Author Request (To be completed by applicant) - The following author(s) request authority to disclose the following presentation in the MORSS Final Report, for inclusion on the MORSS CD and/or posting on the MORS web site. Name of Principal Author and all other author(s): Principal Author’s Organization and address: Phone:______________ Fax:________________ Email:______________ Original title on 712 A/B:__________________________________________________________ Revised title:___________________________________________________________________ Presented in (input and Bold one): (WG___, CG___, Special Session ___, Poster, Demo, or Tutorial): This presentation is believed to be: UNCLASSIFIED AND APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 73rd MORSS CD Cover Page UNCLASSIFIED DISCLOSURE FORM CD Presentation Please complete this form 712CD as your cover page to your electronic briefing submission to the MORSS CD. Do not fax to the MORS office. 21-23 June 2005, at US Military Academy, West Point, NY 712CD Revised 41205 Paul J. Tanenbaum, Britt E. Bray, Jack H. Sheehan U.S. Army Research Laboratory ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-SL Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068 410-278-6321 410-278-9036 [email protected]Missions and Means Framework Application 25
Transcript
22 Jun 05 1
Author Request (To be completed by applicant) - The following author(s) request authority to disclose the following presentation in the MORSS Final Report, for inclusion on the MORSS CD and/or posting on the MORS web site.
Name of Principal Author and all other author(s):
Principal Author’s Organization and address: Phone:______________
Fax:________________
Email:______________
Original title on 712 A/B:__________________________________________________________
Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 22 JUN 2005
2. REPORT TYPE N/A
3. DATES COVERED -
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE The Missions and Means Framework Application
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Research Laboratory ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-SL AberdeenProving Ground, MD 21005-5068
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES See also ADM201946, Military Operations Research Society Symposium (73rd) Held in West Point, NY on21-23 June 2005. , The original document contains color images.
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
UU
18. NUMBEROF PAGES
71
19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT unclassified
b. ABSTRACT unclassified
c. THIS PAGE unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
LTC (R) Britt E. BrayDynamics Research Corporation913 758 [email protected]
22 Jun 05 3
Outline
• IntroductionWhat is MMF? Where did it come from?
• How it might work• Platform-level readiness• The Storyboard Demo• Other applications• Summary and conclusions
22 Jun 05 4
Some other contributors
• Army Research Laboratory– Rich Sandmeyer– Beth Ward– John Onofrey– Keon Burley
• Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity– Paul Deitz– Alex Wong
• Defense Modeling and Simulation Office– Jack Sheehan
22 Jun 05 5
• Warfighter requirements are…— based on, but not explicitly traceable to mission;— not described in context of contribution to JFC mission;— originated in human-readable form and then translated into machine-readable form at great cost in time, money, and accuracy;— hard for the non-warfighter to follow because it leaves implicit much knowledge and procedure.
• Developing a complex system of systems requires tackling…— effectiveness, suitability, and survivability in terms of the contributions of individual parts to the whole; and
— effectiveness of the whole in accomplishing assigned operational missions in the context of joint operating concepts.
Current context
22 Jun 05 6
Interactions
Componentstatus
Capabilitystatus
Task-successstatus
physics,penetration models, ...
engineering,criticality analysis, ...
operations research,missions, scenarios, ...
