JDMSOriginal article

Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology8(1) 37 –59© 2011 The Society for Modeling and Simulation InternationalDOI: 10.1177/1548512910379477http://dms.sagepub.com

1. Introduction

The presented Operations Intent and Effects Model (OIEM) consists of a model and formalism. The model captures the relations and causality amongst information elements rooted in decision making (DM) by using a system theory.1–4 The very basis for the OIEM is that systems, e.g. individuals, organiza­tions, and machines, are goal oriented.1–3 When surveying DM theory and the field of Normative, Descriptive, and Prescrip­tive DM models and process,5–8 they all can be generalized to be goal oriented in that there is something that needs to be achieved. In order to make a decision that leads towards the goal, information is needed about the current situation, and if no such information is present a search for information is con­ducted. With the current information as a basis, i.e. initial state, decisions can be made that result in a decision that is internal or external. The internal decisions only affect the own system and may or may not be affecting the surrounding system environ­ment. An external decision needs to be communicated, and is generally either a directive to some other system to do some action or it describes the decision made and what it means.

The formalism expresses the external communication and the first external decision type is an example of orders and requests9,10 and the second external decision type is an example of intent.11–18 Orders, request, and intent structures

are the output from military DM and planning processes and in its simplest form describe the actions to be per­formed and can also describe effects and their relation to actions and other effects, as well as intention and goals.

The OIEM development method utilizes a model­driven engineering approach19 and separates specification from design by firstly constructing a model of operation intent and effects for command and control systems that is based on DM theory1,2,5–8,20–34 and military DM models9,10,35 and secondly by formalizing the model into a lexical functional grammar (LFG)36 that separates structure from function.

1Security and Defense Solutions/Training and Simulation, Saab, Sweden2Center of Excellence for C4I, George Mason University, USA3De Montfort University, UK4 Gothia Science Park, Skövde, Sweden / De Montfort University, UK5 University of Skövde, Sweden

Corresponding author:Per M Gustavsson, Marketing Manager / Senior Research Scientist Training Systems - Security and Defense Saab AB SE-561 85 Huskvarna Street, Stensholmsvägen 20, Swedenper.m.gustavsson@saabgroup.com

Operations Intent and Effects Model

Per M Gustavsson1, Michael R Hieb2, Philip Moore3,Patric Eriksson4 and Lars Niklasson5

AbstractMilitary missions in the 21st century are characterized by combinations of traditional symmetric conventional warfare, irregular warfare, and operations other than war. The inherent uncertainty in an actual mission and the variety of potential organizations (e.g. multi-agency, non-governmental, private volunteer, international, international corporations) from several countries that support the mission makes collaboration and co-ordination a key capability for command and control. The ability to communicate and automatically process intent and effects is vital in order for a commander to cooperate with other organizations and agencies and lead subordinates in such a way that the overall mission is completed in the best possible way, including exploitation of fleeting opportunities, i.e. enable for self-synchronization amongst teams and allow for subordinate initiatives. However, intent and effects are often absent in the current and forthcoming digitalized information models, and if intent and effects are present it is likely to be found that the representations are made as free-text fields based on natural language. However, such messages are very difficult to disambiguate, particularly for automated machine systems. The overall objective for the Operations Intent and Effects Model is to support operational and simulated systems by a conceptual intent and effects model and a formalism that is human and machine interpretable.

Keywordscommand and control, decision support, effects, intent, simulation

38 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 8(1)

In the following section the key concepts that are the basis for the OIEM are presented. The model view of the OIEM is then expressed, followed by the core parts of the formalism that describe intent and effects. In represent­ing intent and effects a series of examples are presented, followed by the conclusions.

2. Key conceptsThis section presents the transition from traditional com­mand and control towards the networked paradigm, followed by a presentation of intent and current approach to convey common operational picture by the Battle Management Language (BML).

2.1 Networked paradigmReformation of the military doctrine is a continuous endeavor. The ongoing reformation of military doctrine, to fit the challenges of the 21st century, originates from Nikolaj Ogarkov in the early 1980s. Ogarkov presented the change in terms of extended usage of precision weapons, comput­ers, and sensors, cf. Askelin37 At the end of the 1980s the concept was put forward in the US by Andrew Marshall, where he expanded the original Soviet approach, which was focused on central Europe and on technology, to add the doctrine and organization. Marshall presented it as the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA).37 The RMA has been applied into network paradigms by almost every nation and alliance and transformed into vision documents.38–40 The core in the networking paradigm is networking amongst people, processes, and technology.41 Networking enables collaboration and encourages self­synchronization, where

the participants together direct and coordinate their actions without explicit guidance from higher command.20,21 The Current Command and Control (C2) processes, e.g. the Military DM Process (MDMP),9 adhere to mission com­mand with key enablers, such as commander’s intent (CSI), subordinates initiative, mission orders, and resource alloca­tion. Nevertheless, the increased role of collaboration and cooperation challenges the traditional C2 processes towards more dynamic and self­guided processes.

2.2 Agility, focus, and convergenceOrganizations need to have the agility to meet the challenges of complexity and uncertainty.22 By commanding intent, independence and improvisation is promoted (Klein,23 p.222), and with consistent understanding of command intent (CI), together with shared situation awareness, the focus and direction will be kept and promoted (Alberts;22 Alberts and Hayes,24 p.27). Individual teams will then, under comparable situations in their goal­seeking process, converge to act, respond, and deliver effects equivalent, shaping the behavior of enemies and allies (Alberts;22 Smith,25 p.108).

Put in other words Agility, Focus, and Convergence22 is command without commanders20,27 and, in order to net­work people, processes, and technology, it is required that there exist an ability to collect and share information. The combined maturity models, figure 1, visualize the interde­pendence between Nato Network Enabled Capabilities, C2, supporting planning process, and degree of situation under­standing.26 Thus, in order to be able to perform transformed operations (NNEC), there is a need for agile C2 systems that adhere to a dynamic and adaptive planning process that require shared understanding.

Deg

ree

of S

ituat

ion

Und

erst

andi

ng

Planning Maturity Model

Shared Understanding

Widespread Information Sharing

Controlled/Restricted Information Sharing

Traditional Collaborative Edge Dynamic Adaptive

3 4 5

Planning Approaches

1 2

0

Agile C2Transformed Operations

Levels of C2Maturity

Levels of NNECMaturity

Collaborative C2Integrated Operations

Coordinated C2Coordinated Operations

De-conflicted C2De-conflicted Operations

Conflicted C2Disjointed Operations

Figure 1. Three maturity models (after Alberts and Hayes,26 p.177).

Gustavsson PM et al. 39

In the Integrated Dynamic Command and Control (IDC2),35 it is emphasized that much of the coordination can be done locally, i.e. on a lower level, without explicit orders.28,35,27,43 The higher levels of command will then have time to consider other aspects of the problems facing them and carefully crafted rules of engagement (ROE) are needed.28,35,27,43 Within a top­down command­directedsynchronization is the inherent loss of combat power. To achieve a high­speed continuum,44 the main responsibility of the commander and staff is then to articulate intent and crafting the ROE.28,27,43 For armed forces that have mission tactics as the principal doctrine, this is not a new concept. However, with an articulated intent it is envisioned that larger units will be able to coordinate with other units and conduct the mission without any explicit directions from higher headquarters.28,27,43

2.3 IntentIn a study conducted by Shattuck and Woods,11 they exam­ined the role of communicating intent. In the study, company commanders received a battalion order including the bat­talion CSI. Then changes to the situation was introduced and the actions performed by the company commanders were compared with the intent of the battalion commander. The result was that the company commanders matched their battalion CSI in only 34% of the cases.

But what is intent? Pigeau and McCann12 state that intent is more than an aim or a purpose; they state that intent con­tains the aim and purpose together with all implications. Hence, intent not only describes an end state, but also a con­cise expression of the purpose of the operation and may also include the commander’s assessment of the adversary com­mander’s intent and an assessment of where and how much risk is acceptable during the operation. This view is supported by the work of Klein,23 where intent is described in seven groups and is enhanced with an eight group expressing cul­ture and behavior aspects.45 Intent is for this work defined as.

1. Goal – the purpose of the task (the higher­level goals). It provides the big picture of why the mis­sions and task are to be executed.

2. End state – the objective of the task (an image of the desired outcome). It provides a picture of the end state.

3. Sequence – the sequence of steps in the plan. This is the plan that describes what do in general terms (Courses of Action/Effect (COAs/COEs)).

4. State – the reasoning behind the plan, what informa­tion was available, who was making the decisions, under what time pressure and other circumstances. The rationale for the plan.

5. Key decisions – the key decisions that may have to be made. Since there is a large amount of uncertainty,

the COAs that form the plan may overlap and be exe­cuted in parallel or in other order, some COAs have higher priority than others and so forth. To provide guidance in how to choose, if necessary.

6. Antigoals – antigoals describes things that the Commander and Staff do not want to happen. Antigoals are meaningful when used to clarify the alternatives of COAs/COEs, i.e. unwanted outcomes.

7. Constraints – constraints and other considerations that should be taken into account. Spawns over the whole range from policy to weather and terrain.

8. Expressives – expressives expand the constraints section to pinpoint cultural and doctrinal behaviors. What cultural and doctrinal aspects will influence the execution of the actions by a specific participant? In the author’s work45 expressives are introduced to capture the style of organizations and command­ers: experience, risk taking, use of power and force, diplomacy, ethics, norms, morale, creativity, and unorthodox behavior. The use of expressives can range from where participants express their style to other participants or staff that develop models over the participants to be used in COA development and war gaming. In both cases, expressives are a support to better understand the collaboration participant’s capabilities and conduct of operations.

2.4 Explicit and implicit intentPigeau and McCann46 introduce the idea that intent consists of an explicit part and an implicit part. The explicit intent is the one that is publicly stated for all the Head Quarter (HQ) staff and subordinates to perceive, think about, and act upon. Theoretically, all staff and subordinate member should be able to reiterate CSI at any point during the process, see figure 2.

Figure 2. Implicit and explicit intent (after Pigeau and McCann,46 p.166).

40 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 8(1)

Implicit intent is unvocalized expectations that the com­mander and all team members have. The implicit intent is developed over a longer time, prior to the mission, and consists of the style with which the commander is conduct­ing the operations with respect to experience, risk willing, use of power and force, diplomacy, ethics, social values, moral, norms, creativity, and unorthodox behavior and the concepts, policies, laws, and doctrine agreed to by military, civil, organizations, agencies, nations, and coalitions. The explicit intent is either vocalized (i.e. made publicly) in the doctrine, orders, or statements or can be derived from questions and answers.

Implicit intent can be made explicit by transforming the implicit into explicit statements. The commander can vocalize the Personal, Military, or Cultural implicit intent. The commander can be monitored, e.g. by his subordinates and team members, who then draw conclusions about the commander’s implicit intent, and in the same way a com­mander can draw conclusions regarding the subordinates. Pigeau and McCann46 present some mechanisms of making original implicit intent made explicit and they are: (1) externalization is when a commander or subordinate makes the internal intents explicit declared; (2) internalization is a version of tacit learning, when a commander presents the intent and the mouth is saying something and the body lan­guage signal something different, which add context and meaning that are put into the mental model, affecting the implicit intent; (3) socialization is meeting and talking and performing exercises together, teaming, i.e. finding the implicit intent and motives, etc.; and (4) dialogue is the explicit stated, publicly vocalized available description of an individual’s intent

2.5 Commander’s intentCSI plays a central role in military DM and planning. CSI acts as a basis for staff and subordinates to develop their own plans and orders that transform thought to action, while maintaining the overall intention of their commander.

