Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) Requirements and Acquisition Management In the.

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) Requirements and Acquisition Management In the 21st Century Date: June 8, 2015 Presented by: Thomas Fritz

Lesson Objective Summarize the relationship between the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS). Highlight recent changes to the DAS Link JCIDS to Milestones and Phases of the DAS Emphasize current strategic guidance Highlight Better Buying Power Initiatives Related to Capability Requirements

Changes – 2008 Defense Acquisition Management System
No longer on model The Materiel Development Decision precedes entry into any phase of the acquisition management system Entrance Criteria met before entering phase Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability IOC Technology Opportunities & Resources Materiel Solution Analysis FRP Decision Review FOC Materiel Development User Needs PDR CDR AoA Pre-Systems Acquisition Systems Acquisition Sustainment Post CDR Assessment Technology Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Engineering & Manufacturing Development Post PDR A B C EA dropped from policy CDD Validation New Development RFP Release New Program Initiation PDR & CDR still required; but not as decision points Name changed to Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction (same activities) Three Categories Deleted No longer called “Defense Acquisition Management System (DAMS)”, or “Defense Acquisition Management Framework”. Now referred to as the “Defense Acquisition System (DAS)” and “Program Models”

Capability Mission Lattice Figure B-2, Jcids manual 17 Jun 2015

JCIDS and Acquisition Identification of Capability Requirements
LRIP FOT&E Technology Demonstrated Key Performance Parameters/ Key System Attributes/ Additional Perf Attributes (KPPs/ KSAs/APAs) AS TEMP SEP LCSP CONOPS OMS/MP Final Design Developmental T&E (DT&E) Operational Assessments (OA) Revise KPPs/ KSAs/APAs Acq Program Baseline (APB) MS C Develop, Test, Produce & Field MS A Develop, test, LRIP & Full Rate Production, deploy to warfighter, IOC SECDEF Activity Policy Identify Capability Requirements Select Materiel Solution Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Initial Operational T&E (IOT&E) Full-Rate Prod (FRP) APB Military Services OSD/Joint Staff Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Acquisition Strategy (AS) Test & Evaluation (T&E) Master Plan (TEMP) System Engineering Plan (SEP) Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) Concept of Operations (CONOPS) Operational Mode Summary/Mission Profile (OMS/MP) OSD (AT&L, CAPE), Services and OSD (DOT&E) Joint Staff (JROC) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Competitive Prototyping Joint Staff / Joint Requirements Oversight Council / OSD Support for Strategic Analysis Products Joint Concepts Materiel Development Decision Identification of Capability Requirements CCMD CBAs & Other Studies Operational Planning Exercise/Warfighting Lessons Learned JCTDs/Other Experiments Outputs Mission & Problem Assessment of Prior Studies Tasks Capability Requirements & Gaps Operational Risks Non-Materiel Approaches Materiel Approaches Potential S&T Efforts Recommendations President, SECDEF & Chairman: Strategic Guidance Transition of Rapidly Fielded Solutions Business Process Reengineering Validates ICD Reviews AoA Results Validates CDD Validates CPD JROC action for JROC Interest programs (ACAT I & IA) MS B CDD Val RFP Rel Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Production & Deployment CPD Select Joint Concept Capabilities-Based Assessment / Other Study Develop CONOPS ICD Draft FRP ver. 25 Feb 2015 Getting The Front End Right is Key

Defense Acquisition System DoDI 5000.02, January 7, 2015
Materiel Development Decision (MDD) CDD Validation Development RFP Release IOC FOC FRP Decision A B C draft CDD ICD CDD CPD Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Operations & Support OT&E Production & Deployment Program Model 1, Hardware Intensive Program 5 Phases 3 Milestone Decisions – A, B, C 4 Other Decision Points: Materiel Development Decision (MDD) Capability Development Document (CDD) Validation Decision Development RFP Release Decision Full-Rate Production (FRP) Decision “Mandatory” Entry at Materiel Development Decision (MDD) DoDI Program Models: Model 1: Hardware Intensive Program. The figure on the chart shows a model of a hardware intensive development program such as a major weapons platform. This is the classic model that has existed in some form in all previous editions of DoDI It is the starting point for most military weapon systems; however, these products almost always contain software development resulting in some form of Hybrid Model A. This model will be used in this lesson to describe the common milestones, other decision points, and phases of the acquisition process. Other models described in DoDI are a variation of this model: Model 2: Defense Unique Software Intensive Program Model 3: Incrementally Fielded Software Intensive Program Model 4: Accelerated Acquisition Program Hybrid Program A: Hardware Dominant, Software Intensive Hybrid Program B: Software Dominant Acquisition programs use these models as a starting point in structuring a program to acquire a specific product. The structure of the program and the procedures used should be tailored as much as possible to the characteristics of the product being acquired, and to the totality of circumstances associated with the program including operational urgency and risk factors. Program Managers and Milestone Decision Authorities (MDAs) tailor program strategies and oversight, including program information, acquisition phase content, the timing and scope of decision reviews and decision levels, based on the specifics of the product being acquired, including complexity, risk factors, and required timelines to satisfy validated capability requirements. When there is a strong threat-based or operationally driven need to field a capability solution in the shortest time, MDAs are authorized to implement streamlined procedures designed to accelerate acquisition system responsiveness. CPD: Capability Production Document ICD: Initial Capabilities Document FOC: Full Operational Capability IOC: Initial Operational Capability RFP: Request for Proposal

Program Models and the Requirements Manager
Examples of Model 1: Major Weapons Platform This may be considered the classic model but with large software components in most programs program managers are now likely to use a hybrid model . (Hybrid A - chart 8) Program models are starting points from which to tailor an acquisition program Tailored program models reflect the type of program and the PM’s acquisition strategy, however, the responsibilities of the RM are essentially the same regardless of model.

Model 2: Defense Unique Software Intensive Program
Full Deployment Decision (FDD) CDD Validation Development RFP Release Decision Full Deployment (FD) IOC Materiel Development Decision A B C Build 1.1 Limited Deployment Risk Reduction Build 1.2 Build 0.1 Build 1.3 Integration Build 1.4 Build 2.1* Build 1.5 OT&E Sustainment Disposal Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Need for Defined Requirements Notes on red circles: each of these builds must have testable performance. Where do they come from – capabilities requirements document. = Milestone Decision = Decision Point Legend: Potential for slip in Rqmts delivery Complex, usually defense unique, software program that will not be fully deployed until several software builds have been completed. Examples: command and control systems and significant upgrades to the combat systems found on major weapons systems such as surface combatants and tactical aircraft. Several software builds are typically necessary to achieve a deployable capability. *The actual number and type of builds during the program will depend on system type.

Model 3: Incrementally Fielded Software Intensive Program
CDD Validation Full Deployment Decision (FDD) Full Deployment (FD) Development RFP Release Materiel Development Decision Limited Fielding Decisions IOC A B Risk Reduction Build Build 1.1 Build 1.2 . . . Build 0 Build 1.n OT&E Sustainment Materiel Solution Analysis Risk Reduction Development & Deployment Operations & Support Development RFP Release Decision Limited Fielding Decisions FDD FD IOC B Increment 2 Build 2.1 This model will apply in cases where commercial off-the-shelf software, such as commercial business systems with multiple modular capabilities, are acquired and adapted for DoD. This model is distinguished by the rapid delivery of capability through multiple acquisition increments, each of which provides part of the overall required program capability. Build 2.2 . . . Notes on red circles: These must be independent decisions Build 2.n Sustainment OT&E Risk Reduction Development & Deployment Operations & Support Development RFP Release Decision Limited Fielding Decisions FDD FD IOC B Increment N Build n.1 Build n.2 . . . Build n.n Sustainment Disposal OT&E Risk Reduction Development & Deployment Operations & Support

Model 4: Accelerated Acquisition Program
Preliminary Design Review Materiel Development Decision IOC FOC A/B C OT&E Sustainment Disposal Materiel Solution Analysis Concurrent Technology Maturation, Risk Reduction, and Development Concurrent Production and Deployment Operations & Support = Milestone Decision = Decision Point Legend: Notes on red circle – compress the A & B – concurrent – increased risk – increased oversight – elevation of trade off into core function of Acq Strat Applies when schedule considerations dominate over cost and technical risk considerations. Compresses or eliminates phases of the process and accepts the potential for inefficiencies in order to achieve a deployed capability on a compressed schedule. Used when technological surprise by a potential adversary necessitates a higher-risk acquisition program. Shows one example of tailoring for accelerated acquisition and many others are possible.

