Validating the Force Planning Scenario Framework and ... · Validating the Force Planning Scenario Framework and Analytical Tool: L. Cochran, D. Hales, P. Race, N. Chuka, S. Friesen,

Defence R&D CanadaCentre for Operational Research & Analysis

Strategic Analysis Section

Validating the Force Planning Scenario Framework and Analytical Tool

Larry Cochran; Doug Hales; Peter Race CAE Professional Services (Canada) Inc.

Neil Chuka; Shaye K. Friesen; Charles Morrisey DRDC CORA

LCdr Darren Harnett Chief Force Development

DRDC CORA CR 2010-114June 2010

Validating the Force Planning Scenario Framework and Analytical Tool

Larry Cochran; Doug Hales; Peter Race CAE Professional Services (Canada) Inc.

Neil Chuka; Shaye K. Friesen; Charles Morrisey DRDC CORA

LCdr Darren Harnett CFD

Prepared By: CAE Professional Services (Canada) Inc. 1135 Innovation Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2K 3G7 Contract Project Manager: Doug Hales, 613-247-0342 ext. 2247 PWGSC Contract Number: WW7714-09/00710 CSA: Shaye K Friesen, Defence Scientist, 613-991-3552

The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the Contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D Canada.

Defence R&D Canada – CORA

Contract Report

DRDC CORA CR 2010-114

June 2010

Principal Author

Original signed by L. Cochran; D. Hales; P. Race; N. Chuka; S.K. Friesen; D. Harnett; C.

Morrisey

L. Cochran; D. Hales; P. Race; N. Chuka; S.K. Friesen; D. Harnett; C. Morrisey

Approved by

Original signed by Stephane Lefebvre

Stephane Lefebvre

Section Head - Strategic Analysis Section

Approved for release by

Original signed by Dean Haslip

Dean Haslip

Acting DRDC CORA Chief Scientist

Sponsor: CFD

Defence R&D Canada – Centre for Operational Research and Analysis (CORA)

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2010

© Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2010

Abstract ……..

The Concept Development and Operational Research and Analysis Team in DRDC CORA has developed a framework and software tool that allows Defence Scientists to overlay the Force Planning Scenarios and ensure a range of dimensions, factors and variables are being addressed. The software tool, which has been developed based on a modified morphological analysis methodology, requires validation with the force development community and other stakeholders involved in analyzing the Force Planning Scenarios. This contractor report describes the validation of the framework, methodology and software tool for the Force Planning Scenarios. The software tool was populated with a number of historical case studies in order to assess its ability to characterize Canadian Forces operations. To further assess the validity of the scenario framework and software tool, two complimentary workshops were held in February and March 2010. The workshops stimulated discussion and provided an opportunity for all participants to share their perspectives on the basic concepts, design and underlying assumptions of the framework and software tool, including any follow-on actions or recommendations for change. This contractor report discusses the feedback and results of the validation process, as well as the software modifications based on the work performed. One of the results of this validation exercise is that the response to the scenario framework and analysis tool has been generally positive. The use of historical case studies to demonstrate how to employ the software tool proved particularly valuable in eliciting observations and insights from participants. This report is the third in a series focused on the development of a defensible, transparent and objective scenario framework and analysis tool.

Résumé ….....

L’Équipe d’élaboration de concepts, d’analyse et de recherche opérationnelle de RDDC CARO a mis au point un cadre et un outil logiciel qui permettent aux scientifiques de la Défense de superposer les scénarios de planification des forces et de s’assurer que l’on tient compte de plusieurs dimensions, facteurs et variables. L’outil logiciel, qui a été développé à l’aide d’une méthodologie d’analyse morphologique modifiée, a besoin d’être validé par les spécialistes du développement des forces et les autres responsables de l’analyse des scénarios de planification des forces. Le présent rapport d’entrepreneur décrit le processus de validation du cadre, de la méthodologie et de l’outil logiciel qui ont été mis au point pour les scénarios de planification des forces. L’outil logiciel a été appliqué à une série d’études de cas, afin d’évaluer son aptitude à caractériser les opérations des Forces canadiennes. Pour évaluer de façon encore plus précise la validité du cadre de création de scénarios et de l’outil logiciel, deux ateliers ont été tenus en février et mars 2010. Ces ateliers ont favorisé la discussion, et ils ont permis à tous les participants de faire connaître leurs vues sur les concepts de base, la conception et les hypothèses sous-jacentes du cadre et de l’outil logiciel, et de recommander des mesures de suivi ou des changements. Le présent rapport examine les résultats du processus de validation, les commentaires des utilisateurs, et les modifications qui ont été apportées au logiciel par suite du travail effectué. L’un des résultats de cet exercice de validation est le suivant : d’une façon générale, le cadre de création de scénarios et l’outil d’analyse ont suscité une réponse positive. Le recours à des études de cas pour expliquer comment utiliser l’outil logiciel s’est avéré

DRDC CORA CR 2010-114 i

particulièrement efficace : il a suscité des observations et des commentaires de la part des participants. Le présent rapport est le troisième d’une série de rapports centrés sur le développement d’un cadre et d’un outil d’analyse pour la production de scénarios objectifs, transparents et défendables.

ii DRDC CORA CR 2010-114

Executive summary

Validating the Force Planning Scenario Framework and Analytical Tool:

L. Cochran, D. Hales, P. Race, N. Chuka, S. Friesen, C. Morrisey, LCdr D.Harnett; DRDC CORA CR 2010-114; Defence R&D Canada – CORA; June 2010.

Background: The Force Planning Scenarios serve as key a Capability-Based Planning enabler and integration tool. Scenarios provide strategic-military context. They are a means to share assumptions regarding the operating environment, and explore Force Development options to support the translation of policy into concrete requirements and programs. They are used to inform decisions and shape doctrine and training. To meet these needs, several representative sets of scenarios have been developed in the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces. The promulgation of the Canadian First Defence Strategy prompted an additional scenario review, and highlighted the requirement for a more scientifically rigorous approach to scenario selection and refinement. A framework, methodology and supporting prototype software were developed in support of the evolving changes in defence policy and planning environment. This framework required validation from the larger force development community and, as an extension, the supporting tool required further exposure and corroboration to ensure it could easily grow to address changes to the framework over time. This contractor report outlines the validation process and feedback, as well as the software development efforts.

Results: There were two main thrusts to this work. The first involved the contractors and scientific authorities applying the scenario framework against a range of historical case studies to evaluate its capability to characterize Canadian Forces operations. A workshop was convened to review the framework and methodology using the same process. Case study examples were then characterized by all participants as a group to showcase the software tool and solicit comments and feedback. The feedback from these validation workshops proved extremely useful. The team’s approach was endorsed, the framework and methodology positively received and enthusiasm for adoption exhibited. Equally importantly, and the interaction provided a sense of priorities and indicators for areas where development could be extended to meet new requirements in the future. The second thrust was carried out in conjunction but in private and involved extensive programming, moving the software tool from a relational database to an object-oriented approach that decoupled the analytical and characterization process from the framework content. While the end product is still a standalone tool, it is now capable of being deployed as a web-based software tool from a computer terminal.

Significance: This project adds transparency and credibility to the existing framework as well as a built-in capability to modify or refine the framework as future Defence Scientists and other stakeholders become engaged in scenario development. An indirect benefit of this effort is the initiation of a means to apply both objective analytical techniques, as well as historical trends in developing and maintaining the set of Force Planning Scenarios.

Future plans: As the Force Planning Scenario set evolves, the methodology and analysis tool should be adapted or modified to suit changing operational conditions and scenario requirements.

