experiences developing a virtual environment to support disaster relief with the united states...

Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000

Experiences Developing a Virtual Environment to Support Disaster Relief with theUnited States Navy's Commander Third Fleet

Mark Adkins, John Kruse, Terry McKenna, Arthur Cuyugan, Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr,Center for the Management of Information

University of [email protected]

CDR Scot Miller, USNLCDR Eric Rasmussen, MC, USN

Third Fleet, US Navy

Robert YoungerSPAWAR Systems Center, US Navy

AbstractThe Center for the Management of Information (CMI) atthe University of Arizona worked with the US NavyCommander, Third Fleet (Third Fleet) to overcomelimitations of performing closely coordinated staff workon board a US Navy ship. Third Fleet is required tocollaborate with hundreds of people internally and withmilitary and civilian organizations both nationally andinternationally. Third Fleet has staff officers andenlisted personnel embarked from Canada, Chile, Japan,Australia, Peru, and Britain. In addition, Third Fleetregularly works with representatives from South Koreaand Mexico. This physical separation raises significantbarriers to collaboration and cooperation. The researchpresented in this paper details the efforts of CMI,SPAWAR Systems Center and Third Fleet to introduce avirtual workspace on board the Third Fleet CommandShip USS CORONADO (AGF-11), a seagoing commandand control platform berthed in San Diego, California.The virtual environment was developed and implementedto afford the staff unfettered collaboration between twodifferent spaces aboard the ship.

1. Introduction

The US Navy’s Third Fleet Commander is a Vice-Admiral (three stars). His command element is stationedaboard the USS CORONADO (Figure 1) on Point Lomain San Diego, California. As the Fleet Commander, hehas four primary mission requirements.

1. Responsibility for all Navy activity in the easternand central Pacific Ocean. This geographicregion extends easterly along the western coast o

0-7695-0493-0/00

f

the Americas from pole to pole, and west to theInternational Dateline.

2. Third Fleet ensures that deploying naval forces,such as Carrier Battle Groups and AmphibiousReady Groups, are properly trained and capableof performing their missions overseas.

3. Third Fleet serves as an alternate Joint TaskForce Commander (CJTF) for the United StatesPacific Command in Hawaii. This means thatThird Fleet would immediately assume allresponsibility for naval forces in the Arabian Gulfshould war again break out in the region.

4. Third Fleet plays a leading role in the Navy’sfleet experimentation process. In this role, ThirdFleet evaluates technology and processes toimprove the warfighters’ capability for meetingmission requirements.

Figure 1. USS CORONADO

In addition, Third Fleet would most likely assumeCJTF duties as commander for a force tasked to supportHumanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR) in theWestern Hemisphere, since there is a fortunate dearth of

$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 1

ny

t

,

,

f

,

e


naval threats in that part of the world. In January 1998,the Commander of Third Fleet tasked two staff officersto significantly increase Third Fleet staff readiness toexecute a HA/DR operation.

Maintaining awareness and control of such a vastgeographical area demands a great deal of informationand coordination. To meet these needs, Third Fleetembarks a staff of approximately 60 officers and 100enlisted sailors on board the command ship, USSCORONADO. The staff supports all of the operationaland logistical needs of the Commander and hissubordinate forces.

The Third Fleet staff is divided into seven major areasheaded by an Assistant Chief of Staff (ACOS) whoreports to the Chief of Staff (COS). The organizationalstructure of Third Fleet consists of administration (J1);intelligence (J2); operations (J3); logistics (J4); plans(J5); command, control, computers, communication, andintelligence (J6); and the sea-based battle lab (J9). Inaddition, there are several Special Assistants to the COS:Fleet Marine, Fleet Surgeon, Fleet Public Affairs Officer(PAO), Fleet Judge Advocate General (JAG), and FleetReserve Coordinator. Each ACOS and Special Assistanthas a staff with resources to support their specificcomponent of the Third Fleet mission.

