Info-Centric Scenario Development Presentation to 19 th ISMOR Oxford, UK 29 August 2002 William J. Krondak Michael P. Coville.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Performance Assessment
Advertisements

Performance management guidance
PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT
NATO UNCLASSIFIED NIAG/SG-76: C2 Interoperability Slide 1HWP May 03 Battlespace Objects Hans Polzer 19 May 2003.
JSIMS 28-Jan-99 1 JOINT SIMULATION SYSTEM Modeling Command and Control (C2) with Collaborative Planning Agents Randall Hill and Jonathan Gratch University.
Exploring Possibility Space: an experiential approach to intelligence analysis Brett Peppler, FAIPIO Adjunct Professor, Macquarie University 8 December.
1 CISR-consultancy Challenges “Customer ask us what to do next” Keywords: “Customer ask us what to do next” From Policy to Practise The world is going.
Commander’s Intent & Guidance
Crisis Action Planning Commander’s Guidance and Intent
Technician Module 2 Unit 8 Slide 1 MODULE 2 UNIT 8 Prevention, Intelligence & Deterrence.
Overview of NIPP 2013: Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience October 2013 DRAFT.
1 Identifying and selecting system Development project Chapter-4.
Performance Measurement and Analysis for Health Organizations
Operations Security (OPSEC) Introduction  Standard  Application  Objectives  Regulations and Guidance  OPSEC Definition  Indicators.
Professional Certificate – Managing Public Accounts Committees Ian “Ren” Rennie.
NIST Special Publication Revision 1
Mission The faculty and staff of Pittman Elementary School are committed to providing every student with adequate time, effective teaching, and a positive.
Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence © Crown Copyright Dstl 2012 Anticipating the Insurgent Response Fiona Browning Land Battlespace Systems Department.
Planning and Decission Making
Is It a Puzzle, Or Is It a Mystery? Three Tools For Solving Mysteries…… with The Wisdom of Crowds David E. Schnedler
What is a Business Analyst? A Business Analyst is someone who works as a liaison among stakeholders in order to elicit, analyze, communicate and validate.
CONFIDENTIAL ©2014 PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REGULATORY INTELLIGENCE: INDUSTRY’S BEST PRACTICE OMICS 5 th International Pharmaceutical.
ISO 9001:2008 to ISO 9001:2015 Summary of Changes
Better decision making through representation and reduction of uncertainty in C 4 I system Presented to the ICCRTS June 2008 By Ltc. Amit Sirkis,M.Sc.,MBA.
TYPES OF ORDERS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER: COVERS NORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS IN GARRISON OR IN THE FIELD. THEY INCLUDE GENERAL, SPECIFIC, & MEMORANDUM.
Programme Objectives Analyze the main components of a competency-based qualification system (e.g., Singapore Workforce Skills) Analyze the process and.
Import of New Security Environment Keys to Transformation: Exploit Technology Exploit DOD ability to integrate processes Result: JV2010 Vision shall.
Is a Single Force the Only Option? Colin Mair, Chief Executive, Improvement Service.
Military Decision-Making Process
Professional Certificate in Electoral Processes Understanding and Demonstrating Assessment Criteria Facilitator: Tony Cash.
Information & Decision Superiority Case studies in applying AI planning technologies to military & civil applications Dr Roberto Desimone Innovations.
Advanced Decision Architectures Collaborative Technology Alliance An Interactive Decision Support Architecture for Visualizing Robust Solutions in High-Risk.
Advances in Decision Modeling: The DMSO Vector Lt Col Eileen A. Bjorkman Chief, Concepts Application Division Zach Furness C4I Program Manager 31 July.
Assessing the Military Benefits of NEC Using a Generic Kill-Chain Approach David Nevell QinetiQ Malvern 21 ISMOR September 2004.
Introducing Project Management Update December 2011.
SOFTWARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Technical Session 1: Enhancing Resilience at the Local Level Background document IFRC & ADRRN.
Feasibility Study.
Specific Safety Requirements on Safety Assessment and Safety Cases for Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste – GSR Part 5.
Early Childhood Transition Part C Indicator C-8 & Part B Indicator B-12 Analysis and Summary Report of All States’ Annual Performance Reports.
Military Decision Making Process (MDMP)
Improving Wargaming in DoD Commander Phil Pournelle June 2015 The opinions express here are strictly those of the author and do not represent those of.
The common structure and ISO 9001:2015 additions
COMMANDER’S INTENT & GUIDANCE
Fundamentals of Governance: Parliament and Government Understanding and Demonstrating Assessment Criteria Facilitator: Tony Cash.
Module 4: Planning Concepts. July 2009Recovery Analysis Objectives At the end of this module you will be able to:  Distinguish among various planning.
The Course of Action Challenge Problem (COA CP). Basic Stuff COA CP replaces the BS CP SME’s author COA’s and the knowledge used to critique them SHAKEN.
Course of Action Comparison Purpose u Define course of action comparison and its role in the crisis action planning process u Discuss the associated task.
Dynamic Planning & Execution Presented to KSCO st May 2007, Waltham, MA Dynamic Planning & Execution Presented to KSCO st May 2007, Waltham,
Staff (Running) Estimate
Report Performance Monitor & Control Risk Administer Procurement MONITORING & CONTROLLING PROCESS.
Crisis Action Planning (CAP) and The Commander’s Estimate Joint Pub 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations Joint Pup , Joint Task Force Planning Guidance.
Major William B. Pittman 18 September 2015
ICAJ/PAB - Improving Compliance with International Standards on Auditing Planning an audit of financial statements 19 July 2014.
Enterprise Architectures Course Code : CPIS-352 King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah Saudi Arabia.
Simulation in Operational Research form Fine Details to System Analysis.
UNCLASSIFIED 6/24/2016 8:12:34 PM Szymanski UNCLASSIFIED Page 1 of 15 Pages Space Policy Issues - Space Principles of War - 14 June, 2010.
GORT Planning/Guidance Session with LTG Barclay
Hurricanes, Earthquakes, and Threat Intelligence
Name of the idea Description and Military Application Maturity
Name of the idea Description and Military Application Maturity
For More Details Contact at
Religious Inputs/Outputs
The MDMP Process MDMP Inputs MDMP Outputs Step 1 MDMP Inputs Step 5
Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute The Army’s only organization for Peace and Stability Operations at the strategic and operational level.
Bush/Rumsfeld Defense Priorities/Objectives A Mandate For Change
Navy Warfare Development Command
TYPES OF ORDERS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER: COVERS NORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS IN GARRISON OR IN THE FIELD. THEY INCLUDE GENERAL, SPECIFIC, & MEMORANDUM.
Cybersecurity EXERCISE (CE) ATD Scenario questions
Prevention, Intelligence
Presentation transcript:

