March 2010

Lesson 6: The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System

(JCIDS)

The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)

The JCIDS methodology uses top-level strategic guidance as a basis for

identifying and describing shortfalls in joint warfighting capabilities. These
shortfalls are then analyzed to determine potential solutions to resolve the
shortfall.

The JCIDS methodology involves the following steps:

• Assessment and Analysis

• Documentation of Capability Needs
• Review, Validation and Approval

Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA)

Previous requirements processes tended to use a "bottom-up" approach,

driven by Service/Component needs that sometimes resulted in the acquisition
of capabilities that did not fully support top-level Defense strategies.

The JCIDS Capabilities-Based Assessment process, on the other hand, relies

upon top-level strategic guidance (e.g., National Defense Strategy and
National Military Strategy) as the basis for identifying gaps in Defense
capabilities.

The JCIDS CBA uses top-level strategies to formulate the Family of Joint
Future Concepts which provides the basis for investment decisions leading to
development of new capabilities for the joint forces. New capability
requirements, material or non-material, must relate directly to capabilities
identified in the Family of Joint Future Concepts. The sponsor, typically a
military department, defense
agency, or combatant commander (COCOM), will participate, and may lead,
the JCIDS analysis process.
 March 2010

Based on the Family of Joint Future Concepts, CBAs identify capabilities,

gaps, and redundancies as well as potential non-material and material
approaches to address the joint warfighter’s needs.

The objective of the CBA is to validate capability gap(s) by providing:

- Identification of the mission; the capabilities required and their

associated operational characteristics and attributes.

- Capability gaps and associated operational risks.

- An assessment of the viability of a non-materiel solution.

- A potential recommendation on a type of solution to be pursued.

Non-Materiel vs. Materiel Solutions

A non-materiel solution is preferred over materiel solution, since it is usually

less expensive, and often can be implemented in less time. In the event that a
materiel solution is required to satisfy the user's need, then that need must be
documented.

Documentation of Capability Needs

In the event that the JCIDS Assessment and Analysis process determines that
a materiel solution is required to satisfy the capability, that need must be
documented. The JCIDS uses four primary documents to articulate joint
capability needs.

• DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR),

• Initial Capabilities Document (ICD),
• Capability Development Document (CDD), and
• Capability Production Document (CPD)

Documentation developed during the JCIDS process provides the formal

communication of capability needs between the operator and the acquisition,
test and evaluation, and resource management communities.

If the CBA supports a non-materiel solution, a Joint DCR (doctrine,

organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel and facilities
[DOTMLPF]) Change Recommendation) is developed to implement the
 March 2010

non-materiel solution. If the CBA supports a materiel solution, an Initial

Capabilities Document (ICD) is developed.

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)

The ICD is prepared by the user to document a need that requires a materiel
solution. The ICD:

• Identifies a capability gap or set of capability gaps that exists in a functional

area.
• Describes the evaluation of different materiel and non-materiel approaches,
and proposes a recommended materiel approach.
• Supports the Material Development Decision, the Analysis of Alternatives,
the MS A Decision, and the Technology Development Strategy.
• Is prepared and staffed in accordance with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01G and the Manual For The Operation of the
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
• Is not updated once approved.

Capability Development Document (CDD)

Once the initial capability has been documented, materiel approaches are
refined and key technologies are being matured, the user builds upon the
ICD by documenting a formal program need in the Capability Development
Document (CDD). The CDD, developed by the user, builds on the ICD and
captures the information necessary to develop a proposed program. The
CDD:

• Identifies operational performance attributes necessary to design the

proposed system.
• ● Is system specific, and applies when using an evolutionary acquisition

strategy
• to a single increment of the program's development,, then updated or
rewritten for subsequent increments.
• Is prepared during the Technology Development Phase for use at
Milestone B.
• Is prepared and staffed in accordance with CJCSI 3170.01G.
 March 2010

Capability Production Document (CPD)

As a program nears the end of development for each increment, the user refines
the CDD into a Capability Production Document (CPD). The CPD:

• Identifies production attributes and quantities specific to a single increment

of a program.
• Is system specific and applies to the production of a single increment for
the program.
• Is rewritten for subsequent increments in an evolutionary program.
• Is prepared during the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase
for use at Milestone C.
• Is prepared and staffed in accordance with CJCSI 3170.01G.

CDD/CPD Thresholds and Objectives

The CDD and CPD identify system-specific performance parameters. They

do so by identifying two values, threshold and objective for each
parameter.

• The "threshold" is the minimum acceptable value to the user for a system
capability. For values failing to meet below the threshold, the utility of the system
becomes questionable.
• The "objective" is the desired value better than the threshold, which results
in an operationally significant increment above the threshold.

The two values bound the design of the system, yet provide the Program
Manager with flexibility to design the system according to the user's needs.
Thresholds and objective performance values in the CDD/CPD allow for the
cost/performance trade-offs,
considering the results of the AoA and the impact of affordability constraints.
In some cases, the threshold and objective values for a parameter may be
the same.

Key Performance Parameters (KPPs)

Some critical system characteristics may also be Key Performance

Parameters (KPPs). KPPs are those capabilities or characteristics so
significant that failure to meet the threshold can be cause for the concept or
system selection to be reevaluated or the program to be reassessed or
terminated.

KPPs are identified in the CDD/CPD, and included verbatim in the APB. The
JROC validates the KPPs for ACAT I programs and any other program
 March 2010

designated as "JROC Interest."

Review, Validation and Approval

JCIDS Document Review

Once a JCIDS document has been prepared by the sponsoring Component,
Command or Agency it is submitted to the Joint Staff (J-8) for review. Document
review is a formal and structured process which includes:

• Joint Potential Designation

• Staffing
• Validation and Approval

Joint Potential Designation (JPD)

All JCIDS documents, regardless of Acquisition Category (ACAT), are

required to be submitted to the J-8, who will determine, with assistance from
other Joint Staff organizations, the degree to which the proposal affects the
joint force. Based on this review, a Joint Potential Designator (JPD) will be
assigned. The JPD determines the validation and approval levels of the
capability document. There are five possible JPDs:

JROC Interest
Joint Capabilities Board (JCB) Interest
Joint Integration
Joint Information, and
Independent

JPDs are assigned primarily based on the actual or projected Acquisition

Category (ACAT) level of the program, and the degree of expected impact
on the joint force.

Staffing

Once a JPD has been assigned, each JCIDS document enters the staffing
process. The Joint Staff, J-8, is responsible for staffing each document through
an O-6 and flag level review. Documents are reviewed, and comments
submitted, by organizations represented on appropriate Functional Capabilities
Boards (FCBs).

Once a JCIDS document has completed staffing, including disposition of

comments, the lead FCB will review the staffing results and make a
 March 2010

recommendation to the appropriate validation authority. This recommendation

leads to the validation and approval process.

Validation

Validation is a formal review of a JCIDS document by an operational authority

other than the sponsor to confirm the operational capability need. At a minimum,
the validation authority will:
• Confirm the existence of an identified operational need.
• Verify that non-materiel solutions are not feasible.
• Verify that the threat has been validated and all program
certifications have been accomplished (intelligence, supportability,
interoperability, etc.)

Validation Authority

The JPD assigned by the J-8 determines the level of validation and
approval, as follows:
●

JROC Interest: Validation and Approval by the JROC;

applies to all potential and designated ACAT I/IA
programs and capabilities that have a potentially
significant impact on interoperability in allied and
coalition operations..
JCB Interest: Validation and Approval by the JCB; applies to all
ACAT II and below programs, where the capabilities and/or systems
associated with the document affect the joint force and an expanded
joint review is required.
Joint Integration: Validation and Approval by the DoD
Component; applies to all ACAT II and below programs, where
the capabilities and/or systems associated with the document do
not significantly affect the joint force and an expanded joint
review is not required
 March 2010

Joint Information: Validation and Approval by the DoD Component;

applies to all ACAT II and below programs that have interest or
potential impact across Services or agencies but do not have
significant impact on the joint force. No certifications or
endorsements are required
Independent: Validation and Approval by the DoD Component;
applies to all ACAT II and below programs, where the system(s)
involved do not significantly affect the joint force, and expanded
review is not required, and no certifications are required.

This table identifies who is responsible within each service for

validating capability needs with a Joint Potential Designator of
Joint Interest, Joint Information, or Independent

Service Validation Authority

Navy Chief of Naval Operations

Air Force Chief of Staff

Marine Corps Commandant of the Marine Corps

Army Chief of Staff

DoD Agencies have similar
Other DoD Agencies
processes

Approval
Approval is the formal or official sanction of the identified capabiltiy described in
the
capability document. The approval authority is determined by the Joint
Potential Designator, as discussed earlier.

For any given JCIDS capability proposal, approval of the ICD culminates the first
iteration of the JCIDS process. Of course, the JCIDS process is used throughout
the life of a program for review, validation and approval of CDDs and CPDs for
each increment of capability.
 March 2010

JCIDS Support Activities

Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

The AoA is conducted during the Material Solution Analysis Phase. The focus of
the AoA is to refine the selected concept documented in the approved ICD.
The AoA assesses critical technologies associated with the concepts
documented in the ICD. The results of the AoA provide the basis for the
Technology Development Strategy (TDS), which is approved by the MDA at
Milestone A.

Interoperability Requirements

A key aspect of the JCIDS review, validation and approval process is making
sure that
each Automated Information (AIS) and National Security System (NSS)
capabilities
document addresses the requirement for interoperability. "Interoperability" refers
to:

• The ability of systems, units, or forces to provide and accept data,

information, materiel, and services to and from other systems, units, or forces
and to interoperate with other U.S. Forces and coalition partners effectively.
• The condition achieved among communications-electronics systems or
items of communications-electronics equipment when information or services can
be exchanged directly and satisfactorily between them and/or their users.

Joint warfighting interoperability is a capability mandated by DoD Policy, and is

not a user option. Interoperability capability needs are documented in the form of
a mandatory Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP). The NR-KPP
ensures achievement of interoperability for the proposed system.

For a program to receive Interoperability Certification, it must first prove its

interoperability on paper, via the Capabilities Certification Process. Later the
program's interoperability must be demonstrated in the field during joint
interoperability testing.