Joint Capabilities Integration And Development System Research Articles

The Design andApplication ofa Health Behavioral Change (HBC) Roadmap.

To assist in addressing medical readiness challenges, the DOD has established various Centers of Excellence to focus efforts to protect, treat, train, and educate service members concerning risks and potential injuries. Using the hearing health domain as a pilot, this effort used DOD methods to evaluate all facets of successful health behavior change (HBC) practices within a military environment and developed a framework and pathway for HBC. The DOD uses the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) to ensure new DOD capabilities are identified and fielded in a manner that is interoperable, resilient, and supportables. The study sponsor for the Health Behavioral Change Framework study is the Defense Health Agency Deputy Assistant Director for Research and Engineering (R&E). The main objective of this group was to ensure that final products would both meet the requirements as defined by the JCIDS process, as well as be used by the operational force in addressing HBCs that improve readiness of the joint force. The Health Behavior Change Guidebook applies to all organizations across the DOD and military health system that may participate in or support specific tasks related to the design, conduct, and assessment of the HBC campaign. The advantage of the process is the ability to define gaps and solutions at an enterprise level. The HBC framework can be applied to a variety of health domains to include behavioral health. Use of the "Guidebook for Design, Conduct and Assessment of Health Behavior Change Campaign Within the DOD" and DOTMLPF-P analysis will move Defense Health Agency toward more disciplined use of the JCIDS. The HBC framework allowed the Hearing Center of Excellence to lead the hearing health community to create a capability-based assessment for hearing HBC.

SEAS ISR Architect: Mapping Department of Defense Architecture Views to Military Outcome

The SEAS ISR Architect maps Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) views to military outcome and demonstrates a quick turnaround tool for the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) phase of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process. The SEAS ISR Architect allows the user to reconfigure intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) architectures within the DoD Architecture Framework, to parameterize a Systems Effectiveness and Analysis Simulation (SEAS) with a pre-loaded scenario and present a comparison of the warfighting effectiveness of a range of architectural alternatives based on multiple simultaneous theater simulations.

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

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.