The entire Third Fleet staff works together on allfacets of the command’s responsibility. Third Fleet is,nonetheless, hampered somewhat by the restrictionsinherent to working on board a ship. Although the USSCORONADO is a cutting-edge platform, the staff isspread throughout the different compartments and levelsof the ship. Larger working groups do not have theluxury of simply moving partitions and furniture aroundas one might in an office. Instead, the staff membersoften find themselves distributed throughout differentspaces on the ship and vertically through 10 decks.

The distributed nature of Third Fleet staff interactioncomplicates communication and coordination efforts.Also the distributed nature of the physical environmenton the ship is particularly worrisome in an HA/DRenvironment, where the lines of control are ill-defined,where ad hoc groups are rapidly formed and dissolved,and mistrust is rampant.

In response to these needs, the Center for theManagement of Information (CMI) at the University ofArizona, the United States Navy, and the DefenseAdvanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) partneredto create a virtual environment that joined physicallydistributed spaces on the USS CORONADO. CMI is aleader in the research and development of collaborativeprocesses and technologies that further the art andscience of group effort and refine the way people work.The US Navy felt that there was much to be gained by

0-7695-0493-0/00

working with CMI to lower the barriers of distributedwork.

In 1996, CMI introduced the capability of groupsupport systems (GSS) on the US Navy’s Third FleetCommand Ship. GSS were not transitioned from theresearchers to the end users as fast as expected, but maof the staff members saw considerable value in GSSimplementation [2]. Especially practical was thecapability to rapidly develop and assess multiple coursesof action, develop and formulate policy and procedures,record surveys, and brainstorm challenges from theThird Fleet commander. Many concepts and issues newto the US Navy’s way of interacting were addressed usingGSS.

Even to the most computer-wary person, thestaff sensed that GSS, properly supported by competenfacilitation, could indeed enable the whole to far exceedthe sum of the parts. Secondly, but nearly as importantthe CMI researchers, over 18 months of supporting thestaff, earned a reputation as motivated, self-startingdoers, the kind of people who get things done. Navalpersonnel easily adapt to these kinds of people; indeedmost successful people possess similar traits.

1.1 Virtual Environment

A virtual environment utilizes coordinated video,audio and data to provide a self-contained context forinformation-sharing [7]. Using available technologies, aproperly configured space allows meeting participants toexplore collaboration outside of their meeting room [1].

The Center for the Management of Information(CMI), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA), and Third Fleet partnered to develop theNavy’s initial prototype Civil Military Operation Center(CMOC) on the USS CORONADO [3]. The CMOC(Figure 2) was built to provide a collaborativeenvironment to enable multi-national civilianorganizations, coalition Military, and Joint Militarypersonnel to understand the operation, develop courses oaction, and implement action items.

In 1998, CMI and Third Fleet developed and tested afew collaborative processes to support (HA/DR)operations in the CMOC. The procedures were testedrefined and exercised during several 1999 Naval andJoint exercises: Fleet Battle Experiment ECHO, KernelBlitz 99, Urban Warrior 99, and Bold Fusion 99-1.Collaboration technology such as GroupSystems rapidlybecame a key element of HA/DR processes in the CMOCand in the Joint Medical Center (JMC). GroupSystemsdrew disparate groups of people together to enable themto quickly become an efficient and productive group.CMI and Third Fleet created processes that integrate th

$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 2


functionality of collaborative technologies with therequirements of a group supporting a crisis. The diversegroups of people associated with HA/DR make this a keyfeature. These processes, however successful, workeinitially only in one space. However, HA/DR operationstake place in several critical geographically distributedsites.

Figure 2. Civil Milit ary Operat ions Center(CMOC)

The people working in the CMOC are required toeffectively collaborate with the Joint Medical Center(JMC) (Figure 3) and other organizations located on theship and off. The JMC is a workspace for the Third FleetSurgeon and an entourage of medical and HA/DR expertswho are responsible for the medical demands of all ships,planes and personal in the Third Fleet area ofresponsibility (AOR). Additionally, the JMC serves asthe coordinating center for medical functions during any“other than war” operation. Spaces for the CMOC andJMC are located in different sections of the ship, yet themission of each requires continuous coordination andcollaboration with the other.

