1 / 57

Information Superiority Workshop II: Focus on Metrics Groups I and II: Attributes and Metrics for Awareness and Share

Information Superiority Workshop II: Focus on Metrics Groups I and II: Attributes and Metrics for Awareness and Shared Awareness. Group Chairs: John J. Garstka, JCS/J6Q Dr. Richard Hayes, EBR, Inc. Dr. Larry Wiener, OPNAV/N6C. Final Report: 5 July 2000. Overview.

allayna
Download Presentation

Information Superiority Workshop II: Focus on Metrics Groups I and II: Attributes and Metrics for Awareness and Share

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Information Superiority Workshop II: Focus on Metrics Groups I and II: Attributes and Metrics forAwareness and Shared Awareness Group Chairs: John J. Garstka, JCS/J6Q Dr. Richard Hayes, EBR, Inc. Dr. Larry Wiener, OPNAV/N6C Final Report: 5 July 2000

  2. Overview • Conceptual Framework and Definitions • Reference Model • Application of the Reference Model • Summary

  3. Conceptual Framework • A Conceptual Framework provides: • Way of thinking about Information/IS/NCW • Language to talk about Information/IS/NCW • Set of measures to quantify the nature and impacts of Information/IS/NCW • A Conceptual Framework accelerates progress and helps us get the most out of experiments and research activities • A “Reference Model” is a key component of a conceptual framework

  4. Terms of Reference speed distance per unit time mph, kph mph in U.S. air pressure value of time Attribute of Interest: • Variable that is key to understanding. Metric: • An operational definition of an attribute. Measure: • A specific application of a metric. Standard: • The agreed to unit of and approach to measuring an attribute. Indicant: •A surrogate measure used for practical reasons. Value •A relative measure of worth

  5. Information Awareness Knowledge Battlespace • Battlespace Information results from the fusion of key elements of information which characterize the battlespace • Explicit Information (e.g. position of forces, geography, and weather) • Requires Little Interpretation • Can be communicated quickly and easily • Battlespace Awareness involves the identification of patterns in the situation derived from perceived Battlespace Information and a priori Knowledge • Battlespace Knowledge yields predictive ability • Extrapolation of situation awareness Network-intensive People-intensive Requires Knowledge-Based Processes and Workforce

  6. Candidate Definition • Relative Information Advantage • An advantage that one force establishes over another force in the information domain. • The advantage is not measured in an absolute sense, but rather with respect to the information needs of both forces • Metrics are applicable at the tactical, operational, and strategic level

  7. Candidate Definition • Tactical Information Superiority • The ability to establish and maintain a relative information advantage in a specified area of the battlespace, for a specified period of time, in support of a specified mission area

  8. Overview • Conceptual Framework and Definitions • Reference Model • Application of the Reference Model • Summary

  9. Domains World View Body of Personal Knowledge Experience/ Training Individual Capabilities Cognitive Domain Information Domain • Situation • Understanding • Awareness • Assessment Knowledge of Situation Information Data Human Perception Reality

  10. Reference Model: Conceptual Framework The Cognitive Domain The Information Domain The Physical Domain

  11. Reference Model: Conceptual Framework The Cognitive Domain: Perception of Ground Truth Based on Interaction with Information Domain and Direct Observation of Physical Domain The Information Domain “Digital Format” “Paper Format” The Physical Domain: “Ground Truth”

  12. Reference Model: Conceptual Framework The Cognitive Domain: Shared Awareness The Information Domain Shared Information The Physical Domain: “Ground Truth”

  13. Reference Model: Conceptual Framework Blue Cognitive Domain Blue Blue Information Domain Relative Information Advantage The Physical Domain: Competitive Advantage - Combat Power Red Information Domain Red Red Cognitive Domain

  14. Reference Model: Conceptual Framework Blue Cognitive Domain Defensive Info Ops Blue Information Domain Relative Information Advantage Offensive Info Ops The Physical Domain Offensive Info Ops Red Information Domain Red Cognitive Domain

