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

Integrated M&S FrameworkLive, Virtual, & Constructive

f q p

FOUO

Decision Analysis Overview

Decision analysis makes efficient and effective use of SMEs and expresses results in language meaningful to stakeholders.

Useful for portfolio, squad, system and requirements feasibility analyses.FOUO

Decision Analysis Process

DevelopDevelopFrame & Structure Trade Frame & Structure Trade DecisionsDecisions

Develop Develop Objectives & Objectives & MeasuresMeasures

Define Define AlternativesAlternatives

Analyze Analyze AlternativesAlternatives

Synthesize Results 

Analyze Analyze SensitivitySensitivity

Prepare Action Prepare Action PlanPlan

Establish Product Structure 

Analyze Sensitivity to Priority Weightings

Assess Alternatives Per  Objectives & 

Measures

Generate Value Element 

Visualizations

Describe specific & 

actionable tasks

Frame Trade Decisions

Discover Potential Objectives

Record Design Choices

Document 

Analyze Sensitivity to Assessment Uncertainty

Compare w/ O i l A l i

Record Uncertainty If Present

Document 

Create Aggregated Value Visualizations

Search for untapped l &

Generate Reports

Select Analytical Approach

Identify Fundamental Objectives

Establish MeasuresSystem 

Characteristics

Capture System Image

Operational Analysis Findings

Rationale For Each Assessment

Tabulate Assessment Results

value & create new alternatives

Establish Measures for Fundamental 

Objectives

Determine Value Functions

Assign Priority Weightings

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 

Squad SE Trade Study

q qIWARS & TBRL Proof of Concept

Growth Potential Risk Performance O&S Cost RDT&E Cost

Lethality* Fractional Exchange 

Rate

Protection* % Friendly Casualties

* Friendly Fratricides

Mobility* Time for Operation

Rate

* % Threats Destroyed

* Ratio Threats Destroyed to Friendly 

Casualties

*% Squad Controlled Fires that Prod ce

Sustainment

Situational Awareness

* TBD  ‐ Target Behavioral Response Lab

Fires that Produce Desired Effect

* Ammunition Used

FOUO

Use Case 1: React to Contact

►Analyze objectives for Protection, Mobility and Lethality Proof of Concept Goals using IWARS M&S

►Use Case 1: React to Contact developed by NSRDEC was used b li ith th f ll i difi tias our baseline with the following modifications

■ Modified load in IWARS to match MCoE 72 hour mission load baseline■ Created scenarios for

• Materiel: Soldier Multipurpose Equipment Transport, Soldier Protection Improvements

• Training: Qualified, Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert (M4)

FOUO

Integrated Modeling & Simulation Framework

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

FOUO

Backup

11/1/2013

Page 20

Armament Analysis Multiple Objectives Decision Analysis Tool (AAMODAT)

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

– 5 dimensional scatterplots– Decision heatmapDecision heatmap– Radar graphs– Tornado graphs

• Conducts one-click sensitivity analyses

FOUO

Whole System Trade Methodology

FOUO

Benefits of MBSE

►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”

FOUO

Innovative Solutions. Rock Solid Results.

11/1/2013

Page 24