Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Leveraging network-centric strategic goals in capabilities Cover

Leveraging network-centric strategic goals in capabilities

Open Access
|Apr 2021

References

  1. Alberts, D. S., Garstka, J. J., & Stein, F. P. (1999). Network centric warfare: Developing and leveraging information superiority. CCRP Publication Series. DoD Command and Control Research Program.
  2. Alberts, D. S., Huber, R. K., & Moffat, J. (2010). NATO NEC C2 maturity model. Technical Report, DoD Command and Control Research Program.
  3. Cohn, M. (2005). Agile Estimating and Planning. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
  4. Domingo, A. (2010). On the Development of a Maturity Model and Maturity Levels for NATO Network Centric Capability, Allied Command Transformation.
  5. Erl, T. (2007). SOA Principles of Service Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
  6. Hannay, J. E., & van den Berg, T. W. (2017). The NATO MSG-136 reference architecture for M&S as a service. In: Proceedings of NATO Modelling and Simulation Group Symposium on M&S Technologies and Standards for Enabling Alliance Interoperability and Pervasive M&S Applications (STO-MPMSG-149), 19–20 October 2017, Lisbon, Portugal. NATO Science and Technology Organization, paper 13.
  7. Hannay, J. E., Benestad, H. C., & Strand, K. (2017a). Benefit points—the best part of the story. IEEE Software, 34(3), pp. 73–85.
  8. Hannay, J. E., Benestad, H. C., & Strand, K. (2017b). Earned business value management—see that you deliver value to your customer. IEEE Software, 34(4), pp. 58–70.
  9. Hannay, J. E., Brathen, K., & Mevassvik, O. M. (2017c). Agile requirements handling in a service-oriented taxonomy of capabilities. Requirements Engineering, 22(2), pp. 289–314.
  10. Hannay, J. E., van den Berg, T. W., Gallant, S., & Gupton, K. (2020). Modeling and simulation as a service infrastructure capabilities for discovery, composition and execution of simulation services. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology, 2020. doi: 10.1177/1548512919896855.
  11. Humphrey, W. S. (1988). Characterizing the software process: A maturity framework. IEEE Software, 5(2), 73–79. doi: 10.1109/52.2014.
  12. Humphrey, W. S. (1989). Managing the Software Process. SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading, Massachusetts, USA.
  13. Kratzke, N. (2018). A brief history of cloud application architectures. Applied Sciences, 8(8), paper 1368.
  14. Kratzke, N., & Quint, P.-C. (2017). Understanding cloud-native applications after 10 years of cloud computing – A systematic mapping study. Journal of Systems and Software, 126, pp. 1–16.
  15. Kratzke, N., & Siegfried, R. (2020). Towards cloud-native simulations lessons learned from the front-line of cloud computing. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology. doi: 10.1177/1548512919895327.
  16. Lenarduzzi, V., & Taibi, D. (2016). MVP explained: A systematic mapping study on the definitions of minimal viable product. In: 2016 42th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) Aug. 31 – Sept. 2 2016, Limassol, Cyprus, pp. 112–119.
  17. Möller, B., Croom-Johnson, S., Hartog, T., Huiskamp, W., Verkoelen, C., Jones, G., et al. (2012). Security in NATO collective mission training—problem analysis and solutions. In: Proceedings of 2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop (SIW), March 26 – 30, 2012, Orlando, Florida, USA, number 12S-SIW-032. Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization.
  18. NATO Allied Command Transformation (2013). Report of the NATO Network Enabled Capability (NNEC) Conference 23 to 25 April 2013. Technical Report.
  19. NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency (2007). Report on the Development of the Initial NNEC Maturity Levels and its Applications. Technical Report NC3A-BE/CIS/IPT-1/07/001.
  20. NATO Modelling and Simulation Group (2012). NATO Modelling and Simulation Master Plan (version 2.0), 2012. Doc. no. AC/323/NMSG(2012)-015.
  21. NATO Standardization Office (2018). AMSP-02 Allied Framework for Modelling and Simulation as a Service (MSaaS) Governance Policies, edition (a), version 1.0. Technical Report STANREC 4794.
  22. Sandkuhl, K. (2015). Investigating the potential of capability-driven design and delivery in an SME case study. In: Persson, A., & Stirna, J. (eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops, Stockholm, Sweden, June 8–9, 2015, Volume 215 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, pp. 3–14.
  23. The Open Group (2011a). SOA Reference Architecture Technical Standard. Doc. No. C119.
  24. The Open Group (2011b). TOGAF Version 9.1 Enterprise Edition. Doc. No. G116.
  25. van den Berg, T. W., Huiskamp, W., Siegfried, R., Lloyd, J., Grom, A., & Phillips, R. (2018). Modelling and simulation as a service: Rapid deployment of interoperable and credible simulation environments – An overview of NATO MSG-136. In: Proceedings of 2018 Winter Simulation Innovation Workshop, Number 18W-SIW-018. Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization.
  26. Ward, J., & Daniel, E., eds. (2015). Benefits Management: How to Increase the Business Value of Your IT Projects, 2nd edn. John Wiley Sons, Ltd, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jms-2021-0001 | Journal eISSN: 1799-3350 | Journal ISSN: 2242-3524
Language: English
Page range: 90 - 104
Submitted on: Jun 22, 2020
Accepted on: Mar 5, 2021
Published on: Apr 19, 2021
Published by: National Defense University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2021 Jo Erskine Hannay, Eli Gjørven, published by National Defense University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.