  15. Reference Model: Conceptual Framework Blue Cognitive Domain Blue Information Domain “The Situation” Relative Information Advantage The Physical Domain Red Information Domain Red Cognitive Domain

  16. Reference Model: The Situation • Awareness is a Perception of the Situation • Levels of Awareness • entities, relationships, the patterns and implications Time & Space E n v i r o n m e n t • Capabilities & Intentions M i s s I o n Red Blue The Situation Other Opportunities & Risks

  17. Decide Reference Model:Components of Situational Awareness Patterns Risk Capabilities Blue Estimate of Adversary Intent Personal Subjective Situational Awareness “Assessment” Applied Knowledge Opportunities Tactics, Techniques, Procedures Cognitive Domain Training State Information on Objects Act Information Domain Objects Physical Domain

  18. Reference Model: Domain Relationships Cognitive Domain Shared Awareness Information Sharing Information Domain Direct Sensing Indirect Sensing Reality Action

  19. Reference Model: Shared Awareness Shared Awareness

  20. Reference Model: Collaboration Collaboration Information Sharing

  21. Reference Model: Synchronization Shared Awareness The Plan Synchronization

  22. Reference Model: Self-Synchronization Shared Awareness Intent Information Sharing Self-Synchronization

  23. Reference Model: Self-Synchronization Shared Awareness Self-Synchronization

  24. Reference Model: Detailed View of Tactical Level Awareness Cognitive Domain Human 1 Cognitive Domain Data 1 View 1 Voice 1 Digital Info Domain Information Domain Com: Voice Com: Data Organic Sensors Physical Domain

  25. Reference Model: Detailed View of Tactical Level Shared Awareness Human 1 Human 1 Human 1 Cognitive Domain Cognitive Domain Cognitive Domain Data 1 Data 1 Data 1 View 1 View 1 View 1 Voice 1 Voice 1 Voice 1 Shared Information Digital Info Domain Digital Info Domain Digital Info Domain Com: Voice Com: Voice Com: Voice Com: Data Com: Data Com: Data Organic Sensors Organic Sensors Organic Sensors Physical Domain

  26. The Information Domain Information “Richness” • Content • Accuracy • Timeliness • Relevance Network- Centric Operations . Platform-Centric Operations . . Information “Reach” Richness and reach were introduced by Phillip B. Evans and Thomas S. Wurster, “Strategy and the New Economics of Information,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1997.

  27. Richness and Reach • InformationRichness is an aggregate measure of the • Quality of Battlespace Information, and • Quality of the interactions among entities • InformationReach is an aggregate measure of the degree to which Information is shared Richness and reach were introduced by Phillip B. Evans and Thomas S. Wurster, “Strategy and the New Economics of Information,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1997.

  28. Information Domain: Attributes of Information Richness Richness of Interaction (Voice / Data / Video) Information Completeness Trust and Confidence in Information Information Commonality and Consistency Information Relevance “Why” Object State Information - Identification - Classification - Location Information Timeliness “What” Information Accuracy “When” “Who” “Where”

  29. Example Information Richness Attributes for a Single Integrated Air Picture (SIAP) • Completeness. The percentage of real tracks that are included in the SIAP. • Correctness. Data accurately reflects true track attributes (position, kinematics, and identity). • Commonality. Track attributes of shared data are the same for each SIAP user. • Continuity. Proper maintenance of track attributes over time. • Timeliness. Data is where it is needed, when it is needed. Source: Representative Measures of a Single Integrated Air Picture (SIAP)

  30. Information Domain: Attributes of Information Reach Geographic Range of Sharing Sharing by Availability (24x7) Access (Search/Navigation) Sharing By Number of Nodes Sharing By Allied / Coalition Sharing By Security Level Sharing By Component / Echelon Capability for Multi-actor Interactions

