View
38
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Achieving a Decision Paradigm for Distributed Warfare Resource Management. Bonnie Young Naval Postgraduate School Professor, Systems Engineering bwyoung@nps.edu 703-407-4531. A Complex Decision Space. What makes the Decision Space Complex?. Time-criticality Threat complexity - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Achieving a Decision Paradigm for
Distributed Warfare Resource Management
Bonnie Young
Naval Postgraduate SchoolProfessor, Systems Engineering
bwyoung@nps.edu703-407-4531
A Complex Decision Space
What makes the Decision Space Complex?
• Time-criticality• Threat complexity• Prioritization of operational objectives• Limits to situational awareness• Changing nature of operation• Distribution and heterogeneity of
warfare assets• Command and control complexity
SurveillanceCombat ID
Boost PhaseDetection
IlluminateTarget
EnhanceSituationalAwareness
Track Quality
Fieldof View
Fire ControlSupport
Satellite-basedSensors Passive Sonar LiDAR
SyntheticAperture
Radar
X-bandRadar
UAV Sensors
InfraredSearch & TrackShip-based
RadarSensor
Missions Active SonarHyperspectral
Imaging
Types ofSensors
RangingWeather
Sensor Configuration
PlatformConsiderations
SensorGeometry
Day or Night
Sensor Status
Fieldof View
SensorLocation
SensorConstraints
SensorHealth
Sensor ResourcesLeading to Decision Complexity
SurveillanceCombat ID
Boost PhaseDetection
IlluminateTarget
EnhanceSituationalAwareness
Track Quality
Fieldof View
Fire ControlSupport
Satellite-basedSensors Passive Sonar LiDAR
SyntheticAperture
Radar
X-bandRadar
UAV Sensors
InfraredSearch & TrackShip-based
RadarSensor
Missions Active SonarHyperspectral
Imaging
Types ofSensors
RangingWeather
Sensor Configuration
PlatformConsiderations
SensorGeometry
Day or Night
Sensor Status
Fieldof View
SensorLocation
SensorConstraints
SensorHealth
Warfare ResourcesLeading to Decision Complexity
Weapons
WeaponsPlatforms
Comms
PlatformsComms
Over-Arching Objective
• To most effectively use warfare resources to meet tactical operational objectives
Strategies• Use warfare resources collaboratively as
Systems of Systems (SoS)• Use an NCW approach to network distributed
assets• Achieve situational awareness to support
resource tasking/operations• Fuse data from multiple sources• Employ common processes across distributed
warfare resources• Use decision-aids to support C2
ExternalResource
Management
Level 0Processing
Signal/Feature
assessment
Level 1Processing
Entityassessmen
t
Level 2Processing
Situationassessmen
t
Level 3Processing
Impactassessmen
t
Level 4Processing
Processassessmen
t
Database management system
SupportDatabase
FusionDatabase
Human/ComputerInterface
Distributed
Local
IntelEW
SonarRadar
.
.
.Databases
Data Fusion Domain
Sources
JDL Data Fusion Model:Data-Centric Framework
9
Functionality of the 4 Levels
ResourceManagement(includes level 4
Processing)
Human/Computer Interface
Weapons
Platforms
Comms
Shift to a Decision-Centric Framework
ResourcePicture
C2Picture
Data Fusion
Processes
WeaponsWarfighting
Units
Resource Management
EnvironmentPicture
OperationalPicture
Wargaming(Event/
Consequence Prediction)
Mission/Threat Assessment & Prioritization
Weather/Mapping/
Intel Sources
CommunicationsSensors
Commanders &Operators
Warfare Resources
Decision Engine• Translate prioritized COA actions into resource tasks• Generate allocation options and select optimum• Issue tasks to warfare resources
Conceptual RM Capability• Architecture Considerations
– Distributed RM “instances”– Synchronization– Hybrid: dummy C2 nodes and RM C2 nodes
• Continuous On-going RM Process– Operational situation/missions are changing– Decision assessments must change in response—instead of
a single assessment• Level of Automation
– How much of the RM concept is automated?– RM is a decision-aid– Human C2 decision-makers must be able to manipulate
information, prioritizations, and taskings
Applying Systems Engineering Methods to Distributed Resource
Management
• An analogy exists between the SE design process and operational C2 decisions
“Risk”Decision Confidence Engine
Resource Management Decision Assessments
“Cost”Decision Cost Engine
PerformanceOMOE Decision Engine
System1
System2
System3
System4
System5
System6
System7
System8
System9
SoS 1SoS 2
SoS 3
SoS 4
SoS 5
System1
System2
System3
System4
System5
System6
System7
System8
System9
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task4
Task5
Task6
Task7
Task8
Task9
Task10
Task11
Examples of Resource Tasking
Option 1Option 2
MOE = Σ wi MOPi
OMOE = Σ wi MOEi
OMOE
MOEs
MOPs
SubsystemTechnical
Parameters(TPs)
OverallOperational Environment
System/SoS
Missions
Measuring System Effectiveness & Performance
Provide Situational Awareness
Provide Area of Interest (AOI)Surveillance Coverage
Detect and track fast-moving objectsof interest
Correctly identify objects of interest
Provide sensor coverage during day and night
Field of view (FOV)
Search volume
Range
Task turn around time
Scan speed
Search pattern
Time in sensor view prior to ident.
Dwell time
Sensor accuracy
Sensor alignmenttargets
Sensor processing
Range of identification
System OMOE
System MOE’s
System MOP’sDaytime capability
Nighttime capability
Examples of Performance Measures
SoSOMOE
System1 System
2
System3
System4
System5
SoS
W1*MOE1
W2*MOE2
Wn*MOEn
W5*MOE5
W4*MOE4
W3*MOE3
.
.
.
W1*MOPS1
W2*MOPS2
W1*MOPS1
W2*MOPS3
W1*MOPS3
W2*MOPS5
W1*MOPS2W2*MOPS3W3*MOPS4W1*MOPS3
W2*MOPS5
W1*MOPS1
W2*MOPSn
SoS MOE = Σ wi MOPi (Note – these are System MOPs)
SoS OMOE = Σ wi MOEi (Note – these are SoS MOEs)
Hierarchy of PerformanceEffectiveness
Mission 1
Mission 2
Mission 3
Mission 4
Mission 5
WarfareResourcesTaskingAlternative 1
WarfareResourcesTaskingAlternative 2
WarfareResourcesTaskingAlternative 3
“Risk”Decision Confidence Engine
Resource Management Decision Assessments
“Cost”Decision Cost Engine
PerformanceOMOE Decision Engine
Cost Considerations for Resource Management
• Operational Costs – defensive weapons, fuel, power
• Maintenance Costs (due to usage) – preventive maintenance, spares, repairs
• Safety Costs – manned vs. unmanned
Remember! For RM, the systems are already developed and paid for—so cost is treated differently
Decision Cost Engine Concept
• Provides methods to quantitatively represent the cost associated with the use of each warfare resource
• May provide relative cost levels or values
• Relative values are used to further refine the overall relative ranking of resource tasking decision alternatives
Decision Cost Engine: 3 Concepts
1. “After the fact” – shifting OMOE scores up or down based on relative cost levels
2. “Red Flag” – associating an “identifier” with very costly warfare resources to highlight decision alternatives that include their use
3. “Hierarchical Weightings” – the most comprehensive approach would assign cost ratings to all resources and weightings to compute an overall “cost” for each decision option
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1OMOE vs Cost
RM Decision Al-ternatives
Cost
OMOE
Ideal Point
AB
C
Combining Performance and Cost Assessments
“Risk”Decision Confidence Engine
Resource Management Decision Assessments
“Cost”Decision Cost Engine
PerformanceOMOE Decision Engine
Decision Confidence Engine• Determines a “level of confidence” associated
with each resource tasking option
• Based on:– Information reliability (or “goodness”)– Data fusion performance– Sensor error– Communication error– Computational error– Mis-associations, incorrect identifications, dropped
tracks, poor track quality, etc.
Sources of Decision Error• Sensor Observations (SO)• Communications (C)• Data Fusion Processing (DFP)• Association (A)• Attribution (At)• Identification (Id)• Threat Prioritization (TP)• Mission Identification/Prioritization (MP)• Resource Information (Health, Status, Configuration, Location, etc.) (RI)
Notional Decision Confidence Level:PDecision Accuracy = PSO * PC * PDFP * PA * PAt * PId * PTP * PMP * PRI
Decision Confidence Engine (continued)
• Hierarchical probability model – that includes all possible sources of error
• As the operational situation changes, model is updates with error estimates
• Errors are summed hierarchically to calculate an overall confidence level for each resource tasking option
Decision Assessment for System DesignSystem is in design phaseTo select the most operationally effective designSingle decisionProjected performance against operational mission requirementsCost in terms of estimated $ for acquisition and total lifecycleRisk in terms of ability to meet requirements
Decision Assessment for RM OperationsSystems are in operationTo select the most operationally effective SoS/resource taskingContinuum of decisionsProjected performance against actual operational missions/threatsCost in terms of known cost to operate & maintain; safetyRisk in terms of decision uncertainty or level of confidence
Summary(comparison of Systems Engineering Assessment
with Resource Management)
Conclusions• A decision framework providing decision assessment
methodologies can address the complexity involved in effective resource management for tactical operations.
• Applications from Systems Engineering provide methods for operational performance, cost, and risk assessments of resource tasking alternatives.
• Future command and control stands to benefit from adopting a decision paradigm in addition to the traditional data-focused perspective.
Future Work• Objective hierarchy modeling• Techniques for generating resource
tasking alternatives• Continued development of the OMOE
decision engine, cost decision engine, and decision confidence engine
• Designing warfare resources with an emphasis on being “taskable” and have “multiple uses”
Recommended