RD-R167 215 03 ANALYSIS VOLUME I MAIN REPORT(U) COMBINED ARMS iOPERATIONS RESEARCH ACTIVITY FORT LEAYENWORTH KSS R ACCINELLI ET AL. DEC 85 CAORRtTR-13/45-VOL-1

UNCLASSIFIED F/'G 15/7 N

EhEmhhhEmhojI

'mlffllfnfsfoffllfI ffffffffffffffLmEEh hhE

1.0~

11111~ Igo~L~

1.51L 1 6

IIN

DECEMBER 1985 CAORA/TR13/85

In ACN 70876Nl G3 ANALYSIS

VOLUME 1: MAIN REPORT.DTlC

0 ELECTEKAPR 3 0

D

* TECHNICAL REPORT CAORA/TR-13/85

US ARMY

SCOMBINED ARMS OPERATIONS RESEARCH ACTIVITY

STUDIES AND ANALYSIS DIRECTORATE

__ FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

[i~fdolbl( 1" X'1ed 6 4 29 040iit h.ti unlii Cd.

UNCLASSIFIED

I. REPORT DOCUmENTATION PAGE ~*'-

CAGRA/TR-13/35 lfI "KKy( _______________

4 TI T .E (-rd~itI, "PE 3F J.'Z P EP130 ::.ERED

G3 ANALYSISVolume : M-ain Report

i Final .

_________________________________________ CAORA/TR-13/857. AuTmiORfa) S. CONTR ACT OR GRANT NumEEP(.I

Major Steven R. AccinelliMrs. Martha L. RobinetteMaJor Jerome A. Jacobs ______________

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 4AME AND ADDRESS I0. PQOGRiAI E-E.VENT PRjEC- 7ASK

* ~US Army Combined Arms Operations Research Activity AE O~N U8~

*ATTN: ATOR-CAS-C ACN: 70876Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-5200

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAM4E AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

Us Army Combined Arms Operations Research Activity December 1985ATTN: ATOR-CAS-C UMBER OF CAGE-

Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-5200 [740J1 1: 57, Vol 11: 21414I MONITORING AGENCY NAME 5 ADORESS(II diffeet from, Controling Office)IS SECuRITY CLASS ti/ Nhfe report;[ UNCLASSIFIED

rISO DECLASSIVICA iN C OW-GRAOIN~GI SCH4EDULE ,*-

* 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thi. Report)

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

* 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of te abstract entered In Block .20. if different from Report)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NO0TES

IS KEY *OROS (Continue on feversi, side It nlecessary awd Identify by block riwnberr)

Corps, Command Control, Tactical, Systems Analysis, Decision Aids, G3,Task Analysis, Analytic Aid, Analytical Hierarchy Process, Prioritization

20. ABSTRACT rCaflnu- ni .,vree efif It neceeeaa7 ad Idoftlif 7 by block numeber)

0This report documents arn analysis of the G3 section of U.S. Army corps and divi-sion main command posts (G3 Main). The G3 analysis, performed by the CombinedArms Operations Research Activity, identified and prioritized analytic aidingopportunities to support the G3 through the use of computer applications. TheAlanalysis and assessment process was based on the near-term (five-year) automatedenvironment of main CPs and current U.S. Army doctrine. A structured functional K

* analysis was performed to identify specific G3 Main tasks and products and then(continued)

*DD 1473 EDOrNOfI NOV 6 S SOesLETE UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATIONE oF rphls PA5.E on,"e Dae. Entered)

.%

UN'CLASS IFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION 017 -411 PAGE(W1h.n Doe. Enterod)

pto assess cpportunitie-s to aid G31 pErforma-ce. pric-ritizdtion im~tnocologyw~as refinea and exerciseG to develop a recomrmenoed priority to conduct researchand to develop analytic aids.

'A

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURtITY CLASSIFICATION or eiwS PAGE'WI-hs Des Enf.red)

Tectinical Report C40k.4/TR - 1l3/3

December 19085

Comoined Arms Operations Research Activity (CAORA)Studies and Analysis Directorate

Fort Leavenworthi, Kansas 66027-5200 * *

G3 ANALYSIS

VOLUME I: MAIN REPORT

by

MAJOR STEVEN R. ACCINELLI

MRS. MARTHA L. ROBINETTE

MAJOR~ JEROME A. JACOBS

ACN 70876

Director, Studies anAnalysis Direct rate

Deputy, CAORA

D0AV ID M MADDOXBrigadier General, USACommanoer, CAORA

L

The authors of this document are indebted to tne many people wnose advice andcooperation made this study possible. COL Robert >. HerricK, Director of Studiesand Analysis Directorate (SAD), Combined Arms Operations Researcn Activity (CAORA),Fort Leavenwortn, Kansas, tnrougnout :nucn of tne stuGy, was :nost hielpful inmethodology development. LTC Warren A. Johnson, Chief of Command Control AnalysisDivision (CCAD), SAD, CAORA, and Dr. Channing Pao, Senior Analyst in CCAD duringmuch of the study, gave inval able advice and general guidance. Mr. Larry Cantwelland others in iAodel Design Brancn, Scientific and Tecnnical Support Directorate,CAORA, contributed technical support concerning the Command Information Database(CID). In CCAD, CPT Daniel R. Alexander and Mr. Ross '.ells accessed tne CID toprovide printouts of G3 tasks and products at corps and division main commandposts. Dr. Micnael R. Anderson, Metnodology and Quality Assurance Directorate,CAORA, assisted in formulating the prioritization methodology. MAJ James A. Lunn,Operations Analysis Branch, SAD, and Mr. Lowell L. Martin, CCAD, helped witngrapnical and statistical analysis. MAJ Kent Schneider, who wrote doctrine in theDepartment of Tactics at the Commana and fieneral Staff College (CGSC) during muchof the study, was a primary source of information concerning doctrine. LTC HowardKietzman and MAJ Jonn Poirrier of the Combined Arms Training Activity (CATA) gavetheir time to discuss G3 tasks and products and contributed ideas for studyrecomiienaations. CPT G. Cnesley Harris, Command and Control Integration brdncn,Command, Control, Communications, ano Intelligence Directorate, ComDinea ArmsCombat Developments A(tivity (CACDA), pruvided Key information concerninig tneDivision Commander's Critical Information Requirements (CCIR). Besides thosementioned above, several otner Army officers served as tiilitary consultants: COLJan Van Prooyen, Commander, Umatilla Depot Activities, Hermiston, Oregon, gaveaavice concerning NdC; MAJ Ken Dobson, Force Design Analysis Division, SA, advisedabout engineers; CPT Paul Holland, CCAD, gave general advice; and MAJ Jack Silvaand MAJ Steve Robinette, CGSC students during the study, served as consultants inthe G3 area. Special thanks go to RumiKo Dodson and William M. Vernon for theirexcellent typing and administrative support.

I.-"

Accesion For ,

NTIS CRA&IDTIC TAB ]-,U.iannounced ]" )Justification.-'

By...................

..........................