The commander’s intent links the mission and concept of operations. It describes the end state and key tasks that, along with the mission, are the basis for subordinates’ initiative. Commanders may also use the commander’s intent to explain a broader purpose beyond that of the mission statement. The mission and the commander’s intent must be understood two echelons down. U.S. Department of the Army9

CSI can be said to originate from one commander’s mind and is disseminated to the echelons below. CSI rarely gets reviewed and updated. For a short duration mission, such as a deliberate attack, the original statement may remain valid throughout planning. However, for longer phases, the CSI might be changing in phase with the

unfolding of the situation. Commanders must develop their intent within the bounds of a whole hierarchy of guiding principles that limit the types of solutions that they can entertain.12

2.6 Common intentIn today’s operational environment, teams need to work together towards a desired end state. Pigeau and McCann46 define Command and Control: ‘Command and Control: The establishment of common intent to achieve coordinated action’. Common Intent is the combination of explicit intent and implicit intent. Pigeau and McCann12 put for­ward that, for a realizable Common Intent, there needs to be a single shared objective, together with a clear understand­ing in how that objective can be attained. Common Intent is an idealized concept where maximum overlap, with mini­mum scattering, exists between the intent of the commander and the intents of the subordinates. Knowledge of the com­mander needs to be shared at all levels, guiding principles, reasoning ability, and to express similar levels of commit­ment. Intent is then not only something for a commander to disseminate, but also to exchange, by learning the team member’s intent.

Farrell and Lichacz47 state that Common Intent describes a socio­psychological phenomenon that seems to be evi­dent amongst a team that achieves a common objective. The CSI is one person’s view, but ‘every individual have intent of her own’, which implies that it may not just be enough to disseminate intent amongst staff members and subordinates. A conclusion of the work of Farrell13 is that in teams with different military and civilian cultures, that all team members would need to establish a common understanding of the mission objectives and the CSI with respect to their own competencies, authorities, and responsibilities.

Pigeau and McCann12 state that diverse team members need to have a high degree of Common Intent to perform effectively. In such teams the commander needs to ensure that the intent is perceived and understood by all team members (cf. Pigeau and McCann;12 Farrell;13 Pigeau and McCann;46 Farrell and Lichacz47).

2.7 Command intentCI is a practical view of Common Intent, meaning that it is not plausible to expect that all individuals during a whole mission in all situations will share the same intent. CI will be developed for specific parts of missions and shared amongst the participants. To establish CI the involvement of all participants is necessary, e.g. compare with football or soccer teams where the overall intent is formalized by coaches in collaboration with the players and where each player knows what the other players intention are.

Gustavsson PM et al. 41

2.8 Communicating intent

The ability to communicate and automatically process intent, effects and representations of Situational Awareness is indeed central for the participants. Alberts and Hayes29 state that intent may or may not be: (1) explicit communi­cated; (2) consciously or formally accepted; or (3) widely shared. The first two issues are defined in terms of implicit, explicit, individual, shared, common, CI, etc. and presented in the intent section above. For the third issue intent needs to be articulated in a way that is interpretable by the receivers. Intent needs to be communicated in both operational and simulated environments so that course of action analysis, mission rehearsal, and training can be performed.

Current information models have a strong focus in repre­senting situation awareness, but often concepts such as intent and effects are absent. The absence is due to the fact that the situation awareness models48 often are interpreted as situation information about who is there, what they are doing, and what they will do. Intent and effects provides the ability to also express what they want and why they want it.49 Of course, there are information models that convey intent and effects by allowing free­text comments to accom­pany a data transmission. In this way, natural language messages can be employed by the commander to express his ideas. The difficulty here, of course, is that natural language messages are very difficult to disambiguate, particularly when relaying those messages for automated (machine) interpretation.3,45,49–51.

2.9 Battle Management LanguageCarey et al.52 presented the idea of a standardized BML where it should be possible for Command, Control, Com­munications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) systems, simulation systems, and robotic forces to communicate unambiguously with any of these other types of systems. The basis for BML is:

Battle Management Language is the unambiguous language used to command and control forces and equipment conduct­ing military operations and to provide for situational aware­ness and a shared, common operational picture. Cary et al.52

In Gustavsson et al.45 this is articulated in two basic principles for BML:

1. BML must be minimally ambiguous;2. BML must not constrain the full expression of CI.

2.9.1 Minimal ambiguity BML is commonly presented in a three­view model.52,53 The first view is the BML Doctrine, which is the glossary/thesaurus that consists of each term and its unambiguous definition. It cannot be limited to a

single service doctrine but must allow different doctrinal viewpoints of multiple services and nations to be defined. The second view is BML Representation, which provides a structure and relates the terms defined in the doctrine in a way that they result in the description of executable mis­sions and tasks. A mission is defined by a sequence of tasks that must be executed in an orchestrated manner. The third view is BML Protocols, which is used to communicate BML representations of CI, plans, and orders. The protocol view standardizes the way the BML description of execu table tasks and assigned executing military means is transported from the source system to the target system, which may be another C2 system, a simulation system or a robot.

The first phase of the Coalition BML (C­BML)54–57 con­sists of the development of a three­level architecture that follows the harmonized approach articulated in Kunde et al.,58 where the interplay between the model­baseddata engineering approach59,60 and the lexical grammar approach61 is presented.

The architectural base starts with Who, What, When, Where, Why (5Ws) term subsets. The term subsets uses the logical model of the Multilateral Interoperability Programme (MIP)62 Joint Consultation, Command and Control informa­tion Exchange Model (JC3IEDM)63 to express the 5Ws. The next level is the 5W contextual term subsets that apply addi­tional constraints and contextual relationships derived from the 5W term subsets. An abstraction is made enabling for C­BML context­specific terms and their relationships. The basic 5Ws are defined along with additional specifications of roles (context) for the Ws. This level introduces sub­classes of terms, such as Tasker and Taskee, representing subclasses of a ‘Who’. The highest level is Coalition Grammar Subsets, which place contextual terms into the grammatical context of a tasking, order, or report for a particular operational domain. This is yet an ever­higher abstraction by taking a portion of an Operation Order (OPORD) that is based on lexical grammar for tasks.61,64

2.9.2. Expression of command intent The two main appro­aches of formalizing CI within the BML community is either made by strictly following the CSI in a five­paragraph OPORD, as in Schade and Hieb,61,65 Hieb and Schade,66 or by the OIEM approach by first model intent and related con­cepts, Gustavsson et. al.45,49­51,67 The OIEM is presented in the following sections.

2.10 ReflectionBoth the BML and Command and Control Lexical Grammar (C2LG) are tightly coupled to the doctrinal language embed­ded within the JC3IEDM information model structure and vocabulary. The BML approaches since they are built from the JC3IEDM information model, vocabulary and enumerations, and the C2LG since specific lexicals are taken from JC3EDM.

42 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 8(1)

So, today, representation is bound to doctrine. However the representation ought to be unbound from doctrine since 21st century missions are not solely covered in either the JC3IEDM vocabulary or structure. There is a need for a model and a for­malism that focuses on the information communicated between systems in collaboration for common decision making pro­cesses used now and in the future. There is a need to formalize Operations Intent and Effects in a machine interpretable format.

3. Operations Intent and Effects ModelThe OIEM, figure 3, is a Command and Control model that describes the causality between intent and effects in tradi­tional, as well as network­enabled, decision­support planning processes. The overall characteristics of the OIEM are intro­duced in Gustavsson et al.45 and are enhanced to better reflect causality and relations in Gustavsson and Hieb49 and Gustavsson.50,51 The basis for the model is a holistic system view of purposeful systems,3 meaning that a system can be an individual or an organization and that a goal needs to be present. In OIEM the Goal captures both the individual goals (internal) and the external goals (the world around them). Information elements are necessary for exchange in a col­laborative setting.49,50 The Initial State contains information regarding the system in focus and the environment sur­rounding it. The actor, i.e. resource that conducts an action, such as an organization, agency, unit, or individual, is implicit in the OIEM. This is because each of the instances of the OIEM involves some actor. The goal is provided/developed by an actor, DM is conducted by an actor, the ini­tial state involves several actors, the order describes the actors, the action is conducted by the actors, effect is caused by the actions of actors, effects affect an actor, and actors can be described in the end state, therefore actors are implicit within the OIEM. In the following sections each element is presented.

3.1. IntentIntent in the form of CSI or CI is developed within a DM process, either explicitly or implicitly stated. In its very basic form it is describing an end state or is an expression of the eight facets describing purpose, objective, sequence, rationale, key decisions, antigoals, constraints, and expres­sives, as identified in Section 2.3 and forward.

The thin arrow from DM expresses that within the DM processes intent is produced and that it can be implicitly or explicitly expressed. The second thin arrow expresses that intent commonly describes an end state.

3.2 EffectsThe effects­based operations approach25,30–32,47 is pre­sented as a method to model the causes between actions and

effects, physical and behavioral, as well as direct and indi­rect effects. This is captured in the OIEM by linking actions to effects by the arrow denoted causes, i.e. the action causes the effect to occur. A series of effects can be considered as the producer of an end state. The effect as such can be con­sidered as a supportive effect, i.e. moving towards a desired end state, or unsupportive, i.e. moving away from the desired end state or resulting in an unwanted end state. In both cases the effects produce an end state. The behavioral, physical, or functional effect can span the whole variety of Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, and Information (PMESII) domains.

From a planning perspective, effects are connected into effect–nodes–action–resources (E­N­A­R) linkages and in the OIEM are visualized by the actions to effects arrows. Resources are not present in the OIEM, since it is default that some resources, e.g. organization, agency, or unit, con­duct some action that renders in effects.

3.3 Decision makingDM is to be seen as a container for the DM process of choice. Ackoff1 put forward that decisions are made by a purposeful system, meaning that there is an underlying goal for the system to pursue and that there is some sort of DM process that supports the achievement of the goal. For the OIEM the decision models are goal oriented, e.g. Classical DM (CDM),68 Judgment DM (JDM), Naturalistic DM,6 MDMP,9 effect­based approach to planning,25,30 or IDC2.35

The thick perceive arrows describe that the system per­ceives goals and the surroundings. The thick produce arrow describes the production of orders. The thin arrow to intent express that within the DM processes, intent is produced that can be implicitly or explicitly expressed. The dotted arrows express that an order cannot exist without a DM process, an initial state needs to be perceived to have a function, and goals without receivers are inefficient.

