1. Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS)
RQM-310, December 2015

2. 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

3. Changes – 2008 to 2015 Defense Acquisition 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 Model”

4. Defense Acquisition System DoDI 5000.02, 7 Jan 2015
Materiel Solution Analysis
Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
Operations
& Support
Production
& Deployment
Materiel
Development
Decision (MDD) A
CDD
Validation
RFP Release
FRP
Decision
Program Model 1, Hardware Intensive Program
ICD
draft
CPD
IOC
FOC
5 Phases
3 Milestone Decisions – A, B, C
4 Other Decision Points:
Materiel Development Decision (MDD)
Capability Development Document (CDD) Validation Decision
Development Request for Proposal (RFP) Release Decision
Full-Rate Production (FRP) Decision
“Mandatory” Entry at Materiel Development Decision (MDD) B C

5. Model 1: Hardware Intensive Program
Materiel Solution Analysis
Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
Operations
& Support
Production
& Deployment
Materiel
Development
Decision (MDD) A
CDD
Validation
RFP Release
FRP
Decision
ICD
draft
CPD
IOC
FOC B C
There are six program models that provide the PM with a baseline approach.
Regardless of model, the RM’s responsibilities are essentially the same
Each program is tailored to the characteristics of the product being acquired.
Model 1 is a model of a hardware intensive 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 Model 5, Hybrid Model A.

6. Model 2: Defense Unique Software Intensive ProgramB A C
Build 1.1
Build 1.2
Build 1.3
Build 1.4
Integration
Build 0.1
Risk Reduction
Build 2.1*
Materiel Solution Analysis
Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction
Production &
Deployment
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
Sustainment Disposal
Materiel Development Decision
Development RFP Release Decision
CDD
Validation
IOC
Full
Deployment (FD)
Full Deployment Decision
(FDD)
Build 1.5
Operations & Support
Limited
OT&E
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.

7. Model 3: Incrementally Fielded Software Intensive ProgramB A
Materiel Development Decision
Development RFP Release
CDD
Validation
IOC
Limited Deployment
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 Deployment 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.

8. Model 4: Accelerated Acquisition Program
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; many others are possible.
A/B C
Materiel Solution Analysis
Sustainment Disposal
Materiel Development Decision
Preliminary Design Review
IOC
FOC
Concurrent Technology Maturation, Risk Reduction, and Development
Concurrent
Production and Deployment
OT&E
Operations & Support

9. Model 4: Accelerated Acquisition Program
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; many others are possible.
A/B C
Materiel Solution Analysis
Sustainment Disposal
Materiel Development Decision
Preliminary Design Review
IOC
FOC
Concurrent Technology Maturation, Risk Reduction, and Development
Concurrent
Production and Deployment
OT&E
Operations & Support
Model 4 is not used for urgent needs. See DoDI , Encl. 13, for the rapid acquisition process for urgent needs.

10. Model 5: Hybrid Program A (Hardware Dominant)
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. B A C
Build 1.1
Build 1.2
Build 1.3
Build 1.4
Integration
Build 0.1
Risk Reduction
Build 2.1
Materiel Solution Analysis
Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction
Production & Deployment
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
Sustainment Disposal
Materiel Development Decision
Development RFP Release
CDD
Validation
IOC
FOC
FRP
Build 1.5
Operations & Support
LRIP
OT&E
Build 3.1
Build 3.2*

11. Model 6: Hybrid Program B (Software Dominant)
Depicts how a software intensive product development can include a mix of incrementally fielded software products or releases that include intermediate software builds.
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

12. JCIDS and the DAS JCIDS DAS Strategic Guidance Joint Concepts
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
Sustainment
Disposal
President
SECDEF
CJCS
Joint
Community
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

13. National Security Strategy (NSS), Feb 2015
National Strategies
National Security Strategy (NSS), Feb 2015
National Defense Strategy (NDS), Jan 2012, updated by QDR 2014
National Military Strategy (NMS), Jun 2015
See student references and RM CoP for copies of latest national strategy documents

14. National Security Strategy (NSS) The President, February 2015
NSS Part II, Security
Strengthen Our National Defense
Reinforce Homeland Security
Combat the Persistent Threat of Terrorism
Build Capacity to Prevent Conflict
Confront Climate Change
Assure Access to Shared Spaces – Cyber, Space, Air and Oceans
Increase Global Health Security

15. National Defense Strategy (NDS) – QDR 2014 The Secretary of Defense
QDR 2014 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.
*Sustaining U.S Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, Jan 2012

16. National Military Strategy (NMS) 2015
The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
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

17. USD(AT&L) Better Buying Power Initiative
USD(AT&L) Guidance
USD(AT&L) launched BBP in 2010 to restore affordability and productivity to Defense spending
BBP Challenges the way we think about our programs to achieve greater efficiency
BBP 3.0 builds on BBP 1.0 and 2.0 with a shift in emphasis toward achieving dominant capabilities through innovation and technical excellence

18. Better Buying Power - Objectives
USD(AT&L) wanted to implement guidance within his span of control - without it being “reform” but rather the use of best practices that would achieve:
Delivering warfighting capability we need for the dollars we have
Getting better buying power for the warfighter and taxpayer
Restoring affordability to defense goods and services
Improving defense industry productivity
Removing government impediments to leanness
Avoiding program turbulence
Maintaining a vibrant and financially healthy defense industry
Developing our acquisition workforce
See student references for BBP implementation directives

19. Better Buying Power 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 Comparison
Better Buying Power Gateway:

20. 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 3.0
Institutionalize stronger DoD level Long Range R&D Program Plans
Strengthen cybersecurity throughout the product lifecycle

21. 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

22. JCIDS and Acquisition Summary View
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
Requirements Validator action (JROC 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