joint capabilities integration and development system ... · • consolidated guidance : cjcsi...
TRANSCRIPT
Patrick WillsDean, Defense Systems Management College
Defense Acquisition Universitywork: 703-805-4563 cell: 703-615-5234
22 Feb 2017
Sources:•CJCSI 3170.01I, 23 Jan 2015•CJCSI 5123.01G, 15 Feb 2015•JCIDS Manual, 12 Feb 2015 with errata 18 Dec 2015•NDAA 2017, Section 925•Joint Staff, J-8
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)
Changes
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 2
Topics
• Review of 2012 Changes• 2015 Changes• Requirements and Acquisition Interface• Refined Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Guidance• Portfolio Management• Document Content Changes• Changes to Mandatory KPPs• Intelligence Supportability• IT Box Changes• Staffing and Validation Changes• Managing an Information System (IS) Requirement• DODAF Architecture Views• NDAA 2017 Amendments to Title 10, U.S. Code: Joint Requirements
Oversight Council - Establishment and Mission
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 3
What did we change in Jan 2012?
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 4
2012 Changes (part 1 of 2)• Consolidated Guidance: CJCSI 5123.01 (JROC Charter), CJCSI 3170.01
(JCIDS), and the JCIDS Manual are the core products– CJCSI 3137.01 (FCBs) and CJCSI 3470.01 (JUONs) cancelled, with content
absorbed into the three core documents.• Requirements Training:
– Mandated Requirements Management Certification Training (RMCT)• Implemented Study Notification/Repository:
– Centralized repository for CBAs and other studies/analyses supporting JCIDS documents to facilitate visibility, collaboration, and re-use
• Documents:– Page limits: ICD (10), DCR (30), CDD (45), CPD (40)– Implemented “IT Box” construct – IS ICD.– Institutionalized JUONs and JEONs for urgent/emergent needs.– Clarified joint visibility requirements for all documents– Clarified submission of higher classification documents/issues– (June 2012) Introduced alternate/streamlined document formats
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 5
2012 Changes (part 2 of 2)
• Organizations:– Added CCMDs as full members of JROC– Disestablished the Building Partnerships FCB– Established SAP Integration Group– Established Joint Requirements Assessment Division (JRAD)– Clarified Joint Staff J-7 Role and DOTmLPF-P Endorsement
• Staffing:– Streamlined staffing: Deliberate: 83 days. Urgent/Emergent : 15-31 days– Placed focus on finding “knee in the curve” tradeoffs– Post-AoA review of results/recommendations and draft KPP review
• Post-Validation:– More robust Tripwire Process – for cost, schedule, quantity changes.– Institutionalized Capability Gap Assessment (CGA) Process– Introduced a post-fielding assessment for JUONs/JEONs
6This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
2015: The Evolution Continues…
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 7
2015 Changes (part 1 of 2)• Consolidated Guidance: CJCSI 5123.01 (JROC Charter), CJCSI 3170.01
(JCIDS), and the JCIDS Manual are still the core products– CJCSI 3312.01 (Intelligence Certification), CJCSI 6212.01 (Net-Ready KPP), and
JWSTAP Charter (Weapon Safety Endorsement) cancelled, with content absorbed into the three core documents
– Significant revision of Intelligence Certification content• Roles/Responsibilities:
– Expanded guidance for stakeholder roles/responsibilities in CJCSI 5123• Developing Requirements:
– Refined CBA guidance– Focus on leveraging DODAF to streamline development activities– ICD Attributes: “Initial Objective Values” vice “Minimum Values”– Enable more robust leverage of S&T efforts to satisfy requirements– Introduces the Capability-Mission Lattice as a framework for traceability to
operational missions– Increased focus on ensuring attributes are measurable and testable
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 8
2015 Changes (part 2 of 2)• Documents:
– Streamlines document formats – Adds Net-Ready KPP to IS-ICD; Extends “IT Box” construct to IS CDD– Aligns affordability sections of CDDs/CPDs with DODI 5000.02– Adds Content/Endorsement guides for Mandatory KPPs, Weapon Safety endorsement,
DOTmLPF-P endorsement, and Intelligence Certification– Requires “validation page” to be combined with JCIDS documents
• Staffing:– Merges JSDs of Joint Information and Independent– Provides for common gatekeeping with DCMO for Defense Business Systems, and
with the Intelligence Community for Intelligence Community Capability Requirements– Enhances guidance for submission and review of higher classification documents/
issues, including SAP/SAR and ACCM• Portfolio Management:
– Consolidates “post validation processes” and “prioritization” guidance into the “portfolio management” guidance.
