A Method for Analysing Command and Control Systems 1

A Method for Analysing Command and Control Systems 1 Stein Malerud, MSc Senior Scientist Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) N-2007 Kjeller, Norway email: Stein.Malerud@ffi.no Else Helene Feet, MSc Senior Scientist Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) N-2007 Kjeller, Norway email: Else.Helene:Feet@ffi.no Ulf Thorsen, MSc Scientist Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) N-2007 Kjeller, Norway email: Ulf.Thorsen@ffi.no Abstract This paper presents a method for determining the cost effectiveness of Command and Control (C2) systems. An important feature of this method is that it allows for an assessment of the military operational effectiveness of each C2 system alternative addressed. The idea is to compare the sequence of decisions produced by the C2 system alternatives to the sequence of decisions produced by an ideal C2 system. A common problem when analysing C2 systems is to relate different measures of merit. A procedure coping with this problem is described. The method is applied in an analysis addressing the development of a future C2 system for the Royal Norwegian Navy (RNoN). The objective of this analysis is to recommend a cost effective C2 system for naval operations. 1. Introduction The method outlined in this paper is based on an analytical technique enabling a quantitative approach to the cost effectiveness of C2 systems. The aim of the method is to rank different C2 system alternatives due to their cost effectiveness. Several problems must be solved before utilising the method. One common problem is to define adequate measures of merits that are capable to reveal differences in effectiveness between C2 system alternatives. Another problem is to link the performance of sub systems within the C2 systems to the effectiveness of C2 systems and further, effectiveness of C2 systems to military operational effectiveness. It is of great importance that the method manages to reveal operational consequences of the different C2 system alternatives, because we consider that the only way to determine if one alternative is better than another is to demonstrate that it contributes 1 Published in proceedings of the 1998 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, 29/6 1/7, 1998 Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 1

most to increase the overall operational effectiveness. A procedure for comparing the effectiveness of alternative C2 systems to the effectiveness of an ideal C2 system is developed to solve the problems stated above. The effectiveness of C2 system alternatives is obtained through simulations while the ideal effectiveness is obtained through war games and scenario discussions involving. senior naval officers. To reach the goal of assessing military operational effectiveness of C2 system alternatives the sequence of decisions originating from simulations of C2 systems is compared to an ideal sequence of decisions originating from war games and scenario discussions. New operational concepts and doctrines are developed by the Norwegian Defence to meet future challenges characterised by an increased focus on low level conflicts, crisis management and international operations. Modern operational concepts rely on principles such as indirect approach and manoeuvre warfare. These principles combined with an increased focus on joint operations, new technology and new effective weapon systems demand an adaptable and reliable C2 system exhibiting properties such as: Speed, accessibility and situation awareness. The Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) is involved in several projects addressing C2 issues. Last year a project addressing the C2 system of the Norwegian Army was successfully completed Berg & Bergene, 1997. Currently, two FFIprojects are involved in analyses related to C2 systems. One is addressing C2 problems at a joint level Bergene, 1998 and another is addressing the C2 system for the Royal Norwegian Navy (RNoN). The objective of the second project is to give RNoN advice regarding development of a cost effective naval C2 system. The project is currently in its initial phase, and the method presented in this paper is still under development. 2. Definitions The definitions used in this paper are partly based on the work of NATO Panel 7,1994 and partly on reference AAP-6(U),1995. C2 concept: A set of characteristics of a C2 system describing how it reaches its objective. C2 structure: An assembly of personnel, organisation, procedures, equipment and facilities arranged to meet a given objective, and within fixed economical limits. C2 system: An assembly of personnel, organisation, procedures, equipment and facilities organised to accomplish C2 related functions. A C2 system comprises three main components: C2 tasks, C2 functions and a C2 structure. 3. Analytical framework The main steps of the analytical framework are illustrated in figure 1. The first step involves development of C2 concepts and C2 systems following a top-down approach. The C2 system description is based upon the C2 concept and tasks related to command and control of naval operations. The tasks are accomplished by performing functions demanding resources like personnel and technical equipment. Scenarios play an important role in the effectiveness analysis. In this context, a scenario is a probable course of events arising during execution of a certain mission. Scenarios used in this analysis should cover tasks related to different conflict levels spanning from peace to conventional war. 2

