammunition production facilities, depots, schools) that support our forces. Policy: a principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. DOTmLPF - P Change Recommendation

2nd Recommendation: Materiel Approaches Development & Fielding of Information Systems Or similar technologies with high obsolescence rates Evolution of existing capabilities Evolution of Existing Systems Provide significant capability improvement Replacing existing system with more capable system Simple recapitalization SLIDE 15: 2nd Recommendation: Materiel Solutions TAKEWAY: These are the current definitions for materiel solutions. Field test gear with a Stinger DDG 51, Aegis Guided Missile Destroyer, Arleigh Burke MQ-9 Reaper with 4 Hellfire, 2 Paveway, &2 Sidewinders QUESTION: What are other examples of specific systems and where do they fit? Why? STORY OR ARTICLE: None  JCIDS specifies these three categories of materiel solutions to capability gaps. These three categories are in the 31 Jul 2009 update to the JCIDS Manual & supersede the four approaches mentioned in the latest (Version 3, dated Mar 2009) of the J-8 CBA User’s Guide. The difference is semantic. First, the term “Information Systems” remain unchanged. Second, J8 combined the terms “evolutionary” and “recapitalization” into “Evolution of Existing Systems”. Lastly, J8 simply renamed “Transformational” to “Breakout Systems”. Keep these small distinctions in mind – you will hear or read all of them as well as when documenting and briefing your assessment to outside organizations. Development and fielding of Information Systems. Solutions involving information systems or transient solutions that have very limited lifespans. For example, constantly revising computer network defense and attack methods. Evolution of Existing Systems. Solutions that upgrade existing capabilities. For example, upgrading the M1A1 Tank with the M1A2 or reopening the C-5 line in the 1980s. Breakout Systems. Solutions that differ significantly in form, function, operation, and capabilities from existing systems and offer significant improvement over current capabilities or transform how we accomplish the mission. For example, conducting loitering surveillance and precision-guided weapons delivery from a single Reaper UAV Source: JCIDS Manual, 31 Jul 2009, p. A-8 Transformational Systems Differ significantly in form, function, operation & capabilities Significant improvement over current Transforms how we accomplish mission

Lesson Learned: good documentation when using these substitutes… CBA Substitutes JCTD – Joint Capability Technology Demonstration Only after a Military Utility Assessment (MUA) Prototypes Joint IED Defeat Transition Package CDD/CPD equivalent - JROC approval & transition to program of record JUON – Joint Urgent Operational Need (or Service urgent needs process) May enter JCIDS without an ICD (FITE) (JLTV) SLIDE 16: CBA Substitutes TAKEWAY: There are 4 other analytical processes that can stand in for a CBA. JCTD: Future Immersive Training Environment (FITE) Prototype: Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) JIED Defeat Transition Package: IED robot with Tanglefoot JUON: Scan Eagle QUESTION: Any experience or war stories with any of these substitutes? STORY OR ARTICLE: Later this week will have a guest speaker addressing JUONs. (IED robot with Tanglefoot) Lesson Learned: good documentation when using these substitutes… (Scan Eagle)

What an RM Needs to Take Away From This CBA Lesson Effectively scope the CBA 60-180 days – must avoid paralysis-by-analysis Conduct proper analysis - select representative scenarios with a realistic timeframe for delivery of the capability Align required capabilities to prioritized JCAs Use CDTM to develop ICD for correct format and length Recommend appropriate actions to mitigate gaps Accept risk Non-materiel Materiel SLIDE 17: What an RM Needs to Take Away from This CBA Lesson TAKEWAY: These are the highlights of this lesson for the RM. QUESTION: None STORY OR ARTICLE: Role of SAC at BMO with Peacekeeper & SCBM

CBA Results & Recommendations CBA Bottom Line AoA CBA Findings & Recommendations: vital for the foundation of a successful acquisition These same results then support the ? analytical document Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) Phase Which starts & supports ? acquisition phase Materiel Development Decision (MDD) Which supports the ? decision Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) SLIDE 20 – CBA Bottom Line TAKEWAY: The CBA impacts EVERYTHING afterward. QUESTION: None STORY OR ARTICLE: None What I’ve presented here should give you an appreciation for the CBA - that whatever happens during the assessment impacts the whole build-up of the JCIDS and DAS processes, mostly from ICD through the AoA. As a Requirements Manager, whether you actually participate in a CBA, staff the documents that reflect CBA results and recommendations, or deal with assessments that occurred before your watch - it’s your job to ensure the analyses and recommendations fully and competently support the needs of our warfighters. Support the ? document CBA Results & Recommendations

Sources for More Detailed CBA Information CJSCI 3170.01H, JCIDS: CJCSI 3170.01G - TBD 2011 JCIDS Manual: TBD 2011 J8 CBA User’s Guide, V3, Mar 2009 – TBD 2011 Geared toward CBA Team Leaders, Core Team, & Working Groups Background, context, & detailed CBA procedures DAU online course CLR 250, Capability-Based Assessments General CBA overview – more detailed that RQM 310 – access via browse mode DAU Community of Practice (CoP) https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=204080&lang=en-US SLIDE 19: Sources for More Detailed CBA Information Self-explanatory.