INFORMATION SUPERIORITY WORKSHOP II Focus on Metrics

1. INFORMATION SUPERIORITY WORKSHOP IIFocus on Metrics Working Group 4Focus on Synchronization Introductory Material D. SignoriD. Anhalt March 28, 29 2000

2. CHARGE TO THE SYNCHRONIZATION WORKING GROUP • Explore Synchronization • The essential aspects of synchronization • Significance in military operations • Means of achieving synchronization • Define a spectrum of concepts to achieve synchronization • Reflect IS capabilities and new operational concepts • Candidates for experimentation enabled by metrics • Develop Metrics • Quality of synchronization • Implications for C2 Process • Impact on operational outcome • Develop output • Essential concepts • Hierarchy of measures

3. EXPLORING SYNCHRONIZATION • What is it? Possible Definition: • An output characteristic of a C2 process • Facilitates the execution of military operations in a coordinated way • Provides maximum effect and with minimum expense of resource • Why its importance in military operations growing • Key to focusing mass, firepower and effects • Growing demand for rapid precision application of force • Pressure to do more with less • Why is it becoming difficult to improve synchronization in military operations • Large numbers of physical entities – Trend toward distributed operations • Many degrees of freedom– Less tolerance to enemy countermeasures • Increasing speed and precision – Limits to centralized control • How can information superiority help achieve improved synchronization • Increased richness of information enables high precision • Increased reach of information enables more entities to be influenced • Potential to focus complex behavior through wide spread sharing of awareness/intent

4. CONCEPTS RELATED TO SYNCHRONIZATION • Delamination of the economy of things and economy of information • Things hard to get and hard to use • Information hard to get but easy to use thru networking • Synchronization involves interface between virtual and real • Control Systems • Inertia of physical things provide limits to speed of synchronization • Plant model in control theory provides description of dynamics • Feed back control law determine rate of adaptation and convergence • Complex adaptive systems • Simple intelligent agents with situation information and rules • Agents linked together; e.g., using feed back control structure • Self organizing emergent behavior; e.g., swarming • Entropy • Lack of synchronization seen as disorganization • Measures of disorganization have roots in thermodynamics and information theory • Probability measures that reflect degree of confidence in state of system Concepts based in science, mathematics, engineering and the new economy

5. CENTRALIZATION/DECENTRALIZATION OF AUTHORITY RELEVANT TO A CRISIS PERROW’S AUTHORITY RULES Interactions Linear Complex CENTRALIZATION for tight coupling. CENTRALIZATION compatible with linear interactions (expected, visible) Dams, power grids, some continuous processing, rail and marine transport CENTRALIZATION to cope with tight coupling (unquestioned obedience, immediate response). DECENTRALIZATION to cope with unplanned interactions of failures (careful, slow search by those closet to subsystems). Nuclear plants, weapons; DNA, chemical plants, aircraft, space missions Tight Coupling 1 2 3 4 DECENTRALIZATION for complex interactions desirable. DECENTRALIZATION for loose coupling desirable (allows people to devise indigenous substitutions and alternative paths), since system accident possible.Mining, R&D firms, multi-goal agencies (welfare, DOE, OMB), universities. CENTRALIZATION or DECENTRALIZATION possible. Few complex interactions; component failure accidents can be handled from above or below. Tastes of elites and tradition determine structure. Most manufacturing, tradeschools, single-goal agencies (motor vehicles, post office). Loose

6. A SPECTRUM OF C2 OPTIONS FOR ACHIEVING SYNCHRONIZATION Nonlinearity Spectrum Equilibrium Mildly Complex Complex Chaos Perrow Quadrants (Interactions/Coupling and Centralization/Decentralization 1 3 4 2 Complex/Tight Linear/Tight Linear/Loose Complex/Loose Either Centralized Decentralized Neither C2 Structural Options Self Organizing Request/Bids Fully Centralized Guidance/ Autonomy Bid-A-Task No Organi-zation Emerging E-commerce Emphasis Historical Military Emphasis

7. Some Structural Options for C2 Fully Centralized Guidance/Autonomy Strategy COMMANDER CMD CENTER Self Organizing (Requests/Bids) Bid-A-Task CMD Center or CMDR Task Mission BULLETIN BOARD Network

8. Illustrative Example: Agile Synchronization of Effects Action Degree ofCollaboration Action Decision Action Degree ofSharing Synchronized Effects Commanders’ IntentSituation Awareness Operational Environment Degree ofIntegration Sensor KnowledgeBaseComponent Sensor Sensor

9. Illustrative Example: Agile Synchronization Effects • Quality of Decisions • Extent of Agreement • Fraction of Decisions based on info vs orders • Level of Interaction Action Degree ofCollaboration Action Decision Action • Consistency • Commonality • • Degree of Shared Understanding • Degree of Understanding Degree ofSharing Synchronized Effects Commander’s IntentSituation Awareness Operational Environment • Quality of Information • Accessibility • Level of Interoperability • Velocity • Utility • Network Connectivity Degree of Integration Sensor Sensor KnowledgeBaseComponent Sensor

10. TOP LEVEL SYNCHRONIZATION MEASURES • Complexity • Degree of Nonlinearity • Tightness of Coupling • Quality • Correlation/Coherence/Concurrency/ Consistency of Behavior of Entities • Percent of event sequences that mesh in manner consistent with Commanders Guidance • Effect • Timeliness of C2 Cycle – Effectiveness of Force • Resources Expended – Measure of Mission Outcome

11. SOME ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION • Focus of Working Group • Synchronization vs. Organization • Priorities • Actual metrics vs. other topics • Synchronization metric vs other metrics • Method • Activities done together • Activities partioned Focus of time and effort?