DRDC CORA CR 2010-114 iii

The framework and software is designed to be expanded and extended to capture new information and scenarios, and grow to meet new users and emerging requirements. In addition, the same methodology and tool are capable of being expanded and extended to meet the needs of the greater analytical community in supporting strategic indicators and warnings, as well as methods such as the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses. Future plans include examining the feasibility of deploying the software tool to support mission analysis and capability assessments if and when required by the force development community.

iv DRDC CORA CR 2010-114

Sommaire .....


L. Cochran, D. Hales, P. Race, N. Chuka, S. Friesen, C. Morrisey, LCdr D.Harnett; DRDC CORA CR 2010-114; R & D pour la défense Canada – CARO; Juin 2010.

Introduction ou contexte: Les scénarios de planification des forces sont essentiels pour la planification fondée sur les capacités, et ils sont un outil d’intégration. Ces scénarios permettent de reproduire le contexte militaire stratégique. Ils nous permettent de partager les hypothèses sur l’environnement opérationnel et d’examiner les options de développement des forces, afin de traduire les politiques en programmes concrets. Ils servent à éclairer la prise de décisions et à façonner la doctrine et les programmes d’instruction. Pour répondre à ces besoins, plusieurs séries de scénarios ont été développées par le ministère de la Défense nationale et les Forces canadiennes. L’adoption de la Stratégie de défense Le Canada d’abord a provoqué un nouvel examen des scénarios, et elle a fait apparaître la nécessité d’une approche plus rigoureuse et plus scientifique pour la sélection et le perfectionnement des scénarios. Un cadre, une méthodologie et un prototype d’outil logiciel ont été mis au point pour faire face aux changements dans la politique de défense et l’environnement de planification. Le cadre avait besoin d’être validé par les spécialistes du développement des forces, et l’outil logiciel avait besoin d’être testé davantage afin d’être en mesure de s’adapter à l’évolution du cadre de production de scénarios. Le présent rapport décrit le processus de validation, les commentaires des utilisateurs, et les efforts de perfectionnement de l’outil logiciel.

Résultats: Ce projet a comporté deux volets principaux. Le premier volet, mettant en jeu les entrepreneurs et les autorités scientifiques, a consisté à appliquer le cadre de création de scénarios à diverses études de cas, afin d’évaluer son aptitude à caractériser les opérations des Forces canadiennes. Un atelier a été organisé pour examiner le cadre et la méthodologie utilisés pour ce processus. Les études de cas ont été soumises à tous les participants, collectivement, pour faire la démonstration de l’outil logiciel et solliciter des commentaires. Les commentaires recueillis pendant cet atelier de validation se sont avérés extrêmement utiles. L’approche adoptée par l’équipe a été approuvée, le cadre et la méthodologie ont suscité une réponse positive, et les participants ont manifesté de l’enthousiasme pour le système proposé. Ce qui est important également, c’est que l’interaction entre les participants a permis de déceler les priorités et les secteurs dans lesquels le système devrait être perfectionné pour répondre aux besoins futurs. Le deuxième volet a été mené conjointement mais en privé, et il a donné lieu à une programmation très poussée. Dans l’outil logiciel, la base de données relationnelle a été remplacée par une approche orientée objet qui a séparé le processus d’analyse et de caractérisation du contenu du cadre. Le produit final est toujours un outil autonome, mais il peut désormais être déployé, en tant qu’outil logiciel basé sur le Web, à partir d’un terminal d’ordinateur.

Importance: Ce projet ajoute de la transparence et de la crédibilité au cadre existant, et il apporte une capacité intégrée de modification et de perfectionnement du cadre à mesure que les scientifiques de la Défense et les autres intervenants s’impliqueront dans le développement des scénarios. Un avantage indirect de cet effort est la mise en place d’un moyen d’appliquer à la fois

DRDC CORA CR 2010-114 v

les techniques analytiques objectives et les tendances historiques au développement et à l’entretien de la série de scénarios de planification des forces.

Perspectives: À mesure que les scénarios de planification des forces évolueront, la méthodologie et l’outil d’analyse devront être adaptés ou modifiés en fonction de l’évolution du contexte opérationnel et des exigences des scénarios. Le cadre et l’outil logiciel sont conçus pour être élargis pour intégrer de nouvelles informations et de nouveaux scénarios, et pour répondre aux besoins des nouveaux utilisateurs et du contexte émergent. De plus, la méthodologie et l’outil logiciel peuvent être élargis pour répondre aux besoins des spécialistes de l’analyse en appuyant les indicateurs stratégiques et les avertissements, et en introduisant des méthodes comme l’analyse des hypothèses concurrentes. Parmi les recherches futures qui sont envisagées, il y a l’examen de la possibilité de déployer l’outil logiciel pour appuyer l’analyse des missions et l’évaluation des capacités, au besoin, si les spécialistes du développement des forces en font la demande.

vi DRDC CORA CR 2010-114

Table of Contents

Abstract …….. ................................................................................................................................. i

Résumé …..... ................................................................................................................................... i

Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ iii

Sommaire ........................................................................................................................................ v

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. ix

1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Objectives and Scope .................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Document Organization................................................................................................. 2

2 Process ...................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Historical Case Studies.................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Internal Review ............................................................................................................. 3

2.3 User Validation Workshops .......................................................................................... 4

2.4 Analytical Software ....................................................................................................... 4

3 Initial Development .................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Refining the Tool........................................................................................................... 5

4 Application of Historical Case Studies ..................................................................................... 7

5 Pre-Validation and Internal Synchronization.......................................................................... 10

6 End User Validation Workshops 2010 ................................................................................... 12

6.1 The ½-day Workshop .................................................................................................. 12

6.1.1 The Scenario Framework .............................................................................. 12

6.1.2 Evaluating Variables ..................................................................................... 13

6.1.3 Characterizing Scenarios............................................................................... 14

6.1.4 Next Steps ..................................................................................................... 14

6.1.5 Summary ....................................................................................................... 14

6.2 The 2nd User Workshop ............................................................................................... 15

7 Incorporating User Feedback.................................................................................................. 16

7.1 Framework................................................................................................................... 16

7.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 17

7.3 Software Tool .............................................................................................................. 17

7.4 Way Ahead .................................................................................................................. 17

8 Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 19

8.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 19

8.2 Recommendations and Way Ahead............................................................................. 19

References.... ................................................................................................................................. 21

DRDC CORA CR 2010-114 vii

Annex A .. Guidance on Historical Case Studies........................................................................... 23

Annex B... Case Study Characterizations ...................................................................................... 25

Annex C... Workshop Attendees ................................................................................................... 65

List of Acronyms........................................................................................................................... 67

Distribution list.............................................................................................................................. 69

viii DRDC CORA CR 2010-114

List of Tables

Table 1: CF Operations – Historical Case Studies .......................................................................... 8

Table 2: Pre-Workshop Findings and Discussion ......................................................................... 11

DRDC CORA CR 2010-114 ix

x DRDC CORA CR 2010-114

This page intentionally left blank.

1 Introduction

The defence Force Planning Scenarios (FPS) provide a representative range of domestic, continental and international situations in which the Canadian Forces (CF) anticipates conducting operations.1 The FPS provide examples of ‘real world’ operational situations to bring greater precision to military assessments of the capabilities and force structure that may be required to support a particular operation.