Dit ibuon I

Availability Codes

Dit IAva;il a,1djorist zca

-

CONTENTS

Page

VOLUME ITITLE PAGE .................................................................... iACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................. iiTABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................... iiiLIST OF FIGURES ........................................................LIST OF TABLES .............................................................. vABSTRACT ..................................................................... viEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................... viiMAIN REPORT

Introduction....................................................... 1Objectives ............................................................... 2Metnodology .............................................................. 2Assumptions ............................................................. 10 "'7'Results ................................................................. 10Discussion .............................................................. 35Conclusions ............................................................. 37Recommendations ......................................................... 38

VOLUME 11APPENDIX A - Project Coordination Sheet ..................................... A-iAPPENDIX B - G3 Section ..................................................... B-iAPPENDIX C - G3 Main Critical Tasks ......................................... C-IAPPENDIX D - G3 Function ana Task Reference Sheets .......................... 0-1APPENDIX E - G3 Main Products ............................................... G-lAPPENDIX F - Taxonomy of Aiding Tecnnologies ............................ F-iAPPENDIX G - Mapping of Tasks to Products ................................... G-IAPPENDIX H - A Matrix of Products, Aiding Opportunities, and ............... H-i

Aid DescriptorsAPPENDIX I - Analytic Aiding Opportunities .................................. 1-1

ANNEX I - List of Analytic Aiding Opportunities ....................... 1-1-1ANNEX II - CCIR ...................................................... I-I!-lANNEX III - CCIR Mapping ............................................ I-III-1ANNEX IV - Aid Prioritization Worksheets ............................. I-IV-IANNEX V Prioritization Results .................................. I-V-1

APPENDIX J - List of References ............................................. J-1APPENDIX K - Distribution List .............................................. K-1

iii.-

Ig?

..............- '- : - -- t- -- ' S-- A-' A. . . . . . . . ..".-..... . . . . .- - . . " - ''" -• '

- 16 -Z 0 .W-

VOLU;ME I '__

I-E. G3 analysis methodology ........................................ ix

2-E. Leaf plot of d justed scores (equal cells) ..... ............... xvii3-E. Raw rank vs. adjusted rank scatter plot ....................... xviii1. G3 analysis metnouology ............................................. 32. Hierarcny of aid criteria ........................................... 7

*3. Example aid prioritizationi worksneet ............................. 84. Exa,;,ple G3 task referenct sneet .................................... 175. Task mapping for G3 Main product Task Organization ................. 29

6. Sample orief description of potential analytic aids ................ 197. Hierarcny, local, and glooal weignts ........................... 308. Leaf ploc of adjusted scores (equal cells) ...................... 349. Raw rank vs. adjusted rank scatter plot ......................... 36

Vt-LUfE I I

I-V-l. Hierarcny, local, and glooal weignts .....................I-V-2. bistrioution of raw scores .................................. -- 7I-V-3. Districution of adjusted scores ......................... .

I-V-4. Distriuution of importance scures ........................ I-V-9I-V-5. Diszrijution of feasioility scores ...................... -V-

I-V-6. Raw ranK vs. adjusted rank scatter Dlot .................... I-i-llI-V-7. Importance rank vs. adjustto rank scatter plot ............. I- ?-I-V-8. Feasioility rank vs. adjusted rank scatter plot ............ I-V-13-

W,

iv5

" iiv%

ivF

vv'.-'L. v- vW

L I

Pace

VOLUME I '

I-E. G3 Main formal products ....................... xi2-E. G3 Main implied products......................................... xii3-E.. Analytic aicing opportunities (adjusted rank order) ............... xiii1. Comparison matrix snowing G3 critical tasks and supporting documents ... 122. ('3 Main forildl wr'0-3UCtS ................................................183. G3 Main implied products............................................ 19I4. A inatrix of proaucts, aiding opportunities, aru aid cescriptors ........225. Analytic aiding opportunities (adjusted rank oroer) ...................31

VO0LUM SA11

C-1. Coinparisuni matrix snowingy G3 critical tasks and .................C-4Isupporting documents

H-1. 4 inatri/A of prouucts, aiding opportunities, anc .................H- 2aid descriptors

I-V-1. Analytic aiolny opportunities (aujusteu rank order) ............I-V-2

L

L

L.v

7.~ - 7

Tnis report documents an analysis of the G3 section of U.S. ArmIy corps anddi v 1s1 i ma in coinnand pos ts (G3 Aa in. Tne G3 analysis, performned Dy tneCombined Arms Operations Research Activity, identified and prioritizedanalytic aidin; opportunities to support tne C-, trrougn tne iUsC of cctiputerapplications. The analysis and assessment process was Dased on tne near-term .(five-year) automated nvironment of rain CPs and current U.S. A'rmy doctrine.A structured functional analysis was performed to identify specific G3 Main

* tasKs and products and tnen to assess opporLunities to aia G~3 performance. Aprioritization methodology was refined and exercised to develop a recommended

* priority to conouct researcri and to develop analytic aids.

Vi

.. . . . . .

-PE 4V- %r%.,_.KVw-. A rv-. 11%-V -it Nw l

V

. INTMOLLCT IG.-

a. Our,)ose. Tre purpose of tnis report is to aocu;ient an analysis of the

G3 section of U.S. Army corps and division main comrrand posts (G2 1Main). Tnepurpose or tne f33 analysis was to identify opportunities for aiding trieperformance of tne G3 during tactical operations through the use of computerapplicaticns. Tre G3 analysis was perforiieu by tne Combined Arms OperationsResearcn Activity (CAORA) during the period January - July 1985. The G3analysis was a suostuoy of tne Combined Arms Center (CAC) Command and StaffDecision Aids Project. The G3 analysis was performed to assist the CombinedArms Combat Developments Activity (CACDA) to refine requirements for softwareapplications on tactical automated systems.

D. Problem state:ent. Tne analysis docuenteu in this report wasperformed to assist CACDA by answering the following questions:

(1) What are trie opportunities for aiding tne perfornance of the G3

during tactical operations through the use of computer applications?

(2) Wnat aiding opportunities require analytic ttcriniques whicn

transform tactical data into meaningful decision information (analytic aids)?

(3) Wnat criteria snould be applied to prioritize analytic aid *..

development?

(4) Winat is the recommended oevelopment priority for G3 analyticaiding opportunities?

c. Background. Tre CAC Command ano Staff Decision Aids Project was

established in response to a February 1984 directive from Commander, Trainingana Doctrine Command (T.-ADOC), wnicn taskeD tne Comoined Arms Center "...toinitiate an effort leading to tne use of advanced technology systems to nelpthe field commander and his staff in deciding on a course of action incritical battlefield situations..." ana to "...describe additional work to bedone to develop means oy wnicn cowmanders can use computers to improvedecision making." Project guidance called for a constrainea effort initiallyto identify ongoing efforts and to "...determine gains whicn might be realized

by increasing trie effort." The Command, Control, Communications, andIntelligence Directorate (C31), CACDA, was designated as the CAC lead for tneCommand and Staff Decision Aids Project. C31, CACDA, requested CAORA supportin a constrained project to develop a prototype application and to analyze

opportunities for expanded application development in support of evolvingautoomated battlefield control systems. Tne G3 analysis cocuments identifiedopportunities for application development in support of the G3 Main.Concurrently, CAORA developed an Integrated Unit Movement Planning Aid(MOVEPLAN) as a "proof of principle" prototype to refine tne applicationdevelopment process. The MOVEPLAN prototype will provide a near-term

capability to field users and a validated software requirement to the materieldeveloper.

vii

2 • °

[I.