9This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Requirements – Acquisition Interaction
Decision Points and Acquisition PhasesReflect DoDI 5000.02, Jan 2015
10This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Refined CBA Guidance
1. Submit Study Initiation Notice to Joint Staff Gatekeeper. Determine and Build Upon Previous Studies
2. Derive CBA Focus: Strategic Context, Missions and Scenarios, Joint Lessons Learned, Use of DODAF Views
3. Determine Operational Context: Timeframe, threats, Concepts and CONOPS
4. Identify Capability Requirements and Gaps: Use of DODAV OV-3, CV-2, CV-3, CV-6 and OV-5a; use of Support to Strategic Analysis (SSA) Products.
5. Conduct Risk Assessment: Risk to mission; risk to force; others such as resourcing and risks to allies
6. Determine Non-Materiel Approaches 7. If Risks Remain, Assess General Approaches for
Materiel Solutions8. Documentation: Provide results to Joint Staff
Gatekeeper; offer recommendations in one or more capability requirement documents.
1. Identify Mission or Military Problem to be Assessed: Use OPLANS, CONPLANs, Integrated Security Constructs, results of the Chairman’s Risk Assessment (CRA); Assess Threats and Timeframe
2. Identify and Build Upon Previous CBAs and Other Studies
3. Determine Level of Analytical Rigor4. Perform Operational Assessment of Current
and Programmed Force to Determine Capability Requirements and Gaps
5. Determine if Non-Materiel Approach appropriate
6. If Risks Remain, Assess General Approaches for Materiel Solutions
7. Offer Recommendations
2012 – CBA Steps 2015 – CBA Steps
11This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
DODAF Architecture DataFlow from CBA to CDD/CPD
12This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Capability Requirement Portfolio Management
The Key to Robust Integration in an Uncertain Future
Consolidates “post validation processes” and “prioritization” guidance into the “portfolio management” guidance.
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 13
Process InteractionsThe capability requirement portfolios managed under the JCIDS process inform and are informed by other processes and activities across the department.
DOTmLPF-POrganize, Train, and Equip
AcquisitionDAS Process
(including Rapid Acquisition)
Budget/FundingPPBE Process
Authorizations/Appropriations
Capability RequirementsJCIDS Process
(new capabilities / or altered capabilities)Operations
JOPES ProcessGFM (force allocation)OPLANs/CONPLANs
Concepts/CONOPs/Scenarios
Threats/IntelligenceStrategic GuidanceNSS/NDS/NMS,
QDR, DPG, GEF, etc..
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 14
Understanding Portfolio Dependencies
• Stakeholders must understand capability dependencies, relationship to the Universal Joint Tasks (UJTs) they enable, and the missions they support.
• The Capability Mission Lattice (CML) (next slide) provides a logical construct for dependencies and traceability of capability requirements.
• Knowledge of historical decisions and rationale, including past cycles of Capability Gap Assessment (CGA) and Program Budget Review (PBR), is also critical to make informed assessments and decisions.
15This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
16This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
More Robust Leverage of S&T Efforts
Validated CapabilityRequirements/Gaps addressed
by DOTmLPF-P changes
Validated CapabilityRequirements/Gaps addressed
by Acquisition Programs
Validated CapabilityRequirements/Gaps addressed
by S&T efforts
Potential Disruptive Technology NOT yet Aligned
With Validated CapabilityRequirements/Gaps –
Reassess Warfighter Needs?
Validated CapabilityRequirements/Gaps NOTyet addressed by S&T oracquisition programs –
Focus new S&T efforts?
Capability Requirement PortfolioFunded DOTmLPF-P Changes Addressing
Validated CapabilityRequirements/Gaps
Funded Acquisition Programs Addressing
Validated CapabilityRequirements/Gaps
Funded S&T Efforts Aligned with Validated
Capability Requirementsor in overall JCACCMD IPL
Submissions,PBR Issue Papers,
Etc.
Capability Requirement Documents:- Deliberate (ICDs, CDDs, CPDs, DCRs)
- Urgent/Emergent (JUONs, JEONs, and DOD Component UONs)
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 17
Continuous Assessment
• Changes may require reassessment of the capability requirement portfolios to ensure that any impacts are identified and appropriate actions taken to best serve the joint force.
– Revisiting previously validated capability requirements for potential adjustment in light of the updated guidance.
