of 90/90
Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description Liam Porter (Thales) , Maxime Tardif (Thales), Maurice Audet (Thales) Prepared by: Thales Canada, Land & Joint Systems Division 1405, boul. Du Parc-Technologique, 2nd Floor Québec, QC G1P 4P5 Contract number: W7701-054996/008/QCL Contract Scientific Authority: Micheline Bélanger, 418-844-4000 Ext. 4734 Technical Authority: Normand Pageau, 418-844-4000 Ext. 4674 Defence R&D Canada – Valcartier Contract Report DRDC Valcartier CR 2009-125 March 2009 The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D Canada.

Operational Decision Making Support - CANDIS PDF ServiceManagement Tool. Integrate Liam ’s comments on other sections : Maxime Tardif 2008-07-18 : 1.6 Liam’s comments related to

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Operational Decision Making Support - CANDIS PDF ServiceManagement Tool. Integrate Liam ’s...

  • Operational Decision Making Support -Operational Concept Description

    Liam Porter (Thales) , Maxime Tardif (Thales), Maurice Audet (Thales)

    Prepared by:

    Thales Canada, Land & Joint Systems Division 1405, boul. Du Parc-Technologique, 2nd Floor Québec, QC G1P 4P5

    Contract number: W7701-054996/008/QCL

    Contract Scientific Authority: Micheline Bélanger, 418-844-4000 Ext. 4734Technical Authority: Normand Pageau, 418-844-4000 Ext. 4674

    Defence R&D Canada – ValcartierContract Report

    DRDC Valcartier CR 2009-125March 2009

    The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the contractor and thecontents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D Canada.

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description Contract Number: W7701-054996/008/QCL

    Prepared by

    Thales Canada, Land & Joint Systems Division

    1405, boul. Du Parc-Technologique, 2nd Floor Québec, QC G1P 4P5

    For

    Recherche et Développement pour la Défense Canada/Defence Research and Development Canada (RDDC/DRDC)

    2459, boul Pie XI Nord,

    Val-Bélair, QC G3J 1X5

    Authors: Liam Porter (Thales) Scientific Authority: Micheline Bélanger (DRDC/RDDC)

    Maxime Tardif (Thales) Technical Authority: Normand Pageau (DRDC/RDDC)

    Maurice Audet (Thales)

    © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2009 The scien tific o r techn ical v alidity o f th is Contract Repor t is en tirely the resp onsibility o f th e Co ntractor an d th e contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D Canada

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 2

    Revision History

    Date Version Description Author

    2008-03-31 1.0 Initial Version Gino Pelletier / Dominic Côté

    2008-06-12 1.1 Second Version Gino Pelletier / Dominic Côté

    2008-06-16 1.2 Modifications related to discussion s between Maxim e, Liam and Micheline

    Maxime Tardif

    2008-07-09 1.3 Restructure document and appl y fe w modifications related to discussion with Normand

    Maxime Tardif

    2008-07-11 1.4 Apply Lia m’s com ments about Dynamic Link Management section

    Maxime Tardif

    2008-07-16 1.5 Integrate first draft of risk management section (Mauric e Audet). Add Link with Execution Management Tool. Integrate Liam ’s comments on other sections

    Maxime Tardif

    2008-07-18 1.6 Liam’s com ments related to “Links with Ex ecution Man agement Tool”section. Link Management reviewed according to meeting (Maxime, Dominic, Normand)

    Maxime Tardif

    2008-07-19 1.7 Second draft of risk management section (Maurice Audet)

    Maxime Tardif

    2008-07-22 1.8 Integrate Interface description (section 10)

    Maxime Tardif

    2008-08-28 1.9 Change COA Anal ysis and Decisio n Matrix according to comm ent fro m Liam. Remove use case property for risk management (Textual description already provide this information)

    Maxime Tardif

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 3

    Date Version Description Author

    2008-09-08 1.10 Integrate Risk Manage ment update. Integrate record of deci sions for the risk management

    Maxime Tardif / Maurice Audet

    2008-09-12 1.11 Review criteria m anagement and Links with Execution Managem ent Tool

    Guy Gosselin

    2008-09-15 1.12 Integrate Risk m anagement update (Maurice)

    Maxime Tardif / Maurice Audet

    2008-09-15 1.13 Integrate Pl an Manage ment update (Marco)

    Maxime Tardif / Marco Savard

    2008-12-15 1.14 Update Link management section and Risk Section

    Dominic Côté

    2009-01-26 1.15 Document split into 2 docum ents: One for arc hitecture and one for use cases

    Maxime Tardif

    2009-03-17 1.16 Review b y Maurice Au det on behalf of Liam Porter done in order to incorporate comm ents m ade by Micheline Bélanger

    Maurice Audet

    2009-03-23 1.17 Review by Liam Porter to incorporate additional comments

    Liam Porter

    2009-03-25 1.18 Review b y Liam Porter and Maxim e Tardif to incorporate additiona l comments

    Liam Porter

    Maxime Tardif

    2009-03-30 1.19 Quality Assurance Review Nathalie Lizotte

    2009-03-31 1.20 Quality Assurance Review Nathalie Lizotte

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 4

    ABSTRACT

    Defence R&D Can ada –Val cartier (DR DC Valcartier) in itiated sev eral research activities ai med at investigating and developing approaches and concepts to support operational decision-making wi thin the context of the Canadian Forces Operational Planning Process (CFOPP)i, ii. This effort focuses on building on this previous work to develop tools to enable a more effective, adaptive and time-constrained planning process. In particular, tools were developed and refined for the dynamic link management between CFOPP elements, Center of Gra vity Analys is, Decisive Point Analysis, Criteria Management, Plan Management, Risk Management and to establish links with the Execution Management Tool. A computer-based system called “Collaborative Operations Planning System (COPlanS)” was used as an experimental framework to implement mock-ups to demonstrate a poss ible operationalisation of t hese approaches. COPlanS has been developed at DRDC Valcartier to support the CFOPP. COPlanS is an integrated flexible suite of planning, decision-aid a nd workflow management tool s ai med at sup porting a di stributed t eam i nvolved i n t he planning of military operations.

    This document develops these various approaches, supported by a review of related concepts and use cases. Mock-ups ha ve bee n i mplemented i nto C OPlanS t o de monstrate t he integration a nd t he vi sualization of these different concepts, to improve effective, adaptive, and time-sensitive planning within the CFOPP.

    RÉSUMÉ

    Le centre R & D pour la défense Canada – Valcartier (RDDC Valcartier) a en trepris plusieurs activités de recherche, visant le développement d’approches et de concepts pour améliorer l’aide au décideur, dans le contexte du processus de planification opérationelle des Forces Canadiennes (PPOFC) iii, iv. Dans le but de continuer cet effort, cette étude vise à développer le s outils nécessaires afin d’ établir un processus de planification plus efficace et flexible, compte tenue d’un e planification en tem ps de crise. En particulier, des outils ont été développés pour effectuer l’analyse des liens possibles entre les éléments de planification du PPOFC, l’analyse des centres de gravités, l’analyse des points décisifs, la gestion des critères, la gestion des p lans, la g estion du risq ue pour établir les liens a vec l’ou til d e g estion d’exécution. Le systè me numérique automatisé appelé “Collaborative Operations Planning System (COPlanS)”, a servi en ta nt que base ex périmentale afi n d’i mplementer des pr ototypes et ai nsi dém ontrer l ’opérationalisation de ses approches. COPlanS a été mis au point au RDDC Valcartier p our traiter le PPOFC. C OPlanS intègre une série flex ible d e co mposantes d e p lanification, d’aide à la d écision et d ’outils d e g estion d es pro cessus métiers, vi sant l a pl anification e n col laboration des o pérations m ilitaires avec des membres d’é quipes dispersées.

    Ce rapp ort co ntient pl usieurs sug gestions d’approches, a ppuyées pa r u ne re vue des conce pts et de s cas d’utilisation. Des prototypes d'interface utilisateur ou “Mock-ups“ ont été développés, afin de permettre la visualisation et l’in tegration des d ivers concep ts et ainsi démontrer un pr ocessus de pl anification plus efficace et flexible dans le cadre de planification en mode de crise.