To ensure that the development process is explicit and backed by scientific rigour, the Concept Development Operational Research & Analysis (CDORA) Team2 in Defence Research and Development Canada’s (DRDC) Centre for Operational Research and Analysis (CORA) undertook an effort to develop the components of a scenario methodology and supporting tool for evaluating and characterizing FPS. The main outcome of this work was a practical and rigorous testing mechanism, which can be configured by Defence Scientists in CDORA to identify the total set of relationships for a range of scenarios and assess gaps in the FPS set that may require new scenario development.

As an extension to this larger project, CDORA sought to validate the framework and methodology with members from force development community and, as derivative, evolve the supporting tool to ensure it could address changes to the framework over time. Specifically, the team applied the framework against a range of historical case studies to evaluate its adequacy in characterizing potential future CF operations. The same process was applied through user validation workshops with a variety of stakeholders involved in developing and applying planning scenarios.

This report is the third report in the series.3 While it functions as a standalone document, it is intended to complement the research and findings captured in the previous two contractor reports.

1.1 Objectives and Scope

In order to better serve CDORA and future end users of the scenario framework and supporting analysis tool, the following objectives were targeted:

• Facilitate and document validation workshops to support multiple stakeholders and users;

1 See Defence Research and Development Canada, “Statement of Work: Force Planning Scenarios Development Framework and Communication for Capability Based Planning,” May 2009. 2 The CDORA Team is embedded in the Chief of Force Development (CFD). 3 The first two reports were published by DRDC CORA as follows: Larry Cochran, Doug Hales, Peter Race, Neil Chuka, Shaye K. Friesen, Charles Morrissey, LCdr Darren Harnett, Development of the Force

Planning Scenario Framework, DRDC CORA CR 2010-017, Defence Research & Development Canada – CORA, February 2010; and Larry Cochran, Doug Hales, Peter Race, Shaye K. Friesen, Analysis Tool for

Force Planning Scenarios: User's Guide, DRDC CORA CR 2010-018, Defence Research & Development Canada – CORA, February 2010.

1 DRDC CORA CR 2010-114

• Evolve the software tool as a web-based platform; and,

• Refine the tool to accommodate an evolving framework, thus enabling comparative analysis of multiple frameworks.

To meet these objectives, the team started efforts in January 2010, concluding work in March 2010. The result was a working, functional prototype of both the FPS framework and standalone tool.

1.2 Document Organization

The document is organized into the following sections:

• Section 2 reviews the process and methodologies applied to the conduct of the work;

• Section 3 documents the initial conduct of work on the tool development and refinement;

• Section 4 describes the pre-validation, testing and internal synchronization efforts that were undertaken as part of the validation process of the FPS framework and tool;

• Section 5 describes the population of the tool with the historical case studies, including the selection process and outcomes of this activity;

• Section 6 describes the two end-user validation workshops performed with members from the scientific, operational, force development and intelligence communities;

• Section 7 provides a summary of issues, observations and insights to improve the framework, methodology and software tool, as well as identify areas for future research, development and application; and,

• Section 8 concludes the report and provides recommendations on the way ahead.

Additional information is supplied in the annexes to this document for future reference.


2 Process

The validation of the framework and evolution of the software tool involved an iterative and concurrent work process. The population of case historical studies was undertaken early in the process to ensure the software tool was populated with representative data prior to the initial user validation workshop. There was also an internal synchronization prior to soliciting external feedback. Results from the workshop were folded into the development process. A second validation workshop was conducted, demonstrating the final capabilities and functionality of the tool to another user group. The results, findings and outcomes of these efforts were captured and are submitted within this report. Specifically, the validation and software development involved the following activities:

• Application of historical case studies to the FPS framework;

• Validation through internal review;

• Validation through user workshops; and,

• Development of analytical software.

These activities are described in detail in the following sections.

2.1 Historical Case Studies

This process of applying a representative set of scenarios involved populating the software tool with a number of historical case studies, which were chosen based on direction and guidance provided by from the CDORA Team (see Annex A). The case studies involved a mix of past CF contingency operations. This was done to ensure the software tool could accommodate a broad range of cases involving different adversaries, terrain and operation types. Case studies were not selected on the basis that they were easy to characterize, or because they made the software tool look good. The data for these historical case studies was drawn primarily from a previously developed CF operations database, augmented where required by primary and secondary source research as well as consultation with the contractor scientific authority.4 Feedback was collected based on how well the framework was able to depict and characterize the initial set of twelve historical case studies.

2.2 Internal Review

Prior to the first user workshop, the project team completed an internal validation, feedback and modification of the framework. The purpose of the internal review was to evaluate the maturity of the framework and tool, and ensure adequacy for the purpose of supporting historical case

4 L.A. Willner, S. Maloney, S. Babcock, Canadian Forces Operations 1945-1969, ORD Project Report PR 2002/11 (Ottawa: DND, Operational Research Division, October 2002); L.A. Willner, S. Maloney, Canadian Forces Operations 1970-2000, ORD Project Report 2002/01 (Ottawa: DND, Operational Research Division, March 2002).


study analysis and subsequent characterization prior to exposing the software tool to a larger audience. The internal review sought to determine if framework and tool, when populated with “real” data, met its initial intended purpose. The suitability of the tool to support further validation through series of mini-workshops was determined as part of this internal review process.

2.3 User Validation Workshops

Additional validation was sought through user workshops. The workshops were intended to provide an overview of the scenario framework and tool to all participants, as well highlight potential problem areas (i.e., what works well, what could be improved). The format of the workshop was focused on showcasing the framework, methodology and software. Workshop participants included representatives from the military and scientific communities. Specific feedback was solicited through the group characterization of historical case studies. A second workshop was provided to representatives from Chief of Defence Intelligence (CDI) to garner similar feedback, as well as evaluate the suitability of the framework for supporting intelligence collection and analysis. Feedback from all user validation workshops was documented and has been included as part of this report.

2.4 Analytical Software

The initial efforts were guided by client requirements to ensure flexibility of the tool and greater analytical capability. The development efforts were conducted concurrently with the internal review sessions and validation workshops, and resulted in a tool capable of being hosted on a computer terminal as a web service. The development effort and results have been captured within this report, and the new tool functions will be included in a new version of the FPS Scenario Analysis Tool Users’ Guide (forthcoming).


3 Initial Development

3.1 Refining the Tool

The framework developed for the evaluation and characterization of the FPS provided the means for an objective and defensible FPS set. To apply the framework and methodology with relative ease and consistency, a prototype analytical software tool was developed. The initial prototype was delivered in November 2009, and provided proof-of-concept demonstration of the initial objectives of the tool. It implemented and supported a FPS framework, including the scenario dimensions defined over the first phase of the project.

Since the initial delivery of the prototype, several suggestions have been received from end users to enhance the functionality, which have been incorporated in a refined version of the FPS tool. These suggestions included:

• Adding new functionality to enable the users to define and comparatively evaluate multiple different frameworks within the database;

• Modifying the database architecture to support the definition and evaluation of multiple scenario dimensions;

• Enabling users to insert comments and definitions of the terms used in the framework;

• Converting the programming code to reusable objects to facilitate adapting the code to the new functional architecture; and,

• Providing an Internet Browser user interface to enhance the user interaction and navigation and to integrate and access the library of related reference documents.

The result of the additional features increases the practical application and overall utility of the tool through improved flexibility as well as the means to comparatively evaluate multiple frameworks. The delivery of the initial relational database included aspects in the interface that were effectively “hard wired”, thereby reducing the flexibility of the tool and prohibiting comparison of different frameworks. Dimensions could be changed, but this involved creation of new, separate instantiations. The modified Morphological Analysis (MA)/Field Anomaly Relaxation (FAR) process was developed for the specific framework and therefore required adjustments to allow ease of modifications. Object-oriented programming (OOP), on the other hand, focuses on data rather than processes, and was selected as an alternative, thereby overcoming initial limitations encountered in the relational database. An “object” represents a discrete combination of functions and procedures relating to a conceptual entity. Again, the first step involves identifying information elements and constructing a data model. Dimensions, factors and variables can be represented as classes, objects and instances.

