Operational Task Modeling
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IMPERFECT SITUATION ANALYSIS: REPRESENTING THE ROLE OF ERROR AND UNCERTAINTY IN MODELING, SIMULATION & ANALYSIS A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By VICTOR E. MIDDLETON B.S., Michigan Technological University, 1973 M.S., Michigan Technological University, 1975 M.S., Michigan State University, 1978 ___________________________________________ 2014 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL May 2, 2014 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE DISSERTATION PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Victor E. Middleton ENTITLED Imperfect Situation Analysis: Representing Error and Uncertainty in Modeling, Simulation & Analysis BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Philosophy. ____________________________ Frank W. Ciarallo, Ph.D., Dissertation Director ___________________________ Ramana Grandhi, Ph.D., Director of the Ph.D. in Engineering Program Committee on Final Examination __________________________ Robert E. W. Fyffe, Ph.D., Vice Frank W. Ciarallo, Ph.D. President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School _________________________ Raymond R. Hill, Ph.D. _________________________ Yan Liu, Ph.D. _________________________ Mateen M. Rizki, Ph.D. _________________________ Mary E. Fendley, Ph.D. _________________________ David Hudak, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Middleton, Victor Eaton. Ph.D., Engineering Ph.D. Program, Wright State University, 2014. Imperfect Situation Analysis: Representing Error and Uncertainty in Modeling, Simulation & Analysis. Much of traditional modeling, simulation and analysis (MS&A) is supported by engineering models - deterministic, Newtonian physics-based representations of closed systems. Such approaches are not well-suited to represent the intricacies of human behavior. This research advocates and seeks to articulate the concept of a more human- centric approach to MS& A, one that better represents decision-making and other cognitive aspects of human behavior as well as it does physical activity. It starts with a view of individuals and groups as complex adaptive systems, which are best represented using agent-based modeling. Representation of human behavior through intelligent agents incorporates models of decision-making, knowledge engineering and knowledge representation, as well as the whole gamut of the psychological and physiological interactions of humans with each other and their environment. This representation is exemplified by consideration of situation awareness/situation understanding (SA/SU) as a core element. This leads to the development of a proof-of-concept simulation of a specific, easily understood, and quantifiable example of human behavior: intelligent agents being spatially “lost” while trying to navigate in a simulation world. This model is named MOdeling Being Intelligent and Lost (MOBIL), noting the ability to be in both of these states is central to the simulation. MOBIL uses a blend of object oriented software principles with agent based modeling to establish the utility of applying the human- iii centric approach to analysis. Applying that simulation in a number of virtual experiments illustrates how it supports investigation into an individual’s SA/SU and associated decision-making processes. iv Acknowledgments This dissertation is the result of long years of study and learning, both in academia and in my professional life. Throughout that time I have benefited from the advice, counsel, and friendship of mentors, colleagues, and family. I owe to all of them a debt I cannot possibly ever pay. I begin with my two foremost academic mentors. My first advisor was Gene Ortner at Michigan Tech, who started me on the path of scholarship and research. My Ph.D. advisor, Frank Ciarallo was truly the perfect fit for me at this time in my life. I would never have come close to completing this dissertation without his encouragement, patience, and perseverance. Most importantly, meeting with him to discuss this research was always a joy, his enthusiasm and willingness to put up with my tendency to prolixity never flagged. His only fault is a sad lack of judgment with respect to NHL allegiance; a fault much overshadowed by his many virtues. I owe special debts to a number of people for whom or with whom I have worked over the years. Ellen van Son of the TNO and George Mastroianni of the Air Force Academy have contributed significantly to the ideas contained in this work. John D’Errico, Chris Christenson, and Arthur (Dub) Garrett, three distinguished soldiers and equally distinguished military analysts, have taught me much and have been a source of inspiration both professionally and personally. My first boss at the University of Dayton Research Institute, Nick Engler, taught me the ins and outs of contract research, but never lost sight of the fact that doing research should be fun, an attitude I hope to never lose. Matt Herz of the Natick Soldier Center embodied the same spirit. He was both a friend and an advocate for many years; I still miss him. Craig Porter and Bob McIntyre kept me fed for many years through their entrepreneurial skills, and Craig’s generosity helped pay for much of my Ph.D work. I apologize for not singling out the many others with whom I have worked, especially all the folks at UDRI, Jaycor, STI, ORSA Corp, the Natick Modeling and Analysis Team, TRAC-Monterey and the Naval Post Graduate School, I am none the less deeply iii appreciative of your friendship and fellowship through the years. I must thank the members of my committee: Ray Hill, whose careful and critical review of this document greatly improved it; Yan Liu and Matt Rizki whose courses helped bridge the 30 year gap in my formal education; Dave Hudak who has been a kindred soul from the day I first met him; and Mary Fendley, who boldly (foolishly?) stepped in at the last moment when I needed another faculty member physically present for my defense. All of the staff at the graduate school, especially Dr. Grandhi and Alysoun Taylor-Hall, greatly facilitated my return to academia after a long hiatus. Many thanks to all at Wright State for your professionalism and help. Finally, of course, I must acknowledge the continuing and essential support of my family. My mother and father instilled a life-long love of learning, one I believe my wife and I have successfully passed on to our children. Certainly Jennifer, James, and Emily at least learned how to exhort me to “Study hard and make them proud!” I am certainly intensely proud of all three of them. My wife Maris has been the foundation for any success I have had in life; her love and support has been and continues to be the true reward for everything I do. iv Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 APPROACH........................................................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................................... 13 1.5 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................................................................. 14 1.5.1 Articulation of the Human-Centric Approach ................................................................................... 14 1.5.2 Application of Operations Research Engineering ............................................................................ 15 1.5.3 Analysis of Simulation Experiments ....................................................................................................... 20 1.6 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................. 21 2 THE HUMAN-CENTRIC APPROACH FROM THE MILITARY PERSPECTIVE .......... 22 2.1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF MILITARY MS&A ........................................................................................................ 22 2.1.1 War Games From Sun Tzu to World War I ......................................................................................... 22 2.1.2 Lanchester and the Origins of Quantitative Analysis ..................................................................... 25 2.1.3 The Birth of Operations Research ........................................................................................................... 27 2.1.4 The Rise of Technology: Military Operations as Physics ............................................................... 28 2.1.5 War Gaming in CyberSpace and the Virtual Human ...................................................................... 31 2.2 BEYOND ATTRITION MODELING ..................................................................................................................... 32 2.2.1 Network Centric Warfare ........................................................................................................................... 32 2.2.2 Maneuver Warfare vs. Attrition Warfare ...........................................................................................