I'm not sure there is a "vision" for this course, per se. I think the emphasis was to get a course started, as soon as possible (as with IDMCC). This course and IDMCC are the only two courses I have seen which OPNAV directly commissioned (no Fleet requirement, no TYCOM mechanics, etc). Although I have no problem with either, I do think their primary utility and purpose is to generate a commonality and inform on IDC matters (ie - Battlespace Awareness, Integrated Fires, Assured C2). Unfortunately, I don't think we know what that commonality is, yet. Curiously, I don't remember an OPNAV/IDC effort involved with asking the people who do the IDC communities' work where the common areas might lie, what areas are definitely exclusive, and where potential changes could be made to be efficient. This would be recommendation #1: list the common core and functions of all IDC communities, identify/circle the same functions performed in each community, and start building there. Example - every one of our IDC communities collects, analyzes, and provides analyzed information to Commanders. In fact, there are AGs, ISs, ITs, and CTs who today do the EXACT same job, just in different portions of the EMS; the only difference is the required outputs of that job. But I digress... ...Anyway, commonalities identify what it means for the officer communities shepherding that work. The point is, shared content makes commonality, not shared mantra. All aviators fly - it's the tie that binds for the aviation community. We have to identify and understand the tie binding all of us. 'Information' and other nebulous and imprecise nouns-as-adjectives fail to generate sufficient and discrete (from other communities) commonality necessary for buy-in, for investment, for things moving forward. While 'Information' might work as a descriptor for our Corps, it falls apart as an adhesive used to hold us together.
The largest issue with this course is the priority this course holds relative to other needed courses and, most importantly, the process used. This course should not have been developed and run through the CID/NETC process. That is way too expensive. This type of course, which seems to me to be a seminar style offering, doesn't offer enough rigor/technical to warrant the millions of dollars which will be spent over time. I know what it costs for curriculum development, HPPR workshops, JDTA refinement, KSAs, etc. This course could have been developed far cheaper by avoiding CID/NETC. We can and do develop courses outside of CID/NETC domain (SEWCAC, SEWTAC, CNTT, etc). In fact, course content outside of the CID/NETC domain can be adjusted from class to class, whereas the CID courses require two+ years (this leads to a high level of atrophy where course value/ROI is concerned). It could also likely be developed much more quickly outside of CID/NETC. For this type of course (and IDMCC), OPNAV should have gone with a (smaller) bag of money through the TYCOM to NIOC San Diego, NIOC Norfolk, ONI, or COMNAVMETOCOM (would have been my choice - they do training better than anyone else in the IDC). So - recommendation #2A: Let the TYCOM do its job. IDMCC, IDBC, and all course development should be handled by the TYCOM (now NAVIDFOR). OPNAV states a requirements, provides the money. The TYCOM field of regard is larger than the one course OPNAV wants done now and thus the TYCOM better understands what best supports long term course value. Recommendation #2B: Identify training which should be subject to a lengthy, rigorous, and repetitive academic review process and that training which should not. Training which provides critical skills necessary for ratings, for example, should be subject to such a process (A-schools, IWBC). Training which covers an ever evolving specific function performed or a specific role filled should NOT be subject to this type of process. For example, SIWC and CRC, in my opinion, should not be subject to a process in which course changes require years to accomplish. They could be taught in the fleet concentration areas by NIOCs Norfolk and San Diego (going there anyway) and it would dramatically enhance the value (field trip to ships, perhaps a block taught by a Commodore/recently deployed CRC, field trip to USFFC MOC, NAVIDFOR, NCDOC, putting faces with the names on paper). Pulling those courses out of the CID/NETC process provides dramatically improved flexibility to make the courses absolutely useful. IDMCC and IDBC - courses with very generic learning objectives - are best facilitated by an other than NETC process.