Patrick Wills Associate Dean, Executive Programs,

Patrick Wills Associate Dean, Executive Programs,
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) A Primer 19 Oct 2012 This presentation provides an overview of JCIDS based on: CJCSI H, JCIDS, 10 Jan 2012 CJCSI F, Charter of the JROC, 10 Jan 2012 JCIDS Manual, 19 Jan 2012 JCIDS Manual Errata, 20 Sep 2012 J-6 Overview of DoD Requirements Process…and the IT Box, 7 Jun 2012 Patrick Wills Associate Dean, Executive Programs, Requirements Management, and International Acquisition Defense Systems Management College Defense Acquisition University work: cell: Sources: CJCSI H, 10 Jan 2012 CJCSI F, 10 Jan 2012 JCIDS Manual,19 Jan 2012 & errata 20 Sep 2012 Joint Staff, J-8 Joint Staff, J-6

Developing Requirements
The Requirements Environment Capabilities-Based Process Identifying Capability Requirements JCIDS Interaction With the Acquisition Process Oversight, Review and Validation of JCIDS Documents Rapid Response Lanes Guiding Principles and Challenges Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) replaced the Requirements Generation System (RGS) in JCIDS supports 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. The overriding goal of the JCIDS process is to support the warfighter by identifying and developing capabilities consistent with the National Defense Strategy. This presentation will discuss the sequence of events that turns warfighters’ needs into capability requirements and the subsequent capability 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 DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendations (DCRs). When the JCIDS process determines that DoD needs to develop new materiel solutions, the JCIDS capability requirements process must interact with the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) and the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process to provide effective solutions. JCIDS requirements are “approved” via a validation process. The validation authority depends on the potential Acquisition Category (ACAT), interoperability requirements, and Joint Staff equities. Some capability requirements are urgently needed for ongoing or anticipated contingency operations. These requirements follow rapid response lanes to deliver solutions to the warfighter.

The Requirements Environment
Finding the balance between: Combatant Command (CCMD) near-term requirements to support Contingency Plans and current missions and Services’ long range vision & investment plans Versatile, joint systems Systems optimized for service missions Growing demands Fiscal & political constraints Geographic specificity Worldwide applicability Ambitious requirements Achievable acquisition strategy Quantity matters High-end capabilities

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)
The Goal of JCIDS is to… Provide the Joint Force with the capabilities needed to perform across the full range of military operations and challenges Support the JROC in its Title 10 responsibilities Cost, schedule, performance trades Prioritizing joint military requirements in shaping the force Supported by… Integrated, collaborative review process Leveraged expertise of all government agencies Joint Operations Concepts The JCIDS process exists to support JROC and CJCS responsibilities in identifying, assessing, validating, and prioritizing joint military capability requirements as outlined in references a and b. JCIDS provides a transparent process that allows the JROC to balance joint equities and make informed decisions on validation and prioritization of capability requirements. Services, Combatant Commands, and other DOD Components with delegated validation authority will use variations of the JCIDS process within their organizations to validate Service-, Combatant Command-, or Component specific capability requirements JCIDS (capability requirements and non-materiel solutions), Defense Acquisition System (DAS) (materiel solutions), and PPBE (resources) are three key processes in DOD which must work in concert to ensure consistent decision making while delivering timely and cost effective capability solutions to the Warfighters. Together, the three processes provide a means to determine, validate, and prioritize capability requirements and associated capability gaps and risks, and then fund, develop, and field non-materiel and materiel capability solutions for the Warfighter in a timely manner. JCIDS along with the Defense Acquisition System and the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution processes form the principal DOD decision support processes for developing capabilities required by the military forces to support the national military strategy and the defense strategy

Threat vs Capabilities-Based Planning
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) ~ Since 2003 Requirements Generation System (RGS) - ~30 years of experience Partially Interoperable Capabilities Strategic Direction Joint Warfighting Concept Development Late Integration Joint Experimentation, Assessment & Analysis, Validation, Selection of Solutions Services Build Systems The Capabilities-based process replaced the “threat-based” process in JCIDS grew out of and supports the capabilities-based process. Prior to JCIDS, DOD employed a threat-based construct to develop forces, systems, and platforms based on a specific threats and scenarios. Requirements were often developed, validated, and approved as stand alone solutions based on the unique warfighting missions of the military services, not always in the context of a joint warfighting scenario. This fostered a “bottom-up, stovepiped” approach to requirements and acquisition decisions that were neither fully informed by, or coordinated with, other DoD components; nor were they clearly linked to strategic direction from the President (National Security Strategy), SECDEF (National Defense Strategy and Chairman (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, requirements and acquisition managers frequently focused on materiel solutions without considering potential non- materiel changes for the advancement of joint warfighting. In contrast, a capabilities-based construct, as shown on the right, facilitates force planning in an uncertain 21st century environment. The capabilities-based process grew out of the “Aldridge study” (former USD(AT&L) that helped refine planning and budgeting processes to involve the DepSecDef and SecDef earlier in decisions on warfighting solutions, programs and budgets. Capabilities-based planning was a major thrust of former SECDEF Rumsfeld in QDR’s 2002 and 2006. This methodology defines the strategic direction of the department and considers the full range of DOTmLPF-P (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, given the military services are the domain experts. Service Experimentation, Assessment & Analysis, Validation, Selection of Solutions CCMDs, Services’ Unique Strategic Visions Joint Capabilities Service Unique Strategic Visions and Requirements

Capabilities-Based Planning
Strategic Guidance And Desired Effects Strategic Guidance (OSD (P)) Support for Strategic Analysis (OSD (P)/J-8) Joint Concepts (J7) National Security Strategy National Defense Strategy National Military Strategy Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF) Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) Integrated Security Constructs Multi-Service Force Deployment Operational Availability Studies Global Force Management CJCSI C Joint Concepts Joint Concept Development & Experimentation (JCDE)Process Guide JCDE Campaign Plan Force Management CBP Adaptive Planning JCIDS (J8) DoD 5000 (OSD AT&L) PPBE (OSD Comptroller/CAPE) CJCSI /JCIDS Manual JROC Validation and Approval of JCIDS Documents Joint Capabilities Boards Functional Capabilities Boards Evaluation of CCMD Needs (lessons learned, joint urgent needs, Integrated Priority Lists (IPLs), etc.) JCIDS is one of the six key capability based processes: Strategic guidance from the President, SECDEF and CJCS provide strategic direction for all subsequent decisions, and provide Planning and Programming guidance for the POM, the budget and the development of capability requirements, and acquisition programs. Strategic analysis is driven by guidance from OSD and the Joint Staff. Analysis and modeling and simulation are executed by the JS/J-8 to identify potential force structure issues and to provide detail on the Integrated Security Constructs (ISCs) used for identifying capability needs. The J-7 manages the Joint Concepts development and approval process. These top-down joint concepts become the baseline for developing capability needs. The J-8 managed JCIDS process identifies capability needs based on input from joint concepts and the strategic analysis and feeds the results to the acquisition and budgeting processes. PPBE is directed by OSD Comptroller and Dir, CAPE to ensure appropriate funding for the Department’s efforts. USD(AT&L) provides policy guidance and oversight on the acquisition process, makes acquisition decisions on MDAP & MAIS programs, and determines root causes of affordability issues. All six processes must work together effectively to deliver the joint capabilities the Department requires. Defense Acquisition Boards Materiel Development Decision Milestone Decisions Acquisition Decision Memos Root Cause Analysis Selected Acquisition Reports/ Defense Acquisition Executive Summaries Program Objective Memorandum/ Budget Estimate Submission Program and Budget Review Resource Management Decisions (RMDs) President’s Budget Delivered Capability to the Joint Warfighter Common Lexicon – Joint Capability Areas

Capabilities-Based Requirements
Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Warfighter Feedback Fielded Capabilities Set the Strategic Stage Do Nothing Take risk Materiel Solutions Non-Materiel Solutions Set Priorities Requirements development often begins with warfighter feedback. Typical capabilities-based assessment steps are: 1) Set the strategic stage, 2) Set priorities, and 3) Identify needs and solutions. Once CBA identifies needs and potential solutions, the sponsors working within the PPBE and Defense Acquisition System (DAS) provide materiel solutions to augment fielded capabilities. Non-materiel solutions are worked through oversight by the sponsor – and many need funding through the PPBE process. A major goal of the JCIDS capability requirements process is to support the warfighter by moving capabilities through the “Big A” processes (JCIDS, PPBE and DAS). JCIDS also provides for an “urgent operational needs” process to rapidly field capability needed by Combatant Commands for ongoing or anticipated contingency operations. Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Identify Needs Acquisition Tab 2 - JCIDS

JCIDS is… A key supporting process for DoD acquisition and PPBE processes That supports “the statutory responsibility of the JROC to validate joint warfighting requirements” And supports the CJCS advising the Secretary of Defense in identifying, assessing and prioritizing joint military requirements A Staffing method enabling the Joint Staff to ensure Sponsors’ needs meet the Chairman’s intent (Joint force needs) JCIDS is not… the entire “Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management System” “Requirements” (JCIDS) Acquisition PPB&E 8