.. Aoproacn. ne eneral _rnOcn a t!,01 to, ient i rv an or iri ti zeopportunities for aiding tne perforiiance of trie (33 ouring tactical operationswas a structured functional analysis of tne G3 ",ain. Tre structuroafunctional analysis, depicteu in figure l-E, focusec on tne doctrinal G3 ".aint,3SKS anrv products to develop qjalitative assss:,ents of ai-ncopportunities. The analysts recognizeo that the specific manner of tasKperformance and tne forms of products may vary from command to command, butLnat underlying opportunitie, for aiding performance have potential fortransfer across commands.

e. Report organization. Tnis report is organized in two volumes.Volume I provides an executive summary and a main report wnicn reflectanalysis objectives, analysis methodology, assumotions, analysis nionliqns,conclusions, and recommendations. Volume I is designed as a ready referencefor stand-alone use. Volume II provides additional tecnnical information andfunctional descriptions wnicn supported tne analysis. Appropriate lists,figures, and tables are included in tne main report to clarify the analysismetnocology, analysis, and conclusions.

2. OBJECTIVES. Tne following objectives were estanlisned to accomplisn tne

G3 analysis:

a. Icentify tne G3 Main critical tasks.

D. Identify the G3 Main products wnicn are supported oy trie criticaltasks.

c. Identify a taxonomy of aiding tecnnologies.

d. Assess tne potential of identified tecnnologies to aid G3 Mainperformance.

e. For tnose products Mnicn require analytic aiding technologies, assesstne appropriateness of alternative analytic techniques.

f. Develop a netnodoloqv for prioritizing analytic ailinq opportunities.

y. Prioritize analytic aiding opportunities based on appropriatecriteria.

h. Document the analysis witn appropriate findings and recormendations.

3. METHODOLOGY. A sequential metnodology was developea to accomplisn theanalysis objectives. A flow diagram of the major steps in the retnodolooy isShown in figure I-E.

4. #SSUMPTIONS. Tne following assumptions apply to the analysis in tnisdocument.

a. Near-term (five-year) requirements for automation at G3 Main willinclude various commercial microcompJter systems and tne Maneuver ControlSystem (MCS).

b. Doctrinal iteriture and tactical standing operating procedures (TSOP)accurately describe G3 products and tasks. Additionally, the current ."-doctrinal literature and TSOP will remain in effect for tne near term.

viii

"- - --- - -- "- - -- "7- -".. . . .. . - - - . -,

=) c- -' VIC) Cl. ) f LU (

-r 3 C>

0- C Lic 0..- C) 2

L'La-0 CL L

L. - I--L C- La

C))

LJ- (A

C) V)>

2: .L3 LU La CDL

W C) =D, CD--

CD La C CD -j C

2: I-

5C ) v.) -4A Lan

(-)~~ --cc =)0- kA -CD(

c. The Division Commander's Critical Information Requirements (CCIR),published by CACDA, are baseline information requirements and are subject to

*" modification or validation by a working group of corps commanders.

* d. A purpose of tactical automation is to improve the performance of the

tactical commander and staff.

e. G3 products and tasks are similar at corps and divisi~n and are

similar for different type corps and divisions.

f. Bias of military and civilian analysts in making qualitative judgmentsi about importance and feasibility of analytic aids can be reduced.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. Key results of the analysis are provided in thissection.

a. Analysis summary.

(1) Seven major functions of the G3 and 43 G3 Main critical taskswere identified. Decomposition of critical tasks facilitated identificationof aiding opportunities. A single comprehensive, doctrinally approved andoperationally validated list of G3 critical tasks does not currently exist.Focused, structured observation and experimentation may help to further defineG3 critical tasks.

(2) Fifty-nine G3 Main products were identified. G3 tasks weremapped to the products which they support to clarify opportunities foraiding. Tables I-E and 2-E list the G3 Main formal and implied products.

(3) A classification scheme (taxonomy) for aiding technologies wasidentified and elaborated. The taxonomy facilitated targeting of appropriatetechnologies to aiding opportunities identified during the detailed task andproduct analysis. The taxonomy is adequate as a first-order technique forassessment of potential technology solutions to command and controldeficiencies.

(4) Fifty-three different G3 Main analytic aiding opportunities wereidentified which have potential to support the development of specific G3products.

(5) A methodology for prioritizing analytic aiding opportunities wasdeveloped. The methodology employed a hierarchical model to assess therelative importance and feasibility of each aiding opportunity. Themethodology was consistently applied to the G3 analytic aiding opportunitiesto generate a recommended priority list for aid development. Table 3-E liststhe aiding opportunities in order of adjusted rank.

b. Sensitivity analysis. A limited sensitivity analysis was performed to

examine the relationships between adjusted scores, raw scores, scores basedsolely on feasibility, and scores based solely on importance. Graphiral .

analysis was the primary technique employed to investigate sensitivity. Thefour sets of scores were displayed in stem and leaf plots and scatter plots.

x

%7-4. 7--.7 -- 1 ri -J -_ IF-urwI

Taule I-E. G3 >,Iain for,;ial producis

OPORD *TasK OrganiLationSituationMissionExecutionService SupportCommand and SignalFire Support AnnexAir Defense AnnexEngineer Annex

Obstacle AppendixDenidi AppendixADM Appendix

Deception AnnexArmy Aviation AnnexRear Area Protection AnnexOperationis Security AnnexAirspace Management AnnexPsychological Operations Annex

Civil Affairs AnnexCE AnnexNBC Defense AnnexChemical Support AnnexService Support AnnexTasK Organization AnnexIntelligence AnnexElectronic Warfare AnnexRoad Movement AnnexAir Muvement AnnexOperations Overlay Annex

Warning OrderFrag OrderMovement OraerAdmin/Logistics OrderAircraft Mission Request (Ariiay Aviation)Artillery Situation ReportAir Request/TasK Message (Pre-planned)ADM Target FolderPost Strike Analysis (Nuclear Strike)Cnemical StriKe WarningNuclear Stri~e WarningECM Daily SummaryElectronic warfare Support Measures (ESM) Report

Engineer Barrier ReportEngineer Mission Coordination SneetEngineer Trace ReportEngineer Situation Report

• OPLAN is not included separately; difference between OPORD and OPLAN is

that OPLAN contains assumptions and specifies tne time or conditions under

wnicn it will be placed into effect.

xi

.~~ ~ ~ ~ . ...