Model 5, Hybrid Program A (Hardware Dominant)
CDD Validation Development RFP Release FOC FRP IOC Materiel Development Decision A B C LRIP Build 1.1 Risk Reduction Build 1.2 Build 3.1 Build 0.1 Build 1.3 Build 3.2* Integration Build 1.4 Build 2.1 Build 1.5 OT&E Sustainment Disposal Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Red Circle Notes: Where do these requirements come from – must have a process to push “hard to do” into integration and LRIP incriments. Combines hardware development as the basic structure with software intensive development that is occurring simultaneously with the hardware development program. In hardware intensive development, the design, fabrication, and testing of physical prototypes may determine overall schedule, decision points, and milestones, but software development will often dictate the pace of program execution and must be tightly integrated and coordinated with hardware development decision points. *The actual number and type of builds during the program will depend on system type.

Model 6. Hybrid Program B (Software Dominant)
CDD Validation FDD Development RFP Release Materiel Development Decision FD IOC A B C Build 1.1.1 Limited Deployment LD) Build 1.1.2 Build 1.3.1 Build 1.0.1 Build 1.1.3 Integration Build 1.3.2* Build 1.2 OT&E Sustainment Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production and Deployment Operations & Support Development RFP Release Decision IOC FDD FD B C Notes on red circles: These must be independent decisions. Lots of opportunity to push things off to the next build – is this a requirements process or a sieve. Increment 2 LD Build 2.1.1 Build 2.1.2 Build 2.3.1 Build 2.1.3 Integration Sustainment Disposal Build 2.2 OT&E Build 2.3.2 Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production and Deployment Operations & Support Depicts how a software intensive product development can include a mix of incrementally fielded software products or releases that include intermediate software builds.

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) / Defense Acquisition System (DAS)
Development RFP Release CDD Validation FRP A B C MDD Draft CDD ICD CDD CPD Strategic Guidance Joint Concepts Capabilities - Based Assessment Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support President SECDEF CJCS Joint Community Sustainment Disposal Although a MDD is required for all programs to enter the acquisition process, at the MDD the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) will authorize entry into the appropriate phase based on technology maturity and risk. JCIDS DAS CDD: Capability Development Document CPD: Capability Production Document FRP: Full-Rate Production ICD: Initial Capabilities Document MDD: Materiel Development Decision RFP: Request for Proposal

Current National Strategies
National Security Strategy , (link to Fact Sheet) Feb 2015, President Barack Obama. Strong and sustainable American leadership; Maintain national defense ; End the draconian cuts National Defense Strategy March 2014, QDR 2014, Builds on NDS 2012 with a broader strategic framework National Military Strategy (NMS) June 2015, The National Military Strategy (link to News Release) “Congress may wish to consider whether the 2015 NSS qualifies as a true strategy in terms of linking ends to means and ways, as well as in terms of establishing priorities among goals.” Congressional Research Service Report #R The 2015 National Security Strategy: Authorities, Changes, Issues for Congress Nathan J. Lucas. Section Research Manager July 2, 2015 JEL +

The Department’s defense strategy emphasizes three pillars:
QDR 2014 – Defense Strategy The 2014 QDR embodies the 21st century defense priorities outlined in the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. The Department’s defense strategy emphasizes three pillars: Protect the homeland, to deter and defeat attacks on the United States and to support civil authorities in mitigating the effects of potential attacks and natural disasters. Build security globally, in order to preserve regional stability, deter adversaries, support allies and partners, and cooperate with others to address common security challenges. Project power and win decisively, to defeat aggression, disrupt and destroy terrorist networks, and provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. See student reference folder for more information on QDR 2014

NMs 2015 - National Military Objectives
Deter, deny, and defeat state adversaries Disrupt, degrade, and defeat violent extremist organizations Strengthen our global network of allies and partners JOINT FORCE PRIORITIZED MISSIONS Maintain a secure and effective nuclear deterrent Provide for military defense of the homeland Defeat an adversary Provide a global, stabilizing presence Combat terrorism Counter weapons of mass destruction Deny an adversary’s objectives Respond to crisis and conduct limited contingency operations Conduct military engagement and security cooperation Conduct stability and counterinsurgency operations Provide support to civil authorities Conduct humanitarian assistance and disaster response

Better Buying Power (BBP)
3.0: Achieving Dominant Capabilities through Technical Excellence and Innovation Better Buying Power Gateway:

July-august, 2015 – Special Issue
Page 29 Getting the Requirements Right Sean J. Stackley, USN

Better Buying Power (BBP) Impact on Requirements Management
Achieve Affordable Programs. Mandate affordability as a requirement – require Milestone Decision Authority (MDA)relief to exceed affordability caps – similar to requiring requirements validation authority relief to exceed KPP thresholds Achieve Dominant Capabilities While Controlling Lifecycle costs Implement should-cost management – may free-up funds to buy more warfighting capability Build stronger relationships with the requirements community to control costs New in Institutionalize stronger DoD level Long Range R&D Program Plans New in Strengthen cybersecurity throughout the product lifecycle See student reference folder for more information on BBP

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) / Defense Acquisition System (DAS)
Development RFP Release CDD Validation FRP A B C MDD Draft CDD ICD CDD CPD Strategic Guidance Joint Concepts Capabilities - Based Assessment Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support President SECDEF CJCS Joint Community Sustainment Disposal Although a MDD is required for all programs to enter the acquisition process, at the MDD the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) will authorize entry into the appropriate phase based on technology maturity and risk. JCIDS DAS CDD: Capability Development Document CPD: Capability Production Document FRP: Full-Rate Production ICD: Initial Capabilities Document MDD: Materiel Development Decision RFP: Request for Proposal

Resources BBP 3.0 http://bbp.dau.mil NSS
QDR Joint Electronic Library + JDEIS CAC enabled JCIDS CAC enabled DoD Generic Acquisition Process (Pre-Tailoring) Acquisition Decision Points and Phases Acquisition Waterfall Chart with color enhancements 17 Dec final (3).pdf Congressional Research Service: Reports on National Strategies

Strategic Guidance – Joint Concepts – JCIDS – Acquisition
National Security Strategy National Defense Strategy National Military Strategy Unified Command Plan Defense Planning Guidance Quadrennial Defense Review Capabilities- Based Assessment Current Joint Warfighting Capabilities Future Joint Warfighting Capabilities Family of Joint Concepts Supporting Concepts Depth and detail to single & multiple JOCs Joint Operating Concepts (JOCs) Link strategic guidance to future military operations Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO) Chairman’s vision for how Joint Force will defend the nation Acquisition MDD A B C FRP JCIDS ICD CDD CPD Affordability JCAs Cost Service concepts, multiservice concepts, & CONOPS written within the joint community Intelligence Threat

RQM 310: Pre-MDD Analysis July 20, 2015
LPD-17 San Antonio, SBIRS, F-35B, XM-25 Punisher July 20, 2015

Lesson Objectives Examine analytical approaches that identify military capabilities, capability gaps, recommend non-materiel & materiel approaches, & recommend action Examine military capability analytical approaches Summarize the essential characteristics & qualities of Capability Based Assessments (CBAs) Explore the relationship these approaches have to the DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendation (DCR) & Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)

The Environment (Why Capability Analysis Matters…)

Our National Challenge
The United States must: Prevail in current conflicts – and also: Deter potential adversaries – yet continue to: Prepare for future conflict – and: Cooperate with allies and partners U.S. Armed Forces must: Address a wide range of challenges yet: Recognize not all challenges have equal priority The DoD Must: Make difficult tradeoffs to manage risk in Short-, Mid-, and Long-Term time frames but: Identify areas of possible divestment M1A1, Juliet GHOST prototype, Multinational Force

Our Military Challenge
CCMD Missions & Responsibilities (Today) Joint Systems Changing Demands & Proactive Action Geographic Specificity Ambitious Mission Sets & Evolving Enemies High Quantity (Sufficiency) Service Vision & Investment (Tomorrow) Service Missions Shrinking Budgets & Unstable Funding Worldwide Applicability Achievable Acquisitions & Long- Lasting Systems High Quality (Capability) CCMD: Combatant Command

Our Decision Support Challenge
Big “A” Acquisition Resourcing (PPBE) Unstable funding Insufficient resourcing & trade space Poorly-phased budget unable to support materiel development Defense Acquisition System (DAS) Requirements (JCIDS) Immature technologies Incomplete systems engineering Little requirements traceability and rushed decomposition Little-to-no schedule trade space Reactive testing – not enough time and assets Poor capability & gap analysis Poorly-written JCIDS documents (ICD, CDD, CPD, DCR) Top-down materiel solutions Single point failures: critical dependence on programs with acquisition problems Non-existent inter- and intra-departmental stakeholder coordination and support Synchronize JCIDS, DAS, and PPBE to deliver capabilities to Warfighters DCR: DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendation ICD: Initial Capabilities Document JROC: Joint Requirements Oversight Council CDD: Capability Development Document CPD: Capability Production Document

