CPN’0410/10/2004 1 Formal Specification and State Space Analysis of an Operational Planning...

1CPN’0410/10/2004

Formal Specification andState Space Analysis of an

Operational Planning Process

Brice Mitchell,

Lars M. Kristensen, and Lin Zhang

2CPN’0410/10/2004

Presentation Outline

• Background• Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP)• Modelling Approach• Overview of the CPN Model• Simulation• State Space Analysis• Summary• Discussion

Background JMAP Approach CPN Model SimulationState Space

AnalysisSummaryOutline Discussion

3CPN’0410/10/2004

Background

• Authors• Brice Mitchell

• Command and Control Division• Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO)• Edinburgh, South Australia, AUSTRALIA

• Lars M. Kristensen• Department of Computer Science• University of Aarhus• Aarhus, DENMARK

• Lin Zhang• Command and Control Division• Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO)• Edinburgh, South Australia, AUSTRALIA



4CPN’0410/10/2004

Background

• Motivation• Deployable Joint Force Headquarters (DJFHQ)

• Australian Defence Force

• Deployable - Offshore military operations (East Timor 1999)

• Joint - Army, Navy, and Air Force

• Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP)• Operational Planning Process

• Used to develop plans for military operations

• DJFHQ uses the JMAP• JMAP Doctrine

• Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)



5CPN’0410/10/2004


AnalysisSummaryOutline

Background

• Problem• The JMAP at DJFHQ is not formally or completely

described by documentation

• Solution• Formal representation of the DJFHQ planning process

using timed hierarchical CP-nets and Design/CPN

• Validation and initial analysis using simulation

• Further analysis using state space methods

Discussion

6CPN’0410/10/2004



Background

• Benefits• Education of new staff

• Experimentation of different variations of the process

• Ability to monitor the process during exercises and operations

• Greater understanding of the planning process

• Identification of areas in the process for improvement

• Framework to model any type of process, not necessarily an operational planning process

Discussion

7CPN’0410/10/2004

Background

• Why CP-nets?• Ability to model complex discrete event systems which are have

distributed and concurrent activities

• Expertise in modelling and analysis through earlier projects in operational planning

• Good graphical representation

• Hierarchical structure

• Ability to execute models

• Mathematically rigorous

• Analysis capabilities

• Supporting computer tools• Design/CPN

• CPN Tools



8CPN’0410/10/2004

Background

• Related work (Modelling and Analysis of Planning Processes)• L. M. Kristensen, B. Mitchell, L. Zhang, and J. Billington.

Modelling and Initial Analysis of Operational Planning Processes using Coloured Petri nets. In proceedings of Workshop on Formal Methods Applied to Defence Systems, volume 12 in Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, pp. 105-114. Australian Computer Society, 2002.

• B. Mitchell. Formal Specification and Initial Analysis of an Operational Planning Process Using Coloured Petri Nets. Honours Thesis, University of South Australia, Australia, August 2002.

• S. Lumsden, R. Smallwood, B. Mitchell, and L. Zhang. Modelling Operational Level Planning Processes with Coloured Petri Nets. 7th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. 2002.



9CPN’0410/10/2004

Background

• Related work (Sweep Line)• S. Christensen, L.M. Kristensen, and T. Mailund. A Sweep-Line

Method for State Space Exploration. In Proceedings of TACAS'2001, volume 2031 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 450-464. Springer Verlag, 2001

• G. E. Gallasch, L. M. Kristensen, and T. Mailund. The Sweep/CPN Library. Available via http://www.daimi.au.dk/designCPN/libs/sweepcpn/

• G. E. Gallasch, C. Ouyang, J. Billington, and L. M. Kristensen. Experimenting with Progress Mappings for the Sweep-Line Analysis of the Internet Open Trading Protocol. In Proceedings of CPN’04, pp. 19-38. DAIMI PB – 570, October 2004



10CPN’0410/10/2004

Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP)



JIPB

Comd’s guidance

Modified COA’s

STEP 2: STEP 2: COURSE OF ACTION COURSE OF ACTION

DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

STEP 3: STEP 3: COURSE OF ACTION COURSE OF ACTION

ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

STEP 1: STEP 1:

MISSION MISSION

ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

STEP 4: STEP 4: DECISION & DECISION &

EXECUTION EXECUTION

Preliminary scoping

Discussion

11CPN’0410/10/2004

Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP)



Mission Analysis1 Review the Situation2 Analyse Superior Commander’s Intent3 Identify & Analyse Tasks4 Identify & Analyse Freedom of Action5 Identify & Analyse Critical Facts and Assumptions6 Analyse Critical Vulnerabilities & Identify Decisive Events7 Draft Commander’s Guidance8 Prepare & Deliver Brief

