NATO Code of Best Practice for C2 Assessment
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A DoD CCRP/NATO Collaboration This major revision to the Code of Best Practice for C2 Assessment is the product of a NATO Research and Technology Organisation (RTO) sponsored Research Group (SAS-026). It represents over a decade of work by many of the best analysts from the NATO countries. A symposium (SAS-039) was hosted by the NATO Consultation Command Control Agency (NC3A) and provided the venue for a rigorous peer review of this code. This publication is the latest in a series produced by the Command and Control Research Program (CCRP) under the auspices of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (C3I). The CCRP has demonstrated the importance of having a research program focused on the national security implications of the Information Age. The research sponsored and encouraged by the CCRP contributes to the development of the theoretical foundations necessary to support the Information Age transformation of the Department. Other CCRP initiatives are designed to acquaint military and civilian leaders with emerging issues related to transformation. This CCRP Publication Series is a key element of this effort. Check our Web site for the latest CCRP activities and publications. This code is also available on our Web site. www.dodccrp.org DoD Command and Control Research Program ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (C3I) & CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER Mr. John P. Stenbit PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (C3I) Dr. Linton Wells, II SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ASD(C3I) & DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AND STRATEGIC PLANNING Dr. David S. Alberts Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense, or any other U.S. Government agency. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited. Portions of this publication may be quoted or reprinted without further permission, with credit to the DoD Command and Control Research Program, Washington, D.C. Courtesy copies of reviews would be appreciated. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data NATO code of best practice for command and control assessment.—Rev. ed. p. cm. ISBN 1-893723-09-7 (pbk) 1. Command and control systems—North America—Evaluation. 2. Command and control systems—Europe—Evaluation. 3. North Atlantic Treaty Organization— Armed Forces—Equipment—Quality control. I. Title. UB212 .N385 2002 355.3’304180973--dc21 2002013927 October 2002 NATO Code of Best Practice for C2 Assessment Revised 2002 Reprinted by Table of Contents Chapter 1—Introduction ...................................... 1 Chapter 2—Preparing For Success: Assessment Participants, Relationships, and Dynamics ..... 21 Chapter 3—Problem Formulation ..................... 53 Chapter 4—Solution Strategies ......................... 69 Chapter 5—Measures of Merit ........................... 89 Chapter 6—Human Organizational Factors ..... 127 Chapter 7—Scenarios ...................................... 163 Chapter 8—Methods and Tools ....................... 187 Chapter 9—Data ............................................... 229 Chapter 10—Risk and Uncertainty .................. 247 Chapter 11—Products ...................................... 267 Annex A—References .......................................A-1 Annex B—Acronyms .........................................B-1 Annex C—The MORS Code of Ethics ..............C-1 Annex D—Human And Organisational Issues Checklist ............................................................D-1 Annex E—Alternate Definitions of Risk and Uncertainty.........................................................E-1 Annex F—SAS-026 History ............................... F-1 i List of Tables and Figures Table 1.1—Comparison of Symmetric, Conventional Warfare and OOTW Missions & Principles Mission ................................................ 6 Figure 2.1.—Example of the Mapping of Roles onto Players—for a Complex C2 Project (the Evaluation of Immediate Reaction Task Force (Land) C2 Concept) ............................................ 27 Table 2.1.—Knowledge, Capabilities and Skills Needed by OR/OA Cell Team Members ............ 33 Figure 2.2—C2 Assessment Process ............... 36 Figure 3.1—The Formulated Problem ............... 59 Figure 3.2—Problem Formulation ..................... 64 Figure 4.1—From Problem Formulation to Solu- tion Strategy ....................................................... 71 Figure 4.2—Solution Strategy ........................... 77 Figure 4.3—Overall Study Plan ......................... 79 Figure 5.1—Relationships of Measures of Merit .................................................................... 93 Table 5.1—Validity Criteria of Measures .......... 