3.4 Goal/missionThe goal in the model describes the external request or order for an action, task, mission, etc, to be carried out by the system in focus, e.g. battalion or individual. The inter­nal goals that a system, e.g. battalion or individual, develops are also provided via the goal arrow to the systems DM process. In Lagervik and Gustavsson3 a Conceptual Situation Awareness (CSA) system is presented, combining the adaptive­learning management system theory1 and ori­entational activity theory2 to form a coherent synthesis of a system view. The center for the system is goals, since they affect the whole system. Goals are also variable over time, meaning that new inputs to the process can occur, which is why the goal arrow starts without connection to showcase this flexibility. Furthermore, the goals are affected by the

Gustavsson PM et al. 43

motivation of the evaluative system. In a military setting, the goals are delivered in form of a mission statement in an Operations Plan (OPLAN)9 or OPORD or within a CI state­ment. If choosing mission as the keyword, this might link the interpretation to be of traditional military planning, where a mission state is a one­paragraph statement of the form Who, What, When, Where, Why and thereby more task oriented than a CI statement might be. Since both a mission and CI express goals, the arrow is named goal.

A goal describes what the effects ought to result in, and the goal identifies the higher intent, i.e. intent from a supreme commander or organization. From a collaborative coopera­tive view, a goal is the unifier of where the organization or team is heading.

3.5 Initial stateA state is said to describe a condition or parameter values at a certain time. An ongoing state is said to be current, a state that has been is said to be previous, and an anticipated coming state is said to be future, e.g. current: the space shut­tle is in space, previous: it has lift off, future: it will dock at the space station. Depending on the purpose of what a state is describing, states also might have different sets and gran­ularity of conditions and parameters, but still be used in the same context. As an example, the state of the space shuttle to be operational differs whether it is on Earth, taking off, in orbit, docked to the space station, re­entering the atmo­sphere, or is landing. With different purpose of state descriptions or different observers, an object can belong to several states at the same time. As an example, consider the three following states: (1) the space shuttle is on the ramp; (2) the space shuttle is being prepared for lift off; and (3) the astronauts are in the space shuttle. The space shuttle can be in all the three states at the same time and yet each of the states can be the only one that describes the current state, e.g. if the space shuttle is in space it is not on the ramp and not prepared for lift off, the space shuttle may be in the assembly building and being prepared for lift off and so forth. In addition, a person on the ground would say that the space shuttle is in orbit in space, whereas the astronauts would say that they are docked to the space station.

A state is not only physical; it is also spawns over cogni­tive states, i.e. humans’ state of mind. The cognitive state will change over time and can range over a whole set of attributes, e.g. consciousness, political, intention, goals, and will. Further, a state can also be informative in describ­ing the capability and ability, e.g. that the space shuttle is ready to lift off, that the space shuttle rocket tanks are full, or state of readiness describing to which degree a person or system can conduct a certain task.

An initial state is the state that is/was used during the DM process and can be physical, i.e. describing objects’ position and actions, cognitive, i.e. describing person’s and

system’s state of being, or informative, i.e. describing objects, environment, person, and systems.

An initial state contains the relevant information for that particular DM process; in a military setting the initial state contains physical, cognitive, and informative information about own forces, enemy forces, other forces, civilians, other organizations, and the environment.

To assess the completion of the intent, plans, orders, tasks, actions, etc, the initial state is evaluated towards the current state. From a planning perspective and examining the Commander’s Critical Information Requirements (CCIR) (part of MDMP9), the intelligence product contains the initial state, current state, and assumed future states. This intelligence product is the initial state for the planning and DM, therefore the OIEM in focuses on the initial state.

3.6 End stateIn Field Manual 5.0,10 an end state consists of those condi­tions that, when achieved, accomplish the mission. An end state is described by the relationship between own forces and opponent forces, terrain, other people, and organiza­tions. An end state can be visualized by graphic overlays, in matrixes, or verbalized. An end state can spawn from being direct, e.g. destroying a bridge, when the bridge is destroyed the end state is reached, to abstract, e.g. no enemy attacks against the airfield. In addition, an end state can have a varied time span, e.g. for how long shall the airfield be pro­tected, and for how long is it valid to pursue the end state valid. An end state in an OPORD is usually in bullet form and it normally does not exceed five sentences. The usage of an end state is to enable the subordinates and collabora­tion parties to, within the scope of the full CSI/CI coordinate actions, establish effects in the most effective area at the most effective time. Effects is said to produce an end state, or rather it is a series of actions and effects that transition from an initial state towards an end state.

3.7 ActionsAn action is something that is executed by a system. The system can be technical or human controlled and can range from a single executer to a whole echelon of executers. The basic interpretation is that an action causes an effect. Several actions can together cause a specific effect or an action can cause several effects. Standard operating procedures are a set of actions that is applicable for a specific organization, echelon, or individual, i.e. an actor. How well an actor can perform an action is captured by its capability.49

3.8 OrdersOrders are well rooted in the military doctrine and from the MDMPs;9,10 the output is a Warning Order (WARNO),

44 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 8(1)

OPLAN, OPORD, or Fragmented Order (FRAGO) to be disseminated to subordinates to be executed. For the OIEM the wording order is used to encapsulate all four, together with simple direct order. An OPLAN does not differ that much from an OPORD. The focus of the order for the OIEM is the first three paragraphs: situation, mis­sion, and execution. The situation in an OPLAN express the superior objectives, rationale, and constraints. The mission is a single paragraph describing the higher goal, i.e. internally or externally developed. Finally, it is the execution that conveys intent, COAs, tasks to maneuver units and tasks to supporting units. The purpose of the order is to provide coordination of actions to establish effects in the most effective area at the most effective time to move towards a desired end state and is the core in effect­based operations.25

4. Formalizing commander’s intentThe OIEM formalism is rooted in the BML work.52–57 adheres to ontology thoughts,58,60,69,70 and is inspired by the C2LG.61,64–66,69,71,72 Whilst the OIEM approach should be generic, C2LG is focused on tasks and reports with a strong connection to both the JC3IEDM63 and the task to maneu­ver units section in a US OPORD. Further, the C2LG does not provide a coherent formalization of CI and effects. The OIEM formalism is a generic formalism for western mili­tary forces, i.e. it is not attached to a specific vocabulary or

specific doctrinal representation, and presents a coherent formalization of CI and effects.

4.1 FormalismThe formalism uses LFG36as the formalism of choice. The three words of LFG characterize the language: Lexical means that structural information is stored in the lexicon, in particular verb frames, e.g. words; Functional refers to sub­ject and objects and how they are grouped together by attribute­value matrices, i.e. how the lexicals are to be used in context; and Grammar refers to how the structure of the language is built. The LFG determines how to calculate C­structures, F­Structures and A­structures from expres­sions. A C­Structure shows the phrase structure of an expression. The F­Structure declares the grammatical func­tional behavior of the lexicals. The A­structure exhibits the semantical interpretation.

The OIEM grammar G is defined as a quadruple, G = {S, N, Σ, P}, where S is the starting symbol, N is a finite set of non­terminal symbols, Σ is a finite set of terminal symbols (the lexicon), and P is a finite set of production rules. A pro­duction rule expands a sequence of symbols taken from the union of N and Σ to another sequence of symbols taken from the union of N and Σ. The only restriction is that the left­hand side of a rule must contain at least one non­terminal symbol. The language generated by G, L (G), is the set of all sequences of symbols from Σ that can be produced by applying the rules of P, starting from S, cf. Schade and Hieb.61

Figure 3. Operations intent and effects decision support model.

Gustavsson PM et al. 45

The overall notation for the production rules are:

(Rule Number) Non­Terminal à Categorization-Terminals Terminals Terminals-place-holder Non­Terminals [{external specification}] // additional comments

The phrase structure rules presented here is a subset of the whole formalism, meaning that not all rules are pre­sented here. The rule numbers match the whole formalism, which is available at the OIEM website.73

4.2 General termsThe basis for the formalism is the 5Ws as addressed in Carey et al.52 and defined also as the basis for C­BML.

4.2.1 Who ‘Who’ declares what types of force or unit, and in its widest form an object that can describe an individual, group of individuals, equipment, instances, or environment, such as terrain features and weather, etc.

(1.101) Who à Actor | Nature

An actor is a system that is human based, meaning that the system is a human, is directly controlled by a human or indirectly affected by a human using some system. Nature is non­human operated, controlled, or initialized environ­mental objects, and features include animals.

An actor can be expanded to the role of the actor and is defined as follows:

(1.102) Actor à (ID | Unit<ID> | {Unit Type} | {Equipment Type} | Unknown)

An actor is identified by a name or identification, by the unit, by type of the unit, or by the type of equipment. In addi­tion, if there is no identification, it can be set to ‘unknown’. The purpose of that possible expansion is to allow a place­holder. In particular, when preparing a plan, giving an order, or asking for a request, the exact units may not be known or just the types of unit or equipment may be known.

A Commander, Requester, Executer, Reporter, Sender, and Receiver are all roles of an actor and follow the same structure as commander (1.103):

(1.103) Commander à commander Actor

A unit is described by identification, call sign, unit organi­zational structure, under command by other units, command unit, has resources, has equipment, and has capabilities:

(1.109) Unit à unit [ID] [{Call Sign}] [{belongs to} Unit] [{under command by} Unit] [commands Unit] [has Resources] [has Equipment] [has Capability Degree]* [Side]

Something that is affected expands to a Who, rule 1.101 above, and can then be expanded accordingly to actor and nature:

(8.04) Affected à Who

4.2.2 What ‘What’ describes what is about to happen, what is happening, what has happened and the effects of the actions. Further, a What then can be considered to describe a state. State in its basic form denotes actions and the effects from actions. Actions denote a set of acts of some sort. Generally, a What is heavily rooted in the doctrine and is therefore domain specific, meaning that effect verbs, as well as action verbs, are domain specific and need to be derived from the operational doctrinal language:

(1.201) What à (Action | Effect | State)*

Actions are further described in the actions section 4.9 below.

4.2.3 When ‘When’ describes the timing and can be abso­lute, abstract, or relative. An absolute time is a specific time stamp, e.g. 2009­11­30T01:0000Z (in ISO 8601 format referring to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)74). An abstract time is a time that is relative to a specified time symbol, e.g. K – 5 minutes meaning five minutes before the time defined by K. A relative time is a time that is relative to an absolute time, abstract time, or an event. Event is the noticed effect from an action and is in the OIEM described by a What. A relative time is prefixed by a temporal qualifier, e.g. after, before, during, etc.

The basic When phrase structure is then defined as follows:

(1.301) When à {Absolute Time} | {Abstract Time} | {Relative Time}

Start When is defined by a temporal term identifying dif­ferent start attributes, such as before, after, at, etc, followed by absolute time, abstract time, or an event encapsulated in a What. Further, a more complex timing can be used to syn­chronize with events, i.e. What, such as ‘starts at and ends at the same time as’. The first is captured in Temporal Term and the latter in Temporal Term Start:

(1.308) {Start When} à {Temporal Term} ({Absolute Time} | {Abstract Time} | What)(2.309) {Start When} à {Temporal Term Start} What

4.2.4 Where ‘Where’ describes the location according to an absolute position, a relative position, terrain feature, line, area, or volume. An absolute location is a specific geographical point, e.g. 58° 23′ 9.95″ N, 13° 52′ 6.22″ E in the World Geodetic System (WGS84) coordinate system.

46 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 8(1)

A relative position is a location that is relative to an absolute position, relative position, an object, or a terrain feature. An object, i.e. Who, can be an individual, group of individuals, or equipment. An environmental object is a terrain feature, named area, or point of interest and is captured within the Environment phrase structure of Who:

(1.401) Where à [ID] (Point | Shape | Environment)

4.2.5 Why ‘Why’ describes for what purpose each force will conduct its part of an operation, i.e. the reason for accomplishing the task. The Why can be individual or common. An individual Why describes the reason for the own unit, group, or individual and a common Why describes the reason that is shared between other units, groups, and individuals. Often an individual Why is syntactically defined as a single verb,72 e.g. destroy, which refers to the order, task, mission, etc, or a kind of sub clause that adds subject into the phrase, e.g. destroy the enemy. A common Why references to a higher goal, mission, order, intent, or effect that the ordered or requested task should create:

(1.501) Why à (individual | common) [{in order to} | {in accordance with}] {Purpose Verb} (Who | What | Goal | Intent | {End State} | Order)

Why is defined by an individual or common categori­zation terminal followed by a relational categorization terminal. The Purpose Verb is a single verb describing a why and is followed by what the Purpose Verb referred to, e.g. a Who, What, goal, intent, end state, or an order. A What includes actions, effects, and state.

4.3 IntentIntent consists of eight parts: goal – the purpose of the task; end state – the objective of the task and the only mandatory when expressing intent; sequence – the sequence of steps in the plan; state – the situation that builds the rationale for the plan; key decisions – the key decisions that may have tobe made; antigoals – antigoals describes things that the Commander and Staff do not want to happen; constraints – constraints and other considerations that should be taken into account; and expressives – expressives describe cultural and doctrinal behaviors:

(2.01) Intent à [Goal] End­State [Sequence] [State] [{Key Decisions}] [Antigoals] [Constraints] [Expressives] [ID]

A goal describes what the effects ought to result in, and the goal identifies the higher intent, i.e. intent from a supreme commander or organization. From a collaborative coopera­tive view, the goal is the unifier of where the organization team is heading:

(2.02) Goal à [Executer] What [When] [Where] [Whys]

The end state is a special state that describes the wanted outcome. An end state is typically an effect over a defined time span:

(2.03) {End State} à end state State*

A state is an object’s relation to other objects and its environment. A state can be physical (position), informa­tive, cognitive, or social (from the 4Q­model by Gustavsson and Hieb,49 the expansion of the 3Q model by Honeet al.75). A state answers to the questions: (1) who is where?; (2) what are they doing?; (3) what will they do?; and (4) what do they want?. State then is an assembly of Who, What, When, Where, and Why and can be formalized as follows:

(2.04) State à [ID] ({Physical State} | {Cognitive State} | {Status State})*(2.05) {Physical State} à [ID] [prediction | ground truth] ((Who [What] [When] [Where] [Why]) | {Weather State})

A physical state describes an actor or weather state. Weather state provides the ability to express the type of weather. A cognitive state describes abstract thoughts, such as religious or political beliefs. The Categorization Terminal prediction indicates if the expressed state is an actualstate or an assumption/hypothesis of a future state. The Categorization Terminal ground truth indicates that the expressed state is the truth and is to express information amongst simulators. In the real world, all information is perceived and there is more or less always an uncertainty involved, even if it is said to be a fact:

(2.06) {Cognitive State} à [ID] [prediction | ground truth] Actor {Cognitive What} When Where [Why]

A status state describes the quantity and/or quality of a Who or the status of what a Who possesses, e.g. material status and capability status:

(2.07) {Status State} à [ID] [prediction | ground truth] Who [Possessing] (([Quantity] | Quality) | (Quantity | [Quality])) [When] [Where](2.10) Possessing à possesses Who | Equipment | Capability

Quantity describes the number of the possessing and quality of the status of the possessing:

(1.113) Equipment à [ID] [Number] {Type of Equipment} [has Capability Degree]*(1.114) Equipment à [ID] {consist of} Equipment*

Gustavsson PM et al. 47

Type of Equipment is a list of equipment, e.g. guns, tanks, shovels, protection gears. Capability is described under effects below.

The generic phrase structure rule for sequence consists of an arbitrary many phases:

(2.13) Sequence à [ID] Phase*

A phase is a high­level description of something that is happening, i.e. a What. The phrase consists of the optional elements ID, Priority, Actor, Where, and Why, and a mandatory section of either an optional When with a What or an optional What with a When. Then a When or What can be assigned without the other or in a combination:

(2.14) Phase à [ID] [Priority] [Actor] ((What [When]) | ([What] When)) [Where] [Why]

If situations occur during the pursuit of the end state that are too complex or uncertain during planning and ordering, the ability to provide guidance is captured in key decisions. A key decision is formed as if­then clauses:

(2.15) {Key Decisions} à key Decision*

If a certain state is observed, e.g. the road is blocked meaning that the unit cannot march along a specified route, then some action, order, request, or change in intent might be needed, e.g. take another route, build fortification at current position, etc:

(2.16) Decision à if State then (What | Order | Request | Intent | Replace)

Antigoals are the description of unwanted outcomes and are a negation of an end state or a goal:

(2.17) Antigoal à Negation ({End State} | Goal)(12.408) Negation à not // Conceptually describes the absence of something

Constraint is about other considerations, typically such as weather and environment, that should be taken into account and typically what effect that might have on the stated intent, e.g. heavy snow fall, ice storm, and that the ground is not yet frozen, implies those roads are difficult to use, or that the roads will freeze. That lakes are frozen implies that vehicles can use lakes as roads, etc. Constraints can also be that the area of operations is populated with civilians, that there might be unorganized military units, etc, that need to be emphasized more than just being described in the state descriptions. The phrase structure rule of constraints contains a sequence of constraints.

A constraint contains an effect, state or an expressive together with the implied consequence. Effect contains the weather definitions:

(2.18) Constraint à (Effect | State | Expressive) Consequence

The consequence is either a state or the effect of the envi­ronmental state:

(2.19) Consequence à consequence State | Effect

An expressive is used to describe the style, i.e. the behavior, of an actor. Expressives were first introduced in Gustavsson et al.45 and were then been revised in Gustavsson and Hieb49 and Gustavsson et al.50,51

An expressive consists of the style and a degree that defines whether the style is low, normal, or high. The degree is subjective and indicates that there is a deviation, i.e. the one using expressives is pinpointing towards something of inter­est. If expressives are used to describe the own commander or unit, the usage is for others to understand why ‘we’ will act as ‘we’ do. If expressives are conveyed in an order or in an intent statement it is considered as guidance to the receiver. An expressive statement cannot be used by its own. In actions, effects, and Who the ability to use expressives is conveyed in the capability part. For orders and requests, expressives are provided in the derived Who, intent, action and effects:

(2.20) Expressive à ({Behavior Expressive} | {Effect Expressive} | {Action Expressive}) Degree

Behavior expressives that have been identified to be fre­quent in the military domain are:

• will – the ability to pursuit something;• creative – the ability to adapt, the agility;• passive – the act of not acting;• aggressive – with aggression;• passion – with an inner motivation;• unorthodox – not according to the common proce­

dure of the actor, acting ‘out of the box’;• orthodox – following the book word by word;• use of power and force – the way of deploying the

force in a situation.

(12.203) {Behavior Expressive} à Will | Creative | Passive | Aggressive | Passion | Unorthodox | Orthodox | {use of power and force}

The degree has a three­level structure to indicate that the behavior is lower, higher, or normal with respect to the interpretation of the one issuing the degree:

(12.205) Degree à High | Normal | Low

48 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 8(1)

4.4 Effects

An effect is said to be caused by an action performed by an actor, by the environment, or as a consequence of another effect. An effect by itself describes the effect caused by an action and can be a single verb defining what has happened or can be a full state description with ongoing activities. As an example, an effect can be that a judicial system is operational, indicating that there are activities that need to be executed continuously or with some interval. The basic effect is formalized as follows:

(3.01) Effect à effect [Who] [{Effect Expressive}] {Effect Verb} [Affected] [Capability] [ID]

The mandatory effect verb is an action verb where the future tense has been replaced by a present or a past tense, e.g. enabled, established, destroyed, denied, and disrupted. Then this effect is delivered by someone, i.e. Who, and may affect someone else, i.e. affected, and/or a capability:

(3.11) Effect à [ID] effect {Effect Capability} [Actor]

Effect capability includes an effect expressive that denotes a property of the effect. It is normally an adjective, such as good, credible, effective, without risk, able, usable, etc:

(3.03) Capability à {Action Capability} | {Effect Capability} | {Behavior Capability}(8.05) {Action Capability} à [{Action Expressive}] ({Action Verb} | Action)(3.05) {Effect Capability} à [{Effect Expressive}] ({Effect Verb} | Effect)(8.07) {Behavior Capability} à [{Behavior Expressive}] [{Behavior verb} | Behavior}](12.105){Effect Expressive} à good | credible | effective | {without risk} | able | usable | unable | no | non

In order to be allowed to express a collection of effects the following three rules are given:

(3.09) Effect à Effect [and Effect]*(3.10) Effect à Effect [with Effect]*

Then expressions, such as ‘Credible Taskforce’ and ‘Own forces ensured freedom of movement and action’, can be expressed and parsed:

Credible Taskforce: Effect à (3.11) {Effect Capability} à {Effect Expressive}(credible) Effect(Who(Taskforce) {Effect Verb}(operational))

Own forces ensured freedom of movement and action: Effect à (3.01) Who {Effect Verb} Capability à Who {Effect Verb}

{Effect Capability} and {Effect Capability} à Who(Own forces) {Effect Verb}(ensured) {Effect Expressive}(freedom of) {Effect Verb}(movement) and {Effect Expressive}(free-dom of) {Effect Verb}(action)

4.5 Decision-making process DM is a container for the DM process of choice. The pur­pose is to be able to express what kind of DM processes are used and will provide guidance of the elements that are probable to be exchanged. The phrase structure rule explic­itly associated with DM is as follows:

(4.01) {Decision Making Model} à {Military Decision Making Model} | {General Decision Making Model}

The DM models listed are the MDMP, Operational Planning Process (OPP), Guidelines to Operational Planning (GOP), Effect Based approach to Planning (EBAP) and IDC2:

(12.301) {Military Decision Making Model} à MDMP | OOP | GOP | EBO | IDC2

General DM process are CDM, JDM, Behavioral DM (BDM), and Recognition Primed DM:

(12.302) {General Decision Making Model} à CDM | JDM | BDM | RPDM

4.6 Goal/missionThe goal is described under the intent section (4.3, rule 2.02) above.

4.7 Initial stateInitial state is a specialized form of state. Initial state is used to describe the pre­conditions that were used in the DM pro­cess. An initial state encompasses information about the environment, the parties, and organizations, together with the people making the decisions. A basic initial state­phrase structure rule starts with the categorization terminal initial, followed by arbitrary many state constituents to capture the initial state. However, such expression is to general and does not help to provide unambiguity. The general situation con­stituent is added to ensure that the general situation can be expressed. A constituent forces is introduced to capture own, enemy, coalition, and other forces. By the civil constituent people and organizations relevant to express initial state are denoted. With environmental state, the ability to describe terrain and weather is provided. Assumptions list all the other information that are available and considered relevant. The phrase structure for initial state then is as follows:

Gustavsson PM et al. 49

(6.01) {Initial State} à {General Situation} [Forces] [Civil] [{Environment State}] [Assumptions]

The initial state parts are expanded into state expressions:

(6.02) {General Situation} à State*(6.03) Forces à forces [own | coalition |friendly | enemy] State*(6.04) Civil à civil [own | coalition |friendly | enemy] State*(6.05) {Environment State} à {Weather State}*(6.06) {Environment State} à State<Environment>*(6.07) Assumptions à assumption State* Sequence

4.8 End stateThe end state is described above in Section 4.3.

4.9 ActionsAn action is something that is executed by a system. The respective phrase rule consists of an executer, what kind of action is to be preformed denoted either by an action verb, routed in the doctrinal vocabulary of choice, or another action that can be as a template description of an action. The action can target towards someone, i.e. affected. The effects the action delivers together with Where, When and additional action expressives are added:

(8.01) Action à [Executer] [{Action Expressive}] [Where] ({Action Verb} | Action) [Action | Affected] [Effects] [When]

The action expressive denotes in which style the action is conducted, such as direct, indirect, heavy, light, or can:(12.108) {Action Expressive} à direct | indirect | heavy | light | can

4.10 Orders and requestsAn order is typically given by a commander to a subor­dinate. The order as such should, according to the DM process, be explicit enough so that the subordinate can conduct the tasks stated by the order. In military DM and planning processes the format is the five­paragraph OPORD, following the traditional military DM and plan­ning processes. In a network­enabled setting the order can just be the intent of the commander or if an order is absent it can be replaced by requests. In order to capture the flex­ibility in a network­enabled order request structure, together with a traditional OPORD, the following order phrase structures have been identified.

