10.3.1 The “Big Navy” Meta‐model as a Framework for Major Defense Development Projects

Abstract

AbstractPatterns, frameworks, meta‐models: the utility of these tools for many systems architects and engineers is to avoid “heavy lifting”. Others will say that they use meta‐models to keep from “reinventing wheels.” Builders and structural engineers have utilized patterns, frameworks and meta‐models which include building codes and construction standards for thousands of years. In the realm of defense systems engineering, the “Mystical Land of DoDAF,” systems engineers have been slow to realize the full potential of meta‐ model applications. Instead, functional analysis teams performing work prescribed by the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) end up doing that “heavy lifting” in the course of developing JCIDS functional area, needs and solutions analyses. Analysis teams performing JCIDS Functional Area Analysis (FAA) assess hundreds of activities listed in the Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) for relevance to their functional domain. This paper does not intend to discount the importance of the review of the tasks and activities required in the FAA, yet it is highly desirable to utilize the precedent foundations provided by those functional area analysts who blazed the trail for predecessor systems currently operating within their operational domain. A systems engineering meta‐model provides such a foundation for a living engineering model from operational needs analysis through production and deployment. The framework described below, the “Big Navy” Meta‐model, is an example of one pattern that can be applied to facilitate the development of complex defense‐related systems. Systems models derived from Big Navy can be further refined over its life cycle to include requirements capture, functional analysis, architecture development, concept and engineering design and design validation which includes modeling and simulation.