Vocabulary & Semantics of Capabilities
Definitions & representations
prepared for DoDAF 2.0 DM2 WG by Alexander Bocast
based on material developed for the Air Force Enterprise Architecture program
Latest? Greatest? Joint terms: JCIDS Joint Capability Area Baseline Reassessment
Terms of Reference for Conducting a Joint Capability Area Baseline Reassessment, 9
April 2007
• capability — The ability to achieve a desired effect under specified standards and
conditions through combinations of means and ways to perform a set of tasks. (CJCSI
The JCIDS definitions and these terms of
reference give us enough now to work with…
• condition — Variable of the operational environment, including a scenario that affects
task performance. (CJCSI 3010.02B)
Notes:
3010.02B)
• effect — A change to a condition, behavior, or degree of freedom. (CJCSI 3010.02B)
• endstate — The set of conditions, behaviors, and freedoms that defines achievement
of the commander’s mission. (CJCSI 3010.02B)
• means — Forces, units, equipment, and resources.
• measure — The basis for describing varying levels of task performance. (CJCSI
3010.02B)
• mission — The purpose (objectives and endstate) assigned to the commander. (CJCSI
3010.02B)
• standard — Quantitative or qualitative measures for specifying the levels of
performance of a task. (CJCSI 3010.02B)
• task — An action or activity (derived from an analysis of the mission and concept of
operations) assigned to an individual or organization to provide a capability. (CJCSI
3010.02B)
• ways — Doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures, competencies, and concepts.
The JP 1-02 definition of "capability" is “the ability to
execute a specified course of action”. The general
assessment is that this definition is not adequate for a
capabilities-based Department. This was recognized in
late 2004 when leadership from the Office of Secretary of
Defense and Joint Staff co-sponsored a Military Operations
Research Society conference to (in-part) redefine
"capability" and several other related capabilities-based
words. The definition of “capability” used in this terms of
reference resulted from that effort, and was subsequently
used in CJCSI 3010-02B, CJCSI 3170/01E, and CJCSM
3170.01B. The JCA Baseline Reassessment will apply this
definition of “capability” in concert with the “tasks / effects
/ objectives” relationship set forth in JP 3-0. …
Additionally, Joint Staff J-7 will engage with the joint
doctrine community to pursue the proper vetting of this
definition for inclusion to Joint Publication 1-02.
Interpreting qualified terms in the JCS definition of capability
• desired effect — Now, desired effect has a DoD definition — although it is clearly not
the one we want: “The damage or casualties to the enemy or materiel that a commander
desires to achieve from a nuclear weapon detonation…” Ignoring the circularity of this
definition, we can note that wherever we encounter this or similar phrases, the intent is to say:
“an effect that a (joint) commander wants.”
– RAND’s Paul Davis runs with this as indicating that the scope of meaningful
capabilities is the scope of the commander who uses these capabilities. In other
words, capabilities belong in a context of operations, not in a context of national
strategy…
• specified conditions — a subset of UJTL conditions that has been determined by a
commander to be relevant to the performance of a set of tasks assigned by the
commander
• specified standards — the performance requirements for a set of tasks to be carried
out under specified conditions
– Conditions are contingent upon missions. Standards are contingent upon
contingent mission conditions. Absent mission, neither conditions nor standards
can be specified. Hence the concept of “specified standards and conditions” drives
us to construct and analyze mission scenarios. Lots of scenarios…
• combinations of means and ways to perform —
– Capability apparently means having many tools and being able to pick and choose
an appropriate tool for the job at hand. Note that “appropriate” does not mean
“best.” Recalling “intention”, appropriateness might not be at all related to the
designed purpose of a tool.
• set of tasks — purposive behaviors
– That is, behavior that is not random but rather is designed to do something
interesting…
The capability notion of “combinations of
means and ways to perform” immediately
causes systems engineers to salivate. Here is
the JCS’ explicit invitation to think about
capabilities using the frameworks of
systems-of-systems and the analytics of
complex systems.