Our Sourcing Challenge
Top-Tier U.S. Defense Industrial Consolidation, Source: Globalsecurity.org, accessed Jan 22, 2014

Our Requirements Challenge
Gaming the system: Specifying the solution too early Misusing the Urgent/Emergent processes Miscommunicating real warfighter needs: Untrained workforces conducting inadequate capability analyses Faulty translation, documentation, and traceability of capabilities & gaps into usable, observable, & testable requirements “Good” leadership briefings that mask “Bad” JCIDS documents Hindering acquisition programs: Cost & schedule estimates derived from those very JCIDS documents Confusing a “requirement” with a “specification” Requirements creep - operational & technical No follow-up on DAS reviews and T&E results

Fixing the delta between these three is why we’re here…
The Consequence Fixing the delta between these three is why we’re here… How the Warfighter explained it… How the PM understood it… How the Contractor designed it… How the Programmer wrote it… How the Tester received it… How the Consultant explained it… How it was documented… How it was delivered… How DoD was funded & billed… How the Loggie supported it… What the Marketing Guru advertised… Finally: What the Warfighter actually needed… Accessed Sep 14, 2013

Why Care About Up-Front Capability Analyses?
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Determination* % Impact of Materiel Decision on LCC Are we buying the “proper” system? (Capability Developer: Mission Effectiveness) Are we buying, modifying, & disposing of that system “properly”? (Materiel Developer: Acquisition Efficiency 100% Approximately 95% of LCC determined here 80 60 % Actual Funds Spent 40 20 Approximately 10% of LCC Spent here 0% EMD MDD MSA A TMRR B C P&D O&S Disposal Control LCC Here: “Sweet Spot” Approximately 5% of reduction left here LCC Reduction Opportunities *Notional curves: Solid: averaged DAU, AFMC, & AMR Research Inc. data Dashed: extrapolated “S” curve (sigmoid function) 32

The Process (Pre-MDD Capability Identification…)

Pre-MDD Analyses AoA review and Portfolio Assessment IOC President
Component Approved Joint Concepts President SECDEF CJCS Joint Community Strategic Guidance Disposal CDR & CDR Assessment PDR & PDR Assessment Capabilities - Based Assessment Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support A MDD Draft CDD ICD B C CPD Materiel Solution Analysis Sustainment CDD Validation RFP Release AoA Report AoA: Analysis of Alternatives CDD: Capability Development Document CPD: Capability Production Document ICD: Initial Capabilities Document\ MDD: Materiel Development Decision

Solving Military Capability Gaps
Basically, three paths: 1. GFM: for assets available in Joint Force – basically adjusting what we currently have to where we need it… 2. DCR: When DoD needs an organic Joint Force non-materiel approach 3. ICD: when DoD needs both a materiel & non-materiel approach Regardless of the path, solid analysis increases the odds… OR DCR: DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendation GFM: Global Force Management ICD: Initial Capabilities Document

GFM: Title 10 U.S.C.: Force Deployment Authorities*
Assignment: The President, through the UCP documents his direction for assigning forces for Unified Commands (Title 10 U.S.C., Sections 161, 162, and 167) Allocation: By the authority of the SecDef, forces assigned to a combatant command may be transferred or allocated to another combatant commander for employment…under procedures prescribed by the SecDef and approved by the President (Title 10 U.S.C., Section 162) Apportionment: The CJCS is responsible for preparing strategic plans including projected resource levels…the CJCS apportions forces to combatant commands based on the SecDef’s contingency planning guidance (Title 10 U.S.C., Section 153) The “Three A’s” of Global Force Management *Source: EUCOM GFM Briefing, 3 Mar 2012

DoD Analytical Approaches to Identify Capabilities
CJCSI , Joint Lessons Learned Program Reflects assessment of operational utility May lead to further analyses (CBA trigger?) & development of JCIDS documents for staffing Joint IED Defeat Transition Package Source document for the CDD & CPD - JROC approval & transition to program of record (POR) JCTD – Joint Capability Technology Demonstration After an assessment of operational utility Outlined in Emerging Capability and Prototyping (EC&P) website: Prototypes Used to address JUONs & JEONs – also outlined in the EC&P website above: (FITE) (IED robot with Tanglefoot) (JLTV)

DoD Capability Analysis Outputs
Regardless of the approach, these analyses ought to: Describe the mission & military problem Assess prior studies ID the tasks needed to meet mission objectives ID the capabilities using one or more JCAs - describe the tasks, conditions, standards Assess the capability gaps – needed vs programmed force structure Assess the operational risk for each capability gap if not addressed First, exhaust all possible non-materiel approaches that could satisfy part of all of the capability gaps Second, examine materiel approaches Third, recommend the most appropriate approach to close the capability gaps and reduce operational risk Fundamental goal: recommend action or accept risk JCA: Joint Capability Area

The DoD CBA The Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) is the “typical” JCIDS method to identify capabilities, gaps, & possible solution approaches: Recapitalization, Replacement, & IS: CBA takes No Longer Than 90 days (NOT including writing & staffing times…) More complex or new mission area: CBA takes No Longer Than 180 days (again, no writing & staffing times…) No extensive detail or pre-determined solution CBA: Capabilities-Base Assessment IS: Information Systems

CBA Overview CBA: Initiated by: Becomes basis for:
Validating capability needs DoD Sponsor CBA: Typical analytic basis of JCIDS Based upon: Recommends: Joint Concepts Endorsed CONOPS Formally- tasked OPLANS and CONPLANs ACTION w/o excessive rigor ISCs CONPLAN: Concept Plan CONOPS: Concept of Operations ISC: Integrated Security Constructs OPLAN: Operation Plan

CBA Steps - May 2015 JCIDS Manual
Identify Non- Materiel Approaches Step 7 Step 8 Needs Analysis Gap Analysis Solutions Analysis Step 1 Submit Study Initiation Notice Step 2 Derive CBA Focus Step 3 Determine Operational Context Step 4 Identify Capability Requirements & Capability Gaps Step 5 Assess Risk Documentation & Recommendations Strategic Context, Missions, Scenarios, Joint Lessons Learned, DODAF Views Previous Studies, Lessons Learned, & other Analytical Products Timeframe, Threats, Concepts, & CONOPS, DODAF OV-5a DoDAF OV-3, CV-2, CV-3, CV-6, & OV-5a, SSA Products Wholly or Partially Mitigate Gaps Evolutionary Replacement/Recap Transformational

CBA to AoA & RM Skill Sets
ID tasks, conditions, & standards “What’s the military problem” MDD ID capability gaps & redundancies “Analyze the programmed force structure & doctrinal approaches” CBA/ICD Sets up the AoA… DCR ID possible non-materiel & materiel solutions “Address gaps or accept risk” Seam Between Capabilities & Acquisition ICD AoA JCIDS Acq RM Skill Set = Capability Analysis RM Skill Set = Requirements Development Conduct of a DoD CBA

CBA Lit Search: Strategic Guidance
QDR CRA QDR NSHS Previous Work (AIR, J8 Repository) NSS NSS NDS NDS NMS NMS ID tasks, conditions, & standards “What’s the military problem” UCP DPG ID capability gaps & redundancies “Analyze the programmed force structure & doctrinal approaches” JSCP GEF AIR: Acquisition Information Repository CRA: Chairman’s Risk Assessment QDR: Quadrennial Defense Review NSS: National Security Strategy NDS: National Defense Strategy NMS: National Military Strategy NSHS: National Strategy for Homeland Security UCP: Unified Command Plan GEF: Guidance on Employment of the Force DPG: Defense Planning Guidance JSCP: Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan

CBA Lit Search: Conceptual Guidance
Joint Concepts Legacy Docs: JOAC, JOE, JOC, JIC, Etc… CJCSI C JCD&E* J7 - JCCD ID tasks, conditions, & standards “What’s the military problem” ID capability gaps & redundancies “Analyze the programmed force structure & doctrinal approaches” JCA JCA Joint Concepts Division “advances the operational effectiveness of the future joint force and enables the introduction of new capabilities by identifying military implications of the future operating environment, developing joint concepts and white papers, leading joint wargaming to evaluate concepts during development, and overseeing the joint concept development community of interest.” J7 Joint Concepts website (JEL+, login requires CAC): JCCD: Joint Capabilities to Concept Division JCD&E: Joint Concept Development & Experimentation CCJO: Capstone Concept for Joint Operations JIC: Joint Integrating Concept JCA: Joint Capability Area JOC: Joint Operating Concept JOAC: Joint Operational Access Concept JOE: Joint Operating Environment

