Defense Management
Perspectives on the Involvement of the Combatant Commands in the Development of Joint Requirements Gao ID: GAO-11-527R May 20, 2011At a time when the military is supporting ongoing operations in many places around the world, the Department of Defense (DOD) faces challenges balancing the strategic capability needs of the military services with the more immediate joint warfighting needs of the combatant commands (COCOM). Given concerns that the military service-dominated system for developing capabilities was not meeting the most essential warfighter needs, in 2003, DOD created the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) to guide the development of capabilities from a joint perspective. DOD's Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) oversees JCIDS and participates in the development of joint requirements, which includes the identification and analysis and synthesis of capability gaps and the JROC's subsequent validation of capability needs through JCIDS. Following stakeholder collaboration and deliberations, the JROC makes recommendations to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who advises the Secretary of Defense about which capabilities to invest in as part of DOD's budget process. Before making investment decisions, the services consider the validated capabilities during their planning, programming, and budgeting processes and make decisions among competing investments. In the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Congress directed the JROC to seek and consider input from the commanders of the COCOMs on proposed joint military requirements. The act formalized steps Joint Staff leadership had taken to improve collaboration with COCOMs and echoed concerns similar to those we have previously reported. Specifically, in 2008 we reported that DOD was not taking advantage of opportunities to improve joint warfighting capabilities because it did not solicit input from each COCOM when validating requirements for major acquisitions intended for use in a joint environment. The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 also required that the Comptroller General report on the JROC's efforts to solicit and consider input from the commanders of COCOMs on proposed joint military requirements; the quality and effectiveness of efforts to estimate the level of resources needed to fulfill joint military requirements; and the extent to which the JROC considers cost, schedule, and performance trade-offs. This report provides information on (1) opportunities for COCOM input in the development of joint requirements and COCOM perspectives on these opportunities and (2) COCOM perspectives on JCIDS, as well as ongoing Joint Staff efforts to improve it. We are reporting separately on the cost estimates generated for joint military requirements and the JROC's consideration of cost, schedule, and performance trade-offs.
Prior to the implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, DOD began revising its processes for developing joint requirements and provided COCOMs with opportunities to provide input about their specific capability needs during the identification, analysis and synthesis, and validation of capability gaps. COCOMs identify their respective commander's top capability gaps that could negatively affect COCOM missions. COCOMs also have opportunities to provide input to the Joint Staff as it analyzes and synthesizes identified capability gaps, combining similar items into overarching gaps and determining the most appropriate approach for filling them. During the validation of capability gaps, COCOMs participate as representatives to Functional Capabilities Boards and their related working groups. In response to our survey and follow-up interviews, the COCOMs reported that they generally took advantage of opportunities to participate throughout the development of joint requirements. The COCOMs noted the importance of participating in the development of joint requirements, but they questioned the value of what they described as a resource-intensive and time-consuming process that is not always responsive to their more immediate capability needs. The COCOMs also questioned the value of such a process resulting in decisions that, while influential, are advisory to acquisition and budget processes driven by service investment priorities. In addition, JROC approval is only the first step toward fielding a new capability--the development and acquisition of the capability may take several more years. The Joint Staff has initiated an internal review to assess how to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of JCIDS, but it is too early to assess the extent to which this review of the JCIDS process will address COCOM concerns.
GAO-11-527R, Defense Management: Perspectives on the Involvement of the Combatant Commands in the Development of Joint Requirements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-527R
entitled 'Defense Management: Perspectives on the Involvement of the
Combatant Commands in the Development of Joint Requirements' which was
released on May 20, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-11-527R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 20, 2011:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Howard P. McKeon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Adam Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Defense Management: Perspectives on the Involvement of the
Combatant Commands in the Development of Joint Requirements:
At a time when the military is supporting ongoing operations in many
places around the world, the Department of Defense (DOD) faces
challenges balancing the strategic capability needs of the military
services with the more immediate joint warfighting needs of the
combatant commands (COCOM).[Footnote 1] Given concerns that the
military service-dominated system for developing capabilities was not
meeting the most essential warfighter needs, in 2003 DOD created the
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) to guide
the development of capabilities from a joint perspective. DOD's Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) oversees JCIDS and participates
in the development of joint requirements, which includes the
identification and analysis and synthesis of capability gaps and the
JROC's subsequent validation of capability needs through JCIDS.
Following stakeholder collaboration and deliberations, the JROC makes
recommendations to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who
advises the Secretary of Defense about which capabilities to invest in
as part of DOD's budget process. Before making investment decisions,
the services consider the validated capabilities during their
planning, programming, and budgeting processes and make decisions
among competing investments.
In the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Congress
directed the JROC to seek and consider input from the commanders of
the COCOMs on proposed joint military requirements.[Footnote 2] The
act formalized steps Joint Staff leadership had taken to improve
collaboration with COCOMs and echoed concerns similar to those we have
previously reported. Specifically, in 2008 we reported that DOD was
not taking advantage of opportunities to improve joint warfighting
capabilities because it did not solicit input from each COCOM when
validating requirements for major acquisitions intended for use in a
joint environment.[Footnote 3]
The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 also required that
the Comptroller General report on the JROC's efforts to solicit and
consider input from the commanders of COCOMs on proposed joint
military requirements; the quality and effectiveness of efforts to
estimate the level of resources needed to fulfill joint military
requirements; and the extent to which the JROC considers cost,
schedule, and performance trade-offs.[Footnote 4] This report provides
information on (1) opportunities for COCOM input in the development of
joint requirements and COCOM perspectives on these opportunities and
(2) COCOM perspectives on JCIDS, as well as ongoing Joint Staff
efforts to improve it. We are reporting separately on the cost
estimates generated for joint military requirements and the JROC's
consideration of cost, schedule, and performance trade-offs.[Footnote
5]
To address our objectives, we reviewed legislation enacted in 2009 and
2011 and related DOD guidance and reviewed documentation of the Joint
Staff's internal review of JCIDS. Specifically, we reviewed the Weapon
Systems Acquisitions and Reform Act of 2009 and the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, which
provided COCOMs membership on the JROC, as well as Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff guidance on the development of joint
requirements and the operations and organization of the JROC, and
briefings and related terms of reference documents for each of the
individual review teams involved in conducting the Joint Staff's
internal review--referred to as the Joint Capabilities Development
Process Review. To corroborate our understanding of the documents we
reviewed, we conducted interviews with Joint Staff, COCOM, and service
officials about the identification of capability gaps, the analysis
and synthesis of the gaps identified, and the subsequent validation of
gaps and observed JROC-related meetings. To corroborate our
understanding of the Joint Staff's internal review, we conducted
interviews with Joint Staff officials about the purpose, timelines,
and planned approaches for the review.
To characterize COCOM perspectives on opportunities to provide input
into the development of joint requirements since the implementation of
the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, we developed and
distributed a survey to each of DOD's 10 COCOMs. To develop the
questions, we analyzed DOD guidance and policy documents and previous
reports on related issues to identify proper terminology to use and to
determine characteristics relevant to this review. The survey
addressed a range of topics related to the development of joint
requirements, including the means for COCOMs to provide information on
their capability needs and their participation in key outreach
efforts. To minimize errors that might occur from respondents
interpreting our questions differently from our intended purpose, we
pretested the questionnaire in person or by phone with one COCOM
official and three Joint Staff officials. During these pretests, we
asked officials to complete the questionnaire as we observed the
process. We then interviewed the respondents to help ensure that (1)
the questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms used were
precise, (3) the questionnaire did not place an undue burden on the
officials completing it, and (4) the questionnaire was objective and
unbiased. We also tested the functionality of the questionnaire and
submitted it for review by a GAO survey specialist and a data analyst
as well as by several external reviewers. We modified the questions
based on feedback, as appropriate. We then sent the survey to each
COCOM, asking that they seek input from other COCOM staff familiar
with the COCOM's experiences with the development of joint
requirements. Following receipt of completed surveys, we reviewed all
responses and interviewed representatives from each COCOM, either in
person or by phone, to further discuss survey results and to obtain
additional feedback on the development of joint requirements. We used
a standard set of questions to interview officials to help ensure that
we had consistently captured their views on various aspects of the
development of joint requirements. In order to categorize and
summarize these responses, we analyzed the results of these interviews
and related documents to identify the main themes and develop summary
findings through a systematic content analysis. One GAO analyst
conducted this analysis, coding the information, entering it into a
spreadsheet, and a different GAO analyst checked the information for
accuracy. All initial disagreements regarding the categorizations of
users' responses were discussed and reconciled. The analysts then
tallied the number of responses in each category. We then met with
Joint Staff officials to obtain their perspectives on the concerns
raised by the COCOMs. Overall, there was a 100 percent response rate,
as each of the 10 COCOMs completed a survey. Complete survey results
are reproduced in enclosure I.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through May 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Summary:
Prior to the implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009, DOD began revising its processes for developing joint
requirements and provided COCOMs with opportunities to provide input
about their specific capability needs during the identification,
analysis and synthesis, and validation of capability gaps. COCOMs
identify their respective commander's top capability gaps that could
negatively affect COCOM missions. COCOMs also have opportunities to
provide input to the Joint Staff as it analyzes and synthesizes
identified capability gaps, combining similar items into overarching
gaps and determining the most appropriate approach for filling them.
During the validation of capability gaps, COCOMs participate as
representatives to Functional Capabilities Boards and their related
working groups. In response to our survey and follow-up interviews,
the COCOMs reported that they generally took advantage of
opportunities to participate throughout the development of joint
requirements.
The COCOMs noted the importance of participating in the development of
joint requirements, but they questioned the value of what they
described as a resource-intensive and time-consuming process that is
not always responsive to their more immediate capability needs. The
COCOMs also questioned the value of such a process resulting in
decisions that, while influential, are advisory to acquisition and
budget processes driven by service investment priorities. In addition,
JROC approval is only the first step toward fielding a new capability-
-the development and acquisition of the capability may take several
more years. The Joint Staff has initiated an internal review to assess
how to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of JCIDS, but it is
too early to assess the extent to which this review of the JCIDS
process will address COCOM concerns.
Background:
Congress has raised continuing issues about the extent to which the
COCOMs provide input into the requirements processes to get their
needs addressed. In 2009, Congress passed the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act, which, among other actions, required that the
JROC seek and consider input from the COCOMs.[Footnote 6] More
recently, in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011, Congress reiterated its expectation that the JROC
seek COCOM input into the development of joint requirements,
authorizing the JROC to direct COCOM commanders or deputy commanders
to serve as JROC members for matters related to their area of
responsibility or functions when directed by the JROC Chairman.
[Footnote 7]
The JROC, chaired by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
is charged with reviewing the needs for capabilities identified by the
services and the COCOMs and making recommendations on how the needs
can be met. The council includes representation from a general or
admiral from each of the military services as well as COCOM commanders
or deputy commanders when directed by JROC Chairman. The JROC is
supported by the Joint Staff, which manages the review of proposed new
capabilities and the collaboration of stakeholders, including the
services and COCOMs, through review boards and working groups. Joint
and Functional Capabilities Boards review and further refine joint
requirements. Led by a general or an admiral or equivalent civilian
rank and made up of military and civilian representatives from the
military services, Joint Staff, COCOMs, and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, among others, each Functional Capabilities Board
assesses the needs and makes recommendations about validating
capability gaps. The recommendations are passed on to Joint
Capabilities Boards that review and, if appropriate, endorse
documentation and recommendations prior to their submission to the
JROC.[Footnote 8]
The fulfillment of joint requirements results from the interplay
between DOD's budgeting, acquisition, and requirements processes. The
COCOMs identify capability gaps and the Joint Staff analyzes and
synthesizes these gaps as part of DOD's budgeting process. Through
JCIDS, the JROC decides whether to validate gaps that will require
significant investment of resources to develop new capabilities. Those
gaps that the JROC validates as requiring materiel solutions are then
referred to DOD's acquisition process, which is largely driven by
service investment priorities.
COCOMs have multiple means by which they may identify capability gaps.
Throughout the year, they may work with the military services, either
through a COCOM's service component command or directly with service
headquarters. Some of the gaps the COCOMs identify in coordination
with the services may advance through JROC-related processes, while
others may be assigned by the Joint Staff to services or other
sponsors, according to the Joint Staff. In addition, each year the
COCOMs prepare Integrated Priority Lists--outlines of each COCOM's
highest-priority requirements and the associated program shortfalls
that could negatively affect their missions--and then submit these
lists to the Joint Staff for analysis. The department uses the lists
to inform the programming and budgeting process about COCOM needs.
COCOMs may also identify gaps by creating and submitting documents
required by the JCIDS process or by participating in the final stages
of the budget development and review process.[Footnote 9]
During analysis and synthesis--which the Joint Staff reported
typically occurs annually between November and June--the Joint Staff,
in coordination with the Functional Capabilities Boards, works to
examine identified capability gaps, group like gaps, assess ongoing
efforts to close or mitigate gaps, and recommend solutions to close or
mitigate gaps. On the basis of this analysis, the Joint Staff might
synthesize, or consolidate, identified gaps or reduce the number of
capabilities on the lists. This consolidation can result in the
original gaps or shortfalls being combined with other like gaps,
potentially becoming more general and less applicable to unique needs.
