Requirements Management Executive Overview Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Systems Management College School.

Requirements Management Executive Overview Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Systems Management College School of Program Managers Defense Acquisition University 22 June 2009

Developing Requirements
Developing Capabilities Sequences of Events Analysis Initial Documentation Transitions to Actions that provide Solutions Non-Materiel Solutions JCIDS Interactions with Developing Materiel Solutions DoD initiated the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) to support the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) in identifying, assessing, and prioritizing joint military capability needs as specified in title 10, United States Code, sections 153, 163, 167, and 181. The overriding goal of the JCIDS process is to support the warfighter by identifying and developing capabilities consistent with Capabilities-Based Planning (CBP). This presentation will discuss the sequence of events that turns warfighters’ needs into requirements and the subsequent requirements into action that provides solutions. This sequence begins with analysis. The analysis is documented in documents like Initial Capabilities Documents (ICDs) and non-materiel change recommendations, called DOTLMPF Change Recommendations (DCRs). When the JCIDS process concludes DoD needs to develop new materiel solutions, the JCIDS requirements process must interact with the Defense Acquisition System and the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBS) system to provide effective solutions.

Today's Capability Portfolio
Strategic Direction Irregular Catastrophic Warfare is Not Always Force-on-Force Defeat Terrorist Extremism Counter WMD QDR 2006 Defend Homeland Defeat Terrorist Networks Defend the Homeland in Depth Shape the Choices of Countries at Strategic Crossroads Counter the Acquisition and Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction Shape Choices “Shifting Our Weight” This matrix illustrates the changing nature of threats to the United States. Traditional force-on-force confrontations dominated previous warfare. For example, ships fought ships, aircraft fought aircraft, and tank formations fought tank formations. When the Soviet Union tried to keep up with American technology and productivity, we effectively bankrupted them. As we face multiple lethal asymmetric threats, we can no longer build individual systems to counter individual threats. We must prepare for multiple threats, and this conundrum has led to Capabilities-Based Planning. Capabilities-Based Planning is an overarching framework for planning in an uncertain environment. It provides capabilities suitable for a wide range of modern-day challenges and circumstances while working within an economic framework that necessitates choice. The key points of the definition emphasize: We cannot predict every threat scenario. Planning under uncertainty forces us to plan for the most dangerous and most likely threat capabilities. We must provide capabilities that let us prevail against the most likely threats. These capabilities must face a wide range of contingencies. We still live under an economic framework that simply cannot provide everything we would like. Today's Capability Portfolio Disruptive Traditional QDR 2005 3 3

Threat vs Capabilities-Based Planning
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) ~ 6 years old Requirements Generation System (RGS) - ~30 years of experience Strategic Direction Partially Interoperable Capabilities Joint Warfighting Concept Development Late Integration Joint Experimentation, Assessment & Analysis, Validation, Selection of Solutions Services Build Systems The new Capabilities-Based Planning is helping shape the American military. Our purpose is to address the system depicted on the left and suggest a new way of doing it as shown on the right. Prior to JCIDS, the DOD employed a threat-based force-planning construct to develop forces, systems, and platforms based on a specific threat and scenario. Requirements were 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 fostered a “bottom-up, stovepiped” approach to acquisition decisions that, in a joint context, was neither fully informed by, or coordinated with, other components; nor were they clearly linked to the National Military Strategy. New programs often failed to foster interoperability; and in the end, had to be deconflicted either by the warfighter or at Department level. Additionally, acquisition management frequently focused 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 DoD will require to address the challenges of the 21st century. Additionally, the senior leadership is involved earlier in the process. The Aldridge study helped establish a process to get the DepSecDef and SecDef involved earlier in the process for decisions. This 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. Bottom up refinement from the services is a critical component to the joint approach of CBP, given the services are the Title X domain experts. Service Experimentation, Assessment & Analysis, Validation, Selection of Solutions COCOMs, Services’ Unique Strategic Visions Joint Capabilities Service Unique Strategic Visions and Requirements

Capabilities-Based Planning (CBP)
Strategic Guidance And Desired Effects Strategic Guidance (OSD (P)) Analytic Agenda (OSD (P)/J-8) Joint Concepts (J7) National Security Strategy National Defense Strategy National Military Strategy Contingency Planning Guidance QDR Report Guidance for Development of the Force Joint Programming Guidance Defense Planning Scenarios Multi-Service Force Deployment Operational Availability Studies Global Force Management CJCSI B Joint Operating Concepts (JOCs) Joint Concept Development & Experimentation Process Guide JCDE Campaign Plan Joint Concepts DPS – Blue Force CONOPS Force Management CBP Adaptive Planning JCIDS (J8) DoD 5000 (OSD AT&L) PPBE (OSD (C/PA&E)) JCIDS is one of the six key processes that make up the Capability Based Planning process Strategic guidance is issued by OSD to provide strategic direction for all subsequent decisions and to provide Planning and Programming guidance for the building of the POM and the development of acquisition programs. The PPBE is directed by the Comptroller and PA&E to ensure appropriate funding for the Department’s efforts. AT&L provides policy guidance and oversight on the acquisition process, makes acquisition decisions on MDAP programs, and coordinate program decisions through the use of capability roadmaps. The Analytic Agenda is driven by guidance from OSD and the analysis and modeling and simulation are executed by the JS/J-8 to identify potential force structure issues and to provide detail on the Defense Planning Scenarios used for identifying capability needs. The J-7 manages the Joint Concepts development and approval process. These top-down identified concepts become the baseline for developing capability needs. The JCIDS process identifies capability needs based on input from the Concepts and the Analytic Agenda and feeds the results to the acquisition and budgeting processes. All six processes must work together effectively to deliver the joint capabilities the Department requires. CJCSI/M JROC Validation and Approval of JCIDS Documents Functional Capabilities Boards Evaluation of COCOM Needs (lessons learned, joint urgent needs, etc.) Concept Decisions Defense Acquisition Boards Acquisition Decision Memos Selected Acquisition Reports/ Defense Acquisition Executive Summaries Capability Portfolio Management Program Objective Memorandum/ Budget Estimate Submission Program Review Program Decision Memos/ Program Budget Decisions President’s Budget Common Lexicon – Joint Capability Areas Delivered Capability to the Joint Warfighter

Capabilities-Based Planning
CBP Analysis Warfighter Feedback Fielded Capabilities Set the Strategic Stage Materiel Solutions Non-Materiel Solutions Set Priorities Requirements development often begins with warfighter feedback. The CBP analysis steps are: 1) Set the strategic stage, 2) Set priorities, and 3) Identify needs and solutions. Once CBP analysis identifies needs and solutions either DOD provides non-materiel solutions, or the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) and Defense Acquisition System (DAS) provides materiel solutions to augment our fielded capabilities. Remember that the JCIDS requirements process is a work in progress. The goal is to support the warfighter by moving capabilities through the “Big A” acquisition systems. DoD also has rapid response procedures which we discuss in a later presentation. Streamlining the JCIDS process remains a priority. Your challenge as an approver is to consider what you can do to strreamline your processes as a requirement goes through JCIDS. ASK – What are your experiences with streamlining the process within your service? J-8 is revising CJCSI How is your Service plugged into making changes? What are the changes important for your Service’s requirements? Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Identify Needs Acquisition Tab 2

Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA)
What is Analysis? How Does Analysis Help Deliver Solutions to the Warfighter? What is a Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA)? Next, this discussion will define analysis, describe how analysis helps deliver solutions to the warfighter, and the Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA), which begins the formal JCIDS process.

Analysis Analysis – An analytical study of military problems undertaken to provide the responsible commanders and staff agencies with a scientific basis for decisions or action to improve military operations Analysis is a Structured Study That: Solves a problem Examines a range of alternatives Converts real life into math models or simulations Processes data and derives meaning from results Conveys understandable results to the Decision Maker The formal definition of analysis emphasizes several points: Analysis is an analytical study Analysis provides a scientific basis for decisions or action The goal of analysis is to improve military operations To expand on this definition, consider that analysis Solves a problem Examines a range of alternatives May apply modeling and simulation Derives meaning from data processing Conveys the results a decision maker needs to make the best decision 8

Capabilities-Based Assessment
Existing Guidance What we need for the mission NEEDS The problems and the risks GAPS This chart illustrates the relationship between the three major analyses within a Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA). Most CBAs are maintained by the analytic department or agency within a Service that performed the analysis. This is what your staff needs to be doing to do a complete Capabilities-Bases Assessment (CBA). We see people try to skip steps too often as they try to immediately prescribe solutions. This approach gets the acquisition into trouble. An approver or a validating authority needs to be able to ask the right questions for each area of analysis to be sure we deliver the right capabilities. The previous terms for these analysis steps were the Functional Area Analysis (FAA), Functional Needs Analysis (FNA), and Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA). What should we do about it? SOLUTIONS Tab 2

