2.5.4. Section 4: Final Recommendations. Same as the regular ICD with the addition of the “IT Box.” Discussion in this section should be tailored to the IS solution and focus on how the Sponsor intends to develop and deliver the required capabilities detailed above.

2.5.4.1. The “IT Box” construct, Figure B-3, calls for fewer iterations of validating JCIDS documents through the JCIDS process by describing the overall IS program and delegating validation of detailed follow-on requirement and solution oversight to a flag-level organization other than the JROC or JCB.

2.5.4.1.1. The “IT Box” model uses initial minimum values in place of initial objective values so that the baseline capability is clearly specified, and the delegated oversight body has flexibility to further develop capabilities without revalidation of the JCIDS document.

2.5.4.1.2. Initial minimum values represent the achievable level of required capability needed to incorporate current technology to meet the baseline capability.

2.5.4.1.3. Successor documents must be provided to the KM/DS system for information purposes and visibility in the capability portfolios.

2.5.4.2. Inclusion of lifecycle costs for the program. Break out costs into annual estimates of development and integration as well as sustainment costs as shown in Figure B-4. While detailed cost of software development is unknown, cost estimates should be created in accordance with Reference [51] and should be updated throughout the development process.

For reference or comparison, below is what the JCIDS Manual says for the ICD 2021 itself:

2.5.5. Section 4: Final Recommendations.

2.5.5.1. The purpose of this section is to identify one or more paths forward to satisfy the CRs and close or mitigate associated capability gaps identified in the document. Ensure recommendations reflect a thorough understanding of the threat considerations, intelligence support requirements, and capabilities for the functional and operational areas.

2.5.5.2. Identify DOTmLPF-P recommendations to be considered as part of a materiel solution and independent of a materiel solution.

2.5.5.3. Specify the preferred type of materiel approach, if the requirement cannot be met using non-materiel approaches, to eliminate or mitigate each capability gap. This information may be used by the MDA to inform the scope of the AoA or similar study. Approaches include:

2.5.5.3.1. Evolution of a fielded capability solution(s) with significant capability improvement, including development and fielding of improved IS, improved components or subsystems to address high obsolescence rates, or other upgrades and product improvements.

2.5.5.3.2. Replacement or recapitalization of a fielded capability solution(s) with significant capability improvement. The ICD will describe plans to retire fielded capability solution(s) as the new capability solution(s) is brought into service and whether quantities in the joint force should be reduced based on increases in capability.

2.5.5.3.3. Introduction of a transformational capability solution(s) that differ significantly in form, function, and/or operation from fielded capability solution(s). This may address gaps associated with a new mission, describe breakout capability solution(s) that offer significant improvement in capability, or transform the ways of accomplishing a mission.

2.5.5.3.4. Increase integration/interoperability to evolve and combine existing and new systems to create a synergistic SoS. Examples include creating joint integrated kill chains for air and missile defense or integrated SoS for creating layered defense designs.

2.5.5.3.5. Leverage S&T to reduce operational risk(s), ensuring technologies are sufficiently mature prior to initiation of a new or enhanced capability solution. Identify ongoing or new developmental technologies that have the potential to eliminate or mitigate capability gaps. Emphasize technologies that enhance joint warfighting capability against emerging threats and/or increase affordability within the capability portfolio.

2.5.5.4. Acceptance of operational risk. Not every identified capability gap needs to be immediately addressed by a capability solution or S&T effort. A relatively low priority of the capability to the overall joint force may not justify the lifecycle costs of taking further action at the present time.

2.5.5.5. Affordability. When writing an ICD, the Sponsor should not have a predetermined capability solution in mind, nor the level of required detail to produce associated cost estimates. Additionally, multiple Services may develop capabilities based on a different sponsor's ICD and the initial Sponsor may not have insight into these development efforts. However, a constrained fiscal environment with competing demands for resources requires that Sponsors consider affordability in the development of an ICD.

2.5.5.5.1. The ICD should identify key factors that the Sponsor knows of, that may be, or may become, significant cost drivers for potential materiel solutions that may flow from the ICD. This information can help DoD focus S&T and risk reduction efforts, thereby potentially reducing the resources needed to satisfy joint military capabilities and eliminate or mitigate the associated gaps identified in the ICD.

2.5.5.5.2. This information will inform lifecycle cost, performance, schedule, and quantity tradeoff discussions in follow-on efforts, such as in the AoA, and subsequent requirements and acquisition decision making.

2.5.5.5.3. Since ICDs should be solution agnostic, there may be multiple AoAs and multiple programs associated with a single ICD, making an accurate cost estimate extremely difficult at this point in the development process. Once information is further developed or known, it may be necessary to perform a revised cost-estimate.