Download The United States applauds the work done by the NATO nations to

The United States applauds the work done by the NATO nations to create the C3 Classification
Taxonomy. As with any such endeavor, trying to accommodate and describe such a large and diverse
problem is difficult at best. We have reviewed the taxonomic structure provided and have found that
the Operational Context: Mission and Operations and Operational Capabilities, are very similar to the
structures and content employed by the US. Two areas that are of concern to us are:
1. Capabilities. When the Joint Staff defined and structured the Joint Capability Areas (JCA) and
their inherent capabilities, they included a performance metric or “desired effect “so as to know
when the capability had been achieved. These metrics in the DoD acquisition and JCIDS
processes are called Key Performance Parameters (KPP) and Key Systems Attributes (KSA) and
are the core of acquisition milestone documents. In other words, these metrics are central to
how DoD thinks about capabilities and systems. This construct is also key to DoD architecture
views related to capabilities (see attached DoDAF diagram). Metrics-oriented capability
definition provides a rational basis for capability hierarchies such as the CHF because the metrics
associated with lower-tier capabilities are understood to contribute towards the metrics
(“desired effects”) of their hierarchical parents. We could not find a similar construct in the
capability discussion contained in the C3 Classification taxonomy documentation. We
recommend adding this construct to paragraph 4.2.1.
2. User Applications. As we moved our analysis down into the CIS Capabilities, there is an area
which will make mapping and alignment between the United States and the C3 Classification
Taxonomy difficult and require the maintenance of two separate taxonomies on our part if
alignment were required. That is the User Applications that are sometimes functionally oriented
(e.g., IA, SMC) and at other times information oriented (e.g., Air, Land, Maritime.) Since these
information oriented categories are not based on a specific function, they will contain multiple
functions thereby running the risk of separately defining the same thing, while from a portfolio
management standpoint, run the risk of missing opportunities for reuse and finding redundancy.
Most DoD C3 systems are differentiated more by their functionality than by the track types or
spatial domains in which they are used, e.g., GCCS and AEGIS apply across many different track
and spatial domains but support very different functions (planning, SA, intel vs combat system.)
In our JCIDS and acquisition processes, Joint Capability Areas (JCA) are the common reference.
(The JCA hierarchy is attached.) Once a materiel solution has been selected, a Joint Common
Systems Function List (JCSFL) taxonomy is used to categorize applications and systems
(attached). By examination of the attached JCA and JCSFL taxonomies, you will see they are
functionally oriented. The JCA taxonomy allows us to express what we need or can do (the
metrics or “desired effects” express how-well we need or can do it) while the JCSFL allows us to
categorize applications and systems that contribute towards the achievement of those
capabilities. The JCA hierarchy is used in our JCIDS and acquisition processes and their
investment decisions. In conjunction with the JCSFL, we can achieve line of sight from missions
through solutions that can also be managed within functionally based C3 portfolios. Those
considerations (air, land, sea) are treated as constraints. We recommend separating the
function and information views by making the User Applications functionally oriented (e.g., like
the top tier of the JCSFL) and treating their track types and spatial domains as attributes of the
functionality. Otherwise the risk of redundant terminology and data descriptions is very likely.
In closing, the United States could map and align with some of the C3 Classification Taxonomy.
However,
1. Any U.S. discourse about capabilities must address “desired effects”, i.e., metrics. This can be
addressed in paragraph 4.2.1.
2. The User Applications taxonomy is incompatible with our JCIDS and acquisition processes due to
the orthogonal differences between our functionally oriented JCAs and JCSFLs and the
information based COIs. This can be resolved with a functional orientation such as the top tiers
of the JCA or JCSFL in paragraph 5.1.1 with language to describe the track types and spatial
domains of those applications as attributes.