  31. Overview • Conceptual Framework and Definitions • Reference Model • Application of the Reference Model • Summary

  32. Application of the Reference Model • Mission Area: Air-to-Air • Information needs are approximately symmetric • Both forces require relevant information to engage • Relevant information consists of object state information • Identification • Classification • Engage quality information (Precise Position Location) • Synchronization and coordination of tactical actions requires information sharing by voice or data link

  33. Air-to-Air Mission with Tactical Data Links * Link-16: Shared Battlespace Awareness Information “Richness” * E-3 AWACS * F-15C • Content • Accuracy • Timeliness • Relevance Network- Centric Operations . Platform-Centric Operations . . Information “Reach”

  34. Mission Area: Air-to-AirThe Tactical Situation Adversary Aircraft Blue Aircraft’s Organic Sensor X X X X X Blue Aircraft X

  35. Heads-up Display with Platform-Centric Operations 08 09 10 1500 400 5 5 1000 450 500 500 5 5 10 10 X FRIENDLY TARGET Reference Model: Air to Air Mission Shared Awareness Human 1 Human 1 Cognitive Domain Cognitive Domain Data 1 Data 1 View 1 View 1 Voice 1 Voice 1 Shared Information Digital Info Domain Digital Info Domain Com: Voice Com: Voice Warfighter “View” which results from sharing info via voice only communications Com: Data Com: Data Organic Sensors Organic Sensors Physical Domain

  36. X X X X X X Heads-up Display with Network-Centric Operations 08 09 10 1500 400 5 5 1000 450 500 500 5 5 10 10 X FRIENDLY TARGET Reference Model: Air-to-Air Mission Shared Awareness Human 1 Human 1 Cognitive Domain Cognitive Domain Data 1 Data 1 View 1 View 1 Voice 1 Voice 1 Shared Information Digital Info Domain Digital Info Domain Com: Voice Com: Voice Warfighter “View” which results from sharing info via voice and data communications Com: Data Com: Data Organic Sensors Organic Sensors Physical Domain

  37. Application of Richness Attributesand Associated Metrics • Relevant Information • Information on Blue, Red, and Neutrals within a specified distance “R” • Object State Information • Precise position location information • Identification • Typing • Completeness measured as percentage of objects “mapped” to information domain

  38. R1 Measuring a Relative Information Advantage Case Where Info Needs are Approximately Symmetric 100% Blue Info Position * Blue (xB, yB) Y: Percentage of Own Force Correctly Typed and Tracked within Sphere of Radius R1 Y Blue/Red Info Needs * (xR, yR) Red Red Info Position 0 X 100% X : Percentage of Adversary Force Correctly Typed and Tracked within Sphere of Radius R1 Info Advantage = f ((xB, yB), (xR, yR))

  39. Air-to-Air Mission with Tactical Data Links F15-C Air Ops: Active Missile Counter Tactics Without JTIDS/With JTIDS • Information Advantage Voice Only vs. Shared Tactical Picture • OODA Loop Baseline Compressed with Self-Synchronization • Kill Ratio 3.10:1 vs. 8.11:1 (2.6 x increase) The Bottom Line: JTIDS Operational Special Project demonstrated networked air crews fighting with shared awareness could increase combat power by over 200 % Source: JTIDS Operational Special Project - Report to Congress, Dec 97

  40. Translation of an Information Advantage To Increased Combat Power Velocity of Info Data Network Awareness of Blue (Y) Voice Network Awareness of Red (X) * 3.10:1 8.11:1 * Self Synch Kill Ratio OPTEMPO 2.6 x increase

  41. Extracts from JTIDS Operational Special Project Report to Congress (Cont.) • Operational Effectiveness Kill Ratio • Active Missile Counter Tactics, Fall 1996 • Non-JTIDS equipped aircraft vs. adversary 3.10.1 • JTIDS equipped aircraft vs. adversary 8.11.1 • Night Composite Force Tactics Development and Evaluation, Spring 1997 • Non-JTIDS equipped aircraft vs. adversary 3.62:1 • JTIDS equipped aircraft vs. adversary 9.40:1 2.61 x increase 2.59 x increase

