2. 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.

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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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 C
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

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

8. 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 will be the first step in transitioning to the proposed
Joint Defense Capabilities Process

9. 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 will be the first step in transitioning to the proposed
Joint Defense Capabilities Process

10. 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

11. “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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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