a. Given the complexity and diversity of service and joint GF capabilities, incorporating them into the JCRM will be an arduous task.157 However, if successful, the effort can be expected to produce the following organizational and operational benefits:
(1) The primary benefit is expanding capability options for employment by joint and service commanders.
(2) Providing greater visibility of GF capabilities to support planning.
(3) Establishing a basis for comparative analysis of GF capabilities and improvement in burden sharing of the demand for them across the joint force.
(4) Quantifying the volume and scope of operational demands.
(5) Establishing a baseline, based on historical demand, to help determine the need for permanent measures that would improve the readiness and availability of GF capabilities to support operations.
b. Improvements in managing GF capabilities available for support to operations through the GFM process and in JCRM should include:
(1) Identifying recurring requirements and reusability of GF functional capability packages.
(2) Evaluating if GF capability providers might be better organized to meet operational demands.
(3) Providing quantifiable evidence for judgments regarding force structure or the need for changes in capacity.
(4) Illuminating ways and means of mitigating the cost incurred with respect to GF primary mission performance.
(5) Improving the predictability of employment, with timely scheduling and completion of predeployment training and preparation.
(6) Potentially reducing the pressure on low-density, high-demand capabilities through greater burden-sharing across services.
7-4. The JCRM158
a. The JCRM is a global prototype that merges the requirements generation capability of the joint force requirements manager with the capabilities library of the joint capabilities requirements tool. As such, JCRM is intended to become the global repository for capabilities libraries and force requirements that are presented to the joint planning and executive community for time-phasing into JOPES. Fundamental capabilities include:
(1) A global force requirements database empowered by a collaborative staffing tool with workflow functionality.
(2) A standardized and automated process for requests for forces or capabilities and universal capabilities definitions.
(3) The means for designing and documenting capabilities-based force packages and the ability to generate force tracking numbers for requirements.
(4) Function as a joint conduit for global force sourcing and utility to do all the above in support of emergent, rotational, exercise, planning, and individual augmentee requirements.
b. The JCRM traces its origins to July 2007, when the force management executive committee159 established the force management integration project team and directed it to deliver: a global force requirements management capability, a collaborative staffing capability for common sourcing and analyses, and enhanced visibility of force data. In pursuit of these goals, in February 2008, the project team directed actions to be taken to integrate both the joint force requirements manager and the joint capabilities requirements tool. The JCRM has been tested in multiple joint exercises, providing full utility of its projected capabilities, and is available for use at its beta-site for prototype, experimental, and training activities at the supported command and JTF levels.
c. Specific JCRM features include the following.
(1) DOD-wide standardized force capability definitions and descriptions of force characteristics.
(2) Rapid identification and selection of force requirements and capabilities validated by authoritative service data sources, which an operational planner can request for employment.
(3) Transparency of both planning and deployment data for those involved in the deployment planning and execution process.
(4) Ability to export requirements and capability packages into multiple data formats.
Ability to bridge service units or service capabilities to joint capability areas through service tasks and the universal joint task list (UJTL).
(5) Ability to operate in a services-oriented architecture and interface with critical force projection systems for authoritative data.
d. At full operational capability, JCRM should function as a user-friendly, advanced data and capabilities library and requirements generator, operating like a search engine with the intuitive responsiveness expected of a web-based tool to have maximum utility for planners who may not be experts in the JOPES and TPFDD domains. It will provide operational capability packages in both plain-text descriptions of the requirement for the user and the detailed data-centric information required for JOPES. JCRM will also enable automated generation of force tracking numbers and mitigate the incidences of request for forces that are delayed or rejected due to ambiguous, incomplete, or unexplained requests.
7-5. Challenges to implementation
a. Numerous challenges exist with respect to the incorporation of GF capabilities into the GFM process and the JCRM. Perhaps the most significant is the complexity and diversity of the myriad tasks performed by GF organizations as part of their routine activities. The need to identify specifically the capabilities associated with those tasks in terms applicable to JCRM and its authoritative data sources, as well as the mutability of the organizations themselves, adds further complexity. Although the current version of the joint capability area framework appears to account for many GF capabilities, it would likely need some level of revision and expansion to accommodate all that could be classified as globally available to support warfighters. Similarly, the UJTL and service task lists would likely have to be augmented significantly. Comparative analysis of service capabilities is an ongoing problem within JCRM that will also apply to GF capabilities, as long as services use different means of identifying capabilities. The latter is one of four major challenges identified by the JRCM project office that hinder the full operationalization of JCRM and that will equally affect the incorporation of GF capabilities. These operationalizing requirements include development of compatible extensible markup language data schemas across all services; conduct of a data pilot to test schemas and web services; web service capability for service-owned authoritative data sources to have web service capability; and the determination of the data messaging service to be employed.
b. Defining appropriate metrics and readiness for GF capabilities presents yet another daunting challenge, since readiness to perform primary missions at home station does not equate to readiness to support operations in theater. In addition, it appears that GF organizations may need to establish internal JOPES and JCRM-trained operations cells where they currently do not exist in order to maintain current data entries and link into the GFM process.
c. Finally, another critical issue is the degree to which JCRM can account for the non-validated demands for reachback support to GF organizations that are not explicitly identified in the demand stream. This issue was discussed during three events of the UQ 09 campaign of learning, with the goal of developing answers to the following questions:160 (1) Are the potential benefits produced by the incorporation of GF capabilities into JCRM and the GFM process significant enough to warrant the effort? If yes, how should the Army and/or JFCOM move forward?
(2) Is it feasible to expect support from other services, the Joint Staff, and other joint agencies to participate in implementation?
(3) How does the joint capability area framework need to be expanded to incorporate joint GF capabilities in some fashion?
(4) Is the volume of service and joint GF tasks too large to accommodate within the JCRM database?
(5) How do the UJTL and service task lists need to be updated to reflect GF tasks in order to incorporate GF capabilities into JCRM?
(6) What joint organizations and capabilities need to be incorporated into JCRM to make them available to operating forces?
(7) How can service GF capabilities be effectively compared in order to expand options for operating forces and to improve burden sharing?
(8) Can existing readiness metrics and support requirements be applied in some fashion to GF capabilities?
(9) What issues exist, if any, with respect to oversight and approval of commitment of GF capabilities in response to requests for comments?
(10) How can reachback demands on GF capabilities be incorporated into the JCRM?
(11) Does incorporation of GF capabilities into JCRM address any existing warfighting challenges submitted by services or COCOMs?
d. The UQ seminar process served well to educate participants on this issue of accessing GF capabilities through the GFM process, but despite the best intentions and sponsorship of the issue by HQDA G-3/5/7, the specific expertise of the participants did not enable a discussion to a level of detail sufficient to answer the above questions. When briefed to the global security panel at the capstone wargame, panel members recognized the projected benefits of pursuing this potential initiative. However, the panel elected not to develop the issue in detail, viewing it as a technical matter, and declined to endorse a recommendation for HQDA to take the matter for action. As a result, the issue was not raised to the senior leader seminar.