1 Senior Leader Requirements Course – RQM 413Date: 21 Jan 2015 Presented by: Pat Wills, Dean Defense Systems Management College Defense Acquisition University (DAU) w Steven Basham, Brigadier General, USAF Deputy Director for Requirements Joint Staff, J-8 w: Senior Leader Requirements Course – RQM 413

2 Agenda Requirements Certification Congressional MandateCertification Progression & Professionalization Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Big “A” Acquisition 2016 NDAA Key Provisions Questions

3 The Requirements ChallengeThe United States must Prevail in Current Conflicts While Deterring Potential Adversaries and Preparing for Future Contingencies U.S. Armed Forces must be Prepared to Address a Wide Range of Challenges, Recognizing that not all Challenges can have Equal Priority DoD Must Make Difficult Tradeoffs to Allocate Risk in and Among the Near-, Mid-, and Long-Term – to Include Identifying Areas of Possible Divestment The United States Continues to Work in Cooperation with Allies and Partners to Achieve Strategic Goals

4 FY2007 NDAA – Specific InstructionsFY07 NDAA, Section 801, states: “The USD(AT&L), in consultation with DAU, shall develop a training program to certify military and civilian personnel of DoD with responsibility for generating requirements for MDAPs.” Congressionally mandated competencies included: Interrelationship between requirements, budget, and acquisition, Developing joint operations requirements, Ensuring that requirements are developed early in a program and the adverse effect of introducing new requirements, Importance of technology maturity and alternatives

5 Requirements Management Training and SupportLevel C Certification Level B Level A Level D Executive Certification RQM 413 Senior Leader Requirements Course 4-star GO/FO, Agency Head hours online 1-week classroom 1-day Classroom Requirements originators and support CLR 101 Introduction to JCIDS RQM 310 Advanced Concepts and Skills for Requirements Management RQM 403 Requirements Executive Overview Workshop 1-3 star GO/FO, SES Tailored Desktop Discussion RQM 110 Core Concepts for Requirements Management 4 - 6 hours online Core Plus Courses (online) CLR 151 Analysis of Alternatives CLR 250 Capability-Based Assessments CLR 252 Developing Performance Attributes Requirements writers and developers Requirements presenters and trainers Make decisions Set priorities Approve & Validate JCIDS Documents Core Courses – Mandatory for RM Certification Core Plus Courses (aka “Just-In-Time”) -- Not Required for Cert Unless Directed by Component Training and Support - - All Grades - - Military & Civilian

6 RQM Program Summary Service/Agency (FY08-FY16)Prior to FY12, All GO/FO/SES Trng Considered as RQM403; the RQM413 Created to Distinguish 4-Star Trng Events from Others As of: Dec 2015

7 Billet Coding *Levels B, C, & D--Per Co-Signed Memo VCJCS & USD(AT&L) May 25, 2012 *Levels B, C, & D As of: Dec 2015

8 Strategic Workforce Management StrategyCurrent Requirements Management certification process determined by DoD components Civilian RM Role: Program Continuity Military RM Role: “Warfighter” Perspective Typical Tour of Duty: Career Requirements/JCIDS Experience: Typically Most Knowledgeable (as long as maintaining currency w/ changes) Operational Experience: Probably not current Training Timeline: Unlimited Career Progression (but must maintain currency w/ JCIDS changes) Certification Standards: Similar to DAW – DAU Training, Experience, Education Typical Tour of Duty: 18 months – 2 years Requirements/JCIDS Experience: Very Limited (if any) Operational Experience: Current experience critical Training Timeline: ASAP (within the first months of tour) Certification Standards: Similar to DAW – DAU Training, Experience, Education

9 Requirements TradeoffsFinding the balance between: Combatant Command near-term requirements to support OPLANs and current missions and DoD Force Planning Scenarios to inform long range investment plans Versatile, joint systems Systems optimized for service missions Growing demands Fiscal & political constraints Geographic specificity Worldwide applicability Ambitious requirements Achievable acquisition strategy Quantity matters Quality (High-end capabilities) Risk to mission Risk to force COST (acceptable risk) PERFORMANCE

