Draft Material for DAU’s CLR 250 Online Course for Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Team Member Training 15 Feb 2010 Draft.

Draft Material for DAU’s CLR 250 Online Course for Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Team Member Training 15 Feb 2010 Draft

Lesson #1 – CBA Background
Draft Material from DAU’s CLR 250 Online Course for Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Team Member Training Lesson #1 – CBA Background

Capabilities-Based Assessment – Three Official Levels of Definition (#1)
“The CBA is the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System analysis process. It answers several key questions for the validation authority prior to their approval: define the mission; identify capabilities required; determine the attributes/standards of the capabilities; identify gaps; assess operational risk associated with the gaps; prioritize the gaps; identify and assess potential non-materiel solutions; provide recommendations for addressing the gaps.” Brief historical context on the formation of the CBA: On 20 October 2003, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) issued a memorandum on a recently completed study of forcible entry operations. This memorandum directed that “…The Director, J-8, Joint Staff, in coordination with the Commander, US Joint Forces Command, and the Services, develop a Forcible Entry Joint Operating Concept (JOC) by 31 December Furthermore “…The Director, J-8, Joint Staff, in coordination with the Services, use the JOC-derived tasks to conduct a capabilities-based assessment by 30 September 2004.” [Source: JROCM , 2003] Source: CJCSI G, 1 Mar 2009, JCIDS, p. GL-3 Note: combine this chart and the next two charts into one chart with 3 tabs. Each tab corresponds with each official definition Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears Note: insert link to CJCSI G on the first tab “This first of 4 lessons takes a more in-depth look at the CBA processes and explains how this effort fits within the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS). To begin this course, we’ll start out with some definitions of what a Capabilities-Based Assessment is, working our way from the top of the military chain on down. The highest official level of CBA definition is located at the Joint staff level, specified through CJCSI G, Joint Capability Integration and Development System (JCIDS), dated 1 Mar 2009.

“The CBA is the analytic basis of the JCIDS process. It identifies capability needs and gaps and recommends non-materiel or materiel approaches to address gaps. A CBA may be based on an approved Joint Concept; a concept of operations (CONOPS) endorsed by the JROC, a combatant command, Service, or defense agency; the results of a Senior Warfighters’ Forum (SWarF)*; or an identified operational need. It becomes the basis for validating capability needs and results in the potential development and deployment of new or improved capabilities.” (Note: JCIDS calls for CBAs to be done in 90 to 180 days…) * SWarF Definition: Senior Warfighter Forum. A SWarF is a collaborative body – generally consisting of Combatant Command Deputy Commanders – that organizes, analyzes, prioritizes, builds consensus and makes decisions from the joint warfighters’ perspective on complex capability, resource and standards issues. Source: CJCSI D. P. A-12 Source: JCIDS Manual, Feb 2009, Updated 31 Jul 2009, p. A-1 Note: combine this chart with the previous chart and the next chart into one chart with 3 tabs. Each tab corresponds with each official definition Note: start audio narrative immediately when this chart appears Note: insert links to JCIDS Manual and CJCSI D on this second tab. “The next official level of definition comes at the actual JCIDS level, which expands slightly the CJCSI-level definition and is located in the JCIDS Manual, updated on 31 Jul Note that the JCIDS Manual calls for CBAs to be completed in 90 to 180 days.”

“The CBA identifies: the capabilities and operational performance criteria required to successfully execute missions; the shortfalls in existing weapon systems to deliver those capabilities and the associated operational risks; the possible non-materiel approaches for mitigating or eliminating the shortfall, and when appropriate recommends pursuing a materiel solution.” Source: J-8 CBA User’s Guide, V3, Mar 2009, p. 4 Note: combine this chart with the previous two charts into one chart with 3 tabs. Each tab corresponds with each official definition Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears Note: also add link to J-8 CBA User’s Guide, Version 3, Mar 2009 here “Finally, the third official level of definition comes in the form of a CBA User’s Guide issued by J-8. This level not only defines the CBA, but also presents an extended historical context for its existence. Based on the experience of individuals who have participated in past CBAs, this is the document you will reference most when conducting your joint-level CBA. Also, within this document is a simplified, conceptual model of what a CBA “really boils down to” – the CBA “Big Picture” if you will. This concept is presented in the next chart: ”

Conceptually, What The CBA Really Boils Down To:
Existing Guidance What are we talking about? How good are we at doing it? Note: start audio immediately after chart appears “In its simplest form, the CBA must: Synthesize existing guidance to Specify and talk about the military problems to be studied. Then Examine those problems, figure out how well the DoD can address the problem given its current program. Finally Generate general recommendations for solutions to those needs.“ Keep this chart in mind when working your way through the CLR 250 course material – you will see it again… Source: CBA User’s Guide, V3, Mar 2009, p. 10 What should we do about it?

Where the CBA Fits in the JCIDS?
Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase Production and Deployment Phase Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR) Materiel Development Decision (MDD) Capabilities Development Document (CDD) Capabilities Production Document (CPD) Technology Development B C A Note: add link to DoDI , 8 Dec 2008 Note: start the following audio when the chart appears “This Figure shows the flow of the current DoD process for identifying needs and acquiring solutions. The CBA can result in a DCR, an ICD, both, or neither. The diagram also includes the three major milestone decisions (A, B, and C) that control whether a materiel program proceeds to the next phase. The point here is that the CBA starts the formal process. If this assessment is compelling and appropriately rigorous, then the tasking organization (known in JCIDS as a “sponsor”) will prepare either a DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR) and/or an “Initial Capabilities Document” (ICD) for staffing. An ICD not only documents the results of a CBA, but also serves as a decision document. If the JCIDS process approves an ICD, then the DoD collectively has agreed that: 1. the CBA has described the capabilities needed to perform a particular mission; the CBA has identified gaps in those capabilities and the associated operational risks; and, there is a need to address these gaps. In addition, the latest revision of the acquisition system requires a senior DoD acquisition official (the “milestone decision authority” or MDA…) to formally certify that a major program fulfills an approved ICD. No JROC-approved ICD - no program.“ Source: DoDI , 8 Dec 2008, p. 13

Seam Between Requirements & Acquisition
JCIDS Analysis MDD Formerly FAA Identify Tasks Conditions Standards Formerly FNA Use programmed force / doctrinal approaches to identify capability gaps / redundancies Formerly FSA AoA Identify potential materiel / non-materiel approaches to solving / mitigating capability gap ICD Seam Between Requirements & Acquisition Note: start the following audio when the chart appears “This figure is a different depiction of the CBA and where it fits with respect to a materiel solution. Chronologically, it is to the left of the Materiel Development Decision (MDD) – the requirements development part of JCIDS that involves the warfighters and combatant commanders (COCOMs). To the right of the MDD is the acquisition process, highlighting the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Notice also it calls out three previously analytical phases formally required by JCIDS: the Functional Area Analysis (FAA), the Functional Needs Analysis (FNA), and the Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA). JCIDS no longer formally requires these analyses, but as you’ll see as this course progresses, you will find that you will probably accomplish essentially these tasks or something very similar. The only real change is that now, these are not formally mandated – the methodology is left up to the services and other agencies.” Source: Briefing by Jeff Cohen, SPA, Inc. Scope of a CBA

Do ICDs or DCRs Always Result From CBAs?
No! "Now, there are many approved ICDs that do not have something called a CBA associated with them. Some of this is due to validation of needs that predate JCIDS; in other cases, the decision to address a capability gap was either proven by actual combat, seized upon due to a technological opportunity, or simply mandated due to other existing evidence.” Source: CBA User’s Guide, V3, Mar 2009, p. 7

Non-Materiel Approaches That CBAs Recommend (through DOTMLPF Change Recommendations - DCRs)
Doctrine Organization Training Materiel Leadership & Education Personnel Facilities Note: start the following audio as each tab appears. Doctrine: the way we fight, e.g., emphasizing maneuver warfare combined air-ground campaigns Organization: how we organize to fight; divisions, air wings, Marine-Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs), etc. Training: how we prepare to fight tactically; basic training to advanced individual training, various types of unit training, joint exercises, etc. Materiel: all the “stuff” necessary to equip our forces, that is, weapons, spares, etc. so they can do operate effectively Leadership and education: how we prepare our leaders to lead the fight from squad leader to 4-star general/admiral; professional development Personnel: availability of qualified people for peacetime, wartime, and various contingency operations Facilities: real property; installations and industrial facilities (e.g. government owned ammunition production facilities) that support our forces

Materiel Approaches That CBAs Recommend (through Initial Capability Documents - ICDs)
Development and fielding of Information Systems (or similar technologies with high obsolescence rates) or evolution of the capabilities of existing information systems Evolution of Existing Systems with significant capability improvement (this may include replacing an existing system with a newer, more capable system, or simple recapitalization) Breakout Systems that differ significantly in form, function, operation, and capabilities from existing systems. Note: start the following audio immediately when chart appears Note: insert link to JCIDS Manual, updated 31 Jul 2009 “As noted in the previous charts, though not formally required, your CBA must at least recommend the form of a solution, particularly for non-materiel issues that could result in a DCR. More importantly, JCIDS has recognized that materiel solutions to capability gaps tend to fall into one of the following three categories. It must be brought to your attention here that the three materiel approaches listed in the 31 Jul 2009 update to the JCIDS Manual supersede the four approaches mentioned in the latest (Version 3, dated Mar 2009) of the J-8 CBA User’s Guide. There are really only two differences. First, the terms “evolutionary” and “recapitalization” were combined into “Evolution of Existing Systems” . Second, “transformational” was simply renamed “Breakout Systems”. A small, but important distinction to keep in mind, especially when documenting and briefing your assessment to outside organizations. Click each button for a further explanation. Note: use a tab to highlight each solution and match to the corresponding audio below: Development and fielding of Information Systems. Solutions involving information systems or transient solutions that have very limited lifespans. For example, constantly revising computer network defense and attack methods. Evolution of Existing Systems. Solutions that upgrade existing capabilities. For example, upgrading the M1A1 Tank with the M1A2 or reopening the C-5 line in the 1980s. Breakout Systems. Solutions 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. For example, conducting loitering surveillance and precision-guided weapons delivery from a single Reaper UAV Source: JCIDS Manual, updated 31 Jul p. A-8

What are the Main Types of CBAs?
The Six CBA Types: CBAs based on operational shortcomings we have already experienced; CBAs based on perceived future needs (including the failure of programs in place to address the future needs); CBAs to provide a unified look at a mission area; CBAs to examine an operational concept proposed by a particular community; CBAs to broadly examine a functional area; and However, there is a sixth, very different CBA worth mentioning separately… Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “To conclude this introductory section, we offer a CBA taxonomy. CBAs cover a broad spectrum, and the type of CBA will significantly influence how you structure and conduct the assessment. This taxonomy is not outlined in any formal JCIDS document, but is a synthesis of what has been directed to date, and also reflects experience with DoD mission area assessments. Note: start audio narrative immediately after each tab appears 1. Operational Shortcomings. “A CBA based on an actual operational failure will likely spend little (or no) time decided what to assess, as the “what” has already been demonstrated.” 2. Perceived Need. “A CBA based on a perceived need, such as a study result, will still require considerable work to define. The fact that the needs are forecast, and not demonstrated, indicates that there is still some question about the exact nature of the problem, its scope, or whether the stated problem really is a problem. CBAs that are commissioned in the wake of a program failure will have added pressure, because their timelines will likely be accelerated and the constituencies that both supported and opposed the failed program are already energized.” Mission Areas. ”CBAs aimed at unified examinations of mission areas support a primary objective of JCIDS. If the mission area is not wholly within the province of a particular community (particularly a Service), then it is likely that either multiple communities are addressing the problems without much coordination, or no one is addressing it.” Proposed Concept. ”CBAs may also examine the utility of a proposed concept or solution. While this seems contrary to the fundamental principle of having needs come from top-down concepts that address military problems, the fact is that good ideas can come from anywhere, and may have much broader application than the originators thought. Seabasing, which potentially addresses a wide range of military problems, is an example of this type of CBA.” Functional Area. “A CBA may be concerned with a broad look at a functional area. Again, this seems contrary; for example, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Tank commissioned a CBA on joint distribution, but JCIDS already has a Functional Capabilities Board (FCB) whose entire mission is assessing joint logistics. The answer is that the CBA should take a crosscutting look at the function, to include assessing its affects on a variety of military problems. Scoping is very important in this type of CBA, because attempting to examine the impacts of one functional area on everything else is unmanageable. Source: J-8 CBA Guide, V3, Mar 2009

The “Quick Turn” CBA Not to be confused with a “normal” CBA, the “Quick Turn” CBA uses a completely different approach: Previous taxonomy still applies Normally accomplished in 30 to 60 days Requires significantly different approach – oriented towards time compression May become the norm – JROC may require ALL future CBAs be completed in 30 to 180 days (due to faster-changing capability needs) A detailed description of the Quick Turn CBA characteristics begins on page 68 of the CBA Users Guide while the appendix includes a sample Quick Turn CBA done on biometrics. “Finally, this course briefly discusses something called a “Quick Turn” CBA – the functional taxonomy of the five CBAs listed previously still applies to this type of CBA. However, we discuss this type separately because it normally must be executed in 30 to 60 days, and the tremendous time compression requires modifying the approaches J-8 recommends for less frantic efforts. Be warned, however, that the JROC’s vision is to have all CBAs done in 30 to 180 days, so an assessment we previously thought of as quick turn CBA may become the norm. Clearly, you will have to make substantial adjustments to produce an assessment this quickly, so the CBA User’s Guide offers advice on what can be done in these cases. In addition, the CBA Users Guide includes an appendix that describes a Quick Turn CBA done on biometrics in mid This provides a useful case study for such an assessment.” As a warfighter representative for analysis of a requirement, you may be called upon to support both normal and quick turn CBAs You need to be able to recognize the similarities and differences when preparing either type. Source: CBA User’s Guide, V3, Mar 2009, p. 68

Why Do a “Quick Turn” CBA versus a “normal” CBA?
To address an imminent budget or programming action To break a bureaucratic logjam To react to an unexpected budget or program event To address an emerging need To settle a disagreement To pull together a set of disparate examinations and studies Note: start audio immediately after chart appears “Of course, the immediate question that comes to mind is “Why even do a quick turn CBA in the first place? What’s the hurry? Click on the tabs below for a more detailed explanation: Note: start audio immediately after each tab appears To address an imminent budget or programming action. “A common reason for a Quick Turn CBA is that a funding decision of some kind is looming, and those making the decision want one last unified look at the issue. Such cases will normally have been simmering for a long time, and there will be lots of supporting information available. Your challenge will be to find and exploit the best of this information.” • To break a bureaucratic logjam. “Large bureaucracies like the DoD tend to stall new actions, so frustrated senior officials occasionally sweep aside normal procedures and commission a special effort to get something assessed when the organizations that normally do the work cannot do so. In such cases, you should find out why those organizations could not deliver, and keep those reasons in mind as you execute your assessment. You will probably also have to rely on information those organizations have developed.” • To react to an unexpected budget or program event. “The collapse of an acquisition program or some other radical change in the plan will tend to paralyze the larger process that produced the plan in the first place. Under these circumstances, someone has put you in charge of recommending the appropriate triage. This will be a very challenging assessment, because the range of options will be broad and you will also have to consider the ripple effects of the unexpected event.” • To address an emerging need. “While the DoD has a separate Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) process for current warfighting issues, senior officials may decide that immediate examination is required to move the DoD towards finding enduring solutions. The Quick Turn Biometrics CBA described in Appendix A of the CBA User’s Guide is such a case. Such assessments normally do not require much in the way of definition or needs assessment, because the shortcoming has already been demonstrated. However, it may be very challenging to come up with enduring solutions on a short timeline.” • To settle a disagreement. “The DoD contains many large organizations which periodically find themselves at odds with each other. In this case, the Quick Turn CBA is a form of arbitration. Of course, the challenge here is that you are in the middle, and you don’t want to be crushed between collisions of large bodies.” • To pull together a set of disparate examinations. “The division of labor in the DoD sometimes makes it impossible to conduct an integrated examination of an issue. Consider, for example, the issue of distinguishing among friends and foes in combat. While this is everyone’s problem, it does not belong to any particular Service, and has only recently been examined in any sort of integrated fashion. The challenge in this type of CBA is finding all the pieces and then finding a way to assemble them.”

What’s the Next Step? CBA Flow: Serial & Parallel Taskings
Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears “This chart from the CBA User’s Guide is basically how a CBA plays out. The key is to know when to parallel task vs serial task – and communicate clearly to your leadership that some steps must be accomplished before others. Throughout this course we will frequently refer to this chart and highlight each block, working from the left to the right, essentially in chronological order.” Source: CBA User’s Guide, V3, Mar 2009, p. 25 Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

Reflective Question Which of the following is (are) example(s) of “Breakout Approaches” to materiel solutions? Why? If not, why not? The Digital Television The Communications Satellite The Electric Car The Hand-Held Calculator This RQ challenges the students’ knowledge of how CBAs fit within JCIDS – specifically what is a breakout capability solution - ELO #2 The Communications Satellite is the breakout solution for global communications (first envisioned by Arthur C. Clark). The others fall into the evolutionary category – although arguments may be made by the students for the others (digital vs analog, electric motor vs internal combustion engine, electronic vs fingers & toes…)

Lesson #2 – CBA Pre-Planning Research
Draft Material from DAU’s CLR 250 Online Course for Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Team Member Training Lesson #2 – CBA Pre-Planning Research

Why This Particular CBA?
Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears “The real work now begins – and grasping why it was requested is the first step. Bottom line: it will take some work and investigating to answer the critical question of why you are doing your particular CBA. J-8 does not recommend that you proceed unless you have an absolutely clear answer to this all-important first step. Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

Why This CBA? Little to no formal description of what or why
See attached Space Radar CBA Memorandum Discover who wants the assessment What are their expectations Understand their motivations Know why this particular topic prevailed Results can differ from what decision makers expected CBAs raise questions that challenge (& create resistance to) Major programs Major concepts Core Service competencies Decision makers in the JROC and strategic environment may change during CBA phases Must provide solid history to explain CBA reasons & taskings Note: Bullets are arranged as tabs. Audio starts immediately when each tab appears Note: Add link to example of CBA Space Radar Tasking Memorandum Little to no formal…“You will probably not receive a formal description of what you are supposed to do, or why. The typical CBA tasking memo makes a five-paragraph order look like a textbook. Click on the link to the of the Space Radar CBA Tasking Memorandum for an example. Notice this particular example is a “Quick Turn” CBA tasking, so you already know that timeliness is a critical factor.“ Discover who wants…“You will have to discover who wanted this assessment done, what motivated them to be concerned about it, and why this particular CBA topic prevailed. If you are lucky, your chain of command will tell you. If not, you will have to find out. It’s essential that you know as much as possible about why this CBA is of concern and what the people who commissioned the work are expecting. “ Results can differ…“CBA results often differ from what the decision makers expect. These differences should not surprise or upset us - we conduct studies to confirm or deny notions about military problems.” CBAs raise questions…“Nonetheless, politics are inescapable. JCIDS CBAs inevitably raise questions that challenge major programs, major concepts, and even core Service competencies. Questions such as these generate significant resistance, and you must be able to deal with this resistance if you expect to do a decent assessment. We cannot overemphasize the value of knowing who championed your CBA topic, what caused them to promote it, and why. It’s just as important to know who opposed its selection, and why. “ Decision makers in the JROC… “Furthermore, JCIDS CBAs (other than the Quick Turn variety) tend to be time-consuming. In the first few years of JCIDS, none of the JROC-commissioned CBAs were able to finish in less than six months, and one of them endured for over four years. Even if you can finish relatively quickly, the major decision makers in the JROC will inevitably change, and the strategic environment may change as well. At least one of the new players will ask you for the history, and not being able to provide it will be a failure.”

CBA Strategic Guidance Review
Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears “After investigating the reasons why your CBA was tasked, you then move on the next steps – basically gathering information on your topic. The strategic, doctrine, and literature reviews can all start in parallel with the expertise search, but you should finish the strategic review prior to filling out your Core Team. In keeping with the edict to “stay ahead of your working group”, you should have the study plan (including organization and working relationships) drafted prior to the first meeting of the working group.” Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

CBA Strategic Guidance
The strategic guidance documents mentioned in the JCIDS Manual that informs and guides the CBA Study Team include: National Security Strategy (NSS) National Defense Strategy (NDS) National Military Strategy (NMS) Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Guidance on Employment of the Force (GEF) Guidance on Development of the Force (GDF) Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) Unified Command Plan (UCP) Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) Note: Sub bullets are arranged as tabs. Audio starts immediately when each topic appears . Also, provide link within each tab to the latest version of each document (do not currently have latest versions of the NSS, NMS, QDR documents yet. GEFs, GDFs, and UCPs, are classified…) “National Security Strategy (NSS) is a document that the President issues to meet the public law requirement for an annual national security strategy report. A new President has 150 days after taking office to comply.” “The National Defense Strategy (NDS), however, is signed by the Secretary of Defense and does contain information relevant to your CBA. The current Defense Strategy contains substantial guidance on security challenges, key operational capabilities, and operational priorities, all of which will influence your analyses.” “The National Military Strategy (NMS) is signed by the CJCS and provides operational context to the Defense Strategy. (The Joint Operations Concepts (JOC) add detail to both the NDS and the NMS.)” “The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR is mandated by law and requires the DoD to undertake a comprehensive examination of its strategy and performance. To date, QDRs have been conducted in 1997, 2001, and 2005, and each of those reviews has resulted in substantial changes. Many of the ideas detailed in the documents above first appeared in a QDR report; for example, the notion of a capabilities-based approach (which ultimately led to JCIDS) was first described in QDR The trend has been that the QDR report is the first document that details an incoming Administration’s views on national defense, and it generally leads the production of other DoD strategic guidance.” “Guidance on Employment of the Force (GEF). “A single classified strategic guidance document that directs planning for foreseeable, near-term (FY 08-10) operational activities , consolidates and streamlines guidance initiatives into a single document. Built concurrently with the Chairman’s Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP), it establishes strong and clear linkages from strategy to operations/activities by providing strategic context for planning . It also guides development and integration of campaign, campaign support, and contingency plans as well as integrates operational planning, force management, resources, and posture guidance meant to consolidate guidance it is built along with the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP)” Source: Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF) & Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) briefing, “Guidance on Development of the Force (GDF). “A classified document, it flows from the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP)” “Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan . “The JSCP is one of the products of the Joint Strategic Planning System (JSPS). The JSCP carries out the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (another product of the JSPS) and National Objectives by directing the CINCs and Services to do strategic planning. The Services take the essence of the JSCP (policies, guidance, apportionment, etc.) and develop their own Service-unique guidance.” “Unified Command Plan (UCP). One other Secretary of Defense-level document is relevant to your CBA; it is called the Unified Command Plan (UCP). The UCP is a classified document that provides basic guidance to the Combatant Commanders. It defines their roles, missions, geographic responsibilities, and functional responsibilities, and also establishes command relationships. The reason the UCP is important (or even central) to your CBA is that the mission or function you are assessing will be executed by a COCOM, and the UCP will provide advice on which combatant commands must be able to execute that mission or function. The UCP may also implicitly define the mission or function and set standards for its execution, which is authoritative guidance you should exploit in your CBA.” “Joint Capability Areas (JCAs). One “Unified Command Plan (UCP). The DOD has adopted Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) as its capability management language and framework. JCAs are collections of like DOD capabilities functionally grouped to support capability analysis, strategy development, investment decision making, capability portfolio management, and capabilities-based force development and operational planning. JCIDS uses the JCAs as an organizing construct. The Functional Capabilities Boards (FCBs) are organized around the tier 1 JCAs and the JCIDS documents link the capabilities identified to the applicable JCAs.

CBA Strategic Guidance (continued)
The family of Joint Operations Concepts (JOpsC) are informed by the Strategic Guidance. This family of documents include: Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO) Joint Operating Concepts (JOCs) Joint Functional Concepts (JFCs) Joint Integrating Concepts (JICs) Other sources of strategic guidance at your disposal (add links here…): “The Joint Operational Environment – The World Through 2020 and Beyond,” “An Evolving Joint Perspective: Joint Warfare and Crisis Resolution (JWCR) in the 21st Century,” “Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project” Note: Begin the following narrative as soon as the chart appears. “The Joint Operations Concepts (JOpsC) is a family of joint future concepts consisting of the following documents. These documents are written using a “problem – solution” method. They identify military problems and propose solutions for innovative ways to conduct operations, going beyond merely improving the ability to execute missions under existing standards of performance. They are a visualization of future operations and describe how a commander, using military art and science, might employ capabilities necessary to meet future military challenges. Ideally, they will produce military capabilities that render previous ways of warfighting obsolete and may significantly change the measures of success in military operations overall. The JOpsC family covers a period beyond the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), 8-20 years into the future. In addition to strategic guidance, the JOpsC family uses “The Joint Operational Environment – The World Through 2020 and Beyond,” “An Evolving Joint Perspective: Joint Warfare and Crisis Resolution (JWCR) in the 21st Century,” and “Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project” to provide insights into the dominant trends shaping the future security environment over the next 20 years and outline their consequences for military operations.” While each document is linked separately here, all concepts in the JOpsC family are posted at Note: Sub bullets are arranged as tabs. Audio starts immediately when each topic appears . Also, provide link within each tab to the provided version of each document Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO). “This document describes in broad terms how the future joint force will operate in response to a wide variety of security challenges. It proposes that future joint force commanders will combine and subsequently adapt some combination of four basic categories of military activity -- combat, security, engagement, and relief and reconstruction -- in accordance with the unique requirements of each operational situation. The concept is informed by current strategic guidance, but because it looks to the future, it is intended to be adaptable to changes in that guidance. This concept’s primary purpose is to guide force development and experimentation by: (1) establishing a common framework for military professionals for thinking about future joint operations, (2) visualizing future joint operations for policymakers and others with an interest in the employment of military force, (3) establishing a conceptual foundation for subordinate joint and Service concepts, and (4) motivating and guiding the study, experimentation and evaluation of joint concepts and capabilities.” Click on the link to review the latest Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Joint Operating Concepts (JOCs). “JOCs are overarching concepts that guide the development of future joint force capabilities. They broadly describe how the joint force is expected to operate years in the future in all domains across the range of military operations within a multilateral environment and in collaboration with interagency and multinational partners.” Joint Functional Concepts (JFCs). “The JFC applies elements of the CCJO solution to describe how the joint force, 8-20 years in the future, will perform an enduring military function across the full range of military operations, and identifies the operational-level capabilities required to support the full range of military operations. It also determines any additional military capabilities required to create the effects identified in Joint Operating Concepts (JOCs). JFCs also determine any additional military capabilities required to create the effects identified in JOCs. JFCs provide functional context for JOC and JIC development. Add link to CJCSI B here. Joint Integrating Concepts (JICs). “A Joint Integrating Concept (JIC) is a description of how a Joint Force commander years in the future will integrate capabilities to generate effects and achieve an objective. A JIC includes an illustrative CONOPS for a specific scenario and a set of distinguishing principles applicable to a range of scenarios. JICs have the narrowest focus of all concepts and distill Joint Operating Concepts and Joint Functional Concepts (JFC)-derived capabilities into the fundamental tasks, conditions and standards required to conduct a capabilities-based assessment (CBA).” Click on the link to review Combating WMD Joint Integrating Concept (JIC)

CBA Strategic Guidance (continued)
What value does studying and incorporating these strategic guidance documents add? To find an organizing framework To identify overarching priorities To set performance standards To secure unchallengeable guidance To avoid pre-determined outcomes Note: Sub bullets are arranged as tabs. Audio starts immediately when each topic appears • To find an organizing framework. “The mission or function you are assessing probably covers an enormous range of potential military operations. The documents above offer a number of organizing frameworks (particularly the security environment framework in the Defense Strategy) that will help you make your assessment manageable.” • To identify overarching priorities. “The GEF and GDF in particular have been quite aggressive in specifying areas where the DoD should improve, and areas where the DoD can take risk. If these documents offer such advice on areas related to your CBA, you should use them.” • To help set performance standards. “A central issue you will have to settle in your CBA is setting the criteria for the assessment of how well DoD does (or should) perform a mission or task. These documents contain authoritative advice on such criteria, such as friendly losses and collateral damage.” • To secure unchallengeable guidance. “You will face a number of serious bureaucratic challenges when conducting your CBA – that is inevitable. If your position is supported by a document signed by the Secretary of Defense, you greatly increase your odds of winning the argument.” • To avoid pre-determined outcomes. “DoD strategic guidance is very broad, so much so that the Defense Business Board noted that the “plethora of strategy documents allows anything to be justified” [DBB, 2008]. Any initiative in the DoD has a constituency, and they will press for narrowing your strategic spectrum to futures suited to their interests. Using authoritative strategic documents for a framework allows you to resist these pressures.”

Doctrine and Literature Review
Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears “When performing research for your assessment, one of your first tasks will be to see what the prevailing literature says on the subject as well as what applicable doctrine may apply. Again, notice the parallel processing that is occurring at this point…” Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

Doctrine & Literature Review: Sources of Relevant Analyses
Defense Science Board Reports Combatant Commanders’ Integrated Priority Lists (IPLs) Op-Ed Articles in the Defense Literature Defense News Armed Forces Journal Foreign Affairs Professional authors communicate arguments more effectively than DoD study reports Authors may be good candidates for CBA Working Group Team, if not CBA Core Team Available joint doctrine of your CBA topic Interview briefing authors when documentation is incomplete Create and insert a tab for each paragraph below in the notes section: Note: Bullets are arranged as tabs. Audio starts immediately when each topic appears. Also, insert the following link: with the first tab below (Defense Science Board Reports) Defense Science Board Reports. “These reports are readily available on the Internet and the DSB will have likely considered some portions of your topic in the last several years. DSB reports are prepared by national experts at the very highest levels of their fields, and have considerable influence. Study the available joint doctrine on your CBA topic. Doctrine is the statement of how we do things now, and you will have to thoroughly understand our current approaches to assess where we are. Click on the link for more information on these reports.” Integrated Priority Lists (IPLs). “The Combatant Commanders use classified IPLs as their primary means to communicate their near-term operational needs and priorities to the planning and programming community, and result from considerable analysis done by COCOM staffs. You will probably find several IPLs related to your CBA.” Op-Ed Articles in the Defense Literature. “Defense News, Armed Forces Journal, and Foreign Affairs, etc are good indicators of the range of debate about your CBA topic. Do the commentators think we need more? That we have too much? That our current plans make no sense? Also, such articles are written and edited by professional authors, and communicate the arguments much more effectively than a typical DoD study report.”

Who leads the typical CBA?
led by an O-5, with no previous large-scale study experience first tour of joint, Service, or COCOM staff. Yet is expected to perform a comprehensive analysis of a broad mission or functional area, provide defensible quantitative results in an extremely contentious bureaucratic environment Obviously, the CBA leader needs to begin finding the right expertise… Note: Bullets are arranged as buttons or tabs. Audio starts immediately when each topic appears “ Now that you know the research necessary to begin a CBA properly, the question becomes who generally leads these assessments? Here are the typical characteristics – a pretty tough job. However, there is good news – this course next addresses what it takes to find expertise in the proper areas. We’ll address how this is done in the next lesson…”

Reflective Question You are a General/Flag Officer and want a capabilities gap addressed: identifying combatants in a crowd of non-combatants. If you were to task somebody with conducting a CBA on that gap, what expectations, motivations, and other information would you want your CBA leader to know beforehand? Why? This RQ challenges the students’ knowledge of why it’s important to know the motivations of a CBA sponsor - ELO #1

Reflective Question You’ve been selected to head up a CBA on non-lethal means to disperse hostile non-combatants. You’ve reviewed the applicable strategic guidance. What sources of information are available to you during your research? What problems might you face obtaining that information? This RQ challenges the students’ knowledge of what may be necessary during a literature review when conducting a CBA - ELO #3

Lesson #3 – CBA Team Building and Planning
Draft Material from DAU’s CLR 250 Online Course for Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Team Member Training Lesson #3 – CBA Team Building and Planning

Expertise Search Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “Now that you’ve figured out why you‘re doing your CBA, finished your Strategic Guidance Review, and initiated both your Literature and Doctrine reviews, it’s time to figure out what types of expertise you’ll need for your effort. As with most things associated with Capabilities-Based Assessments, you can find ample guidance to help you out.” Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

Identifying Relevant Expertise to Conduct CBAs:
Adversary Expertise Analytical Ability Bureaucratic Agility Communications Ability Doctrinal Knowledge Note: start the following audio narrative immediately after this chart appears; “You are faced with a number of technical and with organizational problems when you conduct a CBA. Many things must work well. Combine a search for who has been successful in the past with your literature search, and you will have a list of real experts and of useful study products. Consider the following areas.” Click each tab for further elaboration. Note: start audio narrative immediately after each tab appears • Adversary expertise: who can you rely on to credibly estimate the range of options open to an enemy? Who knows what’s in the enemy’s mind? What are their intentions? • Analytical ability: who can you rely on who has the tools, techniques, and track record that can support your CBA? Who is comfortable with complicated analyses? Who can make sense out of disparate data and info? • Bureaucratic agility: who can you rely on to help you navigate among all the competing interests safely? Who is politically savvy and wise? Who knows the “right” people and the “right” organizations? • Communications ability: who can communicate the results with brevity, clarity, and believability to senior decision makers? Who writes and speaks with clarity to a wide range of audiences? • Doctrinal knowledge: who can describe how we do these things now? Who can you rely on to keep you out of “hot water” with respect to existing doctrine?

Identifying Relevant Expertise to Conduct CBAs (continued):
Study Design Study Management Cost Estimation Technical knowledge Policy knowledge Note: start audio narrative immediately after each tab appears • Study design: who can build a study plan that satisfies the tasking, provides appropriate linkage to the strategy, and is executable in the time allotted? • Study management: who knows how to organize and execute the CBA? Who has done one or more before – and knows the pitfalls? • Cost estimation: who can forecast the costs of the options of interest? Who has the credibility to present such numbers? • Technical knowledge: who knows what technology options are realizable as CBA solutions? Who is up on the latest and greatest “out there”? • Policy knowledge: who knows what policy options are realizable as CBA solutions? Who is “connected” with the right policy making organizations?

Identifying Relevant Expertise (continued):
Additional Sources Valuable to CBAs: Government Organizations Contractors Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) Informal advisors who are neither in the government nor on contract Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “We cannot give you a precise answer on whom to use as providers, because different CBAs require different mixes of skills. We can, however, offer some considerations and sources of expertise. Click each tab for further information.” Note: start audio narrative immediately after each tab appears Government Organizations. “If you have a commitment from a government organization to provide help for your CBA, then your chain of command will have to enforce it. And, since CBAs are often viewed as long-term efforts that can tolerate delays, redirections away from CBA work are common. Recognize that your CBA will largely be an additional duty for anyone helping you in an external organization. Also, keep in mind these assessments aren’t easily partitioned; they really have to be done by an integrated team.” Contractors. “In this case, you will have a formal contract, along with formal avenues for redress if the work is unsatisfactory. But, to use contractors, you will have to get funding, and allocate time to the competitive bidding process. Also, getting someone on contract tends to take at least 60 days. More importantly, you must also ensure that any for-profit contractors you use do not have a financial interest in the outcome of the analyses. CBAs result in findings that are acquisition-sensitive, as they prioritize needs and inform future budgets and investments.” Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) or University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs). “These are not-for-profit organizations that have a special relationship with DoD, and you can hire them directly. Understand, though, that public law limits the amount of support FFRDCs can provide to DoD, so FFRDC man-years are formally allocated. If you have identified an FFRDC as a source of expertise you want to employ, you will have to get a man-year allocation. Informal advisors who are neither in the government nor on contract. “Finally, you have at your disposal anybody you feel would add value to your effort. The only caveat is one of security clearances, should that apply to your topic… “

Final Team Selection Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “Doing these tasks in parallel will not be easy. Note that you will have to get some help early on if you want to try to do the various review tasks and search tasks in parallel. Hence, the task is to complete selection of the core team prior to building a study plan and forming a working group.” Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

Final Team Selection “Highly Recommended” Advice to the CBA Study Team Manager: Form the “Core Team” as soon as practical. Know the difference between “Core Team” and “Working Group Team” Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “Forming effective teams is not an easy task. However, you have a head start in knowing what types of expertise is required coupled with your document searches – networking never hurts as well…” Note: start audio narrative immediately after each tab appears Form the Core Team…: “Based on the experience of past CBAs, you should try to get your core team together at the start. In several CBAs, certain elements of the study team were not brought into the CBA until considerable work was done, due to funding delays, or the feeling that certain team members weren’t needed early on. This is an enormous mistake. If you want a team that functions well, they have to be in on the whole effort, from as close the beginning as possible all the way to end.” Know the difference…: “As a final note, when we say “Core Team,” we must emphasize we are talking about those individuals that take direction from you, and you alone, on what will be done and when. We are not referring to the larger working group that you will form to deal with Combatant Commands, Services, Defense Agencies, and other communities. Representatives from these groups will work with you, but they report to other chains of command and have a primary task of monitoring your effort for their organizations.”

CBA Organizational Matrix
Study Director Director's chain of command Organization A Organization B Contractor A Contractor B Adversary expertise X Analytic Team Bureaucratic advisor Communicator Cost estimator Doctrinal experts Area 1 Area 2 Area… Study designer Study organizer Policy experts Technical experts Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “This organizational matrix is one way to help ease your transition into building your team. In addition to the types of expertise shown above, you are strongly advised to designate someone to function as your deputy or executive officer – someone who controls the team while you command the team with overarching direction. Within the expertise chart, there are many choices of providers. Remember, you may use some combination of: • government personnel in your own organization; • government personnel in other organizations; • personnel on contract to your organization; • personnel on contract to other organizations; and • informal advisors who are neither in the government nor are on contract to the government. Source: P. 21 of CBA Users Guide

Study Plan Preparation and Approval
Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “You’ve got your core team together, they are doing their “forming, storming, norming, and performing” behaviors – now what? It’s time to put together a study plan and get it approved. Also notice the team begins a process called the “Quick Look” Study – not to be confused with the “Quick Turn” CBA. More on the “Quick Look” later in the lesson. First however, now is a good time to introduce you to some typical impediments your team may face during the planning and execution of your CBA. What follows is just a sampling of some of these barriers… Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

Impediments Faced by Previous CBAs
Concept Delays False Starts Staffing Results Through JCIDS Command Redirection Access and Clearance Problems Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “When CBAs were first established, the prevailing opinion was that they should take 90 days - 30 days for each of the major analyses (remember: FAAs, FNAs, and FSAs…). Unfortunately, none of the JROC-directed CBAs done to date has even come close to finishing in 270 days. Click on each tab for an detailed explanation: Note: start audio narrative immediately after each tab appears • Concept delays. ”If the concept is commissioned at the same time as the CBA, the CBA can’t really start until the concept has least been drafted. In reality, several CBAs have accomplished over half the work before the concept was finally approved (NOTE: if this happens, it is possible to execute the CBA and concept simultaneously, but such an arrangement would have to be negotiated through the JROC, and your CBA will have to absorb the overhead of frequent communication with the concept writers).” • False starts. “Several CBAs were well down the road when they discovered they either had an unmanageable scope, the wrong team, or the wrong methodology. Backtracking and fixing these problems caused considerable delay.” • Staffing results through JCIDS. “Suppose that your CBA was JROC-directed. Then the CBA study plan, the study definition, and the needs assessment may need to be approved by the JROC. This means that each must be presented to the lead Functional Capabilities Board (FCB), then the Joint Capabilities Board (JCB), and then to the JROC. If each of these takes a week to schedule and execute (including the inevitable pre-briefs and resulting modifications), then you will spend at least 3 x 3 x 7 = 63 calendar days just getting results presented and approved – and this does not include staffing. And, since each step determines the next step, it’s risky to start the next step without approval of the previous step.” • Command redirection. “CBAs tend to outlast the four-stars that commissioned them, and their replacements may direct (and have directed) substantial changes to the scope and emphasis of the assessment.” • Access and clearance problems. “Several CBAs have had significant delays because of difficulties getting access to higher-classification information and subsequently getting clearances for study team members.” “Obviously, most of these impediments are not within your control – no big deal. Just be aware these frustrating events may happen. However, there is one barrier you can avoid. On to planning your CBA…”

The CBA Study Plan Scope
“When the JROC directs the initiation of a CBA, the CBA study plan will be included as a step prior to the functional area analysis. The study plan will include specific areas the CBA will examine. The study plan will scope the CBA, clearly identify the focus of the assessment, identify which of the four Capability-Based Planning challenges (traditional, irregular, disruptive, catastrophic) it will address, and demonstrate that the assessment will address the tasking authority’s request…This study plan also makes clear what the CBA will not address. The CBA needs to be thorough yet not subject to mission creep.” [JROCM , 2006] Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “The initial CBAs done under JCIDS strayed far enough that the JROC issued this memorandum on the subject. Clearly, the JROC’s overarching concern is limiting the scope of the assessment to something that both addresses their intent and can be delivered in a reasonable amount of time. Also remember in an earlier lesson that formal analyses are no longer mandated by JCIDS. Thus, the Functional Area Analyses (FAAs) – as well as the Functional Needs Analyses (FNAs) and the Functional Solutions Analyses (FSAs) - mentioned in this quote are no longer officially required in the latest JCIDS direction. But what, exactly, defines the scope of a CBA?” Note: insert link to JROCM , 2006 when available…

The Scope of the CBA Scenarios considered (conditions)
Functions considered (ways) Types of solutions considered (means) Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “Scoping the effort of your CBA involves the consideration of a number of factors. Click on each tab for more information on that particular factor.” Note: start audio narrative immediately after each tab appears Scenarios considered (conditions). We cannot say that we actually have a capability unless we test it against various adversaries and operating conditions. The sample of adversaries and operating conditions – in other words, the scenarios used – are the most important component of the scope of an assessment. Scenarios define the depth and the breadth of the opponents and environments that we are assessing, as well as the planning period (near-, mid-, or far-term). The scenarios you use will almost always be based on OPLANs, CONPLANs, or Defense Planning Scenarios (DPSs). Functions considered (ways). Here, we use the term function in the JCIDS sense of the term - that is, the major functions such as force application, battlespace awareness, and so on. A major part of scoping a CBA is determining what functional means you will consider in your assessment. For example, will you consider the tactical deployment part of the focused logistics function? The operational tempo part of the force management function? Types of solutions considered (means). In some cases, the type of solutions allowed by policy, existing treaties, and so on may narrow the scope (e.g., space-based weapons may be ruled out at the outset). Also, if you have a solution-oriented CBA such as Seabasing, your assessment is limited to assessing the alternatives within, and utility of, that concept. In this sense, the solutions represent means, or resources that can be employed.

The Scope of the CBA (continued)
Capabilities desired (effects) Concept of operation (tasks) Measures of effectiveness (standards) Note: start audio narrative immediately after each tab appears Capabilities desired (effects). Recall our definition of a capability – the ability to achieve an objective in a military operation. Without a scenario and a set of military objectives for both sides, it is impossible to have a clear discussion about what objectives are applicable or desirable, much less achievable. Concepts of operation (tasks). You will likely be assessing at least doctrinal concepts of operation. But, a major part of scoping the study is determining the range of CONOPs that you will consider. Do all your CONOPs deal strictly in kinetic combat? Are non-kinetic options applicable or even allowed? Can a deterrence CONOP compete with a combat response CONOP? Any concept of operations contains an assignment of force elements to tasks, and scoping the CONOPs that you will use defines the task spectrum as well. • Measures of effectiveness (standards). A large part of scoping is determining what you will measure to determine our ability to do something. More precision requires more analysis, and generally more time.

The Scope of the CBA (continued)
“The JROC preference is to avoid high rigor and time-consuming detail in the CBA, and concentrate on whether to recommend action. CBAs that are tightly focused on recapitalization or replacement actions should take no more than 90 days, while more complex CBAs dealing with large uncertainties should take no more than 180 days. “ Note: add link to JCIDS Manual, Feb 2009, updated 31 Jul 2009, p. A-1 Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “The latest version of the JCIDS manual contains a very clear statement of what the JROC has been receiving, and what they would like to receive. Notice the time limits placed on completing a CBA: 90 to 180 days. Note: start audio narrative 15 seconds after previous narration stops Long-time analysts are painfully aware that one of the most difficult things to do in a study is resisting detail-induced paralysis. This is a significant challenge, because you’re trying to figure out what is really important and yet you don’t want to miss something vital. The figure in the next five charts provides some advice on rigor, addressing five aspects you are advised to address.”

CBA Study Rigor Low High Low Rigor High Rigor
Scenario (future) uncertainty Consequences of operational failure Low High Complexity (breadth) of assessment Solution resources required Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “When scoping your effort, consider each of these five areas together. If the future (or futures) being addressed have little uncertainty, then you shouldn’t have to devote large amounts of resources to contemplate them. A good example of this is the biometrics CBA described in the appendix of the J-8 CBA User’s Guide, which involved a current operations issue that was well-understood. On the other hand, a problem centered around a potential near-peer adversary set 18 years in the future will inevitably be subject to much speculation. In the latter case, you have to somehow acknowledge the wild uncertainties associated with assessing two decades away and accommodate those uncertainties in your CBA.” Solution cost, schedule, performance risk Low Rigor High Rigor

Scenario (future) uncertainty Consequences of operational failure Low High Complexity (breadth) of assessment Solution resources required Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “If the operational stakes are high, then you have to worry over your assessment more. Analyzing an issue associated with a squad-level tactical engagement is very different than considering scenarios involving potential nuclear weapons exchanges. So, it stands to reason that the greater the risk, the more rigor is required.” Solution cost, schedule, performance risk Low Rigor High Rigor

Scenario (future) uncertainty Consequences of operational failure Low High Complexity (breadth) of assessment Solution resources required Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “The complexity of the assessment in this diagram concerns two things: the number of different scenarios considered, and the number of warfighting functions that the CBA must consider.” Solution cost, schedule, performance risk Low Rigor High Rigor

Scenario (future) uncertainty Consequences of operational failure Low High Complexity (breadth) of assessment Solution resources required Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “If you take on an end-to-end assessment that involves battlespace awareness, command and control, force protection, force application, force support, and logistics issues, you could rapidly find yourself trying to model the entire DoD – and that’s not what anyone wants or needs you to do. Stick to the resources required.” Solution cost, schedule, performance risk Low Rigor High Rigor

Scenario (future) uncertainty Consequences of operational failure Low High Complexity (breadth) of assessment Solution resources required Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “The final determinates of rigor are the level of resources being considered and the risk associated with obtaining solutions. A potential multi-billion dollar procurement program attracts much more attention than an examination of certain doctrinal procedures that requires little in the way of added resources. So the question you now ask is: when taking all these factors in mind, what does a CBA Study Plan look like? Solution cost, schedule, performance risk Low Rigor High Rigor

The CBA Study Plan Format
No specified format – however shorter is better (15 pages or less) The following is a composite of past CBA Study Plans (useful as a starting point…) References Purpose Background and Guidance Objectives Scope Methodology Organization and Governance Projected Schedule Responsibilities Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “The study plan should not be an enormous document. Shorter is better, and you should aim for a plan that is 15 pages or less. There is no set format, but the following outline is a composite of CBA study plans done to date. Click on each tab for more information.” Note: start audio narrative immediately after each tab appears References. List DoD guidance that directly affects your CBA, plus applicable joint concept and scenario documents. • Purpose. This contains a single paragraph that states the purpose and contents of the study plan. • Background and Guidance. Summarize the answer to the “why this CBA?” question and quote DoD guidance relevant to your CBA. • Objectives. Describe the type of CBA you have and the desired products. • Scope. Discuss the six elements of scoping as they apply to your CBA, and refer back to the relevant DoD guidance to support your scope. This is the most important part of the study plan, so you will have to devote some space to proving that your scope is correct. • Methodology. Leave yourself room to adjust in this section. Be specific about how you intend to define the study, but allow for options in the conduct of the needs assessment and solutions recommendations. • Organization and Governance. It is not necessary for you to describe how your core team will function; this section should instead concentrate on how you will work with external organizations, to include your web site and coordination procedures. You should also document the governance structure of your CBA, including all oversight committees and general officer steering groups. • Projected Schedule. Keep this short, and limit it to major staff actions and milestones that you already know about. Be sure to state on your website that you will maintain an updated schedule – and keep it updated. • Responsibilities. List what you want from external government organizations. For now, you should be able to specify which organizations should provide representatives to your working groups. If you are planning on relying on external government organizations for major parts of your assessment, list them in the study plan and also refer to them in the methodology section. Click on the link to see an actual CBA study plan. Examine it against the above sections to analyze how well it covers the important areas a commander would want to know about the effort…”

The CBA Study Plan Format (continued)
Methodology Approaches Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) Technological and Policy Opportunities Note: insert link to actual CBA Study Plan when available… Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “Remember that the study plan contains your initial proposals for how you will proceed. It is not an ironclad contract, because bodies that commission CBAs retain the right to redirect you - the study plan is really a live document. But, to get approval to start, you have to demonstrate that you’re ready to start and the study plan is the basis for that decision. Clearly, you can maximize your flexibility by minimizing the number of activities you commit to in the study plan. Unfortunately, your desire for managerial flexibility is at odds with the leadership’s desire to see evidence that you have an approach that is workable. Consequently, you should present your initial thoughts on the following in the methodology section of the study plan. Click on each tab for further elaboration.” Note: start audio narrative immediately after each tab appears Methodology approaches. You probably have some idea of the analytical tools and techniques you will use for your assessment. While this is not a primary element of scoping, the choice of methodology is a direct consequence of the capabilities, scenarios, and functions you want to evaluate. This is important enough that you should cover at least what level of analysis you expect to conduct. Measures of effectiveness (MOEs). While we show these as a study definition output, you should offer an initial list in the study plan. If you have a concept of some kind, it will give you some advice on measures. Otherwise, you can derive some measures from attributes listed in the applicable higher-level concepts, plans, or doctrinal sources. Technological and policy opportunities. Two central reasons for commissioning a CBA are first, to examine areas where we need to improve, and second, to examine areas where improvements are possible due to technological or policy opportunities. If the latter is the case with your CBA, you should mention that in the study plan, and list the specific technological or policy opportunities.

The Quick Look Pilot Study
Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “Lastly for this lesson, you should understand the advantages for accomplishing a non-required sub-task during your CBA. The “Quick Look” Pilot Study is one task that is optional after final Core Team Selection – although previous experience has shown it is an invaluable step. The following charts present some background and rationale for going to the trouble of doing this particular task.” Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

The CBA “Quick Look” Pilot Study
Benefits: creates analytical bounds on: Current doctrinal CONOPS Options open to the enemy Investments in the capability areas Alternate CONOPS and operating policies Note: start audio narrative immediately after this chart appears “Early in the CBA, you may get very frustrated over constantly being interrogated about what you’re going to do and what you’ll conclude when you haven’t even started yet. With the added impetus on avoiding unnecessary analysis, you may wonder whether you are being punished for some unspecified transgression. All assessments of important topics go through this phase, so there is nothing unusual about this. However, the JROC’s recent imperatives make it even more critical that you do a Quick Look so you have some idea what’s coming and where to spend your resources. “The notion of doing a quick look – a quick, abbreviated version of the entire assessment done at the start of the process – has been used in several CBAs. In all cases, the quick look proved enormously useful for scoping the assessment, helping the study team discover the landscape of the problem, and shaping subsequent work. JCIDS doesn’t require a quick look. The value of doing one is so great, however, that we highly recommend it. “Click on each tab for further elaboration.” Note: start audio narrative when each tab appears Bounding the effectiveness of current doctrinal CONOPS. How good are we now? Suppose we currently attack enemy amphibious ships using certain types of platforms, weapons, and tactics. How good could we become if we updated the platforms and weapons? And what updates are fiscally and technologically possible? Bounding options open to the enemy. What sorts of things can the enemy do to prevent us from achieving our objectives? We note that current operations in Iraq show just how adaptive and innovative an enemy can be; no assessment done prior to Operation IRAQI FREEDOM predicted how much the use of improvised explosive devices would disrupt our stabilization operations. Bounding investments in the capability areas. The CBA will be assessing a set of capabilities implied by the scenarios or defined by the concepts. How much has DoD typically invested in these areas? How much more (or less) is it likely to invest? If the DoD decided that it wanted to maximize capability in this area, what would the maximal rational investment be? Bounding alternative CONOPS and operating policies. Are there things we don’t do right now that we might do? For example, we obeyed the antiballistic missile treaty negotiated with the Soviets for many years after the Soviet Union dissolved, but then withdrew from it and began fielding national missile defense systems. Are there similar alternatives available that could substantially change how we achieve certain capabilities?

The CBA “Quick Look” Pilot Study
Products & Timing: Briefing to superiors that offers initial answers to the questions that inevitably follow. Begin Quick Look Pilot Study ASAP with your Core Team members ‘The management question, therefore, is not whether to build a pilot system and throw it away. You will do that. The only question is whether to plan in advance to build a throwaway, or to promise to deliver the throwaway to customers. Seen this way, the answer is much clearer… Hence plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow.” Source: Brooks, Frederick P. Jr., The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Addison- Wesley, 1995, 116] Note: start audio narrative 15 seconds after this chart appears “An applicable quote here sums up the need for a quick look: ‘The management question, therefore, is not whether to build a pilot system and throw it away. You will do that. The only question is whether to plan in advance to build a throwaway, or to promise to deliver the throwaway to customers. Seen this way, the answer is much clearer… Hence plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow.” [Brooks, 1996, p. 116]

Reflective Questions You’ve been handed a memo instructing you to conduct a CBA addressing gaps on insurgent detection in a crowded urban environment. You’ve already started some of your document reviews. Using the organizational matrix on slide #8 as a reminder, who immediately comes to your mind that could act as members of your Core Team? Your Working Group Team? If there are gaps in filling out your Core Team, where might you look for members that could fulfill that missing function? What specific additional expertise may be needed to effectively conduct your CBA? This RQ challenges the students’ knowledge of how to create their CBA teams. Addresses both ELO #1 (expertise) and #2 (forming teams)

Lesson #4 – CBA Study Phases
Draft Material from DAU’s CLR 250 Online Course for Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Team Member Training Lesson #4 – CBA Study Phases

Study Definition Phase
Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears “Now that you know what a CBA is in a more detailed sense and what it takes to research and build your teams, now it’s time to roll up the sleeves and move on to the actual assessment. As with any analysis that provides quality recommendations, it has certain steps and procedures that are quite prudent to follow. Highlighted here is the first element – the Study Definition Phase. Notice the timing – it begins after the doctrine and literature reviews, the formation of the Working Group Team and prior to Definition Approval. As presented in the “Boiled Down” figure earlier in the course, the Study Definition addresses the “what we are talking about” element. This requires detailed definition – the focus of the effort if you will. However, pay special attention to the fact that the Study Definition Phase overlaps with the Definition Approval Phase. Basically, this means you are communicating while you are also defining. Doing this will help speed the process – again, part of processing certain tasks in parallel. What we will present in this lesson is a set of activities that will lead you from the inputs to the outputs in a reasonable and defensible manner. For now, in our next chart, we’ll break down the Study Definition Phase into its constituent taskings so you can see the flow of events… Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

Study Definition Phase: Major Tasks & Flows
Define Military Problem Research Origins of CBA Tasking Choose Strategic Framework Examine Candidate Scenarios Collect Doctrinal Approaches Scenario Sample Selection & Coordination Choose Relevant Attributes NOTE FOR DAU TEAM: THIS CHART CAN BE BROKEN DOWN INTO 4 SEPARATE CHARTS IF NECESSARY – EACH ADDRESSING THE MAJOR TASKS. I’VE COMBINED IT HERE INTENDING FOR THERE TO BE TABS/POPUPS THAT EXPLAIN EACH BOX IN SIGNIFICANT DETAIL… Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears Choose Functions to Analyze Develop Overarching Task Structure Develop Measures List Military Objectives & Capabilities Specify Conditions Develop Standards Derive Tasks

Definition Approval Phase
Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears “Once you have developed how your study will unfold and you have arrived at the relevant attributes and measures, the role of staffing comes in – you need to get your effort approved through the appropriate channels and chain of command. As mentioned earlier, this can be quite a time consuming process – though in reality, Definition Approval is actually more of an event rather than an analytical process. Nonetheless, as mentioned previously, make special note of the overlap of Definition Approval with the Needs Assessment Phase – more parallel processing of tasks. Prudence dictates that you start work on getting your study approved as well as the actual work of assessing the needs as soon as your team is ready - knowing the risk that significant changes may result as a byproduct of getting the assessment methodology approved. Once approved though, you are now ready to move on to the main reason for the creation of your CBA… Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

Needs Assessment Phase
Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears “You’ve made it through the first major gauntlet of defining your study methodology and getting it approved. Now it’s time to move on to actually addressing the issues for which your CBA was formed. Again, like any analysis, it has certain necessary steps and procedures to provide quality recommendations – those that can stand up to both the qualitative and quantitative scrutiny from affected, and sometimes hostile, organizations. The next chart describes this phase in much more detail… Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

Needs Assessment Phase: Major Tasks & Flows
Collect & inspect performance data Select & finalize analytical approach Scenario Analysis Analysis Reconciliation Analysis Preparation Choose best-understood scenario Identify unacceptable outcomes Document causes from analysis Refine task structure for scenario & CONOPS Present to Working Group Derive needs in terms of operational depiction Execute operational analysis with doctrinal CONOPS NOTE FOR DAU TEAM: AS WITH THE OTHER CHART, THIS CHART TOO CAN BE BROKEN DOWN INTO 5 SEPARATE CHARTS IF NECESSARY – EACH ADDRESSING THE MAJOR TASKS. I’VE COMBINED IT HERE INTENDING FOR THERE TO BE TABS/POPUPS THAT EXPLAIN EACH BOX IN SIGNIFICANT DETAIL… Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears “This figure shows the major parts of the CBA Needs Assessment Phase and J-8’s advice on how to order them. Like the chart that expanded the Definition Phase, this chart looks more daunting than it really is. Simply keep in mind that it is best accomplished in smaller chunks – in this case, look at the terms that describe the tasks in the shaded boxes. Basically, you prep for your analysis, look over the scenarios, get a sanity check from other individuals and organizations, reconcile any differences with some more analysis, and come up with what is needed to meet the mission. It’s really that simple – just 4 main elements. But as we all know, these 4 elements can be quite a challenge to perform - and perform well. With respect to the individual tasks and their corresponding inputs and outputs - despite all the boxes & arrows – this chart really just describes how well we currently perform with respect to the topic of the CBA. However, it can’t be stressed enough that accuracy is vital – again for dealing with the outside critique (and criticism) that will undoubtedly result. Basically, you identify the gaps; link them to the operational scenarios; estimate the impact of the capability gaps with respect to mission risk, force risk, and other impacts on allies and non-combatants; characterize the nature of the gaps; and finally prioritize the gaps. In any case, keeping the simplicity of what is really going on with this phase in your mind can keep you and your team properly focused, productive, and efficient. When this work is done properly, you have already provided tremendously important information to the various organizations affected by your CBA. Your study definition and needs assessment have defined a military problem, selected a set of scenarios, and linked them to our strategic aims. It has also determined appropriate measures of effectiveness and examined how well our current capabilities work. By any stretch of the imagination, you have already done a vital service to the warfighter. This information, when captured in an ICD, provides an enormous head start to follow-on activities such as support a Materiel Development Decision (MDD) and the corresponding Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), which the acquisition community conducts to zero in on what materiel solution to provide to the warfighter. Click on each box for further elaboration on that particular task.” Note: Fore each tab below, include a link to the J-8 CBA User’s Guide, V3, Mar 2009 Additional Note: Start the following audio narrative when each box is highlighted: Collect & inspect performance data. With the information you collected in the Study Definition phase (scenarios, CONOPS, functions, & tasks), now it the time to take that information and depict the relationships among these elements. Check out Section 7.1 beginning on page 45 of the J-8 CBA User’s Guide for an excellent example with respect to the task flow created from the Global Strike Raid Scenario CBA. Select & finalize analytical approach. Because the analytical approach is so important to the assessment, now is also the time to re-examine and finalize your analytical approach - that is, your plan followed by your team to estimate warfighting outcomes, measures of effectiveness, and present your results. Check out Section 7.2, beginning on page 47 of the J-8 CBA User’s Guide, for an in depth (and bit lengthy) review of the pros and cons for choosing your particular analytical approach. To put it simply, you must choose the best approach to fit the problem – definitely not the reverse. This is an absolutely vital step in the process. Accomplishing this step successfully will set you up choose your best scenario. Choose best-understood scenario. Choose the scenario most applicable and best understood to the topic of your CBA – it must be the scenario that represents the environment to define your tasks, conditions, and standards. Check out Section 7.4 beginning on page 52 of the J-8 CBA User’s Guide for an in depth description – be sure to read it thoroughly and completely, for it applies to other tasks in this phase. Refine task structure for scenario and CONOPS. If you’ve read Section 7.4 all the way through, you already understand this task. If not, go back and review this section for both this task and the next... Execute operational analysis with doctrinal CONOPS. With your scenarios and doctrine approaches firmly established, now is the time to start your analyses. You will do this step and the next multiple times, each analysis addressing a different case within your scenario. Review & refine results internally. This step is a sanity check internal to your Core Team - to make sure, as best you can, that you have done what you set out to do with your analysis. Again, this will be done numerous times, addressing each case of your scenario. Once you’re satisfied, now it’s time to start “going public” … Present to Working Group. Once you have your scenario covered, now is the time to present your results to your outside groups. Pay attention to the paragraph at the top of page 52 of the CBA User’s Guide stressing that there are two cases of alternative CONOPS – those that don’t require additional resources and those that do. Concentrate on the first type only for your needs assessment – any additional resource needs are addressed after the completion of you assessment. Reconcile Working Group comments. The next two tasks are to a large measure a repeat of the previous tasks, reconciling your analyses with any new information and re-analyzing the scenario cases. Re-analyze with new data or CONOPS. Again, pretty self-explanatory – you’re doing the same analysis with any new data that resulted from your first round. Scenario analysis. As the assessment unfolds incrementally, there will be patterns that appear, both to your team and to the Working Group team. Analysis Reconciliation. Time to go public again and share your analyses with your Working Group Team for anything you may have missed. Notice the results of this step feed back into Scenario Analysis in a feedback loop. Hopefully, instead of going round and round (the J-8 Guide strongly recommends taking any protests outside the working group meetings to avoid becoming bogged down…), your effort now moves on to the straightforward, but all-important step of developing needs to meet any warfighter capability gaps… Identify unacceptable outcomes. First, using the measures you developed previously, you analyze what outcomes are not acceptable. Document causes from analysis. Next, you dig into the information to document why those unacceptable outcomes occur – essentially a cause/effect analysis. Derive needs in terms of operational depiction. Using those causes, the next logical step is to derive the all-important needs based on the operational scenarios. You will no doubt find numerous, interconnecting needs that require attention. Prioritize needs based on trends across scenarios & strategic guidance. Finally, you work the effort back up the doctrinal food chain and prioritize those needs. You base your prioritization on trends you’ve identified across your various scenarios conducted within the strategic guidance you identified and examined at the start of your effort. You would think at this point, you could see the light at the end the CBA tunnel. Unfortunately, your hard work and outstanding grasp of the situation is not over – there are still significant hurdles and barriers to overcome before you can say “mission accomplished”. Reread sections 7.5 and 7.6 of the J-8 CBA User’s Guide to truly grasp the impact of your effort and what may be involved in reporting your results before you move on to the next chart. Reconcile Working Group comments Prioritize needs based on trends across scenarios & strategic guidance Review & refine results internally Re-analyze with new data or CONOPS Scenario Analysis Analysis Reconciliation Needs Development

Solution Recommendation Phase
Concept Preparation (if it was commissioned) or Review of Available CONOPs Doctrine Review Literature Review Why This CBA? Study Plan Preparation & Approval Expertise Search Final Team Selection Study Definition Needs Assessment Solution Recommendation Strategic Guidance Review Working Group Formation Definition Approval Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears “As mentioned previously in the course, a documented Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA) is no longer formally called out in the JCIDS directives. Nonetheless, your team is still required to provide recommendations to the problems you’ve identified before your CBA effort is complete - the process still requires you to give “asked for” advice on how to solve the issue. It is the last question in the “Boiled Down” chart that asks “What should we do about it?”. After a thorough review and investigation into what is “out there” available to solve capability problems, a recommendation is in order. Remember, this basically means non-materiel solutions, materiel solutions, or both. You’ve also seen the next two charts earlier in the course. They’re presented here again to remind you of the latest types of non-materiel and materiel solutions called out in the various JCIDS directives – and to remind you of the disconnect between the JCIDS Manual and the current J-8 CBA User’s Guide. Quick Look DCR(s) ICD(s)

Leadership & Education Personnel Facilities
Non-Materiel Approaches That CBAs Recommend (through the ICD - DOTMLPF Change Recommendations - DCRs) Doctrine Organization Training Materiel Leadership & Education Personnel Facilities Note: start the following audio as each tab appears. Doctrine: the way we fight, e.g., emphasizing maneuver warfare combined air-ground campaigns Organization: how we organize to fight; divisions, air wings, Marine-Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs), etc. Training: how we prepare to fight tactically; basic training to advanced individual training, various types of unit training, joint exercises, etc. Materiel: all the “stuff” necessary to equip our forces, that is, weapons, spares, etc. so they can do operate effectively Leadership and education: how we prepare our leaders to lead the fight from squad leader to 4-star general/admiral; professional development Personnel: availability of qualified people for peacetime, wartime, and various contingency operations Facilities: real property; installations and industrial facilities (e.g. government owned ammunition production facilities) that support our forces

Materiel Approaches That CBAs Recommend (through Initial Capability Documents - ICDs)
Development and fielding of Information Systems (or similar technologies with high obsolescence rates) or evolution of the capabilities of existing information systems Evolution of Existing Systems with significant capability improvement (this may include replacing an existing system with a newer more capable system, or simple recapitalization) Breakout Systems that differ significantly in form, function, operation, and capabilities from existing systems. Note: start the following audio as each tab appears. Development and fielding of Information Systems. Solutions involving information systems or transient solutions that have very limited lifespans. For example, constantly revising computer network defense and attack methods. Evolution of Existing Systems. Solutions that upgrade existing capabilities. For example, replacing the KC-135R tanker with a newer aircraft or reopening the C-5 line in the 1980s. Breakout Systems. Solutions 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. For example, conducting loitering surveillance and precision-guided weapons delivery from a single Reaper UAV

Solution Recommendation Phase: Major Tasks & Flows
Study definition measures Needs assessment gaps Collect policy alternatives to needs Collect materiel alternatives to needs Collect other non-materiel alternatives to needs Alternative Generation Choose portfolio frameworks Identify potential breakout alternatives Bound affordability Formulate and finalize portfolio construction approach Bound technical risk Investigate CONOPS for breakout capabilities NOTE FOR DAU TEAM: THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE CHARTS THAT CAN BE BROKEN DOWN INTO 6 SEPARATE CHARTS IF NECESSARY – EACH ADDRESSING THE MAJOR TASKS. I’VE COMBINED IT HERE INTENDING FOR THERE TO BE TABS/POPUPS THAT EXPLAIN EACH BOX IN SIGNIFICANT DETAIL… Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears “Here are the major parts of the CBA Solution Recommendation Phase and J-8’s advice on how to order them. Like the other charts that expanded their corresponding phases, this chart too looks more daunting than it really is. Simply follow the terms that describe the tasks in the five shaded boxes and pay special attention to the input an output of each task. Also make special note that recommendations take two forms: one that addresses solution recommendations for each portfolio (located in the Form-of-Solutions Recommendations box) and one that addresses further experimentation, research, or acquisition (located in the Breakout Capabilities box). You already have the needs gaps identified and the measures from your definition phase in place. Notice that you then start two basic processes from your Needs assessment gaps essentially in parallel: You start looking for alternatives (the Alternative Generation box) while at the same time, you form the structure in which you will present your recommendations (Form-of-Solution Recommendations box). Basically, like any advice to a problem, you figure out the various ways elements of the problem (capability gaps) can occur and interact - and group them into workable units, in this case, “portfolios”. You then generate as many alternatives as possible and bound these alternatives using affordability , technical risk, and strategic responsiveness as your criteria. Next, you investigate to find any new alternatives to fix the problem (find any breakout capabilities either in how we do things or new technologies…) and re-analyze with any new alternatives you come up with. Finally, after all this identifying, investigating, bounding, and prioritizing, you can now make your recommendations for further action using the portfolios you’ve already developed. At this point, depending on the nature (and of course, quality and completeness…) of your recommendations, a DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR) and/or an Initial Capabilities Document (DCR) is formed and the process proceeds on to the next appropriate JCIDS phase. Bottom line: either changes are made concerning existing doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership & education, personnel, and/or facilities (DOTMLPF) or a Materiel Development Decision (MDD) is made – more likely it will be both. However, this lesson is not quite over. Though not depicted on the CBA Task Flow chart that we have been referring to throughout the last three lessons, there is one more subject that merits its own, separate explanation: The Opportunity-Based CBA… Click on each box for further elaboration on that particular task or element.” Note: Fore each tab below, include a link to the J-8 CBA User’s Guide, V3, Mar 2009 Additional Note: Start the following audio narrative when each box is highlighted: Needs assessment gaps. You already have your gaps identified from your previous analyses. Now get going and find some ways to fix them… Study definition measures. You already have your measures in place. Now get going and use them on some novel and effective solutions you come up with… Collect policy alternatives to needs. Thus far, looking for policy alternatives has not been thorough - due to a variety of reasons. Work to avoid glossing over this source of possible solutions – make good use of your policy expert. Check out Section 8.2 for a more detailed description of this task. Remember, the JCIDS process intends for the CBA to be as complete as absolutely possible. To coin a cliché, leave no stone unturned… Collect materiel alternatives to needs. Self explanatory Collect other non-materiel alternatives to needs. Self explanatory Choose portfolio frameworks. Organize your options into coherent groups that you can manage and communicate effectively. Read Section 8.4 for a more detailed description of this task – it uses two examples (the Global Information Grid – GIG, and the Iranian Hostage Rescue attempt) to nicely explain not only portfolios, but also effective bounding of the alternatives. Formulate and finalize portfolio construction approach. A follow-on task to choosing your portfolio framework. Once done, stick with it if at all possible. Generate solution recommendations for each framework. Read Section 8.4 for a more detailed description of this task. Bound affordability. Self explanatory. Read Section 8.4 for a more detailed description of this task. Bound technical risk. Self explanatory. Read Section 8.4 for a more detailed description of this task. Bound strategic responsiveness. Self explanatory. Read Section 8.4 for a more detailed description of this task. Identify potential breakout alternatives. This is where your search can become interesting – finding the latest and greatest “out there”. Investigate CONOPS for breakout capabilities. The next logical step after identifying any breakout alternatives. Read Section 8.4 for a more detailed description of this task. Recommend experimentation, research, or acquisition. If the alternative is not fully developed yet compelling, part of your recommendation is further research or even actual acquisition – using Hellfire missiles on Reaper UAVs is a prime example. Read Section 8.4 for a more detailed description of this task. Scenario Re-Analysis (new alternatives). Time to re-analyze using any new alternatives you discover. By now, nothing you haven’t seen or done before. Bound strategic responsiveness Generate solution recommendations for each framework Alternative Feasibility Recommend experimentation, research, or acquisition Breakout Capabilities Form-of-Solution Recommendations Scenario Re-Analysis (new alternatives

Opportunity-Based CBA: Major Tasks & Flows
Uncover and characterize new capability Choose strategic framework Collect & inspect performance data Select & finalize analytical approach Scenario Analysis Investigate CONOPS for new capability Examine Candidate Scenarios Analysis Reconciliation Choose best understood scenario Solution Concept Analysis Preparation Scenario sample, selection, & coordination Collect doctrinal approaches Choose relevant attributes Refine task structure for scenario & CONOPS Present to Working Group List military objectives & capabilities Develop measures Reconcile Working Group comments Choose functions to analyze Develop overarching task structure Execute operational analysis with doctrinal CONOPS Specify Conditions Develop Standards Derive Tasks Re-analyze with new data or CONOPS NOTE FOR DAU TEAM: THIS IS THE FINAL CHART THAT CAN BE BROKEN DOWN INTO 10 SEPARATE CHARTS IF NECESSARY – EACH ADDRESSING THE MAJOR TASKS. I’VE COMBINED IT HERE INTENDING FOR THERE TO BE TABS/POPUPS THAT EXPLAIN EACH BOX IN SIGNIFICANT DETAIL. THERE HAS BEEN COMMENTS SUGGESTING DELETING THIS CHART – IT IS CALLED OUT IN THE J-8 USER’S MANUAL, SO I INCLUDED IT HERE… Note: Audio starts immediately after chart appears “The Opportunity-Based CBA is a methodology that essentially works backwards from the typical CBA – it addresses how to analyze a potential solution that already exists that can possibly be utilized to increase a particular capability. JCIDS has little experience with fitting an existing solution into the system. Thus, what you see here is J-8’s attempt to give advice should you face just such a situation. Basically, it’s pretty much unexplored territory. However, using logic, there is a task flow that should address most of the variables and issues with fitting a possible solution into existing CONOPS and doctrine. Look over each shaded box and notice the task flow – these steps are all familiar to you with some changes in emphasis. For example, instead of providing a “Solution Recommendation Phase” for an ICD, an Opportunity-Based CBA has a “Solution Evaluation Phase”. For a more detailed discussion, read over Section 8.6 starting on page 65 of the J-8 CBA User’s manual. Review & refine results internally Scenario Analysis Analysis Reconciliation Identify unacceptable doctrinal outcomes Identify outcomes made acceptable by solution Characterize total potential contribution of solution Solution Evaluation

Reflective Questions You’ve worked hard on setting up your CBA on addressing gaps on insurgent detection in a crowded urban environment. You’ve accomplished your Definition Phase and miraculously, had it approved on the first round of staffing. You’ve also developed your portfolio framework in preparation to recommend solutions that will be used in both a DCR and an ICD (you figured this from your Quick Look pilot study way back in the beginning…). Now what steps are you going to take to develop and assess all available alternatives? What areas are you going to zero in on? Who will you consult – industry, labs? How would you find out if there are any breakout solutions? How would you find out what technologies related to your CBA identified gaps are under current investigation by the S&T communities in both government and industry?

Draft Material for DAU’s CLR 250 Online Course for Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Team Member Training 15 Feb 2010 Draft.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Draft Material for DAU’s CLR 250 Online Course for Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Team Member Training 15 Feb 2010 Draft."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Draft Material for DAU’s CLR 250 Online Course for Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Team Member Training 15 Feb 2010 Draft.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Draft Material for DAU’s CLR 250 Online Course for Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Team Member Training 15 Feb 2010 Draft."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback