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