Joint Capabilities Integration Development System
Encyclopedia
The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, or JCIDS, is
the formal United States Department of Defense
(DoD) procedure which defines
acquisition requirements and evaluation criteria for future defense
programs. JCIDS was created to replace the previous service-specific
requirements generation system, which created redundancies in
capabilities and failed to meet the combined needs of all US
military services. In order to correct these problems, JCIDS is
intended to guide the development of requirements for future
acquisition systems to reflect the needs of all four services (Army
,
Navy
, Marines
, and Air Force
) by focusing the requirements generation process on needed capabilities as requested or defined by one of the US combatant commanders
. In the JCIDS process, regional and functional combatant commanders give feedback early in the development process to ensure that their requirements are met.
to address shortfalls in the DoD
requirements generation
system identified by the US joint chiefs of staff. These shortfalls
were identified as: not considering new programs in the context of
other programs, not sufficiently considering combined service
requirements and effectively prioritizing joint service requirements,
and not accomplishing sufficient analysis. The drive to create JCIDS
was born out of a memo in March 2002 from the Secretary of Defense
to
the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff requesting a study on
alternative ways to evaluate requirements. The Chairman, Joint Chiefs
of Staff (CJCS) approved the new JCIDS on 24 June 2003. CJCS
Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01 provides a top-level description and
outlines the organizational responsibilities. CJCS Manual (CJCSM)
3170.01 defines performance attributes, key performance parameters,
validation and approval processes, and associated document content.
gaps as defined by combatant commanders. Thus, JCIDS is said to
provide a capabilities-based approach to requirements generation.
The previous requirements generation system focused on addressing
future threat scenarios. While understanding the risks associated with
future threat postures is necessary to develop effective weapons
systems, a sufficient methodology requires a joint perspective which
can both prioritize the risk associated with future threats and
consider operational gaps in the context of all the services. If
requirements are developed in this joint context, there is
simultaneously a smaller chance of developing superfluously overlapping
systems and a greater probability that weapons systems would be
operational with one another (i.e. common communication systems,
weapons interfaces, etc.). The Joint capability areas
were established in conjunction with JCIDS in order to provide for a common lexicon throughout the Department of Defense
. Another major emphasis of JCIDS is to consider whether a solution to a potential operational gap requires the
development of a physical system (a materiel solution) or a
procedural or training based solution (a non-materiel solution).
In this sense, the JCIDS process provides a solution space that
considers solutions involving any combination of doctrine,
organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel
and facilities (DOTMLPF
). Since combatant commanders define
requirements in consultation with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD), they are able to consider gaps in the context of
strategic direction for the total US military force and influence the
direction of requirements earlier in the acquisition process.
The JCIDS process starts with the development of joint integrating
concepts and the capability they imply from the US Secretary of Defense
(SecDef) and combatant commanders
. From the joint integrating concepts,
the joint chiefs of staff refine requirements and develop an integrated
priority list via a joint quarterly readiness review. Military
judgement is further applied by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
(JROC) (Composed of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other
service vice-commanders) which validates requirement attributes
and determines how to produce the required capability. From the JROC, the JCIDS process maps current programs against the
standard as defined by JROC attributes to determine if gaps exist in
providing the concepts defined by the SecDef and combatant commanders.
there are three phases to capabilities-based assessment: a functional
area analysis, a functional needs analysis, and a functional solutions
analysis. The functional area analysis identifies operational tasks,
conditions and standards needed to accomplish objectives. The
Functional Needs Analysis assesses the ability of current and
programmed capabilities to accomplish the tasks identified in the
functional area analysis. The end product of these first two levels of
analysis is a list of capability gaps. Functional solutions analysis
(FSA) evaluates solutions from an operational perspective across the
DOTMLPF
spectrum. The FSA results in a list of potential need-based
solutions and is further divided into three subcomponents: non-material
analysis (DOT_LPF), material solutions (ideas for material approaches, or
IMA, analysis) and the Analysis of Material Approaches to determine the
best materiel or combination of approaches to produce the best
capability. The final analysis is the Post-Independent Analysis which
reviews the previous three functional analyses and selects an approach
or approaches that best close the capability gaps. The original
proposal sponsor documents a recommended change or produces an
Initial Capabilities Document for a system.