The venerablevulnerability/lethality “taxonomy”
22 Jun 05 7
Mission
Functions
Forces
Effects
The taxonomy cuts both ways
22 Jun 05 8
Interactions
Componentstatus
Capabilitystatus
Task-successstatus
In execution,the taxonomy bites its own tail
The way the mission proceeds leads me tocause (or suffer) additional interactions
22 Jun 05 9
Mission
Functions
Forces
Effects
In execution,the taxonomy bites its own tail
The consequence of all the effectsmay lead me to replan
22 Jun 05 10
Mission
Functions
Forces
Effects
And the OPFOR has their own idea
Mission
Functions
Forces
BLUFOR OPFOR
22 Jun 05 11
The Missions and Means Framework(MMF)
Mission
Functions
Forces
Effects
Mission
Functions
Forces
BLUFOR OPFOR
1
22 Jun 05 12
The Missions and Means Framework(MMF)
Mission
Functions
Forces
Effects
Mission
Functions
Forces
BLUFOR OPFOR
2 2
22 Jun 05 13
The Missions and Means Framework(MMF)
Mission
Functions
Forces
Effects
Mission
Functions
Forces
BLUFOR OPFOR
3 3
22 Jun 05 14
The Missions and Means Framework(MMF)
Mission
Functions
Forces
Effects
Mission
Functions
Forces
BLUFOR OPFOR
4 4
22 Jun 05 15
The Missions and Means Framework(MMF)
Mission
Functions
Forces
Effects
Mission
Functions
Forces
BLUFOR OPFOR
Location in time and space5
22 Jun 05 16
The Missions and Means Framework(MMF)
Mission
Functions
Forces
Effects
Mission
Functions
Forces
BLUFOR OPFOR
Location in time and space
Context (military, political, physical, …)6
22 Jun 05 17
OPFOR’s purposeOWNFOR’s purpose
The Missions and Means Framework(MMF)
Mission
Functions
Forces
Effects
Mission
Functions
Forces
BLUFOR OPFOR
Location in time and space
Context (military, political, physical, …)
7 7
22 Jun 05 18
T1T1T1T1T1Tm
component
subsystem
operational
tactical
strategic theater
Missions and Means Framework
platform/system of systems
Mission hierarchyinduces
tasks, conditions, standards
Hardware hierarchyinduces
capabilities
strategic national
CnCnCnCn
22 Jun 05 19
T1T1T1T1T1Tm
component
subsystem
operational
tactical
strategic theater
Missions and Means Framework
platform/system of systems
strategic national
CnCnCnCn
Is this a mission capability packagethat meets
the mission capability requirement?
22 Jun 05 20
Overlaywhat we have withwhat we need to do
•COCOM IPLs•GAP Analysis
•Risk AssessmentJCIDS Analysis(FAA, FNA, FSA)
JCIDSRecommendation
Capability NeedsDOTMLPF Changes
AssessmentandAnalysis
NSSStrategy &
OverarchingConcepts
Joint OperationsConcepts
OPLANsand
CONPLANs
JointOperatingConcepts
DefensePlanningScenarios
Science &Technology
Planning,Programming, andBudgeting System
Acquisition Experimentation
Guidance
IntegratedArchitecture
JointFunctionalConcepts
ReconciliationandRecommendation
DecisionandAction
component
subsystem
platform/system of systems
How MMF supports JCIDSCJCSI 3170.01D, 12 Mar 04, p. A-3
operational
tactical
strategic theater
strategic national
Is this a mission capability packagethat meets
the mission capability requirement?
TaskAnalysis
CapabilityAssessments
CnCnCnCnT1T1T1T1T1Tm
22 Jun 05 21
Outline
• IntroductionWhat is MMF? Where did it come from?
• How it might work• Platform-level readiness• The Storyboard Demo• Other applications• Summary and conclusions
22 Jun 05 22
T1T1T1T1T1Tm
component
subsystem
operational
tactical
strategic theater
Mission-to-task decomposition
platform/system of systems
Mission hierarchyinduces
tasks, conditions, standards
Hardware hierarchyinduces
capabilities
strategic national
CnCnCnCn
22 Jun 05 23
• Screen shot of results of Mission to Task decomposition using JTIMS automated KA tool.
• Used to document break down of MCS A mission into component tasks.
• Vignette mission thread is assembled from the component tasks.
This is not vaporware
22 Jun 05 24
T1T1T1T1T1Tm
component
operational
tactical
strategic theater
Component-to-capabilityconstruction
Mission hierarchyinduces
tasks, conditions, standards
Hardware hierarchyinduces
capabilities
strategic national
CnCnCnCn
subsystem
platform/system of systems
22 Jun 05 25
System capabilities aggregatefrom subsystems and components
HV power
both tractive drives
both tracks
both idler wheels
both drive sprockets
at least one intermediateroadwheel per side
some crew controls
seven or more roadwheels
Cutting this fault tree results ina total immobilization
HV distribution
ICU 2
HV powerfrom generator
HV powerfrom batteries
HV power
22 Jun 05 26
Outline
• IntroductionWhat is MMF? Where did it come from?