JCIDS and Acquisition Military Services
- key acquisition activities/documents - OSD/Joint Staff Support to Strategic Analysis (SSA) Products Joint Concepts President, SECDEF & Chairman: Strategic Guidance Identification of Capability Requirements Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Test & Evaluation (T&E) Strategy (TES) System Engineering Plan (SEP) Technology Demonstrated Initial Key Performance Parameters/Key System Attributes (KPPs/KSAs) Acquisition Strategy T&E Master Plan (TEMP) SEP Final Design Developmental T&E (DT&E) Operational Assessments Revise KPPs/KSAs Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) TEMP SEP Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Initial Operational T&E (IOT&E) Acquisition Strategy APB TEMP SEP Operational Planning CBAs & Other Studies Exercises/Lessons Learned JCTDs/JUON/JEON/ Experiments JIEDDO Initiatives Defense Business Sys Outputs LRIP FOT&E Mission & Problem Capability Gaps Tasks Performance Conditions Operational Risk Non-Materiel Approaches Materiel Approaches Recommendations Materiel Development Decision activity MS “A” MS “B” MS “C” Select Joint Concept Develop CONOPS Capabilities-Based Assessment / Other ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Sponsor Approved CDD Technology Development CDD Engineering & Manufacturing Development CPD Production & Deployment CCMD Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Competitive Prototyping Evolutionary Acquisition This chart describes the end-to-end process starting with Guidance and concept development, through capability identification and the handoff to the acquisition process where new materiel systems are acquired and fielded. JCIDS provides for a various methods to identify capability requirements. These methods and expected outputs are shown in the upper portion of the large purple box. Some of these methods, such as Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTDs), Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON), Joint Emergent Operational Needs (JEON) are moved rapidly to the right and may bypass some of the acquisition phases of development and move into production. These are mature technology projects and/or commercial-off-the- shelf (COTS), or non-developmental military hardware available without further development. A more traditional process involves a Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) or other study to identify capability gaps and potential solutions. Some of the key activities of the acquisition process are listed above each acquisition phase. JROC validation of capability requirements for potential ACAT I and ACAT IA programs is also shown. Other validation authorities for ACAT II and below are the Joint Capability Board (JCB) and the Sponsor organizations (departments and agencies). Regardless of the method used to identify capability requirements, the “front end” analysis/assessment is key to ensuring going forward thru the JCIDS, acquisition and PPBE processes, that the indentified capability requirements meet the needs of the warfighter in a timely manner and at an affordable cost Military Services JROC action for JROC Interest programs (ACAT I & IA) Validates ICD Reviews AoA Results Validates CDD Validates CPD SECDEF Joint Staff / Joint Requirements Oversight Council / OSD OSD (AT&L, CAPE), Services and OSD (DOT&E) Joint Staff (JROC) Policy Identify Capability Requirements Select Materiel Solution Develop, Test, Produce & Field Getting the front end right is key 9

Approaches to Indentifying Capability Requirements
Operational Planning Capabilities-Based Assessments & Other Studies Exercises/Warfighting Lessons Learned Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTDs), Urgent Operational Need (UON) Solutions and Warfighting Experiments Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) Initiatives Defense Business Systems Business Cases Development of OPLANs and CONPLANs is one means to identify capability requirements related to CCMD roles and missions and the assignment or attachment of forces. The CBA is an analytic basis to identify capability requirements and associated capability gaps. The JROC preference is to avoid unnecessary rigor and time-consuming detail in the CBA, and concentrate on whether to recommend action. Warfighting and exercise lessons learned may serve as a basis to establish capability requirements, if the documentation indicates sufficient military utility of a certain capability. Lessons Learned may lead to further analysis and development of JCIDS documents for validation in the deliberate or urgent/emergent staffing processes. JCTDs or other prototypes may serve as a basis to establish capability requirements, if an assessment indicates sufficient military utility of a demonstrated solution. Successful solutions for JUONs and JEONs, which were rapidly acquired and fielded, may serve as a basis for transitioning capability requirements for sustainment and/or further development if they have a positive assessment of operational utility documented by the original requirement Sponsor. A JIEDDO Transition Packet will be used as the source document for developing a Capability Development Document (CDD) or Capability Production Document (CPD) for subsequent review and validation, and transition to a program of record. Regardless of cost, Information Systems (IS) that are not part of weapon systems or directly involved in the fulfillment of military or intelligence missions, are Defense Business Systems (DBS) and are validated by the Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC). . These systems employ a business case document using the Business Capability Lifecycle (BCL) process in lieu of JCIDS documents for the capability requirements and associated solutions

Primary Outputs of Approaches to Identify Capability Requirements
Mission Description & Problem Being Assessed Identification & Assessment of Prior Studies Identification of Tasks Required to Meet Mission Objectives Identification of Capability Requirements Within One or More Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) Assessment of Capability Gaps Between identified requirements and current or programmed force capabilities Operational Risks Possible Non-Materiel & Materiel Approaches to Close or Mitigate Gaps Recommendations The fundamental goal of each approach to identifying capability requirements is to derive and refine the capability requirements – either organically or leveraged through the Joint force – necessary to accomplish their assigned functions, roles, missions, and operations. Primary outputs include those shown on this chart. While Sponsor activities may examine various aspects of their capability requirements in significant levels of detail, the key for JCIDS is to establish the high level operational capabilities which are required, place them in the context of overall strategic and operational goals, and be able to compare them to legacy capability solutions, if any, in order to evaluate the most appropriate path forward to satisfy the capability requirements and reduce or eliminate any associated capability gaps. Each approach for identifying capability requirements should not presuppose a specific capability solution or end item, but provide data related to forms and functions of potential solutions to support the development of JCIDS documents. The final recommendations should include a focused and concise summary of the justification for the proposed action. Identified capability requirements must be traceable to approved Joint Concepts, or a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) developed in conjunction with an approved operation plan (OPLAN), concept plan (CONPLAN), Integrated Security Constructs (ISCs) which are part of the DOD Analytic Baseline, and/or other JROC approved guidance. Traceability to the Chairman’s Risk Assessment (CRA) should also be provided when applicable.

Three Requirements “Lanes”
Deliberate Requirements Service, CCMD or Agency Driven Traditional route for capabilities that require significant tech development and/or are not urgent or compelling in nature Emergent Requirements CCMD Driven Supports accelerated acquisition of capabilities needed for an anticipated or pending contingency operation Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS) verifies, Joint Capability Board or JROC validates Urgent Requirements Urgent and compelling to prevent loss of life and/or mission failure during current operations Require little tech development and can be resolved in less than two years J-8 Deputy Director for Requirements (DDR) validates “Keep right, except to pass” D E L I B R A T M G N U 0 – 2 YRS 0+ to 5 YRS CONFLICT LANE ONLY POTENTIAL 2-6+ The Deliberate Requirements process is characterized by the traditional route to identifying capability gaps and proposed solutions – the CBA process, documenting the CBA results in an ICD and/or DCR, and proceeding to a Materiel Development Decision and an Analysis of Alternatives to support a materiel solution decision. This is followed by prototyping, design, development and production. Emergent Requirements. Planning for anticipated contingency operations may identify operational needs which represent potential mission failure or unacceptable loss of life once operations commence, if not satisfied by a rapidly acquired capability solution. These capability requirements may qualify for submission as Joint Emergent Operational Needs (JEONs) or DOD Component UONs for expedited validation and rapid acquisition efforts. Urgent Requirements. Planning for ongoing contingency operations may identify urgent operational needs (UONs) which represent potential for critical mission failure or unacceptable loss of life if not satisfied by a rapidly acquired capability solution. These capability requirements may qualify for submission as Joint UONs (JUONs) or DOD Component UONs for expedited validation and rapid acquisition efforts. Rapid acquisition includes activities to develop and implement capability solutions in a shorter timeframe than typical of deliberate DAS processes. Rapid acquisition activities may also include expedited procurement of COTS/GOTS/NDI solutions, or modification/ acceleration of existing development programs initiated under the Deliberate process. Specific acquisition process to be followed for each validated capability requirement will be determined by the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA).

- key acquisition activities/documents - OSD/Joint Staff Support to Strategic Analysis (SSA) Products Joint Concepts President, SECDEF & Chairman: Strategic Guidance Identification of Capability Requirements Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Test & Evaluation (T&E) Strategy (TES) System Engineering Plan (SEP) Technology Demonstrated Initial Key Performance Parameters/Key System Attributes (KPPs/KSAs) Acquisition Strategy T&E Master Plan (TEMP) SEP Final Design Developmental T&E (DT&E) Operational Assessments Revise KPPs/KSAs Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) TEMP SEP Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Initial Operational T&E (IOT&E) Acquisition Strategy APB TEMP SEP Operational Planning CBAs & Other Studies Exercises/Lessons Learned JCTDs/JUON/JEON/ Experiments JIEDDO Initiatives Defense Business Sys Outputs LRIP FOT&E Mission & Problem Capability Gaps Tasks Performance Conditions Operational Risk Non-Materiel Approaches Materiel Approaches Recommendations Materiel Development Decision activity MS “A” MS “B” MS “C” Select Joint Concept Develop CONOPS Capabilities-Based Assessment / Other ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Sponsor Approved CDD Technology Development CDD Engineering & Manufacturing Development CPD Production & Deployment CCMD Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Competitive Prototyping Evolutionary Acquisition The CBA process produces a validated ICD. The ICD summarizes the results of the CBA’s identification of warfighting capability gaps, and potential solutions to mitigate or resolve those gaps. ICD’s that recommend a materiel approach to resolving the capability gaps support a Material Development Decision (MDD) by an acquisition milestone decision authority. The ICD then becomes the basis for the Material Solution Analysis (MSA) phase. During the MSA phase, an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to consider the potential solutions to the capability gaps identified in the ICD. Military Services JROC action for JROC Interest programs (ACAT I & IA) Validates ICD Reviews AoA Results Validates CDD Validates CPD SECDEF Joint Staff / Joint Requirements Oversight Council / OSD OSD (AT&L, CAPE), Services and OSD (DOT&E) Joint Staff (JROC) Policy Identify Capability Requirements Select Materiel Solution Develop, Test, Produce & Field Getting the Front End Right is Key 13

Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA)
NEEDS GAPS SOLUTIONS Existing Guidance The problems and the risks What we need for the mission What should we do about it? Where does this need rank? How soon do we need it? This chart illustrates the relationship between the three major analyses within a Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA). The initiation, termination, and study results are required to be posted to the Joint Staff’s Knowledge Management/Decision Support (KM/DS) tool’s study repository for visibility to other stakeholders who may have an interest in the study results. Organizing and executing a successful CBA is a significant challenge. Joint Concepts, developed in accordance with reference g, are specifically designed to drive progress in the DOD, and satisfying the demands of strategic guidance poses significant challenges. Consequently, a CBA, particularly one aimed at a broad mission area should be conducted with a capable Joint team that can bring the necessary spectrum of expertise to bear on the problem. Needs: The mission or military problem considered by the CBA must be relevant to the needs of the defense strategy and other strategic guidance. Gaps: An operational assessment of the current and programmed force is conducted to identify the capability requirements and any associated capability gaps. Gaps are assessed in terms of risk to the mission, risk to the force (potential losses), and other important considerations such as resourcing and affects on allies. Solutions: Solutions include accepting risk and doing noting, identifying non-material approaches to wholly or partially mitigate any of the identified capability gaps, and if needed recommended materiel approaches, or a combination of non-materiel and materiel approaches. Ranking and timing of the needed solution(s) are important for resourcing and planning.