In addition, the Joint Staff determines the most appropriate approach
for filling identified gaps, including both nonmateriel and materiel
solutions, and assigns an organization to further develop the
requirements. These efforts result in a list of capability gaps and
recommended solutions for mitigation of the gaps. Gaps resulting in
the development of capabilities requiring significant investments are
passed on to the JROC for validation. The JROC also approves
addressing some gaps through alternative means, such as a study, a
policy change, or a program action.
As part of the validation of capability gaps, the boards and working
groups that support the JROC are intended to review identified
capability gaps, recommending enhancements to capabilities
integration, examining joint priorities, assessing program
alternatives, and minimizing duplication of effort across the
department. During validation, identified gaps focus on capabilities
in general rather than specific system solutions. In order to validate
gaps, the JROC is supported by JCIDS, which DOD established in 2003 to
identify and guide the development of new capabilities, and to
identify needs from a joint perspective. Validation of capability gaps
is ongoing throughout the year.
JROC-validated capability gaps are documented in memorandums that the
Joint Staff reported are authoritative because they are signed by the
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but ultimately serve as
advisory guidance to the larger acquisition and budget processes. The
services are responsible for making decisions on how to invest funds
for their forces, and service officials reported that they must
balance joint requirements with service-specific requirements. The
JROC memorandums provide the basis for starting a major weapon system
acquisition. JCIDS was designed to work in conjunction with the two
other major processes that make up DOD's overall defense acquisition
management framework: the resource allocation process, which governs
the distribution of financial resources across DOD and the military
services through DOD's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
process; and the Defense Acquisition System, which manages the
execution of product development and procurement.
The JROC continues to review proposed solutions to validated
requirements. Before a weapon system program is approved to begin
system development, the sponsor is required to submit a document that
defines a specific solution through JCIDS for approval by the JROC. In
addition, prior to the program starting production, a sponsor must
submit additional documentation that addresses the production elements
of an acquisition program for review through JCIDS and approval by the
JROC.
COCOMs Provide Input into the Development of Joint Requirements:
The Joint Staff Solicits and the COCOMs Provide Annual Lists of Top
COCOM Capability Gaps:
The department has established multiple means by which it may solicit
and enable COCOM input into the identification of joint requirements.
As part of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's strategic
planning processes, the Joint Staff annually prepares an assessment in
which the COCOMs and services describe their strategic environment to
help identify requirements. As part of this strategic planning, the
Joint Staff asks the COCOMs to provide information regarding their
capability shortfalls. The COCOMs do so by submitting Integrated
Priority Lists, which identify the capability shortfalls that could
most affect their missions.[Footnote 10] For example, a COCOM might
identify problems with its current access to intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance, or describe deficiencies in its
computer network infrastructure. When asking the COCOMs to submit
their lists, the Joint Staff provides guidance on the format and
submission deadlines. The Joint Staff uses these lists and the larger
strategic planning process to try to influence the services to address
COCOM needs, as the COCOMs rely upon the services for funding to fill
their warfighting requirements. COCOMs reported that these lists serve
as their primary method of identifying capability gaps. Specifically,
9 of the 10 COCOMs we surveyed reported that these lists were their
primary means for identifying and submitting capability gaps in fiscal
year 2010.
Analysis and Synthesis Efforts Include Input from COCOMs:
After COCOMs have identified their capability gaps, the Joint Staff
and the JROC Chairman continue to seek COCOM input as they analyze and
synthesize the requirements. During their analysis and synthesis, the
Functional Capabilities Boards combine similar items to create an
overarching requirement, resulting in an overall assessment of
capability needs requiring JROC attention. For example, though each
COCOM may desire specific attributes in an intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance capability, the Joint Staff may consolidate all
related Integrated Priority List items into a general intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance requirement. The Functional
Capabilities Boards assessment is intended to better define the gaps
that will require the development of new capabilities, support the
development of capabilities, and assist the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff as he makes budget-related recommendations to the
services. For the most recently completed cycle the Joint Staff
reported that it was able to synthesize 155 gaps into 76 by reviewing
and synthesizing identified gaps gathered from Integrated Priority
Lists and other inputs.[Footnote 11] The Joint Staff determines the
most appropriate approach for filling these gaps, which may include
validation through JCIDS, or other actions such as a study or a policy
change. COCOM officials reported, however, that they may not have
visibility into actions taken as a result of the analysis and
synthesis of all identified capability gaps. Further, even after a
requirement for a capability is validated by the JROC, developing and
acquiring a new system may take years.
During the analysis and synthesis of gaps, the Joint Staff reaches out
to the COCOMs to obtain their input. The JROC's Charter requires the
JROC to meet periodically with the COCOMs to ensure current and future
warfighting deficiencies and capabilities are identified, well
defined, and given emphasis in the establishment of joint capabilities
and programmatic priorities.[Footnote 12] In addition, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff instruction regarding the Functional
Capabilities Boards calls for the JROC to conduct trips to the
COCOMs.[Footnote 13] To fulfill these requirements, the Joint Staff
and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--the JROC Chairman--
solicit COCOM input through meetings and conferences held over the
course of each year. Collectively, these outreach efforts contribute
to a continuous dialogue between the Joint Staff and the COCOMs and
allow the COCOMs to provide input as the Joint Staff continues its
analysis and synthesis of the capability gaps.
COCOM input that begins with submission of their Integrated Priority
Lists continues with participation in an annual conference to discuss
identified capability gaps.[Footnote 14] This conference, which the
Joint Staff reported that it had hosted since 2008, provides COCOM
officials involved with the development of joint requirements an
opportunity to meet with each other and the following stakeholders:
representatives from the Joint Staff and other JROC support staff, the
military services, and Office of the Secretary of Defense
organizations including Acquisition, Technology & Logistics. During
the conference, the COCOMs have an opportunity to brief attendees on
the contents on their Integrated Priority Lists and also receive
briefings from the services on general issues relating to their
upcoming budgets. The conference provides the COCOMs an opportunity to
influence the Joint Staff's analysis of identified capability gaps,
and also provides an opportunity to discuss new ideas that can result
in Joint Staff action. For example, during the 2011 conference,
officials from several COCOMs raised concerns during a meeting with
Functional Capabilities Board support staff that the Joint Staff's
consolidation of several particular individual capability gaps into an
overarching gap did not in this instance address their primary issue.
Joint Staff officials noted during the meeting that they would
consider revising the synthesized gap to address COCOM concerns. In
addition, COCOM officials reported that their suggestions at the 2010
conference resulted in the Joint Staff eliminating the requirement to
submit a draft Integrated Priority List--reducing their workload
during the preparation of their Integrated Priority Lists.