A proposal receives one of three designations based on the degree in
which it applies to all three services: "JROC Interest", "JCB Interest", "Joint
Integration" or "Independent". Independent proposals affect only a
single service component. Joint integration programs require
intelligence, munitions or interoperability certifications. "JROC
Interest" programs apply to any program the JROC decides to review and
all Acquisition Category
(ACAT) 1/1A programs.
define needed capabilities, guide materiel development and direct the
production of capabilities. Each of these documents supports a major
design approval decision each with gradual improving design maturity A,
B or C. The sponsor is the single focal point for all three documents.
The Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) defines the capability need and
where it fits in broader concepts, ultimately supporting the milestone
A decision. (The Milestone A decision approves or denies a concept
demonstration to show that a proposed concept is feasible). When the
technology development phase is complete, a Capability Development Document
(CDD) is produced which provides more detail on the materiel
solution of the desired capability and supports Milestone B decisions.
(The milestone B approval starts the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase). Most important, the CDD also defines the
thresholds and objectives against which the capability will be
measured. After approval, the CDD guides the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase of the acquisition process. The Capability
Production Document (CPD) supports the Milestone C decision necessary
to start the Production & Deployment Phase to include low-rate initial production and operational tests. The CPD
potentially refines the thresholds from the CDD based on lessons
learned during the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase.
The Joint Staff
, J8, Vice Director (VDJ-8), is the gatekeeper of the JCIDS process. The gatekeeper assigns the JPD, and assigns lead and supporting functional capabilities boards FCBs, and performs an initial review. The gatekeeper initially reviews all proposals and then designates the program's degree of joint potential and which Functional Capability Board and Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment Teams will receive the proposal. The gatekeeper determines the membership of the lead Functional Capabilities Board, the lead Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment Team and the Joint Potential Designation. The Joint Potential Designation is based on input from Joint Forces Command, each of the Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment teams, and other elements of the Joint Staff. The gatekeeper periodically reevaluates
the Joint Potential designation throughout the process because changes in the proposed capability may require it to change as well.
When the gatekeeper has completed the initial review, they assign the analysis to a functional capabilities board (FCB). This board replaces the joint requirements panel (JRP) from the previous system, with expanded responsibilities and membership. The FCB is responsible for ensuring that new capabilities are developed with a joint warfighting context; ensuring that proposals are consistent with the Joint Force as described in the Joint Operating Concepts; validating Joint Impact proposals; organizing, analyzing and prioritizing capabilities proposals; supervising development and updating of functional concepts; and ensuring that integrated architectures are reflective of their functional area.
The JROC now charters eight FCBs: (oversight authority is in parentheses):
The head of the FCBs will probably be at least the O-7 or equivalent level. Membership in an FCB goes beyond the traditional membership of the services under the previous system in the JRP. The FCBs include O-6 or GS-15 equivalent representatives of the combatant commanders, key OSD staff, and representatives from the space and intelligence communities. This expanded membership gives the FCB Chairman the tools to make better and more broadly informed recommendations on the capability proposals to the JROC. It also involves the entire acquisition community early in the process. Other FCBs can be created by the JROC to oversee capability development and integration in the other functional areas.
Joint warfighting capability assessment teams (JWCAs) coordinate with and aid the sponsor to prevent needless overlapping of proposals across components and to ensure that joint capability gaps are properly addressed. They support the gatekeeper in determining the Joint Potential Designation and the lead and/or supporting JWCAs for each JCIDS document in the process. They also work with other JWCAs to make sure that analyses do not overlook any joint aspects.
the formal United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Defense
The United States Department of Defense is the U.S...
(DoD) procedure which defines
acquisition requirements and evaluation criteria for future defense
programs. JCIDS was created to replace the previous service-specific
requirements generation system, which created redundancies in
capabilities and failed to meet the combined needs of all US
military services. In order to correct these problems, JCIDS is
intended to guide the development of requirements for future
acquisition systems to reflect the needs of all four services (Army
United States Army
The United States Army is the main branch of the United States Armed Forces responsible for land-based military operations. It is the largest and oldest established branch of the U.S. military, and is one of seven U.S. uniformed services...
,
Navy
United States Navy
The United States Navy is the naval warfare service branch of the United States Armed Forces and one of the seven uniformed services of the United States. The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined. The U.S...
, Marines
United States Marine Corps
The United States Marine Corps is a branch of the United States Armed Forces responsible for providing power projection from the sea, using the mobility of the United States Navy to deliver combined-arms task forces rapidly. It is one of seven uniformed services of the United States...
, and Air Force
United States Air Force
The United States Air Force is the aerial warfare service branch of the United States Armed Forces and one of the American uniformed services. Initially part of the United States Army, the USAF was formed as a separate branch of the military on September 18, 1947 under the National Security Act of...
) by focusing the requirements generation process on needed capabilities as requested or defined by one of the US combatant commanders
Unified Combatant Command
A Unified Combatant Command is a United States Department of Defense command that is composed of forces from at least two Military Departments and has a broad and continuing mission. These commands are established to provide effective command and control of U.S. military forces, regardless of...
. In the JCIDS process, regional and functional combatant commanders give feedback early in the development process to ensure that their requirements are met.
History
JCIDS was developed under the direction of US Defense Secretary Donald RumsfeldDonald Rumsfeld
Donald Henry Rumsfeld is an American politician and businessman. Rumsfeld served as the 13th Secretary of Defense from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford, and as the 21st Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2006 under President George W. Bush. He is both the youngest and the oldest person to...
to address shortfalls in the DoD
United States Department of Defense
The United States Department of Defense is the U.S...
requirements generation
system identified by the US joint chiefs of staff. These shortfalls
were identified as: not considering new programs in the context of
other programs, not sufficiently considering combined service
requirements and effectively prioritizing joint service requirements,
and not accomplishing sufficient analysis. The drive to create JCIDS
was born out of a memo in March 2002 from the Secretary of Defense
United States Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Defense is the head and chief executive officer of the Department of Defense of the United States of America. This position corresponds to what is generally known as a Defense Minister in other countries...
to
the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff requesting a study on
alternative ways to evaluate requirements. The Chairman, Joint Chiefs
of Staff (CJCS) approved the new JCIDS on 24 June 2003. CJCS
Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01 provides a top-level description and
outlines the organizational responsibilities. CJCS Manual (CJCSM)
3170.01 defines performance attributes, key performance parameters,
validation and approval processes, and associated document content.
Methodology
The central focus of JCIDS is to address capability shortfalls, orgaps as defined by combatant commanders. Thus, JCIDS is said to
provide a capabilities-based approach to requirements generation.
The previous requirements generation system focused on addressing
future threat scenarios. While understanding the risks associated with
future threat postures is necessary to develop effective weapons
systems, a sufficient methodology requires a joint perspective which
can both prioritize the risk associated with future threats and
consider operational gaps in the context of all the services. If
requirements are developed in this joint context, there is
simultaneously a smaller chance of developing superfluously overlapping
systems and a greater probability that weapons systems would be
operational with one another (i.e. common communication systems,
weapons interfaces, etc.). The Joint capability areas
Joint capability areas
The Joint Capability Areas are a standardized set of definitions that cover the complete range of military activities. The system was initially established in May 2005 by the Joint Staff with input from each of the services...
were established in conjunction with JCIDS in order to provide for a common lexicon throughout the Department of Defense
United States Department of Defense
The United States Department of Defense is the U.S...
. Another major emphasis of JCIDS is to consider whether a solution to a potential operational gap requires the
development of a physical system (a materiel solution) or a
procedural or training based solution (a non-materiel solution).
In this sense, the JCIDS process provides a solution space that
considers solutions involving any combination of doctrine,
organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel
and facilities (DOTMLPF
DOTMLPF
DOTMLPF is an acronym used by the United States Department of Defense. DOTMLPF is defined in the The Joint Capabilities Integration Development System, or JCIDS Process. The JCIDS process provides a solution space that considers solutions involving any combination of doctrine, organization,...
). Since combatant commanders define
requirements in consultation with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD), they are able to consider gaps in the context of
strategic direction for the total US military force and influence the
direction of requirements earlier in the acquisition process.
The JCIDS process starts with the development of joint integrating
concepts and the capability they imply from the US Secretary of Defense
(SecDef) and combatant commanders
Unified Combatant Command
A Unified Combatant Command is a United States Department of Defense command that is composed of forces from at least two Military Departments and has a broad and continuing mission. These commands are established to provide effective command and control of U.S. military forces, regardless of...
. From the joint integrating concepts,
the joint chiefs of staff refine requirements and develop an integrated
priority list via a joint quarterly readiness review. Military
judgement is further applied by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
Joint Requirements Oversight Council
Part of the United States Department of Defense acquisition process, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council reviews programs designated as JROC interest and supports the acquisition review process in accordance with law...
(JROC) (Composed of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other
service vice-commanders) which validates requirement attributes
and determines how to produce the required capability. From the JROC, the JCIDS process maps current programs against the
standard as defined by JROC attributes to determine if gaps exist in
providing the concepts defined by the SecDef and combatant commanders.
JCIDS Analysis
In order to assess US capability to execute Joint Integrating Conceptsthere are three phases to capabilities-based assessment: a functional
area analysis, a functional needs analysis, and a functional solutions
analysis. The functional area analysis identifies operational tasks,
conditions and standards needed to accomplish objectives. The
Functional Needs Analysis assesses the ability of current and
programmed capabilities to accomplish the tasks identified in the
functional area analysis. The end product of these first two levels of
analysis is a list of capability gaps. Functional solutions analysis
(FSA) evaluates solutions from an operational perspective across the
DOTMLPF
DOTMLPF
DOTMLPF is an acronym used by the United States Department of Defense. DOTMLPF is defined in the The Joint Capabilities Integration Development System, or JCIDS Process. The JCIDS process provides a solution space that considers solutions involving any combination of doctrine, organization,...
spectrum. The FSA results in a list of potential need-based
solutions and is further divided into three subcomponents: non-material
analysis (DOT_LPF), material solutions (ideas for material approaches, or
IMA, analysis) and the Analysis of Material Approaches to determine the
best materiel or combination of approaches to produce the best
capability. The final analysis is the Post-Independent Analysis which
reviews the previous three functional analyses and selects an approach
or approaches that best close the capability gaps. The original
proposal sponsor documents a recommended change or produces an
Initial Capabilities Document for a system.
A proposal receives one of three designations based on the degree in
which it applies to all three services: "JROC Interest", "JCB Interest", "Joint
Integration" or "Independent". Independent proposals affect only a
single service component. Joint integration programs require
intelligence, munitions or interoperability certifications. "JROC
Interest" programs apply to any program the JROC decides to review and
all Acquisition Category
Acquisition Category
The United States Department of Defense divides future acquisition programs into four acquisition categories: ACAT I, ACAT II, ACAT III, or ACAT IA. The differences between these categories depend on their size and programatic differences....
(ACAT) 1/1A programs.
Output Documents
Three documents are the output of the JCIDS analysis which togetherdefine needed capabilities, guide materiel development and direct the
production of capabilities. Each of these documents supports a major
design approval decision each with gradual improving design maturity A,
B or C. The sponsor is the single focal point for all three documents.
The Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) defines the capability need and
where it fits in broader concepts, ultimately supporting the milestone
A decision. (The Milestone A decision approves or denies a concept
demonstration to show that a proposed concept is feasible). When the
technology development phase is complete, a Capability Development Document
Capability Development Document
A Capability Development Document provides operational performance attributes, including supportability, for those responsible for the acquisition of military equipment in the military of the United States. It includes "key performance parameters" and other parameters that guide the development,...
(CDD) is produced which provides more detail on the materiel
solution of the desired capability and supports Milestone B decisions.
(The milestone B approval starts the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase). Most important, the CDD also defines the
thresholds and objectives against which the capability will be
measured. After approval, the CDD guides the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase of the acquisition process. The Capability
Production Document (CPD) supports the Milestone C decision necessary
to start the Production & Deployment Phase to include low-rate initial production and operational tests. The CPD
potentially refines the thresholds from the CDD based on lessons
learned during the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase.
Actors
The DoD component that oversees the JCIDS analyses acts as the sponsor. The sponsor also evaluates the affordability of various proposals and approaches determined in the study. Moreover, the sponsor coordinates with non-DoD departments and agencies on interagency capability matters.The Joint Staff
Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Joint Chiefs of Staff is a body of senior uniformed leaders in the United States Department of Defense who advise the Secretary of Defense, the Homeland Security Council, the National Security Council and the President on military matters...
, J8, Vice Director (VDJ-8), is the gatekeeper of the JCIDS process. The gatekeeper assigns the JPD, and assigns lead and supporting functional capabilities boards FCBs, and performs an initial review. The gatekeeper initially reviews all proposals and then designates the program's degree of joint potential and which Functional Capability Board and Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment Teams will receive the proposal. The gatekeeper determines the membership of the lead Functional Capabilities Board, the lead Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment Team and the Joint Potential Designation. The Joint Potential Designation is based on input from Joint Forces Command, each of the Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment teams, and other elements of the Joint Staff. The gatekeeper periodically reevaluates
the Joint Potential designation throughout the process because changes in the proposed capability may require it to change as well.
When the gatekeeper has completed the initial review, they assign the analysis to a functional capabilities board (FCB). This board replaces the joint requirements panel (JRP) from the previous system, with expanded responsibilities and membership. The FCB is responsible for ensuring that new capabilities are developed with a joint warfighting context; ensuring that proposals are consistent with the Joint Force as described in the Joint Operating Concepts; validating Joint Impact proposals; organizing, analyzing and prioritizing capabilities proposals; supervising development and updating of functional concepts; and ensuring that integrated architectures are reflective of their functional area.
The JROC now charters eight FCBs: (oversight authority is in parentheses):
-
- Command and Control (U.S. Joint Forces Command)
- Battlespace Awareness (J2)
- Force Application (J8),
- Logistics (J4)
- Protection (J8)
- Force Support
- Net Centric (J6)
- Building Partnerships (J5)
The head of the FCBs will probably be at least the O-7 or equivalent level. Membership in an FCB goes beyond the traditional membership of the services under the previous system in the JRP. The FCBs include O-6 or GS-15 equivalent representatives of the combatant commanders, key OSD staff, and representatives from the space and intelligence communities. This expanded membership gives the FCB Chairman the tools to make better and more broadly informed recommendations on the capability proposals to the JROC. It also involves the entire acquisition community early in the process. Other FCBs can be created by the JROC to oversee capability development and integration in the other functional areas.
Joint warfighting capability assessment teams (JWCAs) coordinate with and aid the sponsor to prevent needless overlapping of proposals across components and to ensure that joint capability gaps are properly addressed. They support the gatekeeper in determining the Joint Potential Designation and the lead and/or supporting JWCAs for each JCIDS document in the process. They also work with other JWCAs to make sure that analyses do not overlook any joint aspects.
See also
- Capability (systems engineering)Capability (systems engineering)A Capability, in the systems engineering sense, is defined as the ability to execute a specified course of action. A capability may or may not be accompanied by an intention. The term Capability is used in the defense industry but also in private industry A Capability, in the systems engineering...
- DoDUnited States Department of DefenseThe United States Department of Defense is the U.S...
- LVC Continuum
- Military AcquisitionMilitary acquisitionMilitary acquisition is the bureaucratic management and procurement process dealing with a nation's investments in the technologies, programs, and product support necessary to achieve its national security strategy and support its armed forces...
- RiskAoARiskAoARiskAoA is a United States Department of Defense project Risk Management tool, allowing the instantaneous review of portfolio , proposal or alternatives Risk. It was designed by Air Force Research Laboratory Headquarters to perform predictive risk analysis for the Analysis of Alternatives ...