CBA Outputs CBA Documentation:
Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Joint DOTmLPF-P* Change Recommendation (DCR) CBA Recommendations for Materiel Approaches: Information systems or similar technologies Evolution of existing systems with significant capability improvements Transformational systems Managers Must Communicate to Avoid Disconnects Over Seams Between JCIDS, Defense Acquisition System, and PPBE CBA results are documented in an ICD and/or a Joint DCR. 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. A CBA can lead to DOTmLPF-P, non-materiel solutions that help existing systems evolve into more effective capabilities. For example, modify or improve information technology systems to be more effective in different threat environments. A CBA may recommend materiel approach(es) to resolving capability gaps, generally in three broad types: (1) development and fielding of IS (or similar technologies with high obsolescence rates) or evolution of the capabilities of existing IS; (2) evolution of existing systems with significant capability improvement (this may include replacing an existing system with a newer more capable system, or simple recapitalization); and (3) transformational systems that differ significantly in form, function, operation, and capabilities from existing systems and offer significant improvement over current capabilities or transform how we accomplish the mission. Recommendations for material solution approaches will feed an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), which compares alternative solutions and provides the acquisition decision maker with data for an informed decision. Seams between the requirements, acquisition, and funding communities must be closely addressed by requirements and acquisition managers to reduce the risk that disconnects result in a failure to meet the warfighter’s needs. A Joint DCR may be generated from a validated ICD, or may be generated without an associated ICD if non-materiel approaches appear to be the most viable solution *DOTmLPF-P = Doctrine, Organization, Training, materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities & Policy 15

CBA Output Documents Joint DCR
When DoD Decides a Joint Non- Materiel Solution is appropriate Non-Materiel Solutions 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 Change policy Page Limit: 30 Pages A Joint DCR documents the intent to partially or wholly address an identified capability requirement and associated capability gap with a non-materiel solution, recommending changes to existing capabilities of the Joint force in one or more of the eight DOTmLPF- P areas. In cases where a Joint DCR is not generated from an ICD, it also serves to document the new capability requirements and associated capability gaps being addressed.

- key acquisition activities/documents - OSD/Joint Staff Support to Strategic Analysis (SSA) Products Joint Operations Concepts (JOpsC) family President, SECDEF & Chairman: Strategic Guidance Identification of Capability Requirements Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Test & Evaluation (T&E) Strategy (TES) System Engineering Plan (SEP) Technology Demonstrated Initial Key Performance Parameters/Key System Attributes (KPPs/KSAs) Acquisition Strategy T&E Master Plan (TEMP) SEP Final Design Developmental T&E (DT&E) Operational Assessments Revise KPPs/KSAs Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) TEMP SEP Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Initial Operational T&E (IOT&E) Acquisition Strategy APB TEMP SEP Operational Planning CBAs & Other Studies Exercises/Lessons Learned JCTDs/JUON/JEON/ Experiments JIEDDO Initiatives Defense Business Sys Outputs LRIP FOT&E Mission & Problem Capability Gaps Tasks Performance Conditions Operational Risk Non-Materiel Approaches Materiel Approaches Recommendations Materiel Development Decision activity MS “A” MS “B” MS “C” Select Joint Concept Develop CONOPS Capabilities-Based Assessment / Other ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Draft CDD Technology Development CDD Engineering & Manufacturing Development CPD Production & Deployment CCMD Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Competitive Prototyping Evolutionary Acquisition The CBA process produces a validated ICD. The ICD summarizes the results of the CBA’s identification of warfighting capability gaps, and potential solutions to mitigate or resolve those gaps. ICD’s that recommend a materiel approach to resolving the capability gaps support a Material Development Decision (MDD) by an acquisition milestone decision authority. The ICD then becomes the basis for the Material Solution Analysis (MSA) phase. During the MSA phase, an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to consider the potential solutions to the capability gaps identified in the ICD. Military Services JROC action for JROC Interest programs (ACAT I & IA) Validates ICD Reviews AoA Results Validates CDD Validates CPD SECDEF Joint Staff / Joint Requirements Oversight Council / OSD OSD (AT&L, CAPE), Services and OSD (DOT&E) Joint Staff (JROC) Policy Select Materiel Solution Develop, Test, Produce & Field Identify Capability Requirements Getting the front end right is key 17

CBA Output Documents ICD
Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Documents Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Results – specifically Capability Gaps Identifies relevant operational attributes Documents recommendations for non-materiel solutions and/or materiel approaches (or a combination) Supports a Materiel Development Decision (MDD) for materiel approaches Predecessor for the Capabilities Development Document (CDD) Page Limit: 10 Pages An ICD documents one or more new capability requirements and associated capability gaps. The ICD also documents the intent to partially or wholly address identified capability gap(s) with a non-materiel solution, materiel solution, or some combination of the two. The ICD is the most common starting point for new capability requirements. Once validated, the ICD typically leads to an AoA or similar review and then the CDD and CPD for development of a materiel capability solution.

ICD Operational Attributes
Describes Capability Requirements with Appropriate Qualitative Parameters and Metrics Outcomes, time, distance, effect, obstacles to be overcome, and supportability Guides the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) With AoA results, Guides Development of Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) for Inclusion in Capabilities Development Document (CDD) The ICD must describe capability requirements in terms of the required operational attributes with appropriate qualitative parameters and metrics, e.g., outcomes, time, distance, effect (including scale), obstacles to be overcome, and supportability. Indicate the minimum value below which the capability will no longer be effective. “TBD” values are not allowed. These operational attributes are “mission” related, not specific to a certain solution. These attributes are used as measures of effectiveness (MOE) during the AoA to compare alternative solutions. Those associated with the preferred solution, or the solution selected by the acquisition milestone decision authority, will evolve into more detailed KPPs for inclusion in the CDD during the Technology Development phase. An ICD is not always required before creating successor documents – CDDs, CPDs, or Joint DCRs – if alternative studies or documentation sources make the ICD redundant. In cases where the Sponsor proposes to proceed directly to a successor document, the general content of the ICD, including capability requirement and capability gap tables, will be provided in the successor document.

Information System (IS) ICD
IS ICDs Implement the “Information Technology (IT) Box” Model IS ICDs are Required When the Solution Requires Research and Development, and Acquisition of Applications with a Projected Software Development Cost of Over $15 Million Not Used for Software Embedded as a Subset of a Capability Solution Developed IAW Other Validated JCIDS Documents IS ICD Applies to: Commercial off the Shelf (COTS)/Government off the Shelf (GOTS) software, and associated hardware without modification Commercial capability solutions with integrated, DoD-specific performance standards Additional production or modification of previously developed U.S and/or Allied or interagency systems or equipment Development, integration, and acquisition of customized application software IS ICDs are used to document capability requirements and associated capability gaps where the intended solution approach involves research, development, and acquisition of applications system software, and the projected software development costs exceed $15 million. IS with development costs less than $15 million are not subject to JCIDS process. Biennial FCB Review: For all IS programs with a valid IS ICD, the lead FCB receives a brief every second year following the validation. The lead FCB will determine if the JROC or JCB should review the following briefing items, and will make appropriate recommendations for action. Progress in delivering capability solutions within the required timeframe and available funding. Compliance with applicable enterprise architecture and data standards. Other items identified by the IS ICD validation memo. “IT Box” model calls for fewer iterations of validating documents through the JCIDS process by describing the overall IS program in the IS ICD, and delegating validation of detailed follow-on requirement and solution oversight to a flag-level organization other than the JROC or JCB.

Definition of the IT Box
Requirements Organization & Oversight Component Requirements Oversight Council (AFROC, AROC, R3B, MROC, etc.) with authority to further delegate Hardware Refresh & System Enhancements & Integration Desired Investment level Capabilities Required Capability statements and required performance from ICD JROC Approved IS ICD $ $ Applications & System Software Development & Acquisition Desired Investment level The “IT Box” model calls for fewer iterations of validating documents through the JCIDS process by describing the overall IS program in the IS ICD, and delegating validation of detailed follow-on requirement and solution oversight to a flag-level organization other than the JROC or JCB. Using identified measures of effectiveness (MOEs), initial minimums are used instead of thresholds/objectives, allowing for rapid capability development within specified funding limits. CDDs and CPDs are not required as successor documents to an IS ICD. Requirements Definition Packages (RDPs) and Capability Drops are “examples” provided in the JCIDS Manual. Sponsors can create their own documents for managing follow-on efforts. The Manual’s description of RDP/CDs is not intended to limit potential flexibilities provided by the IS ICD, or a previously validated ICD or CDD which the validation authority has approved for transition to the IT Box model. • Biannual status review by the Lead FCB • No return to the JROC unless new core capabilities added to the ICD • Return if expenditures exceed ROM estimate by 10% or failure to meet performance minimums • CDDs and CPDs only required for MDAPs

