Laying the foundations A paper for ISMOR 20

26th August 2003Glenn Richards

2

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Battlefield Infrastructure Studies

3 Method

4 Data

5 Conclusions

6 Questions

IntroductionSection 1

4

Introduction• What is Battlefield Infrastructure (BfI)?

– fuel, water, power and accommodation

• Little previous study in the UK

– availability of data has been the key

• This presentation will

– examine the studies

– discuss relative merits of 2 OR methods and

– discuss data requirements, types, problems etc

Battlefield Infrastructure Studies

Section 2

6

BfI Overarching Study 1

• Aim

– understand the provision of BfI

– identify potential choke points in the systems

– examine possible technologies to improve BfI

– find possible links between the components of BfI

– prioritise and focus future research

7

BfI Overarching Study 2

• Soft analysis - problem elicitation

• Method– literature search

– capture of current concepts of operation

– obtain baseline data

– interviews with stakeholders

– study day

– identification of possible areas suitable for technology research

– analysis of findings

• hard issues

• soft issues

8

BfI Overarching Study 3• Results

– baseline statement of capability to support a deployed op force

– interactions between the four components of BFI

– directions for future research and analysis identified

• e.g. use of pipelines for water and fuel distribution

• Most importantly...

– recommend more studies where required!

9

Follow on studies

• Following the scoping study, requests for three follow-on studies:

– Deployed Fuel Handling Equipment Support Studies

– Deployed Water Handling Equipment Support Studies

– UK Forces Deployed Operations Electric Power

MethodSection 3

11

General method

• Quantitative studies of BfI are ORBAT driven – based on the amount of men and equipment deployed to an operation

• Use agreed scenarios for modeling

• For water and fuel studies – existent doctrine used (eg 25 litres/man/day)

– solutions based on achievement of policy norms

• Different from a large amount of military OR

12

‘Top-down’ vs. ‘Bottom-up’

• Two approaches to solving military OR problems

• What’s the difference?

– ‘bottom-up’, from performance to capability

• many studies - Engr to Arty

– ‘top-down’, from ORBAT to required quantities

• DFHE

• Bottom-up establishes need, top-down accepts it

13

‘Bottom-up’ studies• In a particular scenario or vignette

– define/postulate a number of tasks that have to be achieved in a certain time

– use the time in which a single equipment could conduct defined tasks

– aggregate up to derive number of equipments required for whole scenario

• Or

– using equipment with defined performance

– assess the capability of forces of different composition in combat simulation

– quantities from performance

14

Advantages of ‘Bottom-up’ approach• Applicable for many types of study from Arty to Engr eqpt

• Gets buy in from immediate stakeholders

– i.e. those at MJPs

• Can be good to examine particular scenario reqts, as examining each one by a MJP

• Customers used to approach capabilities

• Easy to examine different equipment

• Better feeling for scenario chronology

15

Disadvantages of ‘Bottom-up’ approach• Often based on limited ops within a campaign

• Problems capturing data: initial task list, task time etc

• Data often superseded with arrival of new stakeholders

• Problems amalgamating reqts from different vignettes especially for vehicles that perform more than one function

• Results require interpretation to

– relate them to the entire campaign

– allow for military structural issues

• Large amount of preparation for MJPs

• Specialised military knowledge requirement

16

‘Top-down’ example: DFHE RDS

• Obtain agreed ORBATS

• Obtain agreed policy norms

– fuel quantities, storage reqts, nodes, etc

• Give battlefield locations, nodes

• Using policy norms work out what’s stored where, moved where, support modules reqts, etc

• Simple sums

Capability reqts

• Info on current & future kit

Equipment reqts

17

Typical supply network

RSG

MRA

FSG

BSA

SPOD

Cdo LoC

Divisional R

ear Boundary14 FCUs

7 days

Move 2 FCUs a day

18

‘Top-down’

Policy + doctrine

19

Advantages of ‘Top-down’ approach• Simple, quicker

– normally can be done by adding and dividing

• May require less military input

– good if military scarce

• Avoid the problems of aggregation to campaign level

• Can be used to examine:

– achievement of policy norms (eg water supply)

– equipment needed to meet accepted requirement (eg power supply)

• Less hassle from changing stakeholders

– guaranteed audit trail policy + agreed ORBATs

20

Disadvantages of ‘Top-down’ approach

• Works best with agreed policy & doctrine

– useful as a ‘what if’ vis a vis strawman policy

• ORBATs

– always disagreements

• Rigidly adheres to policy statements

• Can become independent of physical data within scenario

• Not applicable to everything: bridges etc

• Need to physically get policy docs

• Simple

– NOT HEADLINE MAKING OR!

DataSection 5

22

Definition of Data• “Factual information, especially information organised for analysis or used to

reason or make decisions. ”

• In terms of OR studies what exactly constitutes data?

– is anything that is input into a study considered to be data?

– something that has been measured is data,

– but what about estimates or mil judgement?

– are the hard-wired assumptions imbedded in a model data?

• Definition of data can be a complicated issue

– means different things to different people (programmer, analyst, customer, military stakeholder etc)

• In this paper all inputs into an OR study

23

Why are data important?

• Data is … Data are

– after much debate data are plural!

• OR used to inform decisions e.g. procurement etc. Why?

– to apply scientific rigour and method to them

• OR can be ignored unless it gains the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders

input data also subject to the same rigour of scrutiny?

• GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT

• Quality of data not always appreciated

– often delivery of results takes priority over input data

24

Types of data

• Several classifications of data can be proposed, eg

– high /low level (e.g Govt BoI vs mobility of a land platform

• low level feed into high?

– hard/soft, objective/subjective etc

• However, in practice distinctions fuzzy

• Soft data

– schemes of manoeuvre, future doctrine, threat data etc

• Hard data

– platform data, policy statements, ORBATs etc

25

Problems with data collection• Time

– hard to get, large amounts

– up to 75% of study spent collecting data

• Why hard? – often unvalidated/anecdotal

– knowledge is power

– data management not sexy subject

• often subject to ‘fads’

• expensive and time consuming, leading to poorly maintained sources or gaps

– data just not known – imbedded within models: self perpetuating

– data from previous studies are often used at the customer’s request

– rotation of military staff

26

Problems with multiple data sources• First glance multiple sources better than none

• Closer inspection problems become apparent – different data sources give different values

– design v use

– performance on a range v performance in the field v performance in a model

– current v future

– centralised v distributed

– historical v predicted

– objective v subjective

• Each source of data may be the ‘correct’ one

– arbiter: the customer and stakeholder community

27

Methods used for obtaining data

• Despite problems all is not lost

• Methods for obtaining data– communication

• undoubtedly the best

– use of military personnel

– involve the customer at an early stage

– use of existing data

– industry and other technical experts

– historical data

– strawman data

– sensitivity analysis

28

Data Conclusions • Data vital for any study

– the quality of data and stakeholder buy in important

• Where data not available strawman and sensitivity useful

• Time should be spent ensuring data fit for purpose

• If time spent collecting data reduced

– more time for analysis

– more cost efficient studies

More effort required managing data

More knowledge sharing and communication are required!

ConclusionsSection 6

30

Conclusions

• Top down and bottom up approaches both have advantages and disadvantages

– horses for courses

• Data are important

– many problems

• but that’s why they pay us to do it

– many solutions

• some outlined in paper

• I’d like to know yours

Questions