military systems analyses in an ill-posed world: … › ndia › ...1/32 paul h. deitz, ph.d. us...
TRANSCRIPT
1/32
Paul H. Deitz, Ph.D. US Army Materiel Systems
Analysis ActivityAberdeen Proving Ground, MD
The National Defense Industrial Association Annual National
Test & Evaluation ConferenceThe Westin Washington
July 22-23, 2014
17JULY2014/15:15
Military Systems Analyses in an Ill-Posed World: Defining the Problem
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
2/32
Outline
The intersection of “Ill-Posed Problems” and military systems analyses
Some key problem examples
An abstraction consisting of task networks which redress the stated shortcomings
Elements of the task network abstraction
Follow on presentations by Britt Bray (Engility), instantiating such a structure, and Chris Wilcox (ATEC/AEC), showing how task networks can inform Developmental and Operational Testing
3/32
Introduction [1/3]
What are Ill-Posed Problems?• Problems which are under-specified, under-determined, or
under-constrained
Such problems typically arise when attacked with ad hoc methods
Some exemplars (illustrative vice exhaustive) of requisite context specification in military analysis:• Key mission linkages across levels of war• Specification of relevant metrics• Accommodation of dynamic entities• Performance and effectiveness characterization of System-
of-Systems (SoSes)• Integration of materiel and human factors
4/32
Need for overarching analytic structure/framework:
Introduction [2/3]
• If not provable, should be plausible• Captures complete mission context• Supports formal language
• Not ad hoc • Not bottom up• Not simply a recipe
5/32
How do warfighters/operators describe missions?• They use the Military Decision-Making Process [MDMP]
• One of the outputs of the MDMP is a kind of Gantt structure – a time- and dependency-based ordering of tasks to be performed; available resources (effectors) with the capability to achieve desired task outcomes are assigned to tasks
• To avoid potential confusion over meaning, authoritative, doctrinally-based task language is now codified by formal Joint- and Service-Task Lists (w conditions and standards)
Introduction [3/3]
6/32
Example: Key mission linkages across levels of war
7/32
STRATEGIC THEATER
OPERATIONAL
TACTICAL
ConcentrateForces inTheater ofOperations
OP 1.2.3
Concentrate TacticalForces
BTT 1.2.1
Foster Allianceand RegionalRelations and
SecurityArrangements
ST 8.1
Cooperate Withand Support
NongovernmentalOrganizations
(NGOs) in TheaterST 8.2.11
Cooperate Withand Support
Private VoluntaryOrganizations
(PVOs) in TheaterST 8.2.12
CoordinateHumanitarian andCivic Assistance
ProgramsST 8.2.4
MOUT Mission Decomposition‡
Enemy team fires on disabled
vehicle fromchurch tower
U-ART 1.2.2.3.3.1
Gunner of disabledvehicle returns fire
on church towerw/ 25mm auto-gun
U-ART 1.2.6.1.1.2.1.1
Platoon leaderorders gunner
to cease fire onchurch
U-ART 1.2.6.1.1.2.1.2
Platoon leader callscompany commander reports incident and informs commander
of significant damage to church, and several
civilian casualties
Platoon leader receives order from company commander to
break contact with enemy
U-ART 1.2.6.1.1.2.1.4U-ART 4.5.1.1.1
Platoon leader orders
evacuationof casualties
U-ART 1.2.6.1.1.2.1.3
Formulating a Mission
Horizontal (Time) Linkages
STRATEGIC NATIONAL
Top-Down Linkages
‡ Mission build by Dynamics Research Corporation, Nov 2000
Strategic Context
Constrains Materiel Options
Tactical Context Major
Determinant in Material
Survivability
SN 1
Support PeaceOperations
SN 8.1.3
Conduct ForeignHumanitarianAssistance and
Humanitarian andCivic AssistanceSN 8.1.5
Cooperate withand Support
NGO’s and PVO’s
SN 8.1.9
ConductStrategic
Deployment andRedeployment
FosterMultinational
andInteragencyRelations
SN 8
Logistical Support Affects
Mission Robustness
Jump Effect Jeopardizes Campaign
8/32
Mission context‡ and materiel behavior at all levels of war can, and do, effect mission outcomes at all
levels of war!
Key Observation
‡ E.G., accessibility of materiel to combat zone, global politics, logistics posture, threats, cultural/political environment, . . .
9/32
Task networking at a single level of war
10/32
The Beginnings of Task Execution in V/L Analysis
Describing ballistic events at the
Microscale of combat
Proper characterization of effectiveness was an
open question!
11/32
Task Cycle
Tasks
Interactions
Components
Capabilities
Task Cycling via MMF, circa 2001
Time-Forward,
Bottom-Up Execution
Task Cycle
Results of Bottom-Up task execution are assessed using measures of effectiveness derived during Top-Down mission planning Task execution generates interactions. The resulting
effects are compared with the plan, and they drive selection of follow-on tasks to form cycles Execution process is Time-Forward and Bottom-Up
12/32
Developing Relevant Metrics Top Down
4. Tasks, Operations
1. Interactions,Effects
2. Personnel, UnitsComponents, Systems
3. Functions,ServicesTime-Backward,
Top-Down Inferencing
Relevant Metrics by Top-Down Inferencing Define task(s) included in operational plan Infer requisite Services/Capabilities (through mission
analysis and wargaming Identify critical entities (people/material), and Identify critical Interactions to avoid/enhance (through
wargaming and rehearsal)
13/32
Interactions
• Ballistic Effects• Jamming• Damage Repair• Chemical• Resupply• Repair• Laser Damage• Sleep• Directed Energy• Nuclear• Physics of Failure• Logistics Burdens • Reliability• Fair Wear & Tear• Fatigue• Heat Stress• . . .• . . .
