S
ince assuming his current role, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS) has made it clear that a comprehen-
sive understanding of the Joint force requirement portfolios will be the foun- dation for improved analysis and decision making by the Joint Requirements Over- sight Council (JROC).
After implementing updated guidance for the requirements process in January, the JROC has considered several issues from this portfolio perspective, enabling a more focused discussion at the four- capability contributes to the Joint force; the health of related acquisition pro- grams; potential unnecessary duplication within the portfolio; potential trade-offs in requirements; and overall affordability.
It is not a simple task to change the way the Joint force considers its capability requirements. To help decision makers understand the portfolios, the Joint Staff has developed a set of “scene-setting” portfolio assessments,
relating strategy
to investment and acquisition program health in terms of cost, schedule, and performance. The Functional Capability Boards can then establish more focused assessments of their portfolios for each - ing performance or cost parameters to that are not represented in the scene-set- ting assessments.
The Joint Staff is also working closely with the Acquisition, Technology, and
THINKING JOINTLY
The Joint Requirements Over sight Council (JROC) will now say “no” to a new requirement when there is something similar in the portfolio, even if the sponsor must use a capability developed by another service. Here, Soldiers from 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), 2nd Infantry Division and airmen from 5th Air Support Operations Squadron, along with observer-controllers, prepare for a Joint Air Attack Team exercise June 11 at Fort Irwin, CA, as a prelude to deploying to Afghanistan. (U.S. Army photo by SGT Kimberly Hackbarth, 4th SBCT.)
Logistics community to explore how analysis and performance “excursion” assessments can be incorporated into the portfolio review process.
NO FOREGONE CONCLUSIONS In the past, almost everything presented to the JROC was validated. The sponsor briefed the JROC knowing full well that approval was a foregone conclusion, and would simply discuss the pros of a given requirement from the sponsor’s perspec- tive. There was little or no Joint force context, consideration from a portfolio perspective, or assessment of service or DoD affordability considerations.
Validating every new requirement, when there are more pressing priorities, is no longer reasonable. Using the portfolio context, the JROC can now ask more focused questions before deciding to vali- date capability requirements. For example:
Is range more important than speed for a given capability requirement? Is speed then tradable against range for across all capability solutions in the portfolio?
If requirements are reduced as part of cost-performance trade-offs, what is the operational risk? Can other capability solutions in the portfolio mitigate some or all of the risk?
PORTFOLIO PERSPECTIVE As Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM James A. Winnefeld Jr. (left) has established that clearly understanding the Joint force portfolios will be the foundation for improved analysis and decision making by the JROC. Here, Winnefeld listens to LTC David Jones, Commander, 2nd Squad- ron, 38th Cavalry Regiment, 504th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade, during a visit to Kandahar province, Afghanistan, Oct. 16, 2011. Winnefeld was assessing the security situation regarding Pakistan. (U.S. Army photo by SPC Darryl Montgomery, 319th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment.)
ASC.ARMY.MIL
117
COMMENTARY
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 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170