– Initiating studies or analyses to assess identified gaps or overlaps in the capability requirement portfolios.
– Using capability requirement portfolio assessments to inform other Departmental processes or decision making, such as in PBR.
18This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
JCIDS Document Content Changes
Flow From Alternate Document Formats, mid-2012
19This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Document Content ChangesICD
ICD 2012 ICD 2015• Cover Page• Executive Summary• Sections
1. CONOPS Summary2. JCAs3. Capability Requirements4. Capability Gaps and
Overlaps/Redundancies5. Threat and Operational
Environment6. Assessment of Non-Materiel
Approaches7. Final Recommendations
• AppendicesA. Architecture DataB. ReferencesC. Acronym ListD. Glossary
• Cover Page• Validation Page• Executive Summary• Sections
1. Operational Context2. Threat Summary3. Capability Requirements and
Gaps/Overlaps4. Assessment of Non-Materiel
Approaches5. Final Recommendations
• AppendicesA. ReferencesB. Acronym ListC. GlossaryD. Classified Annex (optional)
20This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Document Content ChangesCDD & CPD
CDD & CPD 2012 CDD & CPD 2015• Cover Page• Executive Summary• Sections
1. Capability Discussion2. Analysis Summary3. CONOPS Summary4. Threat Summary5. Program Summary6. KPPs, KSAs and additional performance attributes7. SoS Synchronization8. Spectrum Requirements9. Intelligence Supportability10. Weapon Safety Assurance11. Technology Readiness Assessment12. Assets Necessary to Achieve IOC13. IOC and FOC Schedule Definitions14. DOTmLPF-P Considerations15. Other System Attributes16. Program Affordability
• AppendicesA. Net-Ready KPP Architecture DataB. ReferencesC. Acronym ListD. Glossary
• Cover Page• Validation Page• Executive Summary• Sections
1. Operational Context2. Threat Summary3. Capability Discussion4. Program Summary5. KPPs, KSAs, and APAs6. Other System Attributes7. Spectrum Requirements8. Intelligence Supportability9. Weapon Safety Assurance10. Technology Readiness11. DOTmLPF-P Considerations12. Program Affordability
• AppendicesA. ReferencesB. Acronym ListC. GlossaryD. Classified Annex (optional)
21This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Document Content ChangesJoint DCR
Joint DCR 2012 Joint DCR 2015• Cover Page• Validation Page• Executive Summary• Sections
1. Operational Context2. Threat Summary3. Capability Discussion4. Change Recommendations5. Final Recommendations6. Implementation Plans
• AppendicesA. ReferencesB. Acronym ListC. GlossaryD. Classified Annex (optional)
• Cover Page• Executive Summary• Sections
1. Purpose2. Background3. Description4. Analysis Process5. Findings and Proposed
Implementation Plan6. Constraints7. Policy8. Issues9. Recommendation Summary
• AppendicesA. Net-Ready KPP B. ReferencesC. Acronym ListD. Glossary
22This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Document Content ChangesJUON and JEON
JUON & JEON 2012 JUON & JEON 2015• Cover Page• Validation Page• Executive Summary• Sections
1. Administrative Data2. Operational Context and
Threat Analysis3. Required Capability4. Flexibility5. Potential Non-Materiel
Solutions6. Potential Materiel Solutions7. Required Quantities8. Constraints
• Sections1. Title2. CCMD Submitted by3. Date Submitted4. CONOPS Summary5. Required Capability6. Flexibility7. Mission and Threat Analysis8. Potential Non-Materiel
Alternatives9. Potential Materiel Alternatives10.Required Quantities11.Constraints12.Primary and Secondary POCs13.Authorized by
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 23
Resource Estimate Changes• ICD: Affordability (opportunity cost) added. • Joint DCR: Chart for “rough-order-of magnitude” total resources
added. Includes cost by FY, total across FYDP, and total life-cycle cost of implementing DOTmLPF-P solution(s). (RDT&E, Procurement, MILCON, O&M and MILPERS)
• CDD and CPD:– MILPERS added to affordability chart– Warfighter Resources for Operations & Support Costs added (includes
O&M and MILPERS):Pre-IOC IOC to FOC Post-FOC Operational Life Total
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 24
Document Content and Endorsement/ Certification Guides for 2015
• Document Content Guides:– Intelligence Supportability – new– Weapon Safety Assurance – new– DOTmLPF-P – new– Net-Ready KPP – Expanded. CJCSI 61212.01F, Net-Ready KPP, cancelled;
content added to JCIDS Manual– Training KPP – significant revisions
• Endorsement/Certification Guides– Endorsement Guide for Weapon Safety – updated– Endorsement Guide for Force Protection KPP – new– Endorsement Guide for Systems Survivability KPP – new – Endorsement Guide for Sustainment KPP – new – Certification Guide for Net-Ready KPP – new– Endorsement Guide for Training KPP – new– Endorsement Guide for DOTmLPF-P – new– Certification Guide for Intelligence Supportability – new
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 25