An order can contain intent, the requested effects, or specific actions. The Commander and Executer is provided to express who is issuing the order and who is supposed to execute it:

(9.101) Order à Commander Executer (Intent | Effects | Actions) [[{Start When}] [{End When}] [Where] [Why]]

In a setting where the order is to be seen as a request, usually when addressing another organization, the follow­ing phrase rule has been identified:

(9.102) Request à [[end] {collaboration regarding}] Subject [Proposal] (between | from) Requester (and | to) Receiver

The request phrase starts with a categorization terminal that is used to express that collaboration regarding a subject is requested, and if not used the subject determines what kind of request is issued. In proposal the actual information is provided. It can be an order, thus enabling for an order to be requested. Then the phrase ends with the requester and receiver.

Whilst an order is thought as being mandatory for the receiver, a request is optional, meaning that an answer as to whether it is accepted or denied needs to be sent. In the Multi Organizational C2LG,65 basic communication phrase rules are identified. These have been enhanced to fit the OIEM. Collaboration is divided into three main parts: initialization, collaboration, and end of collabo­ration. Basically, this means that a Requester sends a request to a receiver. The receiver sends an acknowl-edge, i.e. ‘I got the message’. Then a commitment is sent to either deny or accept. When the execution starts a commission is sent. When the execution is finished a report with the success or failure is sent. The basic col­laboration subjects are derived from the OIEM model and are:

(12.303) Subject à intent | effect | goal | {initial state} | {end state} | action | order | request | state

Additional subjects that may or may not be needed to collaborate and exchange information about are:

(12.304) Subject à report | plan | replacement | acknowl-edgement | denial | acceptance | commission | question | answer | who | what | when | where | why

(9.203) Element à (Intent | Effects | Goal | {Initial State} | {End State} | Actions | Orders | Request | State | Report | Plan | Replacement | Acknowledge | Denial | Commis­ sion | Questions | Answers | Who | What | When | Where | Why | ID)

The report is to describe what is happening or what status a specific entity has:

Report à report State

50 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 8(1)

The basic structures for question are:

(9.112) Question à what is Who Subject {Query ID}(9.113) Question à is Subject Element (true | false) {Query ID}

The corresponding answers are:

(9.114) Answer à answer by Who to {Query ID} is Subject Element(9.115) Answer à answer by Who to {Query ID} is (true | false)

Replacement is used to articulate that an information piece is replaced by another information piece. Either ID or proposal can be used, allowing for all phrase rules contain­ing an ID to be replaced:

(9.107) Replace à (ID | Element) replaces (ID | Element) [in ID | Element]

With acknowledge of a message, the phrase struc­ture starts with the terminal acknowledge followed by the type, subject, and the identifier of the specific message.

The acceptance phrase rule enables one to either refer to a specific request by ID or by an element:

(9.309) Acceptance à deny Subject (Element | ID)(9.307) Acknowledge à acknowledge Subject (Element | ID)

The denial phrase rule enables one to either refer to a specific request by ID or by an element:

(9.310) Denial à deny Subject (Element | ID)

Commission denotes what the unit, i.e. Who, is doing or will do. The What phrase rule can be expanded to intent, effect or action, but the purpose for commission is also to express the current orders and requests. The commission phrase structure is as follows:

(9.111) Commission à commission Who (What | Orders | Requests)

Finally, envelope is introduced to provide for phrases to be communicated. The structure is a sender and a receiver together with the actual phrase to exchange, a timestamp, and an envelope ID:

(9.304) Envelope à Sender Receiver Phrase {Time Stamp} {Envelope ID}

Finally, the basic sentence is an envelope that can be expanded to a phrase that in turn can be expanded to arbi­trary many elements:

(9.303) S à Envelope

4.11 ArrowsThe following phrase rules are provided to capture the cause relations amongst actions and effects. The connec­tion between actions and effects are made in the {Effects caused by Actions} phrase rule. The purpose is to describe which action(s) can deliver the expressed effect(s) and with which likelihood it can do so. Likelihood is expressed as a percentage, where a low value indicates a low likelihood and a high value a high likelihood:

(10.01) {Effects caused by Actions} à Effects {caused by} Actions Likelihood

The connection between effects and effects are made in the effect by effects phrase rule. The purpose is to describe which effect(s) can deliver the expressed effect(s) and with which likelihood it can do so:

(10.02) {Effects caused by Effects à Effects {caused by} Effects Likelihood

5. Representing intent and effectsThe following examples show how the formalism is able to represent intent and effects. The intention is not to use the OIEM to develop an automatic parser for natural language expressing intent and effects. The purpose is to express intent and effects with minimal ambiguity without con­straining the full expression of CI to be machine and human interpretable.

The first example shows how the formalism captures already existing orders into a structured format, i.e. the goal, end state, and sequence sections of CI. The second example shows how capabilities can be expressed to enable selection of desired effects.

5.1 Expressing intent from an OPORDThe example captures the eight facets of intent and starts with sentences from the OPORD that Bogaland76 followed by a semantically equivalent OIEM expression. Then the used phrase rules are presented. Effects are expressed in numerous instances in the example.

Gustavsson PM et al. 51

5.2 GoalThe first part of the intent phrase rule (2.01) above is the goal. Within the Bogaland OPORD the goal is the following:

Bde is to establish control and maintain security within the designated area of OXELÖSUND (X06 Y74)– JÖNÅKER (X14 Y53)– STIGTOMTA (X20 Y56)– RÅBY RÖNÖ (X27 Y62) – SJÖN BÅVEN (X42 Y63) - VAGNHÄRAD (X37 Y97) – TROSA (X32 Y99) – OXELÖSUND.

In the OIEM this in represented as:

Goal à Bde effect Establish Control and effect Maintain Security OXEL

The phrase is built by using the goal phrase rule (2.02) Goal à [Executer] What [When] [Where] [Why]. The exe­cuter is expanded to Bde, i.e. the name of the executer. The part ‘is to establish control and maintain security’ describes the desired effects when the mission is completed, i.e. What is expanded to effect* (1.201) and effect* are expanded into to two effect phrases (3.01). (3.01) Effect à effect [Who] {Effect Verb} [Affected] [Capability] [ID] à {Effect Verb} à Establish

Capability is expanded to effect capability where only the effect verb is used, i.e. representing control:

Capability à {Effect Capability} à [{Effect Expressive}] ({Effect Verb} | Effect) à {Effect Verb} à Control

The second sentence is represented as follows: {Effect Verb} à Maintain

Capability à {Effect Capability} à [{Effect Expressive}] ({Effect Verb} | Effect) à {Effect Verb} à Security

The Where is expanded to a shape (1.403) consisting of the points and is named OXEL.

Goal à Executer (Bde) What (Effect (effect Establish Control)) and Effect (effect Maintain Security)) Where (OXEL)

5.3 End stateThree end state examples are derived from the Bogaland OPORD:

i. The harbor in OXELÖSUND (X06 Y74) Sea Port of Debarkation (SPOD) is operative and our sea assets can use it without risking to be affected from sea, air or ground.

{End State} à end state {SPOD harbor} point X06 Y74 Usable {SPOD harbor} Operative Our Sea Assets without risk effect Air­Land­Sea Affects {SPOD harbor}

The phrase is built by using the end state phrase (2.03) {End State} à end state State*. State is expanded (2.04) to physical state (2.05) {Physical State} à [ID] [prediction | ground truth] ((Who [What] [When] [Where] [Why]) | {Weather State}). The Who in the physical state is expanded to: SPOD harbor point X06 Y74. What is expanded to effect (3.11) and into effect capability (3.05). What:à Effects à Effect and Effect à Effect Capability à {Effect Expressive}:Usable. Effect capability is expanded to an effect (3.01): Effect à effect Who:SPOD harbor pointX06 Y74 {Effect Verb}:Operative Affected:Unit<Our Sea Assets>. Unit defines our sea assets. The second part of the phrase is also an effect capability and the effect expressive is without risk. Effect à:effect who: Unit<Air­Land­Sea> {Effect Verb}:Affects Affected: SPOD harbor point X06 Y74 captures the effect of someone coming from air land or sea and affecting the sea assets in any way.

End­State à end state {Physical State}{Physical State} à Who (Nature(ID(SPOD harbor) Point(point X06 Y74))) What(Effect({Effect Expressive}(Usable)) Effect(effect Who(Nature(ID(SPOD harbor))) {Effect Verb}(Operative) Affected(Unit<Our Sea Assets>) {Effect Expressive}(without risk Effect(effect who(Unit<Air-Land-Sea>) {Effect Verb}(Affects) Affec­ted(SPOD harbor))))

ii. SKAVSTA airport (X18 Y63) Aerial port of Debarkation (APOD) is operative and usable to our air assets. Direct fire, SAM or mortars cannot affect the airport.

This statement is similar to the first and is expressed as follows:

{End State} à end state {APOD airport} point X18 Y63 Usable {APOD airport} Operative Our Air Assets No Effect APOD Direct Fire and SAM and Mortar

The main difference is that in the second part the unwanted actions are listed with an effect verb set to no effect. The phrase is built by using the end state phrase (2.03) {End State} à end state State*. State is expanded (2.04) to physical state (2.05) {Physical State} à [ID] [prediction | ground truth] ((Who [What] [When] [Where] [Why]) | {Weather State}). The Who in the physi­cal state is expanded to: APOD airport point X18 Y63. What is expanded to an effect and effect (3.09) and then into effect capability (3.11). What:à Effects à Effect and

52 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 8(1)

Effect à Effect Capability à {Effect Expressive}:Usable. Effect Capability is expanded to an effect (3.01): Effect à effect Who: APOD airport point X18 Y63 {Effect Verb}:Operative Affected:Unit<Our Air Assets>. The second part of the phrase is an effect that is expanded into an effect phrase where the effect verb is no effect. Then the effects affected are set to APOD and the capability part is expanded into three consecutive action capabilities describ­ing direct fire, surface­to­air missiles (SAMs), and mortar:

End­State à end state Who(Nature(ID(APOD airport) Point(point X18 Y63))) {Effect Expressive}(Usable) Effect(effect Who(Nature(ID(APOD airport))) What({Effect Verb}(Operative)) Affected(Unit<Our Air Assets>) and {Effect verb}(No Effect) Affected(Nature/ID(APOD))) Capability(Action Capability(Action({Action Expressive}(Direct) {Action Verb}(Fire)) and Action(Executer<SAM>) and Action(Executer<Mortar>)

iii. The militia units in our area are neutralized and disarmed.