  42. Extracts from JTIDS Operational Special Project Report to Congress (Cont.) • Air Combat Command Project Order: 92-035TF • Operational Special Project Details • 19,400 flying hours • 12,500 sorties • Multiple Missions with F-15C • Basic 1-on-1 flight maneuvers • 8 vs. 16 defensive counter air and offensive counter air • Missions were flown as part of normal training sorties • Duration: 20 Sep 93 - 30 Apr 97

  43. Extracts from JTIDS Operational Special Project Report to Congress Section 4.3: Tactics Adaptation and Section 5.0: Conclusions • Situational Awareness drastically increased with data links due to continual positional awareness of friendlies and adversaries which reduced the need for radio communications. This greatly increased the accuracy of targeting threat aircraft. • Each flight member was able to see the disposition of flight members, regardless of their separation. • This shared awareness made split tactics easier, led to greater flight effectiveness and afforded quicker rejoins when desired. • The mutual support enhancements proved even more significant against a non-equipped adversary in night and weather conditions since the adversary formation either had to stay together or substantially degrade mutual support. • When voice was used, the pilots often referred to common picture making the voice more meaningful.

  44. Extracts from JTIDS Operational Special Project Report to Congress (Cont.) • In testing with the data link, a perfect sort was routine with four (and two) ship flights. This had strong positive implications concerning first pass kill results, fighting outnumbered, survivability and cost effectiveness in employing expensive aircraft/missiles. When an F-15 inadvertently locked on to another flight member, the error was graphically displayed (by the lock line going to the friendly fighter) and the pilot lost little time in determining the error and avoiding possible fratricide)

  45. Extracts from JTIDS Operational Special Project Report to Congress (Cont.) • OSP Message Formats • Precise Participant Location and Identification (PPLI) and status information, displayed to the F-15 pilots and AWACS operators, about the identification, position, fuel, weapons, etc. of all Link 16 equipped aircraft • Track/target reports which convey location and ID information about aircraft (and other platforms) and potential targets • Weapons coordination and target assignments • Sensor reports (including primary target and missile in flight) provided by shooters (e.g., fighters). • Limited intelligence derived information

  46. Overview • Conceptual Framework and Definitions • Reference Model • Application of the Reference Model • Summary

  47. Summary • The IS/NCW Conceptual Framework and Reference Model developed and refined as a result of IS Workshop II provide a methodology for: • More precisely defining attributes and metrics for the information domain • Describing relationships between the physical, information, and cognitive domains • Measuring an information advantage • The utility of this methodology for providing insight into the relationship between an information advantage and combat power was demonstrated in the successful application of these tools to the Air-to-Air Mission.

  48. Back-Up Slides

  49. SIAP Cont. (3) The mean range at which initial detection (by sensor type: Search radar, Fire control radar, ESM, IFF, Visual, etc) was made compared to the predicted range (considering RCS, environmentals, radar Horizon, etc). (This is a chart)  [range at which detection of the vehicle/formation was made (by sensor) in a given environment divided by the predicted sensor detection range of the vehicle/formation (in a given environment)] divided by # of vehicles/formations Note: Multiple objects that are part of a formation not discriminated by the force sensors will be counted as only one ground truth vehicle (until the formation breaks)

  50. SIAP Cont. c. Attribute: Correctness (1) Percentage of time tracking false tracks (for each individual unit and for all links)  the duration of all false tracks  the duration of all tracks (2) Mean track positional accuracy/errors of sensors  of the difference between sensor positional and kinematics data of air and space vehicles and the 3D positional and kinematics truth data for air and space vehicles divided by # of track updates (3) For false tracks, mean time from Track Start to Drop Track tracks (for each individual unit and for all links)  [Time (Drop track) minus Time (Track Start)] Number of false tracks

More Related