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 5

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    CANADA C OM h as id entified effective a daptive planning a s one of the mission critical deficiencies. Effective adaptive planning might be seen as the ability to conduct a ti mely and flexible planning process and to d evelop options for employing joint capabilities across the sea, air, lan d and cyb er spectrums. The Canadian Forces Operational Planning Process (CFOPP) is the current structured way used by CANADA COM to p erform military planning and problem so lving. A larg e portion of th is p rocess deals with brainstorming, holistic situation understanding and high level planningv

    In order t o e nhance operational l evel pl anning an d deci sion-making, at t his l evel of com mand, DR DC Valcartier in itiated sev eral stu dies to inv estigate an d d evelop new ap proaches and con cepts to sup port operational decision-making within the context of th e CFOPP vi vii. Thales Canada Inc. prepared a report, focusing o n building on t his p revious work, t o develop an d i mplement t ools, usi ng a c omputer based prototype to enable a more effective, adaptive and time-constrained planning process. In responding to the objective of t his effo rt, t he a pproaches a nd pl anning co ncepts we re de veloped a nd r efined i nto s pecific tools for the dynamic l ink management between CFOPP elements. These tools were a Center of Gravity Analysis, a Decisive Point Analysis, a Criteria Mana gement, a Pl an Management, a R isk Management, to establish link s with th e Ex ecution Man agement To ol. In this do cument, p roposed concepts are reviewed and the n, presented a s use c ases fo r t he purposes of o perationalizing t hem. The c omputer-based sy stem called “Collaborative Operations Planning System (COPlanS)” was used as an experimental framework to demonstrate t he oper ationalisation o f t hese appr oaches a nd c oncepts. COPlanS has been developed at DRDC Valcartier to support the CFOPP. COPlanS is an i ntegrated flexible suite of planning, decision-aid and workflow management t ools ai med at su pporting a di stributed t eam, i nvolved in t he planning o f military o perations. It is ex pected that these proposed too ls will facilitate th e d evelopment, the consideration and the review of any decision, at any time, while including its merits and justification.

    Using C OPlanS as a n e xperimental fra mework, t hese concepts have bee n s uccessfully re fined and implemented into several mock-ups to outline in greater detail possible, future enhancements, to improve current operational planning processes. Once validated by the military community, the implementation of these concepts, in to a fu lly operational p lanning and decision-making too l, will en able g reater flex ibility and adaptability to the p lanners and commanders, at the operational level in supporting time-constrained operational p lanning. An initial v alidation o f th ese t ools was cond ucted in Oct ober 2 008. Based on a Vancouver 2010 Olympic scenario, the implementation of these tools int o COPlanS was successfully used to demonstrate time-constrained planning concepts.

    Thales Canada, Land and Joint System s D ivision. (20 09). Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description. W7701-054996/008/QCL DRDC Valcartier.

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 6

    SOMMAIRE

    Une lacune critique de l a mission opérationnelle relevée par COM Canada (Commandement Canada) est celle de l’adaptation efficace de planification. L'adaptation efficace de planification pourrait être considérée comme la capacité de mener une rapide et souple processus de planification et d'élaborer des options pour l'emploi conjoint des capacité s, à trav ers les spectres m aritime, de l' air, de la terre et le cyberespace. Le processus de planification opérationnelle des For ces C anadiennes (PPOFC ) est la manière structurée utilisée p ar COM Can ada p our effectuer la p lanification m ilitaire et la réso lution d e problèmes operationelle. Une grande partie de ce processus traite de la recherche d'idées, de la compréhension et la situation globale de planification de haut niveau. viii

    En vue d' améliorer la plani fication au niveau opérationnel et l a pri se de déci sions à ce ni veau de commandement, RDDC Valcartier a l ancé plusieurs études afin d'examiner et de dé velopper de nouvelles approches et de concepts opérationnels pour appuyer la prise de décisions dans le contexte du PPOFC ix, x. Dans un effort pour développer une adaptation plus efficace du processus de planification dans le cadre d’une pl anification en t emps de cri se ; Thal es C anada Inc. a po ursuit une en quête qui a po rté sur l e développement et l’i mplémentation des o utils d e p lanification en u tilsant u n système n umérique automatisé. A fin d e répondre au x besoins d e cet ef fort, d es outils ont été d éveloppés po ur effectu er l’analyse des liens possi bles entre les élé ments de planification du P POFC, l ’analyse des ce ntres de gravités, l’analyse des points decisifs, la gestion des critères, la gestion des plans, la gestion du risque et pour établir les liens avec l’outil de gestion d’exécution.. Dans ce document, les concepts et les approches proposés sont examinés et présentés comme des cas d'utilisation. Ensuite, le système appelé «Collaborative Planning System Op erations (COPlan S)" a été u tilisé en tan t qu e cad re d’expérimentation afin d e démontrer la mise en œuvre de ces approches et ces concepts. COPlanS a été développé à RDDC Valcartier pour effectuer le PPOFC. C OPlanS intègre une série flexible de com posantes de planification, d’aide à la décision et d’outils de gestion d es processus m étiers v isant la planification, en co llaboration av ec les membres d’équipes dispersées d`opérations militaires.. En t emps de cri se, i l est prévu que ces a pproches structurées proposées faciliteron t la rév ision d 'une décision à tou t m oment, y co mpris ses m érites et sa justification.

    Utilisant COPlan S co mme cadre d’expérimentation, ces co ncepts on t été affin és et i mplémentés en plusieurs modules (mock-up), afin d'exposer plus en détail les outils possibles pour améliorer les processus de p lanification op érationnelle ; considérant la co ntrainte d e temps. Une fo is validée par la co mmunauté militaire, la mise en œu vre de ces con cepts d ans un outil o pérationel d e p lanification et d e prise d e décisions p ermettra u ne p lus g rande flex ibilité et ad aptabilité au x planificateurs et au x co mmandants au niveau opérationnel. Une valid ation in itiale a été p ortée lo rs de la démonstration d e JC DS 21 en octobre 2008. Selon un scénario des Olympiques de Vancouver en 2010, l’implémention des outils dans COPlanS ont été démontrés avec succès dans un cadre de planification avec une contrainte de temps.

    Thales Canada, Land and Joint System s D ivision. (20 08). Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description. W7701-054996/008/QCL DRDC Valcartier.

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 7

    Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................... 7 Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 11 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 12

    1.1 Standards .................................................................................................................... 14 1.1.1 Use case diagram.................................................................................................................. 14 1.1.2 Activity diagram................................................................................................................... 15

    2 Dynamic Link Management .............................................................................................................. 16 2.1 Description.................................................................................................................. 16 2.2 Use Cases..................................................................................................................... 16

    2.2.1 Element linking..................................................................................................................... 20 2.2.2 Single Element Links View.................................................................................................. 23 2.2.3 Links View ........................................................................................................................... 24

    3 Center of Gravity Analysis ................................................................................................................. 25 3.1 Description.................................................................................................................. 25 3.2 Use Cases..................................................................................................................... 25

    4 Decisive Point Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 28 4.1 Description.................................................................................................................. 28 4.2 Use Cases..................................................................................................................... 28

    5 Criteria Management......................................................................................................................... 30 5.1 Description.................................................................................................................. 30 5.2 Use Cases..................................................................................................................... 30

    5.2.1 Search & Retrieve Criteria Capability .................................................................................. 30 5.2.2 Validation Criteria Capability............................................................................................... 34

    6 Decision-Matrix Management........................................................................................................... 37 6.1 Description.................................................................................................................. 37 6.2 Use Cases..................................................................................................................... 37

    7 Plan Management .............................................................................................................................. 39 7.1 Description.................................................................................................................. 39 7.2 Use Cases..................................................................................................................... 39

    8 Risk Management .............................................................................................................................. 42 8.1 Description.................................................................................................................. 42 8.2 Use Cases..................................................................................................................... 42

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 8

    8.2.1 Use Case 1 - Identify relevant threats ................................................................................... 42 8.2.2 Use Case 2 - Assess initial risk............................................................................................. 46 8.2.3 Use Case 3 - Identify relevant risk controls.......................................................................... 48 8.2.4 Use Case 4 - Assess residual risk.......................................................................................... 51 8.2.5 Use Case 5 - Conduct “what if” analysis .............................................................................. 52 8.2.6 Use Case 6 - Use the risk management knowledge base ...................................................... 53 8.2.7 Example scenario.................................................................................................................. 55

    9 Links with Execution Management Tool .......................................................................................... 68 9.1 Description.................................................................................................................. 68 9.2 Use Cases..................................................................................................................... 68

    9.2.1 Plan synchronization............................................................................................................. 68 9.2.2 Documents sharing ............................................................................................................... 69 9.2.3 Geo-reference reusing........................................................................................................... 69