Requirements Decision Chain
JROC DECISION CHAIN JROC MEMBERSHIP Chair: VCJCS Statutory Members: Vice Chief of Staff, Army Vice Chief of Naval Operations Vice Chief of Staff, Air Force Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Combatant Commands* (Commander or Deputy Commander) VCJCS JROC Chairman; Advises the CJCS JROC Owns JCIDS; Validates JROC Interest documents; final authority JROC JCB Validates JCB Interest documents; assists JROC Reviews documents; prioritizes within portfolio; makes validation recommendation to JCB/JROC FCB FCB WG Reviews documents & prioritizes prior to FCB review More Tank-like, limit the audience, help promote determinative discussions & decisions… JROC Principals+1; CCMD Principals+1 Statutory Advisors: USD - AT&L, Policy, & Comptroller; DCAPE; DOT&E JS J7; FCB Chair; & minimal others (invitation only…) JROC: Joint Requirements Oversight Council JCB: Joint Capabilities Board FCB: Functional Capabilities Board FCB WG: FCB Working Group

Functional Capability Boards
Battlespace Awareness Force Support C4/Cyber Includes NC and C2 JCAs Logistics* BGen Weatherington JS J-6 Mr. Canfield JS J-2 Mr. Hawkins JS J-4 MGen Thomas JS J-8 Protection** BGen Bobeck JS J-8 Force Application MGen Thomas JS J-8 Additional JCAs: Building Partnerships Corporate Management & Support The FCBs are boards below the JCB and provide review and assessment of documents and adjudication of lower level issues within their designated portfolios prior to review by the JCB, review/adjust Joint prioritization established by the FCB Working Groups (WGs), and perform other activities at the direction of the JCB or the JROC. The FCBs are aligned with the joint capability areas (JCAs), which define portfolios of functionally similar capabilities within which each of the FCBs can focus their efforts. *Ms Reardon, DASD for Supply Chain Integration, serves as Log FCB Co-Chair **BGen Todorov, J8/DDJIAMDO, serves as Protection FCB Co-Chair for IAMD issues FCB Membership: (O-6 level) Services CCMD Reps OSD (AT&L) OSD (I) USecAF (Space) DoD CIO D/CAPE DIA Rep (Threat) ODNI/IRB OSD (Comptroller) Other DoD agencies as necessary

JCIDS Document Staffing (Joint Staff Only – NOT Service…)
Est. 21 days Commenting/30 days Adjudication/7 days to FCB Chair 4 days Est. 7 days to JCB/14 days to JROC Total: 97 days Sponsor Gatekeeper Functional Capability Board SME inputs from DoD Prioritization within this portfolio CCMD Inputs Allied/Partner Nation equity Non-materiel recommendations FCB Chair: Ready Validation Discussion? Termination JROC JCB Acquisition (and/or DCRs) Combined “Staffing” Theoretical ICD max (CBA start to JROC validation): 277 days

JCIDS Document Tracking
FCB JROC Interest JROC* JCB KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT I/IA programs & Joint DCRs FCB JCB Interest JCB KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT II & below - impact on interoperability FCB Sponsor Joint Integration KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT II & below - require endorsements & certs FCB Joint Information KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT II & below - do not require endorsements & certs * JROC may assert itself as the validation authority for any document of any assigned JSD at ANY time by directing JS J8 Gatekeeper to set the JSD to “JROC Interest” Joint Staffing Designator (JSD) Staffing & Prioritizing Body Validation Authority KM/DS: Knowledge Management/Decision Support tool

1st CBA Recommendation: Non-Materiel Approaches
Doctrine Organization Training Leadership & Education Personnel Facilities DCR Policy DOTmLPF - P Change Recommendation Doctrine: change how we fight Organization: change how we’re organized to fight Training: change how we train our DoD personnel materiel: acquire what we already have in the field – existing COTS, GOTS, or NDI Leadership: adjust the joint leader’s professional development Personnel: add or reassign people Facilities: move or realign buildings & infrastructure Policy: change policy that impacts how we fight

2nd CBA 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 – could be NEW COTS, GOTS, or NDI Simple recapitalization Transformational Systems Differ significantly in form, function, operation & capabilities Significant improvement over current capability Transforms how we accomplish mission

2nd CBA Recommendation: Materiel Approaches

Bottom Line: Pre-MDD Capability Analyses
AoA These same results then support which acquisition analysis/document? Sound Analysis & Recommendations: vital for shaping the force & the foundation of a successful acquisition Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) Phase Usually starts & supports which acquisition phase? Materiel Development Decision (MDD) Supports which acquisition decision? DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendation (DCR - First) or Initial Capabilities Document (ICD - Second) Support which documents? CBA Analysis & Recommendations

Sources for More Information
JCIDS Intellipedia website (requires CAC login): Defense Acquisition Mgmt Info Retrieval (DAMIR, requires CAC login): Acquisition Info Repository (AIR, requires CAC login): DASD/EC&P (Emerging Capability & Prototyping): DAU online course CLR 250, Capability-Based Assessments (CBAs): DAU Requirements Management Community of Practice (RMCoP): DISA Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) Process Briefing: DoD Issuances (Directive-Type Memorandum) website:

What does the JROC expect from Pre-MDD analyses?
Analytical depth Specific recommendations Analytical breadth Action timetables 0 of 23

What’s the maximum time a CBA should take?
30 days 90 days 180 days 277 days 0 of 23

What recommendations can be submitted with a DCR?
Increasing manpower, operational tempo, spare parts, & fuel supplies Recommend changing PME subjects or emphasis Buying updates of commercial hardware in the inventory All of these choices are correct 0 of 23

Which of the following is not an ICD predecessor document or input?
Joint Concepts Validated Threat Documents AoA Study Report JCTD Operational Utility Assessment All of these choices are correct 0 of 23

Which choice best represents the role of the CBA?
It maintains focus on developing specific solutions after sponsor initiation It indirectly supports the ICD staffing process It is analysis that underpins JCIDs It directly supports the CDD staffing process All answers are correct 0 of 23

CBAs identify all but which of the following:
Possible non-materiel approaches Operational risks Materiel support approaches Shortfalls in existing systems All answers are correct 0 of 23

Back Up

Changes to the Process (23 February 2015…)

2015 Changes (1 of 2) Consolidated Guidance:
Cancel: CJCSI (Intelligence Certification), CJCSI (Net-Ready KPP), and JWSTAP Charter (Weapon Safety Endorsement) Content absorbed into the three core documents: CJCSI (JROC Charter), CJCSI (JCIDS), and the JCIDS Manual Significant revision of Intelligence Certification content Capability Analysis & Developing Requirements: Use DODAF to improve development activities Increase emphasis on attributes being measurable and testable Refocus on using S&T to satisfy capability gaps (BBP 3.0…) Introduces Additional Performance Parameters (APAs) Introduce the Capability-Mission Lattice (CML) to improve requirements traceability to operational missions DODAF: DOD Architecture Framework JWSTAP: Joint Weapons Safety Technical Advisory Panel

2015 Changes (2 of 2) Documents: Staffing: Portfolio Management:
Streamline formats Extend “IT Box” construct to create IS CDD Align affordability sections of ICD, CDD, & CPD with Add Content/Endorsement guides for Mandatory KPPs, Weapon Safety endorsement, DOTmLPF-P endorsement, and Intelligence Certification Staffing: Integrate gatekeeping with DCMO for Defense Business Systems Clarify guidance for submitting & reviewing higher classified documents & issues (including SAP, SAR, and ACCM) Portfolio Management: Consolidate “post-validation processes” and “prioritization” guidance into the “portfolio management” guidance. ACCM: Alternative or Compensatory Control Measures SAP: Special Access Programs SAR: Selected Acquisition Report

Capability Mission Lattice (CML)
The “Capability Matrix Lattice” (CML) is an integrating construct to ensure traceability to strategic guidance, missions of the Joint force, and other departmental activities – both in the identification of capability requirements and their associated gaps, and in the review and assessment of capability requirement portfolios . Strategic Guidance. Guidance from many sources influences military operations, intelligence activities, development and validation of capability requirements, acquisition activities, and DOTmLPF-P associated with organizing, training, and equipping forces. It also influences the budgetary process which provides funding for all of these activities. Planning/Operations. Current and planned operations, as well as other roles, missions, and functions which direct an ability to perform certain activities, are the most direct driver of capability requirements, in the context of the strategic guidance and threats/intelligence. Global Context and Threats/Intelligence. Intelligence activities identify and quantify threats which may drive or impact military operations, and inform the setting of performance levels in capability requirements. The need to collect intelligence also drives capability requirements, often worked collaboratively between military and intelligence requirements processes when there are shared equities in the capabilities. Materiel and Non-Materiel Capability Solutions. There is generally a many-to-many mapping between validated capability requirements and capability solutions, requiring both materiel and non-materiel solutions to address a single requirement. A single multifunction system, with its associated DOTmLPF-P enablers, may also address many capability requirements across multiple capability requirement portfolios. Capability Requirement Portfolio Management. FCB Chairs and other stakeholders must be advocates for changes to the capability requirement portfolio which are in the best interest of the joint force, and not necessarily advocate for every capability requirement proposed by Sponsors.