To gain additional input on the Joint Staff's analysis of capability
gaps identified through the COCOMs' Integrated Priority Lists, the
JROC meets with COCOM officials a few months after the conclusion of
the annual conference. In preparation for the meeting, the JROC sends
out its proposed synthesized list and the COCOMs select items from
this synthesized list they want to discuss with the Vice Chairman. The
Joint Staff reported that, for 2011, it had combined multiple meetings
that were previously held on different days so that the COCOMs could
attend a single meeting. This change may increase collaboration among
the COCOMs by allowing them to observe all related discussions and
receive the same information.
The Joint Staff reported that, since 2008, the Vice Chairman has
visited the COCOMs individually following the conclusion of the Joint
Staff's analysis and synthesis of capability gaps. During the visit,
each COCOM drives the agenda and has the opportunity to provide input
into their most pressing capability gaps and possible budget-related
action. For example, a COCOM may discuss items identified on its
Integrated Priority List, such as the specific attributes required for
an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability rather
than the general description contained in the Joint Staff's
synthesized intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
requirement. In addition, COCOMs may also raise other items that
warrant attention, such as gaps that have emerged since the submission
of the Integrated Priority List.
COCOM officials reported that they view some opportunities to
participate and provide input into the analysis and synthesis of
identified capability gaps as more effective than others. In their
view, the Vice Chairman's visits significantly improved their ability
to influence decisions about how to mitigate capability gaps.
According to COCOM officials, the current Vice Chairman has spoken
candidly with the COCOMs during the trips, providing feedback that
COCOMs indicate helps them shape future action on their list items. In
addition, as indicated in table 1 below, the JROC trips and the annual
conference are seen as generally beneficial by the 10 COCOMs.
Table 1: Responses from the 10 COCOMs Regarding Their Reported Ability
to Influence Decisions about the Mitigation of Capability Gaps:
Vice Chairman visits;
Significantly improved[A]: 5;
Improved: 5;
No change: 0;
COCOM comments[B]:
* Provides the opportunity to discuss the resolution of specific
capability gaps and raise any concerns;
* The Vice Chairman is candid and provides his insight on gaps that
will not be fulfilled.
JROC trips;
Significantly improved[A]: 1;
Improved: 8;
No change: 1;
COCOM comments[B]:
* Provides the opportunity to have a discussion about capability gaps;
* Provides a forum to clarify needs, resolve concerns and gain insight
into the larger DOD perspective.
Annual conference;
Significantly improved[A]: 0;
Improved: 8;
No change: 2;
COCOM comments[B]:
* Provides opportunities to communicate with Joint Staff, service, and
other COCOM officials.
Source: GAO.
[A] Response options for this survey question included significantly
improved, improved, neither improved nor worsened, worsened,
significantly worsened, not applicable, and don't know. None of the 10
COCOMs reported that these outreach efforts either "worsened" or
"significantly worsened" their ability to influence decisions to
mitigate capability gaps. In addition, none of the 10 COCOMs reported
not applicable or don't know.
[B] These summarized comments were selected for inclusion because they
were representative of the comments we received from the larger
population of COCOM officials.
[End of table]
The Joint Staff Invites COCOMs to Participate in the Validation of
Capability Gaps through Various JROC-Related Boards and Groups:
DOD has given COCOMs opportunities to provide input during the
validation of capability gaps, and the COCOMs reported that they
actively take advantage of these opportunities to participate. The
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff instruction regarding Functional
Capabilities Boards, updated in 2009, designates COCOMs as members in
these boards and their related working groups.[Footnote 15] In
accordance with this instruction, the JROC has provided opportunities
for COCOMs to attend and participate in the groups and boards that
support the validation of capability gaps. Most of the work on
capability documents during validation is performed at the Functional
Capabilities Board levels, according to board support staffs, and
COCOMs participate in the validation of capability gaps primarily by
providing representatives to these boards and their related working
groups. All COCOMs may participate in all Functional Capabilities
Board and related working group meetings, no matter how closely the
particular board's mission corresponds with a COCOM's mission. Each
COCOM reported that it provides representation to these boards or
working groups. The Functional Capabilities Board support staffs, most
of which are Joint Staff representatives, actively engage the COCOMs
to ensure that COCOMs are aware of upcoming meetings and agenda items,
especially if the support staff believes that a COCOM will have
particular interest or equity in an agenda item. For example, if the
support staff believes a COCOM should participate in a particular
meeting, it reports that it will reach out to that COCOM to encourage
attendance. COCOMs can participate remotely through video-
teleconferences and a computer-based networking program. COCOMs have
also assumed greater leadership roles within these boards and groups,
as well as the higher-level boards called Joint Capabilities Boards.
[Footnote 16] In 2008 the JROC delegated authority for the Command and
Control Joint and Functional Capabilities Boards to U.S. Joint Forces
Command[Footnote 17] and, in 2009, the JROC delegated authority for
the Logistics Joint Capabilities Board to U.S. Transportation Command.
[Footnote 18] Additionally, in 2009 the JROC delegated authority for
the management and approval of most special operations-specific
capability documents to the U.S. Special Operations Command.
COCOM officials noted that their participation in the Functional
Capabilities Board meetings depends on the relevance of the issues
being discussed, and that representatives do not usually attend every
meeting. As illustrated in table 2, most of the 10 COCOMs reported
providing representation only in relevant Functional Capabilities
Board and related working group meetings.
Table 2: Level of Participation in Meetings Associated with the
Development of Joint Requirements by Each of the 10 COCOMs:
Functional Capabilities Board Working Group;
Every meeting[A]: 1;
Every relevant meeting: 7;
Some relevant meetings: 2;
No meetings: 0.
Functional Capabilities Board;
Every meeting[A]: 0;
Every relevant meeting: 8;
Some relevant meetings: 1;
No meetings: 1.
Joint Capabilities Board;
Every meeting[A]: 0;
Every relevant meeting: 7;
Some relevant meetings: 2;
No meetings: 1.
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC);
Every meeting[A]: 0;
Every relevant meeting: 2;
Some relevant meetings: 6;
No meetings: 2.
Source: GAO.
[A] Response options for this survey question included "every
meeting," "every relevant meeting," "some relevant meetings," "no
meetings," and "don't know." None of the 10 COCOMs reported "don't
know" as a response option.
[End of table]
A Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff instruction also directs that
COCOMs have an opportunity to review and comment on capabilities that
will be validated by the JROC.[Footnote 19] By providing COCOMs the
opportunity to review and comment on the documents, the Joint Staff is
ensuring that the JROC is aware of any COCOM issues prior to making a
decision to validate the requirement. These review and commenting
opportunities are conducted by means of a computer database that all
COCOMs can access. After the COCOMs have provided their comments
through the computer database, the Functional Capabilities Boards and
related working groups consider those comments during their
discussions regarding the documents. Once the Functional Capabilities
Boards are confident that the required documents are complete and have
addressed COCOM concerns to the greatest extent possible, they then
forward the requirements documents to the appropriate Joint
Capabilities Board.