• How it might work• Platform-level readiness• The Storyboard Demo• Other applications• Summary and conclusions
22 Jun 05 27
Platform-level “health”embedded diagnostics/prognostics, per FCS ORD
Instantaneous comparisonof available capability to required capability
For each capability category…(e.g., communication)
…there are various possible capability states for any platform(e.g., lost external data and internal comms
but retain LAN and external voice)
22 Jun 05 28
Basic elementsof platform degraded-capability state
Mobilitym1 Reduced maximum speed
m2 Reduced maneuverability
m3 Stop after t min (leaks)
m4 Total immobilization
Firepowerf1 Lost ability to fire buttoned-up
f2 Degraded delivery accuracy: main
f3 Degraded initial rate of fire: main
f4 Degraded subsequent rate of fire:. main f5 Total loss of firepower: main
Target Acquisitiona1 Lost daylight sights
a2 Lost night sights
C2V
NLOS(6)
ARV-RISTA(3)
Class-II UAV(3)
Communicationx1 Lost external data
x2 Lost external voice
x3 Lost internal comms
x4 Lost LAN
x5 Lost all comms
Survivabilitys1 Lost NBC protection
s2 Lost ability to deployobscurants
s3 Lost silent-watch capability
s4 Lost APS
s5 Lost secondary armament
Surveillance &Reconnaissance
z1 Lost primary sensor
z2 Lost secondary sensor
z3 Lost tertiary sensor
z4 Lost vision blocks
Other Mission Functionso1 Lost situational awareness
Crewc1 Commander incapacitated
c2 Squad leader incapacitated
c3 Driver incapacitated
c4 Operator 1 incapacitated
c5 Operator 2 incapacitated
c6 Gunner incapacitated
c7 Loader incapacitated
Catastrophic Lossk1 Lost every capability (fuel fire,
ammo detonation, …)
22 Jun 05 29
The context-independent part ofthe effects of platform capability
In the absence of particular tasks, conditions, etc.,platform capability states
can only be binned by rough level of capability.
Example: Mine-clearing capabilities of an ESVcan’t useMICLIC
can’t plow minescan’t use MICLICor mine roller
can’t doanything
Bin kBin k – 1Bin k – 2…Bin 1
no capability full capability
22 Jun 05 30
Visualizing how the current taskwould stress possible states of the platform
Color each bin to indicate whether the contained statesreflect sufficient capability
to accomplish the current task to standards.
Example: Communication capability
Current tasks determine which states are adequate.T1T1T1T1T1Tm
…but task Tk requires the platform’scomms to be nearly at full capability.
Task Tj doesn’t demand a whole lotfrom our comms system…
States in these binsare adequate to the current task
No state hereis adequate
Some in this bin are,some aren’t
22 Jun 05 31
Visualizing how complete a capability isand whether it suffices for the current task
With regard to this capability category (e.g., communication),which state—and hence bin—is the platform currently in?
Is that state adequate to the current task?
The platform’s current conditionresults in specific available capability. CnCnCnCn
…but, while state Ck retains much of the comms,it is not enough to complete this task.
Capability state Cj retains most of the comms,and enough to complete the current task…
no capability full capability
22 Jun 05 32
Platform-level “health”
Mobility
Firepower
Acquisition
Surveillance
Communication
Survivability
The current capabilities’ adequacyin context of
the current tasks’ demandsT1T1T1T1T1Tm
CnCnCnCn
22 Jun 05 33
An application of MMF—the Storyboard Demo
Client: Mr. Hollis, DUSA(OR)
Context: FCS Test & Evaluation Summit, Sep 04
Task: Develop a proof of principle to show how MMF could serve as the organizing approach for an evaluation of a system of systems
22 Jun 05 34
Vignette battle planMCS Co A phase 3 urban assault
MISSION:Attack north on AXIS Maple and siezeOBJ APPLE NLT 0600 hrs. Establish attack by fire positions on OBJ APPLE and engage enemy forces already in or entering EA DUNK IOT block enemy forces from moving north to support rebel leadership vicWestpoint or support enemy forces defending in and around Louisville.
