Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
SIMULATING SENSEMAKING PROCESS WITH MICROSAINT
Professor Celestine A. Ntuen, Ph.DDistinguished University ProfessorThe Army Center for Human-Centric C2 Decision [email protected]://gandalf.ncat.edu/ihms+1-336-334-7780 (X531): phone+1-336-334-7729: fax
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Presentation Outline
1. INTRODUCTION: Define Sensemaking/ Occasions for SM
2.COGNITIVE DIMENSIONS OF SM3.SM MODELLING PROBLEMS4.SOME EXISTING SM MODELING
SYSTEMS5.BUILDING A SIMULATION MODEL FOR
SM6.MODELING SM WITH MICROSAINT
NETWORK 7.RESULTS/ CONCLUSIONS/
EXTENSIONS2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Sensemaking: A process, design, or techniques of fusing information in context to derive understanding.
Making Sense: The art or science of making meaning and/ or interpreting information in context fordecision making.
WHAT IS SENSEMAKING ?
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Some Sensemaking Definitions
1. HOW MEANING IS CONSTRUCTED AT BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL & THE GROUP LEVELS – (Weick, 1995).
2. A SYSTEM OF ACTIONS, SYMBOLS AND PROCESSES THAT ENABLES AN ORGANIZATION TO TRANSFORM INFORMATION INTO VALUED KNOWLEDGE WHICH INTURN INCREASES ITS LONG-RUN ADAPTIVE CAPACITY – (Schandt, 1997; pp. 8)
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Some Sensemaking Definitions
3. A THEORY AND A PROCESS OF HOW PEOPLE REDUCE UNCERTAINTY OR AMBIGUITY; SOCIALLY NEGOTIATE MEANING DURING DECISION MAKING
----(Weick, 1985)
4. ARTICULATING AND POSSIBLY CONTESTING THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF AN ARTIFACT OR IDEA –(S.B. Shum & A. M. Selvin, In Distributive Collective Practices 2000: www.limsi.fr/WkG/PCD2000)
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Some Sensemaking Definitions
5. COLLECTING “DOTS” and BRIDGING MEANING TO HUGE VOLUME OF DATA---INQ-Tel (Arlington-based company).
6. DERIVING MEANING FROM FRAGMENTARY CUES–(DARPA’S Information Awareness Project).
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Why Sensemaking ?Situation Understanding Solution Approach
•Political•Economic•Military•Social•Information•Infrastructure
Iraqi Problems•Insurgency•Terrorism•Civil Unrest•Ethnic Rivalry•Weapon of
Mass Destruction•Despotic Leadership
Adversary Characteristics
Dynamic, Uncertain, Chaos,Complex, Novel, Ambiguous,Asymmetric Enemy
OrFriend?
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
Why Sensemaking ?Interpreting Commander’s Intent
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Spatial dimensions of the Sensemaking Environment:the Cynfin framework (a la Leedom, 2004 )
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Cognitive KnowledgeDimensions in Sensemaking
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Sensemaking Process
Meaning
Interpretation
Comprehension
Understanding ExperienceTraining
Judgment
Knowledge
Information
Data
Transform,Act
Explore, Analyze, Fuse
A Team ofSensemakers
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Sensemaking Modeling Problems
1. The problem is not understood until after formulation of a solution
2. Sensmakers have different worldviews and frames for understandingthe problem
3. The problem to be solved changesover time—new & evolving behaviors
4. No formal approach—inherentlynon-linear
5. “Wicked” problems—complexity, chaos; lacks representation ontology
6. Battlespace changes dynamically according to Cynefin model:
Known Knowable Complex Chao
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Cognitively: a process of collecting, filtering, interpreting, framing, and Organizing information into actionable knowledge to support decision making
Contex
t Exp
ertise
Cult
ure R
isk
Innov
ationAd
apta
tion
ProblemInformation EquivocalityChaos/Wicked problemsEvolving/unanticipated/Dynamic
SensemakingPattern recognitionClassification/detctionLink analysis/cognitivemapViewpoints
Observe
Meanin
g
Interpretation
UnderstandingOrient
Decide ActJudgment
ChoiceExe
cute
Sensemaking Loop
Decision-making Loop
COAEvaluating
Comparing
Deciding
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Current Status
What
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
InformationManagementSupport
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Current Status
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
InformationManagementSupport
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Current Status
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
Lack formalAnalytical Model
1. Lacks constructive models to capture dynamics of Context and sensemakers viewpoints
2. Lacks a device to model cognitive processes(Borrow from Recognition-primed (Klein);OODA model (Boyd))
3. Lacks models to calibrate sensemaking performance(Infuse Naturalistic Decision Making (Klein)
4. Ability to capture subjective knowledge—a continuum from quasi-analytic to intuitive
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Building a Simulation Model for Sensemaking
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
Situation
Perception
Cue Recognition:(features, patterns, sequence, etc)
Interpretation
&
Meaning association
Understanding(elaboration, mediation, comprehension, explanation, constraint relaxation)
DecisionStage
LTM
AttentionSTM
Situation Awareness /Recognition Primed/ OODA
Sensemaking StageExpert
A Suite of Theories: Kelly/ Endsley/Klein/Boyd
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
A CASE STDY: BLACK HOLE AIR CAMPAIGN1st Gulf War---General Blosson (rtd)
The Model Information Elements
1. A Proof-of-concept simulation model2. Describe air tasking processes through many
hierarchical constraints of C23. Interpreting command intents 4. Determining high payoff targets5. EBO based on vaguely defined concept of the
situation 6. Information equivocality : CETCOMD,
CENTAF, JCC, etc.
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
C2 :Experience/ Leadership/ Technology/Intel Community
InformationSpace
Mixed informationfrom Saddam
National Pride(USA)
Arab’ s SilenceSaddam’s threat
to neighbors
Situation Understanding
•Saddam’s intent•Iraqi capability•Iraqi threat to
neighbors•Impact of Kuwait
occupation•Defend of Saudi
Arabia•Defend of UAE•Reaction from Arab community
Operational Sensemaking•Force components•Center of gravity•Targets•Rules of engagement•Resources/Time/Location•Civil issues•Troop safetySaddam’s COA•Withdraw from Kuwait•Use WMD•Kill Kuwaiti civilians•Attack neighbors•Execute hostages
Political / EconomicEngagement
•United Nations•Coalition / Allies• Economic Embargo•Kuwait sovereignty
Obs
erve
Orie
nt
Decid
e
Act
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
Negotiation Campaign
(USA, allies, &United Nation(1-6 months)
Retaliatory Campaign
(USA and allies)4-10 weeks
Full war Campaign
(4-15 weeks)
Contin
ue
nego
tiatio
nFailed negotiation
Treaty implementation E
nfor
ce
Ret
alia
tion
CO
A
Upgra
deca
mpa
ign b
ased
on a
dver
se re
spon
seRed
uce
Cam
paig
n co
nditi
onsRapid
response
Renegotiation
Continue
war until
mission
is achieved
A Reduced Markov-like Network for TheaterCampaign Information
UnfoldingSituations
United Nations
USA Allies
USACitizens
AdversaryNations
Joint Chief DecomposePresident’s Guidance
Generatemeaning
Operational CommandConvert CINC guidance into
operational tasks
CINC Interpret
Decompose objectives
Concept of war
Dimensions of war
Campaign BattlestaffStrategiesCOATactical Plans
CommandIntent/guidance
Approval
Air componentobjectives
Plan OutcomeAssessment
Nominate COANominate strategyNominate assetsNominate targetsSimulate scenario
changes
SynchronizeCommon operating pictureResourcesSchedules
Feedback: approval/review
Task level
Intents &
guidance
Prioritized ATOShared information with other
Joint servicesTime, place, format, quantity, roles, etc
PresidentsGuidance
Level 1 SMLevel 2 SM
Level 3 SM
Level 4 SM
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
CINC Concept ofOperation
Phase 3:Battlefield
PreparationPhase 1:Strategic
Campaign
Phase 2:Air
Supremacy
Phase 4:Ground
Operation
CutSupply Line
Destroy WMD
DestroyRepublican
Guard
Attack Leadership
PrioritizeTargets
OperationCommandersTask model
Joint ChairGuidance(subject tochanges)
Concepts changesrelative to guidance
A network representation of the CINC’sconcept of operation
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
MICROSAINT Network Model
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
SAMPLE RESULTS: Distribution of planning times in weeks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Task
Plan
tim
e in
wee
ks
UN Security Council Meeting
Cunsultation Friendly Nations
UN Deployment
Friendly deployment
Negotiate time to leave Kuwait
Intel on Iraq threaten to excutePOW Intel on Iraq plan to invadeSaudi ArabiaPresidential Guidance
Commander in Chief Guidance
Oplan: Destroy WMD
Oplan: Attrit Rep.Guard
Oplan: Destroy Leadership
Oplan: Attrit Iraq forceCapabilityOplan: Air Campaing
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
SAMPLE RESULTS: Phased Based planning times in weeks
0
5
10
15
20
25
Phase-1Plan
Phase-2Plan
Phase-3Plan
Phase-4Plan
Priotizetargets
RecognizeSituationChanges
Sens
emak
ing
time
in w
eeks
Series1
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
SAMPLE RESULTS: Battle tasks sensemaking times in weeks
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14Ex
plai
ning
guid
ance
tost
aff
Inte
rpre
ting
high
er o
rder
inte
nt
Col
lect
ive
unde
rsta
ndin
gof
ope
ratio
n
Brie
fings
Proj
ectin
gfu
ture
sta
te o
fba
ttle
Sensemaking tasks
Sens
emak
ing
time
in w
eeks
Series1
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
Sensemaking can be considered as a judge-advisor decision support system which can be used to certify or authenticate the usefulness of situated information for action-based decision making in dynamic contexts.
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
Major Factors:
•Complex Conditions•State changes•Universality•Preconditions
•Time•Resources
•Availability of experts (humans/machines)
•Uncertainty•Incomplete information•Randomness
•Chaos•Indeterminate states•Fractals of battle space Information
Integration
Situation Awareness
InformationAwareness
DecisionSupport System
Display &VisualizationTools
Augmented CognitionTools
Technology Tools for Operator Support
Support for situation analysis
Support of predictionand envisioning
Support for Cognitive amplification
Levels of InformationSupport&Automation-HumanInteraction
2006 ICCRTS, De Vere university Arms, Cambridge, UK. June 22, 2006
2006 CCRTS, San Diego. June 22, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
EXTENSIONS
•Supports sensemaking as a continuous cycle of interacting plans
•Open architecture:•Captures execution-monitoring in real-time.•Provides modules for sensemakingsimulation codes.