J

-

Table l-E. G3 i-lain forinal products (c'onclbgj, !u)

Engineer Report-DamageAir Defense Status ReportAircraft Hostile Fire ReportAir Defense Engagemenit ReportCommander's Situation Report (SitRep)Unit Location UpdateCoamani, Control and Communication CA Spt RequestMinefield ReportEngineer Spot ReportAir Request/TasK Message (Immediate)PSYREP

.. Spot PSYREPAirspace Management Prucedures RequestECM Mission RequestIntelligence SurmnaryNBC 1 (Ooserver's Initial Report)NBC 2 (Evaluatea Data Report)NBC 3 (Immediate Warn of Expected Contain)NBC 5 (Rpt of Areas of Actual Contam)N6C 6 (Detailed Information on Cnen,/Bio Attack)NbC Downwinu MessageMIJI ReportOPSEC Spot Report

Required Armaunition Supply Rate (RSR) Report

- PSYOP Support RequestMovement CodeTraining Plans

-, Maintaln/Upuate TSOPNuclear Release RequestCnemical Release Request

Table 2-E. G3 Main implied products

", Mission AnalysisOperations EstimateDirected Staff EstimatesBriefingsMaintain tne Current SituationProject Unit StatusProject Critical SnortagesMaintain the Staff Journal

* Allocate/Prioritze Replacement Personnel, Materiel and Units

Maintain the Troop ListExchange of Information

X.i

°x,

7.~ 2.-7-

Tat)Ie 3-s- AnaIytic aidn,) opr'-tun itis -aiusLed rat- orcer

(continued on following pages)

AbSOLUTE ADJUSTE[ ALiSTED

AID DESCRIPTOR AID ADJUSTED RAW RANK IMPORTANCE FEASIBILITY

IDt RANK RANK DIFF RANK RANK

Unit Movement Planner 3-51 1 1 0 1 12

Force Movement Ariaiyzer 3-24 2 3 1 2 I1

Air Movement Analyzer 3-04 3 4 1 4 19

Fuel Consumption Rates 3-26 4 5 1 7 10

Air Movement Planner 3-05 5 2 3 13 3

Assignr Critical Replace- 3-08 6 6 0 11 13

ment Units, Personnel,

ana ,Materiel

Terrain Management 3-46 7 12 5 10 29

Denial Preparation 3-19 8 22 14 12 30

Timu Analyzer 3-47 9 7 2 28 4

Pre-Position Decontamina- 3-18 10 17 7 15 27

S. tion Supplies

* Compare AlternaLe Courses 3-13 11 42 31 3 49

of Action

Obstacle Preparation 3-31 12 14 2 17 28

Predict Contamination 3-39 13 9 4 36 2

(ID Affected Units)

Forecast Unit Status 3-52 14 30 16 6 40

Cnemical Effects 3-20 15 18 3 23 18

Prediction

Expenditure Rdtes (FS) 3-22 16 11 5 33 6

Basic Load Allocations 3-10 17 8 9 42 1

Nucleur Effects Preoiction 3-21 18 16 2 30 15

Aircraft Asset Analyzer 3-02 19 10 9 26 21

Priorities of Fire (FS) 3-40 20 24 4 18 32

Priorities/Allocation 3-38 21 33 12 9 43

(ADA)

Rear Area Protection 3-41 22 39 17 8 45

Capabilities

.,.,

.. ..' .--'- . .'. ._.'-.. _, --]' , _J ",-, 3,' .." %_ % j.'%, :3 _' - ., .. . , a ' ---" "xi. '." . . .

4.. . . $.-.1'" .

(continued)

A3 S0LUTE A[JUSTEL A,,J UTE ,-

AID DESCRIPTOR AID ADJUSTED RAW RANK IMPORTANCE FEASIBILITY

I D# RANK RANK DIFF R AK RANK

Troop Exposure (NbC) 3-50 23 19 4 35 17

Evaluata Damage Repair 3-17 24 27 3 21 31

Alternatives

Forecast Tuue Replace- 3-25 25 13 12 39 9

- ment (FS)

" Forecast Usage Rates 3-53 26 23 3 32 23

(RSR)

Allocite CAS and RECCE 3-11 27 23 1 31

- Controlled Supply Rate 3-15 29 13 15 43 7

(CSR)

Route Evaluation (A'IN) 3-44 29 35 6 5 52

- ADM Employment 3-33 30 29 1 38 20

TasK Organization 3-45 31 31 0 22 34

* Target Allocation 3-48 32 25 7 40 16

(Chernical)

. Aircraft Requirements 3-03 33 32 1 25 35

Prescriued Nuclear 3-37 34* 26 8 37 22 ",U

Load (PNL)

- Prescrioea Cnemical 3-36 34* 26 8 37 22

Load (PCL)

Optimal Friendly Employ- 3-34 35 36 1 14 44

" ment (EW)

" Organize for Comoat (FS) 3-35 36 37 1 24 36

* Allocate Engineer Re- 3-07 37 15 22 41 26

. sources

* Ties were allowed for ranks. PCL and PNL had a tie for all scoring scnemes. Therefore, '

tne adjusted ranKs ranged from 1-52 for a total of 53 aiding opportunities.

xiv

o:- : , - .-. % .- .*-* -. . . *.** -" * ... , - . .- . - , " : : . : :-.-. - : -

(conc i uGeu)

AE OLUJTE bJbLTEf) AP.31.STED

AID DESCRIPTOR AID ADJUSTEU RAW RANK IMPORTANCE FEASIBILITY

D- ,<ANK RANK D I FF RAN!K RANK

Target Susceptibility 3-49 38 34 4 27 37

(".C)

Fallout Prediction 3-23 39 21 18 48 8

(Nuclear)

Hazard Areas (NoC) 3-27 40 20 20 4 14

Allocate Replacements 3-06 41 43 2 16 48

Oustacle Emplacement Plan 3-30 42 41 1 ?9 39

Integrate CAS (FS) 3-28 43 44 1 20 42

Relativ Cuiobat Power 3-42 44 45 1 34 38

Control Procedure (A2C2) 3-14 45 46 1 19 51

NuC Effet.ts Evaluation 3-29 46 3S 47 24

Post-Strike Analysis 3-1b 47 31 16 50 5

(Nuclear)

Deteri ne Replacement 3-43 43 47 1 44 41

Priorities

Alocdtv Critical Assets 3-01 49 40 9 51 33

(ECM)

Assign PSYOP Assets 3-09 50 49 1 46 47

" Obstacle Effectiveness 3-12 51 48 3 49 46

PSYOP Effectiveness 3-32 52* 50 2 52 50

" Ties were alloweu for ranKs. PCL and PNL nad a tie for all scoring scnemes. Tnerefore, -'

tne aujusted ranks ranged from 1-52 for a total of 53 aiaing opportunities.

x v.. .

* **~. • o**

. . . . . . . . . . .. . ... o..

(1) Comparison of leaf plots. Five analytic aids consistently scoredin the top two cells across all scoring schemes. The specific aidingopportunities are: Air Movement Analyzer, Fuel Consumption Rates, AssignCritical Replacements, Unit Movement Planner, and For:e Movement Analyzer.These aids were robust across all scoring schemes. Figure 2-E shows a leafplot of aids based on adjusted scores.

(2) Comparison of scatter plots. .raphical techniques were alsoemployed to examine the relationships between adjusted, raw, importance, andfeasibility ranks. Figure 3-E shows a scatter plot comparison of adjustedranks and raw ranks. This figure shows that the top four aids were dominant(low rank) for both raw and adjusted ranking procedures. Further, the bottomfive aids were consistently inferior. However, in the rank interval 5-47there was a great amount of variability between raw and adjusted ranks.Additional scatter plots are in appendix I.

(3) Conclusions from sensitivity analysis. Of the top 20 aids, basedon adjusted score, six consistently ranked in the top 20 over allscoring/ranking schemes. Aids in the midrange (approximately 10-40) arehighly sensitive to the effects of alternative subcriteria weights.

c. Limitations.

