www.aptima.com
®
®
© 2004, Aptima, Inc.
A New Methodology for Design and Evaluation of Heterarchical Structures
Georgiy M. Levchuk1
Feili Yu2
Yuri Levchuk1
Krishna R. Pattipati2
1Aptima, Inc.2University of Connecticut
“Best Paper Award” 9-th CCRTS San Diego, CA, June, 2004Track 1: C2 Modeling and Simulation
®
UConn
2
What is Heterarchy?
A Heterarchy* is a form of organization resembling a network, where authority is determined by knowledge and function
A decision heterarchy is made up of a group of humans with common purpose. The group is organized horizontally with all individuals sharing equal authority and equal responsibility.
*The term heterarchy was introduced into science more than half a century ago by the neurophysiologist and cybernetician Warren St. McCulloch in his study "A Heterarchy of Values Determined by the Topology of Nervous Nets“
®
UConn
3
Why Study Heterarchies?
EnablingCapabilities
Modular ForcesNetworking
ResearchNeeds
EnvironmentEnemy
Navy: FORCEnetArmy: Unit of Employment
Novel Organizational Concepts
Heterarchies, Hybrid Structures,Swarms
Novel Design Principles
Imbed modeling principles into design of friendlyorganizations to enhance performance
Determine how to influence adversary organizations
Future Combat SysComputing New MechanismsInformal Networks
®
UConn
4
Overview of Presentation
The ProblemTypes Of Organizational StructuresOperational Example: Call For FireProblem Identification & Modeling FormalismSolution ApproachSimulation ExamplePotential Implications
®
UConn
5
The General Problem:
How would you derive human requirements for the organization?
How would you evaluate its performance for this mission?
How would you design a C2
organization for this mission?
How would you structure this organization?
Designing C2 Organizations in the Age of Network-Centric Operations
®
UConn
6
Modeling FocusWhat problem are we addressing?
Design of organizational structures/networks and strategies/processes
What is our focus?Interactions between mission, structure, strategy, and humansWe model “organizational processes” –system & interactions design
Mission Requirements
Systems, Humans
Structure
C of AStrategyCongruence
Mission Requirements
Systems, Humans
Structure
C of AStrategyCongruence
Collection of items (nodes) and rules/constraints (links) of their interactions
•Command•Control•Communication•Information/knowledge
Collection of items (nodes) and rules/constraints (links) of their interactions
•Command•Control•Communication•Information/knowledge
structure/network
Policy/procedures/rules/guidance to execute a missionProcesses, interactions, courses of action methods
Policy/procedures/rules/guidance to execute a missionProcesses, interactions, courses of action methods
strategy/processes
®
UConn
7
Types of Organizations
Jointoptimization
sensordata
commanddata
localoptimization
localoptimization
Benefits of both hierarchy and heterarchy
Adaptability
FlexibilityImproved fault toleranceIndependent operations
Reduce complexityLimited functionality
of individual cells
Pros
Difficulty to design and control
Need understanding of current structure by all nodes
Lack of controlLack of global viewSensitivity of
collaboration rulesRedundancy
Lack of flexibilitySlow response timeHigh sensitivityLow fault-tolerance
Cons
HybridHeterarchyHierarchy
communicatedinfo
localoptimization& command
communicatedinfo
localoptimization& command
localoptimization& command
localoptimization& command
localoptimization
localoptimization
localoptimization
joint command
localoptimization
localoptimization
localoptimization
joint command
time
®
UConn
8
Structures in an Organizationsend
commands
resourceownership structure
sendinformation
info/eventaccess
structure
CommandWho makes command decisionsWho supports whom
Execution planning and directing
ControlWho controls what resources
Capabilities to execute mission
CommunicationWho talks to whom
Synchronizing operations
InformationWho observes what
Knowledge of the environment
®
UConn
9
Example: Call for Fires Process
• Squad Leader• Platoon Leader• COLT Team Leader
TargetRequires Call for fire
• Recon Troop 120mm Mortar Section
•Troop Commander•Troop FEC •Fires BN FDC
•firing battery 1
•firing battery 2
•firing battery 3
Modes•Autonomous•Fires BN Directed
Modes•Autonomous•Fires BN Directed
Various Control Processes:
Forms•Centralized•Decentralized•Pre-designated
Forms•Centralized•Decentralized•Pre-designated
?