The key benefits expected from this approach were improved ability to characterize scenarios against a range of factors, a more proactive ability in responding to new or changing requirements and even unanticipated scenarios, and improved overall functionality. The strengths and


weaknesses of the framework needed to be identified so that best features can be integrated with the scenario analysis tool; hence the need for a thorough review and validation activity. By expanding and extending the capabilities of the tool to address multiple frameworks, the scenario development and analysis process will be much more likely to facilitate relevance and re-usability. This will result in a tool that is well-suited to modification and extension, since its design will support the analysis of multiple frameworks and permit the ability to track assessments over time, which should make the scenario development process a lot more efficient for future analysts since the tool is designed to function as a central repository of information for scenario development and analysis.


4 Application of Historical Case Studies

In an effort to validate the capability of the FPS framework to characterize scenarios, a set of historical case studies were entered into the FPS tool. By taking a representative number of historical case studies that span the full range of operations, the project team was able to evaluate the suitability of drivers and descriptors for capturing the core aspects of each scenario. As stated earlier, the CDORA team provided direction and guidance to ensure the set adequately covered the spectrum of potential future CF operations. Subsequently, the representative historical case studies were identified using the following criteria:

1. Selected historical case studies needed to mesh with the intent and direction of current defence policy.

2. Selected historical case studies needed to consider types of operations that are characterized by the deployment of joint defence forces (i.e., more than a single environmental service involved). Such factors as inter-agency operations, involvement of other government departments (OGDs), other government agencies (OGAs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will be considered as part of joint operations.

3. Selected historical case studies needed to reference authoritative, credible information sources. Such sources of information could include government reports, journal articles, lessons learned, allied reports and the like.

4. Selected historical case studies needed to span multiple types of operations. Some operations may include more than one category under a single campaign theme.

5. Selected historical case studies needed to span multiple geographic locations.

Building upon the recommended list of operations provided by CDORA, the team selected twelve representative historical case studies. These scenarios are listed in Table 1.


CF Operation Operation Type Year

Deployment of the RCN aircraft carrier HMCS Magnificent to the Egyptian coast in the event that it became necessary to evacuate citizens and diplomats of Commonwealth countries. 1952

Assisted in the relief effort following earthquake in Chile. 1960

Op ESSAY

Deployment of troops in the National Capital Region at the request of the Solicitor General of Canada to assist in securing government buildings and escort federal government officials. 1970

NEO in Karachi to extract Western nationals during severe political unrest. 1971

Op SALON Provided aid to civil authorities during the 1990 Oka standoff. 1990

Op HARMONY

Provision of peacekeeping forces in support of United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. 1992

Op ASSISTANCE Provided support to the province of Manitoba during the Red River Valley flood 1997

Op CENTRAL CF deployed the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to Honduras to provide humanitarian airlift to the region. 1998

OpPERSISTENCE

Support to recovery and control efforts on shore during Swissair MAJAID. 1998

OpRECUPERATION

CF aid to the civil authorities during the 1998 ice storm in Ontario and Quebec. 1998

Op TOUCAN

Helped restore peace in East Timor, support humanitarian operations, and assist and protect the civilian United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET). 1999

Op GRIZZLY Support to Kananaskis G8 Summit. 2002

Op HALO Support to the United Nations Multinational Interim Force to assist in bringing stability to Haiti. 2004

Op HESTIA

Canadian Forces participation in humanitarian operations conducted in response to the catastrophic earthquake that struck Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on 12 January 2010. 2010

Op SAIPH Support to counter-terror and counter-piracy efforts in the Gulf of Aden area. 2010

Table 1: CF Operations – Historical Case Studies

The scenarios were characterized primarily from the descriptions and other information within the CF operational database and reports created by Wilner, Maloney and Babcock. Their work included an independent review of historical data related to CF operations from 1945 to 2000, captured within a database. The characterization process was conducted by the project team prior to the initial review session. Two scenarios (Op GRIZZLY and Op Hestia) were characterized by the project team using the software tool as a part of the workshop. After circulating the operational descriptions posted on both the Department of National Defence (DND) and Foreign


Affairs Canada (FAC), the user group provided input on the characterization of each. Details on the workshop are included in Section 6. The outputs of the historical case studies that were characterized through and drawn from the scenario analysis tool are included in Annex B.

In populating the historical case studies in the FPS tool, some modifications were made to allow users to differentiate between a case study and a representative FPS. By tagging each historical case study, any analysis of FPS coverage can be examined separately. Further, this provided the capability to evaluate planning scenarios against historical trends. For example, the historical case studies listed in Table 1, while admittedly not a complete sample, showed a trend toward routine and peace support operations, with no cases of major combat operations. Also, none of the historical case studies involved operations in Arctic terrain. When compared against the FPS set, the difference in relative coverage encourages the analyst to justify why the set differs from historical trends, whether due to a changing operational environment or a need to account for high probability, high consequence events. The historical data, when compared to the results generated through the FAR process, has a similar effect, as the analyst needs to determine why certain variables are more or less plausible than their historical occurrence. The resulting justification adds to a richer discussion for future planning and contributes to a more defensible and objective set of FPS.


5 Pre-Validation and Internal Synchronization

A pre-workshop walkthrough was conducted 27 January 2010 at CAE Professional Services in Ottawa. This provided an opportunity for members of the CDORA team to assess research and findings from the case study application and provide advice prior to external validation.

To illustrate the full functionality of the tool, an entry sequence was conducted using two historical case studies. The first, taken from the CF Operations database, focused on the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) mission in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). This afforded an opportunity to demonstrate how easily scenario descriptions could be entered into the scenario database. The second case study, Op ALTAIR, involved a more recent Maritime Interdiction Operation (MIO) mission in the Persian Gulf. This operation superseded completion of the database requiring manual entry of the narrative description.

Although the tool performed well during the initial walkthrough, a number of minor additions to enhance user interface were suggested, with the intent to implement these changes before the first user validation workshop was held in February. Equally importantly, characterizing these scenarios stimulated discussion and interaction, as well as guided future software developments. Some observations had arisen during the initial population by CAE, and several more relating to refinement of the scenario framework arose during the pre-workshop session. The list of issues, observations, questions and follow-on actions are provided below in Table 1.


Area of

Relevance Pre-Validation Findings and Discussion Action/Resolution

Framework

Terminology

Discussion: Whether or not a “Range of Operations”

category should be introduced distinguishing Aid to

Civil Power. CF responses to the FLQ and Oka

crises could be characterized as “Counter Terror" or

“Enforcement Operations” but neither seemed to

prov

Oka is probably best characterized as a

COIN, conflict prevention type of operation.

Framework

Terminology

There is no "jungle" terrain – this was observed

when characterizing the mission in East Timor.

“Jungle” inserted as an additional driver

as appropriate/required.

Framework

Terminology

Discussion: While perhaps appropriate to mission

analysis, the descriptors of "wind", "cloud" and

"visibility" did not seem to have particular

significance in characterization. Would they be

retained?

Keeping wind cloud etc. could be useful if

the tool were going to be used at a tactical

level by other organizations. For example

if the Navy wanted to look at tactical

training scenarios using the tool these

factors would be useful.

