SponsorProblem AssessRisk SolutionStrategy Measures of Merit (MoM) Human & OrganisationalIssues Scenarios Methods & Tools Data Products 3 6 4 5 7 10 8.

SponsorSponsorProblemProblem

AssessAssessRiskRisk

SolutionSolutionStrategyStrategy

Measures ofMeasures ofMerit (MoM)Merit (MoM)

Human &Human &OrganisationalOrganisational

IssuesIssues

ScenariosScenarios

MethodsMethods& Tools& Tools

DataDataProductsProducts

3

6

4

57

10

8

911

ProblemProblemFormulationFormulation

Prepare forSuccess

Scenarios

Chapter 7

Richard E. Hayes

Evidence Based Research, Inc.

NATO Code of Best Practice (COBP)for C2 Assessment

2

CO B

P Scenarios

SponsorSponsorProblemProblem

AssessAssessRiskRisk

ProblemProblemFormulationFormulation

SolutionSolutionStrategyStrategy

Measures ofMeasures ofMerit (Merit (MoMMoM))

Human &Human &OrganizationalOrganizational

IssuesIssues

ScenariosScenarios

ModelsMethods& Tools& Tools

DataDataProductsProducts

3

6

4

57

10

8

911

Prepare forSuccess

3

CO B

P Purposes of Scenarios

• To provide the context or environment for the context of the C2 assessment

• To bound the analysis and focus the assessment on central issues

• To ensure that the assessment is informed by an appropriate range of opportunities to observe the relevant variables and their interrelationships

• To sample the problem space

4

CO B

P Elements of Scenarios

• Context

• Participants

• Environment

• Evolution of events in time

5

CO B

P Types of Scenarios

• Approved– Insure relevance– Promotes comparison of analyses

• Planning– Detailed– Provide the drivers for planning

• Operational– Greater detail– Dynamics over time

• Vignette– Smaller in time and space– Focused on crucial issues– Often support analytic excursions

6

CO B

P Approaches Vary

– NATO

• Small number of approved scenarios

• Based on NATO Charter and agreed guidance

– Canada

• More than a dozen approved scenarios

• Based on anticipated missions

– US

• DoD Directive 8260.1 December 6, 2002– Politico-military contexts– Operational objectives– Major force arrivals– Planning considerations

• Use of vignettes to sample the interesting space

7

CO B

P

Nation States• Countries• Alliances• Ad hoc coalitions

Sub-National Actors• Ethnic groups• Guerrilla groups• Refugees

Organizations• Transnational criminal organizations• Terrorist groups• International business

Individuals/Networks• Globalization protestors• Currency speculators• Computer hackers• Migrants

Systemic Challenges• Infectious diseases• Natural disasters• Global warming

Use of Military Force(Threat or use of US and coalition

military force to defend national interests)

Policing / Monitoring(Use of US military to support

peacekeeping and complex contingency operations to ensure

a secure environment)

Supporting Civilian Missions(Collaboration of US military with

civilian entities to further US national interests)

Conflict CooperationMechanism of Engagement

Future Operational Environment

Mostly Coalition,Heavily Restricted

Rules of Engagement (ROE) (Type 2)

Coalition/Interagency Support to CivilianOperations (Type 3)

US-led MilitaryWarfare (Type 1)

Homeland/BorderSecurity (Type 3A)

• Laser Strike (Andean Drug War)

• Enduring Freedom (Bin Laden)

Scenario Type

• Noble Eagle (homeland security)• Homeland BW/CW anti-terrorist

consequence management

• Garden Plot (Los Angeles riots)• Capture of CIA Assassin (Kansi)• Globalization protests (WTO,

G-8, IMF, etc.)

• Maritime interception of newinflux of Cuban or Haitian migrants

• Special operations to captureterrorist or neutralize a small cell

EmergingChallenges

TraditionalMode of

Engagement

• Allied Force (Kosovo)• Guardian Retrieval (DRC NEO)• Silver Anvil (Sierra Leone NEO)

• Caribbean Drug Interdiction• Athens Olympic Games security• Internet use to counter terrorist

groups

• Fuerte Apoyo (Hurricane Mitch)• Avid Response (Turkey

Earthquake)• Forest fire containment

(Mexico/Central America)

• Restore Hope (Somalia)• Joint Guardian (Kosovo)• Essential Harvest (Macedonia)

• MIA Recovery Operations

• Support Hope (Rwanda)• Shining Hope (Kosovo)• Provide Comfort (Kurds)

• Quarantine to control domestic outbreak of Ebola virus

• UNMIH (Haiti)• Joint Endeavor (Bosnia)• INTERFET (East Timor)

• Desert Shield/Desert Storm (Iraq)

• Uphold Democracy (Haiti)

8

CO B

P Critical Characteristics of Scenarios

• Approval• Breadth• Capability• Credibility• Scenario development team

– Subject matter experts (SMEs)– OA analysts– Defense concept planners– Policy makers

9

CO B

P The Scenario Framework

National Security InterestsExt

ern

a lF

acto

rs

Economic/Political/Military/

SocialHistoric Situation

Mission Constraints & Limitations, ROE

Military ScopeIntensity,Joint/

Combined

• Geography, Region, Terrain, Climate, Weather

• Civil Infrastructure (e.g., Transportation, Telecommunications, Energy)

En

viro

nm

ent

• Organisation, Order of Battle, C2, Doctrine, Resources, Lessons Learned

• Weapons, Logistics, Skills, Morale

Friendly Forces

Adversary Forces Non-CombatantsC

apa b

ilit i

es o

fA

cto

rs

Neutrals

10

CO B

P Challenges

• Standards for judging the applicability and accreditation of (existing) scenarios should be developed

• For coalition C2 assessments, the scenarios should be developed or adapted by teams including representatives from all participating nations

11

CO B

P Recommendations

• Organize a set of scenarios and vignettes that allow the assessment to sample the interesting problem space

• Create a base of approved scenarios and vignettes• Explicitly identify and describe the scenarios prior to

the execution of the assessment• Address information and hypotheses on threats,

adversary forces, and non-combatants in the scenario

• Explicitly identify the C2 aspects under consideration within the problem definition

• Identify and document key scenario assumptions