For your case analysis project you worked
collaboratively to research, develop, and present a topic associated with major
theme of problems or issues associated with UAS design, operations, or
regulations. Discuss the effectiveness of the Case Analysis tool in this
course. Focus specifically on the utility of Case Analysis as a tool for decision
making and how it has (or does not have) utility in your current line of work,
future anticipated career, or past experiences (identify at least two
examples). Provide any recommendations for how the process or project (e.g.,
requirements, format, group interaction, topical focus, etc.) could be improved
to better support building and expanding student experience for the eventual or
further development of their careers.
The Case Analysis project in ASCI
530: Unmanned Systems was an extremely effective tool for testing our
understanding of the course objectives. The five course objectives I chose to
address in the project were:
1.) Evaluate the challenges associated with the
integration of UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) and analyze the role
UAS can play in overcoming those challenges.
2.) Evaluate the differences in unmanned systems based
upon their varying missions.
3.) Evaluate the role of UAS in meeting the requirements
of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulatory requirements for the
operation of UAS.
4.) Evaluate the history and current state of the design
and architecture of unmanned systems.
5.) Evaluate, compare and contrast unmanned systems with
comparable counterpart manned aircraft systems in regard to design,
development, and operation.
The Case Analysis
provided a good framework to address these course objectives. With regards to its’
utility in decision making, it definitely is a good starting point for entities
such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and their infrastructure
planning – specifically merging unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and manned
airframes jointly in an air management perspective. On the design end,
specifically for the defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman and General
Atomics who develop unmanned vehicles such as the Global Hawk and Reaper as
well as their accompanying Ground Control Stations (GCS), this case analysis
could aid in future design iterations of their respective systems.
While it does
not directly relate to the current acquisition program I work on, it could
potentially relate to a future acquisition program that I could be tasked to
work on either at Hanscom or at my follow on assignment in January of 2016. My
previous acquisition program – Ground Multi-band Terminal was essentially the
ground communications terminal of the Global Hawk operation, and was highly
lauded by the operational user community for ease of use. Whenever there was an
issue, our program office engineers would look into the specific issue, then
publish a Knowledge-based instruction (KBI), when warranted to ensure that
users had no further issues with the system. Whenever we sent out additions to
the existing system, we would publish KBIs to walk the users through the
integration of the new system piece. I actually would walk through the process
(such as adding a new modem) and write the KBIs then I would have other people
follow (line by line) the process I drafted to ensure that it made sense for
the users that it would be pushed out to. Another one of my classmates on base
is the Program Manager for the system that is essentially a text messaging
program on the newer C-17s. Her program is another example of one where it is
of paramount importance to involve the user/warfighter in all steps of the
acquisition process; to include the fielding portion which involves getting constant
warfighter feedback.
The most
applicable aspect of the Case Analysis project in my particular profession is
simply the importance of user-centered design. In a system where a human is
expected to play a huge role in its’ operation, it is of utmost importance that
the human operator is taken into account from a design perspective. Doing so
will minimize the likelihood of mishaps attributed to human error.
With regards to
the structure of the Case Analysis structure in ASCI 530, I wouldn’t change
much. I thought it was great that there as a major project deliverable roughly
every two weeks because it ensured that we were constantly working on the Case
Analysis (and not saving the 20 page paper for the very end). The peer
feedback/review process definitely helped as well – this was the first class that
I’ve taken through Embry Riddle in which we were required to do this and it
definitely helped me produce a great final product.
References
None
