) DEVELOPMENT OF A M&S CONCEPT TO SUPPORT
TNO, The Hague, The Netherlands
The need
Military interventions aim to influence the world in order to establish a desired end-
state. To this end, a commander follows the operations process by which a desired end-
state is translated to tactical activities conducted by the units under his command.
Doing so successfully requires a _ high level of situational understanding. A commander
will have to make inferences about effects and future behaviour in the face of deep
uncertainty. Modelling and simulation (M&S) methods, such as System Dynamics, could
serve as a useful capability to support the operations process.
*Guido.Veldhuis@TNO.nl, +31 (0)6 528 036 83
THE MILITARY OPERATIONS PROCESS
Guido Veldhuis*, Bas Keijser, Nico de Reus
Current state-of-art
2014). Which challenges does M&S
Approach Case based concept development and experimentation of a M&S concepts to support the military operations process
Challenge 1: Actors, factors and complex interactions
across the physical, information and human
landscape
The recent increase in hybrid threats signals the
importance of considering a broader scope of factors
and actors then solely military. A multi-method M&S
approach is needed that integrates time and space
factors, tangible factors as well as intangible factors.
Challenge 2: Uncertainty: M&S in the ‘fog of war’
Many relevant variables cannot be directly, accurately
and/or continuously observed. This causes inherent
uncertainty about the state of the world, the drivers of
behaviour, effects of actions and what goals a
commander can best aim for. Analysis of a broad set
of plausible futures generated by variations in models,
relations and parameters is needed with the aim of
robustness and adaptability.
Challenge 3: Beyond problem understanding: Support
the COA development and evaluation
A commander will need to decide what to do, when
and where. M&S should therefore support analysis of
time and place specific actions and effects in the
human, information and physical terrain.
Challenge 4: The need for flexibility
To handle new environments, new opponents and
evolving dynamics, model building and refinement
should be fast and flexible. Model iterations should
capture growing understanding. This requires easily
altered and re-usable structure, distributed
collaboration, separation between structure and data,
short run time and accessible analyses. Transparency
is vital for collaboration and hand-overs.
Proof of concept model
> Collaborative development with end-users
> Entity based SD
> Spatial and non-spatial factors
> Capable of COA testing under uncertainty
Problem
analysis
Analysis
of design
Conceptual planning
Mission Design
DESIGN 5
Detailed planning
Operational plan
4
|
Execution
Orders
.
Model
building /
Refinement
COA
analysis
4
MONITOR EVALUATE
Direction
@ Operations process
@ M&S process
Figure 1. The operations process and M&S process.
‘Uncertaint
2 entities
NE
> Interactive data displays
NATO FORCE
Population in area
Challenge 5: Integration within the operations process
When there is no clearly defined role for M&S within
existing staff processes, it is at risk of becoming a
separate stream of activities with little added value.
Structured process integration enables alignment of
questions, input and timely delivery of output.
Challenge 6: Incorporating tacit knowledge
Gathering hard data is difficult, requires scarce
intelligence assets while results often have limited
reliability. Models can and should rely on the growing
understanding that the people on the ground acquire.
Not only soldiers, but civilians, diplomats and NGO’s.
Model building itself can foster cooperation and
shared understanding.
Challenge 7: (P)resenting modelling & simulation
Commanders and their staff are usually not familiar
with M&S methods and information displays and the
potential uses and limitations of M&S are not intuitive.
A tiered approach (M&S expert - OA/Intel analyst -
end-user) is required to facilitate both high quality
analyses and effective end-user advice in familiar
formats and integrated with other available methods.
Challenge 8: Effective and critical users
Current experience of military staff does not
necessarily prepare them to be critical and effective
M&S end-users. Commanders should know the
(dis)jadvantage and which questions to ask. Analyst
staff should gain in-depth M&S expertise. The building
of this capability in the armed forces is a long-term
process. Experiments with pioneers are a first step.
CI User input
___| Entity type
T7 Actors
@ f Civilian actors
“2 Other factors
am
ee Interventions
ee Area
28 entities
7-7 14 entities
Adversary forces
Variable # of entities
CUY
1 entity
74 all ¢
wou il
GE
Number of radicals vs. Time
Separatist support vs. Time
Bea
Figure 3. Example outputs of a base case and three COAs. Outputs are accessible through an interactive user interface that allows quick access to time series data (left
and right), spatial data (second from left) and uncertainty analyses (second from right). All displays support comparison of different COAS
CD&E workshops
Iterative concept development and experimentation
with stakeholders (military staff, operational analysts,
intelligence analysts) over the past 2 years during
several workshops with topics such as:
- Needs and challenges
- Integration in the operations process
- Establish GMB as suitable method
- Uncertainty analyses and clustering techniques
- Suitability of data displays
- Latest experiment: Full approach
Latest experiment
A 2 day workshop with stakeholders focused on a
fictitious NATO Article 4/5 situation. Three steps:
> Current state-of-art approach:
Asses situation using qualitative MARVEL modelling.
Qualitative COA development and comparison.
> Future approach
Analyses of situation aided by proof-of-concept model
simulations (See Figure 2.)
COA development and comparison by simulation
> Evaluation of benefit for understanding and plan
Way-ahead
> On-going: implementation of qualitative modelling
methods in military staff, such as MARVEL
> Continued development of quantitative methods,
raising awareness and acceptance through use in
experiments and exercises.
BEFERENUES
Connable, B., Perry, W. L., Doll, A., Lander, N., & Madden, D. (2014). Modeling,
Simulation, and Operations Analysis in Afghanistan and Iraq. RAND National Defense
Research Institute.
¢ Veldhuis, G. A., van Scheepstal, P., Rouwette, E., & Logtens, T. (2015). Collaborative
problem structuring using MARVEL. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 3: 249-273.
* Some icons made by Freepik licensed by CC BY 3.0
TNO innovation
for life eee aa
Within the Netherlands armed forces operations process, qualitative modelling
techniques such as Causal Loop Diagrams and MARVEL are used. (Veldhuis et al.
2015). However, the simulation capabilities of M&S methods (such as stock-and-
flow or agent-based models) are not. Analysis of US operations research activities
during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom revealed only limited use
of M&S, with mixed results (Connable et al.,
face when applied in the operations process?
