Working Group 1

1
Working Group 1
2
Tasks

• Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the
  NCW/NEC frameworks
• Identify areas of the frameworks that need
  additional development
• What is the purpose of the framework
• What does and doesnt it do
• Where is further development required?
• Choose two or three problem areas and/or
  significant metrics issues, clarify and propose
  solutions.
• EBO-test fitness for purpose
• Agility of effectiveness?
• High-level support and buy-in
• Social Aspects
• Future Directions

3
General Observations

• UK
• framework currently captures capabilities and
  process not measures
• desire to focus on the near term
• US Framework
• currently expressed as measures not concepts
• needs a complementary architectural perspective
• multiple perspectives would be useful for
  different audiences
• appears to have been focused on the long term

4
What is the Purpose and Scope of the Framework?

• There are a number of different audiences and
  potential uses for the Framework.
• Audiences
• Military, Scientists, Industry, Politicians,
• Applications
• Operations
• Own force Decision-Making assessment
• Force selection
• Effects based operations (Intelligence)
• Acquisitions
• Assess the tenets of NCW
• Education
• A tool not an endpoint

5
Perceived Current Focus

• NCW, specifically the network information flows
  and decision making.
• Appears to be based on attrition-based warfare.
• The different uses may require extension of the
  framework
• political, bureaucratic, fiscal, etc.

6
What it Does

• Measure training
• Measure progress
• Measure experiments
• Forces one to think about what really matters
• MCPs are the broad construct
• Used to show indicators
• To make comparisons of each entity
• Shows trade-offs between systems
• Can be used to rate capability
• Represents a new way of thinking

7
What it Doesnt Do

• Currently, enables comparisons of blocks between
  levels, does not tell you how to move to
  different levels

8
Problem Areas

• Effectiveness and Agility.
• The Operating Environment (portrayal/ dimensions)
  
• EBO. Fitness for purpose.
• How do the metrics translate to the political
  arena?
• Getting high level support and buy-in
• Social Aspects
• Approach to ID capability gaps
• How to calibrate the output?
• Needs proper instruction on use.
• How do you collect the information?

9
Effectiveness/ Agility Clumped Together

• Issues
• Agility is a different dimension to the other
  boxes. It is needed at multiple levels in the
  framework, and should be treated consistently. It
  is either at the top level or not. There is
  agility of the network/systems/organization and
  of the whole force.
• Effectiveness is a measure, agility is a
  capability (that needs to be measured).
• Should it be embedded or on the top level?
• How to measure across force and info. areas?
• Suggestion
• Add other boxes for agility

10
The Operating Environment

• Issues
• Operating environment needs to be relocated.
• Operating environments effect everything.
• There is already a lot of work on scenarios (eg
  NATO C2 Assessment).
• Recommendation
• Separate out the operating environment
• This group should not reconsider descriptions of
  scenarios.

11
Social Aspects

• Issues
• To add value, must emphasize the social aspects-
  taking it beyond the simple questions asked.
• Performance any aspect of the network is affected
  by the social domain and vice versa.
• Including the social dynamics allows for richer
  thinking.
• Recommendation
• Social Dimension should be a top level box
• Social Aspects should be explicitly represented
  at the top of the framework.

12
Social Aspects - Miscellaneous

• Issues
• Degree of decision/plan synchronization needs to
  be changed.
• It implies command by plan.
• Synchronization can be too easily confused with
  synchronous. The idea of self-synchronization was
  important a couple of years ago, but should not
  be at this level of the framework now.
• Recommendation
• Degree of decision making and behavioral
  coherence.
• (How does this relate to Appropriateness in
  Decision Quality? - eg coherence with command
  intent.)

13
NCW Framework/ NEC Causal Map of NEC Themes
Comparison
Causal map of NEC themes
Flexible
Working
Resilient
Inclusive Flexible
Agile Mission
Information
Acquisition
Groups
Infrastructure
Shared
Awareness
Full
Information
Availability
Synchronised
Effects
Fully Networked
Effects Based
Support
Planning
Information
Policy
C2
Effects
infrastructure

Shared Awareness
Full Information Availability
Synchronised Effects
14
NCO (?) Conceptual Framework (Proposed)
Human Competencies
Force
Information
C2
Value Added
Effectors
Services
Sources
Social Dynamics
Degree of Networking
Quality of Organic
Agility of Network
Information
Degree of Information Share-ability
Agile Working
Degree of Shared Information
Quality of Individual Information
(Roles, Interactions, Sensemaking,
Decisionmaking, Learning)
Quality
Degree of Shared Sensemaking
Quality of Individual Sensemaking
of
Shared Awareness
Awareness
Inter-
Agile Mission Groups
Understanding
Shared Understanding
actions
Quality of Collaborative Decisions
Quality of Individual Decisions
Operating Environment
Degree of Decisionmaking Behavioral Coherence
Physical Domain
Degree of Actions/ Entities Synchronized
Information Domain
Cognitive Domain
Degree of Effectiveness
Social Domain
Proposed Change/Addn
abc
Various Feedback Loops
15
EBO-Test Fitness For Purpose

• This issue was considered too large to examine in
  this workshop.
• Recommendation
• Apply the framework to EBO case studies
• Look at policy
• Look at red and blue
• PPBS (Program Planning Budget System) process

16
Getting High Level Support and Buy-in

• Empirical Based Argument
• Experimental campaign provides empirical data
  targeted toward decision-makers
• Better packaging
• Communicate and educate at different levels
• Pick models, experiments, and demonstrations with
  high visibility (that are likely to result in
  success).
• Change the name?

17
Metric Usability

• Better articulation
• Case studies of historical battles to apply
  current decision making, and C2 optimization
• Can be an analytic tool to be taught in schools
• If described in operational terms, can help in
  marketing
• Way of thinking with indicators
• Red team architecture
• Input to analysis that will assist in acquisition
  investment decisionmaking
• What is red decision making
• Shaping red information environment
• Blue flag exercises
• Only of value if you understand what you are
  doing
• what are we trying to achieve and what is the
  value?

18
Metric Recommendations

• Case studies take into account not just context
  but also application
• Build a computer game to also view not only own
  capabilities but also the capabilities of the
  advisary
• Lots of groups that could use something like this
  now

19
Comparisons of Q of Info. Metrics

• How does individual information, differ from
  Shared info.?
• Social side should be accurately represented in
  the model- should be brought out

20
Way ahead (1)

• Executive Council needed
• Opportune time co-ordinate activities
• TTCP Group (e.g JSA to C3I Group) may be the
  vehicle
• engender common approaches (JSA/AG12, MAR/AG1)
• start to roll-out framework out to real world
  activities and arenas (e.g Blue Flag, C2
  exercise)
• Invite feedback
• Encourage prototype roll-out to solicit feedback
  and testing
• Accept its a change
• Establish common reference pointBook Tour
  /Story line

21
Way ahead (2)

• New Activities
• Encourage use within the Capability
  Audit/Capability Gap/Assessment process
• Apply to todays and yesterdays experience and
  then help to formulate tomorrows business
  processes
• Must tailor to the situation/context
• Further effort needed to understand the
  inter-relationships
• Also need to consider feedback loop(s)

22
Way ahead (3)

• Need to learn from the decision making process
• Institutional Change is needed
• how do we capture into our educational
  institutions?
• need to create this inter-working between
  acadamies
• Label the framework NCO