Framework

Application

Discussion: In cases where there was a

heterogeneous social environment, the popular

support options available are "permissive" or "non-

permissive". Both seemed appropriate in some

cases where societal divisions are a factor (e.g.

UNPROFOR). Is there a

Semi-permissive would be useful but not

essential. Ticking both would show that

the situation is not black or white. No

change made to terminology.

Framework

Terminology

Discussion: In the Geographic Region descriptor,

there is a North and South America. Is there value

in distinguishing "Central America/Caribbean" (e.g.

scenarios like Op HALO (Haiti)?

Adding Central America could be useful

but not essential. The Caribbean can be

included as part of NA. No change made

to terminology.

Framework

Application

Discussion: NEOs were characterized as falling

under the CF Role of "Contribute to International

Peace and Security". This should be discussed

NEO can be classified as Defence of

Canada and Canadians. Each Operation

would need to be looked at as a case by

case basis.

Framework

Application

Discussion: For SAR events like the Swissair

MAJAID, there is no trigger (e.g. Inter/Intra-state

violence, CBRN event, etc). While routine SAR

events may not require any triggers, it is worth

discussing whether a major SAR operation should

be underscored

The only other trigger that may cover off

SAR is human error/accident. SAR, for the

most part is an operation and falls under

the Peacetime military engagement

descriptor. A trigger is not required.

Framework

Terminology

Discussion: Op Altair was part of the GWT and in

support to Operation Enduring Freedom. There

might be a need to expand the triggers to include

actions by non-state actors. Specifically criminal

activity including smuggling, human trafficking,

terroris

There is no appropriate trigger for GWOT-

driven operations (e.g. Op ALTAIR). A

trigger such as “transnational criminal act

(e.g. terrorism)” would likely be valuable.

Term added to Range of Operations.

Table 2: Pre-Workshop Findings and Discussion

Based on the findings and team recommendations, those comments that identified actions were addressed. The only exception was the addition of “jungle” as a terrain variable, as this would not be completed until the database flexibility was completed.


6 End User Validation Workshops 2010

6.1 The ½-day Workshop

A formal, half-day workshop was hosted at CAE in Kanata on 3 February 2010 to discuss progress to date and validate the scenario framework and software tool. Although drawn principally from DRDC, participants represented a number of stakeholders and mix of user communities. A complete list of attendees is found at Annex C. They were uniformly well-informed on the DND/CF force development process, as well as issues related to scenario generation, application and exploitation.

To ensure the framework would support the needs of a range of users, the CDORA team requested assistance in reviewing the content of both the scenario framework and prototype tool prior to the validation workshop; specifically by sending a letter of intent asking participants to consider the following broad questions:

• Does the scenario framework cover all essential scenario aspects or dimensions? What areas need to be extended to accommodate the range of future CF operations?

• Does the prototype tool provide an adequate means to evaluate the future security environment? How can the tool be improved to support scenario design?

Project objectives and scope were noted in passing as background. Brief discussions in regards to MA and FAR were given to provide an understanding to the underlying methodology of the software tool. MA involves identifying key factors and investigating the resultant series of possible relationships. The “problem space” is defined in terms of components or dimensions, each of which can have several states or configurations. In the software tool, a scenario or case study is viewed as a unique combination of component configurations. Component selection is challenging and the sheer number of combinations problematic. FAR, therefore, introduces a series of filters to constrain the scenario set. The aim of FAR is to derive from a set of all possible scenarios a defensible and manageable set of plausible scenarios.

6.1.1 The Scenario Framework

Next, the application of FAR to support the characterization and analysis of historical case studies or scenarios was discussed. As noted, determining scenario dimensions, variables and factors is a critical first step. The framework was introduced and some time was spent on reviewing it and discussing the dimensions proposed. These, of necessity, should capture all relevant aspects of the global security environment and, ideally, accommodate all user communities. These dimensions were earlier classified as drivers, descriptors or derivatives. Only the former are considered key factors and used in constructing the possible scenario set. As noted and emphasized during the user validation workshop, many of these drivers are grounded in defence policy and/or CF doctrine. Examples include the CF roles and campaign themes. The importance of a shared understanding of the terminology and fostering consistent interpretation was discussed. It was noted that further elaboration and documentation of dimension variables is required. Given the intended use of the FPS, it was noted that it may be


inadvisable and unnecessary to quantify precisely what constitutes “Large, Medium and Small” and equally difficult to describe in definitive terms the difference between “High” and “Low”. It was also noted that the framework does not have the level of detail necessary for some potential users’ specific needs. For instance, it was noted by one participant that the technological advancement of the potential adversarial forces would not cover the spectrum of potential capabilities the CF may face in future. While not a weakness of the existing framework, it raised the desire and challenge of reconciling between similar but distinct frameworks. Part of the solution to this is already built into the configuration of the web-based software tool, which will allow users to generate and compare multiple frameworks to compare and contrast, for instance, science and technology.

The consensus was that some guidance on terminology definitions is required and would be extremely useful. This guidance is provided in the previous contractor report, and is discussed in further detail in the conclusions and recommendations of this report.

It also became apparent that each user community may have a different perspective and sense of relative importance of dimensions. On balance, the importance the project team has assigned to extensibility was implicitly endorsed, and an expansion of variables suggested, thereby allow emergent technologies to be linked to scenarios.

The fit and classification of the Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) was discussed briefly. It was explained that scenario dimension of “Political Direction/Authority” was intended to capture level of ambition and leadership role, as enunciated in current defence policy. Similarly, agreement was reached that it was more appropriate to use Campaign Themes as FPS Drivers while retaining a dimension as a descriptor incorporating an ability to relate scenarios to the CFDS themes.

Finally, there was some challenge to the use of “Red, Brown and Green” to depict force elements of “Operating Environment.” It would appear from the discussion that while doctrinally sound and employed in some cells in the DND/CF, such categorization is not widely used. It was noted that the intent of this variable was to describe military forces (e.g., adversary, host nation, coalition etc) whereas the “Permissive/Non-permissive” distinction should be used to describe non-military forces. The simplification in the latter and challenge involved in characterizing fragmented societies or failed and failing states was touched upon.

6.1.2 Evaluating Variables

An introduction to the prototype tool followed. The user interface and templates were shown, and an illustrative, pair-wise comparison was conducted. In this case, the plausibility of the CF being assigned a leadership role in international and domestic operations with little and extended warnings was considered. Data entry and the FAR application were demonstrated during the user validation workshop to all participants involved in the process. Participant reaction suggested that tool functionality was gauged good, templates easy to use and application of FAR principles transparent.


6.1.3 Characterizing Scenarios

The drivers, descriptors and derivatives can be used to characterize both planning scenarios (i.e., to establish coverage) and past CF operations (i.e., to provide a benchmark). Again, screenshots were employed and a walkthrough of the tool conducted prior to demonstrating the tool. A number of historical case studies were used to populate a representative database beforehand. During the workshop, this was extended and two additional scenarios (e.g., OP GRIZZLY and OP HESTIA) were characterized by the group in situ. This provided a means to refer to historical operations in validating a set of proposed planning scenarios. As demonstrated, the dashboard on the tool allows comparison between plausible scenarios (derived from FAR), planning scenarios and historical operations.

As observed in the ensuing discussion, the “Description Box” provides a convenient space to record a brief summary of the scenario or operation. This functionality allows users to highlight key elements of the scenario/case study which support rationale of the characterization. It was recognized that it was important to reference source material and, in addition, to provide and practice attaching reference documents to augment the narrative.