- key acquisition activities/documents - OSD/Joint Staff Support to Strategic Analysis (SSA) Products Joint Concepts President, SECDEF & Chairman: Strategic Guidance Identification of Capability Requirements Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Test & Evaluation (T&E) Strategy (TES) System Engineering Plan (SEP) Technology Demonstrated Initial Key Performance Parameters/Key System Attributes (KPPs/KSAs) Acquisition Strategy T&E Master Plan (TEMP) SEP Final Design Developmental T&E (DT&E) Operational Assessments Revise KPPs/KSAs Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) TEMP SEP Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Initial Operational T&E (IOT&E) Acquisition Strategy APB TEMP SEP Operational Planning CBAs & Other Studies Exercises/Lessons Learned JCTDs/JUON/JEON/ Experiments JIEDDO Initiatives Defense Business Sys Outputs LRIP FOT&E Mission & Problem Capability Gaps Tasks Performance Conditions Operational Risk Non-Materiel Approaches Materiel Approaches Recommendations Materiel Development Decision activity MS “A” MS “B” MS “C” Select Joint Concept Develop CONOPS Capabilities-Based Assessment / Other ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Sponsor Approved CDD Technology Development CDD Engineering & Manufacturing Development CPD Production & Deployment CCMD Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Competitive Prototyping Evolutionary Acquisition The follow-on document to the ICD is the Capability Development Document (CDD). As shown here, a draft CDD supports Milestone A and the preparation of the contract for the Technology Development phase. The final, validated CDD supports a Pre-EMD Review (not shown) – prior to Milestone B that authorizes release of the final request for proposal and source selection for the EMD contract) The validated CDD also supports the Milestone B decision to authorize entry into EMD. Military Services JROC action for JROC Interest programs (ACAT I & IA) Validates ICD Reviews AoA Results Validates CDD Validates CPD SECDEF Joint Staff / Joint Requirements Oversight Council / OSD OSD (AT&L, CAPE), Services and OSD (DOT&E) Joint Staff (JROC) Policy Select Materiel Solution Develop, Test, Produce & Field Identify Capability Requirements Getting the front end right is key 22

Key JCIDS Development Documents CDD
Capability Development Document (CDD) Draft CDD (Sponsor Approved) Supports Milestone A and Technology Development Phase Validated CDD Supports Pre-Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) Review, Milestone B, and EMD Phase Defines Performance Requirements to Achieve the Capability Identifies KPPs, Key System Attributes (KSAs), and additional performance attributes Attributes should be Authoritative, Measurable and Testable Describes DOTmLPF-P Constraints associated with the solution May describe multiple increments Provides operational performance attributes for the acquisition strategy and the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) Page Limit: 45 pages The CDD is the Sponsor’s primary means of proposing refined capability requirements, in the form of KPPs, KSAs, and additional performance attributes, associated with a particular solution intended to wholly or partially satisfy validated capability requirements and close or mitigate associated capability gaps. A draft CDD, not submitted to the Gatekeeper for staffing and validation, is required to inform the TDS and Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Technology Development Phase following the MS A acquisition decision. A CDD is not submitted for staffing and validation until the AoA or alternative supporting analysis is completed, provided to the studies repository, and reviewed by the validation authority. If an AoA has not been conducted, the sponsor will explain, in the CDD, why an AoA was not justified. A validated CDD is a prerequisite to the pre-EMD review leading up to the MS B acquisition decision. The requirement for a validated CDD at MS B also applies to IS programs that are designated as MDAPs. If sufficient information, from an AoA or other analyses, is available to define KPPs and KSAs for multiple capability increments, one validated CDD may support the MS B acquisition decisions of all the described increments. The CDD must clearly articulate if each increment has its own unique set of KPPs/KSAs, or if the KPPs/KSAs listed apply to all increments. CDD KPPs and Sustainment KSAs are inserted verbatim into the APB

Key Performance Parameters (KPPs)
Performance Attributes of a System Critical To Develop an Effective Military Capability KPPs Must be Measurable, Testable, and Quantifiable in a Practical and Timely Manner Enable feedback from T&E; support decision making Mandatory KPPs Force Protection, Survivability, Sustainment, Net Ready, Training, Energy Validated by the JROC for JROC Interest Documents Failure to Meet a KPP Brings the Military Utility of the System into question, and May Result in a Reevaluation of the Program, or Modification of Production Increments. KPPs are performance attributes considered critical to the development of an effective military capability. The number of KPPs identified by a Sponsor should be kept to a minimum to maintain program flexibility. Failure of a system to meet a validated KPP threshold/initial minimum rescinds the validation, brings the military utility of the associated system(s) into question, and may result in a reevaluation of the program or modification to production increments. The JROC validates KPPs for JROC Interest documents. The JCB validates KPPs for JCB Interest documents. The Sponsor (DOD Component) validates KPPs for Joint Integration, Joint Information, and Independent documents. In cases where it is necessary to change validated KPPs, such as for cost, technology, production, development, or other issues that prevent meeting the threshold of the KPP, the Sponsor may request changes to the previous validation by contacting the Gatekeeper. In some cases, the original validation memorandum will specify if there is a delegated validation authority for post- validation KPP or KSA changes.

Key System Attributes (KSAs)
Attributes or Characteristics Considered Essential to Achieving a Balanced Solution Not Critical Enough to be Selected as a KPP Must be Measurable, Testable and Quantifiable Identified by the Sponsor; Should be Kept to a Minimum Sponsor Senior Leadership can Change a KSA Attributes or characteristics considered essential to achieving a balanced solution/approach to a system, but not critical enough to be designated a KPP. KSAs must be measurable, testable, and quantifiable. The KSAs required to support the Sustainment KPP (KSAs for materiel reliability and Operations and Support Costs) are specified by the JCIDS Manual. Other KSAs may be specified by the Sponsor as needed. However, the number of KSAs identified by a Sponsor should be kept to a minimum to maintain program flexibility.

Mandatory Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) & Key System Attributes (KSAs)
Force Protection KPP (all manned systems) Survivability KPP (all manned systems; may be applicable to unmanned ) Sustainment KPP (all ACAT I ) Materiel Availability Operational Availability Supporting KSAs Materiel Reliability Operation & Support Costs Net Ready KPP (all IS & NSS) Training KPP (all ACAT I) Energy KPP (all where provisions of energy impact operational reach, or protection of energy infrastructure or energy resources is required) Operation & Support Cost KSA: Previously called “Ownership Cost” KSA. Did not include all elements of O&S costs – specifically, did not include cost of system specific training, or any indirect costs. Now includes all CAPE specified elements of O&S costs. The Manual now includes specific instructions for development of the Training an Energy KPPs.

Force Protection KPP Applies to Manned Systems and Systems Designed to Enhance Personnel Survivability Force Protection Attributes: Protect personnel by preventing or mitigating hostile actions Emphasis in on protecting the system operator, rather than the system itself Attributes that are offensive and primarily intended to defeat enemy forces are not considered force protection attributes Protection against accidents, weather, natural environmental hazards or disease (except when related to a biological attack) are not force protection Protection FCB Assesses the Force Protection KPP for JROC and JCB Interest Programs If Not Used Must Explain Why Not in the CDD/CPD Examples: Radar Cross Section, Ability to Withstand hit/blast/flood/shock, Jam Resistance, Tactics Force protection attributes are those that contribute to the protection of personnel by preventing or mitigating hostile actions against friendly personnel, military and civilians. This may include the same attributes as those that contribute to Survivability, but the emphasis is on protecting the system operator or other personnel rather than protecting the system itself.

Survivability KPP Expected for All Manned Systems and May be used for Unmanned Systems Survivability Attributes Contribute to the Survivability of Manned or Unmanned Systems Joint Staff, J-3, and the Protection FCB Must Concur if Sponsor Decides Not to Use Examples: Speed Maneuverability Armor Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Redundancy of Critical Subsystems Protection from Chemical, Biological and Radiological Effects

Sustainment KPP & KSAs Applies to All ACAT I Programs.
ACAT II and Below Programs Include the Sustainment KPP or Sponsor Defined Sustainment Metrics Three Elements: Availability KPP: Consists of Materiel Availability and Operational Availability Reliability KSA Operations & Support Cost KSA Joint Staff, J-4 and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Materiel Readiness) Review/Analyze Materiel Availability is the measure of the percentage of the total inventory of a system operationally capable, based on materiel condition, of performing an assigned mission. This can be expressed mathematically as the number of operationally available end items/total population. Operational Availability is the measure of the percentage of time that a system or group of systems within a unit are operationally capable of performing an assigned mission and can be expressed as (uptime/(uptime + downtime)). Reliability KSA. Reliability is a measure of the probability that the system will perform without failure over a specific interval, under specified conditions. O&S Cost KSA. O&S Cost metrics provide balance to the sustainment solution by ensuring that the O&S costs associated with availability and reliability are considered in making decisions. All Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) O&S cost elements in support of this KSA. This includes the fully burdened cost of energy.

Net Ready KPP Applies to all Information Systems (IS) and National Security Systems (NSS) Used in the: automated acquisition, Storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of DOD data or information regardless of classification or sensitivity Not Applicable to Systems That Do Not Communicate With External Systems C4/Cyber FCB Assesses the NR KPP, or Sponsor Justification of Why It Is Not Applicable, for JROC Interest, JCB Interest, or Joint Integration Programs, and Provides NR KPP Certification In Accordance With CJCSI The NR-KPP is used to address: Requirements. Evaluate interoperability and net-centric requirements for the system. Information Exchanges. Verify the Information System (IS) supports operationally effective producer to consumer information exchanges according to the Sponsor’s validated capability requirements and applicable reference models and reference architectures MOEs and MOPs. Provide MOEs and MOPs to evaluate IS’s ability to meet the threshold and objective or initial minimum values when testing the system for joint interoperability certification. Interoperability Issues. Analyze and identify potential interoperability issues early in the IS’s life cycle and identify joint interfaces through systems engineering and architecture development. IS architecture in JCIDS documents is developed according to the current DODAF. Compliance. Determine whether IS complies with network operations (NETOPS) for the GIG direction, GIG 2.0 goals and characteristics, and is integrated into system development. Spectrum Requirements. To obtain a NR-KPP certification, all IS must comply with spectrum management and E3 direction. The spectrum requirements process includes Joint, DOD, national, and international policies and procedures for the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum. J-8 Deputy Director, C4 conducts interoperability certification of JCIDS Documents. Interoperability test certification is conducted by the Joint Interoperability Text Command.