Changes to the Process (10 January 2012…)

JCIDS Changes (1 of 2) Requirements Training: Documents:
Mandated Requirements Management Certification Training (RMCT) Documents: Mandatory Page Limits: ICD (10), DCR (30), CDD (45), CPD (40) Implemented “IT Box” construct: the IS ICD. Post-Validation: More definitive Tripwire Process: cost, schedule, & quantity changes 10% cost over current baseline or 25% original baseline, IOC/FOC slip of 12 months from initiating JROCM, 10% reduction in end items DCR: DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendation ICD: Initial Capabilities Document CDD: Capability Development Document CPD: Capability Production Document

JCIDS Changes (2 of 2) JCB/JROC Validation:
More Tank-like, with limited audience to facilitate determinative discussion JROC Principals+1, COCOM Principals+1 Statutory advisors or their Deputy (AT&L, CAPE, OT&E, OSD(P), OSD(C), JS J7…) Minimal others by invitation only… FCB Chair briefs JCB/JROC, NOT the Sponsor or PM. FCB Chair tees up the appropriate debate - Sponsor/SME available for discussion Validation decision considers Cost, Schedule, Performance and Quantity Targets (as appropriate) in JROCMs

J8 Gatekeeper Perform an initial review of all requirements proposals
Support provided by J7, J6, J8, & FCB WGs The Gatekeeper determines: Joint Staffing Designator: JROC Interest – potential ACAT I/IA JCB Interest – potential ACAT II & below Joint Integration – potential ACAT II & below, no joint force impact, no additional reviews necessary, staffing needed for applicable certs Joint Information – potential ACAT II & below, may impact services or agencies but not joint force, no certs, Lead and supporting FCBs Formal staffing begins after Gatekeeper decisions

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. 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. 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.

RQM 310: ICD Review – Compare & Contrast
Notional Scout, Notional Bomber, JHRM July 20, 2015

Lesson Objectives Develop a more “discerning eye” when reviewing capability identification documents Compare and contrast three actual ICDs One JCIDS compliant, one partially compliant, and one non-compliant Build a bridge between old documents and current guidance

First, some questions…

Is JCIDS Broken? Could it be that:
JCIDS (the process) is NOT focused on materiel solutions – YET the people doing JCIDS analysis might be? Does JCIDS fully account for existing & non-materiel solutions? and Is the analysis supposed to exhaust those possibilities before identifying materiel approaches? Everything in the Pentagon is risk-averse & overly bureaucratic—not just JCIDS? AND the JS intentionally built JCIDS that way? As a taxpayer, do you want everything vetted at every level? Whether or not it is the “right” answer? That nobody disagrees with? Build Build Build Build

Bad ICDs? There are many BAD ICDs that the validation authorities approve. Why? Time Apathy / lack of equity Expertise “Back scratching mentality” Nobody reads them / who cares Great brief - bad ICD Is it the process — or lack of discipline inside the process? Both? Neither? Why? Build Build Build

ICD Titles Why might a simple title be so important?
How about these ICD titles? Specify solution? Biometric Enabling Capability (BEC) Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Improved Cargo Airdrop Capability (ICAdC) Light Mobility Aircraft (LiMA) Airborne ISR Transport (AIT) Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA) Infectious Disease Countermeasures (IDCM) Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) Vessel-to-Shore Bridging (VSB) Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Build Build

JCIDS Compliance

Compliance Two parts: Capstone guidance for CBAs / ICDs
Content – does underlying analysis meet the intent of guidance? Format – does the document comply with JCIDS Manual? Capstone guidance for CBAs / ICDs Validation of an ICD ensures the Capability requirements and proposed IOC/FOC meet National Military Strategy (NMS) and Combatant Commander (CCMD) need DoD prioritizes capability requirements that do not provide unnecessary redundancy across the Joint Force

Today’s C & C Limitations:
No usable ICDs developed under current JCIDS guidance: Hence, we’ll focus on content, not format However, we will briefly look at the differences… J8 JCIDS intent remains the same Slight change in emphasis with new format Build Build

Document Content Changes ICD
Jan 2012 Feb 2015 Cover Page Executive Summary Sections CONOPS Summary JCAs Capability Requirements Capability Gaps and Overlaps/Redundancies Threat and Operational Environment Assessment of Non-Materiel Approaches Final Recommendations Appendices Architecture Data References Acronym List Glossary 10 pages* Cover Page Validation Page Executive Summary Sections Operational Context Threat Summary Capability Requirements and Gaps/Overlaps Assessment of Non-Materiel Approaches Final Recommendations Appendices References Acronym List Glossary Classified Annex (optional) 13 Pages** ICD Changes: Validation page added; body reduced from 7 to 5 section. ICD page limits: Cover Page, Validation Page and Executive Summary are all limited to one page Body of the ICD, 5 sections, limited to 10 pages* Appendices: Appendix A, B and C do not have a page limit. Appendix A: DODAF architecture data is referred to by URL location prior to listing references Appendix D, Classified Annex, if used, counts against the 10 page body limit *This is a change from 2012 – in 2012 the 10 page limit applied to the body (7 sections) and Appendix A. * In 2012 the 10 page limit applied to the body (7 sections) and Appendix A ** In 2015, the 10-page limit applies only to the body (5 sections)

What’s In A Title? JROC approved all three
Jun “Armed Aerial Scout” (AAS, sponsor: USA) Apr “Airborne Strategic Deterrence” (ABSD, sponsor: USAF) May 2013: “Joint Health Risk Management” (JHRM, sponsor: USNORTHCOM) Build Build

1. Concept of Operations Summary
Describe the relevant parts of the Joint Concepts, CONOPS, and/or Unified Command Plan (UCP) - assigned mission to which the capability requirements identified in the ICD contribute What operational outcomes they provide How they complement the integrated joint / multinational warfighting force What enabling capabilities are required to achieve the desired operational outcomes.

Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) 1. Concept of Operations Summary
Build Identify the UCP-assigned mission “The fundamental purpose of an Armed Aerial Scout is to conduct armed reconnaissance, security operations, and attack missions in support of full spectrum operations. In doing so, it improves the commander's ability to maneuver and concentrate superior combat power against the enemy at the decisive time and place.” (FM3-04, Attach Rec Helo Ops, 2007) Operational outcomes “The precise application of combat power and effective synchronization of maneuver and supporting fires require a current and accurate picture of the enemy's current dispositions and activity within a given area of operations. An Armed Aerial Scout plays a critical role in providing this information and provides advantages over other intelligence sources by countering enemy deception efforts, providing improved real-time situational awareness and assessing terrain.” Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) CONOPS (Build Slide) Identify a Unified Command Plan (UCP) - assigned mission? This slide shows that Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) ICD does not meet the letter or intent of addressing how the capability meets a UCP-assigned mission. The paragraph makes no mention of any UCP-assigned mission. … to conduct armed reconnaissance, security operations, and attack missions in support of full spectrum operations. Operational outcomes? The slide shows that the sponsor failed to provide any operational outcomes associated with the desired capability. The mention of what an AAS will do shows that the sponsor had a solution in mind while writing the ICD. The paragraph does not mention what outcomes must be attained and indicates a lack of analysis. Does the ICD mention Integrated into a Joint / Multinational fight? The ICD makes no mention of how AAS will integrate into the Joint Force or any enabling capabilities required to employ the AAS. Does the ICD Identify enabling capabilities? The ICD makes no mention any enabling capabilities required to employ the AAS. AAS is a solution, not a capability. Build

Airborne Strategic Deterrence (ABSD) 1. Concept of Operations Summary
Identify the UCP-assigned assigned mission CDRUSSTRATCOM is the lead combatant commander for strategic deterrence planning and is responsible for executing strategic deterrence operations.” Unified Command Plan, 17 Dec 2008, p. 27 The capabilities identified in this Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) directly contribute to the deterrence mission as identified in USSTRATCOM’s Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept (DO JOC) , tasks established in the Unified Command Plan and requirements ……. Operational outcomes (a) assure friends and allies, (b) dissuade potential adversaries from developing or expanding inventories of (c) deter potential adversaries Integrate into the joint / multinational warfighting force deterrence capabilities complement the joint warfighter’s integrated campaign plan -- preventing the need to escalate to armed conflict. Airborne Strategic Deterrence (ABSD) CONOPS Identify a Unified Command Plan (UCP) - assigned mission? Sponsor makes clear linkage to both the UCP and the STRATCOM Joint Operating Concept. Airborne Strategic Deterrent (ABSD) is a capability not a solution. What operational outcomes are provided? Sponsor provides clear operational outcomes, assure, deter and dissuade. They have a more strategic focus than operational but that is inherent in nuclear deterrence. JCIDS has to be flexible to accommodate. Does the ICD mention Integrated into a Joint / Multinational fight? Sponsor discusses integrating into a joint campaign plan. It is more difficult to show because if deterrence is effective, then no campaign plan is executed.