    10 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... 70 11 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 71 Annex A – Risk Management Process ........................................................................................................ 73

    Management of Risk Information ....................................................................................................... 77 Annex B - References .................................................................................................................................. 84

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 9

    Table of Figures Figure 1 – Links between operation level – Operation Creation .................................................................. 20 Figure 2 – Links between operation level - Modification............................................................................. 21 Figure 3 – Links between planning elements within the same operation ..................................................... 22 Figure 4 – Link to element type.................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 5 – Single Element Links View......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 6 – Centre of Gravity Analysis – Activity Diagram.......................................................................... 27 Figure 7 – Decisive Point Analysis – Activity Diagram............................................................................... 29 Figure 8 – Search Criteria – Use Case Diagram........................................................................................... 31 Figure 9 – COA Viability – Activity Diagram ............................................................................................. 34 Figure 10 – Descriptive Analysis – Activity Diagram ................................................................................. 38 Figure 11 – Numerical Analysis – Activity Diagram................................................................................... 38 Figure 12 – Plan Management – Activity Diagram...................................................................................... 40 Figure 13 – Identify Threats – Use Case Diagram ....................................................................................... 44 Figure 14 – Initial Risk Display Example .................................................................................................... 47 Figure 15 – Assess Initial Risk – Use Case Diagram ................................................................................... 48 Figure 16 – Identify Risk Controls – Use Case Diagram ............................................................................. 51 Figure 17 – Assess Residual Risk – Use Case Diagram............................................................................... 52 Figure 18 – Conduct “What if” Analysis – Use Case Diagram.................................................................... 53 Figure 19 – Use the Risk Management Knowledge Base (KB) – Use Case Diagram.................................. 54 Figure 20 – Risk Management Process – Conceptual Model ....................................................................... 56 Figure 21 – Identify the threat events ........................................................................................................... 57 Figure 22 – Link each threat-event to applicable COAs............................................................................... 58 Figure 23 – Link each Threat-event to applicable Mission Objective.......................................................... 59 Figure 24 – For each Threat-event, determine possible causes .................................................................... 60 Figure 25 – Determine the initial risk of each COA..................................................................................... 61 Figure 26 – Determine the mitigating controls and the residual risk for each COA..................................... 63 Figure 27 – Non-availability of aerial surveillance ...................................................................................... 64 Figure 28 – Loss of life / serious injuries to non-combatants....................................................................... 65 Figure 29 – Execution Management – Activity Diagram............................................................................. 69 Figure 30 – Risk Management process for CF Operations........................................................................... 73 Figure 31 – Continuous application of Risk Management ........................................................................... 74 Figure 32 – Initiation Stage of CF OPP........................................................................................................ 75 Figure 33 – Orientation Stage of CF OPP .................................................................................................... 76 Figure 34 – COA Development Stage of CF OPP........................................................................................ 77 Figure 35 – Risk Management Worksheet ................................................................................................... 80

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 10

    Figure 36 – Risk Score Matrix ..................................................................................................................... 82 Figure 37 – Risk Score Matrix - Example .................................................................................................... 83

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 11

    Table of Tables Table 1 – Common planning elements relationships.................................................................................... 17 Table 2 – Factors used in COA Analysis for Expeditionary Operations ...................................................... 32 Table 3 – Factors Used in COA Analysis for Domestic Operations ............................................................ 33 Table 4 – COA Viability criteria .................................................................................................................. 34 Table 5 – Information Elements for Risk Management (step 2 & 3) ........................................................... 44 Table 6 – Possible summarized information table for Risk Management by COA (step 3-6)...................... 47 Table 7 – Criteria for Effective Controls ...................................................................................................... 48 Table 8 – Situation example ......................................................................................................................... 50 Table 9 – Possible Causes related to E1 - Example...................................................................................... 60 Table 10 – Possible Causes related to E2 - Example.................................................................................... 60 Table 11 – Risk Management Matrix - Example.......................................................................................... 66 Table 12 – Risk Management in CF-OPP .................................................................................................... 75 Table 13 – Risk Assessment Matrix ............................................................................................................. 78 Table 14 – Risk Severity Categories ............................................................................................................ 78 Table 15 – Risk Probability Categories ........................................................................................................ 79

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 12

    1 Introduction The objective of t his w ork i s t o de velop a c omputer base d prototype su pporting t ime-constrained operational planning process. Building upon previous workxi xii that investigated concepts for sup porting the d ecision making and th e operational p lanning process, th e C OPLanS framework will b e used t o implement these related concepts as a means to meet the objectives of this work. Specifically, the COPlanS implementation will operationalize the following concepts:

    • Dynamic link management of planning elements;

    • Center of Gravity analysis tool;

    • Decisive Point analysis tool;

    • Criteria management tool;

    • Decision-Matrix Management tool;

    • Plan (including OPLAN, CONPLAN, Branch plan and sequel plans) management;

    • Risk management tool; and

    • Links with Execution Management.

    The dem onstration of all n ew con cepts id entified abo ve will b e leveraged on DRDC COPlan S (Collaborative Op erations Pl anning System). COPlan S is a com puter-based system developed at DRDC Valcartier to su pport th e Can adian Fo rces Op erational Pl anning Process (C FOPP). It i s an i ntegrated flexible suite of planning, decision-aid and workflow management tools, aimed at supporting a distributed team involved in the planning of military operations.

    The CFOPP includes five main stagesxiii:

    • The Initiation stage results in the activation of the planning staff and the commander’s guidelines about the kind of planning process to achieve;

    • The Orientation stage results in the development of t he commander’s planning guidance. At this stage, the commander orients his/her staff towards the determination of the nature of the problem and the confirmation of the results to be achieved;

    • The C ourse of Act ion (C OA) Development st age res ults i n t he pro duction of t he C ONOPS (CONcept of OPerationS), that identifies the commander’s line of actions, in order to accomplish his/her mission. It presents the COA that will be implemented;

    • The Plan Development st age res ults i n a set of o rders, based on t he commander’s decision, t o provide subordinate and supporting units with all necessary information to initiate the planning or the execution of operations; and

    • The Plan Review stage results in a regular review of the plan to evaluate its viability. The review period of the plan depends on the evolution of the situation, on the type of operation and on the environment.

    The CFOPP has been developed to cover two categories of planning: Deliberate Planning and Crisis Action Planning. xiv

    • Deliberate planning consists o f i nitiating and developing p lans in an ticipation of a k nown or anticipated future event or ci rcumstance that Cana da will or m ight face. It is not subject to the immediate pressures of time or prevailing threats; and

    • Crisis actio n planning con sists o f i nitiating and developing plans i n respo nse t o a current or developing crisis. It requires an expeditious co-ordination and approval.

    JCDS 21 TDP is intended to demonstrate advanced concepts and technologies to support real-time course of act ions planning, decision a nalysis an d e xecution management. Furt hermore, a ne w project cal led

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 13

    “Decision Support for Immediate Contingency Operations” has been approved and will look at the decision support concepts and technologies that will be relevant for the time-constrained planning required; when an unexpected event necessitates the immediate intervention of 1Cdn Air Div/CFACC. Accordingly, this work provides the level of effort required to demonstrate concepts that can support time-constraint planning for an organisation working at the operational level, mainly CANADA COM and CFACC.xv

    This document will p ropose a basis to DRDC for add ing and enhancing the operational decision making (DM) su pport fu nctionality, cu rrently fo und in COPlanS. It is assu med th at th e reader h as prev ious knowledge a nd understanding of C OPlanS’ feat ures a nd of t he framework used, t o build i ts c onstituent components. This document will primarily serve to illustrate and describe a specific selection of functional concepts that have been explored in the context of the existing contract. As well, eac h of these sele cted functional concepts will b e further represented through a series of use cases. Ea ch approach identified is intended to be validated with the scientific authority. Therefore, the sections in t his document describe the targeted functional concepts, approaches and use cases in more detail:

    • Dynamic Li nk M anagement. In sect ion 2, the dy namic l ink management ap proach i s examined and described. Due to its dependencies with other tasks, it was add ressed first and it investigates an efficient way to create and manage different types of links between all information elements produced by the staff whil e executing the CFOPP. Th e CFOPP ele ments requ ire a lin k enforcement co ncept to create in tegrity b etween elem ents. Th is app roach allo ws lin king an y element with any other element. It also identifies useful mechanisms for the dynamic management of t hese links, and proposes efficient t ools to pr ovide different vie ws of these li nks, associated information as well the li nked elem ents. These c oncepts have bee n im plemented a nd are demonstrated within the COPlanS framework;