Figure 3. Joint Medical Center (JMC)

0-7695-0493-0/00

d

Nunamaker, Briggs, Mittleman, Vogel, &Balthazard [8] suggest that virtual presence is the use ofaudio and video tools to maximize, within constraints,the feeling that the collaborating parties are actuallytogether. The CMI hypothesis is built on years ofexperience facilitating private organizations andgovernment group meetings as well as the experience ofdesigning prototype collaborative software. CMI is ablend of professionals with a multidisciplinary mix ofcomputer science, engineering, business, and humancommunication. From our communication brethren,particularly from those who study human interactions,have come several relevant issues [4, 5, 6].• A significant portion of communication betweenhumans is nonverbal.• Experiments indicate that two people talkingtogether, who previously have never met, will build anunderstanding for each other. They may choose not tolike each other, but they build an understanding orexpectation of what they should hear from each other. Inthis way they learn to trust what the other expresses, orknow not to, and they know the reason why.• People of various cultures, even those who speak thesame language, use the same words with differentmeanings. Face-to-face interaction reduces confusionand increases tolerance. Similarly, people of the sameculture, but in different businesses or organizations, havecorporate cultures that can also hinder effectivecommunication and lead to misunderstanding. Forexample, though two people may have grown uptogether, and be nearly identical in every respect, if oneworks for the US Navy and one for Greenpeace, we canexpect that there would be a significant built-in distrustfor the other’s position, even if the people get alongpersonally.• Finally, people who speak a different language canaccomplish considerable information exchange without aclear language toolset if they are able to see and heareach other.

In the winter of 1998, a virtual collaborativeenvironment was established between the CMOC and theJoint Medical Center (JMC) to understand and evaluatedistributed collaboration during civil-military operations.The CMI has worked with the Third Fleet Surgeon andthe Sea Based Battle Lab Director to integratetechnologies that allow a group to work effectively witheach other between the two spaces.

Virtual collaboration between the two spaces providesfull audio, video, and data exchange over a wirelessinfrared 10 megabit-per-second local area network 24hours a day, seven days a week. A wireless connectionallows researchers to connect the two spaces without theburden of running additional cable around the ship and

$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 3

r

f


though network control devices. The technology wasdesigned to assist in creating a social presence in bothspaces that allows group participants to “feel” that theyall are part of the same group despite being located inseparate spaces. Consequently, the continuous presenof the link creates an illusion that makes participants ineach space feel as if they are co-located. In essence, ouchallenge was to use technologies to extend the perceivephysical boundaries of the two spaces.

1.2 Technology Transition

The danger with any technology push is that scientistsand engineers often presume to understand therequirements and needs of operational users, andsubsequently conceive and develop either technologyslices (horizontal or vertical), or complete systems tomeet those perceived needs. The result of thesepresumptions is either serendipity, or disappointment andsubsequent resentment.

In pursuing future information technologies, inparticular for this study with the US Navy, it isimperative that technologists work closely with usersfrom concept through design, development, prototypeand implementation. CMI has followed this method ofdeveloping and implementing prototypes in organizationsfor several years already, at great cost. But thecollaborative imperative’s implications for users andscientists is significantly different now than for previousgenerations of developers and organizations.

As recently as 10 years ago, the emphasis fordevelopers was on meeting a set of then-decade-oldrequirements and specifications. Users were left to adapwork processes and expectations to accommodate th“new” system. Management had to develop trainingcourses for users and operators because the new systemfrequently introduced entirely new paradigms foroperational personnel. But operational suitabilityevaluations were hamstrung by contractual requirementsand associated system specifications written usually bythe development contractor, and earlier evaluated andapproved based upon dated operational concepts, operhaps even visions, of users.