®
UConn
10
Examples of Alternative CFF Processes
• Recon Troop 120mm Mortar Section
•Troop Commander•Troop FEC
•Fires BN FDC
•firing battery 1
•firing battery 2
•firing battery 3
TargetRequires Call for fire
• Squad Leader• Platoon Leader• COLT Team Leader
Decentralized & Autonomous Pre-designated & Autonomous
Decentralized & BN FDC Directed Centralized & BN FDC Directed
• Squad Leader• Platoon Leader• COLT Team Leader
TargetRequires Call for fire
• Recon Troop 120mm Mortar Section
•Troop Commander•Troop FEC
•Fires BN FDC
•firing battery 1
•firing battery 2
•firing battery 3
or
• Squad Leader• Platoon Leader• COLT Team Leader
TargetRequires Call for fire
• Recon Troop 120mm Mortar Section
•Troop Commander•Troop FEC
•firing battery 1
•firing battery 2
•firing battery 3
•Fires BN FDC
• Squad Leader• Platoon Leader• COLT Team Leader
TargetRequires Call for fire
• Recon Troop 120mm Mortar Section
•firing battery 1
•firing battery 2
•firing battery 3
•Troop Commander•Troop FEC
•Fires BN FDC
Cons:•need to know asset status•low control
Pros: speed
Cons:•possible mismatch between fire asset and target•fire asset overload
Pros: speed
Cons:•slower•possible overload and delays at BN FDC
Pros: some speed & control
Cons:•slow•possible additional delays and overload at FEC & BN FDC
Pros: control
®
UConn
11
Design Challenges
Challenge 3: Complexity & influence of (sub)structuresand processes on each other
Challenge 3: Complexity & influence of (sub)structuresand processes on each other
Modeling approaches:• Use flow model with cost and capacity constraints• Model constraints on information access, processing speed, information loss• Model transfer of information in the C2 network• Heuristic algorithms to maintain network robustness• Local / distributed decision making
Modeling approaches:• Use flow model with cost and capacity constraints• Model constraints on information access, processing speed, information loss• Model transfer of information in the C2 network• Heuristic algorithms to maintain network robustness• Local / distributed decision making
input output
networkC2 node
inputoutputalternatives
process
input output
Challenge 2: Interaction constraints & node effectiveness
Challenge 2: Interaction constraints & node effectiveness
Challenge 1: Identification of interactions between decision-makers (DM)
Challenge 1: Identification of interactions between decision-makers (DM)
®
UConn
12
C2 hierarchy
Process Flow
information actions
C2 heterarchy
event outcome
C2 network
information decision action
Command is made
Assignment is made
®
UConn
13
Combined Information-Command Network
Execution
Infor
mation
Networ
k
Comman
dNetw
ork
Observations
Single nodein
form
atio
n-to
-com
man
dtra
nsfe
r
®
UConn
14
Modeling Attributes
Performance is modeled by:Efficiency
How efficiently can you do execution, communication, observation, command
LossHow much information is lostWhat is the cost of information loss
CostHow difficult is it to maintain the structureWhat is the maintenance/design cost
DelaysDelays in execution, communication, etc. due to overload
Modeling of individual performance
Based on expertise/resourcesBreadth – generalizationDepth – specialization
Expertise determines efficiency of observation, command, and executionCommunication loss is due to different expertise
Objectives•Maximize execution & command efficiency•Minimize information loss•Minimize design/maintenance cost•Minimize communication overhead•Minimize delays
Objectives•Maximize execution & command efficiency•Minimize information loss•Minimize design/maintenance cost•Minimize communication overhead•Minimize delays
Constraints•How much can you do
Execution load•How much can you communicate
Communication load•How much can you observe
Observation load•How much can you decide on
Command & control load
Constraints•How much can you do
Execution load•How much can you communicate
Communication load•How much can you observe
Observation load•How much can you decide on
Command & control load
®
UConn
15
Example of Hybrid Structure
Final Architecture
8
2 3
6 74
9
5
1
Information Network
8
2 3
6 74
9
5
1
Command Network
8
2 3
6 74
9
5
1
+
®
UConn
16
Sample Results
8
2 3
6 74
9
5
1
E2 E5E1 E4E3 E6
Structure A
5
2 3
8 94 76
1
24 5
1
3
6 8 9 7
E5E4 E6E2E1 E3 E5E4 E6E2E1 E3
Structure B Structure C
2 3
8 4
1
E2E1 E3
9
E5E4 E6
Structure D
- Agent node
- Event/observation node
- Command network- Information network
- Agent node
- Event/observation node
- Command network- Information network
• Increase the accumulated mission execution effectiveness (gain) while decreasing the communication overhead, cost and volume• Optimal network allows better access to efficient nodes
Communication Cost
0200400600800
1000120014001600
Structure A Structure B Structure C Structure D
Cos
t
Redundancy Overhead
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Structure A Structure B Structure C Structure D
Mes
sage
s/se
c
Communication Volume
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Structure A Structure B Structure C Structure D
Mes
sage
s/se
c
Mission Gain
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
Structure A Structure B Structure C Structure D
Gai
n
®
UConn
17
Future Research Directions
Consider network robustness constraintsImplement multi-commodity problem formulationConsider problem of unsplittable or partially splittable flowsConsider flow transfer and generationConsider error propagationTest all of the above in humans-in-the-loop experimental and field environments
®
UConn
18
Conclusions
A systematic approach to design inter-dependent C2 organizational structures
Command, control, communication, & information dimensions
A trade space to test benefits and limitations of hierarchical, heterarchical, and hybrid structuresApplications:
Potential to provide science-based solutions to support the design and evaluation of future network-based command structures such as FORCEnet, Unit of Employment, etc…
®
UConn
19
Acknowledgments
AptimaUniversity of ConnecticutONRARLICCRTS