ENDSTATE:Enemy forces vicinity of Knox remain south of EA DUNK until friendly operations vicinity of Westpoint are completed.
22 Jun 05 35
Executing the battleMCS Co A phase 3 urban assault
MISSION:Attack north on AXIS Maple and siezeOBJ APPLE NLT 0600 hrs. Establish attack by fire positions on OBJ APPLE and engage enemy forces already in or entering EA DUNK IOT block enemy forces from moving north to support rebel leadership vicWestpoint or support enemy forces defending in and around Louisville.
ENDSTATE:Enemy forces vicinity of Knox remain south of EA DUNK until friendly operations vicinity of Westpoint are completed.
EnemyArtillery Fire
22 Jun 05 36
The So what? of battle damage
X1 External data
X2 External voice
X3 Internal comms
X4 LAN
X5 All comms
No degradationNo DegradationAcceptable DegradationUnacceptable Degradation
EnemyArtillery Fire
22 Jun 05 37
Effect of platform task TP’s degradationon collective task TC
TC goes red.
Is TP red?Is TP
critical toTC?
Is TP amber?
Is TPcritical to
TC?TC goes amber.
TC goes green.
Example:Platform task TP = Disseminate COP
Collective task TC = Manage tactical information
Is platform degraded andcan’t satisfy a MOP for TP ?
Is platform degraded?(can satisfy MOP for TP )
No
YesYes NoNo
No
Yes
Yes
Start
22 Jun 05 38
Effect of essential collective tasks TCon mission readiness
Mission readinessgoes red—
cannot accomplish.
Canresources or COA
adjust?
Is TCacceptable
risk?
Can meetcommander’s
intent?
Mission readinessgoes amber.
Mission readinessgoes green.
No
Yes
No
No
Yes Yes
If all essentialcollective tasks
are green…
If some essential collective task TCis red…
TC goes red.
Is TP red?Is TP
critical toTC?
Is TP amber?
Is TPcritical to
TC?TC goes amber.
TC goes green.
Example:Platform task TP = Disseminate COP
Collective task TC = Manage tactical information
Is platform degraded andcan’t satisfy a MOP for TP ?
Is platform degraded?(can satisfy MOP for TP )
No
YesYes No No
No
Yes
Yes
Platform tasks to collective tasks
SoSsolution
22 Jun 05 39
The system-of-systems solution
What options are availablefrom the system of systems?
22 Jun 05 40
Alternative courses of action
Course of action Outcome
COA 1 Transfer control of UAVs to 1st and 2nd platoonsOrders C2V to transfer control of UAVs to 1st and 2nd platoons.Takes control of SA/fires.Orders company to continue advance to Objective Apple (5 km/h).
30-min delayto transfer operational control of UAVs and to assume SA/fires control.
COA 2
Transfer control of UAVs to FTTSTakes control of fires. FDNCO transfers to Cdr’s vehicle to control fires.Situational awareness (SA) transferred to FTTS. XO transfers to FTTS.Orders C2V to transfer control of UAVs 1 and 2 to FTTS. Robotics NCO transfers to FTTS.Orders launch and recovery equipment transferred to 2nd Plt.1SG transfers to 3rd platoon security force.Requests contact maintenance team from Bn trains meet the company on Objective Apple to repair C2V digital comms.Orders company to resume advance towards Objective Apple at increased speed (10 km/h).
15-min delayto transfer operational control of UAVs to FTTS and to assume SA/fires control. Delay offset by increased speed.
COA 3
Request support from CAB to pick up feed from UAVs 1 and 2Requests CAB to pick up the feeds from UAVs 1 and 2 and to send updated feeds to the MCS CDR about enemy locations and activities as they are acquired.Takes control of SA/fires.Orders company to halt in place until receipt of new UAV feeds.Orders company to resume advance towards Objective Apple (5 km/h).