10 Military Services Identification of Capability Requirements OutputsLRIP FOT&E Technology Demonstrated Initial Key Performance Parameters/ Key System Attributes (KPPs/KSAs) Acquisition Strategy (AS) TEMP SEP LCSP OMS/MP Final Design Developmental T&E (DT&E) Operational Assessments (OA) Revise KPPs/ KSAs AS Acquisition Pgm Baseline (APB) MS C Develop, Test, Produce & Field MS A Develop, test, LRIP & Full Rate Production, deploy to warfighter, IOC SECDEF Activity Policy Identify Capability Requirements Select Materiel Solution Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Initial Operational T&E (IOT&E) Full-Rate Prod (FRP) APB Military Services OSD/Joint Staff Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Acquisition Strategy Test & Evaluation (T&E) Master Plan (TEMP) System Engineering Plan (SEP) Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) Operational Mode Summary/Mission Profile (OMS/MP) OSD (AT&L, CAPE), Services and OSD (DOT&E) Joint Staff (JROC) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Competitive Prototyping Joint Staff / Joint Requirements Oversight Council / OSD Getting The Front End Right is Key Integrated Security Constructs Joint Concepts Materiel Development Decision Identification of Capability Requirements CCMD Operational Planning CBAs & Other Studies Exercises/Lessons Learned Outputs Mission & Problem Capability Gaps Tasks Performance Conditions Operational Risk Non-Materiel Approaches Materiel Approaches Recommendations President, SECDEF & Chairman: Strategic Guidance JCTDs/JUON/JEON/ Experiments JIEDDO Initiatives Defense Business Sys Validates ICD Reviews AoA Results Validates CDD Validates CPD JROC action for JROC Interest programs (ACAT I & IA) MS B CDD Val RFP Rel Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Production & Deployment CPD Select Joint Concept Capabilities-Based Assessment / Other Develop CONOPS ICD Draft FRP

11 JROC/JCIDS: Law and PolicyTitle 10 Responsibilities Section 181 (as modified by 2009 Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act, 2011, 2013 and 2016 National Defense Authorization Acts) The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) shall assist the CJCS… In identifying, assessing and approving military requirements to meet the national military strategy In identifying the core mission area associated with each requirement Ensuring the consideration of tradeoffs among life cycle cost, schedule, performance, and procurement quantity in consultation with advisors In establishing and assigning priority levels for joint military requirements In reviewing the estimated total cost of such resources required in the fulfillment of each joint military requirement and ensuring it is consistent with level of priority The JROC must… Consider input from Combatant Commanders on joint requirements Consider life cycle cost, schedule, performance, and procurement quantify tradeoffs in establishing requirements Seek and strongly consider the views of the Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces on matters pertaining to trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance and the balancing of resources* Set an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) schedule objective for each requirement The JROC Charter (CJCSI G), JCIDS Instruction (CJCSI I), and the JCIDS Manual implement the JROC and JCIDS process to support 10 USC Section 181. *Added by NDAA 2016

12 JCIDS Requirements Decision Chain

13 What We Have Done Since 2012 JCIDS UpdateLimit the JROC audience so determinative discussion/decisions can be made More Tank-like: minimal others by invitation only; Principals+1 Statutory Advisors or their Deputy (AT&L, CAPE, OT&E, OSD(P), OSD(C)) KPPs – Six “mandatory” (Force protection, survivability, sustainment, net-ready (major changes), training, and energy); if not used, must justify why not Cost vs. Capability vs. Risk – better upfront analysis of alternatives Review of Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) prior to Milestone A FCB strengthened – FCB Chair/Lead briefs JROC; FCB reviews AoA results Highlight non-materiel approaches in conjunction with materiel - JS J7 Tee up the appropriate debate Tougher decisions on the 80% solution (i.e. knee in the curve) More portfolio analysis to determine risk Include Special Access Programs in the portfolio review Tripwires – for cost growth, and IOC or FOC slips, and for quantity reductions Solution centric vice document/process centric – faster timelines Three lanes – deliberate, emergent, urgent JCIDS documents – ICD, CDD, CPD, DCR page count restricted (10, 45, 40, 30)

14 Process Lanes Urgent Threat (JUON): CCMD Driven. Urgent and compelling to prevent loss of life and/or mission failure during current operations. Require little tech development and can be resolved in less than two years. The J8 Deputy Director for Requirements (DDR) validates Emergent Threat (JEON): CCMD Driven. Supports accelerated acquisition of capabilities needed for an anticipated or pending contingency operation. VCJCS verifies, JCB or JROC validates Deliberate Planning: Service, CCMD or Agency Driven. Traditional route for capabilities that require significant tech development and/or are not urgent or compelling in nature

15 Streamlined Process Deliberate Acquisition Functional Capability BoardEst. 21 days Commenting/30 days Adjudication/7 days to FCB Chair 4 days Est. 7 days to JCB/14 days to JROC Total: 97 days Sponsor Gatekeeper Functional Capability Board SME inputs from DoD Prioritization w/in portfolio CCMD Inputs Allied/Partner Nation equity Non-material recommendations FCB Chair: Ready for Validation? Termination JROC JCB Acquisition (and/or DCRs) Combined “Staffing” Deliberate

