A Comparative Assessment of the Navys Future Naval Capabilities Process and Joint Staff Capability Gap Assessment Process as Related to Pacific Commands Integrated Priority List Submission

Abstract

This report presents the results of research and analyses on current and future operational capability gap development and acquisition practices in the United States Navy and the Combatant Commands (COCOMs), as exemplified by Pacific Command (PACOM). Leveraging key stakeholder interviews and using a systems thinking framework known as the Conceptagon (Boardman & Sauser, 2008), we investigated and assessed the Navy's Future Naval Capabilities (FNC) process as well as the Joint Staff (JS) Capability Gap Assessment (CGA) process as it applies to the annual submission of PACOM's Integrated Priority List (IPL) of capability needs. The study approached both processes as systems and identified and explored their critical systemic attributes such as parts, relationships, boundaries, governance mechanisms/structures, key processes, transformations, stakeholders, and missions, to name a few. Based on this assessment, we conducted a structured and systematic comparison of the two processes to identify good practices and favorable dynamics that are likely to reinforce the desired outcome, which "for our purposes" is defined as the resolution of capability gaps and, ultimately, deployment of needed capabilities to the warfighters. In light of this analysis, we present key insights, explore some problem areas, and discuss possible improvements to the said processes.