Modeling

1
Modeling SimulationIn EnterpriseArchitectures
It is the last lesson of modern science, that
the highest simplicity of structure is produced,
not by few elements, but by the highest
complexity. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Goethe or,
the Writer
Life was simple before World War II. After
that, we had systems. RADM Grace Hopper

• Stephen J. Swenson
• October 22, 2003

2
Definitions

• Model
• A physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical
  representation of a system, entity, phenomenon,
  or process.
• Simulation
• A method for implementing a model over time.
• Modeling and Simulation (MS)
• The use of models, including emulators,
  prototypes, simulators, and stimulators, either
  statically or over time, to develop data as a
  basis for making managerial or technical
  decisions. The terms "modeling" and "simulation"
  are often used interchangeably.

Source Defense Modeling and Simulation Office
Glossary of Terms
https//www.dmso.mil/public/resources/glossary/
3
Uses (e.g.) of MS in DoD
Training
Vulnerability Studies
Tactics Development
Exploitation
Mission Planning And Rehearsal
Logistics
Performance Assessment
Operational Test
Performance Limit Testing
Developmental Test
Integrated System Test
Concept Development
4
Vision for DoD Transformation

• The two truly transforming things might be in
  information technology and information operating
  and networkingconnecting things in ways that
  they function totally differently than they had
  previously.
• And if thats possiblethen possibly the single
  most transforming thing in our Force will not be
  a weapon system, but a set of interconnections
  and a substantially enhanced capability because
  of that awareness.
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
• 9 August 2001

5
Moving to Distributed Services
Legacy (Today)

• Simple
• Enterprise Functions and Information
• Distributed Services (Publish / Subscribe)
• Open Architecture
• Composable, Flexible and Adaptable
• Standard Services Support Process
• Joint Focus

Normalized Services Environment
How do we manage this transition?

• Complex
• Duplicative Functions and Information
• Delivered by Numerous Legacy Services
• Not an Open Architecture
• Not Composable, Flexible or Adaptable
• Interoperability Requirements are Process
  Dependant
• Focus is Navy (Rather than Joint or Naval)

Distributed Services (Tomorrow)
6
Proposed Methodology (From JCS J8)
Concepts
Architectures
Assessment
Joint Vision
National Military Strategy
Joint Capstone Concept
Service Operating Concepts
Joint Operating Concepts
Capability Roadmap
capability
task a
task b
task c
7
Four Catalysts

• TECHNOLOGY
• Character of Information Age Warfare

TERRORISMImpact of 9/11

• Emerging discontinuities in warfare
• Advantages from small, fast, and many
• Substituting information for tonnage
• Rebalancing military forces for future ops
• Defining new operational concepts withproper
  breadth and mix of capabilities

• Globalization, new rule set,system
  perturbation
• Era of invulnerability is over surprise is
  back
• Willingness to spend projected surplus for
  security
• National priorities have shifted
• Homeland security the top security priority
• Successes of NCO in Afghanistan (OEF)

TRANSFORMATIONNew Administration SeekingChange
( Strategy )
TENSION Resource Constraints

• QOL, OS costs continue to trump modernization
• Aging force growing more costly
• Huge bow waves in aviation, shipbuilding persist
• Finding for transformation and modernization
• Program divestiture where returns are
  decreasingor not contributing to (benefiting
  from) the net
• Reduced buys of legacy systems

• DPG/QDR force sizing debate
• Balancing risks (insufficient resources)
• Regional balance / assured access
• Capabilities-based planning
• Promotion of innovation experimentation
• More entrepreneurial requirement process
• Pervasive realignment underway

New rules for a new era
DEPSECDEF P. Wolfowitz T. Barnett, Office of
Force Transformation
8
Which Means

• Business Process Changes
• Stronger Government / Industry Collaboration
• Rapid Prototyping
• Rapid Technology Insertion
• Experimentation
• Human Systems Integration
• ReAlignment

• Operational System Changes
• FORCEnet
• Global Information Grid
• Network-Centric Enterprise Services
• Information Warfare
• Cooperative Engagement
• Sensor-to-Shooter
• Large-N / Swarm
• Small, Fast, Many
• Uninhabited / Unmanned Vehicles
• Non-traditional Sensors
• Non-traditional Threats

9
MS Community Challenges

• INFRASTRUCTURE
• Human Resources
• Contracting Practices
• Networks
• Knowledge / Data Management
• Work Flow Management
• NTEROPERABILITY
• Simulation-to-Simulation
• Simulation Composability
• Lexical / Semantic Descriptions
• Battlespace Taxonomies and Ontologies