Airborne Strategic Deterrence (ABSD) 1. Concept of Operations Summary
Identify enabling capabilities to achieve operational outcome Enabling capabilities required to achieve Assurance, Dissuasion And Deterrence (ADD) include: an understanding of allied and adversary goals, priorities and values an effective Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) providing early warning, assessing programs and threats, adversary behaviors and intentions, targeting, and post attack analysis a secure, survivable Command, Control and Communications the building and cultivation of strategic partners the maintenance of a robust and responsive conventional and nuclear industrial base to sustain capabilities over time and an effective hedge against technical and/or geopolitical uncertainties. ABSD CONOPS Summary Does the ICD Identify enabling capabilities? Sponsor provides a reasonable list of enabling capabilities. The point is not to debate if the list is complete but to ensure consideration is given. We are not grading their homework or analysis, but ensuring that analysis was done.

2. Joint Capability Areas (JCAs)
Cite the applicable Tier 1 and Tier 2 JCAs Range of military operations Timeframe for IOC based upon input from CCMD / AQ Relevant Integrated Security Constructs (ISC), if applicable Joint Capability Area (Talking Points) Particular attention should be focused on timeframe and DPSs. Timeframe is important to ensure capability can be delivered when required and will be reviewed during the AoA review and CDD review. DPSs (ICSs) are important to ensure analysis is conducted against joint-approved scenarios and cover the ROMO to identify tasks, conditions and standards. Cite the applicable Tier I and II JCAs from reference hh , and The range of military operations being addressed. Identify the timeframe under consideration for initial operational capability based on input from supported/supporting CCMDs and the acquisition community. Also identify the Relevant Defense Planning Scenarios (DPS) (ICS), if any, applicable to this ICD. Integrated Security Constructs (ISCs) ISCs contain scenarios for major combat operations. Military objectives of the ISCs provide a source for developing the list of required capabilities. Developed as part of the DoD Analytic Baseline in accordance with DoDD and DoDI Integrated Security Constructs (ISCs) - Developed as part of the DoD Analytic Baseline. ISCs contain scenarios for major combat operations. Military objectives of the ISCs provide a source for developing the list of required capabilities.

Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) 2. Joint Capability Areas (JCAs)
Cite the applicable JCAs Battlespace Awareness Force Application Command and Control Net-Centric Timeframe timeframe from 2015 through approximately 2024 Relevant Defense Planning Scenarios (DPS, now ISC) - ????? Range of military operations Conventional Warfare Forcible Entry Unconventional Warfare Show of Force Peace Enforcement Peacekeeping Operations Normal and Routine Military Operations AAS JCAs Cite the applicable Tier 1 and Tier 2 JCAs AAS does list applicable JCAs and they seem appropriate. Again, ensuring they are addressed is more important than grading whether they are perfect Range of military operations seems appropriate however, the disconnect is in the last main bullet. Another indicator that no analysis was conducted. No DPSs are cited so what was the basis for the list of missions in the ROMO? Timeframe for IOC based upon input from CCMD / AQ -- The timeframe seems tight—this was a 2009 document and they are looking at 2015. Nothing gets fielded from an ICD in 6 years unless buying COTS. Relevant Defense Planning Scenarios (DPS) (ICS), if applicable The timeframe should align with the DPSs but there are no DPSs and no indication of what really drove this timeframe

Airborne Strategic Deterrence (ABSD) 2. Joint Capability Areas (JCAs)
Cite the applicable JCAs ABSD capabilities reside in FA, supporting the Maneuver and Engagement Tier 1 & 2 JCAs Supporting capability areas include: Battlespace Awareness (BA), Command and Control (C2), Corporate Management (CM), Force Support (FS), Net Centric (NC) and Protection (FP) Range of military operations Deterrence capabilities are applicable across the entire Range of Military Operations (ROMO) Timeframe a 2020 threat environment. Relevant Defense Planning Scenarios (DPS – now ISC) The ABSD CBA was informed by Defense Planning Scenarios (DPS) 2-4 (Bipolar, Multi-polar and Global Insurgency worlds). Table 2.1 lists the Steady State Security Posture (SSSP) vignettes Airborne Strategic Deterrence JCAs Cite the applicable JCAs ABSD does list applicable JCAs that seem appropriate. Range of military operations The sponsor states that deterrence occurs across the ROMO and essentially expands the role of traditional nuclear deterrence to a broader mission area Timeframe The timeframe is 2020 based on the expected service life of the Air Launch Cruise Missile. Relevant Defense Planning Scenarios (DPS) (ICS) Sponsor clearly states which DPSs were selected as the basis of the analysis.

3. Capability Requirements
Describe capabilities required in CBA or other study Why are they essential to Sponsor to achieve goals / objectives Relate to Concept, CONOPs, UPC-assigned mission Address compliance with OSD, Joint, National, International, policies and regulations Define capability requirements in JCA lexicon UJTLs / METLs Relevant Range of Military Operations Timeframe Under Consideration Operational attributes, qualitative parameters, metrics Minimum value below which capability will no longer be effective Covers what is required to be in this section of an ICD. Capability requirements and capability gaps must be described in terms of the ISCs assessed on achieving the relevant military objectives Capability requirement table added UJTL: Universal Joint Task List METL: Mission Essential Task List

Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) 3. Capability Requirements
Describe capabilities required in CBA …the need for an Armed Aerial Scout to enable dominant maneuver for the joint air-ground maneuver force by providing aggressive combined arms reconnaissance. Why are they essential for JFC to achieve objectives The Joint Force Commander (JFC) requires a relatively low cost, armed aerial scout platform that requires minimal training support, is supportable within the planned logistics environment, affordable with the planned level of logistics resources throughout the lifecycle, and is interoperable with organic and joint fires systems and manned/unmanned aviation platforms. Build AAS Required Capability (BUILD SLIDE) Paragraph basically articulates Army doctrine for armed reconnaissance. Describe capabilities required in CBA (How do you do an AoA on this?) The paragraph makes no mention of how these capabilities were derived through analysis. This section needs to discuss how capabilities were derived from the CBA and the inability of the programmed force to conduct assigned tasks for the scenario. Why are they essential for JFC to achieve objectives The paragraph about the JFC objectives makes no mention of contributing to a JFC objective. These objectives should be derived from the ISCs. JFCs do not care about cost, training, life cycle costs, etc. That is Service responsibility, not a JFC concern. Another indication that the Sponsor already had acquisition considerations in mind and no analysis was conducted. relatively low cost affordable resources throughout the lifecycle Build

Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) 3. Capability Requirements
Capability is required to comply with OSD, Joint, National policies ???????? Identify JCAs to which capability contributes Force Application Command and Control Net-Centric Protect Use JCAs to describe capabilities The Armed Aerial Scout capability gap has been repeatedly identified in previous studies and analysis including: ……. current rotary wing aircraft employed by Army aviation in the armed reconnaissance role have shortcomings in performance, lethality, interoperability and survivability. Build AAS Required capability (cont) (BUILD SLIDE) Capability is required to comply with OSD, Joint, National policies The ICD makes no mention of linkage or tie into OSD, Joint or national policies Identify JCAs to which capability contributes ICD does bin JCAs Use JCAs to describe capabilities The “Use JCAs to Describe Capabilities” section is a red flag with the comment about being shortfalls being repeatedly identified in previous studies and discussing current shortfalls in capability. Both are indications that no analysis of operating in a future environment was conducted. Previous studies, etc are not inherently bad, but the capability must be delivered for anticipated future scenarios not current or past operations. One of the challenges with this ICD is that it’s looking backward vs forward AAS “gap” is identified in previous studies dating from 1987, Applying the NTC Experience: Tactical Reconnaissance (RAND) 1991, Value of Army Aviation Reconnaissance Literature Review 1992, Armed Reconnaissance/Scout/Light Attack Helicopter Force Multiplier (Burdeshaw) 1993, Bottom-Up Review 1993, Measuring the Value of Scout/Reconnaissance (RAND) , Manned and Un-Manned (MUM) I-IV Studies 2002, Defense Planning Guidance 04 Helicopter Study 2003/2008 USCENTAF Lessons Learned from OIF/OEF (Unclassified) Build capability gap has been repeatedly identified current 8 Studies

Airborne Strategic Deterrence (ABSD) 3. Capability Requirements
Describe capabilities required in CBA These required capabilities (listed alphabetically) from the CBA formulated the ICD recommendations. (U) Adaptable (U) Clear/Visible. (U) Credible (U) Effective. (U) Endurable. (U) Global in Coverage. (U) Persistently Present. (U) Responsive. (U) Survivable. (U) Tailorable. Required Capability ABSD Describe capabilities required in CBA ABSD does a good job of clearly listing the capabilities required by the airborne leg of the Triad to assure, deter and dissuade, ie achieve the operational outcomes.