(1) The analysis was based on the best available doctrinal literatureand references documenting aiding technologies. However, a corps heidquartersARTEP has not been developed and the division headquarters ARTEP is underrevision. The Combined Arms Training Activity (CATA) is working tostandardize the critical tasks at division and corps, but a doctrinallyapproved and operationally validated consolidated list does not currentlyexist• in many cases, substantial additional research, experimentation, andfield observation will be required prior to development of specific automatedaids which will actually improve performance.

(2) Though analytic techniques were decomposed in the targetingprocess, it is possible that a combination of analytic techniques may beembedded in a single aid.

(3) The possibility exists that analytic aids will evolve as theautomated environment and the literacy of automation users mature. In thisevent, an application which initially employs math model techniques mightlater be revised to use artificial intelligence techniques.

6. CONCLUSIONS. The following conclusions resulted from the G3 analysis.

a. The objectives of the G3 analysis were accomplished.

b. Specific opportunities for aiding the performance of the G3 duringtactical operations were identified and appropriate aiding technologies weretargeted.

c. Fifty-three distinct G3 analytic aiding opportunities were identified.

xvi

,% .

-__- * . . -, ' .... ,, . . . )* * * *, . , - -. .. • - .,. .. . . ,-

Lfl

Lr)

VU lb

c.n

CO cn

c,) C')

Cu C'u

Cu CT)En'

Li J

CZ) aCuj 3

Nc

Ln 'r - Cu

Lo M cm

cv~U VNL r* a

- Cu 0

(3NO:S [13'SnM

rrN!3~ 7iI-

- Cu

z iL

++K + F-

Q Lf)

+ .

+ x

+ x

+ x F .

ry 7

LL

+ x ~

+X

+ >(x ~ L DL

x~ +x + C

x +

> + L

+ X v 4

>+ w:)K-

(S) (S () (\D (S4LO

xv iii ~~

V-

- _ i * Li, .* * . - - .. l , ; : I V L W W VVU-WTV . . Y I: I - 1 - . r'¥x 7w~ w - .. '- -*v ?v 1 . u . .,. .

u. Criteria of i;artajce anu re sa ii ty provi-jt 3 ra i 3nXi Da iS fjrpriuritizing analytic aid development. Tht two primary criteria can be Ifurtner decomposed to facilitate assessment of relevant factors

such as development cost, training, frequency of product develop;;ient, andpotential time savings.

e. A recommended priority for d.velopment of G3 analytic aijs wascompiled based on the above criteria using a nierarcnical prioritizationstructure. Tne five aids wnicn consistently ranKed at the top or the prioritylist are Air Movement Analyzer, Assign Critical Replacements, Force MovementAnalyzer, Fuel Consumption Rates, and Unit Movement Planner.

f. Additional researcn, field observation, and experimentation arerequired to define and standardize G3 tasks and products.

g. The methodology employed to analyze the G3 Main may be applied tootner functional areas to identify and prioritize development of automatedaids.

n. The prioritizeo list of G3 analytic aiding opportunities provides arational basis for focused development of decision aid prototypes.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS.

a. Tnat the G3 analysis De aoproved as an accurate, comprehensive studywnich identifies and prioritizes G3 aiding opportunities based on currentdoctrine.

o. Tnat tne G3 analysis be presented to tne Combat Developer (C31, CACOA)to assist in focused development of decision aids for the Maneuver ControlSystem (iNCS).

c. Tnat G3 Main products and tasks be stanuardized to enable efficienttraining of nigh-performing staffs and to facilitate rapid, successfultransition froi a manual to an automated U.S. Army Tactical Con'unano andControl System.

d. Tnat tne analytic methodology described in this report be approved asan appropriate methodology for identifying aiding opportunities in battlefieldfunctional areas.

e. Tnat increased empnasis be placed on analysis of the command andcontrol process tnrougn observation and experimentation to define tne processand to improve procedures within the process.

%'

XiX

-----7.. .--- -' -m- -- --' '-. -' ." .. _.a .i .- -__ '_.' ,'_ .). ' '---'' t , ' ' ' '_' ; % ,'- '.' . . . .. " " -'. " - -" " .""*. ." ." ° -

4.1

1. INTRODUCTION.

a. Purpose. Tne purpose of tnis report is to ducuifent an analysis of trieG3 section of U.S. Army corps and division main command posts (G3 ',Iain). Tnepurposc of the G3 analysis was to identity opportunities for aiding tne

perfo-mance of tne G3 during tactical operations througn tne use of computerappli:ations. Tne G3 analysis was performed by tne Command Control AnalysisDivision (CCAD), Studies and Analysis Directorate (SAD), Combined Arms

Operations Research Activity (CAORA) during tne period January - July 1985.Tne G3 analysis was a substudy of the Combined Arms Center (CAC) Command andStaff Decision Aids Project. Tne G3 analysis was performed to assist trieComoinea Arms Combat Developments Activity (CACDA) to refine requirements forsottwart applications on tactical automated systems.

b. Problem statement. The analysis documented in this report wasperformto to assist CACDA by answering the following questions:

(1) What are tne opportunities for aiding the performance of the G3during tactilal operations tnrough tne use of computer applications?

(2) What aiding opportunities require analytic tecnniques wnichtransform tactical data into meaningful decision information (analytic diGs)?

(3) What criteria snould be applied to prioritize analytic aiddevelopment?

(4) What is tne recommended development priority for G3 analyticaiding opportunities?

c. BacKgrouna. Tne CAC Command ana Staff Decision Aids Project wasestablisned in response to a February 1984 directive from Commander, Trainingand Doctrine Cormiand (TRADOC), wnicn tasked the Comoined Arms Center "... toinitiate an effort leading to the use of advanced technology systems to nelpthe field cumnander and his staff in deciding on a course of action incritical battlefield situations..." and to ".. .describe additional work to bedone to develop means Dy which commanders can use computers to improvedecision making." Project guidance called for a constrained effort initiallyto identify ongoing efforts and to "...determine gains whicn might be realizedby increasing the effort." The Command, Control, Communications, andIntelligence Directorate (C31), CACDA, was designated as the CAC lead for theCommand and Staff Decision Aids Project. C31, CACDA, requested CAORA supportin a constrained project to develop a prototype application and to analyzeopportunities for expanded application development in support of evolvingautomated battlefield control systems. Tne G3 analysis documents identifieoopportunities for application development in support of the G3 Main.Concurrently, CAORA developed an Integrated Unit Movement Planning Aid(MOVEPLAN) as a "proof of principle" prototype to refine the applicationdeveloprent process. The MOVEPLAN prototype will provide a near-termcapability to field users and a validated software requirement to the materieldeveloper.

i;

* °.% . "% .5 o. . • - " - . * %- °. . °. . • .. o... . . z . .. . . .... . .. " . .," . -. -o . ,. . . -. • •,"

7. . . _ .". .. -1r W 1 .'C .