Naval tasks Scenarios war games & scenario discussions C2 concept C2 system Formal model Simulation model Capacities and limitations of the C2 system Performance of an ideal C2 system Cost calculations of the C2 structure Effectiveness of the C2 systems Cost effectiveness evaluation Operational effectiveness Figure 1. Overview of the analytical framework utilised in the cost effectiveness analysis. On the basis of the system description and the scenarios a formal model of the C2 system is developed. This model is further implemented as a simulation model to allow calculations of effectiveness of different C2 system alternatives. Input to this simulation model is a course of events generated by a scenario. These events initiate C2 related tasks that the C2 system must accomplish. Effectiveness of a C2 system is related to how well the system accomplish these tasks and it is measured by certain measures of merits. Through scenario discussions and war games an ideal course of events comprising an ideal sequence of decisions is deduced. To assess the effectiveness of different C2 system alternatives capacities and limitations of C2 systems are calculated through simulations and compared to the performance of an ideal C2 system. Operational consequences are then deduced by comparing the real sequence of decisions arising from simulations to the ideal sequence of decisions. To enable cost effectiveness evaluations it remains to calculate the cost of the system alternatives. The technique applied is based on a Life Cycle Cost (LCC) method. The costs are related to the C2 structure constituting one of the building blocks of the C2 system. By combining costs and effectiveness the system alternatives can be evaluated and arranged. 4. Development of C2 concepts and C2 systems The first step in the analytical framework described above concerns development of alternative C2 concepts and C2 systems. However, before starting the process of developing new C2 concepts and systems it is necessary to define a reference concept and reference system, which is based upon today s and planned C2 system in the Navy. Beside 3

being references this concept and system descriptions act as templates for description of concept and system alternatives developed during the analysis. Situation analysis Decision preparation Decision Organising Order preparation Execution Evaluation Mission/order Figure 2. Sketch of the C2 process from an order is issued to execution of the mission and evaluation of the outcome. An important function performed in this process is to monitor the operations. The feedback loop represents the possibility to impose changes in the way operations are performed. According to the definition a C2 concept comprises important characteristics of a C2 system. Examples of characteristics in a C2 concept are: use of mission oriented tactics, emphasize intuitive or analytical planning and decision making, emphasize push or pull of information in the information gathering process and emphasize network or linear based communication systems. Different concept alternatives are developed by weighting these characteristics in different ways. To ensure that the C2 concepts developed are adapted to the naval operational concept a top down approach is applied. The starting point of this approach is the naval tasks. The operational concept is closely associated with the tasks and guides the design of the naval organization and structure and further to the C2 concept and C2 system. The C2 system development process involves defining sets of C2 related tasks and functions. The functions are related to fundamental processes in the C2 system such as decision processes and surveillance processes. These process models are generic and can be adapted to different levels in the organization/structure. Figure 2 gives an overview of the C2 processes model, which is initiated by a mission or an order. A C2 process comprises C2 tasks that must be accomplished in order to execute a mission. The tasks are accomplished by performing functions demanding resources like personnel and technical equipment. The systems are described by allocating tasks, functions, personnel and technical equipment to the elements building the organization. The allocation is guided by C2 concepts indicating when, where and how the functions should be performed. Thus, changing the C2 concept impose changes in the C2 system and in this way C2 system alternatives are developed. 5. Scenarios Scenarios are utilised in two different ways. First, as a basis for discussions with naval officers and second as an input to effectiveness analysis. The scenarios cover a wide range of operations from peace-time operations to antiinvasion operations. Examples of such scenarios are: Coast Guard Operations 4