After the JROC considers a joint capabilities document, it decides
whether to validate the requirement or accept risk and take no further
action. The JROC Charter issues the COCOMs a standing invitation to
attend JROC meetings in an advisory role on joint issues related to
warfighting capabilities.[Footnote 20] In addition, in January 2011
Congress authorized the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
direct the commander of a COCOM to serve as a voting member of the
JROC when an issue is directly related to that COCOM's area of
responsibility or function.[Footnote 21] According to Joint Staff
officials, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as Chairman
of the JROC, has implemented this authority by directing the Joint
Staff to invite COCOM commanders or deputy commanders to be voting
members of the JROC for relevant issues. Since the change was
implemented, one COCOM deputy commander has participated as a voting
member of the JROC, and COCOMs have participated as members of a Joint
Capabilities Board on two occasions.[Footnote 22]
COCOMs reported that participation at JROC and, to a lesser extent,
Joint Capabilities Board meetings is less frequent than participation
in Functional Capabilities Board meetings. Specifically, only 2 of the
10 COCOMs reported that they attend every relevant JROC meeting, while
6 reported that they only attend some relevant meetings. The remaining
2 reported that they did not attend any JROC meetings during fiscal
year 2010, due to there not being any issues of contention that would
require the COCOM's attendance. Officials from several of the COCOMs
reported that they do not provide regular representation at JROC and
Joint Capabilities Board meetings unless there are issues of
contention to discuss because the JROC and the Joint Capabilities
Board meetings require representation by the command's general or flag
officers.
COCOMs Reported Some Concerns with What They Described as the Resource-
Intensive and Time-Consuming Nature of JCIDS:
COCOM officials generally did not report concerns with their ability
to participate in the development of joint requirements, but continue
to raise concerns with the responsiveness of JCIDS. The COCOMs
reported mixed satisfaction with JCIDS. Specifically, four of the
COCOMs we surveyed reported that they were "moderately satisfied" with
JCIDS, four COCOMs reported that they were "slightly satisfied," and
one COCOM reported that it was "not at all satisfied." COCOM
officials, while noting the importance of their participation in the
development of joint requirements, question the value of what they
describe as a resource-intensive and time-consuming process that does
not assure their capability gaps will be filled in a timely manner.
Further, the COCOMs reported that the JROC, which oversees JCIDS,
produces decisions that, while influential, are advisory to
acquisition and budget processes driven by service investment
priorities. In addition, JCIDS is only the first step toward fielding
a new capability--the development and acquisition of the capability
may take several more years. COCOM officials elaborated on some of
their concerns during discussions and in survey responses, as follows:
* Officials representing more than half of the COCOMs reported that
requirements to attend multiple meetings and repeatedly review and
comment on capabilities documents placed heavy demands on staff time
and resources. COCOM officials also noted that efforts to respond to
capability documents require extensive preparation and dedicated staff
time in addition to time spent participating in the identification and
analysis and synthesis of capability gaps. To minimize the burden on
command experts, officials representing two COCOMs noted that they
reviewed all capability documents, but generally focused on those of
particular interest to the command. For example, one official told us
that in a 1-year period, the command reviewed more than 1,000 JCIDS
documents, but commented on 60 that were of interest to the command.
* During our discussions, COCOM officials raised concerns that JCIDS
focuses more on long-term service-centric gaps than COCOMs' more
immediate and largely joint gaps. The responsiveness of the JCIDS
process has been a long-standing concern. In 2008, we noted that 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. For example, we reported that 2 years or more can
elapse from the time a capability need is identified by a sponsor to
the time the capability is validated by the JROC.[Footnote 23] Joint
Staff officials pointed out that the JCIDS process was designed as a
deliberative process to meet longer-term joint needs, and that to
address urgent needs, DOD established the joint urgent operational
needs process in 2005. The joint urgent operational needs process is
intended to respond to urgent needs associated with combat operations
in Afghanistan and Iraq and the War on Terror--specifically, short-
term (2 years or less) needs to prevent mission failure or loss of
life. However, not all COCOM capability gaps meet the criteria of an
urgent need--and those that are not classified as urgent must go
through the JCIDS process.
Recognizing these and other concerns and in an effort to improve JCIDS
and its responsiveness to the JROC, to the COCOMs, and to the
services, among others, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
initiated a broad-based review of the process in July 2010.[Footnote
24] According to Joint Staff officials, the review is intended to,
among other things, streamline the joint capabilities development
process to improve its efficiency and responsiveness to users' needs.
For example, review participants were tasked with examining ways to
make the overall process more efficient, such as examining how to
refine and potentially shorten documentation requirements. In
addition, according to Joint Staff officials, the review will likely
address how to respond to capability gaps that do not meet the
criteria for being addressed as urgent needs, that is, gaps that can
be addressed within 2 years and are intended to prevent mission
failure or loss of life, but may need to be addressed more quickly
than the usual pace of the JCIDS validation process. This may address
some of the COCOM concerns regarding JCIDS's ability to address their
more immediate joint capability gaps. It is too early to assess the
extent to which the results of the review will address COCOM concerns.
The JROC is expected to assess the results of the review and approve
recommendations in June 2011.
Agency Comments:
DOD reviewed a draft of this report, but had no formal written
comments. DOD did, however, provide technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense;
the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps. This report also is available at no
charge on our Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in enclosure II.
Signed by:
John H. Pendleton, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Enclosures:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Summary of Survey Results:
Survey Question 1: During fiscal year (FY) 2010, has your COCOM used
each of the methods below to submit a capability gap?[Footnote 25]
Submitting through the Integrated Priority List (IPL) to the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Number: "Yes": 10;
Number: "No": 0.
Submitting an Initial Capabilities Document directly into JCIDS;
Number: "Yes": 6;
Number: "No": 4.
Submitting directly through a service headquarters;
Number: "Yes": 6;
Number: "No": 4.
Submitting through a service component command;
Number: "Yes": 6;
Number: "No": 4.
Submitting through issue papers as part of the Program Budget Review
process;
Number: "Yes": 9;
Number: "No": 1.
Submitting directly to the Secretary of Defense;
Number: "Yes": 5;
Number: "No": 5.
Submitting through the Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON) process;
Number: "Yes": 4;
Number: "No": 6.
Submitting a doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership
and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) Change
Recommendation (DCR);
Number: "Yes": 5;
Number: "No": 5.
Submitting through other process(es);
Number: "Yes": 8;
Number: "No": 2.
[End of table]
Survey Question 2: During FY 2010, which of the following methods has
your COCOM used most often to submit capability gaps?A:
Submitting through the Integrated Priority List (IPL) to the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Number: "Yes": 9.
Submitting an Initial Capabilities Document directly into JCIDS;
Number: "Yes": 0.
Submitting directly through a service headquarters;
Number: "Yes": 0.
Submitting through a service component command;
Number: "Yes": 0.
Submitting through issue papers as part of the Program Budget Review
process;
Number: "Yes": 3.
Submitting directly to the Secretary of Defense;
Number: "Yes": 0.
Submitting through the Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON) process;
Number: "Yes": 1.
Submitting a doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership
and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) Change
Recommendation (DCR);
Number: "Yes": 0.
Submitting through other process(es);
Number: "Yes": 1.
[A] Numbers do not add to 10 because some COCOMs reported multiple
methods as the method the command used most often to submit capability
gaps.
[End of table]
Survey Question 3: How has each of the following initiatives affected
your COCOM's ability to influence decisions about how your COCOM's
capability gaps may be mitigated?[Footnote 26]
Delegation of the command and control JCB chairmanship to JFCOM;
Number "Significantly Improved": 1;
Number "Improved": 1;
Number "Neither improved nor worsened": 7;
Number "Worsened": 1;
Number "Significantly worsened": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 0;
Number "Don't know": 0.
Delegation of the logistics JCB chairmanship to TRANSCOM;
Number "Significantly Improved": 1;
Number "Improved": 1;
Number "Neither improved nor worsened": 5;
Number "Worsened": 2;
Number "Significantly worsened": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 0;
Number "Don't know": 1.
Senior Warfighter Forum (SWarF);
Number "Significantly Improved": 1;
Number "Improved": 5;
Number "Neither improved nor worsened": 4;
Number "Worsened": 0;
Number "Significantly worsened": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 0;
Number "Don't know": 0.
Worldwide J-8 Conference;
Number "Significantly Improved": 0;
Number "Improved": 8;
Number "Neither improved nor worsened": 2;
Number "Worsened": 0;
Number "Significantly worsened": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 0;
Number "Don't know": 0.
JROC Hub Trip;
Number "Significantly Improved": 1;
Number "Improved": 8;
Number "Neither improved nor worsened": 1;
Number "Worsened": 0;
Number "Significantly worsened": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 0;
Number "Don't know": 0.
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Return Trips;
Number "Significantly Improved": 5;
Number "Improved": 5;
Number "Neither improved nor worsened": 0;
Number "Worsened": 0;
Number "Significantly worsened": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 0;
Number "Don't know": 0.
Service outreach to the COCOM, including during IPL development, POM
briefings, and other efforts;
Number "Significantly Improved": 0;
Number "Improved": 4;
Number "Neither improved nor worsened": 5;
Number "Worsened": 1;
Number "Significantly worsened": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 0;
Number "Don't know": 0.
Other(s) (please specify)[A];
Number "Significantly Improved": 3;
Number "Improved": 0;
Number "Neither improved nor worsened": 1;
Number "Worsened": 0;
Number "Significantly worsened": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 0;
Number "Don't know": 0.
[A] Numbers do not add to 10 for "Other(s)" because 6 COCOMs left the
response blank.
[End of table]
Survey Question 4: During FY 2010, for each type of meeting listed
below, has your COCOM attended every meeting, every meeting with
issues relevant to your COCOM, some relevant meetings, or no meetings,
either in person or remotely (e.g., telephone, video conference,
Defense Connect Online [DCO])?
Functional Capability Board (FCB) working group meetings;
Number "Every Meeting": 1;
Number "Every relevant meeting": 7;
Number "Some relevant meetings": 2;
Number: "No meetings": 0;
Number "Don't Know": 0.
FCB meetings;
Number "Every Meeting": 0;
Number "Every relevant meeting": 8;
Number "Some relevant meetings": 1;
Number: "No meetings": 1;
Number "Don't Know": 0.
Joint Capability Board (JCB) meetings, including the Command and
Control (C2) JCB and Logistics JCB;
Number "Every Meeting": 0;
Number "Every relevant meeting": 7;
Number "Some relevant meetings": 2;
Number: "No meetings": 1;
Number "Don't Know": 0.
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) meetings;
Number "Every Meeting": 0;
Number "Every relevant meeting": 2;
Number "Some relevant meetings": 6;
Number: "No meetings": 2;
Number "Don't Know": 0.
Other Meeting(s) (please specify)[A];
Number "Every Meeting": 2;
Number "Every relevant meeting": 2;
Number "Some relevant meetings": 1;
Number: "No meetings": 1;
Number "Don't Know": 1.
[A] Numbers do not add to 10 for "Other Meetings" because 3 COCOMs
left the response blank.
[End of table]
Survey Question 5: If your COCOM did not attend at least one FCB or
FCB working group meeting during FY 2010, either in person or
remotely, was each of the following a reason that your COCOM did not
attend?
COCOM's perception that its input is not valued;
Number: "Yes": 1;
Number: "No": 5;
Number: "Not applicable": 4;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
COCOM lacked information on meeting time or location;
Number: "Yes": 0;
Number: "No": 6;
Number: "Not applicable": 4;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
COCOM lacked information on the content of the meeting;
Number: "Yes": 0;
Number: "No": 6;
Number: "Not applicable": 4;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Inconvenient time of scheduled meetings;
Number: "Yes": 2;
Number: "No": 4;
Number: "Not applicable": 4;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
COCOM had insufficient resources (expertise, money, staff, etc.) to
attend;
Number: "Yes": 4;
Number: "No": 3;
Number: "Not applicable": 3;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Specific issues were not relevant to COCOM interests;
Number: "Yes": 6;
Number: "No": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 3;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Other reason(s) (please specify)[ A];
Number: "Yes": 3;
Number: "No": 3;
Number: "Not applicable": 3;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
[A] Numbers do not add to 10 for "Other reason(s)" because 1 COCOM
left the response blank.
[End of table]
Survey Question 6: If your COCOM did not attend at least one JCB or
JROC meeting during FY 2010, either in person or remotely, was each of
the following a reason that your COCOM did not attend?
COCOM's perception that its input is not valued;
Number: "Yes": 0;
Number: "No": 6;
Number: "Not applicable": 4;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
COCOM lacked information on meeting time or location;
Number: "Yes": 0;
Number: "No": 6;
Number: "Not applicable": 4;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
COCOM lacked information on the content of the meeting;
Number: "Yes": 0;
Number: "No": 6;
Number: "Not applicable": 4;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Inconvenient time of scheduled meetings;
Number: "Yes": 1;
Number: "No": 5;
Number: "Not applicable": 4;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
COCOM had insufficient resources (expertise, money, staff, etc.) to
attend;
Number: "Yes": 3;
Number: "No": 4;
Number: "Not applicable": 3;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Specific issues were not relevant to COCOM interests;
Number: "Yes": 6;
Number: "No": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 3;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Other reason(s) (please specify)[A];
Number: "Yes": 4;
Number: "No": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 3;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
[A] Numbers do not add to 10 for "Other reason(s)" because 2 COCOMs
left the response blank.
[End of table]
Survey Question 7: Does your COCOM have sufficient opportunity to
provide input into each of the following?
Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA);
Number: "Yes": 10;
Number: "No": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 0;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Initial Capabilities Document (ICD);
Number: "Yes": 10;
Number: "No": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 0;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA);
Number: "Yes": 7;
Number: "No": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 3;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Capability Development Document (CDD);
Number: "Yes": 8;
Number: "No": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 1;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Capabilities Production Document (CPD);
Number: "Yes": 8;
Number: "No": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 1;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
JROC tripwire briefs;
Number: "Yes": 5;
Number: "No": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 3;
Number: "Don't know": 1.
Nunn-McCurdy reviews;
Number: "Yes": 6;
Number: "No": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 2;
Number: "Don't know": 1.
[End of table]
Survey Question 8: Has the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
(WSARA) of 2009 improved, worsened, or had no effect on your COCOM's
ability to provide input into the development of the following
documents?
Initial Capabilities Document (ICD);
Number "Significantly Improved": 0;
Number: "Improved": 1;
Number "Had no effect": 9;
Number "Worsened": 0;
Number "Significantly worsened": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 0;
Number "Don't know": 0.
Capability Development Document (CDD);
Number "Significantly Improved": 0;
Number: "Improved": 1;
Number "Had no effect": 8;
Number "Worsened": 0;
Number "Significantly worsened": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 1;
Number "Don't know": 0.
Capabilities Production Document (CPD);
Number "Significantly Improved": 0;
Number: "Improved": 1;
Number "Had no effect": 8;
Number "Worsened": 0;
Number "Significantly worsened": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 1;
Number "Don't know": 0.
[End of table]
Survey Question 9: During FY 2010, how successful, if at all, has your
COCOM been at influencing trade-offs among a program's cost, schedule,
and performance in each of the following documents?
Capability Development Document (CDD);
Number: "Very successful": 0;
Number "Moderately successful": 2;
Number "Slightly successful": 2;
Number: "Not at all successful": 2;
Number: "Not applicable": 4;
Number "Don't Know": 0.
Capability Production Document (CPD);
Number: "Very successful": 0;
Number "Moderately successful": 2;
Number "Slightly successful": 3;
Number: "Not at all successful": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 4;
Number "Don't Know": 0.
JROC tripwire briefs;
Number: "Very successful": 0;
Number "Moderately successful": 1;
Number "Slightly successful": 1;
Number: "Not at all successful": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 6;
Number "Don't Know": 1.
Nunn-McCurdy reviews;
Number: "Very successful": 0;
Number "Moderately successful": 1;
Number "Slightly successful": 2;
Number: "Not at all successful": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 5;
Number "Don't Know": 1.
[End of table]
Survey Question 10: How effective, if at all, has the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) been in seeking input from your
COCOM about each of the following during FY 2010?
Seeking input on current or projected missions or threats in your
theater of operations that would inform the assessment of a new joint
military requirement;
Number: "Very effective": 2;
Number "Moderately effective": 4;
Number "Slightly effective": 2;
Number: "Not at all effective": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 2;
Number "Don't Know": 0.
Seeking input on the necessity of proposed joint military requirements
in terms of current or projected missions or threats;
Number: "Very effective": 4;
Number "Moderately effective": 3;
Number "Slightly effective": 2;
Number: "Not at all effective": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 1;
Number "Don't Know": 0.
Seeking input on the sufficiency of proposed joint military
requirements in terms of current or projected missions or threats;
Number: "Very effective": 3;
Number "Moderately effective": 4;
Number "Slightly effective": 2;
Number: "Not at all effective": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 1;
Number "Don't Know": 0.
Seeking input on the relative priority of a proposed joint military
requirement compared to other joint military requirements within your
COCOM's theater of operations;
Number: "Very effective": 2;
Number "Moderately effective": 4;
Number "Slightly effective": 1;
Number: "Not at all effective": 0;
Number: "Not applicable": 3;
Number "Don't Know": 0.
Seeking input on the ability of partner nations in your COCOM's
theater of operations to assist in meeting proposed joint military
requirements;
Number: "Very effective": 0;
Number "Moderately effective": 2;
Number "Slightly effective": 1;
Number: "Not at all effective": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 6;
Number "Don't Know": 0.
Seeking input on the benefit, if any, of a partner nation assisting in
the development or use of technologies developed to meet joint
military requirements;
Number: "Very effective": 0;
Number "Moderately effective": 3;
Number "Slightly effective": 2;
Number: "Not at all effective": 1;
Number: "Not applicable": 3;
Number "Don't Know": 1.
[End of table]
Survey Question 11: Did the JROC seek input from your COCOM during FY
2010 about any topic other than those above?
Yes;
Number: 3.
No;
Number: 4.
Don't Know;
Number: 3.
[End of table]
Survey Question 11a: About what other topic(s) did the JROC seek your
COCOM's input during FY 2010?
Responses included:
* The VCJCS personally visited the Command and asked to discuss any
capability needs we may have.[Footnote 27]
* 2011 Air & Missile Defense Priorities Capabilities List--Jan 2010;
Capability Gap Assessment Actions for FY 2012--JROCM 096-10; Draft Non-
Lethal Weapons Capabilities Roadmap.
* JROC directed USSTRATCOM to participate in a review of service-led
air and missile defense programs.[Footnote 28]
Survey Question 12: How, if at all, did the enactment of WSARA in May
2009 affect your COCOM's ability to influence decisions about how your
COCOM's capability gaps may be mitigated?
Significantly improved;
Number: 0.
Improved;
Number: 1.
Neither improved nor worsened;
Number: 8.
Worsened;
Number: 0.
Significantly worsened;
Number: 0.
Don't know;
Number: 1.
[End of table]
Survey Question 13: How, if at all, did the enactment of WSARA in May
2009 affect your COCOM's ability to influence the capabilities
requirements process, regardless of the outcome your COCOM received?
Significantly improved;
Number: 0.
Improved;
Number: 1.
Neither improved nor worsened;
Number: 8.
Worsened;
Number: 0.
Significantly worsened;
Number: 0.
Don't know;
Number: 1.
[End of table]
Survey Question 14: Currently, is your COCOM staff trained to provide
the appropriate expertise to adequately perform the following
activities?
Develop the COCOM's annual Integrated Priority List;
Number: "Yes": 10;
Number: "No": 0;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Conduct a capabilities-based assessment;
Number: "Yes": 8;
Number: "No": 2;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Develop Initial Capabilities Documents;
Number: "Yes": 7;
Number: "No": 3;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Represent the COCOM at the Functional Capabilities Board working group
meetings;
Number: "Yes": 10;
Number: "No": 0;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Represent the COCOM at the Functional Capabilities Board meetings;
Number: "Yes": 10;
Number: "No": 0;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Represent the COCOM at the Joint Capabilities Board meetings;
Number: "Yes": 10;
Number: "No": 0;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Represent the COCOM at the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC);
Number: "Yes": 9;
Number: "No": 1;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
Work identified COCOM capability gaps through the Joint Capabilities
Integration and Development System (JCIDS);
Number: "Yes": 10;
Number: "No": 0;
Number: "Don't know": 0.
[End of table]
Survey Question 15: During FY 2010, what is the maximum number of
COCOM headquarters staff members assigned to identifying capability
gaps and developing joint capability requirements?
Reported numbers range from 8 to 345.
Note: The range of answers is provided above, but a single summary
number is not provided because each COCOM used its own methodology to
determine an answer.
Survey Question 16: During FY 2010, of the maximum number of COCOM
headquarters staff members assigned to identifying gaps and developing
requirements, how many were doing so as their PRIMARY job
responsibility?
Reported numbers range from 3 to 242.
Note: The range of answers is provided above, but a single summary
number is not provided because each COCOM used its own methodology to
determine an answer.
Survey Question 17: During FY 2010, of the maximum number of COCOM
headquarters staff members assigned to identifying gaps and developing
requirements, how many were doing so as a COLLATERAL job
responsibility?
Reported numbers range from 3 to 155.
Note: The range of answers is provided above, but a single summary
number is not provided because each COCOM used its own methodology to
determine an answer.
Survey Question 18: We are interested in your COCOM's satisfaction
with the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)
process, regardless of the outcomes your COCOM received. During FY
2010, for those capability gaps that your COCOM identified that
resulted in JCIDS documentation, how satisfied, if at all, is your
COCOM with the JCIDS process?
Very satisfied;
Number: 0.
Moderately satisfied;
Number: 4.
Slightly satisfied;
Number: 4.
Not at all satisfied;
Number: 1.
Not applicable;
Number: 1.
Don't know;
Number: 0.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Enclosure II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John H. Pendleton, (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Margaret Morgan, Assistant
Director; Noah Bleicher; Mae Jones; Michael Silver; Jennifer Spence;
and Kristy Williams made significant contributions to the report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] COCOMs are DOD's operational commanders. Of the 10 COCOMs, the
following six have geographic responsibilities: U.S. Africa Command,
U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Northern Command,
U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command. The following four
have functional responsibilities: U.S. Joint Forces Command, U.S.
Special Operations Command, U.S. Strategic Command, and U.S.
Transportation Command. In August 2010, the Secretary of Defense
announced the closure of U.S. Joint Forces Command and plans are
underway for responding to this announcement.
[2] Pub. L. No. 111-23, § 105 (2009).
[3] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: DOD's Requirements Determination
Process Has Not Been Effective in Prioritizing Joint Capabilities,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1060] (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 25, 2008).
[4] Pub. L. No. 111-23, § 105(c).
[5] A forthcoming GAO report, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-502], will provide more information
on the extent to which the JROC has considered trade-offs among cost,
schedule, and performance objectives within programs, the quality and
effectiveness of efforts to estimate the level of resources needed to
fulfill joint military requirements, and the extent to which the JROC
is prioritizing requirements and capability gaps.
[6] Pub. L. No. 111-23, § 105.
[7] Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 841 (2011).
[8] The Joint Capabilities Boards comprise general and flag officer
representatives of each of the military services.
[9] For the purposes of this report, identification and analysis and
synthesis of capability gaps will focus upon those gaps identified by
means of the Integrated Priority Lists.
[10] Integrated Priority Lists are developed as part of DOD's
budgeting processes and are not part of JCIDS. However, some
requirements identified through the Integrated Priority Lists may
ultimately be validated through JCIDS.
[11] The Joint Staff reported that a total of 100 gaps were submitted
through Integrated Priority Lists. An additional 55 inputs were
submitted through other sources.
[12] Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI)
5123.01E, Charter of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (Apr.
17, 2010).
[13] CJCSI 3137.01D, The Functional Capabilities Board (May 26, 2009).
[14] The Joint Staff refers to this annual conference as the Worldwide
J8 Conference.
[15] CJCSI 3137.01D. There are currently seven Functional Capabilities
Boards: Battlespace Awareness, Building Partnerships, Command and
Control and Net Centric, Force Application, Force Support, Logistics,
and Protection.
[16] There are currently two Joint Capabilities Boards: one chaired by
the Joint Staff Director of Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment
(J-8) and one chaired by U.S. Transportation Command. The boards
comprise general and flag officer representatives of each of the
military services.
[17] As part of the closure of U.S. Joint Forces Command, the
responsibilities of the Command and Control Joint Capabilities Board
reverted back to the Joint Staff Director of Force Structure,
Resources, and Assessment (J-8), while the Command and Control
Functional Capabilities Board was combined with the Net Centric
Functional Capabilities Board.
[18] The Joint Staff retained authority for the Logistics Functional
Capabilities Board.
[19] CJCSI 3170.01G, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development
System (Mar. 1, 2009).
[20] CJCSI 5123.01E.
[21] Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 841.
[22] The Joint Staff reported that in February 2011, the Deputy
Commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command served as a voting member of
the JROC regarding the Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center of
Excellence. In March 2011, officials from U.S. Central Command, U.S.
Joint Forces Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command,
U.S. Strategic Command, and U.S. Transportation Command participated
in Joint Capabilities Board meetings.
[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1060].
[24] The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011 requires that we conduct a comprehensive review of JCIDS to
evaluate, among other issues, the effectiveness of JCIDS in delivering
capabilities to the warfighter and the efficient use of the investment
of DOD's resources.
[25] COCOM = combatant command. JCIDS = Joint Capabilities Integration
and Development System.
[26] JCB = Joint Capabilities Board. JFCOM = U.S. Joint Forces
Command. TRANSCOM = U.S. Transportation Command. JROC = Joint
Requirements Oversight Council. POM = Program Objective Memorandum.
[27] VCJCS = Vice Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff.
[28] USSTRATCOM = U.S. Strategic Command.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