    • Centre of Gra vity (COG) A nalysis. I n se ction 3, a C entre of Gravity anal ysis ap proach i s presented. This approach will facilitate the brainstorming related to the identification of the COGs, the critical cap abilities, the critical req uirements, the critical v ulnerabilities, and their associated Decisive Points. This analysis considers additional concepts like effects and their relationships to capabilities and centers of gravity. The approach permits the planners to work concurrently on the friendly COG analysis as well as the a dversary COG an alysis. Lin ks to th e COG an alysis th at would have been developed at a hi gher level of pl anning (ex. strategic) are also possible. These concepts have bee n i mplemented as a C entre of Gravity Anal ysis T ool an d a re demonstrated within the COPlanS framework;

    • Decisive Point Analysis . In Section 4, Decisive Point Analysis ap proach i s de scribed. Thi s approach allows sequencing of Decisive Points (DP) identified in COG Analysis from Own Force COG (to protect) to the Adversary Force COG (to at tack). The seq uencing i s done on l ines of operation, representing a functional view (I.e. Combat units, Logistics…). An environmental view is also available to v isualize lin es of operation, acc ording t o a nother perspective i .e. based o n military forces (Air , La nd, Navy, Joint and Information Op erations). Also, th e Decisive Po int Analysis al lows de fining r elationships b etween D Ps l ocated o n di fferent l ines of operat ion. During the analysis, phases of the operation are defined with objectives. The objectives may be related to one or many lines of operation by phase. Moreover, for each phase, a pre-condition may be established. Th ese pre-conditions, also named pauses, define prerequisites before initiating a subsequent phase. Finally, Decisive Point Analysis allows sketching branch plans i.e. a “Plan B” to execute, if specific condit ions are prese nt. In t he same way , sequel pl ans can b e defined t o illustrate the transition to another operation or shortcut, the current operation, according to specific transition conditions. These concepts have been implemented as a Decisive Point Analysis Tool and are demonstrated within the COPlanS framework;

    • Criteria Management. In section 5, the Criteria management approach is described. This approach allows t he planners t o r etrieve a nd m anage cri teria. T his i s d one using a sea rch a nd a reuse functionality that is a pplied to the Transition conditions (including criteria for success); and the criteria use d to e valuate and com pare Courses of Action (C OAs). A second approach considered is to allow planners to validate specific aspects of planning such as the viability of COAs, Centres of Gravity and the coherence of the set of COA evaluation criteria.

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 14

    These concepts ha ve been i mplemented a s a C riteria M anagement To ol an d are de monstrated within the COPlanS framework;

    • Decision-Matrix M anagement. In sect ion 6, t he d ecision-matrix management app roach i s described. During the COA Analysis, the decision-matrixes are tightly coupled to CFOPP doctrine in the evaluation of COAs and must provide the flexibility to use numerical as well as d escriptive analytical approaches. The planner can develop different views to support the operational decision, support requirements fo r C ommanders a nd hi s operational st aff, w hen co nsidering t he C OAs during t he decision briefing. Th ese c oncepts h ave been im plemented as a Decision-Matrix Management Tool and are demonstrated within the COPlanS framework;

    • Plan Management. In sect ion 7, the plan management approach is described in detail. A plan is developed t o address s pecific un foreseen operational i ssues re ferred t o as an O perational Pl an (OPLAN). A plan can also b e d eveloped an d prepared to estab lish p riorities, organ izations, responsibilities, p olicies, etc. Ano ther pu rpose o f a plan cou ld be to ad dress po tential an d predictable c ontingencies i n res ponse to a fo reseeable operational issues , re ferred to as Contingency Plans (CONPLANs). Both types of plans are developed, using the CFOPP. Planning considerations an d other planning el ements fr om these plans are often similar especially when they are a pplied within a n operational ec helon. The Pl an M anagement t ool offers t he o ption t o greatly reduce planning t ime by reusing common planning elements dur ing the creat ion o f new OPLANs and CONPLANs. This concept has been implemented as a Pl an Management Tool and is demonstrated within the COPlanS framework;

    • Risk Management. In section 8, the risk management tool is described in detail. The purpose of risk m anagement f or C F o perations i s t o effectively ide ntify, analyze, evaluate a nd control all types of risk. Its key aim is to ens ure that significant risks are ide ntified an d t hat a ppropriate action is taken to minimize these risks, balanced against operational objectives. Risk management functions must be incorporated into the CF OPP in order to support decision makers at all lev els. The ri sk m anagement proce ss i tself co mprises 1 4 st eps, or ganized i nto fi ve phases. The ri sk management concept proposes methods to establish a logical link between threats, causes, events and risks. This concept has been implemented as a Plan Management Tool and is demonstrated within the COPlanS framework; and

    • Links with Execution Management. In secti on 9, a n approach to link the Operational plan to th e execution management tool is proposed. Plans are developed and presented to the Commander for approval based on a recommended course of action (COA). A plan is executed as an order. The JCDS environment provides a computer based system that is charged with the monitoring and the management of on -going operations and the related orders. Since a pl an must be con verted to an order, to perform th e ex ecution of m onitoring task s; th e ab ility to seamlessly ex change t he planning information into the execution management tool, must also exist. This concept has been implemented an d is demonstrated with in th e COPlan S framework. Using the JCDS communication facility, COPlan S’ p lans an d EMPA’s orders can b e synchronized. In th e sam e way, C OPlanS pr oduces documents rel ated t o developed pl ans w here they can be s hared a nd retrieved from the JCDS document repository.

    1.1 Standards This document ad opts several UM L diagrams t o de pict co ncepts g raphically. M ainly, U se C ase an d Activity diagrams are u sed to su pport concepts. Fo llowing the UML stan dard, different kinds of entities and links are used in those diagrams (Use Cases or Activities).

    1.1.1 Use case diagram Use case diagram depicts normal capabilities performed in a specific context.

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 15

    Semantics Actors model entities external to the subject. When an external entity interacts with the subject, it plays the role of a specific actor. Use cases are capabilities performed by actors. A use case may include or precede other use cases. Use cases may interact with information.

    Notation

    • An actor is represen ted by a “stick man” icon, with the name of the act or in the vicinity (usually above or below the icon);

    • Use cases are represented by rectangles with round corners;

    • Information is represented by rectangles; and

    • Links can be stereotyped i.e. they may represent common behaviour. Stereotypes are represented between double quotes (eg. “flow”). Hereafter, a list of stereotypes used in this document:

    • Flow: Information consumed (retrieved), or produced (created/modified);

    • Include: Specified activity or use case;

    1.1.2 Activity diagram Activity diagrams depict the normal flow of actions. Activities are linked in sequence of execution.

    Notation

    • The starting point of the activity flow is represented by a black point;

    • The ending point of the activity flow is represented by a circle with a point inside.

    • Activities are represented by a rectangle with round corners;

    • Decision points representing different alternative flows based on a specific condition, are depicted by a diamond;

    • Joint/Synchronization po ints, u sed to join many altern ative flo ws t o co ntinue in a co mmon activity, are depicted by a thick bar;

    • Events are represented by a pentagon;

    • Information is represented by a rectangle; and

    • Like use cases, links can also be stereotyped.

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 16

    2 Dynamic Link Management

    2.1 Description Arguably, e xperienced pla nners ha ve a greater ability t o successfully pl an i n a cri sis situation when deliberate planning, by usi ng t he ful l C FOPP, m ay not be p ossible. I deally, t ime-constrained pl anning should be successful with a tailored approach, using the CFOPP. It is imperative to examine approaches to allow a pl anner of any ex perience l evel t o rapidly consi der t he ope rational pr oblem, by drawi ng o n the collective ex perience of t he pl anning t eam and by d rawing on previous pl ans, dealing with si milar operational problem s. The method proposed is to adopt a dynam ic link m echanism betwee n pla nning elements to enable a m ore rapid a nd e ffective planning cycle. Furt hermore, planners should be a ble to establish dependencies and validate these links very quickly, in a co llaborative environment. To establish and m aintain relatio nal in tegrity b etween its v arious co nstituent planning elem ents1, a dynamic l ink management mechanism is very much compatible with the Canadian Forces Operational Planning Process (CFOPP). Without the establishment of appropriate links, it wo uld be difficult to ascertain and assess th e impact that one planning ele ment may have on one or more other planning el ements, i n a c ollaborative environment, thus wasting the t ime and ef fort of the planning staffs. I n the context of t ime-constrained planning, the benefits achieved in identifying the links and recognizing the dependencies; will resu lt in a more solid pla n that will take sha pe more rapidly th an traditional methods. The type of links e xamined in the study includes:

    • Links supporting or refuting the existence of an element (existence dependency);

    • Links indicating an influence between elements (influence dependency);

    • Links representing a sequencing of elements in time (temporal dependency); and

    • Links representing a refinement of an object (relational dependency).