As noted by the contract scientific authority, the prime objective is to provide decision support to CFD planners/scenario developers. At the same time, participants identified a number of potential other uses and features. For example, the addition of “Start & Stop Year” in the “Edit/Create the Force Planning Scenarios” page might allow for analysis and insight into scenario concurrency and also provide duration data.

6.1.4 Next Steps

The presentation and technology demonstration concluded with a brief discussion of the next steps and way ahead. It was noted that the report documenting development of the framework and users’ guide to the tool will be published through DRDC CORA. The immediate next step is to integrate the feedback provided at the pre-validation session and user validation workshops. Work has been underway and associated refinements to the framework will be incorporated in a web-based version of the tool. There was a divergence of opinion on how this might be exploited, but the general consensus was that there was merit in moving to an object-oriented approach, which as mentioned will provide greater flexibility, and in putting in place the infrastructure required to support distributed deployment, multi-user employment of the tool.

It was recognized that framework definition is an evolutionary experience and it is, therefore, important to enable the tool to maintain a history of the framework and to support comparative evaluation of options against a reference framework. This functionality was being developed and its utility was endorsed. It was mentioned that the framework and tool would be “fitted for but not with” a capability to support mission analysis and relate capabilities to scenarios. Similarly, exploiting case studies to review platform use might be added at a later time.

6.1.5 Summary

Valuable feedback was received from participants during the first user validation workshop. Participants found the framework effective in capturing the variables, factors and features to consider in developing the FPS. At the same time, it was established as fundamentally important


to the usability of the tool to enable users to document the definition of terms they use in defining framework dimensions and to document the rationale they employ in determining the plausibility of combination of the dimensions in the pair-wise FAR analysis. It was suggested that as frameworks evolve – and they may even be tailored to support a particular community and/or to include addition of vignettes – governance may become an issue. Issues raised – such as who owns the framework and under what conditions to other users interact with the framework or software tool – will have to be addressed by the contract scientific authority in time. Similarly, at some point, the software tool may be deemed to contain sensitive information. These questions, however, were deemed outside the scope of this project. Meanwhile, the first users’ validation workshop confirmed utility and functionality, and helped the project team identify a number of potential enhancements.

6.2 The 2nd User Workshop

A second user workshop was conducted with representatives from the Chief of Defence Intelligence (CDI), exposing the framework, methodology and tool to a wider audience beyond the force development community. The targeted audience from CDI was solicited for feedback on its application to intelligence collection and analysis functions, specifically its applicability to strategic warning problems and techniques, such as the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH).

The framework, methodology and software were generally well-received by the CDI representatives. It should be pointed out that the intelligence community has a different problem space, time horizon and customer from CDORA in CFD, and the discussion reflected this. The focus of the CDORA team is on use of FPS to guide integrated force development and inform and test force structure alternatives. CDI’s time horizon, on the other hand, is more immediate, and centers on developing strategic warning and risk assessment. The use of a framework and filtering mechanism for characterizing case studies attracted some interest, however. Parallels to the co-coverage technique used in the field of engineering were drawn. Some of the discussion revolved around the notion of avoiding strategic surprise, and studying past warning problems as representative examples of historical case studies. A structured approach and software tool might support analysis and assist in pattern recognition, allowing analysts to determine what (if any) mix of indicators and warnings has demonstrated historical relevance.

A second discussion theme centered on the requirement for a methodology and tool to add increased objectivity and transparency to risk analysis (i.e., to ensure scenario options are not discounted prematurely and that judgment is recorded). It was noted that the intelligence community is faced with similar challenges of codifying methodology and outlining analytical processes and techniques were decision support tools can be used to aid in improving analytical capabilities. The FPS tool incorporates plausibility scoring and allows for tolerance levels to be applied as a filter or lens. Conceptually, these features have applicability to CDI. The concluding discussion related to the requirement for scenario generation tool capable of supporting rapid creation and exploration of adversarial courses of action (COA).


7 Incorporating User Feedback

The pre-validation session and two user validation workshops all sought to improve the framework, methodology and software tool, as well as identify areas for future research, development and application in future. The feedback on each of these four areas is included below.

7.1 Framework

Overall, the framework received positive endorsement from the participants involved in the validation workshops. The value in applying a common framework to scenario evaluation had immediate resonance. Notable feedback included the need to ensure that adequate effort and process drive the identification of framework terminology and definitions.

The current process for developing the definitions has been thoroughly documented within the previous report, but is worth additional comment. First, the initial view of the future, including the identification of driver factors, requires objective discussion, assessment and capture as a group. However, the population of these factors with variables should be developed by maintaining a balance between parsimony and completeness. Wherever possible, definitions have been, and should be, derived from existing doctrine, policy or operational lessons learned. Where doctrine is either inadequate or insufficient for characterizing scenarios, the variable selection should be well-justified to allow for clarity. One caveat to this process is that doctrine should address all operational conditions and environments (i.e., land, sea and air). The most mature doctrine tends to exist in the land component, but over-reliance on land doctrine alone can lead to difficulty. For example, the characterization of maritime interdiction operations proved challenging due to the origins of many variables from land doctrine. To address this challenge, consulting other existing doctrine to capture scenarios relevant to all three components should be considered in any framework evolution.

Further, the development of descriptor variables needs to take into account the scope of the scenarios being developed. For example, the majority of FPS are aimed at operational capability development, and do not often require tactical-level detail. Thus, climate-related variables (e.g., arid, arctic, etc.) are suitable for gauging the range of capability effectiveness. However, mission analysis often requires more tactical weather information (e.g., visibility and levels of precipitation) in developing planning aids, such as weather effects matrices. The current framework is aimed at the operational level, with tactical variables included where required. Ensuring that the descriptors are at a level that addresses the needs of the scenario audiences is thus a necessary consideration for future scenario development.

To facilitate the consistent application of the tool, a common set of terms and language is required to guide teams responsible for populating the tool with information and to minimize variation. In addition, it was recognized that a standard user’s guide is required to ensure future end users of the software tool are using a common lexicon, which will help reduce the number of problems that could arise in group data entry and ranking exercises.


7.2 Methodology

There were no outstanding issues or challenges related to the methodology. The methodology and process followed was largely embraced by participants during both the walkthrough of the FAR process and the scenario characterization. It is worth noting that this methodology aligns well with current efforts outside Canada. In addition to the research and application within Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Organization (DSTO), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has also released a publication outlining the application of a Morphological Analysis approach to evaluating expeditionary operations.5 The morphological dimensions are not too dissimilar from the ones derived in the FPS framework and scenario analysis tool, and the metrics could easily align to some of the values. The foundation of scenario analysis in a morphological approach will likely continue, and it would be advisable to ensure that the analytical methodology be tested against allied approaches as they continue to mature.

7.3 Software Tool

The Microsoft Access-based version of the software tool was presented at all of the validation sessions. Its success in addressing the framework and methodology led to few comments on its improvement. There was positive feedback on the enhanced dashboard, which was extended to allow the evaluation of the FPS set against both the FAR results and historical case studies. By being able to display either (or both) allowed for trend analysis as well as objective evaluation of the future security environment. The former evaluation was, as noted above, completed with a representative set of historical case studies, and it will be important to explicitly display the breadth and depth of historical data within the tool to ensure objective trend analysis. Future development could include the addition of a filter to examine trends by date range (i.e., trend analysis of post-Cold War era conflicts). This could further support efforts to integrate concurrency analysis as an input to FPS development and, ultimately, support for Capability-Based Planning.

