A Meta-Theory of Command & Control in Emergency Management
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Grant A meta-theory of C2 in EM A Meta-theory of Command & Control in Emergency Management Tim Grant Retired But Active Researcher (R-BAR) [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper presents work in progress on developing a meta-theory of C2 in emergency management. Most research in C2 focuses just on one or two scientific disciplines. Just one paper has been found that gives a systematic overview of the science of C2. The approach taken employs entity-relationship modelling, yielding a set of scientific disciplines. These disciplines are compared with five military C2 doctrine publications. Doctrine found in at least four publications corresponded to the disciplines of decision theory, leadership theory, organizational theory, psychology, and the degree of delegation. Some topics not covered by the disciplines were found, indicating that analysis should be extended to C2 processes, resilience, and agility, permitting the development of guidance for practitioners. Further work is needed to compare the disciplines with civilian doctrine. Moreover, the disciplines could be compared to ICCRTS and ISCRAM conference proceedings, yielding an assessment of the maturity of C2 research. Keywords Command and control, doctrine, meta-theory, scientific discipline, entity-relationship modelling. INTRODUCTION Command & Control (C2) is seminally defined as “the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission” (JP1-02, 2016). The overwhelming majority of the C2 literature is to be found in the military domain. As ISCRAM’s C2 Studies track shows, C2 is also an essential element of emergency management (EM). Other application domains share ideas with C2, but give it another name, e.g. mission control in spacecraft operations, traffic control or traffic management in transport and logistics, operations management in business, process control in industry, etc. C2 is a multi-disciplinary field, with a history going back hundreds of years. Much of the C2 literature takes the form of doctrine, recording practitioner knowledge. Even though technology has been used in C2 since the late 1800s (e.g. the telegraph), the scientific literature on C2 only emerged from World War II onwards. After the advent of digital computing in the 1940s, the initial emphasis was on electrical and electronic engineering and on the fledgling information theory (e.g. coding, bandwidth, noise and distortion). This was followed by a focus on decision theory and cybernetics, then on human factors and cognitive psychology, with network theory being added most recently. The question that this paper addresses is: which scientific disciplines are relevant to C2? Finding an answer to this question is not just important to the C2 Studies track, but has consequences for research and practice in EM and the other domains. Armed with the knowledge of which disciplines are relevant to C2, research groups could make well-founded choices on their research programmes. Cross-disciplinary research questions, such as how culture influences the design and use of C2 systems, would be easier to identify. At present, it is common to focus on one or two aspects of C2 (typically technology and/or the cognitive task), at the expense of the rest. For practitioners, knowledge of the relevant disciplines would allow their training to balance all aspects, preparing them to better handle real emergencies. There have been some attempts to approach C2 from a multi-disciplinary viewpoint. An example in scientific research is to regard a C2 system as a socio-technical system (Walker, Stanton, Salmon & Jenkins, 2009), integrating technical choices with their social effects and vice versa. The practitioners’ world offers another example in the form of NATO doctrine, where the abbreviation DOTMLPFI – standing for Doctrine, Operations, Training and education, Materiel (i.e. equipment), Logistics, Personnel, Facilities (i.e. buildings and WiPe Paper – Command and Control Studies Proceedings of the 14th ISCRAM Conference – Albi, France, May 2017 Tina Comes, Frédérick Bénaben, Chihab Hanachi, Matthieu Lauras, Aurélie Montarnal, eds. 234 Grant A meta-theory of C2 in EM infrastructure), and Information – is used as a mnemonic to guide C2 system design, planning, and operations (NATO, 2009). However, none of these attempts have been systematic, leaving open the possibility that some disciplines may have been under- or over-emphasized. This paper takes the approach that a meta-theory of C2 is needed. A meta-theory is a theory about theories. The ISCRAM 2017 CFP provides an example meta-theory for EM (see Figure 1), albeit for information systems in general. The purpose of this paper is to propose a meta-theory that determines which scientific disciplines are specific to C2. The meta-theory is constructed systematically from the definition of C2, from the relevant literature on C2 science, and from a small-scale, but realistic EM scenario (given in Section 2). Entity- relationship modelling (Chen, 1976) provides the formal basis. First, the entity-classes involved and the relationships between them are identified in Section 3. Then the scientific disciplines associated with the entity- classes and relationships are identified in Section 4. To test the meta-theory, it is compared with C2 doctrine (in Section 5). Finally, conclusions are drawn and further work identified in Section 6. Figure 1. Example meta-theory from ISCRAM 2017 CFP. DEFINITION, LITERATURE AND SCENARIOS Definition The definition of C2 given in the Introduction is drawn from the military literature. To increase its relevance to EM and to simplify the task of identifying scientific disciplines, this definition is modified slightly. The term “resources” will be used instead of “forces”, and the distinction between assignment and attachment of resources will be relaxed. The term “commander” is retained, even though some organizations prefer “leader” or “manager”, because the term is recognized in the EM literature, e.g. in “on-site commander” and “incident commander”. In this paper, therefore, C2 will be defined as “the exercise of authority by a properly designated commander over assigned resources in the accomplishment of the mission”. Commanders are invariably supported by a C2 system, defined as “the facilities, equipment, communications, procedures, and personnel essential to a commander for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling operations of the assigned resources in accomplishing the mission” (likewise adapted from JP1-02, 2016). Facilities means fixed infrastructure, such as buildings, and equipment includes portable items, such as computers, radios, and phones. Personnel refers to other people who assist the commander in gathering information, providing (typically specialist) advice, and implementing or disseminating decisions. The commander and assistants will be collectively termed the command team. The team’s functions are given by the WiPe Paper – Command and Control Studies Proceedings of the 14th ISCRAM Conference – Albi, France, May 2017 Tina Comes, Frédérick Bénaben, Chihab Hanachi, Matthieu Lauras, Aurélie Montarnal, eds. 235 Grant A meta-theory of C2 in EM latter part of the definition. While the original JP1-02 definition reads “planning, directing, and controlling”, the list of functions has been expanded to simplify identifying scientific disciplines. The functions may be characterized as follows: Planning: establishing mission goals, decomposing them into sub-goals (a.k.a. command concept or command intent), deciding in advance what to do, how to do it, when and where to do it, and with what resources, formulating this as a plan, and testing it (e.g. by simulation or rehearsal). Where time permits, alternative plans or plans with contingent branches may be developed to cope with uncertainty, with the best being selected. Organizing: obtaining the resources needed to execute the plan, and deciding to whom the tasks and resources should be allocated, bearing in mind the strengths and weaknesses of subordinates. Directing: communicating command intent, motivating subordinates, allocating them tasks and resources, and coordinating (a.k.a. synchronizing) their actions. Controlling: monitoring the execution of the plan, detecting deviations, and evaluating these deviations to determine how the plan needs to be modified to achieve the mission. Ideally, planning and organizing will be done during the Preparation phase of the EM life-cycle, and directing and controlling during Response and Recovery. In practice, however, it may be necessary to re-plan, obtain additional resources, and/or re-allocate tasks on-the-fly during Response and Recovery if the original plan proves unworkable. Scientific literature The scientific literature on C2 includes books, journals, and conferences. C2-related books are published by the AFCEA International Press, by the US DoD’s Command & Control Research Program (CCRP)1, and by Ashgate Press in their Human Factors in Defence series. Other relevant books include Van Creveld (1985), Harris & White (1987), Beam (1989), Coakley (1991), and Builder, Bankes & Nordin (1999). The only C2- specific journal was the CCRP’s International C2 Journal (IC2J), which published five volumes from 2007 to 20112. There is a wide variety of journals that occasionally publish C2-related papers, e.g. the International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, IEEE Systems, Man & Cybernetics, etc. There are two C2-specific conferences: