Common Scenario Generation for Army Simulation and C4I Systems

1
Common Scenario Generation for Army Simulation
and C4I Systems
Simulation Enhanced

• Authors
• Ron Sprinkle
• The AEgis Technologies Group
• William Krondak
• TRADOC Analysis Center
• Deborah Heystek
• The AEgis Technologies Group
• Steven Lovelady
• The AEgis Technologies Group
• Presented by
• Susan Solick
• TRADOC Analysis Center

SENSE
PLAN
ENGAGE
Execution Agility
2
Purpose and Agenda
Purpose To describe the need for Common
Scenario Generation, a possible
approach to building such scenarios, and
actions to take to enable
the effort.

• Introduction
• The Problem
• Background (SIMCI)
• The need for Common Scenario Generation
• The Framework
• Mission and means
• The elements
• Data
• Language
• Process
• Implementation
• Features and benefits
• The Way Ahead
• Conclusions and Recommendations

Agenda
3
Introduction
Army (through SIMCI OIPT) wants simulations to
support C4ISR systems through integration of
simulation infrastructure into the Common
Operating Environment (COE) software
architecture. Scenarios are needed to enable
simulations to support C4ISR across the various
domains of Research Development and Acquisition
(RDA), Advanced Concepts and Requirements (ACR),
and Training, Exercises, and Military Operations
(TEMO). Despite challenges, opportunities exist
for savings in manpower, costs, and time by
building reusable common scenarios.
Scenario A description of the area, environment,
means, objectives, and events during a specific
time frame related to specific events of
interest. Scenarios may contain one or more
Courses of Action (COA)
4
The Problem
Physical Models
DII COE
DII COE
Behavior
RTI
CMP
Object DB
JCDB
MAP DB
Terrain DB
C4I System
Simulation

• Stovepipe development (domain specific)
• Resource intensive
• Interoperability (real vs. simulated)
• Tower of Babel (different languages)
• Error Introduction (manual processes)
• Fidelity (different levels)

5
Background

• SIMCI Approach to Interoperability includes three
  objectives
• Provide seamless interoperability between MS and
  C4ISR systems
• Align MS and C4ISR standards, architectures, and
  common C4ISR components
• ID requirements for simulations and C4ISR to
  support interoperability
• DUSA-OR initiative on C3 Driver led to
  recognition of opportunities for common scenario
  generation.
• SIMCI sponsored a Scenario Generation Value
  Methodology Workshop in Aug 2002. Workshop
  addressed following aspects
• Requirements
• Process
• Data
• Language
• Management

6
SIMCI -The House of Interoperability
MS
Interoperability of Legacy and Future Systems
C4I
Shared Solutions
A. Processes For Alignment
E. Reusable Component Interfaces
D. Common Data/Object Models
C. Common Standards
B. Architecture Alignment
7
Need for Common Scenario Generation

• Improve scenario content and credibility
• authoritative data
• subject matter expertise
• Decrease total scenario production time and cost
• reduce time to build domain-specific scenarios
• efficient use of scarce resources
• automated scenario generation
• Enable cross domain scenario reusability
• domain users can rapidly leverage best available
  scenario info
• cross-domain use of C4ISR architectures, IERs,
  mission to task decompositions, and message
  threads
• Enhance experimentation and collaboration
• simplify scenario synchronization for MS
  federations
• enhance joint and cross-domain understanding

8
The Framework- Mission and Means
Top-Down Decompositional Framework
4. Military Utility (MoEs)
3. Functional Capabilities (MoPs)
2. Component Condition (basic function)
1. Interaction Conditions (TOEL,)
Bottom-Up Analysis, Test Framework
Bottom-up process follows causal (i.e.,
time-forward) behavior
9
Framework Applied to Scenario for Domains
Top-Down Decompositional Framework
4. Military Utility (MoEs)
4. Operations
3. Functional Capabilities (MoPs)
3. Training
2. Component Condition (basic function)
2. Operational Test
1. Developmental Test
1. Interaction Conditions (TOEL,)
Bottom-Up Analysis, Test Framework
10
Scenario Elements - Data

• Data
• Common data to bridge gap between C4ISR and
  MS scenario generation.
• Categories of Data
• Area-Area of Operations
• Environment-Road to War, Weather, infrastructure
• Means- Units, Systems, performance, OPLANS
• Objectives-what is to be done, the mission
• Events-script, TOEL, simulation-generated, or
  real world

Data development, entry, and maintenance must be
a continuing process. Data should be both
man-readable and machine-readable.
11
Scenario Elements - Language

• Language
• Vocabulary must unambiguously specify the
  scenario in terms of the data, interactions, and
  events.
• Current efforts
• Military Scenario Development Language (MSDL)
• Battle Management Language (BML)
• Future Efforts
• Follow-up study to determine scenario language
  needs
• Follow-up study to develop prototype scenario
  generation language to support both C4ISR and MS

Other standards (process, data, tools) depend on
scenario language.
12
Scenario Elements - Process

• Process
• Must build scenarios reusable across domains
• Must fully support C4ISR scenario needs

C4ISR
Operations

• Military SME
• Friendly
• Threat
• Others

• System Architects
• Mission Thread Developers
• TPIO-ABCS
• PEO C3S FIO
• Others

Mod Sim
User
Scenario entities must collaborate in
real-time or near real-time to leverage data and
language capabilities

• TEMO, ACR, RDA
• Trainees (UUT)
• SUT
• Decision Makers
• EA for Development
• Customers of Scenario Products

• C3 Test Driver
• Software Developers
• Users/Wargamers
• Analysts
• Tech Data Provider

C4ISR
MS Community
Operations
13
Collaboration in the SG Process
14
Implementation Collaboration Automation
Notional Scenario Generation Process
Scenario Application
Data Development
Compress

• Publish

• Parse Scenarios
• ID Relationships
• Scenario DBs
• Human Readable

• Machine readable

• Human readable

15
Features and Benefits

• Features
• Increased automation
• Increased collaboration
• Shared ownership of scenario among stakeholders
• Benefits
• Improved quality of scenario content
• Accuracy and comprehensiveness
• Improved compatibility
• Useability across domains sim/stim
• Decreased production time
• More efficient use of resources
• Expeditious delivery of scenario executable
  mission threads
• Early identification of C4I architecture
  requirement

16
The Way Ahead

• Advocate the concept of the SG Collaborative
  Process in order to generate broad community
  support for implementation
• Identify possible venues that facilitate
  collaboration both virtually and physically (i.e.
  SG Collaborative Virtual Workspace)
• Work with the various domains to develop SG
  Automation Tool(s) Requirements Document(s) that
  contribute(s) to the SG Collaborative Process
• Conceptualize/Design the SG Collaborative Virtual
  Workspace
• Develop SG Collaborative Virtual Workspace Design
  Specification documentation
• Develop and implement standards for application
  program interfaces (API) for use with C4I and
  other simulation objects across domains

17
Conclusions and Recommendations

• Conclusions
• Great potential for benefits from cross-domain
  common scenarios
• Great potential for developing and implementing
  common scenario generation tools that encompass
  data, scenario language, collaborative
  workspaces, and automated scenario development.
• Recommendations
• For SIMCI and Scenario Generation Community
• Establish Army-wide Scenario Generation Working
  Group
• Establish Collaborative Scenario Development
  Environment
• Continue work on Scenario Generation language
  requirements
• Evaluate prototype Battle Management Languages
• Support common database efforts (CTSF at Fort
  Hood)
• Use Mission and Means framework to link
  components to mission success
• For SISO (for C4ISR track)
• Standardize Software Component APIs of
  simulation-enhanced C4I Systems
• Leverage API Standards for use with external sims
  supporting C4I systems

18
Acknowledgements

• Our Reviewers
• Mr. Francis Carr
• Mr. John Stawasz
• Our Sponsors
• SIMCI
• PEO-STRI
• TRAC

19
POCs
For additional information, contact
Deborah Heystek AEgis Technologies
Group dheystek_at_aegistg.com Phone [phone]
ext. 26 FAX [phone]
Steve Lovelady AEgis Technologies
Group slovelady_at_aegistg.com Phone [phone]
Ron Sprinkle AEgis Technologies
Group rsprinkle_at_aegistg.com Phone [phone]
William Krondak TRADOC Analysis
Center William.Krondak_at_us.army.mil Phone
[phone]