Surveillance of Oil and Natural Gas Installations Participation in International Operations Protection of Coastal Sea-Lines of Communication at times of tension Anti - invasion operations A particularly important point in the cost effectiveness method is to compare the performance of the C2 system alternatives to the performance of an ideal C2 system having features such as: (1) Communication works perfectly; (2) involved personnel have access to all necessary competence and are available at all times; (3) requests to higher levels are not queued, but are processed immediately; (4) necessary decision support systems are available; (5) continuous information of air, surface and sub-surface is available and; (6) no C2 warfare is effective against own forces. Given these features war games and scenario discussions are carried out to determine the performance of an ideal C2 system and to deduce an ideal sequence of decisions, which provides the basis for assessing the contribution of C2 systems to operational effectiveness. Another area of application for scenarios is as input to simulation models. Scenarios are a useful way of describing the environment to a system. In simulations scenarios are utilised to generate courses of events that result in C2 related tasks that C2 systems must solve. The effectiveness of C2 systems is related to how well they manage to accomplish C2 related tasks and functions. 6. Effectiveness analysis To calculate the effectiveness of C2 systems it is necessary to establish a formal model of the system. The basis for the model development is the reference C2 system description and a set of measures of merit. These measures of merit are defined before the formal model is developed, because they govern the input and output of the model. The model description is based on an object oriented modelling technique involving development of an object model, a dynamic model and functional model Rumbaugh et al., 1991. To quantify the effectiveness of alternative C2 systems a simulation model is developed based upon the formal model of the reference C2 system. Calculated C2 system performance is compared to an ideal system performance and the effectiveness is deduced. 6.1 Measures of merit To facilitate development of the C2 model and to ensure that the model is adequate for this problem it must be based on a set of measures of merit. These measures should enable calculation of C2 system effectiveness, which is one of the main objectives in this cost effectiveness approach. The starting point is to deduce important properties of the system following the top - down approach described above. In reference Bjorklund,1995 and NATO Panel 7,1994 sets of desired system properties are defined. However, due to the top - down approach starting with an operational concept focusing on manoeuvre warfare and indirect operations, we have deduced three main system properties that a modern adaptable C2 system should exhibit. These are: Speed, accessibility and situation awareness. Based upon these properties measures of effectiveness are deduced in order to quantify to what extent the C2 systems analyzed displays these properties. Situation awareness is probably the most important property and represents the decision maker s understanding of the situation. Unfortunately it is also the most difficult property to measure, because it is difficult to assess to what extent a certain C2 system contributes to increase the decision maker s situation awareness. However, to make situation awareness possible it is necessary that decision makers are provided with sufficient and timely information. Examples of measures are: 5

timeliness of situation update and timeliness of order distribution, see figure 3 and Cothier & Lewis, 1986. During the analysis a hierarchy of measures is established. The hierarchy span three levels: the technical level, the C2 level and the operational level. The definitions of measures stated below originates from Bjorklund,1995 and NATO Panel 7,1994. Measures of performance (MOP): A measure of the performance of subsystems within the C2 system (technical level). The MOPs are scenario independent. Measures of effectiveness (MOE): A measure of how a C2 system performs one or more of its functions within an operational environment (C2 level). MOE measures a C2 system s effect on other entities on the battlefield and are scenario dependent. Measures of force effectiveness (MOFE): A measure of the degree of mission success (operational level). MOFEs are scenario dependent MOFE (Operational consequences) Number of transport ships arriving at the port of disembarkation Time of arrival Number of enemy ships sunk Properties Speed: Accessibility Situation awareness MOP bit rates transmission times sensor coverage detection probabilities mean time between failure mean time to repair Military operational level MOE time to plan time to issue order reaction time availability timeliness of situation update timeliness of order distr. C2 level Technical system level Figure 3. Examples of measures of merits at the technical system level, at the C2 level and at the military operational level. The MOEs presented are connected to desired C2 system properties. Figure 3 shows the required system properties and the corresponding MOEs. In addition examples of MOPs and MOFEs are presented. One major challenge is to link MOPs to the MOEs and further MOEs to MOFEs. In order to deal with this problem it is important that the MOEs are defined before the MOPs. By performing initial sensitivity analysis of the reference C2 system it is possible to determine which parts of the system (subsystems) that contribute most to increase the overall effectiveness. The performance of these subsystems are measured by MOPs. Thus, this procedure ensures that MOPs deduced have direct impact on the MOEs. The procedure also 6