7.4 Way Ahead

As a part of the final discussion at each of the sessions, the team solicited participants for potential extensions or modifications of the framework, methodology or tool. One such avenue was adaptation to evaluate potential future adversarial capabilities within DRDC disruptive technologies section. The same methodology and analysis would apply, only the factors and variables would be based on factors and variables related to the range of potential disruptive technologies that the CF may face in future. The results would have the potential to inform the analysis of red force capabilities, as the plausibility of the CF facing high-tech or low-tech forces could be informed by greater research into the technologies. It is also likely that the drivers identified by the disruptive technologies group would serve as excellent descriptors in characterizing FPS.

In discussion with CDI, the development of a strategic warning mechanism or a COA-based analysis methodology could be derived from the existing framework at tool. As mentioned

5 Sue Collins and Simon Purton, Characteristics of Expeditionary Operations, NATO RTO-TR-SAS-075 (December 2009).


above, the ability to predict future events and trends is of value, and can be incorporated into efforts to examine potential adversarial courses of action. The methodology currently examines plausibility versus possibility, but can be extended to include an impact analysis in order to better understand the full risk spectrum.


8 Conclusions

8.1 Summary

Project objectives (i.e., framework validation and tool maturation) were well defined and were achieved. Continued dialogue with the contract scientific authority and CDORA team, and a series of planning meetings and validation workshops, provided the opportunity to discuss the underlying assumptions and approach, design and details. The response has been universally positive, with the scenario user community acknowledging of the requirement and acceptance of a morphologically-based methodology.

The initial set of drivers, descriptors and derivatives are policy-informed and doctrine driven. The proof will lie in the pudding. Some refinement, particularly with respect to variables, may be required following sustained long-term use, but following transition to object-orientation should be easily accomplished. The stakeholder community found the graphical user interface (GUI) intuitive and user friendly, and the programming changes will facilitate comparative analysis through the ability to associate and contrast frameworks. Using historical case studies to demonstrate how to employ the framework to characterizing scenarios proved useful and stimulated thought and discussion on how to extend use of the framework, methodology and tool.

8.2 Recommendations and Way Ahead

A number of ways to exploit and extend the achievements to date were identified during the validation and tool development processes. These included:

• Capability Analysis: Typically, following scenario approval, the CDORA team provides analytical support for the conduct of a Mission Analysis exercise to support military planners in clarifying scenario objectives and determining capability requirements. These might be defined in functional terms using a target capability list or universal task list. The framework has been designed to support Mission Analysis, but this feature has not been trialled.

• Concurrency Analysis: Another area deserving exploration relates to concurrency analysis. As note above, individual scenarios have proven extremely useful in providing context and identifying capability demands. Often, operations run simultaneously and create capacity demands. Identified as a potential future use case in previous contractor reports, concurrency analysis would involve developing an understanding of plausible coexisting scenarios based both on future outlook and past trends. Once a scenario has been associated with a capability set, concurrency analysis can help provide insight for capability managers seeking to balance investment based on potential capability and capacity constraints. The requirement for concurrency analysis or assessment of military requirements was outside this work package, however. One approach would be to migrate the results of previous trend analysis into the current framework. Previous research into concurrency analysis categorized scenarios along the range of operations, along similar lines as the current framework. The overlay of historical case studies would greatly benefit in defining future FPS. It would provide the ability to demonstrate the shift in


• Web Service Delivery: The software tool was conceived and designed initially to support stand-alone analysis. Transition to object orientation lays the groundwork for web-based access and, potentially, collaboration by dispersed teams or team members. Following a period of usage, thought might be given to process, governance and adoption.

• Community Support: As identified during the validation workshops, the framework and tool could be extended and tailored to cater to specific communities (e.g., a technology dimension added for Red Force variables expanded to allow the import/impact of disruptive technologies to be considered and linked to Force Planning).

• Rapid Scenario Generation: A module could be introduced combining a quadrant/matrix-based methodology with some analysis tools to produce a full repository of scenarios, and allow analysts to generate reusable vignettes to support force development, experimentation and joint training exercises.

• Support to Emergency Management CBP: It would be useful to relate the framework to the Emergency Management scenario framework. This would support whole-of-government planning.

While all these options may in time prove worth pursuit, the next step is to get the framework, methodology and tool into the hands of the users. Validation of the framework and software tool is an initial step, and should be undertaken on a recurring basis in order to ensure tools, methods and approaches to scenario development and analysis relevant. The immediate priority would then be to identify and develop scenarios which address the drivers and cover off descriptors (i.e., a scientifically derived FPS).


References....

Cochran, Larry, Doug Hales, Peter Race, Neil Chuka, Shaye K. Friesen, Charles Morrissey, LCdr Darren Harnett, Development of the Force Planning Scenario Framework, DRDC CORA CR 2010-017, Defence Research & Development Canada – CORA, February 2010.

Cochran, Larry, Doug Hales, Peter Race, Shaye K. Friesen, Analysis Tool for Force Planning

Scenarios: User's Guide, DRDC CORA CR 2010-018, Defence Research & Development Canada – CORA, February 2010.

Collins, Sue and Simon Purton. Characteristics of Expeditionary Operations. NATO RTO-TR-SAS-075, December 2009.

Defence Research and Development Canada. “Statement of Work: Force Planning Scenarios Development Framework and Communication for Capability Based Planning”. May 2009.

Willner, L.A., S. Maloney, S. Babcock, Canadian Forces Operations 1945-1969, ORD Project Report PR 2002/11. (Ottawa: DND, Operational Research Division, October 2002).

Willner, L.A., S. Maloney, Canadian Forces Operations 1970-2000, ORD Project Report 2002/01. (Ottawa: DND, Operational Research Division, March 2002).




Annex A Guidance on Historical Case Studies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this document is to outline the criteria by which the study team will consider the selection of historical case studies that will be used to support and validate the scenario analysis tool.

Selection Criteria:

These case studies must follow the guidelines below:

1) Mesh with the intent and direction of current defence policy.

2) Consider types of historical operations that are characterized by the deployment of joint defence forces (i.e., more than 1 service involved). Such factors as inter-agency operations, involvement of OGDs, OGAs and NGOs will be considered as part of joint operations.

3) Reference and provide authoritative, credible information sources under which the historical case studies will be outlined. Such sources of information may be (as an example) government reports, journal articles, lessons learned, allied reports and the like. Copies of these materials must be included referenced as footnotes in the study.

4) Span multiple types of operations. Some operations may include more than one category under a single campaign theme.

5) Span multiple geographic locations.

Preliminary Case Study Selection

Baseline- Mobile Strike Force Operations: Canada (1948-1957)

Major Terrorist Attack- FLQ Crisis (Op Ginger and Essay, 1970) - Oka Crisis (1990)

Expeditionary Long- Operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UNPROFOR, Op Harmony, Sharp

Guard, IFOR/SFOR etc) - Op Altair Roto 3 and 4 (2007-08)

Expeditionary Short- CF contribution to UN operations in Haiti (1995-97) - Op Toucan (East Timour, 1999-2001)

Natural Disaster- Op Assistance (Winnipeg Red River Floods, 1997) - Op Recuperation (Ice Storm 1998)

Domestic Support- Op Grizzly (G8 Summit in Kananaskis, 2002)


NEO- Egypt (1952) - Op Lion (2006)

SAR- Op St. Therese (1963) - Op Persistence (Swissair MAJAID, 1998)

Humanitarian Assistance- Op Plateau (DART to Pakistan, 2005) - Op Earthquake (Chile, 1960) - Op Central (Honduras, 1998)


Annex B Case Study Characterizations




























\














Annex C Workshop Attendees

Workshop #1: Held at CAE Professional Services in Ottawa, ON, 3 February 2010.