Changes to Performance Attributes
• 2012 JCIDS Manual dealt with development of KPPs• 2015 JCIDS Manual deals with development of KPPs,
KSAs and APAs• Mandatory KPPs:
– Force Protection – no change– Survivability changed to System Survivability – now applies to all CDDs
and CPDs– Sustainment – now applies to all CDDs and CPDs– Net-Ready – now applies to JUON, JEON, and DOD Component UON– Energy – no change– Training – major changes
26This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Mandatory KPPs
2012All manned systemsAll manned; may be applicable to unmannedACAT IAll IS and NSS CDD/CPDAll where provisions of energy impact operational reach, or protection of energy infrastructure or energy resources is neededACAT I
Sustainment
Net Ready
Training
Energy
No change
Sustainment
Net Ready
Training
Energy
2015
All CDDs & CPDs
All CDDs & CPDs
Added to IS-ICD, and to JUONs, JEONs, & DOD Component UONs
No change
All with training requirements that dictate operational performance characteristics
Force Protection
Survivability
Force Protection
System Survivability
27This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Training KPP – Significant Changes2012 – Personnel Related 2015 – Materiel Related
• Applies to all CDDs and CPDs with materiel training requirements that dictate specific operational performance characteristics of the capability solution.
• Intent: Ensure materiel aspects of training capabilities addressed as part of the solution outlined in CDD/CPD
• Separate Endorsement Not Required. Part of DOTmLPF-P Endorsement by Joint Staff J-7, with advice from the Office of the USD (Personnel & Readiness)
• Applies to ACAT I Programs• Attributes: (among others):
Proficiency level; time to train; training retention and associated metrics.
• Intent: Ensure training requirements are properly addressed from the beginning of the acquisition process and throughout the program’s acquisition life-cycle.
• Endorsement: J-7, in coordination with USD(Personnel &Readiness)
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 28
Intelligence Supportability• CJCSI 3312.01B, Joint Military Intelligence Requirements Certification,
cancelled; content moved to CJCSI 5123.01G and JCIDS Manual.• Content and Certification Guides for Intelligence Supportability added
to JCIDS Manual. • Intelligence Supportability Paragraph for CDD and CPD, para 8:
a. Intelligence Support Category Requirements1) Intelligence Manpower Support2) Intelligence Resource Support3) Intelligence Planning and Operations Support4) Targeting Support5) Intelligence Mission Data Support6) Warning Support7) Space Intelligence Support8) Counter Intelligence Support9) Intelligence Training Support
b. Cross-reference intel requirements discussed in other places in the document, or in other documents
c. Intelligence Security Requirements
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 29
Applicability of the IT BoxJCIDS Manual, Jan 2015
• IT Box DOES NOT Apply to:- IS with a developmental cost less than $15 million- Defense Business Systems (DBS)- Systems which are an integral part of a weapon or weapon system which
enables weapon capabilities and are considered part of the weapon system program
• Jan 2015 JCIDS Manual Expands on the Jan 2012 version by Implementing the “IS CDD”.
• IT Box Applies to:- Information Systems (IS) with software
development only - Includes integration onto commercial off-the-
shelf hardware- Program costs that exceed $15 million
30This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Changes to the IT Box for an IS-ICDRequirements Organization & Oversight
• No return to the JROC unless new core capabilities added to the IS-ICD• Further definition of capabilities through Requirements Definition Packages/Capability Drops
JROC-Approved IS-ICD
Oversight OrganizationExecution Organization
Flag-level oversight through [describe oversight body]• Chair• Members (list)
Hardware Refresh and System Enhancements & Integration Cost Controls
Application and System Software Development Cost Controls
• Per year = $XXX• Lifecycle cost = $XXX• Rationale
• Per year = $XXX• Lifecycle cost = $XXX• Rationale
Capability Requirements and Attribute. Initial Minimum
ValuesList Capabilities
& initial minimum values
Net-Ready KPP
Added by JCIDS ManualFeb 2015
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 31
Information Systems CDD (IS-CDD)Added by JCIDS Manual, 2015
• IS-CDD– Implements IT Box model used in the IS-ICD– May be used where a validated ICD contains capability requirements which can be
addressed by a combination of IS and non-IS solution and the IT Box is applicable to the IS portion
– May be used for MDAP and MAIS programs to comply with statutory requirements for a CDD while allowing for the flexibilities of the IT Box
– May be used when a validated CDD was generated before the IT Box construct was introduced, and the Sponsor wants to revalidate under the IT Box construct.
