Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System (JCIDS)
and the
Defense Acquisition System (DAS)
Requirements and Acquisition Management
In the 21st Century
January 26, 2015
0
Lesson Objective
Summarize the relationship between the Joint
Capabilities Integration and Development System
(JCIDS) and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS).
•
•
•
•
Highlight recent changes to the DAS
Link JCIDS to Milestones and Phases of the DAS
Emphasize current strategic guidance
Highlight Better Buying Power Initiatives Related to
Capability Requirements
January 26, 2015
1
Changes – 2008 Defense Acquisition
Management System
No longer
• The Materiel Development Decision precedes entry into any
phase of the acquisition management system
on model
User Needs
Technology Opportunities & Resources
New
Development
CDD
Validation RFP Release
A
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
Materiel
Development
Decision
AoA
B
Technology
Development
PDR
Pre-Systems Acquisition
Name changed to
Technology Maturation &
Risk Reduction (same
activities)
• Entrance Criteria met before entering phase
• Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability
New
EA dropped from policy
Program
Initiation
C
Engineering &
Manufacturing Development
Post PDR
Assessment
CDR
PDR
IOC
FOC
PDR & CDR still
required;
but&not as Operations &
Production
Deployment
Support
decision
points
Post CDR
Assessment
Systems Acquisition
FRP
Decision
Review
Sustainment
Three Categories
Deleted
• No longer called “Defense Acquisition Management System (DAMS)”, or “Defense
Acquisition Management Framework”.
January 26, 2015
• Now referred to as the “Defense Acquisition System (DAS)” and “Program Models”
2
Defense Acquisition System
DoDI 5000.02, January 7, 2015
Materiel
Development
Decision (MDD)
CDD
Validation
Development
RFP Release
A
draft
ICD
CDD
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
B
C
CDD
Technology
Maturation & Risk
Reduction
IOC
FOC
FRP
Decision
CPDLow-Rate Initial
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
Production
(LRIP)
OT&E
Operations
& Support
Production & Deployment
Program Model 1, Hardware Intensive Program
 5 Phases
 3 Milestone Decisions – A, B, C
 4 Other Decision Points:
− Materiel Development Decision (MDD)
− Capability Development Document (CDD) Validation Decision
Development RFP Release Decision
− Full-Rate Production (FRP) Decision
 “Mandatory” Entry at Materiel Development Decision (MDD)
• CPD: Capability Production Document
January 26, 2015
• ICD: Initial Capabilities Document
• FOC: Full Operational Capability
• IOC: Initial Operational Capability
• RFP: Request for Proposal
3
Program Models and the
Requirements Manager
•
Examples of Model 1: Major Weapons Platform
•
This may be considered the classic model
but with large software components in most
programs program managers are now likely
to use a hybrid model . (Hybrid A - chart 8)
•
Program models are starting points from which
to tailor an acquisition program
•
Tailored program models reflect the type of
program and the PM’s acquisition strategy,
however, the responsibilities of the RM are
essentially the same regardless of model.
January 26, 2015
4
Model 2: Defense Unique Software
Intensive Program
Development
CDD
RFP Release
Validation
Decision
Full
Deployment
Decision IOC
(FDD)
Materiel
Development
Decision
A
C
B
Limited
Deployment
Build 1.1
Risk
Reduction
Build 0.1
Build 1.2
Build 1.3
Build 1.4
Build 1.5
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
Full
Deployment (FD)
Technology
Maturation & Risk
Reduction
Legend:
Integration
Build 2.1*
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
= Milestone Decision
Sustainment
OT&E
Production &
Deployment
Disposal
Operations & Support
= Decision Point
• Complex, usually defense unique, software program that will not be fully deployed until
several software builds have been completed.
• Examples: command and control systems and significant upgrades to the combat systems
found on major weapons systems such as surface combatants and tactical aircraft.
• Several
software
January
26, 2015
builds are typically necessary to achieve a deployable capability.
*The actual number and type of builds during the program will depend on system type.
5
Model 3: Incrementally Fielded Software
Intensive Program
Materiel
Development
Decision
CDD Development
Full Deployment
Validation RFP Release
Decision
(FDD)
Limited Fielding
Decisions
A
IOC
B
Risk
Reduction
Build
Build 1.1
Build 1.2
Build 0
...
Build 1.n
OT&E
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
Full
Deployment
(FD)
Risk
Reduction
Sustainment
Operations &
Support
Development &
Deployment
Development RFP
Release Decision
Limited Fielding
Decisions
FDD
FD
IOC
B
Increment 2
Build 2.1
Build 2.2
OT&E
Risk
Reduction
Build 2.n
Development &
Deployment
Development RFP
Release Decision
Increment N
...
Limited Fielding
Decisions
Sustainment
Operations &
Support
FDD
FD
IOC
B
Build n.1
Build n.2
OT&E
Risk
Reduction
...