This approach usually resulted in systems that did nottake advantage of current technologies; solved problemsthat were no longer issues; and caused users to adapt “new” systems that were already 10 years outdated.Unlike the current CMI approach to development, thisantiquated arbitrary process did not provide technologiesthat enabled users to maximize the information andinterface capabilities of rapidly expanding informationsystem technologies. Furthermore, the system acquisition

0-7695-0493-0/00

ce

rd

te

s

r

to

environment within the Department of Defense (DoD)precluded timely implementation of new technologies.

A modern variant of this antiquated approach isprecipitated by the naïve arrogance of scientists andresearchers who honestly believe they have answers toproblems that potential users have not yet found to be aproblem. Often, new information technologies facilitatesignificant advances in operational capabilities, but theaccompanying infrastructure requirements grossly exceedthe current operational environment’s capability.

By contrast, in order for operational personnel toconvey needs and for scientists to understand them, a famore symbiotic relationship and larger investments arerequired. This relationship places significant demandsfor collaboration on both parties. The cost of thiscollaboration for the researchers is measured in weeksand months in operational environments; the operationalpersonnel on the other hand inevitably must work side-by-side with civilians (often with little or no militaryexperience), who observe, ask questions, and collectinformation. Because the results of this collaboration aresubstantially enhanced technology research anddevelopment efforts, these costs become realistic andbearable. Yet this time-consuming approach does not fitinto the traditional accounting structures associated withDepartment of Defense (DoD) contracting.

Because CMI researchers had worked with ThirdFleet staff for over three years, establishing a betterworking relationship than the often-disparagedcontractors that cycled on and off the USSCORONADO, CMI was in a unique position to gaugeuser needs and make judgments about applyingtechnologies for the Third Fleet.

2. Implementation

The project began in May 1998. After five months ofenvisioning the project and defining its requirements, theconcept of how to link two separate compartments cameinto focus. Over a two-month period, the researchersgathered technical specifications for various videosolutions. The group reviewed Video Teleconferencing(VTC) Systems across ISDN (H.320) and IP (H.323) aswell as other systems of Broadcast video servers andClosed Circuit Cameras designed for web access, whichincorporated the use of Desktop Video Teleconferencingrather than an ISDN connection. Given the budget, spaceconstraints, and the dynamic needs of the US Navy, CMIand Third Fleet chose IP-based desktop videoconferencing. Within these two months of data-gathering, the researchers completed market surveys oequipment and options, along with requirements forvideo-teleconferencing, that resulted in a final choice

$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 4

r

.


between two desktop systems, PictureTel and IntelProShare. PictureTel provided the solution that best fitthe given requirements, and also offered the advantage obeing more widely used within the DoD.

Once the PictureTel product was chosen, the CMIteam had roughly three weeks to procure the necessarequipment, which included Video Teleconference (VTC)equipment, cameras, projectors, screens, amplifiers anmicrophones.

Camera: Creating a realistic environment in certainareas of the JMC and CMOC required cameras withwide-angle lenses. Based on room measurements, thwide-angle attachment was needed to capture the fulwidth of the CMOC. The team purchased Canon VCC-3cameras for this purpose. The Canon camera has reputation of being the best camera on the market, and previous model of Canon camera was already being usein the CMOC.

Screen: To provide a viewing area for participantswithin the rooms, the group chose DaLite Models “B 72”and “B 96” screens. They found that DaLite brandscreens gave the brightest image under high lighting.DaLite was also able to accommodate the project’s needfor a custom screen size to fit within a specified area yetmaximize the image area.

Microphones: After evaluating different types ofmicrophones, the group chose Shure brand commerciagrade microphones. Shure offered high-poweredmicrophones that would pick up voices clearly within anoisy space, plus an easily accessible mute button. Thteam chose a boundary microphone with an omni-directional pickup, model MX393/O. This model is atabletop microphone featuring a programmablemembrane switch with modes of Push to Talk, Push toMute or Push On/Push Off modes. The team’s requestemode was Push On/Push Off.