Net-Ready KPP, continued
Net-Ready KPP Consists of Three Attributes: Supports Military Operations Is Entered and Managed on the Network, and Effectively Exchanges Information Three-Step Development Process Step 1. Mission Analysis – Determines Attribute Details for “Supports Military Operations” Step 2. Information Analysis – Determines Attribute Details for “Entered & Managed on the Network” and “Effectively Exchanges Information” Step 3. Systems Engineering & Architecture – Supports all 3 attributes Support Military Operations. This attribute specifies which military operations (e.g. missions or mission threads), as well as operational tasks, a system supports. Threshold and objective values of MOEs are used to measure mission success and are specific to the conditions under which a mission will be executed. Threshold and objective values of MOPs are used to measure task performance and the conditions under which the tasks are performed. Since the NR-KPP focuses on exchanging information, products, or services with external IS, these tasks should only be net-centric operational tasks. Operational tasks are net-centric if they produce information, products, or services for or consume information, products, or services from external IS (including storing information on external IS). Entered and Be Managed On the Network. This attribute specifies which networks the IS must connect to in order to support its net-centric military operations. The attribute must also specify performance requirements for these connections. Effective Information Exchanges This attribute specifies the information elements produced and consumed by each mission and net-ready operational task . Since the NR-KPP focuses on a system’s interactions with external systems, information elements the IS produces, sends, or makes available to an external system and information elements the IS receives from an external system are identified. For each information element, MOPs are used to measure the information element’s production or consumption effectiveness. The NR-KPP MOPs should also describe the information elements’ continuity, survivability, interoperability, security, and operational effectiveness and how unanticipated users are affected.

Key Performance Parameter
Net-Ready KPP Example Attribute 1. Supports Military Operations NR-KPP Attribute Key Performance Parameter Threshold Objective 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 Near-real-time HVT tracked, neutralized Mission Activities: Find HVT Measure: Location accuracy Conditions: Individual differentiation 100 meter circle Identify armed/ not armed 25 meter circle Identify individual

Net-Ready KPP Example Attribute 2. Enter and Managed on the Network NR-KPP Attribute Key Performance Parameter Threshold Objective Enter and be managed in the network Network: SIPRNET Measure: Time to connect to an operational network from power up Conditions: Network connectivity 2 minutes 99.8 1 minute 99.9 Network: NIPRNET

Net-Ready KPP Example Attribute 3. Exchange Information NR-KPP Attribute Key Performance Parameter Threshold Objective Exchange information Information Element: Target Data Measure: Dissemination of HVT biographic and physical data Measure: Receipt of HVT data Measure: Latency of data Measure: Strength of encryption Conditions: Tactical/Geopolitical 10 seconds Line of Sight (LOS) 5 seconds NSA certified type 1 Permissive environment Beyond LOS 2 seconds Non-permissive environment

Training KPP Applies to All ACAT I Programs
Attributes Include (among others): Proficiency Level; Time to Train; Training Retention and Associated Metrics Intent is to Ensure that Training Requirements are Properly Addressed from the Beginning of the Acquisition Process and Throughout the Program’s Acquisition Life-Cycle. J-7, in Coordination with USD(Personnel &Readiness), Assesses the Training KPP, or Sponsor Justification of Why the Training KPP is Not Applicable, for JROC or JCB Interest Programs The Training KPP is designed to ensure that training considerations are planned for and developed early in the program and adequately resourced to fully support initial operational capability. The Training KPP must be considered for all systems under development where one of the major components of the system capability is dependent on operators, maintainers and leaders to be properly trained to fully utilize the capability of the system. The principal attributes of training are proficiency level, time to proficiency, and training retention. Metrics for training KPPs may include: Time/Schedule metrics for training performance. Time required achieving initial capability on a system task (to standard) Time required to sustain proficiency on a system task (to standard) Relative time required to achieve/sustain task proficiency in terms of hours, days, or weeks. Ability to deliver training capabilities on schedule Resources/Cost metrics for training performance Performance metrics for training performance And others Specific examples are provided in JCIDS Manual, Appendix G to Enclosure B.

Energy KPP Applies to Systems Where the Provision of Energy, Including Fuel and Electric Power, Impacts Operational Reach, or Requires Protection of Energy Infrastructure or Energy Resources in the Logistics Supply Chain May be Expressed as Units of Energy Used per Period of Time (e.g. gallons per hour), or as Number of Refuelings Required (e.g. tankings per hour). Logistics FCB, in Coordination With Joint Staff J-4 / Engineering Division (J-4/ED) and With Advice From the Defense Energy Board as Appropriate, Assesses the Energy KPP, or Sponsor Justification of Why the Energy KPP is Not Applicable, for JROC or JCB Interest Programs The value of the Energy KPP is derived from the operational requirements of the system, scenario-based assumptions for its operational use, and the planned logistical and force protection support to sustain it. In order for the PM to develop a complete system to provide warfighting capability, energy performance objectives must be established for the entire system measured against those metrics. Include operational energy demand and related energy logistics resupply risk considerations with the focus on mission success and mitigating the size of the logistics force within the ISCs. These assessments inform the setting of targets and thresholds for the energy efficiency where applicable. Consider energy delivery risk in irregular warfare, operations in austere or concealed settings, and other asymmetric environments, as well as operations in conventional campaigns. This KPP differs from the Sustainment KPP in several ways. First, fuel delivery logistics have a uniquely large presence in the total force structure (tanker aircraft, oilers and fuel trucks) and in the battlespace. Second, fuel, in the large volumes US forces demand it, and, in the timeframe when new systems will come into the force, may become less readily available in the marketplace near where it is required for operations. Third, this Energy KPP does not address energy-related costs, but rather, the interaction of combat and support assets required to deliver military capability.

- key acquisition activities/documents - OSD/Joint Staff Support to Strategic Analysis (SSA) Products Joint Concepts President, SECDEF & Chairman: Strategic Guidance Identification of Capability Requirements Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Test & Evaluation (T&E) Strategy (TES) System Engineering Plan (SEP) Technology Demonstrated Initial Key Performance Parameters/Key System Attributes (KPPs/KSAs) Acquisition Strategy T&E Master Plan (TEMP) SEP Final Design Developmental T&E (DT&E) Operational Assessments Revise KPPs/KSAs Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) TEMP SEP Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Initial Operational T&E (IOT&E) Acquisition Strategy APB TEMP SEP Operational Planning CBAs & Other Studies Exercises/Lessons Learned JCTDs/JUON/JEON/ Experiments JIEDDO Initiatives Defense Business Sys Outputs LRIP FOT&E Mission & Problem Capability Gaps Tasks Performance Conditions Operational Risk Non-Materiel Approaches Materiel Approaches Recommendations Materiel Development Decision activity MS “A” MS “B” MS “C” Select Joint Concept Develop CONOPS Capabilities-Based Assessment / Other ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Sponsor Approved CDD Technology Development CDD Engineering & Manufacturing Development CPD Production & Deployment CCMD Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Competitive Prototyping Evolutionary Acquisition The follow-on document to the CDD is the Capability Production Document (CDD). As shown here, the final, validated CDD supports a Milestone C decision to commit the department to production. The CDD contains updated information gained during the EMD phase and guides low-rate initial production (LRIP), Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E), and full-rate production. Each increment of production in an evolutionary acquisition program will have its own CPD. Military Services JROC action for JROC Interest programs (ACAT I & IA) Validates ICD Reviews AoA Results Validates CDD Validates CPD SECDEF Joint Staff / Joint Requirements Oversight Council / OSD OSD (AT&L, CAPE), Services and OSD (DOT&E) Joint Staff (JROC) Policy Identify Capability Requirements Select Materiel Solution Develop, Test, Produce & Field Getting the front end right is key 37

Key JCIDS Development Documents CPD
Capability Production Document (CPD) (MS C) Supports Production and Development of one increment Documents Authoritative, Testable Capabilities Support Production, Testing, and Deployment May describe Incremental Production and Deployment No New Requirements Must meet Operational Performance Attributes Page Limit: 40 Pages By the end of the EMD phase, a draft CPD describes the expected performance of a system that will deliver the required capability solution to satisfy one or more capability requirements and associated capability gaps identified in an ICD, or valid alternative sources. The CPD is submitted to the JCIDS process for staffing and validation prior to a MS C decision. If EMD activities have not driven changes to KPP thresholds, then a previously validated CDD may be used in lieu of a CPD. Any additional information normally included in the CPD and used by the acquisition process may be updated into the CDD prior to submitting for review. The Sponsor may then resubmit the CDD to the Gatekeeper for confirmation that KPP thresholds are unchanged and that the program is on target to meet the cost, Initial Operational Capability (IOC) / Full Operational Capability (FOC) dates, and quantity parameters specified in the CDD. Because a CPD is finalized after critical design review (CDR) and after the majority of capability development, it is normally not appropriate to introduce new capability requirements at this point. New capability requirements should be included in the next increment in an evolutionary program or in a future modification or upgrade if no additional increments are planned. CPD KPPs and Sustainment KSAs are inserted verbatim into the APB

Differences Between the CDD and the CPD
Focus on Design & Development Focus on Production All Increments A Specific Increment Production Representative Articles measured against KPPs/KSAs Low-Rate Initial Production articles measured against refined KPPs/KSAs The most significant difference between the CDD and the CPD is the refinement of threshold and objective values for KPPs, KSAs, and any additional performance attributes previously identified in the CDD or other source document. The CDD drives design and development of a new system; the CPD focus is on an increment of production. The KPPs/KSAs in the draft CDD at Milestone A drove an evaluation of alternative designs and acquisition strategies. The final CDD at Milestone B reflects any KPP/KSA changes from the draft, and is used to complete development of the selected design, and prepare for production. During EMD, production representative articles will be tested to confirm performance consistent with the KPPs/KSAs. If an increment of an evolutionary program has already been fielded, the CPD for the next increment should reflect experience gained from operation and support of the fielded systems.

JCIDS Gatekeeper J-8, Deputy Director for Requirements (DDR) is the Gatekeeper The Gatekeeper: Performs an initial review of all JCIDS proposals Gatekeeper determines: Joint Staffing Designator (JSD) JROC Interest JCB Interest Joint Integration Joint Information Independent Lead and supporting Functional Capability Boards Formal Staffing Begins After Gatekeeper Decisions The Gatekeeper manages the overall flow of documents into and out of the JCIDS process for staffing and validation, in addition to other activities in support of the JCIDS process. Regardless of potential ACAT or validation authority, Sponsors submit all ICDs, CDDs, CPDs, and Joint DCRs to the Joint Staff for evaluation of joint equity and determination of the appropriate staffing process and validation authority. The Gatekeeper: Confirms that the document is complete and ready for staffing Confirms that CBAs, studies, and other supporting material have been uploaded into the KM/DS studies repository Identifies lead and supporting Functional Capability Boards (FCBs) Assigns one of five Joint Staffing Designations based on actual/potential ACAT and Joint Staff equities. The JSD sets the staffing path and timeline for the documents and identifies the validation authority Determines what Joint Staff endorsements may be necessary Initiates staffing by sending the document to the lead FCB Generates metrics related to the JCIDS Process and posts to KM/DS for visibility Monitors progress toward fielding of solutions to urgent operational needs Manages priority lists generated by the FCBs

JCIDS Document Tracks JSD JROC JCB Sponsor JROC Interest JCB Interest
FCB review & prioritization JROC Interest JCB Review JROC KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT I/IA programs & Joint DCRs FCB review & prioritization JCB Interest JCB KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT II & below with impact on interoperability FCB review & prioritization Sponsor Joint Integration KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT II & below that require endorsements & certifications The FCB (often assisted by other supporting FCBs), will conduct their review concurrent with the review of the document by all other stakeholders via KM/DS. The Sponsor will adjudicate comments from those stakeholders, and when necessary ask the FCB for assistance. Comments submitted to KM/DS in response to document staffing are expected to be signed out at the GO/FO, or civilian equivalent, level. For documents with JSDs below JCB or JROC Interest, the JROC delegates validation authority to the Sponsor organization, and Sponsors may use their own internal staffing processes for review and validation. Sponsor processes must accommodate the time required to obtain Joint Staff endorsements and/or certifications where applicable. Endorsements and certifications include: J-7 (Training KPP and non-materiel solutions); J-2 (Threat validation and intelligence certification); J-8 (weapon safety endorsement and Net-Ready KPP certification); J-4 (review and endorsement of sustainment and energy KPPs); Protection FCB (review and endorsement of Force Protection and Survivability KPPs). Regardless of JSD, all capability requirements are reviewed by the FCB and merged into the FCB portfolio prioritization list. FCB review & prioritization Joint Information KM/DS staffing & comment ACAT II & below that do not require endorsements & certifications Validation Authority Independent FCB prioritization All others Gatekeeper Makes Joint Staffing Designator (JSD) Decision After Sponsor Posts Document to the Knowledge Management/ Decision Support (KM/DS) Tool

Deliberate Staffing Deliberate
Begins when Gatekeeper receives new document via KM/DS Gatekeeper determines JSD and assigns to lead and supporting FCBs FCB staffing runs concurrently with stakeholder review and comment via KM/DS (comments are signed out at GO/Flag/SES level) Sponsor adjudicates comments – for JROC and JCB Interest documents must be to satisfaction of FCB Chair FCB Chair recommends validation/no validation to JCB/JROC Validated documents are posted to KM/DS ICD, CDD, CPD to appropriate Acquisition Executive for action Joint DCR to lead organization designated in validation memo The deliberate staffing process begins when the Gatekeeper receives a new document via the KM/DS system. The Gatekeeper has 4 calendar days to perform initial review of the document and assign the new document to a Lead and supporting FCBs. Initial staffing of documents is conducted for 21 calendar days from the assignment of the document to the lead FCB. Staffing consists of two parallel activities: The lead FCB forms a working group (WG) from lead and supporting FCB subject matter experts from across DOD. FCB and FCB WG activities include: Performing an assessment of the document, including comparison of capability requirements within the document against existing capability requirements, development programs, and fielded capability solutions within their FCB portfolio. The FCB Joint priority list will be updated to reflect the new capability requirement. (2) In parallel with the FCB assessment, documents with JSDs other than Independent are available to Services, CCMDs, and other DOD Components for commenting via the KM/DS system. Comments are due by the end of the initial 21 day staffing period. Following FCB review and KM/DS staffing, the Sponsor has 30 calendar days to adjudicate comments from the FCBs, certifying or endorsing organizations, or KM/DS staffing. Following Sponsor comment adjudication, the FCB has 7 calendar days to review the changes, ensure certifying or endorsing organizations concur with Sponsor adjudication and assist the FCB Chair in reaching a validation recommendation. Once receiving a positive validation recommendation from the Chair of the lead FCB, validation by the JCB/JROC takes no longer than 21 calendar days.

JROC Decision Chain VCJCS JROC JCB FCB FCB WG JROC DECISION CHAIN
JROC MEMBERSHIP VCJCS 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 Combatant Commands* (Commander or Deputy Commander) JROC Chairman; Advises the CJCS JROC Owns JCIDS; Validates JROC Interest Documents; Final Authority JCB Validates JCB Interest Documents; Assists JROC Reviews Documents; Prioritizes Within Portfolio; Makes Validation Recommendation to JCB/JROC FCB JROC Membership: According to Title 10, the JROC is composed of The VCJCS, 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. JROC Decision Chain: The role of the JROC is an advisory council to the Chairman – to assist the Chairman in identifying, assessing, and validating joint military requirements, including existing systems and equipment, to meet the National Military Strategy. The JROC relies on Functional Capability Boards (FCBs) to provide the analytical foundation for JROC recommendations and the Joint Capabilities Board to ensure that issues are identified and developed to facilitate JROC recommendations to the VCJCS. The FCBs are not decision making bodies; however, the FCB Chair briefs the JCB/JROC and makes a validation recommendation. FCB WG Reviews Documents & Prioritizes Prior to JCB Review *Unless otherwise directed to participate by the JROC Chairman, CCMD representatives are highly encouraged to participate as voting members when matters related to the area of responsibility or functions of that command will be under consideration by the JROC. USD(AT&L), Dir, CAPE, USD(Comptroller), DOT&E, and USD(Policy) attend as JROC advisors JROC: Joint Requirements Oversight Council JCB: Joint Capability Board FCB: Functional Capability Board FCB WG: Functional Capability Board Working Group

Joint Capabilities Board (JCB)
Provides Review and Endorsement of Documents and Adjudication of Lower Level Issues Prior to JROC Validation Reviews/Adjusts Joint Prioritization From the Functional Capability Boards (FCBs) Validates JCIDS Documents with a Joint Staffing Designation (JSD) of “JCB Interest” JCB Chair: Director, J-8 JCB Membership: General/Flag Officers, or civilian equivalent, from the Military Services and Combatant Commands The JCB is a board below the JROC and provides review and endorsement of documents and adjudication of lower level issues prior to validation by the JROC, and reviews/adjusts Joint prioritization from the FCBs. The JCB has delegated validation authority for documents with a Joint Staffing Designator of JCB Interest. USSOCOM has delegated validation authority for Special Operation Peculiar JCIDS documents at the level of JCB Interest and below. JCB Chairman: Supports the JROC Chairman and the JROC in executing JROC responsibilities. Coordinates oversight of the JCIDS process and coordinates other issues requiring JROC review. Conducts JROC pre-briefs to ensure format, content, and presentation are appropriate. Assists the JROC Chairman in maintaining liaison with the Services, Combatant Commands, and other DOD components. USSOCOM has delegated validation authority for Special Operation Peculiar JCIDS documents at the level of JCB Interest and below.

Functional Capabilities Boards (FCBs)
Provides Review and Endorsement of Documents and Adjudication of Lower Level Issues Within Their Portfolio Prior to JCB Review Review/Adjusts Joint Prioritization Established by the FCB Working Groups Aligned with Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) FCB Chair: General/Flag Officer, or Civilian Equivalent FCB Lead: Military Officer, 0-6, or Civilian Equivalent FCB Membership: Representatives in Military Grade of 0-6, or Civilian Equivalent, from Joint Staff, Services, CCMDs, and Other Organizations With Equity in the FCB’s Portfolio 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. FCBs are aligned with six of the eight joint capability areas (JCAs) , which define portfolios of functionally similar capabilities within which each of the FCBs can focus their efforts.

