1 / 31

Laying the foundations A paper for ISMOR 20

Laying the foundations A paper for ISMOR 20. 26 th August 2003 Glenn Richards. Contents. 1 Introduction 2 Battlefield Infrastructure Studies 3 Method 4 Data 5 Conclusions 6 Questions. Introduction. Section 1. Introduction. What is Battlefield Infrastructure (BfI)?

jenis
Download Presentation

Laying the foundations A paper for ISMOR 20

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. Laying the foundations A paper for ISMOR 20 26th August 2003 Glenn Richards

  2. Contents 1 Introduction 2 Battlefield Infrastructure Studies 3 Method 4 Data 5 Conclusions 6 Questions

  3. Introduction Section 1

  4. Introduction • What is Battlefield Infrastructure (BfI)? • fuel, water, power and accommodation • Little previous study in the UK • availability of data has been the key • This presentation will • examine the studies • discuss relative merits of 2 OR methods and • discuss data requirements, types, problems etc

  5. Battlefield Infrastructure Studies Section 2

  6. BfI Overarching Study 1 • Aim • understand the provision of BfI • identify potential choke points in the systems • examine possible technologies to improve BfI • find possible links between the components of BfI • prioritise and focus future research

  7. BfI Overarching Study 2 • Soft analysis - problem elicitation • Method • literature search • capture of current concepts of operation • obtain baseline data • interviews with stakeholders • study day • identification of possible areas suitable for technology research • analysis of findings • hard issues • soft issues

  8. BfI Overarching Study 3 • Results • baseline statement of capability to support a deployed op force • interactions between the four components of BFI • directions for future research and analysis identified • e.g. use of pipelines for water and fuel distribution • Most importantly... • recommend more studies where required!

  9. Follow on studies • Following the scoping study, requests for three follow-on studies: • Deployed Fuel Handling Equipment Support Studies • Deployed Water Handling Equipment Support Studies • UK Forces Deployed Operations Electric Power

  10. Method Section 3

  11. General method • Quantitative studies of BfI are ORBAT driven • based on the amount of men and equipment deployed to an operation • Use agreed scenarios for modeling • For water and fuel studies • existent doctrine used (eg 25 litres/man/day) • solutions based on achievement of policy norms • Different from a large amount of military OR

  12. ‘Top-down’ vs. ‘Bottom-up’ • Two approaches to solving military OR problems • What’s the difference? • ‘bottom-up’, from performance to capability • many studies - Engr to Arty • ‘top-down’, from ORBAT to required quantities • DFHE • Bottom-up establishes need, top-down accepts it

  13. ‘Bottom-up’ studies • In a particular scenario or vignette • define/postulate a number of tasks that have to be achieved in a certain time • use the time in which a single equipment could conduct defined tasks • aggregate up to derive number of equipments required for whole scenario • Or • using equipment with defined performance • assess the capability of forces of different composition in combat simulation • quantities from performance

  14. Advantages of ‘Bottom-up’ approach • Applicable for many types of study from Arty to Engr eqpt • Gets buy in from immediate stakeholders • i.e. those at MJPs • Can be good to examine particular scenario reqts, as examining each one by a MJP • Customers used to approach capabilities • Easy to examine different equipment • Better feeling for scenario chronology

  15. Disadvantages of ‘Bottom-up’ approach • Often based on limited ops within a campaign • Problems capturing data: initial task list, task time etc • Data often superseded with arrival of new stakeholders • Problems amalgamating reqts from different vignettes especially for vehicles that perform more than one function • Results require interpretation to • relate them to the entire campaign • allow for military structural issues • Large amount of preparation for MJPs • Specialised military knowledge requirement

  16. ‘Top-down’ example: DFHE RDS • Obtain agreed ORBATS • Obtain agreed policy norms • fuel quantities, storage reqts, nodes, etc • Give battlefield locations, nodes • Using policy norms work out what’s stored where, moved where, support modules reqts, etc • Simple sums • Capability reqts • Info on current & future kit • Equipment reqts

  17. Typical supply network 7 days RSG FSG SPOD Divisional Rear Boundary BSA Move 2 FCUs a day MRA 14 FCUs Cdo LoC

  18. ‘Top-down’ Policy + doctrine

  19. Advantages of ‘Top-down’ approach • Simple, quicker • normally can be done by adding and dividing • May require less military input • good if military scarce • Avoid the problems of aggregation to campaign level • Can be used to examine: • achievement of policy norms (eg water supply) • equipment needed to meet accepted requirement (eg power supply) • Less hassle from changing stakeholders • guaranteed audit trail policy + agreed ORBATs

  20. Disadvantages of ‘Top-down’ approach • Works best with agreed policy & doctrine • useful as a ‘what if’ vis a vis strawman policy • ORBATs • always disagreements • Rigidly adheres to policy statements • Can become independent of physical data within scenario • Not applicable to everything: bridges etc • Need to physically get policy docs • Simple • NOT HEADLINE MAKING OR!

  21. Data Section 5

  22. Definition of Data • “Factual information, especially information organised for analysis or used to reason or make decisions. ” • In terms of OR studies what exactly constitutes data? • is anything that is input into a study considered to be data? • something that has been measured is data, • but what about estimates or mil judgement? • are the hard-wired assumptions imbedded in a model data? • Definition of data can be a complicated issue • means different things to different people (programmer, analyst, customer, military stakeholder etc) • In this paper all inputs into an OR study

  23. Why are data important? • Data is … Data are • after much debate data are plural! • OR used to inform decisions e.g. procurement etc. Why? • to apply scientific rigour and method to them • OR can be ignored unless it gains the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders •  input data also subject to the same rigour of scrutiny? • GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT • Quality of data not always appreciated • often delivery of results takes priority over input data

  24. Types of data • Several classifications of data can be proposed, eg • high /low level (e.g Govt BoI vs mobility of a land platform • low level feed into high? • hard/soft, objective/subjective etc • However, in practice distinctions fuzzy • Soft data • schemes of manoeuvre, future doctrine, threat data etc • Hard data • platform data, policy statements, ORBATs etc

  25. Problems with data collection • Time • hard to get, large amounts • up to 75% of study spent collecting data • Why hard? • often unvalidated/anecdotal • knowledge is power • data management not sexy subject • often subject to ‘fads’ • expensive and time consuming, leading to poorly maintained sources or gaps • data just not known • imbedded within models: self perpetuating • data from previous studies are often used at the customer’s request • rotation of military staff

  26. Problems with multiple data sources • First glance multiple sources better than none • Closer inspection problems become apparent • different data sources give different values • design v use • performance on a range v performance in the field v performance in a model • current v future • centralised v distributed • historical v predicted • objective v subjective • Each source of data may be the ‘correct’ one • arbiter: the customer and stakeholder community

  27. Methods used for obtaining data • Despite problems all is not lost • Methods for obtaining data • communication • undoubtedly the best • use of military personnel • involve the customer at an early stage • use of existing data • industry and other technical experts • historical data • strawman data • sensitivity analysis

  28. Data Conclusions • Data vital for any study • the quality of data and stakeholder buy in important • Where data not available strawman and sensitivity useful • Time should be spent ensuring data fit for purpose • If time spent collecting data reduced • more time for analysis • more cost efficient studies • More effort required managing data • More knowledge sharing and communication are required!

  29. Conclusions Section 6

  30. Conclusions • Top down and bottom up approaches both have advantages and disadvantages • horses for courses • Data are important • many problems • but that’s why they pay us to do it • many solutions • some outlined in paper • I’d like to know yours

  31. Questions

More Related