Post on 03-Jan-2016
The Loaded Loop:A Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) Model
of Command and Control (C2) Processesin Combat
by Paul J. Hiniker, Ph.D.
C4I Modeling, Simulation & AssessmentDefense Information Systems Agency
Arlington, VA 22203
Presented at the RAND Modeling of C2 Decision Processes
Workshop July 31, 2001, McLean, VA
• Problem: What are the causal effects of C4ISR on combat outcomes? (PBD 070C)
• Focus: C2 decision-making
• Aim: JWARS Simulation
Impact of C4ISR on Combat Outcome: Overview
A Complex Adaptive System/Lanchester Model (Dr. Hiniker)hinikerp@ncr.disa.military, 7/31/01
Approach: Command Center as Complex Adaptive System (CAS) with Schema
Predictions Lens
Descriptions Lens
Schema
Prescriptions Lens
Ground Truth
COP Schema Description
Perception
Command Center Schema and Congruity of Situation Assessment
Cognitive Domain
InformationalDomain
PhysicalDomain
Weaponry and Lanchester Force Equations
In combat modeling, C2 factors, such as use of shared COP schema, are viewed as multipliers of the force coefficients, Cf and Ce, in Lanchester equations: dF/dt = -CeE and (1) Lanchester Force Equations dE/dt = -CfF, where F = friendly (Blue) force size and Cf = friendly kills/sec/unit. E = enemy (Red) force size and Ce = enemy kills/sec/unit
Combat Decision Loop
Xf = Df
Blue Quality Decision Loop Speed
1.0
(Utiles/minute)
Red LossesTotal Losses
(%)
C2 Decision-Making and the OODA Loop:
Quality Decision Loop Speed (Df) on Battlefield Exchange Ratio (Xf)
Df
Xf
Df = 100(C x R)/(tC+ tR+ tA+ tB) -- (2) Quality Decision Loop Equation
R = Reliability of COA Forecast , tR from Wargame Simulation Schema Prescription
C = Situation Awareness, tC
from COP Schema Description
tB = Time to FeedbacktA = Action Time
C2 Combat Decision Superiority Derivation from Lanchester Equations
DSf = (Cf x Rf) tDe / (Ce x Re) tDf where
tD = t C + t R + tA + tB
Decision Information Superiority
DISf = Cf – Ce (3.2)
Congruity of Red View
1.0
Congruity of Blue View
Cf
DISf
(%)
Ce(%)
Corollaries
• Requires active sensors and communications for this critical information
•Suggests a focused strategy for Info Ops
Narrower Decision Information Superiority
Results from Three Controlled Experiments with Shared COP Prototypes, 1990-1991
Scenario: Air/Sea battle set in Persian Gulf using RESA Wargame Simulator Exp Treatment: All parties share big and little pictures fed by national and organic sensors. Control Treatment: Big picture from national sensors at CJTF. Little pictures from organic sensors at ship captains. Constant weaponry with experimentals and controls. 1990 COP Prototype improved situation assessment accuracy (Cf from commander’s sketch)
improved shared awareness (Ns from opinion reports)
improved synchronization of action (TA, +10% speed)
1991 COP Prototypes improved battlefield exchange ratio (Xf, +25%)
While controlling for weaponry, use of shared COP schema causes improved combat effectiveness (cf. IS Value Chain)
Df = log P
for 0 P
Pace of Battle (P)
(Workload)
Quality Decision Loop Speed (Df)
Impact of Pace of Battle (P) on Quality Decision Loop Speed (Df)
(Performance)
(Yerkes-Dodson Law)
Results from Controlled Experiment on Bounded Rationality with Variable Threats, 1987
Scenario: Identification of first arriving air threat from several on tactical air defense display. Exp Treatment: 4 simultaneous threats at 12 different arrival speeds. Control Treatment: 7 simultaneous threats at 12 different arrival speeds. Finding: For both threat conditions, subjects performance followed Yerkes-Dodson growth curve which peaked at T* = 2.2 seconds/threat Human decision-making performance is limited by number and speed of decision elements.
The Looming C2 Cliff
Quality Decision Loop Speed (Df) and Pace of Battle (P) on Battlefield Exchange Ration (Xf)
Df
Xf
log P
D1
D2 D3NS
NP
NS
NP
NS
NP
Effective Quality Decision Loop Speed (Ds) for Nested Command Centers Sharing COP Schema
Ds = ( d (Ns Np ) ) (6.0) Nested Command Centers Equation
NS = Shared Awareness
NP = Shared Plans
Scenario Exp Treatment Comparison Group
Findings
1997 Air Force Exercise
JTIDS Equipped Aircraft
No JTIDS on Aircraft
• 250% improvement in kill ratios for 12,000 sorties
1998 Navy Fleet Battle Experiment
Shared COP between Army Helicopters, Air Force AC 130s, and Navy Units
No Shared COP • Improved combat power and faster mission accomplishment, TA
improved 50%.
1998 Army Task Force XXI Exercise
Shared tactical Internet
No tactical Internet
• Improved combat power and 10 fold increase in lethality
Results from Three Military Exercises with Shared “COP” Schema, 1997-1998
Even with similar weaponry, sharing a more complete picture of the battlespace is positively correlated with improved combat effectiveness
Needed Results from Controlled Experiment with Shared Planning
* Controlled experimentation affords the only method for unequivocal testing of causal hypotheses
Scenario: Air/Sea battle set in Persian Gulf with CJTF on carrier and two ship captains. Exp Treatment: CJTF and both ship captains comprise a CAS sharing COP schema fed by organic sensors and overhead surveillance and reconnaissance and with shared CAP white board for collaborative planning. Control Treatment: Big picture from national sensors at CJTF. Little picture from organic sensors at ship captains. Phone communications. Constant weaponry with experimentals and controls. Expected Results: Higher Df and higher Xf in experimental condition; much
higher Df and Xf with self organization upon withdrawing CJTF from operation.