Download
1 / 5
50 likes | 137 Views
This guide covers problem formulation, solution strategy, human & organizational issues, measures of merit, scenarios, methods & tools products, data assessment, risk assessment, and future challenges in C2 assessment. It addresses advances and residual challenges in evaluating the impact of C2 on mission effectiveness, emphasizing cultural changes, emerging processes, tools, and models, while also highlighting the persistent challenges in culture, organization, people, processes, tools, R&D, and data management. To ensure future C2 assessments meet decisionmakers' needs, enhancing cross-community communication and systematically addressing residual challenges are crucial.
E N D
Prepare for Success NATO Code of Best Practice (COBP) for C2 Assessment 3 Problem Formulation Sponsor Problem 4 Solution Strategy 6 Human & Organisational Issues 5 Measures of Merit (MoM) 7 Scenarios Looking Ahead Stuart Starr MITRE 8 Methods & Tools Products 11 9 Data 10 Assess Risk
Organizational • •USD(I) • People • E&T for analysts … & decisionmakers! • Data • DoDD 8260 • Metadata! • Processes • CoBPs • Experimentation • Capability-based assessments • Products • Integrated architectures Looking Ahead: Future C2 Assessment Challenges • Culture • Thinking joint/ interagency / combined • Hoarding to sharing • R&D • Representation of soft factors • Tools • • Innovative tools (e.g., ABM) • Cope with DOTML-PF • Create, orchestrate new tools Legend: - Advance -Challenge
Observations: Advances In many ways, we are improving our ability to evaluate the impact of C2 on mission effectiveness; e.g., • Cultural changes (e.g., a growing recognition that meaningful assessments require explicit consideration of joint C2) • Emerging processes (e.g., commitment to experimentation; refined NATO CoBP) • Emerging tools • System dynamics models (e.g., CAPE) • Effects based operations (e.g., Causal Assessment Tool) • Agent based models (e.g., Mana) • Constructive campaign models (e.g., JWARS) • Federated constructive models (e.g., Pegasus) • Virtual models (e.g., JSB) • DoD Directive on data (e.g., “analytical baselines”) • Interest in enhanced experimentation
Observations: Residual Challenges However, in several key dimensions, the problem is getting harder … • Culture: Overcoming the multiple dimensions of fear that promote hoarding • Organizational: Compensating for the fracture of ASD(C3I) • People: Educating analysts (and decisionmakers!) on best practices in C2 assessment • Processes: Performing capability-based assessments for key mission areas (e.g., IO, SASO, counter-terrorism) • Tools: Creating, and employing efficiently, tools that can address the co-evolution of DOTMLPF • R&D: Creating models that represent “soft factors” credibly • Data: Implementing sound data management practices (“Metadata!…”)
Final Observations If future C2 assessments are to be responsive todecisionmakers’ needs, it will require • Enhancing cross-community communications; e.g., • Organizationally (e.g., Services, Inter-agency, coalition) • User types (e.g., decisionmakers, operational users, technologists, analysts) • Systematically addressing all of the residual challenges cited, particularly in the areas of • Culture • Education & training • Data • Product creation
