SUPPORTING THE FUTURE FORCE
CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND INITIAL MINIMUM VALUES
• Capability requirements 1 [Describe] = Initial minimum value
• Capability requirements 2 [Describe] = Initial minimum value
• Capability requirements n [Describe] = Initial minimum value
“BOUNDARIES” JROC-approved IS-ICD
[Topic name]
Oversight organization [Name] Execution organization [Name]
• Per year = $### • Life cycle cost = $### • Rationale
APPLICATION AND SYSTEM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT COST CONTROLS
• Per year = $XXX • Life cycle cost = $XXX • Rationale
HARDWARE REFRESH, SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS AND
INTEGRATION COST CONTROLS
KEY: IS-ICD: Information systems initial capabilities document JROC: Joint Requirements Oversight Council
THE IT BOX
The JWARN program began a decade ago using an older, slower process better for acquiring hardware, and developed a reputation for moving too slowly for operational users. The IT Box, which permits software programs some more flexibility and speed as long as they stay within the four parameters, has sped up the program sufficiently to impress users and benefit from a loop of feedback and input. (Graphic courtesy of the authors and U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center)
Yet we know from personal experience that that is exactly how software works in the 21st century. Requirements evolve, computing environments (e.g., operating systems, Java versions, message proto- cols, etc.) evolve, and if software doesn’t evolve along with them, the obsolescence clock starts ticking as soon as that soft- ware development stops. Te “Information Technology Box” (IT Box) was a compro- mise between the two realities, trying to blend the accountability and rigor of the traditional Defense Acquisition System with the reality of rapidly changing infor- mation technology requirements.
Dynamic requirements and frequent update cycles don’t mesh particularly well with the traditional acquisition process, but by the time the initial capabilities documents for the second increments of
ten in 2014, the JCIDS manual had been updated and included provisions for a new, more agile approach to defense acquisition of software systems.
Tis new approach to software develop- ment in a defense context, the IT Box, was an initiative to bring some of the benefits of Agile development to a noto- riously cumbersome defense acquisition
JEM and JWARN were being writ-
system. It brought about a paradigm shift in the requirements-development process by breaking requirements into related functional groupings, known as requirements-definition packages, and then subdividing those into more manage- able capability drops. So rather than an overarching requirements document task- ing the program office to create a piece of software containing dozens (or hundreds) of new capabilities, each capability drop might only direct the addition of 10 or so new features.
More importantly, requirements approval and updates for those smaller packages and drops are delegated down to the O-6 (colonel) level to allow for more frequent updates. People representing the opera- tional community for each of the services come together with leaders from the program offices and the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Office for CBRN Defense,
https://asc.ar my.mil 37
ORGANIZATION AND OVERSIGHT
Flag-level oversight through [Describe] Chair
• Xxxx Members
• Xxxx • Xxxx • Xxxx
An update to a third-party software application like JEM or JWARN might have been ready for months (sometimes a year or more) before the service would be ready to update its command- and-control system with new or updated software applications.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156