U. Aporoacn. ihe jeneral apwroacn =oloyec to ientiry inu roritiz: "

opportunities for aiding tne perfor'nance of the (3 during tactical operationswas a structured functional analysis uf tne G3 Aain. Tne structureafunctional analysis, depicted in figure 1, focused on the coctrinal 3:3 Xaintasks an pro.ucts to develoa q-' litative as-ess::ernts of aioir,2opportunities. The analysts recognized that the specific manner of taskperformance and tne forms of products may vary from com,,nano to corfmand, Outthat underlying opportunities for aiding performance have potential fortransfer across commands. Tne detailed analysis metnonology is aoscrioed inparagraph 3.

e. Report orqanization. This report is organized in :wo volimes.Volume I provides an executive summary and a main report wnich reflectanalysis oDjectives, analysis inetnodology, assumptions, analvsis ni~nli;tIts,conclusions, and recommendations. Volume I is designed as a ready referencefor stand-alone use. Volume II provides additional technical information andfunctional descriptions wnicn supported the analysis. Appropriate lists,figures, and taoles are included in the main report to clarify tne analysismethodology, analysis, and conclusions.

2. OBJECTIVES. The following oojectives were establisied to accomplish the

G3 analysis:

a. Identify tne G3 "lain critical tasKs.

b. Identify tne G3 Mlain products wnich are supported by tne criticaltasKs.

c. Identify a taxonomy of aiding tecnnologies.

d. Assess tne potential of identified tecnnologies to aid G3 Main

performance.

tee. For tnose products wnicn require analytic aiding technologies, assessthe appropriateness of alternative analytic techniques.

" f. Develop a metnodology for prioritizing analytic aiding opportunities.

g. Prioritize analytic aiding opportunities based on appropriatecriteria.

h. Document tne analysis with appropriate findings and recommendations.

* 3. METHODOLOGY. A sequential methodology was developed to accomplish theanalysis objectives. A flow diagram of the major steps in the metnodology isshown in figure 1. The following subparagraphs proviae a description of eacnelement of the analysis metndology.

a. Acquire expertise. CAORA analysts performed an extensive review ofdoctrinal literature and related studies, consulted with subject-matterexperts, observed G3 activities during REFORuER, and studied historical -

reports. The principal product of tnis step was an initial foundation ofknowleoge aoout U3 Main activities. A secondary product was development of alibrary of reference materials to support the analysis. Controlled experi-ments, surveys, interviews, and structureo observations of command posts wereconsidered but were not feasible in tne initial constrained analysis effort.

2

..... -" ", -" ",_], "_ "- '; ,...".........'..."......",....."....,........ ................-.......- o .-. .- ... .

Ck- C)4<.,.2-'

I.- I.- LL

vi CD Gu) 4:

C) ~ - 2C)

Ui 020

ulC C) L c

LiLcm C) LJ

-- Cv

vi r.4 C

ujI.- C

uiL CD -

- i

-i = 0-LLn u02: 1' I -

W~( Li co ul'.

cviU~-0

wee fint ir ei i.,T T;Oic3t ions. '.~t tne e<:ertise ac'iuirec Nf ro; i 1t ;r: ,~- t os),t an,'j, it-Ed 12l: obstrvati rn f~rocu"sr7!n to

*compile a list of (,3 2-'ain crit;,cal tasxs. The tasK list was refined by

tecnnical reports '2AW TP, 1-3 , 2222 functional analyses), arid obtaining*rtquire , clarification fron-, suOj'±Ct-i!aLter rexperts. Tne princ(ipal G3

activities were oecornposeo to define specific tasks. A task reference sneet%was tnen dJeveloped to proviioe a Drief description of tr eleiients of each task.

c. Identify G3 I~ain products. Techniques similar to tne task analysis*were appic to ictntity tne princiual G33 Main products. The sources for task

analysis were used as well as CACRA's Command Information Database (Do) wnitflfcii 1tates kcross-rnappirim- of taisKs to Lnt products nnicii tney s,..pport. T eCID was developed froim detailed analysis of five corps and nine divisiontaccicdl1 standing operatinj proceuures (TSOP) and doctrinal literciture. TheCDO assisted analysts in refining the list of G3 Main products reflected in

* doctrinal literature.

0. Identify aiding tecnnol.)ies. A review of computer science,informat-ion system, and decision support literature clarified a classification

*scne-:e ot aioing tecnnolo, ies. Tne consistent ta:xonoy0 iecoWinoseo aiainu* tecnnologies into informTation processing techniques, user interface

techniques, and analytic tecnni'jues. Anialytic tecnniques were i-irtnersubdivided into categories of artificial intelligence (AI), matrienmiatical

*mouels, optiozation tecriniqjuts, coimputer siTmulations, ano at-cision analysis.Tne taxonomy eiiabled tne targeting of appropriate technologies to aidingoipportunitle-. iuentifitdoduring the detailed tasK and product analysis. Driefdescriptions follow.

(1) Information proc!:ssing. Infor:iiation processing tecninolo--is* encompass architectural capabilities innerent to automated inforumation

processing. Some example tecnnologies in the class include intormiation* storage, access, security, distribution, and communications. Specific

realizations of tniese tecnnoiogies are UNIX, DbASE 11, ano Electronic Mail.

(2) User interface. User interface technologi es include haroware andsoftware developments wnicti erinance trie capaoilIity or a hiuman operator tointeract with an automated information system. Typical examples in this classare nelp menus, interactive tools such as the mouse and bit tablet, graprtic Ldisplays, standard format prompts, touch-sensitive screens, and voice input or

* output.

(3) Analytic tetcrniquts. Analytic techniques are eiimucdded oradaptable relational models wnich transform data which resides in theaacaoase. Tne trans forinat ion process goal is to yield meaningful informationtrom existing or readily-availaole data. In many cases, tne analytictccnniques nave existed aria been refined in a manual operating envirorimmerit but

* speed, quality, and number of processing steps nave been expanded in anautornateo environment. However, as in the case of Al, emerging analytic Ctecnniques nave also been identified for potential aiding of humanperformance. Tne analytic technologies were further decomposed to focusr

* analytic aiding opportunities. A brief description of each category isprovided below.

4

. -.-.-

a) -, ti f ici aI l nt ie t l 1 .-- ,. e, t ,,n ., s r f e:" t r

applications which employ inference rules 6ased on expert Knowledge. Theanalysts could not assess tne preferences of Al to otner analytic aicing

" alternatives due to the relative immaturity of AI. However, the DARPAStrategic Computink! Prograi, and otner initiatives may clarity the role of Al

. as a sound analytic technique. #-.

(b) Miatnematical models (IN). ,,atn models encompcssstraightforwara computational tecnniques whicn utilize basic relations'iips tooutain information. Examples are:

distance = rate X timesector rorce ratio = value of enemy rorces in sector

value or frienuly rorces in sector

Information processing and user interface technologies (DBASE II, LOTUS 1, 2,.3) facilitate trie use of matn mooels in an automated environnent.

(c) Optimization techniques (OT). Optimization techniques* eiaploy operations analysis metriods to searcn for a "best" solution. UT

generally requires definition of an objective function (optimization criteria)ana a stalement of constraints. Example OT applications are linearprogramming, goal programming, and networks. In some cases, OT methods mayinteract witn neuristic, perhaps Al tecnniques, to yield a "Dest feasible"

-* solution unoer operator control.

(o) Simulation (SIN). Simulations are event- or time-sequencu'moaels wnich may have math models or optimization techniques embedded.