makes possible identification of requirements to the sub-systems. 6.2 Modelling C2 systems The measures of merit defined and the reference C2 system description provides the basis for development of a formal model of the system. The formal model is developed by applying an object - oriented modeling technique. First, an object model is developed capturing the static structure of the C2 system which include the objects of the system, relationships between the objects and attributes and operations that characterize each class of objects. Second, a dynamic model is constructed consisting of state diagrams specifying when functions/processes in the system are executed and finally, a functional model is developed specifying the functions/processes carried out in the system. The functional model consists of flow diagrams describing the flow of information between functions and objects. The first step in the model construction process is to develop a model that is a simple representation of the reference C2 system. Only the most significant elements of the system is taken into account and represented as objects in an object model. Functions performed within the system are distributed to the objects enabling the objects to perform services. Within the objects functions are connected to C2 processes such as decision making and surveillance production (figure 2). Personnel, information systems and communication equipment are distributed to the objects enabling functions to be performed. The information exchange (flow of information) between functions and objects are described by flow diagrams. Starting with this simple representation of the system the accuracy and complexity of the model are increased step by step until the model comprises enough data to quantify the measures of effectiveness in such way that it is possible to distinguish between C2 system alternatives. However, the complexity should be as low as possible for the model to possess properties such as transparency and simplicity. Another important issue in the modeling process is the ability of the model to be adapted to different C2 system alternatives. In order to make the modeling process manageable a hierarchy of models is established. The levels in the hierarchy equal the levels of the measures of merit. Examples of models at the technical level are: sensor models and communication models, that measure transmission times, sensor coverage and detection probabilities (MOP). The next level is the C2 level. Examples of models at this level are: C2 models comprising the command structure and organization, decision makers, picture compilations and decision processes. Examples of measures at this level are: the C2 systems ability to produce plans and decisions timely and with high quality. These measures relies on the system s ability to provide the decision maker with timely and sufficient information enabling adequate decision making. The highest level in the hierarchy is the operational level. Examples of models at this level are various combat simulation models. Applying these models in the analysis makes it possible to determine contributions of the C2 system to the operational effectiveness. 6.3 Effectiveness calculations To quantify the MOEs a discrete event simulation model is implemented on the basis of the formal model of the C2 system. Parameters 7

in the simulation model are MOPs representing the performance of subsystems within the C2 system and a scenario describing tasks to be performed during accomplishment of a mission. Simulations are performed to quantify the responses of the C2 systems to the course of events generated by the scenarios. Events occurring during execution of a mission trigger off processes and generate load on the C2 system. In this way scenarios represent the environment to the C2 system. The simulation model calculates how well a particular C2 system accomplish C2 related tasks by assigning values to the MOEs. A procedure is developed to determine the effectiveness of each system alternative, see figure 4. The procedure involves comparing the calculated capacities and limitations of each system alternative to the performance of an ideal C2 system. As explained in the scenario chapter the performance of an ideal C2 system is deduced by performing scenario discussion and war games. Scenarios Simulations War games & scenario discussions Capacities and limitations of an actual C2 system C2 system effectiveness Discrepancies Performance of an ideal C2 system Actual sequence of decisions Operational effectiveness Discrepancies Ideal sequence of decisions Figure 4. Depicts the procedure for determining military operational effectiveness of C2 systems. The actual sequence of decisions originating from simulations of C2 systems are compared to the ideal sequence of decisions originating from scenario discussions and war games. Discrepancies may result in changes in the operational effectiveness. 8

By looking at the discrepancies between realistic and ideal performance it is possible to assess to what extent the C2 system under study displays the desired system properties. The figure also reveal the next step in the effectiveness analysis, which involves connecting the C2 system effectiveness to the operational effectiveness (MOFE). Operational consequences of not having an ideal C2 system are deduced by comparing the sequence of decisions produced by the C2 system to an ideal sequence of decisions produced by the ideal C2 system. This approach results in an assessment of the operational effectiveness, which is one of the main objectives of the effectiveness analysis. It is well known that every C2 system working in a realistic environment is influenced by several factors both internal and external that may reduce the performance of the system. Friction, information warfare, uncertainty and sabotage may cause reductions in the speed of the operations as well as the speed of the decision processes, reduce the situation awareness and the accessibility of the system. The influences of these factors on the C2 system effectiveness are addressed in the procedure described above. 7. Cost calculations In order to be able to recommend a cost-effective C2-system, life-cycle cost of the C2 system alternatives has to be calculated. The life-cycle cost is calculated for the system as a whole over a given analysis period. Three major system categories carry costs; personnel, equipment, and facilities. Cost data for these three categories are structured in a database to facilitate life-cycle cost calculations. Each system is divided into units where each unit is specified by its personnel, equipment, and if relevant cost related to facilities. Costs include investment costs, operational cost, and maintenance costs for all three categories. Each unit is also specified by the time it is included into the total C2-system and the point in time it is removed from the system. The costs are then calculated for each unit and aggregated up to yearly costs for each C2 system throughout the analysis period. 8. Cost effectiveness evaluation The goal is to recommend the most cost effective C2 system to the Navy. The cost effectiveness evaluation will include assigning priorities to the different naval tasks. Given these priorities a combination of cost and a weighted number for each system s effectiveness will be used for ranking the system alternatives. The most cost effective system alternative is selected and will form the basis for our recommendation to the Navy. 9. Discussion To reach the objective of the analysis it is necessary to develop a complete analytical framework comprising all steps from defining C2 concepts to determining the most cost effective C2 system. The cost effectiveness method presented in this paper utilise several well known methods, such as; defining measures of merits, cost calculations and calculation of C2 system effectiveness. However, the main challenge is to connect C2 system effectiveness to the operational effectiveness and thereby establish a complete analytical method for determining the cost effectiveness of C2 systems. To our knowledge there is not much work published addressing this problem. The most novel part of the method presented is the procedure connecting the MOEs to the MOFEs, which results in an assessment of the operational effectiveness. This procedure relies on our ability to determine an ideal C2 system with an ideal sequence of decisions. The first scenario discussion for determining the ideal C2 system is already performed. 9

The project is still in its starting phase and the method is not yet utilised on a real C2 system. 10. Conclusions In this paper a method for determining the cost effectiveness of C2 systems is presented. The method is utilised to evaluate and rank different C2 system alternatives due to their cost effectiveness. C2 concepts comprise important characteristics of C2 systems. By weighting the characteristics in different ways different C2 concepts are deduced. On the basis of the concepts different C2 system alternatives are developed comprising; tasks, functions and a structure. The method presented relies on a procedure that makes possible an assessment of the operational effectiveness of the C2 system alternatives. In this procedure a real sequence of decisions originating from simulations on the C2 system alternatives are compared to an ideal sequence of decisions originating from scenario discussions and war games. In this way operational consequences of not having an ideal C2 system are revealed and forms the basis for assessing the contribution of the C2 system to the overall operational effectiveness. Proceedings of the Third International C2 Research and Technology Symposium, National Defence University, Washington, D.C., (1997) Bergene, 1998 To be published in this proceeding NATO Panel 7,1994 The impact of C3I on the battlefield, Technical Report, NATO AC/243 (Panel 7) TR/4, 1994 AAP-6(U), 1995 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, Military Agency of Standardisation, January 1995 Rumbaugh et al., 1991 Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, 1991 Bjorklund,1995 The Dollars and Sense of Command and Control, National Defence University Press Washington, DC, 1995 Cothier & Lewis, 1986 Timeliness and Measures of Effectiveness in Command and Control, Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Volume SMC-16, (6), 1986 The method presented also attend to the problem of linking measures of merits on different levels. MOEs and the MOFEs are connected by following the procedure mentioned above and the relations between MOEs and MOPs are ensured by first deducing MOEs following a top - down approach and then second deducing the MOPs on the basis of the MOEs. References [Berg & Bergene, 1997] A Methodology for Analyzing Command and Control Systems in Support of Information Age Challenges. 10