• IS-CDDs are appropriate in the same situations where the IS-ICD is appropriate, and are NOT appropriate in the same situations where the IS-ICD is not appropriate.
• Capability Production Documents (CPDs) are not required as successor documents for an IS-CDD – the delegated authority may prescribe alternate document formats
32This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
The IT Box for an IS-CCDRequirements Organization & Oversight
• No return to the JROC unless new core capabilities added to the IS-CDD• Further definition of capabilities through Requirements Definition Packages/Capability Drops
Flag-level oversight through [describe oversight body]• Chair• Members (list)
Hardware Refresh and System Enhancements & Integration Cost Controls
Application and System Software Development Cost Controls
• Per year = $XXX• Lifecycle cost = $XXX• Rationale
• Per year = $XXX• Lifecycle cost = $XXX• Rationale
Key Performance ParametersList KPPs
KPPs may be quantified in terms of initial performance values rather than objective / threshold values. Same applies to KSAs and APAs used in the body of the IS-CDD
Major difference fromIS-ICD IT Box.
JROC-Approved IS-CDD
Oversight OrganizationExecution Organization
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 33
Key Difference in Usage of IS-ICDs and IS-CDDs
• For an IS-ICD to be appropriate, it must be very clear from the CBA that an IS solution is the only viable approach. – The AoA conducted in the MSA phase takes place after delegating
authorities under the IT Box and will therefore only consider IS alternatives.
• An IS-CDD is more appropriate when an IS solution is not presumed at the time that the ICD is validated and the MDD approved, or other materiel and/or non-materiel solution(s) are expected to be necessary along with the IS solution. – The IS-CDD is a result of the AoA conducted in the MSA phase and
represents an IS solution for part or all of the capability requirements validated in the ICD.
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 34
Successor Documents for IS-ICDs and IS-CDDs
• CDDs are Not Required as Successor Documents for Non-MDAP IS-ICDs; CPDs are Not Required as Successor Documents for IS-CDDs.
− Sponsors have management flexibility for successor documents
− JCIDS Manual provides examples of potential IS ICD/CDD follow-on documents (actual names, content, and approval TBD by the delegated validation authority):
Requirements Definition Package (RDP) – identifies KPPs and non-materiel changes
Capability Drop (CD) – lower level document that specifies the characteristics of a “widget” or “app” for partial deployment of the solution
• FCB is Briefed Every 2nd Year After Validation on Progress Toward Delivering the Solution (May Recommend JROC Oversight)
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 35
Managing an IS Requirement Usingthe IT Box Construct
• As the IS-ICD and IS-CDD only streamline the applicable requirements processes, the Sponsor must still ensure compliance with acquisition policy and processes in DoDI 5000.02, and Information Support Plan (ISP) policy and processes in accordance with DoDI 8330.01.
• Since the standard CDD and CPD are not typically required, an IS-ICD or IS-CDD provides Sponsors the flexibility to manage IS requirements with alternate documents and validation processes as necessary, as long as development efforts remain within the boundaries of the validated IT-Box and any additional guidance provided by the validation authority.
36This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Example of IS-ICD or IS-CDD Successor Documents
Illustrative - not intended to limit potential flexibilities provided by the IS-ICD or IS-CDDAlthough this figure shows RDPs and CDs, actual names, content, and approval process are at the discretion of thedelegated oversight authority.
Referred to as “limited deployment” by DODI 5000.02
37This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
JCIDS Documents Staffing and ValidationChanges
38This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Joint Staffing Designation (JSD) ofIndependent Deleted
Gatekeeper Makes Joint Staffing
Designation (JSD) Decision After Sponsor Posts
Document to the Knowledge
Management/ Decision Support
(KM/DS) Tool
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 39
Process Lanes Staffing TimelineChange from
2012
+ 14 days
No change
No change
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 40
JROC Decision Chain
JROC Membership
Chair: VCJCS Council Members:
• Vice Chief of Staff, Army • Vice Chief of Naval Operations• Vice Chief of Staff, Air Force • Assistant Commandant of the
Marine CorpsAdvisors to the JROC: USD(AT&L), USD(Policy), USD(Intel), USD(Comptroller), Dir. CAPE, and DOT&E. Commander of a combatant command when matters related to the area of responsibility or functions of that command are under consideration.
Owns JCIDS; Validates JROC Interest Documents; Final Authority
Validates JCB Interest Documents; Assists JROC
Reviews Documents Prior to JCB Review
Reviews Documents; Makes Validation Recommendation to JCB / JROC
JROC Chairman; Advises the CJCS
JCB
JROC
VCJCS
FCB WG
FCB
JROC Decision Chain
JROC: Joint Requirements Oversight CouncilJCB: Joint Capability BoardFCB: Functional Capability BoardFCB WG: Functional Capability Board Working Group
NDAA 2017 added USD(Intel) and moved CCMDs from members to advisors.
41This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Use of DOD Architecture Framework(DODAF) Data
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 42
DODAF Data
• 2012 JCIDS Manual provided one table for DODAF views to support capability requirement documents
• 2015 JCIDS Manual: • Provides two tables:
Table D-1. DODAF Views Supporting Capability Requirement Documents
Table D-E-4. Net Ready KPP Architecture Data and Associated Artifacts/Views
• Indicates that all capability requirement documents should leverage and update DODAF views generated during a CBA or other prior study
• Adds a comprehensive DOD Architecture Primer
43This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
DODAF Views SupportingCapability Requirement Documents
OV-1. High-level Operational ConceptOV-2. Operational Resource Matrix FlowOV-4. Organizational Relationships ChartOV-5a. Operational Activity Decomposition TreeCV-2. Capability TaxonomyCV-6. Capability to Operational Development MappingSV-7. Services Measures MatrixSV-8. Systems Evolution Description (new)
DODAF View ICD/DCR CDD/CPDSSSSSS
Note 1Note 1Note 1Note 1Note 1Note 1
S/PS/P
S: Sponsor or operational user/representative is responsible for developmentS/P: Sponsor or operational user/representative work jointly with the program office to developNote 1: Leverage and update DODAF views generated during the CBA or other prior study
• Components may have additional requirements for CDD/CPD• OV-5a must use UJTs (and Service task list extensions if applicable) for alignment of activities• IS-ICDs and IS-CDDs are required to provide the DODAF views associated with the baseline ICDs and CDDs
See Table D-1, and the DOD Architecture Primer, JCIDS Manual, for more detail
44This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
Net-Ready KPP Architecture Data
AV-2. Dictionary of TermsOV-5b. Operational Activity Decomposition TreeOV-6c. Event-Trace DescriptionDV-1. Conceptual Data ModelDV-2. Logical Data FlowDV-3. Physical Data FlowPV-2. Project TimelineSV-1. Systems Interface DescriptionSV-2 or SvcV-2. Systems or Services Resource Flow MatrixSV-4 or SvcV-4. Systems or Services Functionality DescriptionSV-5 or SvcV-5. Systems or Services Operational Activity to Services Traceability MatrixSV-6 or SvcV-6. Systems or Services Resource Flow MatrixSV-7 or SvcV-7. Systems or Services Measures MatrixStdV-1. Standards ProfileStdV-2. Standards Forecast
DODAF View IS-ICD(RDPs/CDs) CDD/CPD
SS
S
P
S: Sponsor or operational user/representative is responsible for developmentS/P: Sponsor or operational user/representative work jointly with the program office to developP: Obtain from program office. Components may have additional requirements for CDD/CPD
See Table D-E-4 and the DOD Architecture Primer, JCIDS Manual, for more detail
S/PSSSSPP
S/PPPP
S/PPPP
This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts 45
Summary of 2015 JCIDS Changes
• Refined CBA guidance, to include use of DODAF data• Added guidance for capability portfolio management, to include process
interactions, dependencies, use of the CML, robust leverage of S&T, and post-validation guidance
• JCIDS Document changes: Streamlined formats; added validation page; additional content and endorsement/ certification guidance; changes to mandatory KPPs; addition of Intel Supportability; addition of NR-KPP to IS-ICD; addition of IS-CDD; and enhanced resource estimates in ICD, CDD, CPD and Joint DCR
• Staffing: Deleted JSD of “Independent”; added 14 days to deliberate staffing
• Enhanced use of DODAF data; tutorial added to JCIDS Manual
46This presentation contains notes pages to supplement most of the charts
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2017 Amendments to Title 10, U.S. Code:
Joint Requirements Oversight Council -Establishment and Mission
(a) Establishment. In General— There is a Joint Requirements Oversight Council in the Department of Defense.(b) Mission.—In addition to other matters assigned to it by the President or Secretary of Defense, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council shall assist the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in—
(1) assist the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff— assessing joint military capabilities, and identifying, approving, and prioritizing gaps in such capabilities, to meet applicable requirements in the national defense strategy under section 118 of this title;
(A) in identifying, assessing, and approving joint military requirements (including existing systems and equipment) to meet the national military strategy; (2) reviewing and validating whether a capability proposed by an armed force, Defense Agency, or other entity of the Department of Defense fulfills a gap in joint military capabilities;
(B) in identifying the core mission area associated with each such requirement; and (3) developing recommendations, in consultation with the advisors to the Council under subsection (d), for program cost and fielding targets pursuant to section 2448a of this title that—
(C) in ensuring that appropriate trade-offs are made among life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance objectives, and procurement quantity objectives, in the establishment and approval of military requirements in consultation with the advisors specified in subsection (d); (A) require a level of resources that is consistent with the level of priority assigned to the associated capability gap; and (B) have an estimated period of time for the delivery of an initial operational capability that is consistent with the urgency of the associated capability gap;
Joint Requirements Oversight Council - Establishment and Mission (Amendments to 10 USC 181 – NDAA 2017, Section 925, Modifications to the Requirements Process)
Revised/new text in bold blue italics
(2) assist the Chairman in establishing and assigning priority levels for joint military requirements; (4) establishing and approving joint performance requirements that—(A) ensure interoperability, where appropriate, between and among joint military capabilities; and ‘‘(B) are necessary, as designated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to fulfill capability gaps of more than one armed force, Defense Agency, or other entity of the Department;
(3) assist the Chairman, in consultation with the advisors to the Council under subsection (d), in reviewing the estimated level of resources required in the fulfillment of each joint military requirement and in ensuring that the total cost of such resources is consistent with the level of priority assigned to such requirement; (5) reviewing performance requirements for any existing or proposed capability that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff determines should be reviewed by the Council;
(4) assist acquisition officials in identifying alternatives to any acquisition program that meet joint military requirements for the purposes of section 2366a(b), section 2366b(a)(4), and section 2433(e)(2) of this title; and (6) identifying new joint military capabilities based on advances in technology and concepts of operation; and
(5) assist the Chairman, in consultation with the commanders of the combatant commands and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in establishing an objective for the overall period of time within which an initial operational capability should be delivered to meet each joint military requirement. (7) identifying alternatives to any acquisition program that meets approved joint military capability requirements for the purposes of sections 2366a(b), 2366b(a)(4), and 2433(e)(2) of this title.
Joint Requirements Oversight Council - Establishment and Mission (continued) (Amendments to 10 USC 181 – NDAA 2017, Section 925, Modifications to the Requirements Process)
Revised/new text in bold blue italics
(c) Composition.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Joint Requirements Oversight Council is composed of—
(A) the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is the chairman of the Council; Chair of the Council and is the principal adviser to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for making recommendations about joint military capabilities or joint performance requirements.
(B) an Army officer in the grade of general; (C) a Navy officer in the grade of admiral; (D) an Air Force officer in the grade of general; (E) a Marine Corps officer in the grade of general; and (F) in addition, when directed by the chairman, the commander of any combatant command (or, as
directed by that commander, the deputy commander of that command) when matters related to the area of responsibility or functions of that command will be under consideration by the Council.
(2) SELECTION OF MEMBERS. — Members of the Council under subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E) of paragraph (1) shall be selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense, from officers in the grade of general or admiral, as the case may be, who are recommended for such selection by the Secretary of the military department concerned.
(3) RECOMMENDATIONS.—In making any recommendation to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as described in paragraph (1)(A), the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall provide the Chairman any dissenting view of members of the Council under paragraph (1) with respect to such recommendation.