Speakers: The CMOC already had an audio mixer inthe room and a sound system for VTC. Team membersanticipated the future requirement to integrate any newequipment into that system, and stipulated that the initialinstallation use the standard PC speakers. The sounsystem in the JMC has been upgraded to BOSE roomspeakers. The quality of these speakers enhances thvirtual experience in the JMC. There are plans toupgrade the speakers in the CMOC also.

Projectors: After a review of the specifications of boththe JMC and the CMOC, the team decided on twoProxima DP-5900 Projectors and two Infocus 720projectors. The Infocus has the capability to display animage at a shorter distance than the Proximas and ssatisfied a short “throw” requirement in the CMOC.Consequently, the two Infocus projectors are used as thprimary projectors in the CMOC. Since the Proximasprovide a higher number of lumens (750 vice 600) than

0-7695-0493-0/00

f

y

d

el

aad

l

e

d

d

e

o

e

the Infocus, one was used in the JMC as its mainprojector and the other was used in the CMOC as a thirdprojector in the rear of the room.

Once the equipment arrived onsite at CMI, the teambegan the testing phase of the project, evaluating theequipment and all the components necessary to duplicatethe setup of the CMOC and JMC. This step was to insurethat all components were working and compatible witheach other since installation time on the USSCORONADO would be limited. Testing included gainingknowledge of how the system worked as an integratedpackage, also in order to achieve an efficient shipinstallation. There were also challenges in configuringmultiple cameras, as there are three cameras are in theCMOC. However, by the time the equipment wasrepacked and shipped to San Diego for final installationaboard the USS CORONADO, all the equipment wasworking well.

Shipping was not trusted to a commercial vendor as alarge number of people work at Third Fleet, andcoordination is an issue. Specifically, it is often difficultto find someone to “sign” for equipment on the ship andthen to locate the equipment after someone has signed foit. Consequently, the equipment was transported with theinstallation team in a high occupancy vehicle (HOV)from the University of Arizona motor pool.

Due to sudden changes in the USS CORONADO’sschedule, the majority of the installation process washandled underway. A team of five embarked on theevening before the ship set sail. The next morning threeCMI team members remained on board as the ship leftport; they installed the virtual workspace in two weekswhile at sea. Their flexibility and creativity was criticalto completing this project.

The first task was to integrate the CMOC’s personalcomputers (PC) into the ship’s local area network (LAN).The CMOC joined the ship LAN via an Infrared (IR)link across the upper vehicle deck. The CMOC was beingreconfigured behind the JMC IP LAN segment, the teamused one of the JMC IP addresses. The resulting videoquality was perfect, better than the team had hoped forconsidering the 10Mb/sec IR network.

During the next underway period, the ship’sinformation system technicians finished the migration tothe ATM backbone, and the video was no longer on thesame subnet as the JMC. After these changes, the videoquality was seriously degraded. Continualreconfiguration of the network improved the video, butnot to the original quality seen when the CMOC andJMC shared a subnet.

The CMI team marked locations on the bulkhead,and CORONADO crew members welded the brackets forthe screen and camera mounts into place. The CMI groupthen mounted the screens, cameras and projectors

$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 5

e

.


Running the cable above and below the space was achallenge, requiring the team to take apart the ceiling’soverhead paneling, and run cable through the deck, alongthe bulkheads in the space below, and back up throughthe deck. After the job was completed, three functionalprojectors were required in the CMOC. The virtualworkspace image was to be projected on one of the frontscreens, while the previous image was to be moved to thenewly installed screen toward the rear of the space.Another challenge was to keep the camera’s view out ofthe light path of three projectors in a very tight space.

Because the JMC is a secure space, containing twoclassified computers and four unclassified computers, thegroup built an enclosure with shutters to house thecamera. These shutters allowed the team to frame theimage that the CMOC would see, thereby protecting theclassified material. The two classified machines weretransposed with the unclassified ones to compensate fothe windowed frame of the camera.

Figure 4. Video Link in the JMC

Originally, the PCs did not have enough audio signalstrength to drive the commercial microphones, so theteam arranged for a pre-amp to be delivered to the shipOnce installed, the pre-amp produced remarkable claritygiven the noisy spaces within the ship. The team did nothave many resources as this was a proof of concept, sthe camera, microphone and Ethernet runs were allaccomplished with category 5 STP cable. A single box of1,000 feet offered the group a lot of flexibility. Teammembers ran heavily shielded cable from the PC to theprojectors as those cable runs were well-defined from thestart, and previous experience on the ship haddemonstrated the need for shielding. Audio cable waspurchased later for the pre-amp and the microphones.

Being underway for the installation prompted creativethinking, and the team came up with innovative solutions

0-7695-0493-0/00

r

.

o

when challenges arose. The added efforts of USSCORONADO and Third Fleet sailors also made theinstallation process a success.

3. Experiences

The Virtual Environment was used to support theUrban Warrior exercise. The scenario involved asimulated release of chlorine gas from a truck on the SanFrancisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, and the Navy’s beingasked to assist the California Office of EmergencyServices (OES) Region 2. During the exercise, variouscommunication means were tested to receive requests foraction from the civilian agencies. Once a request wasreceived from OES, a team in the CMOC and JMCdetermined what action was required by Third Fleet andwho was execute the action in a timely manner. TheUrban Warrior exercise was a significant success,resulting in lessons learned on both sides.

The CMOC/JMC team was able to acquire an analysisof the plume created from the gas release and an estimatof the affected areas. This information allowed forintelligent planning and decision-making regarding thesimulated situation. The Third Fleet team was also ableto utilize DoD aerial imagery from the affected area, andlearned in the process to make requests for imagery interms of latitude and longitude instead of asking, forexample, “to look at the crowd assembled by City Hall.”

During another exercise, Bold Fusion 99-1, ThirdFleet participated in a Humanitarian Operationinformation acquisition exercise with Pacific Command’s(PACOM) virtual information center (VIC). Personnelon board the ship simulated the informationalrequirements of a simulated HA/DR team andtransmitted these requests for information (RFI) to theVIC. The process of generating RFIs during Bold Fusion99-1 made it clear to Third Fleet that a need exists for acloser link between GroupSystems and othercollaboration tools such as Lotus Notes. To avoidredundancy in the formulation of RFIs, it was importantfor the various players on the USS CORONADO tocollectively discuss each question their respectiveorganizations might have before actually creating theRFIs. The USS CORONADO group worked together toassess these questions before generating the official RFIsConsequently, they avoided duplication and triplicationof RFIs.

Team members learned it is also important, as amatter of standard operating procedure (SOP), to provideas much context as possible with each RFI. This ensuresthat the original intent of the RFI will be understood allthe way through the process of interpreting andanswering it.

$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 6

f

-

h

,


Though these operations were deemed a success, itwill take several exercises and perhaps real-world trialsto get the SOP for FAQs down to an efficient function.Generally, there is exceptional difficulty in predictingexactly what type of information will be most useful.However, FAQs can serve as a substantial initialbackdrop of important information for a particulargeographical location. When file sizes are very large,however, it is crucial that these databases be preloaded. e

Standard operating procedures need to be identifiedfor saving image files and other attachments to ensurethat file size is as small as possible withoutcompromising clarity.

Bold Fusion 99-1 revealed a clear need to providegraphical representation of data, both as bar graphs andas links to mapping. It would have been helpful to be ableto automatically link various incident reports to aparticular location on a map, in conjunction with localnon-governmental organization (NGO) offices andsupply depots.

4. Future Directions

The CMI research team has received a great deal offeedback on this project. There has been a groundswell ofinterest from those restricted by space requirements,logistics and funding. The virtual environment holds realpromise for moving beyond simply linking two spaces onthe same platform. In fact, the real gains may come frombringing together more widely distributed groups. Suchan initiative has the potential to allow collaborationwithout regard to traditional boundaries or physicallimitations.

4.1 Ship-Based (LAN) Multipoint VirtualEnvironment

Having demonstrated and proven the value of point-to-point (one-to-one) collaborative environments with theJMC and CMOC integration during Fleet BattleExperiment ECHO, Urban Warrior and Bold Fusion 99-1, the research team will move to the next point ofresearch, evaluating the value of multiple spaces (morethan two) in a ship-based (LAN) environment, for bothoperations and crisis action planning and execution. Inthis research scenario, the Joint Logistics Center (JLC)and the Crisis Action Team (CAT) cell join the JMC andCMOC in the collaborative enterprise. The increasedcomplexity of representing each of the other three spaces,the personnel, and their associated activities in theplanning and execution efforts, will undoubtedly add ahuman factors’ problem to the obvious technical

pa

sqedmdraFlc

cpCcvpwe

4E

Nis

er(macpiWfstn

awoasit

0-7695-0493-0/00

.

roblems associated with providing high-quality videond audio in a limited bandwidth environment.

The continuing research will focus on the value ofpatial and temporal representations (varying degrees ouality of the representations) of multiple workspaces toach of three other spaces, each having unique and coependent responsibilities and contributions to theission. A second aspect of the research will be the

egree of adaptation (measured in time) or trainingequired by an individual and by a group in order to takedvantage of the collaborative working environment.inally, the research will focus on the human factors and

imitations (if any) for military personnel operatingollaboratively in both planning and crisis environments.

RIMPAC 2000 planning and execution will serve as aore ongoing experiment through FY2000. A number oflanned space and equipment deployments onORONADO in the first quarter of FY2000 willomplete the four spaces. These deployments will offerarying degrees of adaptation for collaboration withersonnel in the other spaces. One element of researcill be the measure to which the collaborative toolsnable enhanced operational capabilities.

.2 Wide Area Multipoint Virtualnvironment

Another future direction the research team and theavy will pursue is that of expanding the virtual world to

nclude multiple sites distributed geographically on otherhips and ashore.

Transitioning from local (single-ship-based)nvironments to regional or worldwide environmentsequires the research to move from more or less real-timesame time) collaboration to working with people acrossultiple time zones and with increasingly unpredictablend potentially unreliable connectivity. The result on theollaboration environment is a move away fromredictive quality of service to potentially wide variance

n bandwidth and the associated impacts to capabilities.ith this step, the researchers will cross the boundaries

rom research in more or less reliable, operationallytate-of-art environments, to research in environmentshat will potentially undergo dramatic changes in theext decade.

The increasing commercial pressure on anytime-nywhere capabilities has ramped up the emphasis onireless, digital connectivity. Though the limited failuref Iridium will create an atmosphere of caution asdditional investments are made in low-earth orbitatellites and the associated ground-based infrastructuret will not ease the pressure on providers to implementhese services. If anything, Iridium’s stumble means the

$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 7


door is still open for another provider to get out with theservice first.

In the near-term, research must focus on bandwidthadaptive environments. Researchers must determineminimal quality-of-service requirements that satisfyefficacy measures for the environment, and must build inthe graceful compromises that accompany degradedinfrastructure. In addition to bandwidth capability andreliability issues, researches will also face predictiveclient-related compromises. A user working in a refugeecamp with a small pen-based computer or pocket-sized,PALM type device will not be able to participate in acollaborative session in the same manner as someonsitting in a controlled space with large-screen monitors,tracking cameras and hot mikes.

Two significant operational experiments will beperformed in 2000. The first is a civil-military operationcalled Strong Angel, a humanitarian assistance/disasterrelief (HA/DR) exercise within the context of RIMPAC2000. This operation requires collaborative operationsbetween the CMOC, the JLC, the CAT cell and the JMCon-board the USS CORONADO; a deployable CMOCashore; several UN agencies and non-governmentaorganizations (NGOs) ashore at the refugee camp;logistics supply points ashore and in other countries; andmultiple administrative sites. These organizations will berequested and/or tasked to support a refugee migrationfrom lands impacted by the RIMPAC conflict. Theexercise will require the development and maintenance ofa refugee camp with 48 hours of warning. Successfulimplementation will require close cooperation andcollaboration with joint and coalition military, and withthe NGOs and other international organizations thattypically perform this type of HA/DR missions. So, inaddition to studying the impact of collaborativeenterprises on mission effectiveness, Strong Angel willprovide invaluable insights into the role the US militarycan effectively exercise, and the advantages that rolebrings to the mission.

The second experiment is the proposed visit of thehospital ship USNS MERCY to Central America toprovide care to permanently injured victims of HurricaneMitch. This mission will require close collaborationbetween the JMC and CMOC on board CORONADO,and a parallel CMOC on board the MERCY. Like theRIMPAC exercise, this mission will include cooperationand collaboration with a number of NGOs and otherHA/DR organizations both ashore and afloat. Thoughrelated in many ways to the RIMPAC exercise, this is anactual humanitarian assistance mission to providesurgical and other critical medical services to persons inCentral America. The cooperation and collaboration withNGOs and other international relief agencies and

0-7695-0493-0/00

e

l

organizations will be critical to the medical and USpublic image success of this mission.

5. Research Agenda

Creating successful, fully integrated multi-dimensional, collaborative technology environmentsrequires more than just a firm grasp of the technologyinvolved. It also requires careful attention to theintegration of technology into the physical environment,and understanding of how the environment affects thegroup processes. Special attention must be given tosustaining a positive group dynamic in a distributedenvironment.

Research methods will include field and laboratorystudies in conjunction with a software engineering focus.CMI and Third Fleet will explore the implications ofincremental changes in the technology. The team willinstall technology and develop processes, evaluate, andmodify in an iterative mode.

This approach to evaluation of emerging technologyin the context of systems development differs from moretraditional evaluation approaches based on assumptionsof longer-term technological stability. The goal is toattain an understanding of the implications of computer-supported work on individual, group, project,organizational, and societal levels of analysis.

6. References

1. Alavi, M., & Vogel, D. (1997). IT-EnabledTransformation of Higher Education: A Case Study onCreating a Virtual Continuous Learning Space.

2. Briggs, R. O., Adkins, M., Kruse, J., Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. & Miller, S. (1999). A technology transitionmodel derived from field investigation of GSS use aboardthe USS CORONADO. Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, 15, 151-196.

3. Briggs, R. O., Mittleman, D. D., Weinstein, N.,Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Adkins, M. (1998). In J. F.Nunamaker, Jr. and R. Sprague. (eds.) Vol. IIProceedings of the Thirty-First Annual HawaiiInternational Conference on System Sciences.

4. Burgoon, J.K. & Buller, D. (1994). Interpersonaldeception: III. Effects of Deceit on PerceivedCommunication and Nonverbal Behavior Dynamics.”Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18 (2) 155-184.

5. Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D. B, Ebesu, A. S. & Rockwell,P. (1994). Interpersonal Deception: V. Accuracy in

$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 8


Deception Detection. Communication Monographs, 61,303-325.

6. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Guerrero, L. K., Afifi,W. A., & Feldman, C. M. (1996) Interpersonaldeception: XII. Information management dimensionsunderlying deceptive and truthful messages.Communication Monographs, 63, 50-69.

7. Chappel, D., Vogel, D. R., Briggs, R. O., &Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1992). Collaborative technology:A multi-dimensional approach. Paper Presented at theannual meeting of Computer Supported CollaborativeWork (CSCW).

0-7695-0493-0/00

8. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Briggs, R. O., Mittleman, D.D., Vogel, D. R. & Balthazard, P. (1997). Lessons froma dozen years of GSS research: A discussion of lab andfield findings. Journal of Management InformationSystems, 13(3), 163-207.

9. Nunamaker, J. F. Jr., Briggs, R. O., Romano, N. C.Jr., & Mittleman, D. (1997). The Virtual Office Work-Space: GroupSystems Web and Case Studies. In D.Coleman (ed.) Groupware; Collaborative Strategies forCorporate LANs and Intranets. Prentice Hall.

$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 9

experiences developing a virtual environment to support disaster relief with the united states...

Documents