*. Simulations facilitate tne investigation of vdriaole relationsnips over timeor some other designated independent variable(s). Example simulations includedeterministic or stochastic (prooabilistic) war gaines or queuing models.

(e) Decision analysis (DA). DA techniques employ game theory, tutility/value mooels, or uecision trees to examine alternative strategies.Use of a decision payoff matrix, whicn seeks a dominant outcome for a givenalternative, is a OA metroo.

e. Assess aiding opportunities. An initial qualitative assessment wasmade to determine opportunities tor aiding tne development of G3 Mainproducts. Trie qualitative assessment was based on a general Knuwleuge of

• 'aiding technologies, both current and projected, and a detailed understandingof tne products ano tne tasks wnicn support product development. This initialscreening considered frequency of product development, time and coordinationrequired, task/product complexity, and training and experience required todevelop tne product.

f. Target aiding tecnnologies to aiding opportunities. For eacn productwith assessed potential for technological aiding, a further judgment was madeconcerning the specific aiding tecnnologies wricn could be applied. A moredetailed understanding of aiding technologies was required to make thisassessment. Tne assessment further ranked tne potential ot "competing"analytic tecnnologies to satisfy the identified opportunity.

5

-. : ; . r T V WIT - * -r- : -,T . - : : . -, . - - -. . , ' .W . m , q-W qW rt z - -tm

g. List G3 products and appropriate ai;inc Lecnnologies. Eacn G3 ;.;ainproauct ano its supporting tasks were examineo to determine wnether tne threeaiding tecnnologies - analytic, information processing, or user interface -mignt be usefil. A matrix was developed to list the products arid to identifytne appropriate technologies for eacn. In addition, for tnose products whicnwere assessed to have potential for analytic aiding, a description of tnespecific analytic aid was developed. An assessment was tnen made concerningthe appropriateness of alternative analytic aiding technologies. A brief iiddescriptor (name) was tnen assigned.

n. Develop a prioritization methodology.

(1) A methodology was required to prioritize the aidingopportunities since infinite resources are not available for development.

Alternative techniques for structuring preferences were investigated.Specific techniques considered were decision tables using dominance or minimaxdecision criteria and a nierarcnical model developed by Thomas L. Saaty(reference 10). An approacn whicn provided discrimination between competingaiding opportunities was desired. Decision tarles would identify groups ofaids with similar dominance or minimax characteristics but would not provideinformation auout differences within aroups of aids. Saaty's analyticnierarcny process (AHP) provided an objective metnod to obtain a priorityvalue for eacn individual aid. Tne Dasic metnodoloqy appliea, using Saaty'stechnique, was to formulate a hierarchy of separable criteria to evaluate eacnaiding opportunity. A metlod of pairwise comparisons was employed todetermine tne relative utility (weight) of eac criteria. A conimercialsoftware application, "Expert Cnoice," facilitated the computatiun of criterialvalues. Figure 2 depicts the hierarchy wnich was developed to evaluate eachaid individually and then to obtain a weighted score for each aid relative toall otner aids. A worKsheet was developed for individual aid evaluation. Anexaiiple ot tre worksneet is provided at fibure 3.

(2) Criteria for expressing preferences were developed. The primarycriteria of importance and feasibility were selected eased on a review ofinformation system literature and current application development experience.Importance encompasses tne factors which contribute to improved G3effectiveness. Feasibility encompasses considerations of major costsassociated witn developing, training users, fielding, and maintainingapplications. The two primary criteria were further decomposed into threesubcriceria for eacn. Tne primary criterion of importance was decomposed tosubcriteria of frequency of use, estimated time and quality savings, and theextent to wnich the aid supports tne Division Commander's Critical Infor,nationRequirements (CCIR). Tne primary criterion of feasioility was decomposed tosubcrlteria of cost, operational environment, and tecnnical capability. Adiscussion of each subcriterion is provided in the following subparagrapns.

(a) Importance.

1 Frequency. Tnis subcriterion of importance was used toassess the frequency of potential use of a specific aid in a 24-hour periodduring mid- to nign-intensity combat operations. The premise was that aidswnicn are used repeatedly have nigher utility than those which are usedinfrequently.-

6

LEVEL 3: (GOAL) PRIORITIZED SCORE

LEVEL 1: CRITERIA - IMPORTA ICE FEASIBILITY

-71

i ii"LEVEL 2: TIME AND FREQUENCY CCIR ECONOM~ICAL TECHNICAL OPERATIONAL .o.

SUBCRITERIA QUALITY ..-

SAV INGS ,

,1w

.-1*

Figure 2. Hierarchy of aid criteria

7,-!,

AID PRIORiTIZATCO!, :..R.SHEET

2. AID L.SER: .-,/

3. PRODUCT SUPPOkTED: C',f rL (--;j. L f ,L

4. PRIMARY ArALYTIC TECHNIQUE: ~ -

3. SUPPORTING ANALYTIC TECHNIQUE(S): C -Lt-

6. TASK(S) SUPPORTED (BY NUIMBER): / 0 ,L

7. CCIR SUPPORTED (TOTAL rNU;BER): //

8. BRIEF AID DESCRIPTION: JC'44 dLC / , Cd (-4i4V i 4-,

9. RANKING BY SCALeS (IMPORTANCE): RAW ADJ

a. Frequency (Low, High) SCORE WT SCORE

0 5 10

b. Time and Quality Savings (Small, Large)

I0 ' ' I ( , I ./__ L, 2LL I

0 51

c. CCIR (Few, Many)

0 5 10

10. RANKING BY SCALES (FEASIBILITY):

a. Operational (Low, High)

0 5 10b. Economical (High Cost, Low Cost)

c. Technical (Migh Risk, Low Risk)

0 10

TOTAL SCORES: &, '5 /.0o0 7 q;;

Figure 3. Example aid prioritization worksheet

8

2 Ti;;it ani qua]itv 3vmifls. -Ins SuDcrit. ri fl ofimportance was used to assess tne potential for more rapid product developmentand i;mprovd product quality for a single iteration. Factors cunsidere in

the assessment were task/product complexity, number of variables considerea,product content/volume, ana traininq or co;mpetence required for effective tasKperformance. The underlying premise was that aids which reduce time andimp, ve quality during a single product iteration nave iyner utility thanthose aids wnicn savr little time or quality.

3 CCIR. Each aid was rated on a ratio scale basea on tnenumber of major subcategories of CCIR whicn it supported. Tne underlyingpremise was toat aid utility increases witn increasing production/support ofCCIR.

(u) Feasibility.

I Operational. Eacn aid was considered in terms of costsassociated with tne-operational environment. Factors considered were aidtransparency and user literacy. Tne underlying premise was tnat transparentaids wnicn minimize requirements for training (user literacy) have the highestutility.

2 Economical. Eacn aid was considered in terms of costsrequired for research to refine requirements, prototype development,maintenance and training, hardware availability, ano fielding/conversion ofsystems. Tne underlying premise was that a near complete, straightforward,edsily supported prototype nas tne nionest utility.