• CONTENT
• Human Behaviors
• Large-N System Behaviors
• C2 Modeling
• Network Modeling
• Environment Modeling
• Effects Modeling
• Materiel Modeling
• Traditional Threat
• Non-Traditional Threat
• Advanced Blue Systems
• Content Performance
• Time, Space
• ARCHITECTURES

10
Concept of Operations
CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS
The Navy Modeling Simulation Standards Project
The Navy MS Community and Industry are invited
and encouraged to nominate MS standards
(including protocols, techniques and processes)
that will support the use and reuse of Navy
models, simulations, and data. The steps within
the Navys MS Standards Process focus on three
key activities Nominate, Evaluate and Advocate
Navy MS standards. Essential to these key
elements are an automated web tool suite
facilitated support to address and surmount
challenges and MS experts to review, leverage
and refine appropriate standards.
Supported by Government and Industry
Government
Nominate
Industry
Advocate
Evaluate

• NOMINATE Identify
• the need for Navy
• MS Standards and
• Best Practices.

• EVALUATE Technical Review by a team of MS
  experts with feedback from MS Community.

• ADVOCATE MS
• Community Outreach and Education Program.

11
Priorities for MS Standards

• Dell Lunceford (AMSO)
• Chuck Maclean (NIST)
• Ron Hofer (UCF / IST)
• Bernie Zeigler (Univ. of Arizona)
• Warren Katz (MaK Technologies)
• Bill Tucker (Boeing)
• Jean-Louis Igarza (NATO)
• Andrew Vallerand (DND Canada)
• Dylis Grant (QinetiQ)
• Bjorn Moller (Pitch)
• Simone Youngblood (DMSO)
• Gunnar Ohlund (FMV Sweden)
• Phil Zimmerman (DMSO)
• Bob Lutz (JHU/APL)
• Bill Waite (Aegis Technologies)
• Gabriel Wainer (Carleton University)
• Paul Foley (DMSO)
• Mike Conroy (NASA)
• Tom Johnson (Analytical Graphics)

Community Leaders International Government Industr
y Academia
12
Perspectives on Standards
Priorities for MS Standards

• Standards reflect a consensus about shared
  knowledge and experience that is economically
  beneficial to a community of interest.
• Key enabler of efficiency and optimization in the
  development of simulation systems.
• Open standards create a competitive marketplace
  for vendors on a level playing field.
• Killer of the stovepipe.
• They can spur, and benefit from, increased
  research.
• Standards do not stifle creativity they are a
  platform on which creativity builds.
• Without appropriate MS/data standards, we have
  chaos!

13
Composability

• Composability is the ability to put together a
  piece of software from several components. This
  is an essential property for building large and
  complex systems as it enables modularization and
  separation of concerns.
• E.g.
• Legos
• Interchangeable parts
• Local area networks
• Object oriented programming
• Java Beans

• Advantages
• End user flexibility
• Component reusability
• Separation of concerns
• Ease of test (system of systems perspective
• Abstraction of details
• Speed delivery of product

Our Challenge is CONTEXT DEPENDENT composability
14
Dealing with new requirements
Spaghetti Code
Sub-optimal Analysis
Simulation Challenged
Desirable
Expensive
15
Draft Goals for Navy MS Standards

• To enable the Navy Mission and Vision by aligning
  MS Development, Identification, Evaluation, and
  Advocacy through standards.
• To improve structure and discipline in the
  Modeling and Simulation Community by inculcating
  architectural concepts, ensuring the common use
  of architectures, and fostering interoperability
  among architectures.
•  
• Provide standards for the composability of Naval
  MS activities.
• Provide standards for the content and the
  description of content of Naval MS and related
  data.
• To improve modeling and simulation business
  practices by identifying best practices and
  standards for the acquisition, execution, and
  employment of modeling and simulation tools.

