This paper describes the fundamental characteristics (goals, scope, stakeholders, inputs/outputs and conception principles) upon which will be based the development of the first version of the Canadian Capability Engineering Process being investigating by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, to bridge the gap between the Capability‐Based Planning and Acquisition processes.

The current paper introduces the Iterative and Incremental Meta‐process (I2M) being applied to develop a Capability Engineering Process (CEP). This simple method is founded on the assumption that such a CEP, and even any process, should be developed as methodically as engineering is performed for systems and software system development. This effort is performed as part of a major Canadian R&D effort called the Collaborative, Capability, Definition, Engineering and Management (CapDEM).

Abstract. Significant changes in the nature of military systems and the military environment require improvements of the current military systems acquisition process. The Capability Engineering Process (CEP), to be delivered through the CapDEM project, aims at improving military capabilities acquisition in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces (DND/CF). However, opportunities to improve capability acquisition are too numerous to implement all of them within the CEP. This paper presents a structured approach to better orient the development of a CEP. CURRENT CAPABILITY ACQUISITION ISSUESMilitary systems acquisition has changed significantly over the last decade. Past and present acquisition processes are no longer well adapted to the new acquisition context. For instance, threat-based and single-service military acquisition is evolving toward multi-service and capability-based acquisition composed of many complex systems, or System-of-Systems (SoS). As another example, upgradability of systems and interoperability between systems, within and between nations, are becoming mandatory requirements for most capabilities. Current military system acquisition processes cannot easily adapt to the rapidly changing nature of requirements or technological innovations. Figure 1 shows the mean time between the identification of a capability deficiency and the final delivery of a capability in the DND/CF (DND/CF, 2003). Figure 1. Average Canadian Forces acquisition life cycle (in months)Fifteen years was perhaps an acceptable timeframe to deliver a Full Operational Capability (FOC) during the cold war. At that time, the enemy, the context of operations and the technology were changing at a slow pace. However, the increasing technology development rate and the rapidly changing nature of the threat impose a more adaptive and a faster capability acquisition process. The increasing complexity of systems and SoS also leads to an increasing military 1390

Some managerial and technical problems related to the transition of the Canadian military acquisition from the Threat‐Based Planning to the Capability‐Based Planning are identified in this paper. A simplified example of military acquisition illustrates recommendations that were made in the Collaborative Capability Definition Engineering and Management (CapDEM) project to guide the work surrounding the conception of a new Capability Engineering Process. Some elements of solution for the support of such a process are also presented.