JCIDS Is Not Meeting Its Objective to Prioritize Joint Warfighting Needs

While JCIDS is intended to determine needs from a joint, departmentwide  perspective, capability needs continue to be proposed and defined  primarily by the military services, with little involvement from the joint  community—including the COCOMs, which plan and implement military  operations. In addition,  virtually all of the proposals for new capability needs and weapon system  solutions completing the JCIDS process since 2003 have been validated. The JCIDS process has also proven to be lengthy, taking on average up to  10 months to validate a need. Such a protracted process further  undermines the department’s efforts to effectively respond to the needs of  the warfighter, especially those that are near term. By continuing to rely on stovepiped solutions to address capability needs,  DOD may be losing opportunities to improve joint warfighting capabilities  and reduce the duplication of capabilities in some areas. Adding to a portfolio that already contains more programs than  resources can support is likely to perpetuate instability and poor  outcomes in weapon system programs. The lack of early prioritization of capability needs through JCIDS makes it  difficult for DOD to balance its portfolio of weapons programs. During the same time frame, the remaining costs for the major  weapon systems in DOD’s portfolio went from being about four times  greater to almost six times greater than annual funding. JCIDS Has Proven to Be a Lengthy Process

The JCIDS process may lack the efficiency and agility needed to respond  to warfighter needs—especially those that are near term—because the  review and validation of capability proposals can take a significant amount  of time. The department has not yet developed a structured, analytical  approach to prioritize capability proposals submitted to the JCIDS  process. At the same time, the military services continue to drive the determination  of capability needs, in part because they retain most of DOD’s analytical  capacity and resources for requirements development. This effort is intended to identify the near-, mid-, and long- term needs of the military services and other defense components and  synthesize them with the needs of the COCOMs. A major challenge will  be to determine how best to integrate service and COCOM capability  perspectives that are typically based on different roles, missions, and time  frames. Adjustments have also been made to try to streamline the JCIDS process  to reduce the time it typically takes to validate capability proposals. Unless an analytic approach to prioritize and balance the  capability needs of the services, COCOMs, and other defense components  is established, DOD will continue losing opportunities to strengthen joint  warfighting capabilities and constrain its portfolio of weapon system  programs. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine whether the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development  System process has achieved its objective to prioritize joint warfighting  needs, we analyzed information and capability documents contained in the  Joint Staff’s Knowledge Management/Decision Support tool compiled  since the inception of JCIDS. To identify factors affecting DOD’s ability to effectively implement JCIDS,  we analyzed the existing structure of the JCIDS process and evaluated the  sufficiency of the Joint military community workforce for preparing and  reviewing JCIDS requirements documents.
Why GAO Did This Study

Increasing combat demands and fiscal constraints make it critical for the Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure that its weapon system investments not only meet the needs of the warfighter, but make the most efficient use of available resources. GAO's past work has shown that achieving this balance has been a challenge and weapon programs have often experienced cost growth and delayed delivery to the warfighter. In 2003, DOD implemented the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) to prioritize and ensure that the warfighter's most essential needs are met. In response to Senate Report 109-69, GAO reported in March 2007 that DOD lacks an effective approach to balance its weapon system investments with available resources. This follow-on report focuses on (1) whether the JCIDS process has achieved its objective to prioritize joint warfighting needs and (2) factors that have affected DOD's ability to effectively implement JCIDS. To conduct its work, GAO reviewed JCIDS guidance and capability documents and budgetary and programming data on major weapon systems, and interviewed DOD officials.

What GAO Found

The JCIDS process has not yet been effective in identifying and prioritizing warfighting needs from a joint, departmentwide perspective. GAO reviewed JCIDS documentation related to proposals for new capabilities and found that most--almost 70 percent--were sponsored by the military services, with little involvement from the joint community--including the combatant commands (COCOMs), which are largely responsible for planning and carrying out military operations. By continuing to rely on capability proposals that lack a joint perspective, DOD may be losing opportunities to improve joint warfighting capabilities and reduce the duplication of capabilities in some areas. In addition, virtually all capability proposals that have gone through the JCIDS process since 2003 have been validated--or approved. DOD continues to have a portfolio with more programs than available resources can support. For example, the remaining costs for major weapon system programs in DOD's portfolio went from being about four times greater to almost six times greater than annual funding available during fiscal year 2000 through 2007. The JCIDS process has also proven to be lengthy--taking on average up to 10 months to validate a need--which further undermines efforts to effectively respond to the needs of the warfighter, especially those that are near-term. DOD lacks an analytical approach to prioritize joint capability needs and determine the relative importance of capability proposals submitted to the JCIDS process. Further, the functional capabilities boards, which were established to manage the JCIDS process and facilitate the prioritization of needs, have not been staffed or resourced to effectively carry out these duties. Instead, the military services retain most of DOD's analytical capacity and resources for requirements development. The Joint Staff recently initiated a project to capture the near-, mid-, and long-term needs of the services and other defense components, and to synthesize them with the needs of the COCOMs. However, DOD officials told us that determining how best to integrate COCOM and service capability perspectives will be challenging because of differences in roles, missions, and time frames. Efforts have also begun to streamline the process and reduce the time it takes to validate proposals.