16 JROC/JCIDS Requirements DiscussionsMore dynamic/iterative process throughout a program’s lifecycle (Revisit as necessary…strategy shifts, threat changes, etc.) Debate the strategic and operational requirements and make difficult choices earlier Exquisite versus “Good Enough” Cross Service/Inter-Agency Redundancies Strategic/Doctrinal Changes Better upfront fidelity on cost/schedule/performance tradeoffs More analytic rigor and risk/portfolio analysis Current Requirements-related Issues Portfolio Management, Strategic Portfolio Reviews to Program Budget Review (PBR) JEONs and JUONs submissions Institutionalizing various Quick Reaction Capability organizations Improved methods for handling platform integration issues More robust integration between Requirements, Acquisition, and Intelligence processes

17 Challenges in Big “A” AcquisitionSmall “a” Acquisition Funding instability Insufficient resource trade space Budget not adequate or properly phased to support planned development Immature technologies Inadequate systems engineering Inadequate requirements flow-down/ traceability/ decomposition Insufficient schedule trade space Inadequate implementation of Earned Value Management Lack of time and assets for testing Many significant investments not subject to JROC review Inadequate requirements for basic program and increments Frequent dependence on external programs with developmental issues Lack of inter- and intra-departmental stakeholder coordination and support Synchronize JCIDS, DAS, and PPBE to deliver capabilities to Warfighters

18 Acquisition Culture PressuresRequirements Process Budgeting Process Acquisition Process Pressure on Decision Maker Promise High Performance Promise Low Resource Demands Move Forward, Get Knowledge Later

19 Better Buying Power (BBP) Continuous Improvement ProcessBBP 1.0: Best Practices and Business Rules; BBP 2.0: Critical Thinking, making better business decisions BBP 3.0: Builds upon prior elements and takes the focus to our Products Innovation and Technical Excellence Strengthen Cybersecurity throughout the Product Lifecycle Improve Speed to Market Remove barriers to Commercial Technology Utilization Increase the use of Prototyping and Experimentation Use Modular Open Systems Architectures to Stimulate Innovation Anticipate and plan for responsive and emerging threats by Building Stronger Partnerships

20 Keys to Innovation Instill Innovation within the DoD: Identify and invest in innovative ways to sustain and advance our National Security into the 21st Century Knowledge & People: Experience and exposure to a diverse range of technical fields Freedom: Opportunity to have new ideas and freely take actions in pursuit Risk Tolerance & Persistence: New generations of cutting edge technology cannot be made risk free Collaboration: Between multiple technical disciplines, entities, partners Capital: Necessary to position ourselves to deal with emerging threats “…the ingredients that are needed to foster and encourage Innovation...” - Frank Kendall, USD(AT&L), Defense Innovation Days, Newport RI, 26 August 2015

21 Challenge of Rapid AcquisitionFuture Focused Very Structured Process Evolved Requirements Analysis of Alternatives Lengthy Development High Visibility on Program Large Investment A Deliberate immediate Now-focused More ad hoc process Broad requirement Quick assessment of alternatives Limited development High visibility on results Limited investment Limited Feedback Transition to PoR a

22 2016 NDAA (Key Provisions)

23 NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle A, Acquisition Policy and ManagementSec Required Review of Acquisition-Related Functions of the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces. Requires the Chiefs of Staff and Commandant of Marine Corps to review their authorities in laws and regulations related to defense acquisition and develop recommendations considered necessary to advance their role in the development of requirements, acquisition processes, and associated budget practices. Sec Role of Chiefs of Staff in the Acquisition Process. Provides for a, “Customer Oriented Acquisition System.” Defines customer of a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) as the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the military department concerned. Adds to Title 10 responsibilities of Chiefs: Assist the Secretary with, Decisions regarding the balancing of resources and priorities, and associated trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance on MDAPs. Adds duties to Principal Military Deputies to the SAEs: Keep the Chiefs informed on any required new or revisited trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance; and, ensuring the Chief’s views on these trade-offs are strongly considered by PMs and PEOs in all phases of the acquisition process. Due NLT 03/01/2016

24 NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle A, Acquisition Policy and ManagementSec Role of Chiefs of Staff in the Acquisition Process, cont. Adds to role of JROC: ..the council shall seek, and strongly consider, the views of the Chiefs, in their roles as customers of the acquisition system, on matters pertaining to trade- offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance and the balancing of resources with priorities. Adds provisions for Chiefs to advise MDAs of MDAPs of the Chief’s views on cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance trade-offs made in the program determination requirements for Milestones A and B. Sec Expansion of Rapid Acquisition Authority. Provides for the consideration of cyber attacks in the urgent needs process Authorizes SECDEF to use for urgent needs any funds available to DoD for acquisition of supplies and associated support services: Not more than $200 million during any FY in each of the following cases: 1)urgent need deficiency that resulted in combat casualties or likely to result in combat casualties. 2)urgent need deficiency that impacts an ongoing or anticipated contingency operation. 3)urgent need deficiency that as a result of a cyber attack has resulted in a critical mission failure, loss of life, property destruction or economic failure, or is likely to.

25 NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle A, Acquisition Policy and ManagementSec Middle Tier of Acquisition for Rapid Prototyping and Rapid fielding. Requires USD(AT&L), in consultation with the Comptroller of DoD and the Vice Chairman of the JCS, to establish guidance for a middle tier acquisition process: Rapid Prototyping. Use innovative technologies to field a prototype that can be demonstrated in an operational environment and provide a residual capability with 5 years of an approved requirement. Rapid Fielding. Use proven technologies to field production quantities of new or updated systems with minimal required development, to begin production within six months and complete fielding within 5 years of an approved requirement The SAE will be the MDA. The PM will report direct to the SAE. Programs will not be subject to the JCIDS Manual, nor DoDD , except to the extent specifically provided for in the established guidance. PM will be provided a process to seek waivers from Congress for statutory or regulatory requirements that the PM feels add little or no value to the management of the program. SECDEF required to establish a “DoD Rapid Prototyping Fund.”

26 NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle A, Acquisition Policy and ManagementSec Report on Linking and Streamlining Requirements, Acquisition, and Budget Processes Within Armed Forces. Requires Service Chiefs of Staff and Commandant of Marine Corps to report to Congress on efforts to link and streamline the requirements, acquisition, and budget processes within the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Sec Advisory panel on streamlining & codifying acquisition regulations. SECDEF shall establish under the sponsorship of DAU and NDU an advisory panel on streamlining acquisition regulations. Not subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)* May be funded by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF). Due NLT 180 days after NDAA signed

27 NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle A, Acquisition Policy and ManagementSec Time-Based Requirements Process The SecDef and the CJCS shall review the requirements process with the goal of establishing an agile and streamlined system that develops requirements that provide stability and foundational direction for the acquisition programs and shall determine the advisability of providing a time-based or phased distinction between capabilities needed to be deployed urgently, within 2 yrs, within 5 yrs, and longer than 5 yrs.

28 So, What to Do Reinforce desirable principles at the start of new programs Firm, feasible requirements Mature technology proven to work before inclusion in program Knowledge-Based Acquisition Strategy A structure which allows for technology insertion Realistic cost estimate Identify significant risks upfront and resource them More closely align budget, requirements, technology, intelligence, and program decisions Separate technology development from product development; implications for S&T and Requirements Sufficient and well-trained acquisition workforce, particularly systems engineers Empowered, experienced, well-trained requirements and program managers Decision-makers willing to say No to acquisitions that don’t measure up

29 QUESTIONS?

30 Deliberate Process Initial Capabilities Document (ICD): Specifies capability requirements and associated capability gaps which represent unacceptable operational risk. Recommends mitigating identified capability gap(s) with a non-materiel capability solution, materiel capability solution, or some combination. A validated ICD is an entrance criterion necessary for each MDD. Capability Production Document (CPD): Specifies capability requirements, in terms of production KPPs, KSAs, and APAs, and other related information necessary to support production of a single increment of a materiel capability solution. A validated CPD is a requirement for the MS C decision point. Joint Doctrine, Organization, Training, material, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy (DOTmLPF-P) Change Recommendation (DCR): Recommends mitigating identified capability gaps with non-materiel capability solutions, through changes to one or more of the eight DOTmLPF-P areas. When a DCR is not generated from a previously validated ICD, it specifies the capability requirements and associated capability gaps for review and validation. Capability Development Document (CDD): Specifies capability requirements, in terms of developmental KPPs, KSAs, and APAs, and other related information necessary to support development of one or more increments of a materiel capability solution. A draft CDD is a requirement for the RFP release in support of the TMRR phase, and a validated CDD is a requirement for the development RFP release decision point and informs the MS B acquisition decision point.

31 Requirements GuidelinesKnow the requirements – the requirements/acquisition community should not only clearly understand the requirements, but should be actively engaged with the user in establishing realistic and achievable requirements within budget constraints. Question the requirements – if a requirement doesn’t make sense, question it – the answer may be surprising. Are the requirements realistic – is it physically possible to meet the requirement? Can it be tested? Is an 80% solution adequate and field the remaining 20% when technology is mature enough? (Open/modular/upgradeable capability solutions.) Beware of derived requirements – an engineer’s “derived” technical requirement can take on a life of it’s own; keep focused on the user’s operational requirements. Tech Reviews for Operational Requirements – JCIDS sponsor/user should attend PDR and CDR to answer specific questions on operational capability requirements. Configuration Steering Boards (CSBs) to Review and/or Alter Requirements – are they being used? PM has the authority to recommend descoping options and to object to new requirements after MS B if approved by the CSB. Changes to requirements must be approved by the requirements validation authority. Meeting the Warfighter’s Needs is a Team Effort!

32 Requirements ChallengesGaming the System by Specifying the Solution too Early Incomplete or Rushed Analysis Vague/Poorly Written Requirements Good Briefings Based on Poor Documents Confusing Requirements with Specifications Not Following Up on Results of DAS Reviews and T&E results Requirements Creep (Operational & Technical) Misusing the Urgent/Emergent Requirements Determination Processes Cost and Schedule Estimates Based on Incomplete or Poorly Written Requirements (Operational and Technical) Training the Requirements Workforce to Better Understand the Senior Leadership’s Vision for a Smarter, Budgeted, Streamlined, Department of Defense

33 Defining the Requirements Community, Identify and Training ‘The Right People’

34 PPBE “Reset” (change to a sequential process)JCIDS Manual 27 Feb 13 Mar 31 Jul CJCSI G 1 Mar 31 Jan CJCSI H 10 Jan 12 Feb 12 Jun CJCSI I 23 Jan DTM , Supply Chain Risk Management Feb 19 DTM , Requirements for Life Cycle Mgmt & Product Support Oct 7 DTM , Space Systems Acquisition Policy Oct 18 DTM , Development Planning Sep 13 DTM , Implementation of WSARA 2009 Dec 4 DTM , Reliability Analysis, Planning, Tracking & Reporting Mar 21 DTM , Acq Policy for DoD Business Systems Jun 23 BBP 2.0 Implementation Apr 24 BBP 3.0 Implementation Apr 9 Interim DoDI Nov 26 Document Streamlining, Program Strategies & SEP Apr 20 Improving Technology Readiness Assessment Effectiveness May 11 Improving Milestone Process Effectiveness Document Streamlining, PPP Jul 18 Should Cost & Affordability Aug 24 Document Streamlining, LCSP Sep 14 Roles, Responsibilities of OIPT Leaders, Teams & Team Members Jun 19 VE & Obtaining Greater Efficiency & Productivity in Defense Spending Dec 6 Next Generation PBL Strategies May 14 KLP & Qualification Criteria Nov 8 PBL Comprehensive Guidance Nov 22 Actions to Improve DoD Competition Aug 21 Use of LPTA Source Selection & Contract Type Mar 4 Should Cost Management in Defense Acquisition Aug 6 DoDD , PPBE Jan 25 Preparation for DAB, DRM, and DPM Apr 23 DTM , Establishment of the SIG for the Resolution of JUONs Jun 14 DAG Update, Chapter 4, Systems Engineering May 8 DAG Update, Chapter 3, Affordability & Life-Cycle Resource Estimates Jun 26 DAG Update, Chapter 7, Acquiring IT Sep 16 Procedures for FY Program/ Budget Review (change to a 5-year program and 1-year budget) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Strengthened Governance for Acquisition Program Reviews Apr 5 Government Performance of Critical Acquisition Functions Apr 25 PPBE “Reset” (change to a sequential process) Dec 11 BBP 1.0 Implementation DoDI Jan 7 Changes to Acquisition, Capability Development, & Program/Budget Processes 2009 – 2015 DTM , Supply Chain Risk Management Mar 25 For acronyms see notes page. Nov 24, 2015 version BBP – Better Buying Power CJCSI – Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction DAB – Defense Acquisition Board DPM – DAB Planning Meeting DRM – DAB Readiness Meeting JCIDS – Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System JUON – Joint Urgent Operational Need KLP – Key Leadership Position LCSP – Life Cycle Sustainment Plan LPTA – Lowest Price Technically Acceptable OIPT – Overarching Integrated Product Team PPBE – Planning, Programming, Budgeting, & Execution PBL – Performance Based Logistics PPP – Program Protection Plan SEP – System Engineering Plan SIG – Senior Integration Group VE – Value Engineering WSARA – Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act

35 Gain fundamental acquisition knowledge and skills Find acquisition resources to help you on the job Receive assistance tailored to your organization’s specific needs