Name Organization

Charles Morrisey DRDC CORA

LCol Stefan Kostner DFSA

Heather Hrychuk DRDC CORA

Peter Gizewski DRDC CORA

David Connell DRDC Corporate Office

Darren Baker DFSA 4

LCdr Derek Purcell D Mar Strat 2-2

M Rempel DRDC CORA

Shaye Friesen DRDC CORA

Darren Harnett DRDC CORA

Neil Chuka DRDC CORA

Doug Hales CAE Professional Services

Larry Cochran CAE Professional Services

Peter Race CAE Professional Services

Workshop #2: Held at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, ON, 16 March 2010.

Name Organization

Colin Cantlie DRDC CORA

Shaye Friesen DRDC CORA

Doug Hales CAE Professional Services

Peter Race CAE Professional Services

Paul O’Leary CDI

Goodwin Thompson CDI




List of Acronyms

AO Area of Operations

C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance

CAT CDS Action Team

CBP Capability Based Planning

CBRN Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear

CDORA Concept Development Operational Research and Analysis Team

CDI Chief of Defence Intelligence

CDS Chief of Defence Staff

CF Canadian Forces

CFD Chief of Force Development

CFDS Canada First Defence Strategy

COA Course of Action

COIN Counterinsurgency Operations

CONOPS Concept of Operations

CONPLANS Contingency Planning

CORA Centre for Operational Research and Analysis

COTS Commercial Off The Shelf

DDR Defence Requirements Review

DS Defence Scientist

DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organization (Australia)

DND Department of National Defence

DRDC Defence Research & Development Canada

DRDKIM Director Research and Development Knowledge and Information Management

FAR Field Anomaly Relaxation

FAC Foreign Affairs Canada

FD Force Development

FPS Force Planning Scenarios

IO International Organization


JIMP Joint, Interagency, Multinational, Public

JIPOE Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment

MA Morphological Analysis

MCO Major Combat Operations

MS Microsoft

MSEL Master Scenario Events List

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NEO Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NORAD North American Aerospace Defence Command

OE Operational Environment

OGA Other Government Agency

OGD Other Government Department

OOP Object-oriented programming

ONA Operational Net Assessment

OPP Operational Planning Process

PITF Political Instability Task Force

PME Peacetime Military Engagement

PMESII Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, Information

PMESII + PT

Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, Information, Physical Environment, Time

PSO Peace Support Operations

R&D Research & Development

ROTO Rotation

SAR Search and Rescue

SME Subject Matter Expert

UN United Nations

UNPROFOR United Nations Protection Force


Distribution list

Document No.: DRDC CORA CR 2010-114

Information

Internal

DDG [PDF] SH Strategic Analysis [PDF] Library [print + PDF] Authors [PDF]

External

DFSA [PDF] DST IC [PDF] CAE [PDF] DRDKIM [PDF]




DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA (Security classification of title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)

1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document. Organizations for whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency, are entered in section 8.)

CAE Professional Services (Canada) Inc. 1135 Innovation Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2K 3G7

2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (Overall security classification of the document including special warning terms if applicable.)

UNCLASSIFIED

3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification should be indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C or U) in parentheses after the title.)


4. AUTHORS (last name, followed by initials – ranks, titles, etc. not to be used)

Chuka, N.; Cochran, L.; Friesen, S.K.; Hales, D.; Harnett, D.; Morrisey, C.; Race, P.

5. DATE OF PUBLICATION (Month and year of publication of document.)

June 2010

6a. NO. OF PAGES (Total containing information, including Annexes, Appendices, etc.)

86

6b. NO. OF REFS (Total cited in document.)

5

7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of report, e.g. interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.)

Contract Report

8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development – include address.)

Defence R&D Canada 305 Rideau Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2

9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable research and development project or grant number under which the document was written. Please specify whether project or grant.)

PG0 10ab

9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under which the document was written.)

10a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official document number by which the document is identified by the originating activity. This number must be unique to this document.)

10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may be assigned this document either by the originator or by the sponsor.)

DRDC CORA CR 2010-114

11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)

Unlimited

12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the Document Availability (11). However, where further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement audience may be selected.))

Unlimited

13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph (unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is bilingual.)

The Concept Development and Operational Research and Analysis Team in DRDC CORA has developed a framework and software tool that allows Defence Scientists to overlay the Force Planning Scenarios and ensure a range of dimensions, factors and variables are being addressed. The software tool, which has been developed based on a modified morphological analysis methodology, requires validation with the force development community and other stakeholders involved in analyzing the Force Planning Scenarios. This contractor report describes the validation of the framework, methodology and software tool for the Force Planning Scenarios. The software tool was populated with a number of historical case studies in order to assess its ability to characterize Canadian Forces operations. To further assess the validity of the scenario framework and software tool, two complimentary workshops were held in February and March 2010. The workshops stimulated discussion and provided an opportunity for all participants to share their perspectives on the basic concepts, design and underlying assumptions of the framework and software tool, including any follow-on actions or recommendations for change. This contractor report discusses the feedback and results of the validation process, as well as the software modifications based on the work performed. One of the results of this validation exercise is that the response to the scenario framework and analysis tool has been generally positive. The use of historical case studies to demonstrate how to employ the software tool proved particularly valuable in eliciting observations and insights from participants. This report is the third in a series focused on the development of a defensible, transparent and objective scenario framework and analysis tool. // L’Équipe d’élaboration de concepts, d’analyse et de recherche opérationnelle de RDDC CARO a mis au point un cadre et un outil logiciel qui permettent aux scientifiques de la Défense de superposer les scénarios de planification des forces et de s’assurer que l’on tient compte de plusieurs dimensions, facteurs et variables. L’outil logiciel, qui a été développé à l’aide d’une méthodologie d’analyse morphologique modifiée, a besoin d’être validé par les spécialistes du développement des forces et les autres responsables de l’analyse des scénarios de planification des forces. Le présent rapport d’entrepreneur décrit le processus de validation du cadre, de la méthodologie et de l’outil logiciel qui ont été mis au point pour les scénarios de planification des forces. L’outil logiciel a été appliqué à une série d’études de cas, afin d’évaluer son aptitude à caractériser les opérations des Forces canadiennes. Pour évaluer de façon encore plus précise la validité du cadre de création de scénarios et de l’outil logiciel, deux ateliers ont été tenus en février et mars 2010. Ces ateliers ont favorisé la discussion, et ils ont permis à tous les participants de faire connaître leurs vues sur les concepts de base, la conception et les hypothèses sous-jacentes du cadre et de l’outil logiciel, et de recommander des mesures de suivi ou des changements. Le présent rapport examine les résultats du processus de validation, les commentaires des utilisateurs, et les modifications qui ont été apportées au logiciel par suite du travail effectué. L’un des résultats de cet exercice de validation est le suivant : d’une façon générale, le cadre de création de scénarios et l’outil d’analyse ont suscité une réponse positive. Le recours à des études de cas pour expliquer comment utiliser l’outil logiciel s’est avéré particulièrement efficace : il a suscité des observations et des commentaires de la part des participants. Le présent rapport est le troisième d’une série de rapports centrés sur le développement d’un cadre et d’un outil d’analyse pour la production de scénarios objectifs, transparents et défendables.14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be

helpful in cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g. Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of each should be indicated as with the title.)

Force Planning Scenario; Framework; Capability Based Planning; Field Amonaly Relaxation; Morphological Analysis

Documents

Validating the Force Planning Scenario Framework and ... · Validating the Force Planning Scenario Framework and Analytical Tool: L. Cochran, D. Hales, P. Race, N. Chuka, S. Friesen,