CULTURE
TECHNOLOGY
BUSINESS
16
TEAMS

• Torpedo Enterprise Advanced(ing) Modeling and
  Simulation
• Initiative

17
Shortfalls of Existing Capability

• NON-STANDARD PROCESSES
• Requirements
• Testing
• Documentation
• Configuration Management
• Resourcing
• Sharing

• LACK OF INTEROPERABILITY AND REUSABILITY
• Unnecessary and costly redundancy
• Limited consistency across enterprise
• Limited compliance with DoD interoperability
  standards
• Isolation from other communities

• OLD SOFTWARE PARADIGM
• High maintenance costs
• Difficult to acquire new talent
• Does not take advantage of rapidly advancing
  software development technologies
• Does not adhere to emerging software standards
• Limited flexibility
• Monolithic products

• DYSFUNCTIONAL
• CULTURE
• Competition v. Cooperation
• Now v. Then
• Not Invented Here

18
Shortfalls of Existing Capability

• NON-STANDARD PROCESSES
• Requirements
• Testing
• Documentation
• Configuration Management
• Resourcing
• Sharing

• Lack of direction loss of focus, unvectored
  thrust
• Difficult to adapt to rapidly changing
  technology, business, and operational
  environments
• Efforts not shared
• Difficult to attract new talent
• Inconsistent results
• Loss of credibility

• LACK OF INTEROPERABILITY AND REUSABILITY
• Unnecessary and costly redundancy
• Limited consistency across enterprise
• Limited compliance with DoD interoperability
  standards
• Isolation from other communities

• OLD SOFTWARE PARADIGM
• High maintenance costs
• Difficult to acquire new talent
• Does not take advantage of rapidly advancing
  software development technologies
• Does not adhere to emerging software standards
• Limited flexibility
• Monolithic products

• DYSFUNCTIONAL
• CULTURE
• Competition v. Cooperation
• Now v. Then
• Not Invented Here

19
End States

• Analysts identify required components, assemble
  components into a requirement-specific simulation
  tool, document the tools configuration, and
  begin a study within 48 hours of initial tasking.
• A fully integrated team of weapon enterprise
  model developers, testers, users, and sponsors
  define MS strategic goals, standards, and
  processes
• Component models developed for one program are
  plug compatible with models developed for other
  programs (I.e. pay once)
• Corollary Modeling content built for one phase
  of weapon development is usable in all subsequent
  phases of weapon development
• Corollary Technology, acquisition, operational,
  etc decisions are based on consistent model
  results
• Confidence in undersea weapon models is high
  because each component model is developed
  according to a standard specification (I.e.
  interface and structure), tested according to a
  standard process, and integrated into
  requirement-specific simulation tools according
  to standard practices.
• Content developers are free to focus on content
  and to innovate on top of standards unfettered
  by peripheral (I.e. non-content) concerns.
• A Modeling and Simulation Resource Repository
  (MSRR) compliant card catalog (meta-data) of
  undersea weapon models, environments, and threats
  is available to the entire weapons enterprise.

Modeling and simulation is matter-of-fact. Focus
is on putting better ordnance in the hands of the
warfighter -- cheaper and faster.
20
To Achieve the End States

• Technology
• Modeling content (quality, fidelity, critical
  mass)
• Simulation framework(s)
• Repository (card catalog model) web, MSRR
  compliant
• Human-machine interface(s)
• Standards / Formalisms
• Interoperability standards common vocabulary
  (lexicon), grammar (syntax), world view
  (taxonomies, ontology), understanding (semantics)
• Process standards common model development,
  VVA and integration processes
• Documentation standards common templates and
  documentation requirements
• Evolved Culture
• Enterprise-wide cooperation is the rule
  competition is the (sometimes advantageous)
  exception
• Individual technical contributions are encouraged
  and efficiently managed

21
Standards-Based Collaborative Environment
Content
Taxonomies
Interface Standards
Common Frame of Reference
Common
Common Processes
Framework
Ontologies
22
Consortium Organization Overview
Executive
Executive
Executive
Executive
Manages standards
Manages standards
Manages standards
Manages standards
Steering Group
Steering Group
Steering Group
Steering Group
Configuration
Configuration
Configuration
Configuration
Control Board
Control Board
Control Board
Control Board
PROCESS IPT
PROCESS IPT
PROCESS IPT
PROCESS IPT
Systems
Systems
Systems
Systems
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Group
Group
Group
Group
FRAMEWORK
FRAMEWORK
FRAMEWORK
FRAMEWORK
IPT
IPT
IPT
IPT
THIS IS LARGELY A SOCIAL ENGINEERING CHALLENGE!
TECHNICAL
TECHNICAL
TECHNICAL
TECHNICAL
DESIGN IPT
DESIGN IPT
DESIGN IPT
DESIGN IPT
23

• The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
• But I have promises to keep,
• And miles to go before I sleep,
• And miles to go before I sleep.
• From Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening by
  Robert Frost

24
Naval Transformation