    2.2 Use Cases Operational Pl anning el ements can be rel ated t ogether i n di fferent ways. M odifications of a ny of t hese elements may affect the planning staff’s analysis and recommendations. As such, the very effect a planner wants to achieve in the planning process is to draw collectively on the cognitive reasoning of the planning staff when considering eac h pl anning el ement. B y est ablishing a re lative l inkage bet ween planning elements, the planners can e nsure as m any co nsiderations are factored into developing a n overall p lan. Because elements influence others, it is im portant to monitor and re view dependent elements in orde r to ascertain whether their very existence, importance, sequencing or essence, have been affected. Depending on the nature of each element, some of them may be associated to one anothe r in a trivial manner. Others may depen d on t he sem antic m eaning o f t he planning el ements. For example, decisive p oints m ay be considered as a group of tas ks or effects required to achieve a ce rtain goal or objective. Th is case allo ws the relationship between decisive points and tasks to be r elatively trivial. In anot her case, an assum ption describing the potential position of the adversary or threat could be easily associated with a task to verify or refute t his a ssumption. A nother ass umption co uld describe t he m orale o f t he a dversary t roops w hich cannot easily be dete rmined or verified by a specific ta sk. In t hese c ases, di rect rel ationships between assumptions and tasks are not easily established. Due to the fact that a general rule cannot be established to automatically associate all or even most planning elements, i t rem ains t hat s ome pl anning el ement rel ationships co uld n onetheless be c onsidered as a standing pattern because they can be established in almost any plan. The relation ships b etween planning elem ents are not limited to ele ments with in a sin gle p lan. Some elements are linke d to elements of the higher plan. F or exam ple, r ules of en gagement defi ned at t he strategic level must also be cascaded and considered at the operational level.

    1 Elements of the Operational Design are described in greater detail in the US DOD under FM-3, Operations, June 2001

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 17

    The following table describes the most common relationships between planning elements. Some elements (target) may be linked (source) to elements of the higher plan or the same plan (current plan). Different link types exist between planning elements:

    • Copied and linked: An exact copy of the element is made. The copy element is linked to the original one;

    • Influenced by and linked: User-defined link defined between two planning elements.

    Table 1 – Common planning elements relationships

    Source Target

    Element (higher plan) Element (current plan) Element

    Link type

    Facts & Assumptions Facts Copied and linked (OPP rule: Facts and assumptions are considered facts in subordinate plans)

    Facts & Assumptions Other Orientation stage elements

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    Facts & Assumptions Other COA Development stage elements

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    End State End State Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    Transition Condition Transition Condition Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    End state Other Orientation stage elements

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    Transition Condition Other Orientation stage elements

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    CCIRs, PIRs, EEFIs & FFIRs

    Other Orientation stage elements

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    CCIRs, PIRs, EEFIs & FFIRs

    Other COA Development stage elements

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    Constraints & Restraints

    Constraints & Restraints

    Copied and linked (OPP rule: constraint an restraints are flow down from higher plan)

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 18

    Source Target

    Element (higher plan) Element (current plan) Element

    Link type

    Constraints & Restraints • AOO Situation (Geospacial)

    • Time & Space • Resources &

    Capabilities (Own Forces)

    • Freedom of movement (Logistics)

    • ROEs (Imposed from strategic)

    • C2 • Political

    Considerations • Conflict

    Termination • Risks • Tasks • After action

    review

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    Strengths (being Critical Capability (CC) or Critical Requirement (CR))

    Centre of Gravity Influenced by and linked (enhances COG analysis)

    Weaknesses (being Critical Vulnerability (CV))

    Centre of Gravity Influenced by and linked (enhances COG analysis)

    Critical Capability (CC) Critical Requirement (CR)

    Influenced by and linked (enhances COG analysis)

    Critical Requirement (CR)

    Critical Vulnerability (CV)

    Influenced by and linked (enhances COG analysis)

    Critical Vulnerability (CV)

    Decisive Point (DP) Influenced by and linked (enhances COG analysis)

    Centre of Gravity Centre of Gravity Influenced by and linked (enhances COG analysis)

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 19

    Source Target

    Element (higher plan) Element (current plan) Element

    Link type

    Objectives Objectives Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    Tasks Assigned Tasks Copied and linked (OPP rule: Tasks are assigned by the higher headquarter.)

    Tasks (Assigned & Implied)

    • Risks • Objectives • Phases

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    Command & Control structures

    • C2 • Tasks

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    Forces Capabilities & required groupings

    • C2 • Tasks

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis)

    Proposed timelines • Other COA Development stage elements

    • Phases

    Influenced by and linked (Support DP analysis)

    Battlespace Effects Other COA Development stage elements

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis and DP analysis)

    Decisive Points (DP), Centre of Gravity (CoG), Objectives & Tasks

    • Line of Operations

    • Phases

    Influenced by and linked (enhances planning analysis and DP analysis)

    COAs • Tasks • Decisive Points

    (DP) • Objectives • Phases • Line of

    Operations

    Influenced by and linked (enhances COA development and DP analysis)

    Decisive Points Decisive Points Copied and linked (enhances COG and DP analysis)

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    2.2.1 Element linking When a new plan is c reated, some elements from the related higher plan should be inherited. In fact, a copy with a link to the source is created in the new plan. Afterwards, an authorized staff officer can review the copied links and clean them up in the operational plan. Each tim e a “ copied and linked” elem ent is created at the highe r leve l, a clean-up can be done in the operational level plan.

    act Links

    Sub

    uni

    tH

    ighe

    r pl

    an

    Higher Unit User

    Create elements (ex.Constraint 1 & 2)

    Cons traint 1 Constraint 2

    Create plan (sub-plan)

    Copy and link parentelements

    Copy of Constraint 1

    Copy of Constraint 2

    Clean-up elements(remov e constraint 2)

    Del ete

    Ste p 3

    Create & link

    Create & link

    Ste p 2

    Step 1

    Figure 1 – Links between operation level – Operation Creation

    When a m odification is m ade on an elem ent of a higher pl an, i ts l inked o perational planning el ements should indicate that the source has changed and should be reviewed by the staff planners.

    Page 20

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    act Modify parent plan

    Hig

    her

    plan

    Sub

    uni

    t

    Higher Unit User

    Cons traint 1

    Modify element (ex.Constraint)

    Copy of Constraint 1

    Sub-uni t User

    Linked element indicatesrelation has been modified

    Element is rev iewed

    «flow»

    Figure 2 – Links between operation level - Modification

    In t he sam e way , pl anning e lements of t he sam e pl an can be l inked t ogether. When sou rce el ements change, the linked element should indicate that an associated element has therefore changed. It may impact the element in some ways. Thus, it should be reviewed by the staff planner.

    Page 21

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    act Modify same plan

    Risk 1

    Task 1

    Us er 1

    Use r 2

    Element is modified (ex.Risk)

    Linked element indicatesrelation has been modified

    Element is rev iewed«flow»

    Figure 3 – Links between planning elements within the same operation

    When planning elements of an operation are being defined and analysed, the links to other elements are not necessarily possible yet. Often, particularly during the orientation stage, the staff planner defines an element and knows this will be linked to an element that may not yet be defined. In this case, the user may identify or “pre-link” an element to an element type; to indicate that this element should be considered, when those other elements will be further instantiated. The system will propose natural links with element types as defined in the Figure 1 – Common planning element relationships. But, the system allows the staff planner to link to any elements type. For example, the staff planner is defining a risk related to the mission. He supposes that this risk should be mitigated by one or many tasks. He does not know exactly which tasks, but he is confident tasks shall address this risk. In this case, he links the risk to the tasks type. When he or someone else defines tasks, an indicator shows that this risk should be addressed by tasks; the staff planner who is creating the task, can then associate it to this risk.

