Focus and Convergence Challenges for Complexity and Network Sciences - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

betty_james
focus and convergence challenges for complexity and network sciences l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Focus and Convergence Challenges for Complexity and Network Sciences PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Focus and Convergence Challenges for Complexity and Network Sciences

play fullscreen
1 / 16
Download Presentation
Focus and Convergence Challenges for Complexity and Network Sciences
153 Views
Download Presentation

Focus and Convergence Challenges for Complexity and Network Sciences

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Focus and Convergence Challenges for Complexity and Network Sciences Workshop Results

  2. Focus and Convergence Workshop16-17 October 2007 Purposes: • Identify the key challenges associated with accomplishing the functions associated with command and control in the context of complex endeavors • Convey these to communities whose knowledge, expertise, methods, and tools may be helpful • Attendees identified a few dozen C2 challenges • Organized into four groups to explore the nature of these challenges • Environment, C2 for the endeavor, value and analysis, application examples • Partially synthesized deliberations

  3. Complex Endeavors • Complex Endeavors are characterized by a large number of disparate entities that include not only various military units but also civil authorities, multi-national and international organizations, non-governmental organizations, companies, and private volunteer organizations. The effects of interest go far beyond military effects to include social, political, and economic effects. • The nature of the participants makes the collective action space complex while the multi-domain effects space contains complex interactions among effects of various types. In addition, the relationships between and among the action and effects spaces further contribute to the complexity of the endeavor.

  4. Russ Abbott, Cal State-LA/ Aerospace Corporation David Alberts, OASD/NII Anthony Alston, QinetiQ Robert Axtell, George Mason University/Santa Fe Institute Michael Bell Chris Chartier, DSC David Dryer, JTEM Richard Hayes, EBR Kimberly Holloman, SAIC Gary Horne, NPS Rich Ivanetich, IDA Danielle Martin, EBR Jimmie McEver, EBR Vincent Min, EBR Frederick Moxley, USMA Carl Oros, NPS Paul Phister, AFRL Karl Selke, EBR David Signori, EBR Mink Spaans, Netherlands Participants

  5. C2 in the 21st Century • Environment is increasingly complex (in the ordinary sense of the word – lots of diverse participants, lots of variables and interactions, difficult to parse, reductive analysis is not adequate) • The endeavor, consisting of a diverse set of participating entities is increasingly networked and has fuzzy, dynamic boundaries • This makes prediction difficult if not impossible and increases residual uncertainty and risk • The logical response is to increase agility to include: robustness, resilience, responsiveness, flexibility, innovativeness, and adaptability.

  6. Cold War View Strategic threats were: State actors Rational (thought like us) Known doctrine Symmetric Observable (physically) Deterrence logic Social Network facilitation: Geographic Proximity Person to Person (telephone)/ One-to-Many (Newspaper) Large characteristic time scale for significant change Current Reality Strategic Threats are: Range of actors Multiple rationalities Emergent doctrine Asymmetric Less observable No clear deterrent Social Networks facilitation: Virtual Environment Many-to-Many Scale-free time distribution for changes in environment Complex Endeavors: Environment

  7. Cold War View Information was: Homogenous (state-controlled data sources or Oligarchy) No real-time global communications Accessibility to information often restricted (satellite imagery) No cross-domain or scaling effects Primarily concerned with kinetic effects Actions scale directly related to effects scale (local actions stay local) Local Interdependencies Only formal structures could be global Current Realities Information is Heterogeneous information sources (reporters without borders) Real time global communications Accessibility on-demand Cross-domain and scaling effects Primarily concerned with non-kinetic effects No clear distinction between strategic, operational, tactical actions and effects Globalization (interdependencies) Informal structures empowered Tipping points more prevalent Complex Endeavors: Environment (2)

  8. We Need Help in Understanding the Environment • Models, tools, visualizations, and other approaches to help us better understand the environments within which endeavors of interest will operate • Understand nature of the interactions between/among the entities • Understand linkages between/among effects in different domains • Understand and interpret model outputs • Understand possible implications of abstractions/aggregations • Instantiating models • Validating models • Tools and approaches to help us characterize and deal with uncertainty and risk • Good characterizations of residual uncertainties • Motivating a paradigm change in thinking about prediction • Tools and approaches to help us understand changes as they take place in real time

  9. Complex Endeavors: Current Realities -- Self (1) • Military C2s are only a subset of a larger whole. No single governance regime • Multiple objectives exist with no single unifying command intent -- collective intent? informal/implicit and emergent? • Multiple perspectives (perhaps contradictory) exist and should be recognized and conditions created so that this can be exploited • Roles and responsibilities are dynamic and not clearly defined • Greater reliance on informal structures • Diverse set of competencies needed and present.

  10. Complex Endeavors: Current Realities -- Self (2) • Leaders require additional skills • Collaboration with wide range of actors with different cultures and goals • It may not be possible or desired to exercise C2 in a traditional manner even within military organizations. • Sensemaking is much more difficult • Much more difficult to correlate cause and effect • Difficult to distinguish between red and blue and it is dynamic and influenced by events • Harder to identify measures of success and to measure them • Need to consider self as a FoS with complex interdependencies

  11. Characteristics of Effective Collective C2 (1) • When considering the C2-approach operational risk, uncertainty / predictability, agility must be balanced • The C2 organization: • Needs to be a learning organization • Must have an understanding of past, present and possible futures of: • All actors’ (self and non-self) roles, responsibilities, their different perspectives (their understanding), intents and motivations • Recognizing that the allegiance of individual actors may be difficult to identify and may change over time • The problem space • Through modeling the causal and influential network (although difficult to construct), • Explicitly specify what we do and don’t understand or know • Should explicitly be considered in terms of authority, power, “soft-mechanisms”, empowerment and task-oriented structures. • In a comprehensive approach all actors must understand each others’ cultures, structures, capabilities, goals, ways of working, etc.

  12. Characteristics of Effective Collective C2 (2) • C2 organization must be considered as a FoS with complex interdependencies with cross-level, cross-scale and cross-system effects • The C2 organization must recognize the multiple objectives of its parts and have the ability to establish a ‘collective intent’ • When leaders are selected / trained non-military leadership skills must be considered (e.g. negotiating, influencing, diplomacy). Note: the overall leader could be a civilian.

  13. We Need Help in Understanding Self • Creating and maintaining • Learning Organizations • Innovation • Trust and mistrust • Effective Collaboration • Understanding the dynamics of • Goal structures across participants • Success and failure criteria • Perspectives of different actors • Cause and effects (influences) • Understand how to work in the absence of trust

  14. Focus and Convergence of Complex Endeavors Governance A Robustness B Lens of Agility C Mission Challenges (Joint Mission Desired Effects) Resilience Responsiveness Flexibility Innovation Adaptation

  15. Help with Confronting the Curse of Dimensionality • Data Farming • C2 Characteristics • Governance • Design of Experiments • Network Science • Multiple Domain Comparative Analysis • Tool Development • Capability Test Methodology • Capability Evaluation Meta Model • Hybrid Simulation and Analysis (Combinations of ABS, Discrete Event, and System Dynamics) • Develop Semantics and Information Ontology to Support Synchronicity • Make explicit assumptions of our plans • Use those to monitor for and deliver high value information • Continuously improve on the above

  16. Focus Convergence Agility and its components Robustness Resilience Responsiveness Flexibility Innovativeness Adaptability Trust Learning Influence Collaboration Shared Awareness Help with Measurement