Dynamic Geometry/Material [1/3]
Many interaction mechanisms can induce change (damage/fix) in entities (people/material).
14/32
Component Networks
Dynamic Geometry/Material [2/3]
15/32
Interactions
A sequence of interactions is tracked at Level 2 At any given time, the
component state space is mapped to Level 3 to assess capability Then mapped to Level 4 to
assess mission effectiveness
Dynamic Geometry/Material [3/3]
Sequential interactions must integrate at Level 2. Then evaluated for:
Performance and Effectiveness
16/32
Adding: a] Context for Single Level of War, and b] an OPFOR
An Opposing Force was added
Task Path Variants
17/32
6. Context, Environment (Military, Civil, Physical, etc.)
7. OPFOR Why = Purpose, Mission7. OWNFOR Why = Purpose, Mission
The MMF Diagram
11 Fundamental Elements: 7 Levels, 4 Operators
5. Index: Location& Time
O1,2O1,2O2,3
O3,4 O3,4
OWNFOR OPFOR
O2,3
O4,1
2. Personnel, UnitsComponents, Systems
1. Interactions,Effects
3. Functions,Services
7. Mission
4. Tasks, Operations
3. Functions,Services
7. Mission
4. Tasks, Operations
2. Personnel, UnitsComponents, Systems
O4,1
All of the underlying layers are about Context!
18/32
Task Prosecution and DT/OT
In Developmental Testing:• Identify expected interaction mechanisms based on mission
profile • Confirm ability to model/simulate via test
In Operational Testing and M&S:• Vary the time sequence and frequency of interaction effects
based on mission profile
Interaction Mechanisms
All Interaction Mechanisms must focus on component state change
Aggregation of multiple mechanisms (over time) must take place at the platform component level
19/32
Task Network Abstractions In the Macrospace
Combat Abstraction by Level-of-War
Combat Abstraction by MDMP/MMF
Combat Represented by Physical Layers
20/32
Single Platform
Microspace
Platform Physical Networks
Task Abstractions For a Single Platform
Macrospace
21/32
Task Abstractions for Multiple Platforms
Macrospace
● ● ●
Platform 1
Platform 2
Platform p
SoS
Microspace
Multiple Platforms Multiple Platform Physical Networks
Collective Tasks
Key Construct!
Col
lect
ive
Task
s
22/32
TIME
OWNFOR Material Connects to Task Network
23/32
TIME
OPFOR Material Connects to Task Network
24/32
OWNFOR and OPFOR Interact over Time
Networks
Red on Blue Task
Interactions
Blue on Red Task
Interactions
25/32
The connection between Materieland Human Performance
26/32
1980 1990 2000 2010
1980 1990 2000 2010
Origins/Applications of Military Task Formalism
Joint/ Service
Task Lists‡
Human Factors
Community
Ballistic Vulnerability Community
Microtasks
Macrotasks
Microtasks & Macrotasks
‡ In support of the MDMP
IMPRINTHARDMAN
Blueprint of the
Battlefield
MMFV/L Taxonomy
27/32
Task Networks Infuse All Structures [1/2]
1980 1990 2000 2010
1980 1990 2000 2010
IMPRINT
MMFV/L Taxonomy
Joint/ Service
Task Lists‡
Microtasks
Macrotasks
Microtasks & Macrotasks
‡ In support of the MDMP
HARDMAN
Blueprint of the
Battlefield
MMF
Joint/ Service
Task Lists‡
MMF
28/32
Task Networks Infuse All Structures [2/2]
1980 1990 2000 2010
1980 1990 2000 2010
IMPRINT
MMFV/L Taxonomy
Joint/ Service
Task Lists
Microtasks
Macrotasks
Microtasks & Macrotasks
HARDMAN
Blueprint of the
Battlefield
MMF §
IMPRINT §
§Mission Centered Human System Analysis, Diane Kuhl Mitchell [Army Research Laboratory/ HRED] and Gene Brennan [Alion Science and Technology], 19 March 2008.
29/32
Summary [1/3]
Many ORSA problems are Ill-Posed
Using the MDMP:• Task networks [OWNFOR and OPFOR] linked by level-of-war/time
• Interactions may occur between all platforms; need to accommodate dynamic component geometry.
• Many possible networks, e.g. digital, mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, optical/visual, acoustic, . . .
Mission success rolls up from task performance at DT/atomic level to task results at OT/collective levels
30/32
Summary [2/3]
Top-down inferencing of task cycles provides the relevant measures of success, capability and material properties.
Task interactions, both destructive and constructive, occur between both friendly and opposing forces.
The methods employed by the Human Dimension community [IMPRINT] are fully integrable into the MMF construct.
The fate of one platform can potentially affect any other.
31/32
Summary [3/3]
The effect of platform change depends on mission context. Criticality of platform damage/dysfunction is determined by closest logical proximity.
The MDMP, though ubiquitous among Warfighters, is seldom used by the ORSA Community (e.g. in DT, LFT&E, OT, Mission-Based T&E) or to provide links to Human Factors analysis.
Both the Macro and Micro worlds would be far richer were their task network analyses integrated and linked!
32/32
END