Info-Centric Scenario Development Presentation to 19 th ISMOR Oxford, UK 29 August 2002 William J. Krondak Michael P. Coville

2 The Challenge The Challenge Military Transformation Increased reliance on the projected C4ISR system to enable a move from the current plan-centric doctrine to a more execution-centric doctrine. Commanders comfortable making significant and frequent adjustments to their plan during execution. Highly dependent on the quality and timeliness of information received during the execution of the operation Current scenarios: Focus is primarily on the physical domain of the battlespace and representing plan-centric doctrine. Mute the effect of and decisions generated as a result of information gathered during execution. The challenge is to create operational scenarios robust enough to provide an adequate context for the analysis of the value of information, situational awareness and rapid, reliable communications.

3 The Approach The Approach Current Documentation Joint/Coalition Analysis Branch Development Documentation Analyze Current Plan Identify Additional Joint/Coalition Action Develop Three Branches Document Results Model Documentation Document Results Determine Information Required for Units to Execute Branch VIC Implementation Support Modeling and Simulation Plan Scenario & Mission Profile Develop Insights and Update Process Extract Insights from previous two processes Document Results Insight Development Insight & Process Documentation

4 Initial Conditions Initial Conditions  Initial conditions for physical domain well defined. Locations of Units Locations of Obstacles Details of weapon system characteristics Platform vulnerabilities Physical attack capabilities  Initial conditions for information domain are not well defined. Status of information systems (e.g. INFOCON status, access status, network status) Location and status of information infrastructure Details of information system characteristics Information system vulnerabilities Information attack capabilities

5 Initial Perceived Views Initial Perceived Views Scenario Planning Process Blue Functional SMEs Wargamers (TRADOC Schools) VS Blue G2 (MI) Technical & tactical intel support but not red planning information Blue Planning/WargamingRed Planning/Wargaming Red Scenario Planning Lead (TSD) Ground TruthPerceivedGround Truth Initial Perceived Adjudication (Composite Team) Perceived Red Operations Planned against Blue Perceived -generally in advance of Planning Conf THREAT Planner–honest broker access TRAC ensures scenario stays synchronized Dynamic Updates NGIC, NAIC, ONI, MCIA VS THREAT SMEs (TSD)

6 Assumptions  Planners make assumptions as part of the plan development process.  These assumptions when implemented in a model are necessarily either true or false.  Consistent, transparent implementation is important to rigorous analysis.  Explicitly enumerated and adjudicated RED and BLUE scenario assumptions are required in the scenario documentation. Assumptions Developed During Planning Modify Assumptions based on Scenario Start Point Decision* Revise Documentation to Reflect Modified Assumptions Classify Assumptions Adjudication by Explicit Modeling Record Categorization Decision Record Adjudicated Outcome/Status/ Effect Record Categorization Decision Adjudication Not Required for Gaming A Priori Adjudication Required Assumption Adjudication Table Assumption Adjudication Process

7 AssumptionClassificationCommentsAdjudication Red: Our actions to slow entry into theater will be successful. A Priori AdjudicationIt is likely that Red’s actions would delay Blue but not by as much as they would have liked. Blue will likely need to resynchronize its planned operations as a result of the delay Blue’s TPFDD slipped 3 days for sea deployment and 2 days for air deployment. Red: ADA will succeed in protecting main attack Adjudication by explicit modeling N/A Red: Attacks on U.S homeland reduce industrial base’s ability to restock war reserves Adjudication not required for Gaming N/A Assumption Adjudication Table

8 Branches  Branches offer the most expeditious opportunity within scenarios to introduce the potential for differentiation in effects or outcome based on differences in the availability of information.  Branches are reasonably well understood within the context of the MDMP. Are generated during the Wargaming Process within a given COA. Are developed for a specific anticipatory purpose. Have clearly defined criteria for execution. Have linked methods for collection of that criteria.  Branches offer an opportunity for the following investigative venues: Timeliness improvements: knowing the decision criteria sooner in option than in baseline. Quality improvements: greater fidelity information in option than in baseline. False Positive Corrections: Option corrects baseline perception that decision criteria has been met when it has not. False Negative Corrections: Option corrects baseline perception that decision criteria has not been met when it has.  Branches constrain the scenario to anticipated operational contingencies and thus offer an additional level of control during analysis.

9 Execution-Centric Decision Making  Current scenarios, even with branches, do not provide opportunities for execution-centric decision making.  Branches are based only on information known or assumed a priori by the operational planners and commanders.  Branches only represent anticipatory planning based on perceived information.  Scenarios currently marginalize the value of information developed/discovered during the course of the operation.  Often scenarios and the plans within them have been operationally optimized and already account for every planned enemy action.

10 Execution-Centric Decision Making (Cont)  Scenarios must accommodate information differentials between opposing plans to provide for execution centric decision making.  Need opportunity to identify and react to knowledge of unanticipated actions of opposing forces acquired during the course of an operation.  Requires attention during the scenario development process.  Scenarios should document opportunities where actions on one side or the other have been unanticipated during the planning process.

11 Plan-centric vs. Execution-centric Plan-centric vs. Execution-centric Both are Necessary Plan-centric Decisionmaking Execution-centric Decisionmaking The Basic Plan Planned Branches Executing Branches Commander’s will/desire Anticipated potential enemy actions or environmental exigencies Unanticipated opportunities or risks based on enemy/friendly actions or environmental exigencies Dynamic Decisions during Execution

12 Information Operations Planning Information Operations Planning  The representation of the availability, quality, and use of information is central to adequate representation of conflict.  Current technologies offer enhanced capabilities to attack the information domain directly.  Operational Scenarios must address information operations – add Information Operations Annex to each plan.

13 C4ISR & Decision Support Planning Strengthen C4ISR representation with more robust planning products:  Intelligence Collection Plan  High Payoff Target List  Attack Guidance Matrix  Synchronization Matrix  Decision Support Matrix  Communications Plan

14 Summary The key to developing info-centric scenarios is maintaining an information differential between Red and Blue during the scenario planning and preparation process.  Define initial conditions for information domain as well as physical domain.  Adjudicate the veracity and implications of each assumption that is not expected to be explicitly resolved during gaming.  Develop Branches for both Red and Blue plans during scenario development process.  Develop Information Operations Annex for each plan  Produce more robust planning products during the scenario development process.  Cross walk plans at the end of planning to identify execution- centric decision opportunities.

Conclusion Scenarios supporting analysis of future information centric force designs and concepts require more robust consideration of the information domain within the scenario documentation.