TL;DR. JCIDS, the joint requirements process DoD used for about two decades, was shut down by a memo signed on 20 August 2025. Requirements did not go away. The job moved.
- New to this? The military services now validate their own requirements. The JROC ranks a short list of joint Key Operational Problems instead of approving service paperwork.
- Government PM? A new board, the RRAB, lines those problems up with money. Expect shorter requirement documents and harder questions about which problem your program solves.
- Seeing an ICD or CDD? It comes from the JCIDS era. Legacy programs still carry them, so it pays to read them fluently.
- Contractor? Commercial, prototype-ready and open designs get a warmer welcome than ever. Sell life-cycle cost, not just the sticker price.
What Happened to JCIDS
For about two decades, the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) was how the Department of Defense (DoD) decided what warfighters needed before anyone bought anything. The services wrote requirement documents, the Joint Staff reviewed them, and for the biggest programs the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) validated them.
It was thorough. It was also slow. Federal News Network's coverage cited 800 days to bless a single requirements document, which is a long time to wait for permission to start solving a problem.
On 20 August 2025, Secretary Hegseth and Deputy Secretary Feinberg signed a memo that disestablished JCIDS. If your training slides still teach JCIDS as the current process, they are out of date. (So is that org chart taped to the break room fridge. We won't tell.)
Here is what did not change. DoD still has to decide what problem it is solving before it spends money on a solution. A program without a clear requirement is a very expensive answer looking for a question.
Get the Acqlerate Acquisition Starter Kit (Free)
Key terms, ACAT levels, career roadmaps, and the 5 most common acquisition mistakes. Tailored to your role: USG, contractor, or career changer.
What Replaced JCIDS
The memo did not swap JCIDS for one new process. It spread the old job across four players:
- The military services now validate their own requirements, with limited Joint Staff review.
- The JROC, still chaired by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, no longer validates service documents. It now identifies and ranks a small set of joint Key Operational Problems (KOPs), the outcome-focused warfighting challenges that need the joint force's urgent attention.
- The Requirements and Resourcing Alignment Board (RRAB), co-chaired by the Vice Chairman and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, decides which problems get new money, which programs adjust and which ones stop. It also recommends how to spend the Joint Acceleration Reserve, money set aside starting in FY2027 to help promising solutions cross the "valley of death."
- The Mission Engineering and Integration Activity (MEIA), which the memo told the Under Secretaries for Research and Engineering and for Acquisition and Sustainment to stand up, runs mission engineering and experiments against the top problems, with industry in the loop.
The tone on paperwork is blunt. As one law firm summary of the memo put it, DoD "no longer wants long, bespoke requirements documents." Congress pointed the same way. Section 1811 of the FY2026 NDAA tells the JROC to focus on gaps and on advances in technology, including innovative commercial solutions, and to weigh input from end users and industry (Crowell & Moring summary).
So What? For DoD Program Managers (PMs), your requirement now lives with your service, and your case for money gets stronger when you can show which ranked joint problem your program helps solve. For industry partners, the MEIA's experiments and the RRAB's funding choices are early signals of where new demand will show up. Interoperability still matters. A system that can't share data is a very expensive group chat of one.
Requirements Meet the Warfighting Acquisition System
The requirements overhaul was act one. Act two came on 7 November 2025, when Secretary Hegseth's memo "Transforming the Defense Acquisition System into the Warfighting Acquisition System" renamed the Defense Acquisition System the Warfighting Acquisition System (WAS). Three changes matter most for requirements people:
- Portfolios, not stovepipes. Programs move under Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs) over about two years. PAEs report to their Service Acquisition Executive and make cost, schedule and performance trades with speed as the priority. Section 1802 of the FY2026 NDAA wrote the PAE role into law. Program Executive Officers (PEOs) still run programs that haven't moved yet.
- Commercial first. Commercial products and services are the default starting point.
- Prototype, don't just analyze. The memo replaces analyses of alternatives with competitive prototyping and experimentation where it can.
Some services are pulling requirements and acquisition closer together. The Army's six new PAEs, which began standing up in late 2025, each put requirements, science and technology, contracting, testing and sustainment people under one leader, and they report to the Army's Transformation and Training Command for requirements (DefenseScoop).
Speeding Up: The Adaptive Acquisition Framework (AAF) and MTA
The Adaptive Acquisition Framework (AAF), set up by DoDI 5000.02 in January 2020, offers six pathways instead of one long road. The Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA) comes in two flavors under DoDI 5000.80: rapid prototyping, which must field a working prototype within five years, and rapid fielding, which must start production within six months and finish fielding within five years.
MTA was a preview of today's requirements model. Even when JCIDS was alive, MTA programs were exempt from it. Each DoD component used its own streamlined process and had to produce a short requirement document within six months. With JCIDS gone, every service now validates its own requirements, so that lighter touch is spreading.
