Affordable Achievable Squad Overmatch Integrating MBSE with Decision Analysis I ti S l ti R k S lid R lt Innovative Solutions. R ock Solid R esults. Dynamics 2013 NDIA SE abstract # 16017 Richard Swanson DRC Dynamics Research Corporation Richard Swanson, DRC In collaboration with: US Army RDECOM ARDEC & NSRDEC Rev: 3/13
24
Embed
Affordable Achievable Squad Overmatch · 2017. 5. 18. · Affordable Achievable Squad Overmatch Integrating MBSE with Decision Analysis I ti S l ti R k S lid R ltInnovative Solutions.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Affordable Achievable Squad Overmatch
Integrating MBSE with Decision Analysis
I ti S l ti R k S lid R ltInnovative Solutions. Rock Solid Results.
Dynamics2013 NDIA SE abstract # 16017Richard Swanson DRC Dynamics
ResearchCorporation
Richard Swanson, DRCIn collaboration with:
US Army RDECOM ARDEC & NSRDECRev: 3/13
Squad Proof of Concept Program Overview
Purpose: Proof of concept for Squad portfolio decision analysis
across DOTMLPF (Leadership, Training, Materiel)
Live Testing
( p, g, )
Target Behavioral Response Lab experiment to verify decision analysis related to Leadership, and Training assumptions
Results/ProductsLegend
$
$
Development Risk O&S Costs Growth Potential
High
M d
High
Moderate
High
M d t
Results/Products: ARDEC Advanced SE Analysis Environment;
Integrated SE Framework (requirements, architecting, m/s, decision analysis).
Collaborative NSRDEC & ARDEC Squad Model Based Operational View to “Solutions”
Performance
We would like to understand the full trade‐space available to our system across five dimensions
1. Performance2. Unit Cost3. O&S Cost
4. Development Risk5. Growth Potential
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
Decision Analysis
System Engineering model(s) Baseline
Integrated Operational & Decision Analysis tools & M/S framework
TBRL Virtual Employment Test Bed Inc II & Squad HumanPerformance Trial(s)
Unit Costs
Squad SE Methodology that defines SoS Tradespace and Integrates DOTMLPF Solutions
Analysis
Payoff: Squad decision model and baseline enables Squad
capability portfolio assessment (how the Squad is equipped, integrated, and measured, to enable Squad
FOUO
q pp , g , , qovermatch) across DOTMLPF
Squad Proof Of Concept Challenge Statement
► The Advanced System Engineering Analysis Environment (ASEAE) F k(ASEAE) Framework■ Traceability of Gaps to MOEs/MOPs to MBSE Architecture to
solutions across DOTMLPF■ Evaluating Squad performance as a Collective Formation through
M&S ■ Assessing improvements to achieve Overmatch while factoring in
cost, risk, and schedule■ Using Operational Scenarios, Soldier ICDT Requirements and Soldier
involvement early and often.
► Framework enables SE Tradeoff Analysis, a key component of the OSD Directi e for Better B ing Powerof the OSD Directive for Better Buying Power.
FOUO
ASEAE Framework
-Frames the Decision- Clear Understanding ofClear Understanding of
Preferences- Creative Alternatives
- Reliable Information and Models
- Correct LogicTransform broadly - Commitment to Actionstated goals into a high
quality decision.
FOUO
Understanding the User Needs
Soldier Load Baseline
Squad CBA Gaps &
MOE/MOPs
CONOPS
MOE/MOPs
Structural Architecture (SysML)
Requirements Analysis Tool (DOORS)
Behavioral Architecture (SysML)
FOUO
bili / &
Trade Space Analysis Framework
New Capability/S&T(M,L,T)
Behavioral ArchitectureOptimized
investments & solutions
TradespaceAnalysis
Squad Baseline
MOEs
Use Case #1
Integrated DOTMLPF Decision Framework…from Requirements to Concepts to Solutions
This process map identifies key steps to a successful systems engineeringThis process map identifies key steps to a successful systems engineering tradeoff analysis.