Joint Requirements Oversight Council – Composition (Amendments to 10 USC 181 – NDAA 2017, Section 925, Modifications to the Requirements Process)
Revised/new text in bold blue italics
(d) Advisors.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The following officials of the Department of Defense shall serve as advisors to the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council on matters within their authority and expertise: (A) The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics. (B) The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). (C) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy. (D) The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. (E) The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. (F) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. Such other civilian officials of the Department of Defense as are
designated by the Secretary of Defense for purposes of this subsection. (G) The commander of a combatant command when matters related to the area of responsibility or functions of that
command are under consideration by the Council.(2) INPUT FROM COMBATANT COMMANDS. — The Council shall seek and consider input from the commanders of the
combatant commands in carrying out its mission under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) and in conducting periodic reviews in accordance with the requirements of subsection (e).
(3) INPUT FROM CHIEFS OF STAFF.—The Council shall seek, and strongly consider, the views of the Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces, in their roles as customers of the acquisition system, on matters pertaining to a capability proposed by an armed force, Defense Agency, or other entity of the Department of Defense under subsection (b)(2) and joint performance requirements trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance under subsection (b)(1)(C) and the balancing of resources with priorities pursuant to subsection (b)(3).
Joint Requirements Oversight Council – Advisors (Amendments to 10 USC 181 – NDAA 2017, Section 925, Modifications to the Requirements Process)
Revised/new text in bold blue italics
(e) Organization.—The Joint Requirements Oversight Council shall conduct periodic reviews of joint military requirements within a core mission area of the Department of Defense. In any such review of a core mission area, the officer or official assigned to lead the review shall have a deputy from a different military department. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AS RESPONSIBILITY OF ARMED FORCES.—The Chief of Staff of an armed force is responsible for all performance requirements for that armed force and, except for performance requirements specified in subsections (b)(4) and (b)(5), such performance requirements do not need to be validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.(f) ANALYTIC SUPPORT.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that analytical organizations within the Department of Defense, such as the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, provide resources and expertise in operations research, systems analysis, and cost estimation to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to assist the Council in performing the mission in subsection (b).(f) Availability of Oversight Information to Congressional Defense Committees. (g) AVAILABILITY OF OVERSIGHT INFORMATION TO CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES.
(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, in the case of a recommendation by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary, that is approved by the Secretary, oversight information with respect to such recommendation that is produced as a result of the activities of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is made available in a timely fashion to the congressional defense committees.
(2) In this subsection, the term “oversight information” means information and materials comprising analysis and justification that are prepared to support a recommendation that is made to, and approved by, the Secretary of Defense.
Joint Requirements Oversight Council – Performance Requirements, Analytic Support, and Availability of Information to Congress
(Amendments to 10 USC 181 – NDAA 2017, Section 925, Modifications to the Requirements Process)
Revised/new text in bold blue italics
(g) Definitions. (h) DEFINITIONS—In this section: (1) The term “joint military capabilities’ means the collective capabilities across the joint force,
including both joint and force-specific capabilities, that are available to conduct military operations.requirement” means a capability necessary to fulfill a gap in a core mission area of the Department of Defense.
(2) The term ‘performance requirement’ means a performance attribute of a particular system considered critical or essential to the development of an effective military capability. “core mission area” means a core mission area of the Department of Defense identified under the most recent quadrennial roles and missions review pursuant to section 118b [1] of this title.
(3) The term ‘joint performance requirement’ means a performance requirement that is critical or essential to ensure interoperability or fulfill a capability gap of more than one armed force, Defense Agency, or other entity of the Department of Defense, or impacts the joint force in other ways such as logistics.
(4) The term ‘oversight information’ means information and materials comprising analysis and justification that are prepared to support a recommendation that is made to, and approved by, the Secretary of Defense.
Joint Requirements Oversight Council – Definitions(Amendments to 10 USC 181 – NDAA 2017, Section 925, Modifications to the Requirements Process)
Revised/new text in bold blue italics
(b) PROGRAM COST AND FIELD TARGETS.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish a process to develop program cost and fielding targets pursuant to section 2448a of title 10, United States Code, that—
(1) is co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;(2) is supported by—
(A) the Joint Staff, to provide expertise on joint military capabilities, capability gaps, and performance requirements;
(B) the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, to provide expertise in resource allocation, operations research, systems analysis, and cost estimation; and
(C) other Department of Defense organizations determined appropriate by the Secretary; and(3) ensures that appropriate trade-offs are made among life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance
objectives and procurementquantity objectives.
Joint Requirements Oversight Council – Program Cost and Field Targets(Amendments to 10 USC 181 – NDAA 2017, Section 925, Modifications to the Requirements Process)
Revised/new text in bold blue italics