Figure 1 - uploaded by Katherine Gentil
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
This research develops a career field's educational profile through use of the decision analysis approach of value-focused thinking (VFT). VFT is used to solicit the capabilities that the career field manager (CFM) desires its officers obtain from an advanced academic program. This process generates a value hierarchy and a focused set of alternativ...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... to Clemen and Reilly, the DA process is captured through the flow chart seen in Figure 1. It is an iterative process that the authors term a decision-analysis cycle (1996). ...
Context 2
... the portfolio is developed, the next step is to determine the percentage of the career field that should receive each specific degree. The priority ranking approach as Figure 10). This approach provides a visual tool for the DM to see how the priority rises as a degree program meets more of the established criteria. ...
Context 3
... alternatives are rank-ordered in descending order based on the results of the additive value function. The rank-ordered list of alternatives and their corresponding overall weighted value score is provided in Figure 11. The stacked bar chart is broken down into the two main 1 st tier values of ...
Context 4
... that the local weight for the Leader/Manager value was 0.30 and for Critical Thinker, 0.70. With these weights, the results as shown in Figure 12 highlight the close competition between the NPS-Manpower Systems Analysis and AFIT's Operations Research-Decision Analysis programs. A slight shift in this weight impacts these top two ranked items as well as the overall top 15-ranked items which can become a critical issue when looking at the portfolio selection. ...
Context 5
... factor to determine the criteria was based on his desire to have a tighter, more restrictive approach to allowing an alternative to enter the portfolio since he wanted fewer rather than more degree programs. Using this criteria, the weighted values scores were entered into the Matlab code and the results of which degree programs met the highest level criteria are seen in Figure 14. Each alternative is displayed along with the highest level or "bucket" ...
Citations
... This process has been refined and applied in several research projects. These projects include an examination of advanced academic degree profiles (Gentil, 2007), a Force Protection Battlelab project evaluation initiative (Jurk, 2002), and strategic airlift (Tharaldson, 2006). Chambal's (2008) process follows a path of distinct activities, separating Value Hierarchy creation, Measure ...
The U.S. military has placed a strong focus on the importance of operating in a joint environment, where capabilities and missions are shared among service components. Protecting U.S. forces is a major consideration in the joint environment. The Joint Force Protection Advanced Security System (JFPASS) architecture has been created to fill a critical gap in Joint Force Protection guidance for systems acquisition. The systems engineering (SE) field has made wide use of system architectures to represent complex systems. As fundamental SE principles become more widespread, analysis tools provide an objective method for the evaluation of the resulting architectural products. This study used decision analysis to develop a standardized, yet adaptable and repeatable model to evaluate the capabilities of the JFPASS for any installation or facility belonging to the United States Department of Defense (DoD). Using Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) methods, a value hierarchy was created by consulting with subject matter experts. The result, the Value-Driven Enterprise Architecture (VDEA) score, is an analysis tool that enables DoD decision makers to use JFPASS architecture products to quickly and easily evaluate the value provided by the system. VDEA provides insight into the overall quality and capability of the system. Through scoring and sensitivity analysis functions, capability gaps and potential improvements can be identified. Future studies in this area will provide a vehicle for rating not only operational-level systems, but also individual functional projects against other alternatives.
