Question: D​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍​iscuss the transition from Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) to materiel (“M”) approaches in supporting Global Combatant Commander mission needs

Expert answer

The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is the process that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) uses to identify, prioritize, and integrate the capabilities needed by the military Services. In recent years, there has been a shift from JCIDS to materiel ("M") approaches in supporting Global Combatant Commander mission needs. This shift is due to a number of factors, including the increasing complexity of the operating environment, the need for more rapidly available solutions, and the desire to reduce costs.

There are three main aspects of materiel acquisition: cost, schedule, and performance. The tension between these three aspects is a consistent challenge in materiel acquisition. Trade-offs must often be made in order to meet the needs of the mission. For example, a materiel solution may be available more quickly if it is less expensive, but it may not perform as well as a more costly solution.

Materiel solutions can take a number of different lanes based on the timeliness of the need. The three main lanes are rapid acquisition, traditional acquisition, and middle ground. Rapid acquisition is used when there is an urgent need for a materiel solution and time is of the essence. Traditional acquisition is used when there is time to go through the full JCIDS process. Middle ground is used when there is a need for a materiel solution that falls somewhere between the two extremes of rapid and traditional acquisition.

Each lane has its own advantages and disadvantages. Rapid acquisition can provide a needed materiel solution quickly, but it may be less effective and more expensive in the long run. Traditional acquisition can take longer, but it is usually more thorough and results in a better product. Middle ground provides a balance between the two extremes, but it can be difficult to find the right balance.

The choice of lane should be based on the specific needs of the mission. In some cases, a rapid acquisition may be the best option. In other cases, a traditional acquisition may be more appropriate. The key is to choose the lane that will best meet the needs of the mission while also considering the cost, schedule, and performance trade-offs.