repository
Agile Based Capability Development Framework
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | Lim Jae Song, Lee Tae Gong | - |
| dc.contributor.author | THANASOMBAT, THANOOT | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-11-08T08:10:48Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2018-11-08T08:10:48Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2017-02 | - |
| dc.identifier.other | 24187 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://dspace.ajou.ac.kr/handle/2018.oak/11243 | - |
| dc.description | 학위논문(석사)--아주대학교 일반대학원 :NCW학과,2017. 2 | - |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Table of Contents Acknowledgements I Abstract II Table of Contents IV List of figure VI List of Table VII Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background and Purpose 1 1.2 Scope and Method 2 1.3 Contributions of this dissertation 3 Chapter 2 Related Work 5 2.1 Capability Based Planning 5 2.1.1 Capability Based Planning: Background 5 2.1.2 Capability Based Planning: Capability 6 2.1.3 Capability Based Planning: Principle 6 2.1.4 Capability Based Planning: DHS CBP Framework 10 2.2 Agile Principle 13 2.3 Resilience Engineering 14 2.3.1 Resilience Engineering Key Factor 16 2.3.2 Resilience Engineering: Resilience Attributes 18 2.4 Requirement Traceability Matrix (RTM) 21 2.4.1 Introduction 21 2.4.2 Why is Traceability a Good Practice? 22 2.4.3 How is Traceability Performed? 23 2.5 Summary 25 CHAPTER 3. Development of ABCD Framework 27 3.1 Introduction 27 3.2 Framework Component 29 3.2.1 Threat Analysis 29 3.2.2 Scenario 32 3.2.3 Stakeholder Role & Classification 33 3.2.4 Universal Task List 35 3.2.5 Target Capabilities List 36 3.2.6 Capability Elements 38 3.3 ABCD Framework Components Relations 40 3.3.1 Threat Analysis – Scenario 40 3.3.2 Scenario – Stakeholder 41 3.3.3 Scenario – Universal Task 42 3.3.4 Universal Task & Target Capabilities 43 3.3.5 Capability Prioritize Assessment 44 3.3.6 Target Capability – Capability Element Gap Analysis 47 3.3.7 Implementation Plan 50 CHAPTER 4. Effectiveness and Implementation of ABCD Framework 51 4.1 Major Hurricane: Katrina 51 4.1.1 Introduction 51 4.1.2 Hurricane Katrina Timeline 52 4.2 Implementation of ABCD Framework 53 4.2.1 Case Study Major Hurricane: Prioritize Capability Development 53 CHAPTER 5. Conclusion and Future works 61 5.1 Conclusion 61 5.2 Future work 61 References 63 | - |
| dc.language.iso | eng | - |
| dc.publisher | The Graduate School, Ajou University | - |
| dc.rights | 아주대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다. | - |
| dc.title | Agile Based Capability Development Framework | - |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.contributor.affiliation | 아주대학교 일반대학원 | - |
| dc.contributor.department | 일반대학원 NCW학과 | - |
| dc.date.awarded | 2017. 2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | Master | - |
| dc.identifier.localId | 770198 | - |
| dc.identifier.url | http://dcoll.ajou.ac.kr:9080/dcollection/jsp/common/DcLoOrgPer.jsp?sItemId=000000024187 | - |
| dc.subject.keyword | agility | - |
| dc.subject.keyword | resilience engineering | - |
| dc.subject.keyword | capabilities based planning | - |
| dc.subject.keyword | integration | - |
| dc.subject.keyword | interoperability | - |
| dc.description.alternativeAbstract | Abstract The design of capability based framework with alignment, agility, integration interoperability and resilience engineering which can improve organization in complex environment and response the incoming threaten event. Providing a defensible basis for allocating resources for critical community and key resource protection is an important and challenging problem. Investments can be made in countermeasures that improve the security and hardness of a potential target exposed to a security hazard, deterrence measures to decrease the likeliness of a security event, and capabilities to mitigate human, economic, and other types of losses following an incident. Multiple threat types must be considered, spanning everything from natural hazards, industrial accidents, and human-caused security threats. In addition, investment decisions can be made at multiple levels of abstraction and leadership, from tactical decisions for improve protection of assets to operational and strategic decisions affecting individual assets and assets comprising a regions or sector. The objective of this research is to develop a capability based framework with agility and resilience engineering methodology for community to response incoming threat and hazard, called Agility Based Capability Development Framework, or ABCD Framework, that supports operational and strategic resource allocation decisions at any level of leadership or system abstraction. The ABCD framework consists of six process phases: threat analysis, scenario hazard prioritize assessment, stakeholder role & responsibilities, capability prioritize assessment, capability element gap analysis and implementation plan. The results from the first three phases of ABCD framework combine in the fourth phase to prior which target capabilities need to improve that informs organization on where to focus attention for occurrence and significance capability active to incoming impact hazard. The target capability was selected in the fourth phrase that is determined to be improve. In the fifth phrase ABCD framework assess the selected target capability performance gap if the capability element is determined to be unacceptable and potentially mitigable, the fifth phase offers methods for conducting a resilience attribute analysis of alternative scenario. In the sixth phase provided management tool designed to illustrate, in detail, the critical steps in developing and starting a project that helps organization in developing capability. The Case study is provided to demonstrate the methodology, including an asset-level analysis that leverages stakeholder reliability analysis techniques and a regional-level capability portfolio analysis that leverages techniques from approximate reasoning. The main achievements of this research are three-fold. First, this research develops methods for hazard prioritize assessment that specifically accommodates the dynamic behavior of threat event adversaries, to include their tendency to shift attention toward affect community and to seek opportunities to exploit defender ignorance of plausible targets and spasm modes to achieve surprise. Second, this research develops and employs an capability prioritize assessment that takes into account all stakeholder weaknesses from initiating event to consequence. That is, this research formally extends the meaning of lacking perform capability which couldn’t response for incoming threat event, the intrinsic resistance to loss of the community comprising the asset, and weaknesses in response and recovery capabilities. Third, this research demonstrates that resilience engineering can be produced even with limited information supporting precise estimates of model parameters for community to response the hazard. For the framework form, Round Trip Matrix was used, which was good tools to explain concept, procedure and relations of capabilities-based planning. Existing CBP of DHS CBP model have a limit in use because they show only key components and their simple relations. Therefore this research suggests ABCD framework which can achieve agility, alignment, integration and interoperability and resilience engineering to consider more significance. | - |
- Appears in Collections:
- Graduate School of Ajou University > Department of Military Digital Convergence > 3. Theses(Master)
- Files in This Item:
- There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
-
- License
- STATISTICS
- Total Visit :3,739,414
- Total Download :1,818
- Today View :17,072