    Page 22

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    act Element type links

    Us er 1

    Risk 1

    Create an element(ex.Risk)

    Link element to anelement type (ex. Tasks)

    Tasks Type

    Use r 2

    Define TasksIndicator elements should

    be linked to this type ofelement

    Link an element (ex. Taskto Risk)

    Tas k 1

    Link type remov ed

    The system proposes intuitiv e re lationships

    with element types to the user

    Step 4

    Ste p 2

    Step 1

    Ste p 3

    Del ete

    «flow»

    Figure 4 – Link to element type

    2.2.2 Single Element Links View Planners creat e vari ous l inks bet ween pl anning el ements with in th e op erational p lans. When th e staff planner modifies elements, he may want to know what this implies directly and indirectly on other items of the plan and on i ts sub-plans. For this, the planner submits a req uest about links related to h is element. The system returns all elements linked directly to it. Also, the planner may navigate through indirect linked elements. In other words, the planner may consult planning elements linked to those linked elements. For example: A risk is linked to a task to mitigate this risk. This task is related to a specific decisive point, which is related to a specific transition condition (success criteria). In this case, the planner may analyse all impacts affected by the c hanges of t his ri sk; i.e. from the ris k itself up to any im pacts on the t ransition condition.

    Page 23

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    act Element Links View

    Us er 1

    Request Links related toan element

    System returns elementrelations

    Browse elements throughtrelations

    «flow»

    Figure 5 – Single Element Links View

    2.2.3 Links View When a p lanner con siders a mature o perational p lan, he may wish to verify th at all i dentified p lanning elements have been c onsidered. The links view prov ides a matrix o f all lin ks b etween elem ents. This matrix sho ws also elements lin ked to elemen t typ es (elements to co nsider wh en th ese k inds of elemen ts will be defined). In this way, the planner may easily identify planning element to address further and make a decision to finalize or to further refine the plan.

    Page 24

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 25

    3 Center of Gravity Analysis

    3.1 Description In t he process of cam paign desi gn, o perational pl anners pay at tention t o i dentify candi dates f or t he adversary and own forces Centre o f Gravity. Dr J oe St range authored an approach to understand and to analyse the relationships between centers of gravity and their critical vulnerabilities. Strange identified the critical factors used to establish a “sensible hierarchy with logical relationships” xvi. These factors consist of the rel ationship bet ween C OGs, C Cs, C Rs and C Vs S everal step s th at are id entified in d etermining th e adversary’s and the own force’s COGs. The essence i s to focus on defeating the adversary’s COG while protecting t he own force’s COG. Arguably, com manders and pl anners may debat e t he sel ection. So, consideration of many COG candidates must be avai lable to the planners, during the orientation stage and even, they may be revisited during the COA development stage. At the strategic and operational levels, the COGs are related and have dependencies with each other. For example, the determination of an own force COG, at the strategic level, will have identified critical factors (CCs, CRs,CVs), that are then, flowed down in the form o f constraints and restrain ts to the operational level. Consequently, this influences operational level planners in their identification of the operational level COGs, and the relevant CVs,CRs and CCs. The addition of DPs provides the planner with an initial sense of the possible resources and sequencing that are required to pro tect on e’s own COG and to d efeat t he adv ersary’s COG. Th is will be add ressed in more detail later in this document, in the section on the DP Analysis tool. The center of gravity analysis display is a tool, located in the orientation stage, to create and visualize links between COGs, CRs, CCs, CVs and DPs. COG an alysis allows visualization of own force and adversary force elements. The Own Force COG an alysis manages items having the Own Force affiliation. If an object is created in the Own Force screen, th e affiliation will be set to Own. The adversary COG analysis does the same for adversary objects.

    3.2 Use Cases The Centre of Gravity (COG) Analysis is performed to define COGs, to be at tacked and protected. T he planners desire only one COG to protect and only one to attack; when finalizing the plan. However, at the early st age of t he planning p rocess, m any C OG can didates m ay be i dentified a nd c onsidered i n t he orientation stage. The COGs are bounded by an End State, according to Transition Conditions. During th is an alysis, p lanners d efine C ritical Ca pabilities (CC), Crit ical Req uirements (CR), Critical Vulnerabilities (CV) and Decisiv e Po ints (DP). Plann ers will relate th ese ele ments to eith er frien dly o r adversary forces. In fact, th ey will co nsider th at all CCs a nd CRs id entified are designated as streng ths while CVs are designated as weaknesses. Though all CCs, CRs and C Vs are st rengths or weaknesses, planners have to consider that not all strengths and weaknesses are necessarily CCs, CRs or CVs. Planners may consider an adversary CV as a High Value Target (HVT); i.e. th e critical v ulnerability is a target that, if attacked, will yield greater benefits to the friendly by its defeat than the resources applied to defeat i t. C onversely for friendly C Vs, planners m ay consider so me to b e Sh ield CV i.e. subj ect to protection against adversary attacks as these are related to the friendly COG.

    Decisive points ha ve no s uch al legiance. Pl anners de fined t hem to p rotect an d at tack critical vulnerabilities. Gu ided b y th e Strang e an alysisxvii method, pl anners de fine an d creat e l inks bet ween elements of the COG Analysis. Planners perform this analysis by sketch ing elements related to friend and adversary COGs in a common view. In fact, the system shall provide the capability to display many COGs in the same view, but allows the capability to filter graphical analysis elements on desired COG candidates.

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 26

    Mainly, links between elements are:

    • COGs affect CCs;

    • CCs affect CRs and depend on COGs;

    • CRs affect CVs and depend on CCs; and

    • CVs affect DPs and depend on CRs.

    When an element is d eleted, affected and dependant links are also delet ed. But, t he attached elem ent still exists.

    When the Adversary and Friendly COGs are chosen to be the COGs to be attacked (Adversary), and to be protected (Friendly); the system provides the capability to select them with their related DPs to be used to sketch COAs of the plan. T o select a COG, it m ust be considered as valid (see 5.2.2.2 COG Validation section). Final COGs are not necessarily selected du ring the COG Analysis. They may be selected later during the Decisive Point Analysis.

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    act COG Analysis

    Ene

    my

    CO

    G c

    andi

    date

    s -

    Str

    ange

    Ana

    lysi

    s

    Ow

    n C

    OG

    can

    dida

    tes

    - Str

    ange

    Ana

    lysi

    s

    Define End State Define TransitionConditions

    Define Own Centre ofGrav ity candidates

    Define Decisiv e Points

    Identify High ValueTargets

    Define Enemy Centre ofGrav ity candidates

    Define CriticalCapabilities - Friend

    Define CriticalRequirements - Friend

    Define CriticalVulnaribilities - Friend

    Define CriticalCapabilities - Enemy

    Define CriticalRequirements - Enemy

    Define CriticalVulnaribilities - Enemy

    Identify Shield CVs

    Validate COG candidates

    Elect Own & Enemy COGsDecisiv e Point Analysis

    Valid

    Rede fine or discard COG

    Elect COGs immediatly

    When COGs not elected

    Yes

    No

    Elect COGs later

    Figure 6 – Centre of Gravity Analysis – Activity Diagram

    Page 27

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 28

    4 Decisive Point Analysis

    4.1 Description In the campaign design, the DP (Decisiv e Point) Analysis step is in itiated by the operational p lanners to begin i dentifying t he res ources (com mand and c ontrol an d, hi erarchical gro upings), t asks (assi gned or implied), effects (direct or in-direct), phases (sequencing), functional and environmental lines of operations (time and space) required to defeat the adversary’s COG while protecting one’s own. This is also a key step within the COA development stage that begins to orient the planners, toward the identification of possible permutations. These permutations c ould al so l ead t o t he co nsideration o f c ontingencies refe rred t o as branch plans and sequel plans. Indicators will need to be identified which will form the basis of a decision point leading t o the e xecution of a branch or sequel plan. Decisive Po int and decision points are c oncepts very o ften co nfused. A de cisive poi nt i s a geog raphical l ocation, an event , a sy stem, a funct ion or a condition, which leads to the defeat of adversary center of gravity or; it is defined to protect our own force centre of gravi ty. Decisi on points are defined as a poi nt in sp ace and time where the commander or staff anticipates making a decision concerning a friendly course of action.xviii This analysis will form the basis for building COAs, for further consideration.

    The DP Analysis screen is a tool located in the C OA Development stage. This tool allows th e planner to graphically manage t he se quencing of D Ps, t he relation bet ween DP and l ine o f operations, a nd t he influence between DPs.

    This display will h elp the planner to connect decisive points to a sp ecific line of operation and to manage decisive po ints in ti me. W e can see th is d isplay lik e a k ind of tab le. Th e ro ws represent th e lin e o f operations and th e columns represent the units of time inside the phase s. Each DP associated to a line of operation is represented by a blue rectangle. The blue color indicates that this screen manages Own Force DPs.

    4.2 Use Cases Decisive Point Analysis allows sequencing of Decisive Points (DP) identified in COG Analysis from Own Force C OG (t o p rotect) t o t he A dversary For ce C OG (t o at tack). Th e seque ncing i s do ne on l ines of operation representing a functional view (I.e. Combat units, Logistics…). An environmental view is also available to visualize lines of operation, according to another perspective i.e. based on military forces (Air, Land, Navy, Joint and Information Operations). Also, the Decisive Point Analysis allows defining relationships between DPs located on different lines of operation. During the analysis, phases of the operation are defined with objectives. The objectives may be related to one or many l ines of operation by phase. Phases correspond to t ime synchronization between lines of operation and DPs. Moreover, for each phas e, a pre -condition may be established. These pre-conditions, also named pauses, define prerequisites before in itiating a su bsequent phase. For examp le, a combat phase must start before hurricane season, otherwise wait until the fall. When a n el ement i s del eted; affect an d dependant l inks are al so deleted, but t he at tached el ement st ill exists. Also, on a line of operation, the previous DP is automatically linked to the next DP. Each DP represents a milestone that must be achieved. To reach them, the analysis supports the creation of tasks, which can be associated to DPs. Finally, Decisiv e Po int An alysis allo ws sk etching branch plans, i.e. a “Plan B” , to ex ecute, if sp ecific conditions are present. In the same way, seq uel plans can be defined to illustrate the transition to another operation or shortcut the c urrent op eration, according to specific tran sition conditions. At appropriate decision points, under specific conditions, branch and sequels plans are launched. During a Decisive Point Analysis leading up to the decision briefing, many possibilities can be sketched to determine which COGs (own and adversary) should be selected. In the sam e way, many possibilities for the sa me s elected COGs set can be sketched (different seque ncing, t asks, ph ases…).

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Furthermore, much Decisive Point Analysis can b e sketched. At the end, the commander will select th e best combination with which to continue the planning process (Develop COAs etc).

    act Decisive Point Analysis

    Dec

    isiv

    e P

    oint

    Ana

    lysi

    s

    COG Analysis

    Define Lines of Operation(Functional)

    Sequence Decisiv ePoints

    Sequence on a functional line of

    operation

    Identi fy related env ironmenta l lines of

    operation

    Identify Friend & EnemyCOG

    Make influence linksbetween DPs

    Identify Phases

    Define Objectives

    Define Pauses

    Identify Tasks

    Define Branch PlansEstablis h condition for Branch plans (De cision

    Point)

    Define alte rnate paths

    Define Sequel PlansIdentify Trans ition

    Conditions (De cision Point)

    Define Sequel paths

    COGs are elected

    Sketch other possibil ities ?

    Continue OPP

    Choose the campaignplan

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    Figure 7 – Decisive Point Analysis – Activity Diagram

    Page 29

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 30

    5 Criteria Management

    5.1 Description The importance of criteria man agement in ti me-sensitive planning, u sing the CFOPP is ev ident. Cri teria management relates to the evaluation of the success of an operation (transition conditions including criteria for success) or relates to the appropriate criteria, when considering the choice of certain COAs over others. These criteria can be set by a Co mmander and his planners, early on in the planning process. So, the valid COAs are examined against a set of c riteria that is weighted, according to the operational end state and the transition conditions. This will remove potential subjective evaluation towards a particular solution during the COA evaluation process, by engaging the staff in an objective assess ment of the COAs . Therefore, the criteria for comparison must be set according to guidelines and intent of the Commander.

    To support time-sensitive planning, a lib rary of criteria sets that are relev ant doctrinally or relevant given past si milar o perations s hould be m ade a vailable t o t he pl anners. T he vary ing t ypes of operations fo r Domestic or Expeditionary will require their unique sets of evaluation criteria. Usi ng a lib rary of criteria sets, a C ommander and his p lanning staff should be ab le to more quickly identify the appropriate set o f criteria to apply for the operation being planned.

    This approac h should also a llow the pla nners to retrieve and m anage criteria dyna mically because of changing situations (e.g. a UN m andated operation moves from peace s upport to peac e making) and/or a change t o th e mission. Th is can be don e usin g a search, a reu se fu nctionality app lied to th e Tran sition conditions (including criteria for success) and using also t he criteria to evaluate and compare Courses of Action (COAs).

    A sec ond considere d a pproach is t o allow planne rs to validate specifi c aspects of plan ning su ch as the viability of COAs, Centres of Gravity and the coherence of the set of COA evaluation criteria. CF planning doctrine preaches a viability guideline to ensu re the results of the COG Analysis. The COA Analysis will yield realistic options to consider for the plan. As such, viability tests are imposed to ensure that the COAs are tested (Suitable, Feasible, Acceptable, Exclusive, Complete) and the COGs are also tested (targetability and defeatability).

    5.2 Use Cases As indicated previously, the criteria management concept groups several independent capabilities related to management of variou s k inds of criteria. Two high level cap abilities h ave been iden tified t o m anage criteria. The first group of capabilities is the functionality to search and reuse criteria previously defined in other pl ans. Those pl ans may be rel ated t o pa st si milar si tuations or may be devel oped as co ntingency plans (CONPLAN). Searching and reusing functionality is applied to the following kinds of criteria:

    • Transition Conditions (including criteria of success); and • Criteria to evaluate and compare COAs.

    The second set o f capabilities g roups’ functionalities related to criteria, to validate specific aspect o f the planning:

    • Criteria to validate the viability of COAs; • Criteria to validate Centres of Gravity (CoG); and • Validation of the coherence of the set of COA evaluation criteria.

    5.2.1 Search & Retrieve Criteria Capability Planning i s es sentially based o n a pplied doctrine an d ex perience of pl anners. T he doctrine guides t he planning p rocess i n a com mon way t o u nify t he u nderstanding of el ements t hat makes u p or i nfluences decisions related to the plan. Experience allows the planner to produce a plan while drawing upon similar planning situations in the past.

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Experience may be appl ied individually in making decisions, based on successes a nd failures, in previous challenges. Experience may also be applied collectively. Planning decisions consider experience related to what was going well and poorly, in the execution of past operations. In th is way, when a new situation happens and requi res a plan to counter or take adva ntage of, pla nners may consider successful decisions made by others, facing similar situations. Some plans are developed to solve a specific operational problem. Often, time to analyse and sketch a plan is too short to make the best deci sion for the si tuation. In this case, planners may develop contingency plans (CONPLAN) well in advance. CONPLANs are developed in an unstressed environment to counter a possible future situation. Considering past p lans an d co ntingency p lans, th e system p rovides the cap ability to search similar situations and allows copying various relevant planning elements to the new plan, to be used as a st arting point. To determine which criteria to copy and modify (change the weight and threshold), the user m ay consult the After Action Review (AAR) related to those criteria. The After Action Review allows planners to capture the initial criteria, after that the order (plan) has been executed. With th is capability, the p lanner may evaluate if a criteri on has been too heavily weigh ted or under estimated based on the results of the review. The user may also indicate which criteria would have been considered during the evaluation.

    act Criteria

    OP

    P fo

    r P

    lan

    2O

    PP

    for

    Pla

    n 1

    Plan cel l 1

    Plan c ell 2

    Define criteria

    Op ce llPlan 1

    Dev elop plan Define situation (operationtype/location)

    Execute Order (plan)

    After Action Rev iew

    Create new plan Search existing criteria inold plans based on the

    situation of the new plan

    Consult After ActionRev iew

    Copy existing criteria

    Pla n 2

    Rev iew Criteria

    «Include»

    Step 4

    «flow»

    Ste p 2

    Ste p 3

    «flow»

    «flow» «flow»

    Step 1

    «flow»

    «flow»

    «flow»

    «flow» «flow»

    «flow»

    Figure 8 – Search Criteria – Use Case Diagram

    Page 31

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 32

    5.2.1.1 Evaluation Criteria COPlanS use a set of criteria to evaluate and com pare COAs of a plan. Those criteria are de fined according to the nature and the location of the operation. Each criterion has a specific weight and threshold to evaluate and com pare COAs . Consi dering that a plan m ay have sim ilarities wit h ot hers (o peration type/location), th e syste m may retriev e ex isting ev aluation criteria and co py th em o ver to ev aluate it s COAs. Using the search capability, the user requests search ing of criteria, b ased on similar operation categories (Domestic, Expeditionary), operation types (Disaster assistance, High intensity war figh ting…) and/or on location (Afghanistan, Bosnia…). The search on old plans and contingency plans is performed. The user may consult the After Action Review information of the retrieved criteria to select those to copy. When criteria are copie d, their weights are adjusted, according to their define d importance in the source plans. For e xample: an old plan contains many criteria. Some of them (criteria 1 and 2) have respectively 10% and 40% for weight of importance. If only these 2 criteria are copie d to th e new plan, their weights are adjusted to 20% a nd 80%, to res pect the same relative degree of i mportance. This is als o applicable when criteria are copied from different plans. The sea rch c riteria may also com e from th e doct rine. According to t he o peration categ ory (Do mestic, Expeditionary) and type (Disaster assistan ce, High intensity war fi ghting…), some criteria are su ggested for the evaluation. The following tables (Table 6 and Table 7) provide evaluation criteria to use, according to the nature of the operation.

    Table 2 – Factors used in COA Analysis for Expeditionary Operations

    Types of operation

    Disaster

    Assistance Sp or Non-Combat Evacuation

    Low intensity

    Humanitarian Assistance Sp (Permissive)

    Low Intensity

    Peace Sp under NATO or UN (Ch VI) (Non-Permissive)

    Med Intensity

    Peace Making under NATO or UN (Ch VII)

    High Intensity

    War Fighting or Counter-Insurgency (NATO or other multi-lateral alliance)

    C2 C2 C2 C2 C2

    Cooperation Cooperation Freedom of Action Freedom of Action

    Freedom of Action

    Host Nation Sp Host Nation Sp Unity of Effort Unity of Effort Unity of Effort

    Sustainment Sustainment Interoperability Interoperability Interoperability

    Time and Space Time and Space

    Host Nation Sp Host Nation Sp Lethality (Direct)

    ROE ROE Force Protection

    Sustainment Sustainment Sustainment

    Coercion Coercion Surprise

    Deterrence Deterrence Deception

    Time and Space Use of Force Synchronization

    Time and Space Deterrence

    Concentration of Force

    Time and Space

    Factors (Criteria)

    Transition to Peace

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 33

    Types of operation

    Disaster

    Assistance Sp or Non-Combat Evacuation

    Low intensity

    Humanitarian Assistance Sp (Permissive)

    Low Intensity

    Peace Sp under NATO or UN (Ch VI) (Non-Permissive)

    Med Intensity

    Peace Making under NATO or UN (Ch VII)

    High Intensity

    War Fighting or Counter-Insurgency (NATO or other multi-lateral alliance)

    Psychological Effect (Indirect)

    Table 3 – Factors Used in COA Analysis for Domestic Operations

    Types of Operation

    Disaster Assistance Sp or SAR

    Humanitarian Assistance Sp

    Aid to the Civil Power

    Support to Law Enforcement

    Martial Law under Emergency Measures Act

    C2 C2 C2 C2 C2

    Cooperation Cooperation ROE ROE ROE

    Interoperability Interoperability Interoperability

    Public Support Public Support Public Support Public Support Force Protection

    Factors (Criteria)

    Public Support

    xix

    5.2.1.2 Transition Conditions Similarly to Evaluation criteria, condition transitions can be cop ied from existing and contingency plans to the new one. The searching request is based on the same elements i.e. category and type of operations and on the location. In the same way, the After Action Review can be consulted on Transition Conditions. After Action Review, fo r tran sition cond itions, allows feedback on those criteri a, after ex ecution of th e mission. Those comments may describe criteria which would or would not have been considered. The transition conditions or criteria of success can be copied between plans, because many similar missions may evaluate similar elements to be considered as a success.

    5.2.1.3 Commander’s Critical Information Request Commander’s Critical Information Requests (CCIRs) are no t really a set of criteria. They are most related to elements or speci fic questions that need to be ad dressed to support the commander’s decision making. Because re quests may be similar for eac h mission, ha ving a sim ilar s ituation, the system provi des the capability to copy existing CCIRs of another mission in the new one. This avoids having users to overlook relevant requests to address. Th e search is made on similar ele ment as ev aluation criteria and transition conditions.

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    5.2.2 Validation Criteria Capability During the execution of the CF-OPP, several options are analysed and compared to decide the scenario to perform, to achieve the mission. Before performing comparison of different options, each option must be evaluated to determine its viability, according to a set of pre-defined conditions.

    5.2.2.1 COA Viability Course of Actions (COAs) is the set of possible scenarios to execute, in order to achieve a mission. One of those defined options will be selected to become the plan and, eventually, the order to execute, in order to accomplish the mission. When C OAs are sketche d, t hey must be eva luated indivi dually to ve rify their viability before being c ompared together. If a COA do es not respect all the viability criteria, it should be corrected to become compliant with the viability criteria.

    act COA Viability

    COA is sketched

    COA v iability is ev aluated COA is viable

    COA is compared toothers

    COA is modified

    Yes

    No

    Figure 9 – COA Viability – Activity Diagram

    To consider a COA to be viable, it must comply with all following criteria:

    Table 4 – COA Viability criteria

    Criteria Description

    Suitable The COA acco mplishes th e mission an d its essen tial ta sks, regarding th e co mmander guidance and the expected end state. The mission defeats the adversary centre of gravity.

    Feasible The COA proposes available resources to sustain the mission.

    Page 34

  • Operational Decision Making Support - Operational Concept Description

    Page 35

    Criteria Description

    Acceptable The C OA propos es usage of res ources e fficiently, rega rding its limita tion, i ncluding in respect to doctrine, policies, regulations, legislation and guidelines.

    Exclusive The COA has a different main effort than others. Thus its own strengths and weaknesses.

    The COA answers the following questions:

    What The COA proposes a clear scenario to achieve the mission.

    Who The COA proposes resources to perform tasks.

    When The COA proposes timeline to perform tasks.

    Why The COA exposes its strengths and weaknesses to accomplish the mission.

    Where The COA identifies specific locations where tasks will be performed.

    Complete

    How The COA explains how it should be conducted to achieve the mission. xx

    5.2.2.2 COG Validation A Centre of Gravity (COG) is a kind of objective with our efforts should converge, to attack or protect. For each operation, only one COG is us ually defined to a ttack and one to protect. Duri ng the COG a nalysis, many COG ca ndidates can be stated. T o determine which COG to elect, it must minimally be compliant with the following criteria:

    • Defeatability: Its destruction or neutralization will inevitably lead to the defeat of the adversary (or th e nullification of the adversary's ab ility to p revent th e jo int force fro m attaining its objectives); and

    • Targetability: It is a syste m, target set or capability that can be successf ully engage d, eithe r directly or indirectly, with operational level military power.

    5.2.2.3 Evaluation Criteria Validation Evaluation c riteria are us ed t o e valuate a nd com pare C OAs. Eac h m ission m ay have a different se t of criteria to elect the best COA to ach ieve the mission. So me of available evaluation criteria in the system may have cl osely related meanings. For example: si mplicity an d com plexity. In spite of t hey have opposite m eaning, bot h e valuate sim ilar aspect of a C OA. When a user esta blishes weights for e ach criterion, this may cause the user to i nadvertently assign the double of the desired weight for an aspect of the evaluation. In the case of simplicity/complexity, he may assign 10% of evaluation importance for the simplicity criterion and 10% for the complexity. In f act, this means 20% of im portance for this as pect of the evaluation. To av oid overweighting of some cri teria, t he sy stem may seek to validate th at criteria are ge nuinely independent of one a nother. For this, the administrator user associates evaluation criteria to others being co-dependent. In th is way, th e syste m may n otify u sers wh en th ey define a set of eval uation criteria containi ng co-dependencies. This concept can be extended to other criteria properties to validate the coherence of the family of criteria.

    • Exhaustive: The set of criteria is exh austive in the sense that the addition of a new criterion would not affect the comparison of 2 COAs; because this set already reflects adequately all the attributes and e ffects tha t a stakehol der (Officer, Commander, etc.) conside red pertinent to th e ev aluation process.

    • Cohesive: Th ere m ust b e con sistency bet