99 Table 5.2—Reliability Criteria of Measures .... 100 Table 5.3—Other Useful Criteria ..................... 100 iii Table 5.4—Examples of Time- and Accuracy- Based Measures ............................................... 103 Table 5.5—Examples of MoPs and MoCEs .... 104 Table 5.6—Normality Indicators ...................... 108 Figure 6.1—Representation of the C2 System, based on Mandeles et al. (1996) ...................... 149 Figure 6.2—Decisionmaking Drivers .............. 152 Figure 7.1—The Scenario Framework ............ 175 Figure 7.2—Intersections in Hierarchy ........... 179 Figure 7.3—Segmentation Hierarchy Range .. 180 Table 8.1—Some Recommended Tools by Category Type .................................................. 190 Figure 8.1—Model Linkage .............................. 195 Figure 8.2—Model-Tool Hierarchy .................. 205 Figure 8.3—Modelling Guidelines ................... 208 Figure 9.1—Data Taxonomy ............................ 231 Figure. 10.1—Illustration of the Variety of Variables Relevant to Decisionmaking ........... 258 iv CHAPTER 1 Introduction So the principles which are set forth in this treatise will, when taken up by thoughtful minds, lead to many another more remarkable result; and it is to be believed that it will be so on account of the nobility of the subject, which is superior to any other in nature. —Galileo Galilei (1638) Command and Control Assessment Challenges ATO and its member nations are in the midst of a Nrevolution in military affairs. There are three major dimensions to this revolution—a geopolitical dimension, a technological dimension, and a closely coupled conceptual dimension. This multidimensional revolution poses significant new challenges for analysis in general and for command and control assessment in particular. The changed geopolitical context is characterised by a shift from a preoccupation with a war involving NATO and the Warsaw Pact to a concern for a broad range of smaller military conflicts and Operations Other Than 1 2 NATO Code of Best Practice for C2 Assessment War (OOTW). Analysts will increasingly be called upon to provide insights into these non-traditional operations. Advances in technology, particularly information- related technologies, offer military organisations unprecedented opportunities to significantly reduce the fog and friction traditionally associated with conflict. At the same time, they may prove to be challenges in themselves across a wide variety of realms—technical, organisational, and cultural. To the extent that they can be achieved, significantly reduced levels of fog and friction offer an opportunity for the military to develop new concepts of operations, new organisational forms, and new approaches to Command and Control (C2), as well as to the processes that support it. Analysts will be increasingly called upon to work in this new conceptual dimension in order to examine the impact of new information- related capabilities coupled with new ways of organising and operating. Definition of Command and Control C2 has been defined by NATO as Military Function 01: “The Organisation, Process, Procedures and Systems necessary to allow timely political and military decisionmaking and to enable military commanders to direct and control military forces.” (NATO 1996) C2 systems are further defined in NATO documents to include: headquarters facilities, communications, information systems, and sensors & warning installations. (NATO 1998). Other terms are used in NATO member nations that are synonymous with, or closely related to, C2. These Chapter 1 3 include Command, Control, and Communications or Consultation (C3), and Computers (C4), and Intelligence ([C3I] or [C4I]), and Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR). The term CIS is sometimes used to refer to command information systems. More recently the term “C2” has referred to the collaborative and consultative processes that are an inherent part of coalition operations. For the purposes of this Code of Best Practice (COBP), the term C2 is intended to be an umbrella term that encompasses the concepts, issues, organisations, activities, processes, and systems associated with the NATO definition of C2 as well as the other terms enumerated above. Uniqueness of C2 Analyses and Issues The focus of military research and analysis has predominantly been on the physical domain. C2 issues differ in fundamental ways from physics dominated problems. C2 deals with distributed teams of humans operating under stress and in a variety of other operating conditions. C2 problems are thus dominated by their information, behavioural, and cognitive aspects that have been less well researched and understood. This focus creates a multidimensional, complex analytic space. Military operations involve multi-sided dynamics encompassing friendly, adversary, and other actors including: