1. Working Group 1

2. Tasks Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the NCW/NEC frameworks:
Identify areas of the frameworks that need additional development
What is the purpose of the framework
What does and doesn’t it do
Where is further development required?
Choose two or three problem areas and/or significant metrics issues, clarify and propose solutions.
EBO-test fitness for purpose
Agility of effectiveness?
High-level support and buy-in
Social Aspects
Future Directions
2/23/2019

3. General Observations UK US Framework
framework currently captures capabilities and process not measures
desire to focus on the near term
US Framework
currently expressed as measures not concepts
needs a complementary architectural perspective
multiple perspectives would be useful for different audiences
appears to have been focused on the long term
2/23/2019

4. What is the Purpose and Scope of the Framework?
There are a number of different audiences and potential uses for the Framework.
Audiences:
Military, Scientists, Industry, Politicians,
Applications:
Operations
Own force Decision-Making assessment
Force selection
Effects based operations (Intelligence)
Acquisitions
Assess the tenets of NCW
Education
A tool not an endpoint
Leads toward a consistent architecture
To test a hypothesis
To define, understand, evaluate NCW elements
Establish a baseline
Measure systems and investments
2/23/2019

5. Perceived Current Focus
NCW, specifically the network information flows and decision making.
Appears to be based on attrition-based warfare.
The different uses may require extension of the framework:
political, bureaucratic, fiscal, etc.
2/23/2019

6. What it Does Measure training Measure progress Measure experiments
Forces one to think about what really matters
MCP’s are the broad construct
Used to show indicators
To make comparisons of each entity
Shows trade-offs between systems
Can be used to rate capability
Represents a new way of thinking
2/23/2019

7. What it Doesn’t Do
Currently, enables comparisons of blocks between levels, does not tell you how to move to different levels
2/23/2019

8. Problem Areas Effectiveness and Agility.
The Operating Environment (portrayal/ dimensions)
EBO. Fitness for purpose.
How do the metrics translate to the political arena?
Getting high level support and buy-in
Social Aspects
Approach to ID capability gaps
How to calibrate the output?
Needs proper instruction on use.
How do you collect the information?
2/23/2019

9. Effectiveness/ Agility Clumped Together
Issues:
Agility is a different dimension to the other boxes. It is needed at multiple levels in the framework, and should be treated consistently. It is either at the top level or not. There is agility of the network/systems/organization and of the whole force.
Effectiveness is a measure, agility is a capability (that needs to be measured).
Should it be embedded or on the top level?
How to measure across force and info. areas?
Suggestion:
Add other boxes for agility
2/23/2019

10. The Operating Environment
Issues:
Operating environment needs to be relocated.
Operating environments effect everything.
There is already a lot of work on scenarios (eg NATO C2 Assessment).
Recommendation:
Separate out the operating environment
This group should not reconsider descriptions of scenarios.
2/23/2019

11. Social Aspects Issues:
To add value, must emphasize the social aspects- taking it beyond the simple questions asked.
Performance any aspect of the network is affected by the social domain and vice versa.
Including the social dynamics allows for richer thinking.
Recommendation:
Social Dimension should be a “top level box”
Social Aspects should be explicitly represented at the top of the framework.
2/23/2019

12. Social Aspects - Miscellaneous
Issues:
Degree of decision/plan synchronization needs to be changed.
It implies command by plan.
Synchronization can be too easily confused with synchronous. The idea of self-synchronization was important a couple of years ago, but should not be at this level of the framework now.
Recommendation:
Degree of decision making and behavioral coherence.
(How does this relate to “Appropriateness” in Decision Quality? - eg coherence with command intent.)
2/23/2019

13. Information Availability
NCW Framework/ NEC Causal Map of NEC Themes Comparison
Causal map of NEC themes
Flexible
Resilient
Working
Inclusive Flexible
Agile Mission
Acquisition
Information
Infrastructure
Groups
Shared
Awareness
Full
Information
Availability
Synchronised
Effects
Fully Networked
Effects Based
Support
Planning
Information
Policy
infrastructure C2
Effects =
Shared Awareness
Full
Information Availability
Synchronised Effects
2/23/2019

14. NCO (?) Conceptual Framework (Proposed)
Human
Competencies
Information
Value Added
Force C2
Effectors
Sources
Services
Quality of Organic
Social
Dynamics
Degree of Networking
Agility of Network
Information
Degree of Information “Share-ability”
Agile Working
Quality of Individual
Information
Degree of Shared
Information
(Roles, Interactions,
Sensemaking,
Decisionmaking,
Learning)
Quality
Degree of Shared Sensemaking
Quality of Individual Sensemaking of
Shared Awareness
Awareness
Inter-
Understanding
Shared Understanding
Agile Mission Groups
actions
Quality of Individual
Decisions
Quality of Collaborative
Decisions
Operating
Environment
Degree of Decisionmaking & Behavioral Coherence
Physical Domain
Degree of Actions/ Entities Synchronized
Information Domain
Cognitive Domain
Degree of Effectiveness
Social Domain
Various Feedback Loops
abc
Proposed Change/Add’n

15. EBO-Test Fitness For Purpose
This issue was considered too large to examine in this workshop.
Recommendation:
Apply the framework to EBO case studies
Look at policy
Look at red and blue
PPBS (Program Planning Budget System) process
2/23/2019

16. Getting High Level Support and Buy-in
Empirical Based Argument
Experimental campaign provides empirical data targeted toward decision-makers
Better packaging
Communicate and educate at different levels
Pick models, experiments, and demonstrations with high visibility (that are likely to result in success).
Change the name?
2/23/2019

17. Metric Recommendations
Case studies take into account not just context but also application
Build a computer game to also view not only own capabilities but also the capabilities of the advisary
Lots of groups that could use something like this now
2/23/2019

18. Way ahead (1) Executive ‘Council’ needed
Opportune time co-ordinate activities
TTCP Group (e.g JSA to C3I Group) may be the vehicle
engender common approaches (JSA/AG12, MAR/AG1)
start to roll-out framework out to real world activities and arenas (e.g Blue Flag, C2 exercise)
Invite feedback
Encourage prototype roll-out to solicit feedback and testing
Accept it’s a change
Establish common reference point‘Book Tour’ /Story line
2/23/2019

19. Way ahead (2) New Activities
Encourage use within the ‘Capability Audit/Capability Gap/Assessment’ process
Apply to today’s and yesterday’s experience and then help to formulate tomorrows business processes
Must tailor to the situation/context
Further effort needed to understand the inter-relationships
Also need to consider feedback loop(s)
2/23/2019

20. Way ahead (3) Need to learn from the decision making process
Institutional Change is needed
how do we capture into our educational institutions?
need to create this inter-working between acadamies
Label the framework NCO
2/23/2019