Report Suggests Eliminating Joint Requirements System, Introducing Grassroots Strategy Instead
U.S. Analysts Propose Overhaul of Military Requirements Process for Rapid Innovation
Two Veteran Analysts from the Pentagon and industry are advocating for a significant overhaul of the Department of Defense's formal process for setting requirements that address joint service needs, calling for a more agile, bottom-up approach. In a new paper from the Hudson Institute, William Greenwalt and Dan Patt argue that the current Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is a time-consuming and inefficient bureaucratic maze that hinders the development of cutting-edge capabilities and fosters entrenched parochial interests.
The JCIDS process was introduced in 2003 to synchronize and harmonize requirements among the services. While it was well-intentioned, the authors claim it has hindered the progress of innovative programs and created unnecessary delays of at least two years for new capabilities, forcing the services to adhere to outdated requirements established by committees. Despite ten attempts to reform the system over the past two decades, it has become bogged down in bureaucratic red tape, according to Greenwalt and Patt.
The paper proposes a new approach called the Joint Operational Acceleration Pathway (JOAP), which rests on the idea that when a service identifies a capability with joint benefits that could increase their budget, they will pursue it. These capabilities would be discovered through experimentation and prototyping at the tactical and operational levels and would come to service budgets through regional combatant commanders.
The authors argue that eliminating JCIDS would free up resources and allow for greater focus on genuine innovation and rapid adaptation. They describe JCIDS as a "breeding ground for process tyranny," citing examples such as requirements being validated through the process without guarantees of resources, a lack of accountability for filling capability gaps, and years-long delays on technological advancements, while American adversaries can move much more quickly.
The authors also point out that there is no mechanism in JCIDS for terminating a developmental program that has been overtaken by events. Instead, it accumulates an ever-expanding inventory of validated needs with no strategic triage. Furthermore, countless hours are wasted on minor disputes over formatting and definitions, and the system locks developers into rigid technical specifications before testing new ideas in the field.
Most innovation in the Pentagon bypasses JCIDS by coming through as Joint Urgent Operational Needs or mid-tier acquisition initiatives. Rapid Capabilities Offices are also highlighted as successful examples of how to speed development by skipping the usual system of setting and vetting requirements while only being subject to minimal oversight. These programs achieve success by enabling individual leadership, securing dedicated funding, and allowing technical trades and performance to evolve with learning, while JCIDS focuses on staffing documents that have no real impact.
The process of entering a new need into the JCIDS system and obtaining a budget-ready, validated requirement can be time-consuming, with stages lasting between five and fifteen months, followed by an additional two to three months for staffing and comments, resolving disputes, and submitting revisions. A review by the Functional Capabilities Board, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and finalizing the paperwork can take another two to seven months. In total, the process can take between eight and 25 months.
The authors urge senior leaders to end JCIDS and replace it with a more agile, decentralized approach to military innovation. They propose real-world experimentation and prototyping campaigns to keep the Department of Defense in tune with and aligned to operational demands. A fund called the Joint Acceleration Reserve would step up to adopt and scale cross-service concepts that have proven successful in the field.
The proposed JOAP also recommends a dedicated execution hub to run iterative, try-and-see efforts in realistic operating environments with actual uniformed operators, bringing together commercial prototypes, emerging tech from labs, integrated existing service systems, and user feedback from combatant commands. This hub would identify promising concepts and provide them with funding. The services would then have an incentive to invest in these joint or cross-domain solutions for the long haul.
The paper endorses the concept of "operational imperatives," defining them as concise statements of critical warfighting challenges identified by combatant commands and backed by Department of Defense leadership. This problem-centric focus would free innovators and operators to experiment with diverse solutions rather than adhering to an inflexible blueprint.
References:
- "Department of Defense Proposes Two-Year Plan for Accelerating Software Capabilities. CNS News, 2020.
- "Multi-Domain Readiness: Our Approach and Strategy. Department of Defense, 2022.
- "JCIDS Reform. Modernization Challenges, n.d.
- "U.S. Military Needs to Modernize Its Software Development Practices to Keep Up with the Digital Age. Brookings Institution, 2020.
- The authors of the Hudson Institute's paper suggest replacing the Department of Defense's Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) with a more agile, bottom-up approach called the Joint Operational Acceleration Pathway (JOAP), to foster rapid innovation and efficiency in the defense sector.
- The proposed JOAP would incentivize the services to pursue capabilities with joint benefits, discovered through experimentation and prototyping at the tactical and operational levels, and would bypass the lengthy JCIDS process that can take between eight and 25 months to complete.
- Furthermore, the authors argue that eliminating JCIDS would free up resources by ending the slow, bureaucratic maze that currently hinders the development of cutting-edge military technology, including advancements in air force, space, and defense technology, ensuring American defense capabilities remain competitive in a rapidly changing global climate.