Airborne Strategic Deterrence (ABSD) 3. Capability Requirements
Capability is required to comply w/OSD, Joint, National policies above capabilities are essential because they provide credible deterrent tools to the National Command Authority and the Joint Force Commander to achieve military objectives which support Assurance, Dissuasion and Deterrence (ADD). Identify JCAs to which capability contributes directly support both Maneuver and Engagement in the Force Application (FA) Tier 1 JCA. Use JCAs to describe capabilities The ABSD capabilities do not apply to any Tier 1 & Tier 2 JCAs that have been prioritized by the SWarF process. The STRATCOM SWarF process identified nuclear strike attributes but did not prioritize JCAs These capabilities are rooted in previous USSTRATCOM deterrence analysis and refined in the USSTRATCOM Senior Warfighter Forum (SWarF). A crosswalk of SWarf attributes with ABSD capabilities is found in Appendix I Required Capability ABSD (cont) Capability is required to comply with OSD, Joint, National policies ABSD sponsor links strategic deterrence to the tools required by both the NCA and the JFC to comply with National, OSD and Joint policies to assure, deter and dissuade Identify JCAs to which capability contributes The sponsor ties the required capabilities to Engage and Maneuver JCAs. This is tough because there are no JCAs for deterrence and these JCAs are really when deterrence fails. They did the best they could given the uniqueness of this mission set. Use JCAs to describe capabilities Deterrence is not well articulated in the JCA construct so it is difficult to align to the JCAs for required capabilities to ASSURE, DETER and DISSUADE.

We’ll Stop here & look at a more recent example…

(5) Threat and Operational Environment.
Other Sections: We’ll stop here… Section 4, Capability Gaps and Overlaps/Redundancies Section 5, Threat and Operational Environment Section 6, DOTmLPF-P Section 7, Final Recommendations 5. Threat and Operational Environment Description of environment already accomplished Slide covers what is required to be in this section of an ICD (5) Threat and Operational Environment. Summarize the current and projected threat capabilities (lethal and non-lethal) to be countered. - (a) Reference the current DIA-validated threat documents and DOD Component intelligence production center-approved products or data used to support the CBA. - (b) During staffing, documents with JSDs of JROC Interest, Joint Capabilities Board (JCB) Interest, and Joint Integration will be subject to Defense Warning Office (DWO) threat validation in accordance with reference pp.1 [1] pp. CJCSI Series, “Joint Military Intelligence Requirements Certification”

Document Content Changes ICD
Jan 2012 Feb 2015 Cover Page Executive Summary Sections CONOPS Summary JCAs Capability Requirements Capability Gaps and Overlaps/Redundancies Threat and Operational Environment Assessment of Non-Materiel Approaches Final Recommendations Appendices Architecture Data References Acronym List Glossary 10 pages* Cover Page Validation Page Executive Summary Sections Operational Context Threat Summary Capability Requirements and Gaps/Overlaps Assessment of Non-Materiel Approaches Final Recommendations Appendices References Acronym List Glossary Classified Annex (optional) 13 Pages** ICD Changes: Validation page added; body reduced from 7 to 5 section. ICD page limits: Cover Page, Validation Page and Executive Summary are all limited to one page Body of the ICD, 5 sections, limited to 10 pages* Appendices: Appendix A, B and C do not have a page limit. Appendix A: DODAF architecture data is referred to by URL location prior to listing references Appendix D, Classified Annex, if used, counts against the 10 page body limit *This is a change from 2012 – in 2012 the 10 page limit applied to the body (7 sections) and Appendix A. * In 2012 the 10 page limit applied to the body (7 sections) and Appendix A ** In 2015, the 10-page limit applies only to the body (5 sections)

Bottom Line for DoD ICDs:
Regardless of format, you just might have a “Bad” ICD if it… Has the solution in the title ….. Clearly states “No CBA or comparable analysis was conducted….. Refers only to Lessons Learned and Past Studies….. Makes no mention of Joint Operations….. Has a timeframe of last year, this year, or next year….. Makes no reference to any DPS (ISC) or joint warfighting scenarios….. Makes no reference to why mission accomplishment needs these capabilities..... Lists solutions instead of approaches to solutions….. Does not describe any significant non-materiel analysis & rationale….. And finally --- the OV-1 does not show all 5 Services! Slide 43 – Review (Build Slide) You know you MAY have a bad ICD….. If your ICD has the solution in the title ….. If you ICD clearly states “No CBA / analysis was conducted….. If your ICD refers only to Lessons Learned and Past Studies….. If your ICD makes no mention of Joint Operations….. If your ICD has a timeframe of last year, this year or next year….. If your ICD makes no reference to any DPS or joint warfighting scenario….. If your ICD makes no reference to why capabilities are required for mission accomplishment….. If your ICD lists the solutions required instead of approaches to solutions….. If your ICD does not address any analysis on what non-materiel approaches were considered….. And Finally---if the OV-1 in your ICD does not show all 5 Services…..

Capabilities Requirements Documents for Information Systems (IS) and Information Technology (IT)
Tom Fritz

Lesson Objectives Introduce IT Box review exercise – GEMSIS IT Box CDD (conducted Thursday) Know how the JCIDS documents and process are modified when using the IT Box guidance in JCIDS manual for warfighter IT/IS development Identify the Business System Document portion that contains capability requirements for business IT/IS development IT Box – (current JCIDS manual) Requirements Organization & Oversight Validated Capabilities & Initial MOEs $ Estimated Sustainment Costs (Lifetime) JROC Approved IS ICD Estimated Applications & System Software Development & Integration Costs (Lifetime) DoDI , Encl 12 replaces Defense Acquisition Guidebook Chapter 12 Conduct a Class IT knowledge level exercise. What groupings of IT/IS programs do we have. Business Embedded C2 C4 - warfighting 98

PREVIEW: Thursday IT BOX review responsibilities

Thursday: GEMSIS IT BOX CDD review responsibilities
Organization & Oversight Chair: Co-chairs: Table 1 Table 2 & 6 Table 4 & 8 Hardware Refresh and System Enhancements & Integration Lifecycle Cost= $ (FY Per year = $ M Rationale: GEMSIS Increment 2 JROC Approved Oversight – STRATCOM J6 & Joint Staff J6 Program Execution DISA/GEMSIS PMO Key Performance Parameters • KPP#l • KPP#2 • KPP#3 Table 5 RDP Applications & System Software Development • Lifecycle Cost = $ (FY__ to __ ) • Per year = $ Rationale: Provide Table 3 & 7

Adapting Capabilities Requirements Documents for IT /IS
IF: The JCIDS process and documents optimized for MDAP hardware with high cost of sustainability THEN: JCIDS documents and process tend not to be supportive of the rapid pace of development and deployment IS systems/capabilities needed to meet operational needs. PROCESS TO-BE: Provide agile and responsive Capabilities Requirements documents and process to enable rapid development of IS capabilities PROCESS IMPROVEMENT: SEVEN aspects of the JCIDS process are modified by the “IT Box” in conjunction with changes in the acquisition process, to meet the needs of the operational user so that new capabilities can be delivered rapidly, and adapted as necessitated by changes in the operational environment This describes why additional change was required for the IT Box process in the 19 Jan 2012 JCIDS Manual Discussion: What are some typical categories of DoD and Service IT/IS systems? 101

Assumptions IS development is different from major weapon systems development Modify their processes and documentation expectations accordingly (DODI ) The test and certification communities can deliver more responsive test and certification processes to achieve timely delivery of capabilities Necessitates incremental/iterative development and testing Validation authority for managing requirements can be pushed down to a lower level to better enable adjustment to capability deployment schedule and KPP level performance decisions (normally retained as a JROC authority) 102

Seven areas of JCIDS affected by “IT Box” guidance
Capabilities Document content and supporting Analysis for ICD and CDD FCB briefing format Validating JROCM format Follow on capability document format loosely defined as Requirements Definition Package (RDP) with Capabilities Drops (CD) Designation of an Oversight Body with more authority than typically delegated for Joint Capabilities Requirements NR KPP table defined immediately Funding table defined immediately 103