MTA is not a free pass. GAO's July 2026 weapon systems assessment found DoD plans to invest at least $49 billion across 23 of its most expensive MTA programs, and that nearly half of the MTA programs it reviewed started development with immature technologies. Moving a successful prototype into a lasting program with long-term sustainment is still the hard part, and it goes better when the original problem statement was clear.
| Feature | Major Capability Acquisition (Traditional) | Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Goal | Comprehensive, fully developed, sustained system | Rapid prototyping & fielding to meet urgent needs |
| Typical Timeline | Often more than a decade; GAO's 2026 assessment puts the average time to deliver a capability at over 12 years | Up to 5 years (DoDI 5000.80) |
| Requirements Focus | Detailed up-front requirements; JCIDS-era programs carry an ICD and CDD | Minimum Viable Product (MVP), iterative refinement |
| Documentation Burden | Extensive formal documentation at each milestone | Streamlined; a short, service-approved requirement is key |
| Risk Profile | Lower technical risk for each phase, higher program risk for delays | Higher technical risk accepted for speed; focus on learning & adapting |
| "So What" for PMs | Rigorous planning, long-term sustainment focus | Agility, rapid iteration, warfighter feedback loops |
So What? For DoD PMs, fluency in the MTA pathway is non-negotiable. Focus on identifying minimum viable products (MVPs) and getting capabilities into warfighters' hands quickly for feedback, rather than striving for perfection from day one. Embrace iterative development and continuous requirements refinement. For defense contractors, this means developing rapid prototyping capabilities and being prepared to deliver functional systems quickly, even if not fully mature. Engage with warfighters early and often, demonstrating agile development and a willingness to iterate based on user feedback.
Digital Engineering & Software: The New Language of Requirements
DoD policy treats digital engineering as a foundation for acquisition. DoDI 5000.88 (Engineering of Defense Systems, November 2020) promotes models and digital threads, and DoDI 5000.87 (October 2020) created a dedicated Software Acquisition Pathway, because software needs its own kind of requirements and delivery rhythm.
With long, bespoke requirement documents out of favor, models, prototypes and user feedback carry more of the load. Treat them as part of your requirement, not decoration. The law pushes the same way on design. 10 U.S.C. 4401 requires major programs approved at Milestone A or B after 1 January 2019 to use a modular open system approach to the maximum extent practicable.
So What? For DoD PMs, championing digital engineering practices is paramount. Ensure requirements are clearly defined for software functionality, cybersecurity, and future upgrade paths. Understanding the nuances of agile software development and continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD) is no longer just for software engineers. It’s for acquisition leaders. For defense contractors, this means investing heavily in digital engineering tools and talent. Be prepared to deliver model-based systems engineering (MBSE) artifacts alongside traditional documentation and develop agile software development capabilities that prioritize secure, modular, and upgradable solutions.
Navigating Budgetary Realities: Prioritization and Divestment
Money is where requirements meet reality. DoD started fiscal year 2026 in a funding lapse (1 October to 12 November 2025), then ran on a continuing resolution. Its full-year appropriation, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-75), was signed on 3 February 2026 at $839.2 billion (CRS).
The next request is bigger. The FY2027 President's budget, released 3 April 2026, asks for $1.5 trillion for national defense: $1.15 trillion in discretionary funding plus $350 billion requested through reconciliation (CSIS). As of late October 2026, Congress has not enacted full-year FY2027 appropriations. DoD is running on a continuing resolution (P.L. 119-103, signed 2 September 2026) that funds the government through 11 December 2026.
A bigger topline does not end prioritization. The RRAB exists to line requirements up with money, deciding which problems get new funding and which programs adjust or stop. "Divest to invest" is alive and well, and a program with a validated requirement can still lose out if it no longer ranks against the problems that matter most.
So What? For DoD PMs, focus on affordability and sustainment from the outset. Requirements must be linked to realistic budget projections, and you must be prepared to justify the cost-benefit of every capability. For defense contractors, proactively offer cost-effective, sustainable solutions. Emphasize life-cycle costs, not just upfront acquisition. Solutions that can demonstrate lower total ownership costs will be highly favored when every dollar is contested.
Module: DoD Acquisitions Foundations
This post touches on concepts covered in depth in the DoD Acquisitions Foundations module. Start here: the complete overview of how DoD buys things, from FAR to program office.
Start This Module Free →Adapting for Tomorrow's Battlefield
JCIDS is gone, but the logic behind it is not. Someone still has to name the problem, decide how good is good enough, and tie that to money. What changed is who does it and how fast. The services validate, the JROC ranks joint problems, the RRAB funds them, and PAEs trade cost, schedule and performance across portfolios.
PMs and contractors who stay close to the warfighter's real problem, design for interoperability and upgrades, use digital engineering and prototypes to show progress, and can speak the language of both the old system and the new one will be best placed to deliver. The goal remains constant: keeping the U.S. military's edge on tomorrow's battlefield.
Legacy JCIDS Documents You Will Still See
If you see an ICD, CDD or CPD, it's from the JCIDS era. Plenty of programs still carry them, so here's a decoder.
| Document | Phase | Purpose | Key Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) | Pre-Milestone A (MSA) | Documents the capability gap and potential approaches | Mission need, gap analysis, potential solutions |
| Capability Development Document (CDD) | Pre-Milestone B (TMRR) | Defines KPPs, KSAs, and APAs for the solution | Key Performance Parameters; threshold/objective values |
| Capability Production Document (CPD) | Pre-Milestone C | Defines production-specific performance parameters | Production KPPs; IOT&E criteria |