COA Development

1 Confirm Centre of Gravity2 Refine Critical Vulnerability Analysis3 Develop Lines of Operation4 Develop the COA Scheme of Manoeuvre5 Test COA Criteria6 Prepare & Deliver Brief

COA Analysis1 Determine the War Game Start State2 Select War Game Method3 Select War Game Record4 Conduct the War Game

Decision & Execution

1 Compare COAs2 Select the COA3 Develop and Issue the Plan4 Execute the plan

Comd’s Guidance

Modified COAs

Broad C

OA

s

Preliminary Scoping

Eff

ects

Discussion

12CPN’0410/10/2004

Modelling Approach



Activity

Discussion

13CPN’0410/10/2004

Modelling Approach



ActivityInputInformation

OutputInformation

Discussion

14CPN’0410/10/2004

Modelling Approach



ActivityInputInformation

PriorActivities

OutputInformation

Discussion

15CPN’0410/10/2004

Modelling Approach



Activity

Required/DesiredStaff

InputInformation

PriorActivities

OutputInformation

{c1,…,cN}

ci = (ni , {si1,…,sim})

Discussion

{d1,…,dM}

16CPN’0410/10/2004

Modelling Approach



ActivityDuration


InputInformation

PriorActivities

OutputInformation

Discussion

17CPN’0410/10/2004

Modelling Approach

• Data Collection• Planning Documentation

• ADFP9 Chapter 8, Joint Planning

• DJFHQ SOP310, The Operational Planning Process

• Data Collection Sheets

• Working with DJFHQ Staff

• Observing Planning Exercises• Vital Vision 2001

• Vital Launch 2002



18CPN’0410/10/2004

Overview of the CPN Model



Discussion

Activity Pages

JMAP Step PagesJMAP Page

Intermediate Pages

19CPN’0410/10/2004




20CPN’0410/10/2004




Activity


InputInformation

PriorActivities

OutputInformation

21CPN’0410/10/2004




22CPN’0410/10/2004

Overview of the CPN ModelJMAP Step Page – Mission Analysis



Activity PagesIntermediate Pages

23CPN’0410/10/2004

Overview of the CPN ModelActivity Page - Draft Comd’s Guidance



24CPN’0410/10/2004





Input Information

PriorActivities

Duration OutputInformation

ActivityName

JPG_Req

JPG_Des

1`Prelim_Guidance++1`Proposed_DEs

1`MA7

1`Proposed_Intent

1`18

Discussion

CommonInscriptions

25CPN’0410/10/2004




StartActivity

StopActivity

…..++1`Prelim_Guidance++

1`Proposed_Des++…..

JPG_Res

JPG_Des

All Staff

1’18

……..++1`Prelim_Guidance++

1`Proposed_Des++……..

…..++…..++

…..

…..++MA6

26CPN’0410/10/2004




StartActivity

StopActivity

…..++…..

……..++…..

…..++…..++

…..

…..++MA6

27CPN’0410/10/2004




StartActivity

StopActivity

All Staff –JPG_Des+JPG_Res

…..++…..++

…..

…..++MA6

JPG_Res+JPG_Des@+286





28CPN’0410/10/2004




StartActivity

StopActivity

All Staff –JPG_Des+JPG_Res

…..++…..++

…..

…..++MA6

JPG_Res+JPG_Des@+286





29CPN’0410/10/2004




StartActivity

StopActivity

…..++…..++

…..

…..++MA6





30CPN’0410/10/2004




StartActivity

StopActivity

All Staff

…..++…..++

…..

…..++MA6++MA7


1`Proposed_Des++1`Proposed_Intent++

…..


1`Proposed_Des++1`Proposed_Intent++

…..

31CPN’0410/10/2004

Simulation

• Simulations were performed to:• Validate the CPN model (interactive simulations)

• Conduct initial analysis (automatic simulations)

• 1 Simulation is 1 possible execution of the CPN model

• Simulation reports were generated to investigate the behaviours of the process

• Reports were used to produce GANTT charts where the execution ended in a desired terminal state

• GANTT Charts show the what activities occur when



32CPN’0410/10/2004

Simulation

• Desired Terminal State• All desired information produced

• All external information available at end

• All staff are returned

• All activities completed

• A plan was produced



33CPN’0410/10/2004

Simulation Desired Terminal State



7

77 77

1 1

41

34CPN’0410/10/2004

Simulation



0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

PS1_1PS1_2PS2PS3

MA1_1MA1_2MA6MA2MA7MA5MA4MA3

MA8_1PS4PS5

MA1_3MA8_2MA8_3MA8_4COAD1COAD3

COAD4_1COAD4_2COAD5COAD2

COAD6_1COAD6_2COAD6_3COAD6_4COAA2COAA3COAA1COAA4DE1

DE2_1DE2_2DE3_1DE3_2DE3_3DE3_4DE3_5

Act

ivit

y

Time

Discussion

35CPN’0410/10/2004

SimulationNo Resource Requirements

• Also investigated the completion time when there were no resource requirements

• Process took 1845 minutes (compare to 2059)• A large number of activities were concurrent• Suggests that a method of improving the process

is to enable concurrent activities through de-conflicting staff requirements



36CPN’0410/10/2004

SimulationNo Resource Requirements



0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

PS1_1PS1_2PS2

MA1_1MA1_2MA2PS3PS4MA3MA4MA5MA6

MA1_3PS5MA7

MA8_1MA8_2MA8_3MA8_4COAD1COAD3COAD2

COAD4_1COAD4_2COAD5

COAD6_1COAD6_2COAD6_3COAD6_4COAA1COAA2COAA3COAA4DE1

DE2_1DE2_2DE3_1DE3_2DE3_3DE3_4DE3_5

Act

ivit

y

Time

Discussion

37CPN’0410/10/2004

State Space Analysis

• Interactive and automatic simulation helped validate the CPN model and provided initial analysis of the planning process

• To extend analysis, the full state space was calculated using Design/CPN:• 14783 nodes

• 21690 arcs

• Generation time: 2 minutes 14 seconds (PIII Linux PC)



38CPN’0410/10/2004


• Boundedness Properties• max/min tokens for each place



Place Upper Bound

Lower Bound

External Information 7 7

Completed Activities 41 0

Input Information 77 0

Output Information 77 0

Planning Completed 1 0

Discussion

39CPN’0410/10/2004


• Liveness• 14 reachable dead states

• All 14 were desired (based on predicate)

• Therefore if the planning process terminates, then it terminates in the desired state

• Dead states 2141 minutes (worst case)

2059 (best case)

• The optimal schedule for the planning process can be obtained by taking any path from the initial state, to a terminate state where the process has terminated at 2059 minutes



40CPN’0410/10/2004


• Completion times• Earliest and latest time for

each activity

• Obtained by traversing the state space using non-standard ML queries



Activity Earliest Latest

MA11 28 28

MA12 28 256

MA13 56 414

MA2 28 157

MA3 65 286

MA4 65 286

MA5 83 286

MA6 65 268

MA7 85 286

MA81 277 323

MA82 350 432

MA83 387 469

MA84 424 506

41CPN’0410/10/2004

State Space Analysis – Sweep Line

• Full state space analysis was feasible in this study• More complex and detailed processes are likely to

cause state space explosion• We applied the sweep line technique to this study• This framework can be used to test variations of

the JMAP and other processes



42CPN’0410/10/2004

State Space Analysis – Sweep Line

• The sweep line technique can be applied to systems which have the formal notion of progress

• Exploiting progress allows “old states” to be deleted and reclaimed in memory “on-the-fly”

• We are able to apply the sweep line to our CPN model as successor states are equal or greater in time



43CPN’0410/10/2004

State Space Analysis –Sweep Line



1

2 3 4

5 6

715

98

13 14 16 17 18 10 11 12

Discussion

Layer 0 (0)

Layer 1 (10)

Fully processed state Unprocessed state 10 Not yet calculated

44CPN’0410/10/2004

State Space Analysis –Sweep Line

• Sweep line method applied to CPN model• Max nodes in memory = 2149

• Generation Time = 2 mins 33 secs (full state space 2 mins 14 secs

• Full State Space applied to CPN model• Max nodes in memory = 14783 (7x more states)

• Generation Time = 2 mins 14 secs (~20 secs quicker)



45CPN’0410/10/2004

Summary

• A CPN model has been developed based on the DJFHQ planning process

• This model has been validated using interactive simulation

• Initial analysis has been conducted using simulation

• Full analysis has been done by using full state space exploration

• Sweep line methods have been applied with promising results



46CPN’0410/10/2004

Summary – Future Work

• Extension of the model to represent other related processes that interact with the JMAP

• Replacement of deterministic duration with time intervals

• Using the CPN model for training purposes within the Headquarters

• Development of a planning plan for scheduleing and monitoring the process during a planning exercise

• Implementation of models in CPN Tools



47CPN’0410/10/2004

Discussion


AnalysisSummary DiscussionOutline

CPN’0410/10/2004 1 Formal Specification and State Space Analysis of an Operational Planning...

Documents

Transcript of CPN’0410/10/2004 1 Formal Specification and State Space Analysis of an Operational Planning...