FOUO
Proof of Concept Goals & Criteria
Derived based on Decision Analysis Process, OSD Guidance, and Squad Requirements to our
OneSAF is used as anOneSAF is used as an interface between IWARS
and STAGE/VBS2
VBS2 allows soldier‐in‐the‐loop analysis
FOUO
STAGE
Modeling Leadership Changes in IWARS
• Initial thoughts on modeling leadership in IWARS• Define leader attributes
DATA ON: AVERAGE TIME IN SERVICE
TIME IN POSITIONNCOES LEVEL COMPLETED
• Determine measurable criteria• Communication
• Change probability of message being received in IWARS• Decision making
NCOES LEVEL COMPLETEDRANGER SCHOOL COMPLETED FOR SELECTED MOS/ RANK/ POSITION
• Decision making• Utilize TBRL to enhance modeling via Squad performance measurement
• Leadership• Training• Situational Awareness
• Collaborate with stakeholders to examine the impact of leadership in the Squad by:by:
• Further defining/refining leadership metrics• Shaping modeling approaches for leadership in M&S and system models
• Reviewing implementation into models to assess outcomes
FOUO
TBRL & Systems EngineeringModeling and Simulation
► Evaluate human performance based on changes to materiel, leadership and training► Increase fidelity & verify/validate virtual M&S with live human empirical data
• Validate MOEs/MOPs/Assumptions measured in IWARS• Validate MOEs/MOPs/Assumptions measured in IWARS• Augment M&S data that can’t be readily modeled, i.e SA, leadership, training• Fuel design decisions and considerations by measuring soldiers’ performance using
materiel/technology• Collaboration with ARL-HRED & ARI
• Identifying the type of soldier-system interactions that should be informing questions to be asked (trade study, performance trials, S&T/Design questions)
FOUO
Model the Relationship Between Design Decisions & Stakeholder Value to Inform Requirements
Design Decisions Stakeholder ValueStakeholders define problem space,
alternative designs, and what they valueand what they value
Relationship
“ f l d l
Design Decision
1
Design Decision
N
“…of special importance…are modeling methods that tie together otherwise separate models into a consistent
whole…(and) allow relevant parameters and characteristics to be manipulated and the results seen in terms relevant to client,
user or builder ”Reference: Mark W. Maier, Eberhardt
Performance Unit Costs
1High
MED
NHigh
MED
user, or builder.
“…architecting does not assume that the client’s problem is well structured…it is quite likely a full understanding of the problem will have to emerge from the
client‐architect interaction.”
,Rechtin, The Art of System Architecting.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2009.
Development Risk O&S Costs
Low LowGrowth Potential
FOUO
Decision Support Model
Decision support model captures and synthesizes outputs from individual analyses into trade‐space visualizations designed tovisualizations designed to facilitate rapid and complete understanding of the trades available to stakeholders and provide drill down capability to supporting rationale.
FOUO
Criteria – Alternative Scoresheet
Data intended for Proof of Concept only. Not applicable to specific programs or funding decisions.
• Stakeholders define their performance – value mappingperformance value mapping and rationale is captured. (return to scale)
f l• Performance Analysis performed by SME in that area of study
• Value mapping converts performance metric to stakeholder value space
FOUO
AAMODAT Results – Top Level
Data intended for Proof of Concept only. Not applicable to specific programs or funding decisions.
• Stakeholders choose the Goals they Value These five arethey Value. These five are based on current OSD guidance.
• Results that are useful to d k ld bSquad Decision Makers could be
attained through Stakeholder and SME input using this Decision Analysis processy p
FOUO
AAMODAT Results - Details
Data intended for Proof of Concept only. Not applicable to specific programs or funding decisions.
Stakeholders provide input in development of Criteria and Priority Weighting. SMEs responsible for development of assessment for each Criteria.
FOUO
Conclusion
►Advanced System Engineering Analysis Environment facilitates: ■ A defined trade space through a common model ■ Assessment across Leadership Training and Materiel opportunities to ■ Assessment across Leadership, Training and Materiel opportunities to
achieve Overmatch
►P f f d d d ff l ►Proof of concept demonstrated tradeoff analyses across DOTMLPF that take into account all stakeholder values, including performance, risk and cost
►ASEAE Analyses can support Portfolio and Systems decision trade offsoffs
AAMODAT is a MS Excel based applications that automates decision theory computations, data management, trade‐space visualizations, and report generation thereby increasing decision efficiency andreport generation thereby increasing decision efficiency and effectiveness.
Key Features• Enables Efficient Creation of Value Functions• Automates Swing Weight Matrix Calculations To Generate Priority WeightingsAutomates Swing Weight Matrix Calculations To Generate Priority Weightings• Captures Key Design Features Of Considered Alternatives• Creates Structured Score Sheets To Capture Voice of the SME
– Captures Rational for assessment– Automatically maps performance score to value space using value
functionsfunctions– Allows scores to be entered as probability density functions to account
for uncertainty• Generates Compelling Tradespace Visualizations
►Facilitate integrated architecture in projects■ Logical/Functional Architectures Improved understanding of interfaces Improved understanding of system behaviors and operations
►Enhance the ability to capture, analyze, share, and manage the information■ Improves communications among system/project stakeholders■ Improves communications among system/project stakeholders■ Increases effectiveness of technical management of complex
systems/programsE bl ff l f h l l■ Enables effective analyses of technical complexity
Dynamic & re‐usable models to understand the “problem”