D O T M L P F The Acronym D – Doctrine O – Organization T – Training
M – Materiel L – Leadership and education P – Personnel F – Facilities If the CBA concludes DoD should implement a non-materiel solution, the follow-up action is a DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR). The acronym DOTMLPF stands for [use animation in full screen]: Doctrine: the fundamental principles by which the military forces or military elements guide their actions in support of national objectives. Organization: how DOD organizes to fight. Training: how DOD prepares to fight tactically; this definition ranges from basic training to advanced individual training. Materiel: all the "stuff" necessary to equip DOD forces so those forces can operate effectively. Materiel includes ships, tanks, self-propelled weapons, aircraft, related spares, repair parts, and support equipment, but excludes real property, installations, and utilities. Leadership and education: the professional development leaders need to lead the fight. This education ranges from educating squad leaders to educating four-star generals and admirals. Personnel: those individuals required in either a military or a civilian capacity to accomplish the assigned mission. Facilities: the real property, installations, and industrial facilities that support DOD forces. Tab 2 10

Identifying Potential Solution Approaches
Transformational Solutions Evolution of Existing Capabilities Information Technology Solutions Information for an Analysis of Alternatives Managers must communicate to avoid disconnects over seams between JCIDS, DAS, and PPBE What can we do with the results of a CBA? The CBA can offer new solutions that transform the battlefield into areas we can dominate. For example, developing nuclear weapons and stealth technology played to our technological strengths and transformed warfare. The CBA can lead to DOTMLPF, non-materiel solutions that help our existing systems evolve into more effective capabilities. For example, we may modify or improve our information technology systems to be more effective in different threat environments. How many of us – right now – can be tracked via our cell phones? The results of a CBA can feed the Analysis of Alternatives, which defines a weapons system development. The risks here emphasize the seams between the requirements, acquisition, and funding communities. If managers in these communities do not communicate, the warfighter suffers. 11

Initial Documentation
DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR) Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) The analysis results are documented in DOTMLPF Change Recommendations (DCRs) that make non-materiel changes, and in Initial Capabilities Documents (ICDs) that initiate materiel development. The next slide elaborates on DCRs.

The Joint DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR)
Results of Joint Experimentation or Other Assessments Results of a Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) Request Additional Commercial or Non-Developmental Items Previously Produced or Deployed Introduce Solutions Available From Other DOD, US Agency, or Foreign Sources Services, Combatant Commanders, or Defense Agencies can initiate joint DCRs to: Change, institutionalize, or introduce new joint DOTMLPF and policy resulting as an output of joint experimentation, lesions learned, or other assessments to meet operational needs. Change, institutionalize, or introduce new joint DOTMLPF and policy resulting from the CSA but outside the scope or oversight of a new defense acquisition program. Request additional numbers of existing commercial or non-developmental items previously produced or deployed in addition to other considerations of DOTMLPF. Introduce existing non-materiel solutions available from other DOD, US interagency, or foreign sources. DOD elements may not use joint DCRs for out-of-cycle budget requests. 13

DOTMLPF Analysis When DoD Decides to Not Develop New Materiel Systems
Non-Materiel Solutions Change policy Change doctrine Reorganize Train and educate DOD personnel differently Acquire commercial or non-developmental items Acquire more quantities of existing items Add or reassign personnel Move or realign facilities Sometimes Called DOT_LPF Essentially, organizations sponsor joint DCRs to close capability gaps without developing new military hardware. Although DOD may apply existing materiel to close identified capability gaps, JCIDS calls this a non-materiel solution because the acquisition community is not going to develop new materiel. Rather than developing something new, DCRs can recommend changes to existing policy and to any or to all of the items in the DOTMLPF acronym. For example, DCRs may recommend changes in military policy or doctrine, in the organization of DOD units, or in the training of military units. DCRs may require additional numbers of commercial on non-developmental items. DCRs can support increasing quantities of existing items or commodities to include increases in manpower, operational tempo, spare parts, fuel supplies, and recruiting. DCRs may recommend adding personnel to mission areas. DCRs may move missions or organizations to other facilities. DCRs may realign existing facilities to support new mission areas. DCRs may combine several of these approaches to help close capability gaps identified by the previous analysis. Sometimes, the M in DOTMLPF is omitted and the acronym becomes DOT_LPF. Remember that acquiring commercial or non-developmental items and acquiring increased quantities of existing items is not developing new hardware. DOD uses other requirements documents to guide weapons system development. 14

Documenting Capability Gaps
Requirements developed during analysis go into the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD): Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Staffing and Validation ICDs Apply the Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Results Identifies relevant operational performance attributes Documents the recommendation on the need for a materiel solution Predecessor Document for the Capability Development Document (CDD) Initial Capabilities Documents (ICDs) apply the results from the CBA by: Identifying relevant performance attributes Documenting the material approach or the combination of approaches identified in the CBA A common misconception is that every system development requires a new, separate ICD. This is not so. Once an ICD identifies a capability gap, that ICD can become the predecessor document for the Capabilities Development Document (CDD). This means that the operational level MOE requirements in the ICD become performance characteristics for a weapon system which then become KPPs and KSAs in the CDD. Tab 2

Operational Performance Attributes
Attributes Necessary to Design a Proposed System Establish a Performance Baseline Guide Development and Demonstration Guide Developing Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) The CDD provides the operational performance attributes necessary for the acquisition Program Manager and the acquisition community to design a proposed system and establish a program baseline. The CDD identifies the performance attributes, including Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), that will guide the development and demonstration of any proposed increments in the acquisition strategy.

Key Performance Parameters (KPPs)
Attributes or Characteristics of a System Critical or Essential To develop an effective military capability To make a significant contribution to the characteristics of the future joint force KPPs Must be Testable Enable feedback from T&E Validated by the JROC for JROC Interest Documents Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) are those attributes or characteristics of a system that are considered critical or essential to the development of an effective military capability and those attributes that make a significant contribution to the characteristics of the future joint force as defined in the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations. KPPs must be testable to enable feedback from test and evaluation efforts to the requirements process. The JROC validates KPPs for JROC Interest documents. The DOD component validates KPPs for Joint Integration, Joint Information, and Independent documents.

Key System Attributes (KSAs)
Attributes Most Critical or Essential Not Selected as a KPP An Additional Level of Capability Prioritization Below the KPP Only Senior Leadership can Change a KSA Sponsor 4-star Defense Agency Commander Principal Staff Assistant KSAs are those system attributes considered most critical or essential for an effective military capability but not selected as a KPP. KSAs provide decision makers with an additional level of capability prioritization below the KPP. Changing a KSA requires a sponsor 4-star, a Defense agency commander, or a Principal Staff Assistant.

The Defense Acquisition Management System
Materiel Development Decision precedes entry into any phase of the acquisition framework Entrance criteria met before entering phase Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability Technology Opportunities & Resources User Needs Full Rate Prod DR MS A MS B MS C ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering & Manufacturing Development Strategic Guidance Joint Concepts Capabilities - Based Assessment CDD CPD Production & Deployment O&S MDD TechDev AoA Incremental Development The appropriate decision authority must validate and approve the CDD before Milestone B. Recall how Milestone B ends Technology Development and begins Engineering and Manufacturing Development & Demonstration. The CDD supports Milestone B, the Critical Design Review, and the Engineering and Manufacturing Development & Demonstration (EMDD) phase of an acquisition program. This timing establishes DOD needs a staffed, validated, and approved CDD prior to Milestone B, which is the Program Initiation. FCB OSD/JCS COCOM 19

KPPs and Requirements Documents
The Capability Development Document (CDD) and Capability Production Document (CPD) Must Contain Sufficient KPPs Capture Minimum: Operational effectiveness Suitability Sustainment Failure to Meet a KPP Results in Reevaluation or Reassessment of the Program The CDD and the CPD must contain sufficient KPPs to capture the minimum operational effectiveness, suitability and sustainment attributes needed to achieve the overall desired capabilities for the system. Failure to meet a CDD or CPD KPP threshold may result in a reevaluation or reassessment of the program or a modification of the production increments.

What does the CDD Do? Define Performance Requirements to Achieve the Capability KPPs, KSAs, and additional attributes Authoritative Measurable Testable Capture Necessary Information for Affordable and Supportable Capabilities Describe DOTMLPF and Policy Constraints The CDD is the sponsor’s primary means of defining the authoritative, measurable, and testable capabilities warfighters need. The CDD captures the information necessary to deliver an affordable and supportable capability using mature technology within one or more increments of an acquisition strategy. The CDD must include a description of the DOTMLPF and policy impacts and constraints.

