Capability Requirements (CR) and Gaps/ Overlaps

This section specifies capability requirements and assesses associated capability gaps in terms of a comparison between capability requirements and current capability solutions available to the joint force or in development, and includes the following elements:

1. Capability Requirements (CRs)

2. Operational Attributes

3. Intelligence Supportability

4. Cyber Survivability Considerations

5. Capability Gaps or Overlaps

6. How Capability Gaps Impact the Operational Context

7. Summary Table – Relationship Between CRs and Operational Attributes

1. Capability Requirements (CRs). Each CR must be defined in a separate paragraph in the following manner:

“The ability to [perform a task (Universal Joint Task or Service Task) Operational Activity] against / given a [Threat] in order to achieve [Effect] in a / under [Environmental Conditions] in the [Standard Timeframe]”

Capability requirements must be general enough so as not to create the appearance of a predetermined capability solution or solution approach (e.g., new system, Family of Systems (FoS), System of Systems (SoS)), but specific enough to evaluate alternative means to achieve the capability.

Example CR text from JCIDS Manual:

“The ability to collect operational information given an advanced A2/AD threat environment in order to maintain situational awareness of enemy movements in an urban environment in the 2030 timeframe.”

- Operational attribute values are included in the summary table

- See Annex A to Appendix B of Enclosure C to the JCIDS Manual for examples of operational attributes.

- Narrative portion of each CR) must address intelligence supportability, system survivability (Cyber and EMS), capability gaps and or overlaps.

Components of the example CR from above:

- Operational Activity. What the capability must do or perform to satisfy one or more tasks. Although not limited to, the operational activities should be described in the lexicon of the Universal Joint Tasks (UJTs) or Component (Army, Navy, Air Force) equivalents.

- Threat. The Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment (JIPOE) alerts decision-makers at all echelons to potential emerging situations and threats. The threat that a capability is designed to neutralize or defeat to successfully complete a specified mission must be clearly identified. The threat should be consistent with the JIPOE conducted for the joint commander. (see JP 2-01.3 ) (CAC required)

- Effect. The operational effect or end state that is required for the capability to achieve that will enable the successful completion of the mission in support of the NMS.

- Physical Areas and Factors. Environmental and other non-threat related conditions in which the capability must operate are also identified. These conditions should be consistent with those found in the JIPOE.

- Timeframe. The expected timeframe the capability needs to be available for, must be consistent with the IOC and FOC in Section 1.

2. Operational Attributes. Each CR must specify the required operational attributes with appropriate quantitative parameters and metrics, e.g., outcomes, time, distance, effect (including scale), obstacles to be overcome, supportability, etc.

- Indicate the initial objective value for each operational attribute to provide a discrete value that satisfies the operational need(s) for the capability. This will serve as the starting point for analysis supporting CR trade-offs above and below the initial objective value.

- In the narrative portion of the requirement, describe the operational implications that drive the value to be proposed at the specified level. Consider the effects of cybersecurity and any required additional support needed from the intelligence community in determining the initial objective values. (more information on cybersecurity later)

- Initial Objective Values for Each Operational Attribute:

- These are the values necessary to achieve mission objectives with moderate operational risk.

- The CR narrative should explain why the CRs are essential in order to achieve assigned goals and objectives.

- Include an assessment of operational implications - increased or decreased operational risks - which may be a factor as capability requirements are traded up or down during follow-on analysis and development efforts.

- “To Be Determined (TBD)”, values specified only as a ratio relative to a legacy capability, or attributes without quantifiable measures are not allowed.

- If you cannot express operational attributes correctly you are not ready to develop an ICD and more analysis is required.

- In this section of the ICD your narrative text, attributes, and values must be consistent with CVs developed during the CBA or other study, to include CV-2, CV-3 and CV-6

3. Intelligence Supportability to the CRs.

- If known, include in the narrative portion of the requirement a description of the intelligence support requirements and resources needed to enable each capability requirement.

- Identify the intelligence support categories applicable to each capability requirement and identify the support requirements and resources within each category.

- There are 6 categories (JCIDS Manual, Annex G to Appendix G to Enclosure B provides a definition of these intelligence support categories):

1. Intelligence Resources Support

2. Targeting Intelligence Support

3. Intelligence Interoperability Support

4. Space Intelligence Support

5. Intelligence Mission Data Support

6. Counterintelligence and Security Support

4. Cyber Survivability Considerations

- Cybersecurity and Cyber Operational Resilience

- Consider the cybersecurity threat when determining initial objective values and include exemplar statements for the appropriate Cyber Survivability Risk Category.

- The exemplar statement can be provided in Section 3 in the narrative or, or it can be included in the optional Appendix E.

- For more information pertaining to cyber survivability, threat methodology, Cyber Survivability Risk Category, Example language and applicable Cyber Survivability Attributes (CSAs), see the Cyber Survivability Endorsement (CSE) Implementation Guide, posted to KM/DS.

5. Capability Gaps or Overlaps.

- In a new paragraph for each requirement, describe capability gaps or overlaps in terms of the difference between the initial objective values and performance levels of capability solutions currently available to the joint force or in development

- Identify those CRs for which there exist overlaps or redundancies, including considerations of existing or planned capabilities in other DoD Components; U.S. Government agencies or departments; and allied or partner nations. Assess whether the overlap is advisable for operational redundancy or if the overlap is a potential tradeoff to satisfy other identified capability gaps.

- When describing “current capabilities” in the narrative paragraphs, Sponsors must consider all programs initiated by the MDA via the MCA pathways and rapidly fielded capability solutions in the Joint Force.

- You may not exclude viable capability solutions from the comparison because they are not your preferred solution, or because they are developed and operated by another DoD Component

- You must ensure review of identified capability gaps by someone with visibility into capability solutions protected by higher classification levels. If identified capability gaps would be different considering capability solutions protected by higher classification levels, you may provide supplemental data in the classified appendix.

- When describing a recapitalization (or “next generation”) situation, the “current capabilities” must consider the capability solution being replaced, as well as other viable solutions as noted above.

- Clearly identify how each capability gap identified impacts the operational context in Section 1 of the SW-ICD, in terms of inability to execute part or all of an operational plan and/or unacceptable levels of operational risk. Where workarounds are feasible until the requirements proposed in the SW-ICD are satisfied by capability solutions, then identify the workarounds and operational risk(s) associated with them.

6. How Capability Gaps Impact the Operational Context

- Clearly identify how each capability gap identified impacts the operational context in Section 1, in terms of inability to execute part or all of an operational plan and/or unacceptable levels of operational risk.

- Where workarounds are feasible until the requirements proposed in the ICD are satisfied by capability solutions, then identify the workarounds and operational risk(s) associated with them.

7. Summary table.

- Provide a summary table for the relationship between CRs in each JCA (Tier 2) and relevant operational attributes and associated gaps/overlaps with respect to current or programmed force capabilities. Relate CRs the lowest tier possible.

- In cases where phased introduction of capabilities is appropriate to the Joint or Service concepts or CONOPS, different levels of CRs can be listed for different timeframes and must be consistent with the DoDAF CV-3.

- The table will serve as a guide for development of follow-on JCIDS documents.

- The Summary Table is reflected in Figure B-5, JCIDS Manual.

- Hint: TBD values are not allowed for either the initial objective value or the current performance. The Joint Staff Gatekeeper will reject documents with TBD in these sections.