The capability notion of “perform a set of
tasks” immediately causes process architects
to pay attention. Indeed, this notion is our
entry point for exploring the implications of
capabilities as architectural concepts within
an enterprise architecture.
Notes:
Much of what I observe here is confirmed (validated?) in
Paul Davis’ work at RAND for OSD and USAF.
Let’s revisit JCS intent
• The notion of “capability” arises from related Joint concerns:
– Acquisition & dollars: are we acquiring resources that will be appropriately
effective for specific but as yet unspecified missions
– Operations & resources: can we apply resources that will be appropriately
effective for specific but as yet unspecified missions
• Critical operational capability concepts:
– Mission: something that a commander needs to do
We have limited resources.
No single potential adversary has capabilities
that we cannot eventually best.
However, we can not predict with certainty
who we will fight, when we will fight, what
capabilities they will have and use, or under
what conditions we will contend.
But we still need to bet on a set of
capabilities that will give us the most robust
ability to respond across all adversaries and
circumstances…
– Tasks: what a commander can do to cause an effect
Depending upon the decisionmaker, this bet
can be posed in different ways:
Maximum mitigation of risk
Maximum possibility of success
Minimum possibility of failure
– Conditions: things outside a commander’s control that may effect
performance of a task
Notes:
– Effect: a change in a commander’s stakeholder’s outputs that is prerequisite
to a successful mission
– Standards: a commander’s measure of minimum task performance that will
lead to a successful mission
– Scenario: end-to-end view of what a commander might do to accomplish a
mission under given conditions
Critical concepts of JCS capability
• Uncertainty
• uncertainty with respect to everything: effect, risk, task, conditions, standards, and scenarios.
• Effect
– changes to someone else’s behavior
– desired return on investment
• Risk – miniMaxes & maxiMins
– likelihood of undesired returns on investment
– vs. opportunity: more-than-expected returns on investment
• Tasks
– must be known, standard, predictable, “off-the-shelf” behaviors (“specified”)
• Conditions
– a manifold; conceptually, n-dimensional space within which any mission environment may be described
– circumstances of a task;
– unfortunately, analytically infinite; see scenario…
• Standards
– variables that depends upon the mission, properties of the desired effect, the conditions, and the orchestration of other
capabilities
– standards are (kinda sorta) the inverse of risk event probabilities (e.g., least acceptable effect)
– minimum acceptable proficiency required in task performance
• Although it is not really clear how minimum proficiency relates to desired effect…
• Scenario
– course of action through a specified manifold (“scenario space”)
– But: scenarios travel in packs… parametric scenario families; statistical affinity families;
– Sample sizes are important, because a single sample from an infinite space tells you nothing…
• …there is no such thing as a single best scenario. Because it would involve the concatenation of many elements,
even the allegedly most likely scenario is a low-odds projection and a bad bet; therefore, multiple scenarios are the
foundation for foresight analysis. The number needed may be very large, especially if the analyses are computerbased, using combinations of many factors, or it may be small if the analyses are largely qualitative…
– Davis: Theory & Methods for Supporting High-Level Military Decisionmaking
Behavioral notion of effect
traditional extent of organizational behavior models
your effect
your control
effect measures
your input
their input
do your thing
A0
your output
their control
your guys
their observed input
their output
do their thing
A-11
their guys
external stakeholders over here
1 stakeholder output == your outcome
Wreaking effects: a simplistic example
physical laws
their controls
behavior feedback
your fired bullets
your bullets
do tailored capability
instance thing
A0
their observed guys
your effect
intercept your
bullets
A-141
their bullets
shoot their
bullets
A-142
their fired bullets
their alive observed guys
shoot at your guys
their unobserved guys
A-14
their weapons
their observable guys
their guys
Behavioral sketch of JCS notions of capabilities
your information
their controls
your controls
mission statement
capability requirement
tasks
conditions
standards
specify
set strategy
requirements
A-11
selected behaviors
ways
enterprise architecture
architectures
pick mission
tailor
behavior
capability
A-12
capability measures
tailoring criteria
nominal capability architecture
your effect
your input
do tailored capability
thing
their input
your output
A0
selection criteria
your stuff
your guys
wreak
effect
do
something
else
apportion
provide
resources
mission
system
resources
A-13
A-14
means
acquisition guy
mission guy
mission designer
DOTMLPF guy
their observed input
their guys
their stuff
their output
Terms & definitions: capability proposition
your information
their controls
your controls
mission statement
capability requirement
tasks
conditions
standards
specify
set strategy
requirements
1
selected behaviors
ways
enterprise architecture
architectures
pick mission
tailor
behavior
capability
capability measures
2
tailoring criteria
nominal capability architecture
your input
capability socket
their input
your output
4
selection criteria
your stuff
your guys
3
5
means
acquisition guy
mission guy
mission designer
their output
wreak
effect
do
something
else
apportion
provide
resources
capability
system
resources
your effect
DOTMLPF guy
their observed input
their guys
their stuff
terms revisited for architectural discourse
capability proposition
the notion of capabilities intended by Joint terms such as “capabilities-based”: intent
& doctrinal foundation
capability space
a set of normative concepts that structures and constrains requirements for mission
behaviors in accordance with the capability proposition
capability requirement
a behavioral requirement stated in terms of the capability space to specify mission,
task, conditions & their values, standards & their values, & measured effects
nominal capability
candidate capability
capability
a tailorable configuration of ways and means characterized by designed behaviors,
design ranges of operating conditions, design ranges of performance standards, and
design expectations of effect measures given these designed behaviors, conditions,
and standards: an architecture whose patterns satisfy the capability proposition
a nominal capability whose design concepts & values approximate the specified
concepts & values of a capability requirement
a candidate capability that sufficiently satisfices a capability requirement
mission capability
a capability selected for inclusion in the course of action of a mission
tailored capability
mission capability whose ways and means have been appropriately tailored and
made available for a mission: an executable instantiated architecture
realized capability
the actual ways and means of a tailored capability in action: an executing
instantiated architecture
cardinalities of architectural discourse
capability proposition
?
capability space
∞
mission
capability requirement
1
1
nominal capability
∞ >> p
candidate capability
p>k
capability
k>c
mission capability
c > m=1
tailored capability
m.t > t
realized capability
t=1
Capabilities & SOA: OASIS SOA Reference Model
mission statement
your information
your controls
execution
context
the offer to perform work for another
capability requirement
the specification of the work offered for another
tasks
conditions
the capability to perform work for another
the performance of work (a function) by one for
another
standards
specify
need
requirements
services are the mechanism by which needs and
capabilities are brought together: (pg.9)
Also see Section 4: Conformance Guidelines.
A-11
selected behaviors
their controls
ways
enterprise architecture
select
visibility
behavior
architectures
capability measures
A-12
service
descriptions
tailoring criteria
capability instance architecture
your input
do tailored
interaction
capability
instance thing
their input
selection criteria
your stuff
resources
service
interface
A0
service
functionality
your guys
world
doreal
something
effect
else
means
acquisition guy
mission guy
mission designer
their output
A-14
A-13
service
your effect
your output
provide
service
resources
means
contract &
policy ??
shared
state
DOTMLPF guy
service
consumers
their observed input
service
provider
their guys
their stuff
mission statement
your information
Capabilities & SOA: OASIS SOA
Reference Model with brokered contract
your controls
capability requirement
tasks
conditions
their controls
standards
specify
requirements
A-11
selected behaviors
capability measures
enterprise architecture
architectures
tailoring criteria
select behavior
A-12
ways
defined capability
negotiate
agreement
A-13
your effect
capability instance architecture
contract
selection criteria
your input
do tailored capability
instance thing
their input
your output
A0
your guys
resources
provide resources
your stuff
A-14
means
acquisition guy
mission guy
mission designer
broker
DOTMLPF guy
do something
else
A-15
their observed input
their guys
their stuff
their output