Functional Capability Boards & Sponsoring Organizations
Battlespace Awareness Logistics Force Support C4/Cyber BGen Weggeman JS J-6 Mr. Gareau JS J-2 Mr. Hawkins JS J-4 BGen O’Donohue JS J-8 Protection BG Polakowski JS J-8 Force Application BGen O’Donohue JS J-8 Additional JCAs: Building Partnerships Corporate Management & Support FCB Leads as of 19 Sep 2012 FCBs receive their authorization from the activating JROC Memoranda (JROCM), and are empowered to task subject matter experts (SMEs) from the Joint Staff, and request information and support from SMEs in the Services, Combatant Commands, and other DOD components. The approved FCBs and their designated sponsors are shown on this chart. The “Building Partnerships” and “Corporate Management,” JCAs do not have associated FCBs. Issues with equities fitting under these JCAs will handled either by other organizations and processes in the Joint Staff or through one of the listed FCBs with appropriate participation from other organizations. The FCBs and sponsoring organizations and Chair as of 10 Feb 2012 are shown here. FCB Membership: (O-6 level) Services Combatant Command Reps OSD (AT&L) OSD (I) USecAF (Space) DOD CIO OSD(Comptroller) D/CAPE DIA Rep (Threat) ODNI/IRB Other DoD Agencies as necessary

Functional Capability Board Working Groups (WGs)
Provide Initial Review and Assessment of Documents Prior to Review by the FCB Establish Joint Prioritization of Capability Requirements Within Their Portfolios Established by the FCB Chair FCB WG Lead: Military Officer, 0-6, or Civilian Equivalent FCB WG Membership: Military, civilian, or contractor support Subject Matter Experts from Joint Staff, Services, Combatant Commands, and other Organizations With Equity in the FCB’s Portfolio. FCB WGs are the lowest level organizational structure of the JROC. The FCB WGs provide initial review and assessment of documents and issues within their designated portfolios prior to review by the FCB, establish Joint prioritization of capability requirements within their portfolios, and perform other activities at the direction of the FCB Chair. Establishment of the FCB WGs is at the discretion of the FCB Chair to most effectively carry out the responsibilities of the FCB.

Capability Development Tracking and Management (CDTM)
IT system that transforms JCIDS capability tracking from document-centric to data-centric process Developed and deployed on NIPRNet and SIPRNet SIPRNet is “authoritative source” and integrated with KM/DS Capability gap traceability Process metrics Ease of use enhancements Improved search capability Improved document creation Input standardization Ability to data share with other DoD applications CDTM changes the way in which Services will enter documents into the JCIDS process Previously documents were simply a word document where the length and breadth were at discretion of Service, with some problems: -- Great variation across Services and within Services on requirement document quality -- Limited ability to quickly search document and pull out most important elements -- Limited ability to determine document staffing times and measure JCIDS approval process as a whole CDTM is an IT tool that moves input from document-centric to an information – centric process: -- Rather than attaching document, one will enter data into template -- Field length will limit long-run-on descriptions -- Mandatory fields will ensure that all aspects of describing a capability need/gap are included -- Report wizard will transform template inputs into complete JCIDS document CDTM is not used for urgent operational need documents. CDTM may not be current with changes to document formats – always check the latest JCIDS Manual and J-8 errata, and other directions from J-8

CDTM Wizard and Automated Document Creation
Document is created with data filled in from wizard entries

Summary of the Deliberate JCIDS Process
Materiel Solutions Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Capability Development Document (CDD) Capability Production Document (CPD) Non-Materiel Solutions – Joint DOTmLPF-P Change Recommendation (DCR) Operational Requirements Development is a Team Effort; All Stakeholders Should be Involved; Involve the User in Technical Requirements Development Implementing Major Changes to Improve the Process… New CJCSI H (JCIDS) and CJCSI F (JROC Charter) dated 10 Jan 12; JCIDS Manual dated 19 Jan (J-8 errata dated 20 Sep 2012) Remember, there are three JCIDS documents that support materiel solutions. The ICD supports the Materiel Development Decision and the Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) phase, and specifically drives the AoA. The CDD follows the ICD and provides capability requirements details needed to design, develop, and sustain a system solution. The CDD supports the Pre- Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Review, Milestone B and the EMD phase. The CPD follows the CDD, supports a Milestone C decision, and provides the capability requirements to produce an increment of an evolutionary acquisition.

Rapid Response

Rapid Response Situations
Urgent and Compelling Needs During Crisis and Conflict, or Anticipated or Pending Contingency Operation Each Service has Policies and Procedures, but … Service-Unique Approaches do not Address Theater-Wide Joint Urgent and Emergent Operational Needs Requirements Managers Need to Stay Engaged in the Process The DOD 5000 and deliberate JCIDS processes acquire weapons systems using a traditional process, usually taking a few years even when the system uses maximum streamlining. Sometimes, the warfighters need a new capability as soon as possible. Each Service uses various methods to shorten the acquisition timelines to meet urgent and compelling needs during crisis and conflict, but service policies and procedures do not provide an opportunity to address theater-wide multi-Service combatant commander joint urgent operational needs. Here we deal with the joint urgent operational needs processes.

Joint Urgent & Emergent Operational Needs
The Joint Rapid Response Lanes are the Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON) and Joint Emergent Operational Needs (JEON) JUON/JEON Validation and Resourcing Involves The Gatekeeper (J8 Deputy Director for Requirements (DDR)) Validates JUONs JCB/JROC validates JEONs as determined by VCJCS The Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) Functional Capabilities Boards (FCBs) Working Groups The Military Services, Defense Agencies, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Task Force and Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) When warfighters report situations that put life at risk or risk mission failure, every service has its own Rapid Response procedure. When the situation is a joint problem, the joint urgent operational needs (UON) process applies. The JCIDS Manual provides guidance for the joint UON process. JUONs apply to ongoing combat operations; JEONs apply to anticipated contingency operations. The validation process is almost the same, except that the Gatekeeper will first confirm the contingency referred to in the JEON with the VCJCS, who will then assign either the JCB or the JROC as the JEON validation authority.

Definitions Urgent Operational Need (UON):
Capability requirements identified by a DOD Component as impacting an ongoing or anticipated contingency operation. If left unfulfilled, UONs result in capability gaps potentially resulting in loss of life or critical mission failure. DoD Components, in their own terminology, may use a different name for a UON. Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON): UONs that are identified by a Combatant Command as inherently joint and impacting an ongoing contingency operation. Joint Emergent Operational Need (JEON): UONs that are identified by a Combatant Command as inherently joint and impacting an anticipated or pending contingency operation. Capability solutions for JUONs, JEONs, and DOD Component UONs do not require associated ICDs, CDDs, or CPDs for initial fielding, but may require appropriate CDDs or CPDs to support transition for sustainment and/or further development of capability solutions for enduring use. Capability requirements with anticipated development/fielding timeframes longer than 2 years for JUONs or 5 years for JEONs should not use a JUON or JEON to document and validate the capability requirement and associated gaps, but rather generate an ICD, CDD, or CPD for review and validation in the deliberate staffing process.

Urgent Situations Urgent Situations These Situations Must Result in:
Ongoing conflict or crisis Unforeseen military requirements Must resolve as soon as possible These Situations Must Result in: Direct enemy-action related loss of life and/or Critical mission failure Staffing goal: 15 days Warrior feedback from a conflict or crisis situation identifies urgent situations. Units in conflict or crisis may face unforeseen military requirements that DOD must resolve as soon as possible. When these situations threaten the lives of United States or allied personnel, or if these situations threaten mission accomplishment, commanders may initiate the Urgent Operational Need (UON) process – either for joint needs (JUONs), or if only applicable to one military service – component level UON process.

Emergent Situations Emergent Situation
Supports Accelerated Acquisition of Capabilities Needed for an Anticipated or Pending Contingency Operation Variation of the JUONs process Driven by “pending” or “imminent” operations and require capability in short timeframes to avoid loss of life an/or mission failure when operations commence Verification by VCJCS is required prior to staffing as an emergent candidate JCB or JROC is validation body as determined by VCJCS Staffing goal: 31 days JEONs are UONs affecting two or more DOD Components and are driven by anticipated contingency operations. JEONs are submitted by CCMDs in accordance with the JCIDS Manual. JEONs are first confirmed by the VCJCS, via the Gatekeeper (J-8 Deputy Director for Requirements) and Director J-8, due to the unique nature of capability requirements associated with anticipated contingency operations. The VCJCS will also identify the validation authority as the JCB or JROC. Once the VCJCS provides confirmation that the JEON may use the emergent process, JEONs are assigned to a Lead FCB and the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) (JRAC is located in OUSD(AT&L) as a direct report to the Under Secretary) for collaborative review.

Who Initiates an Urgent/Emergent Need?
Urgent/Emergent Needs are Submitted by a Combatant Command The Need May Originate from: A Joint Force Commander A Service Component Commander A commander’s delegated representative Services Must Validate Service-Unique Urgent/Emergent Need JUONs/JEONs are Validated by the Joint Staff DDR or JCB/JROC New JUONs and JEONs, and modifications to the capability requirements in previously validated JUONs and JEONs, must be endorsed by the CCMD Commander, Deputy Commander, or Chief of Staff. Administrative modifications to previously validated JUONs or JEONs may be endorsed by the CCMD J8.

The Sponsor Component (Service or Agency) Recommended by the Gatekeeper and Named by the JRAC The Sponsor Develops an Initial Course of Action for JRAC Review Implementation Recommendation Funding Strategy Recommendation The Sponsor Manages the Approved JUON / JEON Effort Components will use all available authorities to fund, develop, assess, produce, deploy, operate, and sustain urgent operational need (UON) capabilities expeditiously (DoDD )

Urgent/Emergent Staffing
Staffing begins when Gatekeeper receives the document Gatekeeper has 1 day to review and assign to Lead FCB JEONs confirmed by Gatekeeper with VCJCS; VCJCS assigns JCB or JROC as validation authority Lead FCB & Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) assess validity of JUON/JEON and identify potential solutions (if possible – ultimate solution will be determined post-validation) FCB Chair & JRAC make recommendation for or against validation Validation is communicated to JRAC, who assigns a solution sponsor to rapidly fund, develop, and field a solution If not validated, validation authority notifies JUON/JEON sponsor – there is no appeal JUON and JEON staffing begins when the Gatekeeper receives the document from the Sponsor. The Gatekeeper has one day to perform initial review. Following confirmation that the JUON meets the appropriate entry criteria, JUONs are assigned directly to a Lead FCB for review. JEONs are first confirmed by the VCJCS, via the Gatekeeper and DJ-8. The VCJCS will identify the validation authority as the JCB or JROC. Once the VCJCS provides confirmation that the JEON may use the emergent process, JEONs are assigned to a Lead FCB and JRAC for collaborative review. The Lead FCB, in collaboration with the JRAC, assesses the validity of the JUON or JEON and identifies potential solution approaches which could satisfy the capability requirement in the requested timeframe. The Lead FCB updates the FCB Joint prioritization to reflect the placement of the new capability requirement(s) within their priority list. At the end of their assessment, the Chair of the lead FCB, with a JRAC representative makes a recommendation to the validation authority either for or against validation. The validation authority will make one of the following decisions: 1) Validate and proceed to a solution sponsor. 2)Validate part – proceed through a mix of urgent and deliberate processes. 3)Reject – recommend accept risk, adopt a non-materiel approach, or pursue through deliberate process.

Rapid Response Framework
The JUON / JEON Process Consists of Four Phases: GENERATION Phase VETTING Phase EQUIPPING Phase OPERATIONS & SUPPORT Phase Force Commander Identifies Urgent /Emergent Need CCMD Staff determines the most suitable process CCMD Chief of Staff certifies and submits to Joint Staff (J-8 Gatekeeper) J-8 Gatekeeper Receives and verifies that JUON / JEON meets submission criteria Joint staff reviews and validates JUON (Gatekeeper) or JEON (JCB or JROC) JRAC determines a resourcing Strategy and assigns Sponsor Solutions may be identified during FCB/JCB/JROC review; or after assignment to sponsor Sponsor creates a Simplified Acquisition Plan Sponsor procures and delivers solution to the Warfighter Sponsor provides progress reports on performance, cost, and schedule Sponsor submits an assessment of operational utility within 90 days of fielding Sponsor sustains solution and monitors performance for twenty- four months Sponsor, CCMD, and FCB prepare Capability Review to address final disposition of fielded system The JUON Process consists of Four Phases: During the Generation Phase: The Force Commander identifies the urgent need The CCMD Staff determines the most suitable process The CCMD Chief of Staff (CoS) certifies the JUON /JEON and submits it to the Joint Staff Gatekeeper (J-8/DDR) The Vetting Phase consists of an initial review and the selection of a resourcing strategy Vetting routes the JUON/JEON to the appropriate boards and offices A JUON/JEON Working Group (WG) makes a solution recommendation. The working group represents OSD, Services, Combat Support Agencies (CSAs), the Joint Staff, and the originating CCMD The JRAC convenes and determines a resourcing strategy The Equipping Phase is the delivery of JUON/JEON Solution to the Warfighter The Sponsor submits an abbreviated acquisition plan to JRAC and to the JS The Sponsor acquires a materiel solution and provides it to the warfighter Initial feedback provides progress reports on performance, cost, and schedule In the Operations and Support Phase: The Sponsor supports the JUON/JEON solution in the field Feedback elements continue The FCB, sponsor, and CCMD conduct a capability review. This review informs the final disposition of the materiel solution. The Warfighter Senior Integration Group (SIG) is the Oversight Body for DoD Urgent Needs See DoDD , 24 Aug 2012

Challenge of Rapid Acquisition
Future Focused Very Structured Process Evolved Requirements Analysis of Alternatives Lengthy Development High Visibility on Program Large Investment A Deliberate Now-focused More ad hoc process Broad requirement Quick assessment of alternatives Limited development High visibility on results Limited investment Very Limited Feedback May Transition to Program of Record (POR) immediate Don’t confuse this chart with the venn diagram that shows “Big A”. This is a joint staff depiction illustrating the rapid process vs. the deliberate process. a

Rapid Response Summary
An Urgent / Emergent Situation that Results in Loss of life and/or Critical mission failure Each Service has Its Own Approach to Urgent Needs JUONs / JEONs are Part of the Requirements Determination Process Requirements Managers Need to be Involved with Follow-On Activities Planning for ongoing contingency operations may identify urgent operational needs (UONs) which represent potential for critical mission failure or unacceptable loss of life if not satisfied by a rapidly acquired capability solution. These capability requirements may qualify for submission as Joint UONs (JUONs) or DOD Component UONs for expedited validation and rapid acquisition efforts. Planning for anticipated contingency operations may identify operational needs which represent potential mission failure or unacceptable loss of life once operations commence, if not satisfied by a rapidly acquired capability solution. These capability requirements may qualify for submission as Joint Emergent Operational Needs (JEONs) or DOD Component UONs for expedited validation and rapid acquisition efforts.

Waivers Waivers can be used for:
Request to submit a CDD without an ICD (ICD waiver is not required to submit a Joint DCR without a preceding ICD) Request to submit a CPD without a preceding ICD and/or CDD ICD and/or CDDs may be waived in cases where it is best to proceed directly to MS B or C (GOTS/COTS solutions, transitioning UONS/JUONS, successful JCTDs, etc.. Tripwire relief – when a sponsor does not believe a tripwire review is necessary. J-8/DDR is the approval authority for: ICD, CDD and tripwire waiver requests Deviations from processes described in the JCIDS Manual The waiver request will be submitted in memo form into the KM/DS system as the document type that is being waived (e.g., ICD waiver request will be submitted as an ICD document type), and must be endorsed by the Service, CCMD, or other DOD Component J8 equivalent or higher. The waiver request must include the rationale/justification for why an ICD and/or CDD is not required, the source(s) of equivalent information, and the proposed path forward. In cases where an AoA recommends processing directly to a CPD and MS-C decision, the post AoA review by the FCB satisfies the intent of the waiver request. Not every deviation requires a waiver request. An ICD waiver request is not required for Joint DCRs without associated ICDs. In cases where an AoA recommends processing directly to a CPD and MS-C decision, the post AoA review by the FCB satisfies the intent of the waiver request.

Guiding Principles Know the requirements– the requirements/acquisition community should not only clearly understand the requirements, but should be actively engaged with the user in establishing realistic and achievable requirements within budget constraints. Question the requirements – if a requirement doesn’t make sense, question it – the answer may be surprising. Are the requirements realistic – is it physically possible to meet the requirement? Can it be tested? Is an 80% solution adequate and field the remaining 20% when technology is mature enough? Beware of derived requirements – an engineer’s “derived” technical requirement can take on a life of it’s own; keep focused on the user’s operational requirements. Tech Reviews – JCIDS sponsor/user should attend PDR and CDR to answer questions on operational requirements. Configuration Steering Boards (CSBs) – PM has the authority to recommend descoping options and to object to new requirements after MS B, unless approved by the CSB. Must be coordinated with the requirements professionals. Know your requirements and question the requirements: That applies to both acquisition and requirements stakeholders. The requirements manager should lead an IPT with all stakeholders (PMO, testers (DT and OT), etc..) to ensure the KPPs and KSAs provide the capabilities required by the ICD, are supported by the AoA, and are affordable and testable. Is each requirement realistic: Can it be achieved within the timeframe required? Is it testable? Is it affordable? Is mature technology available – if not, should one or more requirements (KPPs) be delayed to future increments? Can KPPs be modified / eliminated? If KPPs are modified or eliminated will it necessitate a change in CONOPs, quantity, or is the solution no longer viable? Derived requirements: Do the engineers understand the operational requirements; the operational concept? If not, they need to get together with the requirements manager before they develop the technical requirements. (Perhaps the RM could attend the Engineering kickoff meeting to ensure they go down the right track?) Tech Reviews: Technical design attributes should support that requirement and not go out of scope (and off budget) to make some hard charging engineer happy. Requirements managers should be invited to tech reviews, particularly PDR and CDR and encouraged to ask questions to ensure they understand how the design will mitigate or resolve the gaps in capability. CSBs: First required in Now required by and public law. Should be helpful in controlling requirements creep

Requirements Challenges
Gaming the System by Specifying the Solution too Early Incomplete or Rushed Analysis Vague/Poorly Written Requirements Good Briefings Based on Poor Documents Confusing Requirements with Specifications Not Following Up on Results of DAS Reviews and T&E results Requirements Creep (Operational & Technical) Misusing the Urgent/Emergent Requirements Determination Processes Cost and Schedule Estimates Based on Incomplete or Poorly Written Requirements (Operational and Technical) Does the ICD identify the materiel solution? The FSA , which looked at solutions, was eliminated in JCIDS no longer requires materiel alternatives in the ICD. Only “recommended approaches” are in the ICD. The acquisition community decides, along with the requirements manager, what approach(es) to take, and the AoA looks at alternatives, not JCIDS. Analysis: Sometimes the underlying analysis is either not apparent, not current or was not conducted. There are approved ICDs lacking any analysis. New JCIDS process requires supporting analysis to be posted to KM/DS. Briefings: Powerpoint is not a “requirement”. Do homework first, then do the briefing. Ensure briefing is based on documented evidence. JCB and JROC do not see documents —just briefings and briefings can get modified to the point that they no longer resemble the document. Requirements vs. Specs. Operational requirements are in CDD/CPD; specs are in contracts. Don’t confuse them when communicating – particularly to Congress. Results of decision reviews and program reviews – keep in mind what the ADM or other minutes expects; share test results with all stakeholders – requirements community and contractor. Requirements creep: Don’t blame the RM if engineers derive requirements beyond scope of needed capabilities. Most RMs are operators and they will gladly accept more capability. If engineers derive additional requirements, and the RM thinks they are great, reference the ICD/CDD to see if they are requirements or desirements Rapid Response: JUONS are only to avoid loss of life or mission failure; don’t fudge. Cost and schedule: Share the operational and tech specs with your cost estimators. Make sure the program schedule is in sync with all required events – staff with all stakeholders.

Patrick Wills Associate Dean, Executive Programs,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Patrick Wills Associate Dean, Executive Programs,"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Patrick Wills Associate Dean, Executive Programs,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Patrick Wills Associate Dean, Executive Programs,"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback