NEW CAPABILITIES AND CONCEPTS
In the JCIDS process, the initial capabil- ity document (ICD), which precedes the CDD in the overall timeline, “quantifies needed capability requirements and gaps” and “proposes materiel and/or non-mate- riel approaches to closing or mitigating some or all of those identified capability gaps,” according to Defense Acquisition University.
“Te ICD supports the analysis of alterna- tives and the Milestone A decision of the defense acquisition process.Once approved, the ICD is not updated.” (Emphasis added.) Not only that, it’s not in the same format as the CDD, despite being its basis. Te analysis-of-alternatives effort intends to limit wheel-reinvention and make sure that DOD actually needs the capability— i.e., doesn’t actually have something like it already. After that, the CDD—itself a single-purpose document—goes through the JCIDS process.
Te coming pilot will use the SORRD mechanism as one half of a two-pronged approach. The other will use what Schlomer said will be an initial capabili- ties development document (I-CDD) that will combine the ICD with the CDD but simplify them both. Te I-CDD won’t be discarded but updated. Both thrusts will comport with the pathways of the Adap- tive Acquisition Framework, and the pilot will be adaptable for use with major defense acquisition programs in the top acquisition category (ACAT I) as well as mid-tier programs—acquisition categories two and three (ACAT II and below). Te pilot will begin with SOCOM, which is an inherently joint environment.
THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT In a little more than two years, there have been three noteworthy reports on JCIDS, including the AIRC report. Te first was from MITRE in April 2020, “Modern- izing DOD Requirements: Enabling
Speed, Agility and Innovation,” which was cited in House conference commit- tee notes on the 2021 NDAA. Second was the one from the Government Account- ability Office (GAO), “Weapon System Requirement: Joint Staff Lacks Reliable Data on the Effectiveness of its Revised Joint Approval Process,” from Octo- ber 2021. Tat report faulted the Joint Chiefs’ information system, saying, “Te Joint Staff cannot assess the JCIDS process because it lacks reliable data and a baseline to measure timeliness. Joint Staff guidance provides a notional length of time of 103 days to review documents in the JCIDS process, but this is not evidence-based.”
All three provide considerable insight into what’s wrong with JCIDS, but the AIRC report is different. Rather than just present its analysis and make recommen- dations that will never see the light of day, it is intended to effect the real-world solu- tions it recommends. Tat’s at least in part because of Schlomer and his experience in the trenches of acquisition, particu- larly rapid acquisition the way SOCOM does it—not to mention his doctorate and his own military experience (he’s a retired Army lieutenant colonel). Another thing it has going for it is the oversight and participation of the same office (USD A&S) that was responsible for the revision of the DOD 5000 series of instructions and that created the Adaptive Acquisition Framework.
HOW THE PILOT WILL FLY At the heart of the pilot is the ground truth that “by definition, you have to have a validated requirement,” Schlomer said. “Somebody’s got to agree that, ‘Tis is what I’m buying.’ Now, there’s no true definition of what that process should be.”
What he means is that there is more than one way to get to a validated requirement. Whatever the process, one that ends in a
validated requirement is fine. In the Adap- tive Acquisition Framework, the pathways “bypass the JCIDS process,” according to DOD Instruction 5000.80, “Opera- tion of the Middle Tier of Acquisition.” Joint Chiefs’ Instruction 5123.01H also acknowledges that the programs following the middle tier are not subject to JCIDS. Tat’s in part because mid-tier acquisition, as well as acquisition via other-transaction authority, is intended to end in a rapid, or at least rapider, prototype. In many cases, especially with ACAT II and below, DOD might acquire a prototype capability and then work with the contractor to tailor it to better fit the service’s needs, Schlomer said. That is ideal because with that model, the government is putting current technology into warfighters’ hands, not vaporware that might be possible in the future—or outdated by the time it gets through JCIDS.
Te AIRC team used its model to look at alternative processes to analyze their speed by comparison to JCIDS. Te report looks at two process alternatives to JCIDS, both of which AIRC modeled using the same framework it used with JCIDS. In a sense, the two process alternatives are prototypes for requirements pathways that work and play well together with the Adaptive Acquisition Framework’s pathways.
Both process alternatives showed signifi- cant improvement over JCIDS. Both the coming pilot’s two pathways will mirror process alternatives that AIRC featured in its report. “Te new processes promise to reduce JCIDS latencies while maintaining the core functions of the process, such as validation of a requirement and consider- ation for joint interoperability. In general, these new processes eliminate redundant reviews and streamline documentation requirements.” “Latency” is tech jargon for “slowness.” Te first process alterna- tive, I-CDD, is for ACAT I programs. Te
https://asc.ar my.mil 15
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