CDD Focus Specify the Attributes of a System in Development
Provide Operational Capabilities for the Acquisition Strategy and the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) Insert All CDD Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and Sustainment Key System Attributes (KSAs) Verbatim into the APB The CDD specifies the attributes of a system in development. These attributes provide the operational capabilities of the performance section of the acquisition strategy and the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). The CDD identifies the performance attributes and KPPs. All CDD Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) (and Key System Attributes (KSA) supporting the sustainment KPP) are inserted verbatim into the APB. The performance attributes and KPPs develop the measures of effectiveness (MOE) and suitability for the initial Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP).

What does the CPD Do? Support Production and Deployment
Authoritative, Testable Capabilities Support Production, Testing, and Deployment Incremental Production and Deployment No New Requirements Operational Performance Attributes The CPD provides authoritative, testable capabilities for the Production and Deployment phase of an acquisition program. The Requirements Manager must use the CPD to capture the information necessary to support production, testing, and deployment of an affordable and supportable increment within an acquisition strategy. The operational performance attributes in the CPD give direction to produce and deploy a single increment of a specific weapons system. Because the Program Manager and the other acquisition elements need a final CPD after the capability development phase, CPDs should not introduce new requirements. The CPD presents performance attributes, including Key Performance Parameters (KPP), to guide the production and deployment of the current increment.

Materiel Development Decision precedes entry into any phase of the acquisition framework Entrance criteria met before entering phase Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability Technology Opportunities & Resources User Needs Full Rate Prod DR MS A MS B MS C ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering & Manufacturing Development Strategic Guidance Joint Concepts Capabilities - Based Assessment CDD CPD Production & Deployment O&S MDD TechDev A common misconception is that the CPD is an entirely new document, separate from the CDD. The KPPs, KSAs, and other attributes from the CDD flow into the CPD. The appropriate decision authority must validate and approve the CPD before Milestone C. Recall how Milestone C ends Engineering and Manufacturing Development & Demonstration and begins Production and Deployment. The Capability Production Document supports all of the efforts in the Production and Deployment phase. Production and Deployment begins with Milestone C and includes the Full-Rate Production (FRP) Decision Review. The FRP decision splits Production and Deployment into Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Full-Rate Production and Deployment. AoA Incremental Development FCB OSD/JCS COCOM 24

Differences Between the CDD and the CPD
Focus on Design Focus on Production All Increments A Specific Increment KPPs to Help Evaluate Alternative Designs KPPs Refined and Tailored to the Proposed System The big difference between the CDD and the CPD is the focus of each document. The CDD was to help design and develop a new system; the CPD must be more specific because the acquisition program is going to start producing specific products that will go to the warfighters. The CDD addressed design and development parameters for all increments. The CPD addresses the capabilities of a specific increment. The Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) in the CDD helped evaluate alternative designs and strategies. The CPD offers the opportunity to apply lessons learned from previous phases and previous analysis to refine performance attributes for the current increment.

JCIDS Summary The Need for Flexible Capabilities Begin With Analysis
Analysis Leads to Action Non-Materiel Solutions The DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR) Materiel Solutions Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Capability Development Document (CDD) Capability Production Document (CPD) This is the summary slide.

Backup Slides

Discussion Questions What Analysis is Going to Work Best to Deliver Effective Solutions to Warfighters? How Can We be Sure Non-Materiel Solutions are Going to be Effective? What Subsequent Analysis is Going to Help Deliver Effective Materiel Solutions? What Is Your Experience with Analysis and the Results of Analysis?

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 User Needs Technology Opportunities & Resources A B Program Initiation C IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering and Manufacturing Development Technology Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Materiel Development Decision FRP Decision Review Post-CDR Assessment LRIP/IOT&E Pre-Systems Acquisition The appropriate decision authority must validate and approve the CDD before Milestone B. Recall how Milestone B ends Technology Development and begins Engineering and Manufacturing Development & Demonstration. The CDD supports Milestone B, the Critical Design Review, and the Engineering and Manufacturing Development & Demonstration (EMDD) phase of an acquisition program. This timing establishes DOD needs a staffed, validated, and approved CDD prior to Milestone B, which is the Program Initiation. A common misconception is that the CPD is an entirely new document, separate from the CDD. The KPPs, KSAs, and other attributes from the CDD flow into the CPD. The appropriate decision authority must validate and approve the CPD before Milestone C. Recall how Milestone C ends Engineering and Manufacturing Development & Demonstration and begins Production and Deployment. The Capability Production Document supports all of the efforts in the Production and Deployment phase. Production and Deployment begins with Milestone C and includes the Full-Rate Production (FRP) Decision Review. The FRP decision splits Production and Deployment into Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Full-Rate Production and Deployment. Systems Acquisition Sustainment Initial Capabilities Document Capability Development Document Capability Production Document Relationship to JCIDS CDR: Critical Design Review FRP: Full Rate Production IOC: Initial Operational Capability FOC: Full Operational Capability

Capability Based Process and Acquisition
JCB Review JROC Approve JIC JIC ICD JCD Capability Gap Validation CBA Plan CBA JCB Review CBA JCB Approval Technical Approach Done Change DOTmLPF ICD JCD KPPs JROC Approve Risk OK Done JROC Approval CDD KSAs Cost Schedule Risk OSD Gap Validated Additional Analysis Services Decision Meetings JS/COCOMS JCB Review Affordability Refine & Produce System ICD JCD CDD CPD Production Weapon System Performance Technical & Programmatic Analysis JCB Review JROC Approval Milestone A Technology Development System Development & Demonstration Milestone B Milestone C Produce & Deploy LRIP FRP

FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY
JROC Organization JROC DECISION CHAIN JROC MEMBERSHIP Chair: VCJCS Council Members: Vice Chief of Staff, Army Vice Chief of Naval Operations Vice Chief of Staff, Air Force Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY CJCS CJCS ADVICE TO SECDEF JROC RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL/ JROC TOP LEVEL GUIDANCE JCB ISSUE DEVELOPMENT JROC Membership: According to Title 10, the JROC is composed of The CJCS, who is the chairman of the Council. A representative from each Service (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps) in the grade of general / admiral. Each Service has selected its Vice Chief as a member of the Council. The functions of the CJCS as chairman of the Council have been delegated to the VCJCS in accordance with Title 10. JROC Decision Chain: The Chairman’s role is to provide advice to the SECDEF. The JROC formulates recommendations for CJCS consideration. The JROC relies on Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment (JWCA) teams to provide the analytical foundation for JROC recommendations and the Joint Requirements Panel (JRP) and Joint Requirements Board to ensure that issues are identified and developed to facilitate JROC recommendations to the CJCS. Neither the JRP nor the JRB are decision making bodies. Their function is to prepare issues for JROC consideration. FCB INITIAL ISSUE REVIEW FCB WG ANALYTIC FOUNDATION JROC: Joint Requirements Oversight Council JCB: Joint Capabilities Board FCB: Functional Capabilities Board FCB WG: Functional Capabilities Board Working Group COCOMs have a standing invitation to attend all JROC sessions 31

Perform an initial review of all JCIDS proposals
JCIDS Gatekeeper Perform an initial review of all JCIDS proposals Support provided by J6, J8, FCB WGs The Gatekeeper will determine: Joint Potential Designator JROC Interest JCB Interest Joint Integration Joint Information Independent Lead and supporting Functional Capabilities Boards Formal Staffing begins after Gatekeeper decisions The function of the JCIDS Gatekeeper was created to ensure that proposals are evaluated for joint warfighting impact and assigned to the correct staff for analysis and coordination. When the Joint Staff receives a JCIDS document, the Gatekeeper will determine the joint potential designator, the lead Functional Capabilities Board, and the lead Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment Team. This determination will be based on input from Joint Forces Command, each of the Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment teams, the J-7, the J-8 Requirements and Acquisition Division, and the J-8 Warfighting Concepts and Architectures Integration Division. The joint potential designator will be reevaluated when each ICD, CDD, and CPD is submitted because changes in the proposed capability may require a change in joint designation. 32

Functional Capability Boards
Command & Control Battlespace Awareness Logistics Force Support Maj Gen Kennedy JFCOM J-8 Brig Gen Grundhauser JS J-2 RDML Prendergast JS J-4 Ms Disbrow JS J-8 Protection Force Application Net-Centric Building Partnerships Brig Gen Robinson JS J-8 Brig Gen Robinson JS J-8 Brig Gen Basla JS J-6 Mr Norwood JS J-5 Only the JROC can charter a Functional Capabilities Board. The JROC will also assign the functional areas to the FCB and identify the organization that will chair the FCB. These are the 8 FCBs and the Flag Officers who lead each. Net Centric – VDJ6 C2 – JFCOM J8 BA – VDJ2 FA – DDJ8 – Force Application P – DDJ8 – Protection FL – VDJ4 FM – DDJ8 -- Force Management JT – VDJ7 The Membership of the FCBs is at the O-6 level and is drawn from across the Department. Each Service has a O-6 representative. The Combatant Commands are invited to send representatives to each FCB meeting. OSD is represented by members of the acquisition and programming/analysis communities. The Intelligence Community representative is on the BA FCB, and other DoD Agencies as necessary are invited to participate. Each FCB is also supported by a Working Group led by an O-6 with membership drawn from the same offices. Corp Support & Management FCB Membership: (O-6 level) Services Combatant Command Reps OSD (AT&L) OSD (I) USecAF (Space) ASD NII/ DOD CIO D, PA&E DIA Rep (Threat) Mission Rqmts Board Exec Sec’y Other DoD Agencies as necessary Maj Gen Gaskin VDJS

JCIDS Tracks JROC JCB Interest Joint Sponsor Integration Information
Independent Staffing Certification Sponsor JROC Interest FCB Review JCB ACAT I proposals ACAT II & III proposals requiring certifications only ACAT II & III proposals requiring a joint review ACAT II & III proposals with multi-component interest ACAT II & III component unique proposals Tripwires ACAT I programs with 10% cost growth Validation Authority 34

Critical Technologies
Cost drivers, Tech Readiness, and Performance Performance (KPPs & select KSAs) Top Cost Drivers KPP 1, Endurance KPP 2, World-wide KPP 3, Dynamic Crl KPP 4, Net Ready KPP 5, BA Force Structure 26.9% KPP BA SIGINT 9.0% Electronic Protection 6.0% KPP BA Optical 4.8% C3 1.9% N T O Tech Readiness Assessment Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) Dec baseline Critical Technologies To Date IOT&E Endurance TRL 6 TRL 8 World-wide operations Dynamic Control Net Ready TRL 5 Battlespace Awareness EO Battlespace Awareness IR Battlespace Awareness Radar Battlespace Awareness SIGINT TRL 4 Battlespace Awareness MTI Cost PAUC - APUC Schedule IOC IOT&E +10% +15% Top Cost Driver: Identify the top 5 or so areas that are driving the current program costs and their percentage of total program Acquisition Costs. The 5 or so areas combined should represent at least 75% total program costs. Performance (KPPs & select KSAs) The actual Objective and Threshold values from the APB will be added in place of the “O” and “T”. The arrows indicate the PMs current estimate. Use Red, Yellow or Green to identify critical or significant issues. Identify as a minimum the KPPs and select KSAs associated with Cost, Schedule or technology challenges. Technology Readiness Assessment Identify the critical technologies for the program. Provide the PMs current TRL assessment and that for the Next Major Milestone consistent with the one chosen for the APB Schedule protion. Acquisition Program Baseline Input the actual Objective Cost or Schedule from the APB will be added in place of “baseline” and note whether this is from the current or original baseline. The arrows indicate the PMs current estimate. Use Red, Yellow or Green based to identify critical or significant issues. Identify the Objective Cost, PAUC and APUC (or other as applicable) for the program as identified in the approved APB. Identify the either the Objective IOC or FOC values which ever is next. Identify the + 10% and + 15% values from the objective baseline values. Identify the +6 months and +9 months values on from the objective baseline values. The next major program event will be identified (MS A/B/C, PDR, CDR, DT/OT, OPEVAL, FIRST FLIGHT, ETC) 45% Baseline 57% Baseline +6 mos +9 mos No established IOC in CDD 24 mos Baseline

Interrelationships, Dependencies and Synchronization with Complementary Systems
Battlespace Awareness: ASIP RTIP E-10 CONUS Basing: Beale Grand Forks 2 1 C S P 2 2 2 C2: JTRS Cluster 2 JTRS Waveform FAB-T CDL DISN ETP GIG NIPRNet SIPRNet JWICS INMARSAT UHF SATCOM GPS OCONUS Basing: CENTCOM EUCOM PACOM 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 Exploitation: DCGS 10.2 DCGS WAN DCGS-AF DCGS-A (TES) TEG JSIPS-N CROFA RSOC 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 Purpose: Provide decision makers an understanding of the interrelationships and critical interdependencies between the program under review and other DoD programs. Programs to Include: Any interrelated ACAT I program. Additionally, any program with critical interdependencies, regardless of ACAT level will also be included. Cost, Schedule & Performance (CSP) Ratings: Provide the PM Rating as updated monthly for ACAT I or to the degree available for non-ACAT I programs. Criteria for these assessments shall be in accordance with DoD 5000 series guidance. Interoperability (I) Ratings: Synchronization - PM for the program under review will provide an assessment (Green, Yellow or Red color in I-box) of the synchronization of this program with needs of his program. In other words, whether the dependant program is on track to deliver the quantity required on the scheduled required. Criticality – PM for the program under review will provide an assessment (a number in the I-box) of its importance to your program meeting the capabilities identified in the CONOPs and articulated in the KPPs, KSAs or other performance attributes. The follow Terms of Reference will be used: 1= Critical Interdependency – program cannot not achieve capabilities articulated in the CONOPs, CDD, or CPD (as appropriate) without the related capability provided by this program 2 = Significant Interdependency – program full realization of capabilities identified in CONOPs will be diminished but all CDD or CPD (as appropriate) Threshold capabilities will be met. 3 = Marginal Interdependency – while programs are related and complementary, failure to deliver this program does not substantially impact the ability of the program under review to deliver the documented capabilities. 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 Solid denotes current system Dash denotes future system Arrow to denotes support to Arrow from denotes supports No known platform or system issues Monitoring potential interoperability issues PM DAES Rating: I C S P Not Rated Fielded I = Integration. Color denotes Synchronization of effort with this program Number denotes degree of dependency: 1 – Critical , 2 – Significant , 3 - Enabler 1 Tab 2

Oversight & Governance for IT Systems
Organization & Oversight Flag-level oversight thru [describe] Chair GS/CD Members XXXX “Boundaries” JROC-Approved [Topic Name] Oversight – [Name] Execute – [Name] Key Performance Parameters KPP #1 [Describe] = Initial KPP# 2 [Describe] = Initial Etc.. [List the KPPs that specifically apply to this capability] Hardware Refresh and System Enhancements & Integration Per year = XXX Rationale Application and System Software Development Per year = XXX Rationale 37

Focus of The CBA What does the CBA identify? The mission
Concept of Operations Assumptions Timeframe Capability definition Use SWarF identified attributes Gaps Operational risk Priorities Desired solution type Breakout – 5x improvement over current, fundamental change Incremental – modify an existing system IT system Non-materiel Recommendations Sets the conditions for the ICD and AoA 38 ICD

CBA Analysis – How Much is Enough?
Objectives: Complete CBA within 30 Days. Produce enduring relevant capabilities JROC Gap Analysis/CBA MDA Solution Analysis/AoA Recap IT Capability HMMWV Build more Predators Improve sensor Incremental Improvement Low Known Facts High High Complexity Low High Cost Low Low Known Facts High High Complexity Low High Cost Low HULA Breakout Capability Space Radar Low Medium Rigor Low Medium High Rigor “Relevant but imperfect” analysis not “perfect but irrelevant” analysis Component responsible for determining depth of analysis and defending results Tab 2 MDA = Milestone Decision Authority

What is JCIDS? What is a JCIDS responsibility…
Ensures the joint force has the capabilities to perform across the range of operations Is a primary interface to the DoD acquisition system Implements an integrated process to guide new capabilities development A key linkage on how the future joint force will fight Provides the analytic baselines to support studies to inform capability development Leverages expertise to identify improvements to existing capabilities and to develop new warfighting capabilities What is NOT a JCIDS responsibility… Is not capabilities-based planning Is not DoD 5000 The JROC is not JCIDS Joint Concepts are not JCIDS The Analytic Agenda is not JCIDS Is not designed to obtain or address near-term funding or urgent warfighting needs (JRAC) but some changes are being considered to make more agile This chart describes how JCIDS links to the other pieces of the CBP And explains some of the common misperceptions about what JCIDS does and does not do. 40

Waivers Deviations from the process are approved by DDRA
Waivers have been used for: Request to develop a CDD without an ICD (ACAT II and below) Request to use an ORD for an upcoming MS C rather than submitting a new CPD Approval process Requests are submitted by Services/Agencies CAD/AO coordinates through Lead FCB JCIDS Branch CAD Div Chief 41

Requirements Management Executive Overview Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Systems Management College School.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Requirements Management Executive Overview Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Systems Management College School."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Requirements Management Executive Overview Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Systems Management College School.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Requirements Management Executive Overview Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Systems Management College School."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback