Lesson 6: The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)

The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)

The JCIDS methodology uses top-level strategic guidance as a basis for identifying and describing shortfalls in joint warfighting capabilities. These shortfalls are then analyzed to determine potential solutions to resolve the shortfall.

The JCIDS methodology involves the following steps:

• Assessment and Analysis • Documentation of Capability Needs • Review, Validation and Approval Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Previous requirements processes tended to use a "bottom-up" approach, driven by Service/Component needs that sometimes resulted in the acquisition of capabilities that did not fully support top-level Defense strategies. The JCIDS Capabilities-Based Assessment process, on the other hand, relies upon top-level strategic guidance (e.g., National Defense Strategy and National Military Strategy) as the basis for identifying gaps in Defense capabilities. The JCIDS CBA uses top-level strategies to formulate the Family of Joint Future Concepts which provides the basis for investment decisions leading to development of new capabilities for the joint forces. New capability requirements, material or non-material, must relate directly to capabilities identified in the Family of Joint Future Concepts. The sponsor, typically a military department, defense agency, or combatant commander (COCOM), will participate, and may lead, the JCIDS analysis process.

March 2010

Based on the Family of Joint Future Concepts, CBAs identify capabilities, gaps, and redundancies as well as potential non-material and material approaches to address the joint warfighter’s needs. The objective of the CBA is to validate capability gap(s) by providing:

- Identification of the mission; the capabilities required and their associated operational characteristics and attributes.

- Capability gaps and associated operational risks. - An assessment of the viability of a non-materiel solution. - A potential recommendation on a type of solution to be pursued.

Non-Materiel vs. Materiel Solutions A non-materiel solution is preferred over materiel solution, since it is usually less expensive, and often can be implemented in less time. In the event that a materiel solution is required to satisfy the user's need, then that need must be documented. Documentation of Capability Needs In the event that the JCIDS Assessment and Analysis process determines that a materiel solution is required to satisfy the capability, that need must be documented. The JCIDS uses four primary documents to articulate joint capability needs.

• DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR), • Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), • Capability Development Document (CDD), and • Capability Production Document (CPD)

Documentation developed during the JCIDS process provides the formal communication of capability needs between the operator and the acquisition, test and evaluation, and resource management communities. If the CBA supports a non-materiel solution, a Joint DCR (doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel and facilities [DOTMLPF]) Change Recommendation) is developed to implement the

March 2010

non-materiel solution. If the CBA supports a materiel solution, an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) is developed. Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) The ICD is prepared by the user to document a need that requires a materiel solution. The ICD:

• Identifies a capability gap or set of capability gaps that exists in a functional area. • Describes the evaluation of different materiel and non-materiel approaches, and proposes a recommended materiel approach. • Supports the Material Development Decision, the Analysis of Alternatives, the MS A Decision, and the Technology Development Strategy. • Is prepared and staffed in accordance with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01G and the Manual For The Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System • Is not updated once approved. Capability Development Document (CDD)

Once the initial capability has been documented, materiel approaches are refined and key technologies are being matured, the user builds upon the ICD by documenting a formal program need in the Capability Development Document (CDD). The CDD, developed by the user, builds on the ICD and captures the information necessary to develop a proposed program. The CDD:

• Identifies operational performance attributes necessary to design the proposed system. • ● Is system specific, and applies when using an evolutionary acquisition strategy • to a single increment of the program's development,, then updated or rewritten for subsequent increments. • Is prepared during the Technology Development Phase for use at Milestone B. • Is prepared and staffed in accordance with CJCSI 3170.01G.

March 2010

Capability Production Document (CPD) As a program nears the end of development for each increment, the user refines the CDD into a Capability Production Document (CPD). The CPD: • Identifies production attributes and quantities specific to a single increment of a program. • Is system specific and applies to the production of a single increment for the program. • Is rewritten for subsequent increments in an evolutionary program. • Is prepared during the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase for use at Milestone C. • Is prepared and staffed in accordance with CJCSI 3170.01G. CDD/CPD Thresholds and Objectives

The CDD and CPD identify system-specific performance parameters. They do so by identifying two values, threshold and objective for each parameter.

• The "threshold" is the minimum acceptable value to the user for a system capability. For values failing to meet below the threshold, the utility of the system becomes questionable. • The "objective" is the desired value better than the threshold, which results in an operationally significant increment above the threshold. The two values bound the design of the system, yet provide the Program Manager with flexibility to design the system according to the user's needs. Thresholds and objective performance values in the CDD/CPD allow for the cost/performance trade-offs, considering the results of the AoA and the impact of affordability constraints. In some cases, the threshold and objective values for a parameter may be the same.

Key Performance Parameters (KPPs)

Some critical system characteristics may also be Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). KPPs are those capabilities or characteristics so significant that failure to meet the threshold can be cause for the concept or system selection to be reevaluated or the program to be reassessed or terminated.

KPPs are identified in the CDD/CPD, and included verbatim in the APB. The JROC validates the KPPs for ACAT I programs and any other program

March 2010

designated as "JROC Interest."

Review, Validation and Approval JCIDS Document Review Once a JCIDS document has been prepared by the sponsoring Component, Command or Agency it is submitted to the Joint Staff (J-8) for review. Document review is a formal and structured process which includes:

• Joint Potential Designation • Staffing • Validation and Approval Joint Potential Designation (JPD)

All JCIDS documents, regardless of Acquisition Category (ACAT), are required to be submitted to the J-8, who will determine, with assistance from other Joint Staff organizations, the degree to which the proposal affects the joint force. Based on this review, a Joint Potential Designator (JPD) will be assigned. The JPD determines the validation and approval levels of the capability document. There are five possible JPDs:

JROC Interest Joint Capabilities Board (JCB) Interest Joint Integration Joint Information, and Independent

JPDs are assigned primarily based on the actual or projected Acquisition Category (ACAT) level of the program, and the degree of expected impact on the joint force.

Staffing

Once a JPD has been assigned, each JCIDS document enters the staffing process. The Joint Staff, J-8, is responsible for staffing each document through an O-6 and flag level review. Documents are reviewed, and comments submitted, by organizations represented on appropriate Functional Capabilities Boards (FCBs).

Once a JCIDS document has completed staffing, including disposition of comments, the lead FCB will review the staffing results and make a

March 2010

recommendation to the appropriate validation authority. This recommendation leads to the validation and approval process.

Validation

Validation is a formal review of a JCIDS document by an operational authority other than the sponsor to confirm the operational capability need. At a minimum, the validation authority will: • Confirm the existence of an identified operational need. • Verify that non-materiel solutions are not feasible. • Verify that the threat has been validated and all program certifications have been accomplished (intelligence, supportability, interoperability, etc.)

Validation Authority

The JPD assigned by the J-8 determines the level of validation and approval, as follows:

●

JROC Interest: Validation and Approval by the JROC; applies to all potential and designated ACAT I/IA programs and capabilities that have a potentially significant impact on interoperability in allied and coalition operations..

JCB Interest: Validation and Approval by the JCB; applies to all ACAT II and below programs, where the capabilities and/or systems associated with the document affect the joint force and an expanded joint review is required.

Joint Integration: Validation and Approval by the DoD Component; applies to all ACAT II and below programs, where the capabilities and/or systems associated with the document do not significantly affect the joint force and an expanded joint review is not required

March 2010

Joint Information: Validation and Approval by the DoD Component; applies to all ACAT II and below programs that have interest or potential impact across Services or agencies but do not have significant impact on the joint force. No certifications or endorsements are required

Independent: Validation and Approval by the DoD Component; applies to all ACAT II and below programs, where the system(s) involved do not significantly affect the joint force, and expanded review is not required, and no certifications are required. This table identifies who is responsible within each service for validating capability needs with a Joint Potential Designator of Joint Interest, Joint Information, or Independent

Approval Approval is the formal or official sanction of the identified capabiltiy described in the capability document. The approval authority is determined by the Joint Potential Designator, as discussed earlier.

For any given JCIDS capability proposal, approval of the ICD culminates the first iteration of the JCIDS process. Of course, the JCIDS process is used throughout the life of a program for review, validation and approval of CDDs and CPDs for each increment of capability.

Service Validation Authority

Navy Chief of Naval Operations

Air Force Chief of Staff

Marine Corps Commandant of the Marine Corps

Army Chief of Staff

Other DoD Agencies DoD Agencies have similar processes

March 2010

JCIDS Support Activities

Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

The AoA is conducted during the Material Solution Analysis Phase. The focus of the AoA is to refine the selected concept documented in the approved ICD. The AoA assesses critical technologies associated with the concepts documented in the ICD. The results of the AoA provide the basis for the Technology Development Strategy (TDS), which is approved by the MDA at Milestone A.

Interoperability Requirements

A key aspect of the JCIDS review, validation and approval process is making sure that each Automated Information (AIS) and National Security System (NSS) capabilities document addresses the requirement for interoperability. "Interoperability" refers to:

• The ability of systems, units, or forces to provide and accept data, information, materiel, and services to and from other systems, units, or forces and to interoperate with other U.S. Forces and coalition partners effectively. • The condition achieved among communications-electronics systems or items of communications-electronics equipment when information or services can be exchanged directly and satisfactorily between them and/or their users. Joint warfighting interoperability is a capability mandated by DoD Policy, and is not a user option. Interoperability capability needs are documented in the form of a mandatory Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP). The NR-KPP ensures achievement of interoperability for the proposed system.

For a program to receive Interoperability Certification, it must first prove its interoperability on paper, via the Capabilities Certification Process. Later the program's interoperability must be demonstrated in the field during joint interoperability testing.

March 2010