Your cart is currently empty!
TL;DR: Joint concepts, as defined by the U.S. DoD’s 2016 guidance, provide a structured framework for addressing military challenges and guiding future force development. These concepts identify gaps, propose innovative solutions, and align with strategic priorities through a problem-solution approach. Categorized into Capstone, Operating, and Supporting concepts, they are regularly reviewed to ensure relevance. Each concept outlines required capabilities and transitions into actionable strategies through detailed plans involving stakeholders, timelines, and risk assessments. The joint concept framework offers potential civilian applications, particularly a framework to bridge strategy with operations.
Introduction
Joint concepts, as outlined in US DoD’s 2016 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction ‘Guidance for Developing and Implement Joint Concepts‘, play a critical role in shaping the future of military operations by addressing gaps in current capabilities and leveraging innovative approaches to meet emerging challenges. This article explores the purpose, taxonomy, review process, and structure of joint concepts, emphasizing their transition from conceptual frameworks to actionable, future-ready capabilities.
In this article I summarize the purpose, the taxonomy, annual review of Joint Concepts. I then summarize the outline of what a joint concept looks like as well as what typically appears in the transition from current to future state incorporating the findings of the concept.
Summary to Guidance for Developing and Implementing Joint Concepts
Purpose
Joint concepts, as outlined in US DoD’s 2016 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction ‘Guidance for Developing and Implement Joint Concepts‘, outline methods for employing joint force capabilities to achieve objectives in specific environments or address challenges. They propose innovative approaches for addressing gaps or inadequacies in current capabilities, often leveraging new technologies to overcome future challenges. These concepts are analyzed to assess feasibility and guide decisions on developing new joint capabilities. After approval, the concepts are refined to identify gaps and inform capability recommendations, which are submitted for further development and fielding.
Joint concepts are informed by authoritative documents such as the National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and the Joint Operating Environment. Using a problem-solution method, they define military problems, propose operational solutions, and specify required capabilities. Approved concepts guide future force development and ensure alignment with overarching strategic priorities.
Family of Joint Concepts
The Family of Joint Concepts comprises three categories: the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO), Joint Operating Concepts (JOCs), and Supporting Joint Concepts. These concepts align with defense strategic guidance and the Joint Operating Environment (JOE) to address military missions and challenges. They also inform strategic scenario development for evaluating and refining concepts.
Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO):
The CCJO outlines the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s vision for how the joint force will address security challenges and protect national interests. It bridges strategic guidance and joint operating concepts, establishing priorities for future joint force development. The CCJO is revised based on changes in the security environment or strategic guidance and serves as the foundational document guiding other concepts.
Joint Operating Concepts (JOCs):
JOCs describe how the joint force may conduct operations in specific mission areas, adhering to the CCJO and defense strategic guidance. They define capabilities across the military spectrum and guide exploration through wargaming, training, experimentation, and analyses.
Supporting Joint Concepts:
These concepts add depth to JOCs by detailing how the joint force may execute subsets of missions or apply joint functions across mission areas. They support capability-based assessments (CBAs) to identify gaps and recommend changes—both material and non-material—to achieve desired operational outcomes.
Additional concepts, such as Service and multi-Service concepts, may align with this structure for coherence and efficiency, with alignment and relevance determined by relevant governance bodies.
Annual Review of Joint Concepts
Joint concepts undergo an annual review (except the CCJO) to assess progress, relevance, and utility. Reviews consider strategic guidance, operating environment changes, transition status, related capability developments, and contributions to joint capability development. Recommendations may include maintaining, revising, suspending, or archiving the concept.
Joint Concept Outline
joint concept typically follows this outline:
- Executive Summary: Provides a concise overview of the concept’s main points and structure, written after ideas mature and included in later drafts.
- Introduction: Defines the concept’s topic, purpose, and challenges, linking it to the operational approach in the CCJO or other joint concepts.
- Future Security Environment: Highlights relevant aspects of the future operating environment, justifying the concept’s focus. It incorporates insights from strategic documents like the National Military Strategy (NMS), CCJO, Joint Operating Environment (JOE), and Joint Strategic Planning System (JSPS) assessments, emphasizing specific implications for the concept rather than a general environmental description.
- The Military Challenge: Clearly articulates the operational problem or opportunity that the concept addresses, focusing on gaps or unrealized potential in current solutions.
- The Central and Supporting Ideas:
- The central idea outlines how the joint force addresses the military challenge.
- Supporting ideas expand on the central idea, introducing new methods and contrasting them with existing practices.
- Concept Required Capabilities (CRCs):
- Specifies capabilities the joint force needs to execute the concept effectively.
- CRCs align with the concept’s ideas and are developed collaboratively during workshops involving subject matter experts and stakeholders.
- Risks: Identifies potential challenges or risks in executing the concept, categorized per the Chairman’s joint risk assessment system.
- Glossary and Bibliography: Includes essential references. After approval, the document features a foreword from the CJCS.
A CRC directly maps to one or more of the concept’s ideas, should address a single capability, and should not be duplicated within the same concept. |
A CRC should be measurable in its ability to solve the military problem and must be sufficiently detailed to facilitate transition to capability development processes. |
A CRC may propose a new capability or describe how an existing capability may be modified or applied differently to improve the joint force’s ability to operate as described in the concept. |
A CRC may be written using doctrinal terms or it may propose new terms. |
CRCs should be expressed consistently and with sufficient detail to enable leverage across different concepts. |
CRCs should be prioritized within the concept to enable transition planners and other users to clearly understand the CRCs that are most critical to the concept. |
CRCs may use supporting actions to provide additional detail to identify potential Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR), timeline, and the specific action(s) required to generate the overall required capability. |
Considerations for Developing CRCs
This structure ensures a clear, focused approach to addressing military challenges and guiding future joint force development.
Joint Concept Transition Plan
The Joint Concept Transition Plan outlines the strategy for evolving joint concepts into actionable capabilities:
- Executive Summary: Provides a high-level summary for senior leaders.
- Situation:
- General: Introduces the plan’s purpose, scope, problem-solution logic, and targeted concept elements.
- Risks: Highlights potential risks and their impacts.
- Assumptions: States required assumptions for implementation.
- Mission: Clearly defines the purpose, method, and desired end state for achieving the required capabilities.
- Execution:
- Concept of Operations: Details how solutions and capabilities will be transitioned, involving stakeholders, DoD processes, and timelines.
- Tasks: Outlines critical actions, responsible parties (OPRs), timelines, and progress assessments.
- Synchronization: Ensures task alignment, explains rationale, and links with existing plans, including a timeline with milestones.
- Assessment: Specifies criteria and methods for evaluating transition progress.
- Reporting: Details how stakeholders will communicate progress to relevant groups.
- Roles and Responsibilities: Defines organizational roles, governance structures, and oversight mechanisms for supporting the transition.
This plan ensures structured development, alignment, and accountability in transitioning joint concepts into actionable recommendations.
Potential for Civilian Application
The joint concept framework, originally designed for military operations, offers valuable potential adaptations for civilian applications. These include the following:
- Strategic Planning: Civilian organizations can use the problem-solution framework to define organizational challenges, propose innovative solutions, and outline required capabilities. The framework also supports multiple concepts with a clear link between them. This approach can improve decision-making in sectors like business, healthcare, and disaster management.
- Capability Development: By identifying gaps in current systems and creating capability requirements, civilian industries can ensure effective resource allocation and alignment with strategic goals. For example, urban planning initiatives could adopt this method to address future infrastructure demands.
- Annual Reviews: Regular assessments of progress, relevance, and utility, akin to the annual review of joint concepts, could enhance adaptability in dynamic industries and markets.
- Scenario Development: Similar to the military’s use of strategic scenarios, businesses could simulate market conditions or crisis situations to test and refine their operational strategies.
- Risk Management: The structured identification and categorization of risks can be applied to civilian sectors, improving risk mitigation in project management, financial planning, and public policy.
- Transition Planning: A clear plan for transitioning ideas into actionable outcomes is highly relevant for startups, NGOs, and community programs, ensuring accountability and measurable progress.
- Collaborative Development: Workshops involving stakeholders and subject matter experts, as seen in CRC development, could foster innovation and stakeholder alignment in fields like education and technology.
By leveraging this structured framework, civilian sectors can improve strategic foresight, operational efficiency, and adaptability in addressing complex challenges.
Terry in Quebec as the temperatures fall
Leave a Reply