Definition of the IT Box – JCIDS Manual : Enclosure D IS ICD, IS CDD
Organization & Oversight Flag-level oversight thru [describe ] Chair: XXXX Members: XXXX , XXXX , XXXX IS ICD, JCIDS Manual Page D-32 “Boundaries” JROC-Approved IS ICD [Topic name] Oversight – [Name] Execute – [Name] Capabilities and Initial Minimum Values Hardware Refresh and System Enhancements &I ntegration: Per year =$XX Lifecycle Cost = $XX Rationale…. Capability #1 [Describe] = initial value Capability #2 [Describe] = initial value Etc. [List the operational attributes/ initial values that apply to this IS-ICD] NR KPP Table Application and System Software Development: Per year =$XX Lifecycle Cost = $XX Rationale…. Biannual status review by the Lead FCB Revalidation by JCB / JROC if: a) new core capabilities added to the ICD b) Increase programmed development and integration funding c) Disestablishment of oversight body or designation of new oversight body d) Exception: Changes to MAIS programs proposed in conjunction

Definition of the IT Box – JCIDS Manual : Enclosure D IS ICD, IS CDD
Organization & Oversight Flag-level oversight thru [describe ] Chair: XXXX Members: XXXX , XXXX , XXXX IS CDD, JCIDS Manual page D-65 “Boundaries” JROC-Approved IS CCD [Topic name] Oversight – [Name] Execute – [Name] Key Performance Parameters Hardware Refresh and System Enhancements &I ntegration: Per year =$XX Lifecycle Cost = $XX Rationale…. Capability #1 [Describe] = initial value Capability #2 [Describe] = initial value Etc. [List the operational attributes/ initial values that apply to this IS-ICD] NR KPP Table Application and System Software Development: Per year =$XX Lifecycle Cost = $XX Rationale…. Biannual status review by the Lead FCB Revalidation by JCB / JROC if: a) new core capabilities added to the ICD b) Increase programmed development and integration funding c) Disestablishment of oversight body or designation of new oversight body d) Exception: Changes to MAIS programs proposed in conjunction

Funding Table & NR KPP Table
NR KPP Attribute Key Performance Parameter Initial Minimum 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 Mission Activities: Find HVT Measure: Location accuracy Conditions: Individual differentiation 100 meter circle Identify armed/ not armed Enter and be managed in the network Network: SIPRNET Measure: Time to connect to an operational network from power up Conditions: Continuous Network Connectivity <2 minutes Network: NIPRNET Conditions: Continuous Network Connectivity Up to 2 minutes Exchange information Information Element: Target Data Measure: Dissemination of HVT biographic and physical data Measure: Latency of data Condition: NSA Type 1 Certified Encryption Condition: Continuous Network Connectivity <10 seconds <5 seconds Resources Required (Note 2) Base Year $$ (Note 1) FYxx FYxx+1 FYxx+2 FYDP Total Post-FYDP (FYyy-FYzz) Life Cycle Cost (FYxx-FYzz) Application and System Software Development Costs Hardware Refresh, System Integration Costs Total Note 1: All resources normalized to a standard base year (BY) reference – BY$$. Note 2: Current year is FYxx. First post-FYDP year is FYyy. End of planned capability life, or end of 30-year TOA projection if no planned service life, is FYzz. Table D-4. Example Life Cycle Cost Summary Table for IS-ICDs (JCIDS Manual) Example NR KPP table (derived from Table D-E-3 , JCIDS Manual) 106

Applicability of the JCIDS IT Box (see JCIDS Manual IS ICD, IS CDD)
Efforts where an IT box may be considered: JROC Gatekeeper oversight (Life cycle program costs ≥ $15 million) Hardware: All hardware associated with an IS-ICD must be COTS/GOTS. Hardware modifications are restricted to those necessary for system integration and enhancements to meet capability requirements. Includes periodic refresh through lifecycle. Software - Development, integration, and acquisition of customized applications, including commercial IS capability solutions with integrated, DOD-specific performance characteristics/standards. Includes continued development and deployment through lifecycle. IT box IS NOT appropriate where: Software is embedded as a subset of a capability solution developed under other validated capability requirement documents. IT capability gap is better addressed by DBS process 107 DBS: Defense Business Systems HW: Hardware COTS: Commercial off the shelf GOTS: Government off the shelf

IT Box & Requirements Management
Must meet data requirements for NR KPP certification CDDs and CPDs required for programs identified as MDAPs (there are currently no MDAP – MAIS programs) 108 108 Fielding Decisions

defense business system description -enclosure of 12 dodi 5000
defense business system description -enclosure of 12 dodi jan 7, 2015 Have a life-cycle cost in excess of $1 million over the current Future Years Defense Program An information system, other than a National Security System, operated by, for, or on behalf of the DoD, including: financial systems management information systems financial data feeder systems the information technology and cybersecurity infrastructure used to support business activities, such as contracting pay and personnel management systems some logistics systems financial planning and budgeting installations management human resource management 109 109

Updated Problem Statement
Capabilities Requirements in Business System Lifecycle Documents – DoDI Encl 12 Prior to MDD: Problem Statement After MDD: Updated Problem Statement Model 2: Defense Unique Software Intensive Program Model 3: Incrementally Fielded Software Intensive Program Hybrid Program B (Software Dominant) 110

Model 2: Defense Unique Software Intensive Program
Complex, usually defense unique, software program that will not be fielded until several software builds have been completed. Examples: command and control systems and significant upgrades to the combat systems found on major weapons systems such as surface combatants and tactical aircraft. Several software builds are typically necessary to achieve a deployable capability. The central feature of this model is the planned software builds – a series of testable, integrated subsets of the overall capability – which together with clearly defined decision criteria, ensure adequate progress is being made before fully committing to subsequent builds Examples of this type of product include military unique command and control systems and significant upgrades to the combat systems found on major weapons systems such as surface combatants and tactical aircraft. 111 *The actual number and type of builds during the program will depend on system type.

PREVIEW: Thursday Assignment
Review GEMSIS IT Box CDD – Template and documents in K Drive – Thursday 1 hour discussion Documents for Thursday review located in: K:\ Clsrm and Conf Room Temp Files\ RQM 310 Oct 2013\ Exercises

Resources BBP 3.0 http://bbp.dau.mil NSS
QDR Joint Electronic Library + JDEIS CAC enabled JCIDS CAC enabled DoD 4. DBS PROBLEM STATEMENT.

Model 3: Incrementally Fielded Software Intensive Program
B A Materiel Development Decision Development RFP Release CDD Validation IOC Limited Fielding Decisions Materiel Solution Analysis Risk Reduction Development & Deployment Sustainment Build 0 Build OT&E Build 1.1 Build 1.2 . . . Full Deployment Decision (FDD) Full (FD) Operations & Support Build 1.n Increment N Development RFP Release Decision Limited Fielding Decisions FD Development & Build n.1 Build n.2 Build n.n Increment 2 FDD Build 2.1 Build 2.2 Build 2.n Sustainment Disposal This model will apply in cases where commercial off-the-shelf software, such as commercial business systems with multiple modular capabilities, are acquired and adapted for DoD. This model is distinguished by the rapid delivery of capability through multiple acquisition increments, each of which provides part of the overall required program capability. 114

Model 6. Hybrid Program B (Software Dominant)
Development RFP Release CDD Validation B A C Build 1.1.1 Build 1.1.2 Build 1.0.1 Integration Build 1.1.3 Build 1.2 Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Production and Deployment Engineering & Manufacturing Development Sustainment Materiel Development Decision IOC FD FDD Build 1.3.1 Build 1.3.2* Limited Deployment LD) Operations & Support OT&E Increment 2 Development RFP Release Decision Build 2.1.1 Build 2.1.2 Build 2.3.1 Sustainment Disposal LD Build 2.3.2 Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Build 2.1.3 Build 2.2 Depicts how s/w intensive product development can include mix of incrementally fielded software products or releases that include intermediate software builds Risk Management: Highly-integrated, complex s/w & h/w development risks must be managed throughout life cycle -- special interest at decision points and milestones

Thursday: GEMSIS IT BOX CDD review responsibilities
Organization & Oversight Chair: Co-chairs: Table 1 Table 2 Hardware Refresh and System Enhancements & Integration Lifecycle Cost= $ (FY Per year = $ M Rationale: GEMSIS Increment 2 JROC Approved Oversight – STRATCOM J6 & Joint Staff J6 Program Execution DISA/GEMSIS PMO Table 4 Key Performance Parameters • KPP#l • KPP#2 • KPP#3 Table 5 RDP Applications & System Software Development • Lifecycle Cost = $ (FY__ to __ ) • Per year = $ Rationale: Provide Table 3

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) Requirements and Acquisition Management In the.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) Requirements and Acquisition Management In the."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) Requirements and Acquisition Management In the.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) Requirements and Acquisition Management In the."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback