Introduction to the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Major General Robin Scott J-8 / DDFA Hello, I am Captain John Costello from the Requirements and Acquisition Division in the Joint Staff J-8. Consistent with our goal of keeping the Department informed on changes to the Requirements Generation System, we wanted to provide you with a short overview of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System.

Food for Thought . . . As illustrated here, we need a better way to decide what the warfighter needs.

Previous Requirements and Acquisition Process As a rule, CONOPs and reqmts were Service-focused Analysis was primarily threat-based Process lacked a construct for Joint analysis “up-front” Systems integration tended to be forced in at end game Duplication existed, particularly in smaller programs Spiral acquisition was not well institutionalized Joint warfighting needs were not prioritized This new joint approach to capability integration and development is consistent with the direction from the Secretary of Defense to reform the requirements generation system to more effectively identify joint warfighting capabilities in direct support of the DOD acquisition system as described in the DOD 5000 series of documents.   At the direction of Secretary Rumsfeld, we reviewed the effectiveness of the existing requirements system and found several shortfalls: it frequently produced stove piped systems; requirements were often service rather than joint focused; proposals lacked a construct for effective, objective analyses; while systems were often deconflicted from each other, they were not necessarily integrated; duplication often existed, especially in smaller programs; evolutionary acquisition was not being used effectively; and joint warfighting needs were not prioritized. As a result of a strong collaborative effort between the Joint Staff, the Services and OSD, we have created a new process called the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System or JCIDS. The new system institutes a capabilities-based approach to identifying current and future gaps in our ability to carry out joint warfighting missions and functions. Developed in close coordination with the recently published DOD 5000 series instructions, which define the operation of the defense acquisition system, and with proposed revisions to the national security space acquisition policy, JCIDS will help ensure that we develop the right capabilities.

Capability Based Methodology Requirements Generation System (RGS) Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Systems Requirements Bottom up, stovepiped Integrated at Department Strategic Direction Joint Operations Concepts Systems Our purpose is to address the system depicted on the left and suggest a new way of doing it as shown on the right. Today DOD employs a threat-based force-planning construct to develop forces, systems, and platforms based on a specific threat and scenario. Requirements are 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 fosters a “bottom-up, stovepiped” approach to acquisition decisions that, in a joint context, are neither fully informed by, or coordinated with, other components; nor are they clearly linked to the National Military Strategy. New programs often fail to foster interoperabilility; and in the end, must be deconflicted either by the warfighter or at Department level. Additionally, acquisition management frequently focuses 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 will be required to address the challenges of the 21st century. This proposed 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. Joint / Service Operating Concepts Joint Capabilities

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Ability to influence a business process Personal time devoted to the process by leadership (Avoid) Desired Attributes of DOD Decision Process Responsive Flat Involve leaders “when it counts” Agree on facts New 3170.01C Top down Born “Joint” Tees up issues with wider input earlier in the process (Embrace) Time The FCB membership is much broader than the former JRP. We have the benefit of those additional experts’ input. We want to know their point of view early in the process (at the FCB instead of finding out for the first time at the IPT or DAB). Action Agent: Functional Capabilities Boards

Evolutionary Acquisition Technology Base NO CAPABILITY Single Step Requirements FOC Capability IOC Capability Time Evolutionary Technology Base Requirements Capability Capability Operationally Useful Capability Time

Aldridge Study “End State” Process Enhanced Planning Strategy Resourcing Execution and Accountability Operational Planning Program Execution & Performance Reporting Enhanced Planning Process Strategic Planning Guidance Joint Programming Guidance Defense Resourcing Process Enterprise Planning Defense Planning Guidance Resource-informed strategic planning direction Analysis to formulate and assess major issues and risk tradeoffs Fiscally executable Programming guidance SPG 06-11 will be the first step in transitioning to the proposed Joint Defense Capabilities Process

Aldridge Study “End State” Process Enhanced Planning Strategy Resourcing Execution and Accountability Operational Planning Program Execution & Performance Reporting Enhanced Planning Process Strategic Planning Guidance Joint Programming Guidance Defense Resourcing Process Enterprise Planning “Nuclear-powered wood chipper” Defense Planning Guidance Resource-informed strategic planning direction Analysis to formulate and assess major issues and risk tradeoffs Fiscally executable Programming guidance SPG 06-11 will be the first step in transitioning to the proposed Joint Defense Capabilities Process

The “hot, sweaty pile” concept Joint Integrating Concept Concepts Potential Capability Improvement Areas Joint Operations Concepts Integrated Priority List Joint Quarterly Readiness Review Lessons Learned Analysis Service Programs Strategic Planning Guidance Range of Military Operations Joint Experimentation ACTDs Integrated Architectures Joint Operating Concepts Joint Functional Concepts SecDef Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Requirements Oversight Council Resource Strategy Capability Roadmap Capability Assessment This chart is intended to develop the next level of detail as to how this method would work. First, in the upper left corner we see Concepts translated into architectures. Military judgment is applied to those concepts by the JROC validating a specific set of attributes which apply to each of the architectures. These attributes translate the concept into a way to determine capability. Each attribute brings with it a set of assumptions that underpin it and metrics that measure it. This then allows all the department’s various activities to initially develop a standard for the critical functional areas (as described by the collection of attributes) and then map current programs against that standard to compare where we stand in capability against the standard. A view of this type nodal mapping is seen in the upper right corner. Once we have this map we now can apply alternatives against it and use this common analytical method to judge and decide. For example (talk to the balls) Now we can use the analysis to choose capability and map where it will take us in the lower left corner and finally use that judgment set to inform our final department investment strategy for either materiel or non-materiel in the lower right. This method is disciplined, responsive to change, reflective directly of strategic direction.  Map Systems to Functions function a function b function c function d function e function f function g system 1 system 2 system 3 system 4 system 5 system 6 system 7 Capability capability task a task b task c task d task e task f task g SV - 5 Secretary of Defense Joint Staff and OSD Joint Requirements Oversight Council

“Hot, sweaty pile”, change 1 Joint Integrating Concept Concepts Potential Capability Improvement Areas Joint Operations Concepts Integrated Priority List Joint Quarterly Readiness Review Lessons Learned Analysis Service Programs Strategic Planning Guidance Range of Military Operations Joint Experimentation ACTDs Joint Operating Concepts Joint Functional Concepts Joint Integrating Concepts SecDef Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Requirements Oversight Council Resource Strategy Capability Roadmap Capability Assessment This chart is intended to develop the next level of detail as to how this method would work. First, in the upper left corner we see Concepts translated into architectures. Military judgment is applied to those concepts by the JROC validating a specific set of attributes which apply to each of the architectures. These attributes translate the concept into a way to determine capability. Each attribute brings with it a set of assumptions that underpin it and metrics that measure it. This then allows all the department’s various activities to initially develop a standard for the critical functional areas (as described by the collection of attributes) and then map current programs against that standard to compare where we stand in capability against the standard. A view of this type nodal mapping is seen in the upper right corner. Once we have this map we now can apply alternatives against it and use this common analytical method to judge and decide. For example (talk to the balls) Now we can use the analysis to choose capability and map where it will take us in the lower left corner and finally use that judgment set to inform our final department investment strategy for either materiel or non-materiel in the lower right. This method is disciplined, responsive to change, reflective directly of strategic direction.  Map Systems to Functions function a function b function c function d function e function f function g system 1 system 2 system 3 system 4 system 5 system 6 system 7 Capability capability task a task b task c task d task e task f task g SV - 5 Secretary of Defense Joint Staff and OSD Joint Requirements Oversight Council

Concept Relationships USMC Operational Maneuver from the Sea USAF Joint Integrating Concepts Ship to Objective Maneuver Service Concepts Sustainment Operations Ashore USN Global Mobility USA Sea Basing Sea Strike Sea Shield Future Force UE, UA Command & Control Sea Basing Battlespace Awareness Force Application Joint Functional Concepts Protection Focused Logistics Net Centric Joint Operating Concepts Homeland Security Sea Basing Stability Operations Strategic Deterrence Major Combat Operations

Concept Relationships Service Concepts Joint Sea Basing USA USN USAF USMC Future Force UE, UA Battle Command Force Projection Maneuver Sustainment Maneuver Spt Sea Basing Sea Strike Sea Shield Force Net Global Strike Global Response Global Mobility Global Sustainment Operational Maneuver from the Sea Ship to Objective Maneuver Sustainment Operations Ashore Command & Control Battlespace Awareness Force Application Joint Functional Concepts Protection Focused Logistics Net Centric Joint Force Gaps Redundancies Joint Sea Basing Service Capabilities

FCB JCIDS Process Capabilities Based Assessment ICDs Policy Strategic Planning Guidance Defense Planning Scenarios Family of Concepts Transformation Capabilities Based Assessment Capabilities Tasks Attributes Metrics Gaps Shortfalls Redundancies Risk areas Non-materiel alternatives Materiel alternatives S+T initiatives Experimentation activity Select a JIC Develop Concept Functional Area Analysis Functional Needs Analysis Functional Solutions Analysis ICDs Capability Based Assessment Army USMC Navy NFW signed by CJCS on 21 Oct and forwarded to DepSecDef. Study remains with DepSecDef office. FE signed by CJCS on 5 Nov and forwarded to DepSecDef. Study remains with DepSecDef Office. No change in status from last update. CBA – JFEO/USS SEE NOTES on SLIDE 3 FCB COCOMs Air Force OSD (AT&L) DIA COCOM OSD (NII) OSD (PA&E) oversight SecDef Joint Chiefs of Staff & Joint Requirements Oversight Council Joint Staff (OSD) Joint Staff / OSD Policy Requirements

FCB JCIDS Process Capabilities Based Assessment ICDs Policy Strategic Planning Guidance Defense Planning Scenarios Family of Concepts Transformation Capabilities Based Assessment Capabilities Tasks Attributes Metrics Gaps Shortfalls Redundancies Risk areas Non-materiel alternatives Materiel alternatives S+T initiatives Experimentation Cornerstone for CBA activity Select JIC Develop Concept Functional Area Analysis Functional Needs Analysis Functional Solutions Analysis ICDs Capability Based Assessment Army Foundation for acquisition process USMC Navy NFW signed by CJCS on 21 Oct and forwarded to DepSecDef. Study remains with DepSecDef office. FE signed by CJCS on 5 Nov and forwarded to DepSecDef. Study remains with DepSecDef Office. No change in status from last update. CBA – JFEO/USS SEE NOTES on SLIDE 3 FCB COCOMs Air Force OSD (AT&L) DIA COCOM OSD (NII) OSD (PA&E) oversight SecDef Joint Chiefs of Staff & Joint Requirements Oversight Council Joint Staff (OSD) Joint Staff / OSD Policy Requirements

JCIDs interaction with Acquisition Process Refined concept Analysis of Alternatives Technology Development Strategy Affordable military-useful increment Technology demonstrated Initial KPPs Revise KPPs Detailed design System integration IOT&E LRIP FOT&E MS “A” MS “B” MS “C” activity Fielded Capability Analysis of Alternatives Technology Development System Development CDD CPD Production MS “A” OSD (AT&L) Evolutionary or Spiral Development NFW signed by CJCS on 21 Oct and forwarded to DepSecDef. Study remains with DepSecDef office. FE signed by CJCS on 5 Nov and forwarded to DepSecDef. Study remains with DepSecDef Office. No change in status from last update. CBA – JFEO/USS SEE NOTES on SLIDE 3 Sea Basing Capability Roadmaps oversight OSD (AT&L), Services (JROC) OSD (DOT&E), Services Acquisition Test and Evaluation

Major Combat Ops Putting the puzzle together, one piece at a time Integrated Air & Missile Defense Force Projection Ops Major Combat Ops Sea Basing BRAC Persistent/Global Strike Joint Forcible Entry Ops IGPBS Undersea Superiority Counterinsurgency Blue Force Tracking/CID

Conclusions, thus far, on JICDS Provides an enhanced methodology to identify and describe capabilities gaps and redundancies Helps to prioritize capability proposals Facilitates broad review of capability proposals independent of ACAT (Acquisition Category) Engages the acquisition community early Improves the identification of non-materiel alternatives Improves collaboration with other departments and agencies We still have a ways to go on this “Road of Discovery” but the process is already having a positive impact