Advances in Decision Modeling: The DMSO Vector

1. Advances in Decision Modeling:The DMSO Vector Lt Col Eileen A. Bjorkman Chief, Concepts Application Division Zach Furness C4I Program Manager 31 July 2001 C2 Decision Making Workshop

2. Overview • Challenges in Modeling C2 Processes and Decision Making • DMSO Role in Decision Modeling/Human Behavior Representation • The Role of C4I-Sim Interoperability in Supporting Integration of Decision Aids

3. Some Issues to Consider in Improving the Representation of C2 Decisions in Simulations • How is the simulation (such as JWARS) intended to be used? • Force Assessment? • Planning and Execution? • Campaign-level planning and OPLAN generation? • Course of Action analysis? • System effectiveness and trade-off analysis? • Concept and Doctrine development and assessment? • What degree of resolution of the C2 process is necessary for the intended application? • Deterministic or stochastic representation? • Is it more important to understand the cause/effect relationship between events in the decision chain (deterministic), or the overall aggregate effects of many possible variables (stochastic)? • Usability of a simulation with high-fidelity representation of C2 • More detail could lead to greater difficulty in initializing, executing, and analyzing the results from the simulation

4. Some Challenges in Improving the Representation of C2 Decision Making in Simulation • How do we capture knowledge about the current C2 Decision Process? • Identifying Information flows within C2 systems • Determining sources of raw data (sensors, reports, etc.) • Understanding how data is integrated into products presented to commanders • Determining the factors influencing timely delivery and accuracy of information (signal degradation, weather, spoofing, etc.) • How do senior leaders make decisions (and how do we capture this)? • Filtering by staffs • Personality differences • Organizational filters and doctrine • Understanding of Commanders intent

5. Some Challenges with Utilizing Automated Decision Aids as part of C2 Decision Process • How should decision aids be integrated into operational architecture? • Tactical, operational, and/or strategy levels? • What types of decision aids are most important at each level? • Don’t need a theater-level simulation at battalion level • How should decision aids be integrated into C2 system architectures? • Embedded within C2 systems? • External to C2 systems? • Relationship to DII COE?

6. DMSO Role in HBR DMSO Vision: Lead and integrate the DoD’s M&S community and leverage M&S science and technology advances to ensure that the warfighters of today and tomorrow have superior and affordable M&S tools, products, and capabilities to support their missions and to give them revolutionary war-winning capabilities. HBR Vision: To enhance warfighter decisions by enabling valid models using credible data that reflect realistic human behavior. Focus is on enhancing reuse and interoperability of human behavior and performance models.

7. HBR Toolkit Models/ Algorithms Standard Representation Functional Descriptions Integration Tools Testbed Validated Performance Data Visualization Tools VV&A Processes Proposed DoD Roadmap DMSO Lead Service/Agency Leads • Justify the need for HBR • Develop HBR requirements process • Develop VV&A processes and metrics for measuring HBR effectiveness • Develop a Common Human Behavior Representation and Interchange System (CHRIS) • Develop common tools • Develop specific applications • Collect domain knowledge • Collect domain data • Validate models and data • Develop tools

8. The Role of C4I-Sim Interoperability in Supporting Integration of Decision Aids • Over past several years, simulation is increasingly employed to support C2 Decision making • Several simulation tools already employed directly in support of operations in most Unified Commands • TACWAR • Thunder • Integrated Theater Engagement Model (ITEM) • Naval Simulation System (NSS) • Simulation currently used in multiple ways during operations • Formulating and assessing courses of action (COAs) • Part of the deliberate planning process • Current shortfalls in using these simulations for operations analysis • Are not well integrated into C4I systems • Manual entry of data required from C4I systems • Limited ability to export results into C4I systems • Often require significant hardware and manning to run • Cannot anticipate potential problems in operations and alert commanders

9. Current DMSO Efforts Geared Toward Improving C2 Decision Making using Simulation • NSS-GCCS • Automated initialization of the Naval Simulation System (NSS) using data available in the Global Command and Control System (GCCS) for rapid execution of course of action (COA) analyses • Successfully used by NAVFOR cell during Global 01 (July 2001) • Reduced the amount of time necessary for initializing NSS COA scenarios from over 4 hours (Global 00) to under 20 minutes (Global 01) • ITEM-GCCS • Automated initialization of the Integrated Theater Engagement Model (ITEM), based on the existing NSS-GCCS linkage • Planned for use in USFK exercises (RSOI, UFL) in 2002 • Will be used by planning and analysis staffs - no simulation augmentees • JSIMS-JWARS Study • IDA Study that is assessing the utility of linkages between JWARS, C4I systems (such as GCCS) and JSIMS • Addressing the question, “Would interoperability of these systems be beneficial to the warfighter?” • Includes use cases involving JWARS as a decision support tool in JSIMS driven exercises

10. Future Areas of Interest in C4I-Sim Interoperability in Support of C2 Decision Processes • Reachback Analysis • Provide capability for initialization of simulations and decision support tools out of theater and in CONUS, during operations • GCCS-K linkages to ELIST (TRANSCOM) and NSS (PACOM)? • Alert Capability • Execute an OPLAN within a campaign-level simulation (JWARS?) and run in real-time with the operation • Processes would constantly monitor the state of units in the C4I system and compare to the expected state in the simulation • Command staffs would be alerted to significant deviations from the simulated OPLAN • Collaborative Planning • Use a federation of simulations to collaboratively build an OPLAN • Use campaign-level simulation for general OPLAN • Use higher resolution functional models (logistics, communications, intelligence, etc) to determine ability to support overall OPLAN and modify the plan as necessary

11. Summary • DMSO can provide leadership, integration, and leveraging in the modeling of military decision making processes and human behavior • Standards • Infrastructure • Services and agencies provide specific applications • C4I-Simulation Interoperability is a key enabler for using decision support tools on the battlefield • Representation of C2 Decision processes is important, but figuring out how to use such tools within the process is equally important • Just “scratching the surface” in terms of integrating decision aids into the C2 decision process