Development &
Deployment
Build n.n
Sustainment
Disposal
Operations &
Support
This model will apply in cases where commercial off-the-shelf software, such as commercial business systems with multiple
January
26,capabilities,
2015
modular
are acquired and adapted for DoD. This model is distinguished by the rapid delivery of capability
through multiple acquisition increments, each of which provides part of the overall required program capability.
6
Model 4: Accelerated Acquisition Program
Materiel
Development
Decision
Preliminary
Design
Review
IOC
FOC
C
A/B
Sustainment
OT&E
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
Concurrent Technology
Maturation, Risk Reduction,
and Development
Legend:
Concurrent
Production and
Deployment
= Milestone Decision
Disposal
Operations & Support
= Decision Point
•
Applies when schedule considerations dominate over cost and technical risk
considerations.
•
Compresses or eliminates phases of the process and accepts the potential for
inefficiencies in order to achieve a deployed capability on a compressed schedule.
•
Used when technological surprise by a potential adversary necessitates a higher-risk
acquisition program.
•
Shows one example of tailoring for accelerated acquisition and many others are
possible.
January 26,
2015
7
Model 5, Hybrid Program A
(Hardware Dominant)
CDD
Development
Validation RFP Release
FRP
Materiel
Development
Decision
A
FOC
C
B
LRIP
Build 1.1
Risk
Reduction
Build 0.1
Build 1.2
Build 1.5
Technology
Maturation & Risk
Reduction
Build 3.1
Build 1.3
Build 1.4
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
IOC
Build 3.2*
Integration
Build 2.1
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
OT&E
Production &
Deployment
Sustainment
Disposal
Operations & Support
• Combines hardware development as the basic structure with software intensive
development that is occurring simultaneously with the hardware development program.
• In hardware intensive development, the design, fabrication, and testing of physical
prototypes may determine overall schedule, decision points, and milestones, but
software development will often dictate the pace of program execution and must be
tightly integrated and coordinated with hardware development decision points.
January 26, 2015
*The actual number and type of builds during the program will depend on system type.
8
Model 6. Hybrid Program B
(Software Dominant)
Materiel
Development
Decision
CDD
Development
Validation RFP Release
A
FDD
C
B
Limited
Deployment LD)
Build 1.1.1
Build 1.1.2
Build 1.0.1
Build 1.3.1
Build 1.1.3 Integration
Build 1.2
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
Technology
Maturation & Risk
Reduction
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
Build 1.3.2*
Sustainment
OT&E
Production and
Deployment
Development RFP
Release Decision
Increment 2
FD
IOC
Operations & Support
IOC
FDD
FD
C
B
Build 2.1.1
Build 2.1.2
Build 2.1.3
Technology
Maturation &
Risk Reduction
LD
Build 2.3.1
Integration
Build 2.2
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
Sustainment
Disposal
OT&E Build 2.3.2
Production and
Deployment
Operations & Support
Depicts how a software intensive product development can include a mix of incrementally
fielded software products or releases that include intermediate software builds.
January 26, 2015
9
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
(JCIDS) / Defense Acquisition System (DAS)
CDD
Validation
ICD
Strategic
Joint
Guidance Concepts
MDD
Capabilities - Based
Assessment
Draft
CDD
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
A
Development
RFP Release
CDD
Technology
Maturation & Risk
Reduction
FRP
B
CPD
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
C
Production &
Deployment
Operations &
Support
Sustainment
President
Joint
SECDEF Community
CJCS
Disposal
JCIDS
DAS
• CDD: Capability Development Document
• CPD: Capability Production Document
• FRP: Full-Rate Production
• ICD: Initial Capabilities Document
• MDD: Materiel Development Decision
• RFP: Request for Proposal
January 26, 2015
10
Strategic Guidance – Joint Concepts –
JCIDS – Acquisition
Strategic Guidance
National Security Strategy
National Defense Strategy
National Military Strategy
Unified Command Plan
Defense Planning Guidance
Quadrennial Defense Review
Current
Joint Warfighting
Capabilities
Future
Joint Warfighting
Capabilities
Capstone Concept for Joint
Operations (CCJO)
Chairman’s vision for how Joint Force will
defend the nation
MDD
Joint Operating Concepts (JOCs)
Link strategic guidance to future military
operations
Supporting Concepts
CapabilitiesBased
Assessment
A
ICD
JCIDS
B
C
CDD
CPD
FRP
Acquisition
Depth and detail to single & multiple JOCs
Family of Joint Concepts
Service concepts, multiservice concepts, &
January
26, 2015written within the joint community
CONOPS
Affordability
Intelligence
JCAs
Cost
Threat
11
JCIDS and Acquisition
(Interim DoDI 5000.02, Nov 2013)
•Analysis of
Alternatives (AoA)
•Acquisition Strategy
(AS)
•Operational Planning •JCTDs/JUON/JEON/
•Test & Evaluation
•CBAs & Other Studies Experiments
(T&E) Master Plan
(TEMP)
•Exercises/Lessons
•JIEDDO Initiatives
Learned
•Defense Business Sys •System Engineering
Plan (SEP)
Outputs
•Life Cycle
Sustainment Plan
•Mission & Problem
•Operational Risk
(LCSP)
•Capability Gaps
•Non-Materiel
•Operational
Mode
•Tasks
Approaches
Summary/Mission
•Performance
•Materiel Approaches
Profile (OMS/MP)
•Conditions
•Recommendations
Identification of Capability
Requirements
President,
SECDEF &
Chairman:
•Strategic
Guidance
OSD/Joint
Staff
•Integrated
Security
Constructs
•Joint
Concepts
Materiel
Development
Decision
Activity
Select Joint Develop
Concept CONOPS
Capabilities-Based Assessment /
Other
ICD
MS A
Materiel Solution
Analysis
CCMD
•Technology
Demonstrated
•Initial Key
Performance
Parameters/
Key System
Attributes
(KPPs/KSAs)
•AS
•TEMP
•SEP
•LCSP
•OMS/MP
Draft
CDD
Analysis of
Alternatives (AoA)
CDD RFP
Val Rel
Technology
Maturation &
Risk Reduction
•Final Design
•Developmental
T&E (DT&E)
•Operational
Assessments
(OA)
•Revise KPPs/
KSAs
•AS
•Acquisition Pgm
Baseline (APB)
•TEMP
•SEP
•LCSP
•OMS/MP
MS B
CDD
Competitive
Prototyping
•Low Rate Initial
Production
(LRIP)
•Initial
Operational
T&E (IOT&E)
•Full-Rate
Production
(FRP)
•AS
• LRIP
•APB
• FOT&E
•TEMP
•SEP
•LCSP
•OMS/MP
MS C
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
FRP
CPD Production &
Deployment
Develop, test, LRIP & Full Rate
Production, deploy to warfighter, IOC
Military Services
JROC action for JROC Interest programs (ACAT I & IA)
Validates
ICD
SECDEF
Joint Staff / Joint Requirements Oversight Council / OSD
Policy
January 26, 2015
Reviews AoA
Results
Validates
CDD
Validates
CPD
OSD (AT&L, CAPE), Services and OSD (DOT&E) -- Joint Staff (JROC)
Identify Capability Requirements
Select Materiel
Solution
Develop, Test, Produce &
Version:
Field
Getting The Front End Right is Key
17 Dec 2013
12
Current National Strategies
• National Security Strategy
− May 2010, President Barack Obama. Renew American
•
•
•
leadership…; build upon sources of strength at home, while
shaping an international order
National Defense Strategy
− QDR 2014 –, Secretary of Defense Hagel, Consistent with the 2012
strategy
− Jan 2012, Sustaining U.S Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st
Century Defense, President Obama and Secretary of Defense
Panetta
Strategic Direction to the Joint Force
− Feb 2012, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff - General Dempsey
National Military Strategy
− Feb 2011, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff - Admiral Mullen
January 26, 2015
13
QDR 2014- Sec Def
The 2014 QDR advances three important initiatives.
First, it builds on the Defense Strategic Guidance,
published in 2012, by outlining an updated defense
strategy that protects and advances U.S. interests
and sustains U.S. leadership.
Second, the QDR describes how the Department is
responsibly and realistically taking steps to
rebalance major elements of the Joint Force given
the changing environment.
Third, the QDR demonstrates our intent to
rebalance the Department itself as part of our effort
to control internal cost growth that is threatening to
erode our combat power in this period of fiscal
austerity.
Hon. Chuck Hagel
Secretary of Defense
2014 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) Report to
Congress, March 4, 2014
We will protect the health of the All-Volunteer Force
as we undertake these reforms.
January 26, 2015
14
QDR 2014 – Defense Strategy
The 2014 QDR embodies the 21st century defense priorities
outlined in the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance*.
The Department’s defense strategy emphasizes three pillars:
• Protect the homeland, to deter and defeat attacks on the United
States and to support civil authorities in mitigating the effects of
potential attacks and natural disasters.
• Build security globally, in order to preserve regional stability, deter
adversaries, support allies and partners, and cooperate with others to
address common security challenges.
• Project power and win decisively, to defeat aggression, disrupt and
destroy terrorist networks, and provide humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief.
*Sustaining U.S Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, Jan 2012
January 26, 2015
See student reference folder for more information on QDR 2014
15
Better Buying Power (BBP)
January 26, 2015
Better Buying Power Gateway: http://bbp.dau.mil
16
Better Buying Power (BBP) Impact on
Requirements Management
• Achieve Affordable Programs.
− Mandate affordability as a requirement – require
Milestone Decision Authority (MDA)relief to exceed
affordability caps – similar to requiring requirements
validation authority relief to exceed KPP thresholds
• Control Costs Throughout the Product Life Cycle
− Implement should-cost management – may free-up
funds to buy more warfighting capability
− Eliminate redundancy with warfighter portfolios
− Build stronger relationships with the requirements
community to control costs
See student reference folder for more information on BBP
January 26, 2015
17