Report: Capabilities, Requirements, and Defense System Analysis

This report analyzes defense capabilities and requirements within the context of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS). The report examines the process of identifying and assessing defense capabilities, including the analysis of potential gaps and the importance of the process in shaping military systems. It reviews the limitations of the current system in terms of the types of analysis performed and lack of prioritization and recommends improvements. The report also includes a review of the system's shortcomings, and suggests improvements to the process, such as the inclusion of a detailed analysis and clear prioritization of capabilities.

Running Head: CAPABILITIES-BASED ASSESSMENT: JCIDS
Capabilities-Based Assessment: JCIDS
Student
Institution
Professor

CAPABILITIES-BASED ASSESSMENT: JCIDS
Introduction
JCIDS is a formal procedure used by the United States Department of Defense
for defining acquisition requirements and evaluating ways for future defense programs,
(Main, Kretser, Shearer, & Ladd, 2014). It is among the three procurement processes making
up the Defence Acquisition System.
The main aim of JCIDS process is to ensure that the specific capabilities that are
needed by the joint warfighters are accurately identified together with their performance
operational requirements to successfully perform the assigned mission, (Moulton, 2015).
JCIDS is a relatively new process that has been in use only from 2002 and therefore has some
constraints.
Application of JCIDS
As explained by Moulton (2015), JCIDS can be used by the JROC chairman and Joint
Chiefs of the staff in the US military to prioritize joint military capability needs through
identifying and assessing the situation at hand.
Since JCIDS is normally initiated from capability-based assessment (CBA), it helps in
identifying the operational performance and capabilities criteria that are required in mission
execution within a specified threat environment, identifying the drawbacks in the capabilities
delivery and the risks associated and suggest sound solutions to the capability drawbacks,
(Main, Kretser , Shearer, & Ladd, 2014).
Pitfalls to the CBA
JCIDS uses CBA to identify capabilities and gaps. These gaps are identified through
the analysis of the current and expected situations, (Moulton, 2015). However, the types of
analysis conducted by the stakeholders to identify the capabilities and the gaps are always not
described leaving the readers with a lot of questions, (Main, Kretser, Shearer, & Ladd, 2014).
The system also lacks a constant criterion for prioritizing the capabilities.

CAPABILITIES-BASED ASSESSMENT: JCIDS
Recommendation
The description of the type of analysis conducted in identifying the capabilities and
the gaps should be included in the CBA. The CBA should also contain an analysis of
alternatives’ section, describing how the available alternatives were ranked and how the
prioritization of the capabilities and the gaps was done.

CAPABILITIES-BASED ASSESSMENT: JCIDS
References
Main, B. D., Kretser, P. M., Shearer, J., & Ladd, D. A. (2014, July ). Initial Capabilities
Documents: A 10-Year Retrospective of Tools, Methodologies, and Best Practices.
Defense ARJ, 21(3), 716-748. Retrieved January 16, 2017, from
http://dau.dodlive.mil/files/2014/07/ARJ-70_Main.pdf
Moulton, A. (2015). Applying semantic Technology to Early Stage Defence Capability
Planning Analysis Based on JCIDS Artifacts.