With the corresponding statement:

{End State} à end state Militia Neutralized and Militia Disarmed OXEL

The above end state is expanded into two effect phrases where each effect is of the form (3.01) Effect à effect [Who] {Effect Verb} [Affected] [Capability] [ID]. The ending Where is from the physical state phrase rule (1.401):

End­State à end state Who(Unit<Militia>) Effect(effect {Effect Verb}(Neutralized)) and Who:Unit<Militia> Effect(effect {Effect Verb}(Disarmed)) Where:OXEL

5.4 SequenceA sequence, i.e. course of actions and/or effects, is often articulated in phases. In the Bogaland order example the sequence is as follows:

Initially, the Bde is to disembark with its main parts in OXELÖSUND (X06 Y74) and secure SEAPOD and key junctions towards NYKÖPING (X15 Y69)…

The next phase will see the Bde securing APOD and NYKÖPING (X15 Y69) since they constitute vital elements in the mission’s base area of deployment. The Median armed forces will leave Bde Area of Responsibility as Bde deploys in accordance with our agreement with the Median government…

The final phase will see the Bde fulfilling the end state of establishing control and maintaining security in the Bde AOR.

In OIEM formalism the above would be represented by a sequence (2.13) containing three phase phrases (2.14). The three phases are expanded into:

Phase à Initial-1 Bde Main Parts Disembark OXELP point X06 Y74 Initial-2 Bde Main Parts Secure SEAPOD Initial-3 Bde Main Parts Secure Key Junctions Junction starting point OXELP destination point NYKÖPINGX15 Y69

Phase à Next-Phase-1 Bde Secure APOD Next-Phase-2Bde Secure NYKÖPING point X15 Y69 in order to Secure Vital Elements Next-Phase-3 Median Armed Forces Bde AOR Leave Bde Deploy Bde AOR in accordance with Our Agreement Median Government

Phase à Final-Phase Bde Establish Control MaintainSec urity Bde AOR Bde effect Establish Control effect Maintain Security OXEL

The above phrases have been constructed by the follow­ing method:

Sequence à Phase Phase PhasePhase à ID(Initial-1) Who(Unit<Bde Main Parts>)) What(Action(Disembark)) Where(Nature(ID(OXELP) Point(point X06 Y74)))

Phase à ID(Initial-2) Who(Unit<Bde Main Parts>)) What(Action(Secure)) Where(SEAPOD)

Phase à ID(Initial-3) Who(Unit<Bde Main Parts>)) What(Action(Secure) Where(Nature(Environment (Geogra­phic Object(ID(Key Junctions) Geographic Type (Junction)))))) Where(Route(starting point (OXELP) destination point (NYKÖPING X15 Y69)

Phase à ID(Next Phase-1) Who(Actor(Unit <Bde>)) What(Action(Secure)) Where(APOD)

Phase à ID(Next Phase-2) Who(Actor(Unit <Bde>)) What(Action(Secure)) Where(Nature(ID(NYKÖPING) Point(point X15 Y69))) Why(Common Why(in order to (Secure) Who(Elements))

Phase à ID(Next Phase-3) Who(Actor(Unit<Median Armed Forces>)) Where(Bde AOR) What(Action Verb (Leave)) When(Action(Who(Unit<Bde>) What(Deploy) Where(Bde AOR) Why(Common Why(in accordance with Action(Who(Our)) What(Agreement) Affected (Actor(ID<Median Government>))))

Phase à ID(Final Phase) Who(Actor(Unit<Bde>)) What(effect Establish Control) and Effect(effect Main-tain Security)) Where(Bde AOR) Why(Common Why

Gustavsson PM et al. 53

(Goal(Who(Executer(Bde)) What(Effect(effect Establish Control) and Effect(effect Maintain Security)) Where (OXEL))

5.5 StateThe state describes the reasoning behind the plan, what infor­mation was available, who was making the decisions, under what time pressure, and if there are any similar circumstances.

The end of the Kasurian offensive saw more or less all of the ground earlier occupied by the Midians reoccupied by the Kasurians. The parties have agreed on a cease fire and that peacekeepers are to monitor the cease fire agreement. The cease fire line corresponds to the green line on the map below.

The first sentence of the general situation is captured in the three physical state descriptions below:

{Physical State} àStateOne Kasurian ActionOne Kasurian Offensive effect EffectOne Kasurian Occupied GroundA after effect EffectTwo AreaOfInterest

{Physical State} à StateTwo Kasurian EffectOne after ActionOne AOI

{Physical State} à StateThree Midians effect EffectTwo Midians Occupied GroundA before ActionOne AOI

{Physical State} à StateFour Parties ActionTwo Parties agreed cease fire after ActionOne along LineD

{Physical State} à StateFive Peacekeepers ActionThree peacekeepers monitor ActionOne after ActionTwo along LineD

The above phrases have been developed by using the fol­lowing phrase rules:

State à ID(General Situation) {Physical State}

{Physical State} à ID(StateOne) Who(Actor(Kasurian)) What(Action(ID(ActionOne) Executer(Kasurian) {Action Verb}(Offensive) Effect(ID(EffectOne) Who(Kasurian) Effect Verb{Occupied} Affected(GroundA))) When(after EffectTwo) Where(AreaOfInterest)

The second physical state expression denotes the effect of Kasurian occupying GroundA. GroundA is an identifier for the captured land:

{Physical State} à ID(StateTwo) Who(Kasurian) What (Effect(ID(EffectOne))) When(after ActionOne) Where (AOI)

The third physical state expression denotes the Midians occupying GroundA and that it were achieved before the start of Action A1:

{Physical State} à ID(StateThree) Who(Midians) What (Effect(ID(EffectTwo) Who(Midians) Effect(Occupied) Affected(GroundA))) When(before ActionOne) Where (AOI)

The last two sentences of the general situation are cap­tured in the following physical states:

{Physical State} à ID(StateFour) Who(Parties) What (Action(ID(ActionTwo) Executer(Parties) {Action Verb}(agreed) Action(cease fire) When(after ActionOne) Where(along LineD)

{Physical State} à ID(StateFive) Who(Peacekeepers) What(Action(ID(ActionThree) Executer(peacekeepers) {Action Verb}(monitor) Action(ActionOne) When(after ActionTwo) Where(along LineD)

5.6 Key DecisionsKey decisions describe what decisions may have to be made. In the Bogaland order there are no direct key deci­sions articulated, but the example used gives a hint in how the key decision can be used. A key decision (2.15) consists of a series of decisions (2.16) if a state description is true then the action, order, etc, is issued.

After one hour forewarning the Bde is able to defend the area against enemy attacks.

Decision à if Forewarning Bde Commander K-1h then order Bde Commander Bde Defend Enemy Attack AOR start K AOR

Decision à if State(ID(Forewarning) Who(Bde Commander) When({Abstract Time}(K-1h))) then Order(order Commander(Bde Commander) Executer (Bde) Action ({Action Verb}(Defend) (Action(Executer (Enemy) {Action Verb}(Attack) Where(AOR)) {Start When}](start K) Where(AOR)

5.7 AntigoalsAntigoals describe things that the Commander and Staff do not want to happen. Antigoals are meaningful when used to clarify the alternatives of COAs/COEs, i.e. unwanted outcomes.

iv. SKAVSTA airport (X18 Y63) (APOD) is operative and usable to our air assets. Direct fire, SAM or mortars cannot affect the airport.Antigoals à No Direct Fire No SAM No Mortar

54 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 8(1)

The example here is the same as the second example under end state. In an end state, antigoals can also be used as long as the information is conveyed. The phrase rule (2.17) Antigoal à Negation ({End State} | Goal) is used to repre­sent the expression:

Antigoals à Negation(No) Capability(Action Capability ({Action Expressive}(Direct) {Action Verb}(Fire))) Negation(No) Action(Executer<SAM>)) Negation(No) Action(Executer<Mortar>))

5.8 ConstraintsA constraint contains an effect, state or an expressive together with the implied consequence. Effect contains the weather definitions.

BOGALAND armed forces have a long experience of Electronic Warfare, both in active and passive methods. The telephone net should be treated as non-secure.

Constraint à BOGALAND armed forces can passive Electronic Warfare active Electronic Warfare Good conse­quence effect EffectTelephoneEffect à effect EffectTelephone TelephoneNet non Secure

The constraint (2.18) is expanded to a state (2.04), and further into a status state (2.07). The status state is expanded into a possessing (2.10) of a capability (3.03) that describes the experience of Electronic Warfare (EW).

Constraint à State({Status State}(Who(Actor(BOGALAND armed forces)) Possessing(Capability(Action Capability(can Action({Action Expressive}(passive) Action Verb(Electronic Warfare)) and Action({Action Expressive}(active) Action Verb(Electronic Warfare))) Quality(Good))) Consequence (consequence Effect(effect ID(EffectTelephone))

Effect à effect ID(EffectTelephone) Who(Nature(Equipment(TelephoneNet))) {Effect Expressive}(non) Effect (Secure)

5.9 ExpressivesExpressives are included in intent, actions, effects, and in the Who phrase rule. In the third end­state description above it is not identified which power and force the opera­tion should be conducted. If the issuing commander wants to direct the subordinate to use little force, the accompany­ing expressive will look as follows.

The militia units in our area are neutralized and disarmed.

Expressives àuse of power and force Low

Intent à end state Militia effect Neutralized and Militia effect Disarmed OXEL use of power and force LowIntent à {End State} {Expressives}Expressives à {Behavior Expressive} ({use of power and force}) Degree(Low)Intent à {End State}(end state Who(Unit<Militia>) Effect(effect {Effect Verb}(Neutralized)) and Who (Unit<Militia> Effect(effect {Effect Verb}(Disarmed)) Where:OXEL) {Behavior Expressive} ({use of power and force} ) Degree(Low)

To express that that a commander is highly creative and passive the following structure is used:

Who à Commander A has Creative High has Passive HighWho à Commander(Unit<Commander A>(ID(Comman-der A) has Capability({Behavior Capability}({Behavior Expressive}(Creative))) Degree(High) has Capability ({Behavior Capability}({Behavior Expressive}(Passive))) Degree(High)

5.10 Expressing effects and actionsIn Gustavsson et al.,45,50,51 the connection between actions and effects are expressed in the following example, illus­trating how effect and actions are expressed, rule (10.01), and to show how expressives can be used for selection amongst alternatives. In order to achieve the effect of sup­pressing the enemy there might be several actions that can deliver this capability. In the example the size and type of force varies together with the type of action to provide the requested effect, and with various Likelihoods. By using the actions expressives non­terminal the ability to indicate the use of power and force can be made:

EffectActions à effect Suppressed Mortar Fire caused by MechInfCoy Destroy EnyCoy use of power and force High 60%

The foundation is the rule (10.01) {Effects caused by Actions} à Effects {caused by} Actions Likelihood and consists of the three parts:

Effect à effect Suppressed Mortar FireAction à MechInfCoy Destroy EnyCoy use of power and force High))Likelihood à 60%

The above is constructed in the following way:

Effect à effect {Effect Verb}(Suppressed) Capability ({Action Capability}(Action(Executer(<Mortar>) {Action Verb}(Fire))))

Gustavsson PM et al. 55

Action à Action(Executer(MechInfCoy) {Action Verb}(Destroy) Affected(EnyCoy) Expressives(Behavior Expressive(use of power and force) Degree(High))Likelihood à 60%

The following phrases are the terminals that the above phrase structure produces. The below six EffectAction con­structs uses the above structure and are merely a fictive representation of how it could look:45,50,51

1) EffectAction à effect Suppressed Mortar Fire caused by MechInfCoy Destroy EnyCoy 60% use of power and force high

2) EffectAction à effect Suppressed Mortar Fire caused by Jas39 Gripen Destroy EnyCoy 90% use of power and force high

3) EffectAction à effect Suppressed Mortar Fire caused by MechInfCoy Divert EnyCoy 60% use of power and force normal

4) EffectAction à effect Suppressed Mortar Fire caused by Jas39 Gripen Divert EnyCoy 20% use of power and force normal

5) EffectAction à effect Suppressed Mortar Fire caused by MechInfCoy Divert EnyCoy 40% use of power and force low

6) EffectAction à effect Suppressed Mortar Fire caused by Jas39 Gripen Divert EnyCoy 10% use of power and force low

In the simple case, the selection is based only on the certainty information supplied. The chosen action is destroy the enemy by using the Jas 39 Gripen Aircraft (phrase two). With articulated expressives to use low power and force, the expressives part of the actions phrase rules, indicating how it relates to a commander, can be expressed without changing the underlying effect charts. The chosen action is to divert the enemy by using the EnyCoy (phrase five).

The following example describes a part of an effect matrix to describe a (1) credible task force by (2) force pro­tection established, (3) support to ISAF established, (4) movements of others in the area controlled, (5) narcotics eliminated, (6) National Police operational, and (7) National Army operational:

1) Effect à 1 effect Credible {Task Force}2) Effect à 2 effect Established force protection3) Effect à 3 effect Support to ISAF established4) Effect à 4 effect Movements of others in area controlled

5) Effect à 5 effect Narcotics eliminated.6) Effect à 6 effect National Police operational7) Effect à 7 effect National Army operational

The above phrase rules are constructed by effect (3.01) and effect capability (3.03).

1) Effect à ID(1) effect EffectCapability({Effect Expressive} (Credible)) Actor(Task Force)

2) Effect à ID(2) effect {Effect Verb}(Established) Capability (EffectCapability (Effect (effect Who(Unit<Task Forces>) {Effect Verb}(Protected))

3) Effect à ID(3) effect {Effect Verb}(Established) Capability (EffectCapability (Effect(effect Who (Unit<ISAF>) {Effect Verb}(Supported)))

4) Effect à ID(4) effect {Effect Verb}(Controlled) Capability( Action(Actor (Others) Action (Move)))

5) Effect à ID(5) effect Who(Narcotics) {Effect Verb}(Eliminated)

6) Effect à ID(6) effect Who(National Police) {Effect Verb}(Operational}

7) Effect à ID(7) effect Who(National Army) {Effect Verb}(Operational}

To link the causes between effects the rule (10.02) Effects by Effects à Effects {caused by} Effects Likelihood, is used to form the phrases below (the likeli­hood of 90% is just a fictive number):

Effects by Effects à 1 caused by 2 and 3 90%Effects by Effects à 2 caused by 4 and 5 90%Effects by Effects à 4 caused by 6 and 7 90%Effects by Effects à 5 caused by 6 90%

6. ConclusionsWe conclude with the following. (1) The OIEM offers a new model that relates intent, DM, orders, actions, and effects as they matter to the world, represented and bounded by initial state and end state. (2) The OIEM is a model that adds intent into C2 models and formalisms. (3) The OIEM is a representation of intent based on computational linguis­tics that is computational tractable and meaningful to decision­support systems.

In the field of DM theory, the OIEM is the very first model that captures and describes intent and the relations amongst information objects in a cohesive way. The OIEM

56 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 8(1)

does so by focusing on intent. The OIEM uses system theory, DM theory, situational awareness, and military DM to form an operations intent­centered model. Further, the OIEM captures the causality amongst intent, effects, actions, orders, and state;.

In the field of command and control theory, the OIEM provides a focus on intent to the processes used in military operations. This intent is formalized to dramatically improve information exchange communication and collab­oration. This approach is different to the current BML approaches, which are built from the structure and vocabu­lary within the JC3IEDM, and from C2LG, which is built upon the military doctrine and the lexicon within the JC3IEDM. The usage of the model is to identify informa­tion that is needed to be expressed in DM, both in operational C2 and simulated systems. The formalism provides a struc­tured computational representation of the information. Together, the model and formalism expresses the causality amongst actions and effects and between effects. The capa­bility provided by the OIEM is both to communicate intent and effects among staff members, joint and coalition forces and other agencies. In addition, the effect to action relations allow a commander to express the actions they have selected with an understanding of how they will lead to the desired effects. This can be used at higher­level command to assess the plans. Together with the proposed representa­tion this allows for human analysis and machine analysis (e.g. simulation, reasoning) as well. It is presumed that the ability to communicate desired intents, effects, and actions between members in a staff (or between organizations from different nations) will enable each of the participants to assess what effects they can deliver that support the whole mission.

In the field of computer science, the OIEM formalism is a semantic model decoupled from a specific vocabulary and specific data model, based on a computational linguis­tic formalism, the LFG, which separates structure from function. The vocabulary in the OIEM is doctrine agnostic, meaning that the vocabulary for specific actions, effects, organizations, and structures associated are configurable. The OIEM formalism uses a three tier vocabulary represen­tation: (1) specific doctrinal vocabulary; (2) environmental, nature, and time vocabulary; and (3) decision­support specific vocabulary. This makes the OIEM formalism con­figurable to various operational domains. In the examples the vocabulary used is derived from the JC3IEDM,63 but the formalism does not hinder the use of other information models such as the Tactical Situation Object (TSO)77 devel­oped within the sixth European framework program Open Advanced System for dISaster Management (OASIS)78 (initially described in Gustavsson et al.79,67). The formalism is an essential element that, when combined with the model, provides a rigorous scientific foundation for developing future command and control systems.

From a modeling and simulation perspective, the use of the OIEM allows simulation systems to receive and execute upon information from operational C2 systems, and to send information to operational C2 systems enabling C2 training, mission rehearsal, and COA analysis.

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the Swedish Armed Forces Land Warfare Centre in Skövde and Swedish Defence Material Admini­stration for their cooperation.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not­for­profit sectors.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

References

1. Ackoff RL Ackoff’s best - his classic writings on manage-ment. John Wiley & Sons, 1999.

2. Bedney G and Meister D. Theory of activity and situation awareness. Int J Cognitive Ergonomics 1999; 3: 63–72.

3. Lagervik C and Gustavsson PM. A system theoretical approach to situation awareness and architecture. Cambridge, UK: DoD Command and Control Research Program, 2006.

4. Lawson HW. An introduction to ISO/IEC 15288_system life cycle processes. 2008.

5. Bell DE, Raffia H, and Tversky A. Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions in decision making. 1988: 9–30.

6. Lipshitz R, Klein G, Orasanu J and Salas E. Taking stock of naturalistic decision making. J Behav Decis Making 2001; 14: 331–352.

7. Klein G and Methlie LB. Expert systems, a decision support approach: with applications in management and finance. Wokingham: Addison­Wesley, 1990.

8. Ryder J, Air Force Research Laboratory (Wright­Patterson Air Force Base Ohio) Warfighter Training Research Division and Chi Systems Inc. Electronically assisted ground-based learning environment. Mesa, AZ: Air Force Materiel Command Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate Warfighter Training Research Division, 1998.

9. U.S. Department of the Army. Field manual 6.0 - mission command: command and control of army forces. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army, 2003.

10. U.S. Department of the Army. Field Manual 5.0 - army plan-ning and orders production. U.S. Department of the Army, 2005.

11. Shattuck LG and Woods DD. Communication of intent in military command and control systems. In McCann C and Pigeau R (eds) The human in command: exploring the modern military experience. Kluwer Academic/Plenum

Gustavsson PM et al. 57

Publishers, 2000, pp.279–292, http://csel.eng.ohio­state.edu/woods/C2/shattuck_Nato.pdf.

12. Pigeau R and McCann C. Establishing common intent: the key to co­ordinated military action. In The operational art: Canadian perspectives: leadership and command. Kingston, Ontario: Canadian Defence Academy Press, 2006, pp.85–108.

13. Farrell PSE. Common intent and information processing frameworks applied to effect based approaches to opera-tions. Cambridge, UK: CCRP, 2006.

14. Klein G. A script for the commander’s intent statement. In Science of command and control part III: coping with change. Fairfax, VA: AFCEA International Press, 1994.

15. Ayers, MH. ‘Azimuth Check: Where are we with Com­mander’s Intent’, http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA324314 (1996).

16. Straight M. Commander’s intent. Airpower J 1996; 10: 36–49.

17. Howard, N. ‘Evolution of Commander’s Intent in the US Mili­tary’, http://www.c4ads.org/files/Intent_USMilitary_v43.pdf.

18. Merriam­Webster. ‘Intent ­ Definition from the Merriam­Webster Online Dictionary’, http://www.merriam­webster.com/dictionary/intent (2009).

19. Schmidt DC. Model­driven engineering. IEEE Computer 2006; 39, Feb: 25–31.

20. Brehmer B. Command without commanders. Washington DC: CCRP, 2009.

21. Alberts DS, Garstka JJ, Hayes RE and Signori DA. ‘Understanding Information Age Warfare’, DoD Command and Control Research Program, Washington, D.C. 2001 Available at: http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_UIAW.pdf [Accessed February 17, 2009].

22. Alberts DS. Agility, focus, and convergence: the future of command and control. Int C2 J 2007; 1, Apr: 1–30.

23. Klein G. Sources of power - how people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1998.

24. Alberts DS and Hayes RE. ‘Power to the Edge’, Washington, D.C. 2003: DoD Command and Control Research Program. Available at: http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_Power.pdf accessed 2009 6 december

25. Smith EA. ‘Effect Based Operations’, DoD Command and Control Research Program, Washington D.C. 2002 Available at: http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Smith_EBO.PDF [Accessed September 27, 2008].

26. Alberts DS and Hayes R. ‘Planning: Complex Endeavours’, DoD Command and Control Research Program, Washington, D.C. 2007 Available at: http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_Planning.pdf [Accessed July 4, 2008].

27. Brehmer B. Understanding the functions of C2 is the key to progress. International C2 Journal, Publisher DoD Command and Control Research program 2007; 1: 211–232.

28. Brehmer B. The dynamic OODA loop: amalgamating Boyd’s OODA loop and the cybernetic approach to command and control. McLean, VA: CCRP, 2005.

29. Alberts DS and Hayes RE. ‘Understanding Command and Control’, DoD Command and Control Research Program, Washington D.C. 2006 Available at: http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_UC2.pdf [Accessed March 10, 2009].

30. Cottingham J. ‘Effects­Based Operations: An Evolving Revolution’, In A. English & H. Coombs, eds. Effects-Based Approaches to Operations: Canadian Perspectives. pp.7–63 Canada: Minister of National Defence, 2008, Available at: http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/CFAWC/eLibrary/pubs/Effects­Based_Approaches_to_Operations­Canadian_Perspectives.pdf. accessed 2009 dec 8

31. Grossman­Vermaas R. ‘Future Perfect: Effects­Based Operations, Complexity and the Human Environment’, In A. English & H. Coombs, eds. Effects-Based Approaches to Operations: Canadian Perspectives. pp.64–82. Canada: Minister of National Defence, 2008, Available at: http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/CFAWC/eLibrary/pubs/Effects­Based_Approaches_to_Operations­Canadian_Perspectives.pdf. accessed 2009 dec 8

32. Grossman­Vermaas R. ‘Bridge Too Far?: The Theory and Practice of the Effects­Based Concept and the Multinational Interagency Role’, In A. English & H. Coombs, eds. Effects-Based Approaches to Operations: Canadian Perspectives. pp.132­152 Canada: Minister of National Defence, 2008, Available at: http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/CFAWC/eLibrary/pubs/Effects­Based_Approaches_to_Operations­Canadian_Perspectives.pdf. accessed 2009 dec 8

33. Osinga FP. Science, Strategy and war - the strategic theory of John Boyd. New York: Routledge, 2007.

34. Klein G and Zsambok CE. Naturalistic decision making. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997, http://www.questia.com/library/book/naturalistic­decision­mak­ing­by­gary­klein­caroline­e­zsambok.jsp.

35. Försvarsmakten. Ledningskoncept för integrerad dynamisk ledning (IDC2. C2 concept for integrated dynamic command and control.), Stockholm: Swedish Armed Forces, 2007.

36. Kaplan RM and Bresnan J. Lexical­functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In Dalrymple M, Kaplan RM and Maxwell J.T., II (eds.) Formal issues in lexicalfunctional grammar. 1995.

37. Askelin J. ‘Dags för nytt RMA? ­ FOI, Totalförsvarets for­skningsinstitut’, Framsyn Swedish Defence Research Agency, http://www.foi.se/FOI/templates/Page____1301.aspx (2001).

38. United States Department of Defense. ‘Joint Vision 2020’, www.dtic.mil/jointvision/jv2020a.pdf (May 2000).

39. Skogsberg G. NBF VISION LEDNING - En idéskiss ur ett samhällsperspektiv. Swedish Defence Material Admini­stration, 2004.

40. D.C.A.D.C. ‘DCDC, The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007­2036’, http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/articles/strat_trends_23jan07.pdf (December 2006).

41. NATO. ‘Topic: NNEC (NATO Network Enabled Capability)’, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID­2B7CC3C6­A2C9B936/natolive/topics_54644.htm.

58 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 8(1)

42. Brehmer B. Understanding the functions of C2 is the key to progress. International C2 Journal, Publisher DoD Command and Control Research program 2007; 1: zotero://attachment/6596/#5.

43. Brehmer B. One loop to rule them all. Cambridge, UK: Command and Control Research Program (CCRP), 2006.

44. Alberts, D.S., Garstka, J.J. & Stein, F.P. Network Centric Warfare 6th ed., Washington, D.C. 1999: DoD Command and Control Research Program. Available at: http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_NCW.pdf [Accessed September 30, 2008].

45. Gustavsson PM, Hieb MR, Niklasson L, Eriksson P, and Moore P. Machine interpretable representation of com­mander’s intent. In Proceedings of the 13th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), Bellevue, Washington, 2008.

46. Pigeau R and McCann C. Redefining command and con­trol. In Pigeau R and McCann C (eds.) The human in com-mand: exploring the modern military experience., New York: Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000, pp.165–184.

47. Farrell PSE and Lichacz F. Measuring common intent dur­ing effects based planning. In 2004 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium The Power of Information Age Concepts and Technologies, 2004.

48. Endsley MR. Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 1998, pp.97–101.

49. Gustavsson PM and Hieb MR. Supporting collaboration in collective endeavors with a model of operations intent and effects. In 14th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Washington DC: CCRP, 2009.

50. Gustavsson PM, Hieb MR, Niklasson L, Eriksson P and Moore P. Formalizing operations intent an effects for net­work­centric applications. In Proceedings of the42th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii: 2009.

51. Gustavsson PM, Hieb MR and Wemmergård J. The Operations Intent and Effects Model and Formalism ­ A con­tribution to the ongoing C­BML and MSDL standardization, In Proceedings of the Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, Florida, USA, SISO/ IEEE Press, 2009.

52. Carey SA, Kleiner MS, Hieb MR and Brown R. Standardizing battle management language – facilitating coalition interop­erability. In Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, SISO, 2001.

53. Tolk A, Hieb MR, Galvin K and Khimeche L. Merging national battle management language initiatives for NATO projects. In RTA/MSG Conference on, Koblenz, Germany, RTO, 2004.

54. Blais C, Abbott J, Turnitsa C, Diallo S, Levine S, Nero E. et al. Coalition Battle Management Language (C­BML) phase 1 specification development: an update to the M&S community. In Proceedings of the Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, Florida, USA, SISO/IEEE Press, 2009.

55. Abbott J, Blais C, Diallo S, Levine S, Gustavsson PM, Nero E. et al. Coalition Battle Management Language (C­BML) phase 1 specification development progress: an update to the M&S com­munity. In Proceedings of the Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, Florida, USA, SISO/IEEE Press, 2008.

56. Blais C, Brown D, Diallo S, Heffner K, Levine S, Singapogu S et al. Coalition Battle Management Language (C­BML) phase 1 specification development: an update to the M&S community. In Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, Florida, USA, SISO/IEEE Press, 2009.

57. Galvin K, Hieb MR, Tolk A, Turnitsa C and Blais C, Coalition battle management language study group final report. Orlando, FL: SISO/IEEE, 2005.

58. Kunde D, Orichel T, Tolk A, Schade U and Hieb MR. Harmonizing BML Approaches: grammars and data models for a BML standard. In Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, SISO/IEEE Press, 2009.

59. Andreas Tolk, Charles D. Turnitsa, Saikou Y. Diallo (2007) Model­Based Alignment and Orchestration of Heterogeneous Homeland Security Applications Enabling Composition of System of Systems, Winter Simulation Conference, Society for Modeling and Simulation, IEEE CS Press.

60. Tolk A, Diallo S and Turnitsa C. A system view of C-BML. Orlando FL: SISO/IEEE Press, 2007.

61. Schade U and Hieb M. Improving Planning and replanning: using a formal grammar to automate processing of com­mand and control information for decision support. C2 J 2007; 1, Jun, p69–90.

62. MIP. ‘Multilateral Interoperability Programme’, http://mip­site.org/ (2008).

63. STANAG, Joint Consultation, Command, and Control Information Exchange Data Model ­ JC3IEDM, STANAG 5525, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Jun 26, 2007

64. Schade U and Hieb M. Formalizing battle management lan­guage: a grammar for specifying orders. In Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Norfolk, VA, SISO/IEEE, 2006.

65. Schade U and Hieb M. A linguistic basis for multi­agency coordination. In Proceedings of the 13th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), Bellevue, Washington, Command and Control Research Program (CCRP), 2008.

66. Hieb MR and Schade U. Formalizing command intent through development of a command and control grammar. In Proceedings of the 12th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), Newport, RI, Command and Control Research Program (CCRP), 2007.

67. Gustavsson PM, Wemmergård J, Garcia J and Norstedt­Larsson M. Towards Standardization of coalition ­ Crisis Management Language (C­CML). In Proceedings of the Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Huntsville, AL, SISO/IEEE, 2006.

68. Horan JJ. ‘Counseling for Effective Decision Making ­ The Language of Classical Decision Theory’, http://horan.asu.edu/cfedm/chapter4.php (1977).

Gustavsson PM et al. 59

69. Hieb MR, Kleiner MS, Carey SA and Schade U. Charac­terizing doctrine through a formalization of C2 processes. In ICCRTS. Washington DC: CCRP, 2009.

70. Blais C, Gustavsson PM and Turnitsa C. A strategy for ontol­ogy research for the Coalition Battle Management Language (C­BML) product development group. In Proceedings of the Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, 2006.

71. Schade U and Hieb M. Development of Formal grammars to support coalition command and control: a battle management language for orders, requests, and reports. In Proceedings of the 11th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), Cambridge, UK, Command and Control Research Program (CCRP), 2006.

72. Schade U and Hieb M. Battle Management Language: A grammar for specifying reports. In Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Norfolk, VA, SISO/IEEE, 2007.

73. Gustavsson, PM. ‘Operations Intent and Effects Model’, Ope-rations Intent and Effects Model, http://oiem.pergu.eu (2008).

74. ISO­8601. ‘Data elements and interchange formats – Information interchange – Representation of dates and times’, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time (2004).

75. Hone G, Lynne M and Ayres R. Awareness – does the acro­nym “SA” still have practical value? In Proceedings of the 11th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), Cambridge, UK, CCRP, 2006, http://www.dodccrp.org/events/11th_ICCRTS/html/papers/071.pdf.

76. MSS. OpO Bogaland, March 2008. Publisher:Swedish Army Land Warfare Center (MSS), Skövde, Sweden, March 2008 Title: OpO Bogaland

77. CEN. CEN/ISSS Workshop on ‘Information System for Disaster and Emergency Management’ - (WS/ISDEM), February 2009, http://www.cen.eu/CEN/sectors/sectors/isss/activity/Pages/ws­isdem.aspx.

78. OASIS. ‘OASIS ­ Open Advanced System for dISaster & emergency management’, http://www.oasis­fp6.org/docu­ments.html (2009).

79. Gustavsson PM, Nero E, Evertsson D, Korhonen M, Sjöquist M, Wemmergård J et al. Tactical situation object ­ enabling joint crisis management training. In proceedings of the Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Providence, RI, IEEE CS Press, 2008.

80. Gustavsson P, Garcia J, Wemmergård J and Norstedt­Larsson M. Expanding the Management Language Smorgasbord ­ Towards Standardization of coalition ­ Crisis Management Language (C­CML). In Proceedings of the Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Huntsville, AL, SISO/IEEE, 2006.

Author Biographies

Per M Gustavsson is a senior research scientist at Training and Simulation Security and Defense, Saab, Huskvarna, Sweden. He is an Assistant Professor at the Center of Excellence for C4I, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA. He is a member of the Mechatronics Research Group at De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.

Michael R Hieb is a Research Professor at the Center of Excellence for C4I, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.

Philip Moore is a Professor in Mechatronics and Director of Research Development at the De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.

Patric Eriksson is the Managing Director for Gothia Science Park, Skövde, Sweden and visiting industrial pro­fessor in Mechantronics at the De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.

Lars Niklasson is the Vice President for University of Skövde, Sweden and professor in Computer Science at the University of Skövde, Sweden