15-min delaywhile CAB assumes control of UAVs 1 and 2 and MCS CDR assumes SA/fires control.
22 Jun 05 41
Outline
• IntroductionWhat is MMF? Where did it come from?
• How it might work• Platform-level readiness• The Storyboard Demo• Other applications• Summary and conclusions
22 Jun 05 42
Ongoing MMF efforts
• Several applications within ARL to linkmateriel/human performance and residual capability to operational missions
• DTC to tie performance results in Multi-Service Distributed Experiment eventsto a single operational mission
• UAMBL micro-study to determine capability gaps for FCS UAperforming S&RO
• TRADOC FC interested in using as analytic methodology to developconcept capability plan for LANDWARNET
• JFCOM JNTC conducting FAA, FNA, FSA, and ICD for supportingtraining and testing on Joint Tactical and Operational Tasks
• DMSO developing a formal specification encompassing military art and science,systems engineering, data integration, and computer science
22 Jun 05 43
Summary
The Missions and Means Framework…
• makes explicit the linkage between requirements and solutions;
• provides a clear audit trail from the mission,through its derived tasks and the capabilities they demand,to a collection of means to prosecute that mission; and
• allows replacement of generic measures of successwith more relevant measures expressed in terms ofthe particular problem at hand.
22 Jun 05 44
Conclusions
• MMF solves the mission-utility puzzle(in the V/L taxonomy, for instance)
• It is clearly applicable to the generation of requirements
• It is applicable to technology development decisions
• It is applicable to evaluation, training, …• Applying this approach in a large-scale project requires
further development
22 Jun 05 46
Ballisticinteractions
Componentstatus
Capabilitystatus
Task-successstatus
SLAD’s core role in MMF:the state-change clearinghouse
EW/IOinteractions
RAMinteractions
Loginteractions
…
22 Jun 05 47
• Screen shot of vignette mission thread instantiation developed using COTS (MS Project) with tasks from mission decomposition. (Gantt chart view)
• Used to document vignette task relationships and instance-specific conditions, purpose, MOE and MOP.
Vignette COA mission thread
22 Jun 05 48
Platform-level readiness status
An instantaneous comparisonof available capabilityto required capability
To main presentation?
22 Jun 05 49
Platform-level capabilitiesrequired at any instant…
Mobility
Firepower
Acquisition
Surveillance
Communication
Survivability
To main presentation?
22 Jun 05 50
…and the capabilitiesavailable at that instant
Mobility
Firepower
Acquisition
Surveillance
Communication
Survivability
To main presentation?
22 Jun 05 51
Elements of platform capabilityfor communication
x1 no external voicex2 no external datax3 no internalx4 no communicationx5 no LAN
22 Jun 05 52
Elements of platform capabilityfor communication
x1 no external voicex2 no external datax3 no internalx4 no communicationx5 no LAN
semantic constraint: If x4 , then x1 and x2 and x3 .system-design constraint: If x5 , then x2 .
22 Jun 05 53
Possible capability statesfor communication
Of the 25 = 32 subsets of {x1, x2, x3, x4 , x5},the constraints preclude all but these 12:
{}{x1}{x2}{x3}
{x1, x2}{x1, x3}{x2, x3}{x2, x5}
{x1, x2, x5}{x2, x3, x5}
{x1, x2, x3, x4}{x1, x2, x3, x4, x5}
22 Jun 05 54
How the communication statescompare for capability
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
x1 x3
x1 x2 x1 x3
x1 x2 x5x1 x2 x3 x4
x2
x2 x5x2 x3
x2 x3 x5
The possible statesordered bottom-to-topby set containment
{x2, x3, x5} ⊃ {x2, x5}
22 Jun 05 55
Turned on its sideit gives a (passable) scoring of states
fullcapability
nocapability
x1 x2
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
x1
x3
x2
22 Jun 05 56
Turned on its sideit gives a (passable) scoring of states