3 Technical. Each aid was considered in terms of theeAistence of near-term or current tecnnologies for aid development andfielding. This was basically a risk assessment. Factors considered includedcommunications, automation, software development tecrnologies, dataavailability, and maturity of analytic techniques. The underlying premise wasthat applications which are dependent on existing, well-tstablishedtechnologies are minimal risk candidates.

i. Priuritize analytic aid candidates. For eacn aid requiring analytictechniques, a prioritization worksneet was prepared and an assessment wasrecorded by CAORA analysts for eacn suocriterion of importance andfeasibility. An interval scale was used to express the extent to which eacnpotential analytic aid satisfied each suocriterion. The transition to a focuson analytic aids was based on the recognition tnat the combat developer andmateriel developer are making progress in the application of informationprocessing and interface tecnnologies but are experiencing difficulty definingrequirements for analytic tecnniques to support tactical commanders and theirstaffs. For eacn aid, the analysts reviewed tne relevant materials to betterunderstand tie purpose of the aid, the potential analytic tecnniques, and tneextent of support to tne CCIR. A mapping was made to determine which CCIRsubcategories were required or would be produced by the aid. After discus-sion, a consensus was obtained concerning tne ranking of the aid for eachsubcriterion. The result wzs a raw score for eacn subcriterion. Tne rawscores were added to obtain a total raw score for eacn aid. The total rawscore reflects tne value of eacn aid if all criteria (importance, feasibility)and the six subcriteria are equally weignted. Weights for the criteria ofimportance and feasibility were obtained by the metnod of pairwise comparison.Within eacn criterion, relative weights were obtained for tne subcriteriausing tne same method. The relative weignt of eacn subcriterion was

9

ultiplied by the delght of its corresponding criterion to obtain sixsubcriteria weights that are comparable across criteria and su;n to one. Theserelative weights were multiplied by raw subcriteria scores to obtain adjustedsubcriteria scores. Adjusted subcriteria scores were then added to obtain 3nadjusted total score for each aid. The adjusted total score was the primarybasis for recommended priority for development of potential aid candidates. N

j. Conduct sensitivity analysis. Weighting of criteria and the structureof the hierarchy were varied to examine the sensitivity of the prioritizedlist to the methodology. A limited sensitivity analysis was performed toexamine the relationships between adjusted scores, raw scores, scores basedsolely oi feasibility, and scores based solely on importance. Graphicalanalysis, utilizing leaf plots and scatter plots, was the primary techniqueemployed to investigate sensitivity. It is important to emphasize that the

methodology embedded a sensitivity data collection scheme, since the rawscores reflect an equal weighting of utilities across subcriteria, while theadjusted scores reflect the net effect of the pairwise comparison ofsubcriteria and criteria.

k. Document analysis. The results of the analysis were compiled andrecorded in a two-volume technical report. A briefing was prepared to presentresults and recommendations to decision makers.

4. ASSUMPTIONS. The following assumptions apply to the analysis in thisdocument.

a. Near-term (five-year) requirements for automation at G3 Main willinclude various commercial microcomputer systems and the Maneuver Control -

System (MCS).

b. Doctrinal literature and TSOP accurately describe G3 products andtasks. Additionally, the current doctrinal literature and TSOP will remain ineffect for the near term.

c. The CCIR, published by CACDA, are baseline information requirementsand are subject to modification or validation by a working group of corpscommanders.

d. A purpose of tactical automation is to improve the performance of the

tactical commander and staff.

e. G3 products and tasks are similar at corps and division and aresimilar for different type corps and divisions.

f. Bias of military and civilian analysts in making judgments aboutImportance and feasibility of analytic aids can be reduced.

5. RESULTS. Key results of the analysis are provided in this section.

a. G3 Main critical tasks.

(1) Before G3 Main critical tasks were determined, the study teamidentified the soldiers who work at G3 Main. FC 101-55, "Corps and Division

* Command and Control," provided a model for the command post organization of aheavy division. From that model, a list of soldiers in the G3 section at themain command post and a list showing their location in the current operations

10

or piar s ,i I ,.rz '>:rlved. Tne lists, _r,-...n in ar' ~n.ix *., ,. re r r, -,,oy tne Taole of organization and Equipment (TGE) tor HHC heavy Division (Ar'.yof Excellence), TOE 870U4J411), I April 1964.

(2) Four primary documents were analyzeu to identify aria define G3,Main critical tdSKS. A comparison ,;jatrix wds orgonized ci) reflzct tnedocuments which validated each task. Tne matrix facilitated identification ofgaps or differences between uocuments. Tne comparison matrix is sno.wn attable 1. Seven major G3 functions composed of a tot il of 43 critical taskswere idetitied and compilec. Differences across documents were notsignificant; nowever, tne potential utility of a single comprehensive,coctrinally approved u3 critical task list was nignlignted by tne analysis. Alist currently exists in FC i01-55 wnicn may aeserve review ana revision assrown Dy tne comparison matrix disparities.

(3) A separate reference sheet was prepared to delineate tne keyelements of eacn major function and critical task. Tne reference sneets werekey aocuments which supported the assessment of aiding opportunities. Anexample LasK reference sheet is sown at figure 4; tn coplete set of 50reference sheets is in appendix 0. As an example, note that a subtask forsuccessful organization tur coioat is estimation of numoers and types or unitsto be organized and prioritized. This Subtask implies an opportunity foranalytic aiding.

O. G3 Main products. A detailed analysis or G3 tasKs, doctrinalliterature, TSOP, and tne CID resulted in the compilation of G3 informationproducts. Ine products were divided into tAo categories: formal anu i;plied.Formal products were defined as standard documents produced and disseminated

by Lne G3. I:plieu products were materials generally developed by the G3 forinternal use or for informal coordination. Forty-eignt formal products and 11implied products were iuentifie( or the G3 Main. Listings of tn: formal andimplied products are provided i' cables 2 and 3. One formal product of tne G3is Task Organization, wnlcni ma . disseminated as a main element or tne

. Operations Order, as an annex he Operations Order, or as an element of aWarring Order or Fragmentary Or The task, Organize units fur comoat,supports the development of the p. -t Task Organization. The relationshipof tasK, SuDtasK, and product was Ke) the analysis pro-ess whicn lea to tneidentification of opportunities to aid -ing the development of G3 products.

c. Assessment of aiding opportunities.

(l) A classification scheme of aiding tecnnologies was developedusing computer science, information system, and decision support literature.Tne taxonomy decomposed aiding tecnnologies into infurmatior, processingtecnniques, user interface techniques, and analytic techniques. Analytictecioniques were further Subdivided into categories of artificial intelligence(Al), matnematical models, optimization techniques, computer simulations, and

.. decision analysis (UA). "

(2) A list of G3 Main products and the G3 Main tasks which supporttheir development was compiled using the CID. This list enabled analysts toexamine task, suotasK, and product and to assess aiding opportunities. Figure5 shows the tasks which support the product Task Organization. A completelist of products and supporting tasks is contained in appendix G. For theTask Organization example, the assessment at this point in the analysis wastnat an aiaing opportunity did exist.

• ." - .i.' , '.. '.-;'.' -. '" .'":' ':- '. " .- . 2 i> , .." -"; , ..-. .. , , . '-..'''.- ..- -. •. .-.-.- ... . "-. . .. . ".. _ . . . .

LA>K 3K >-

M to-

LA CA

LL-e

10 00

C~ w 4-Y 3 d

0 CL -

0h x

aCCC

c C < AE

-L - t -

IA a)- 41.3 C

0 C

0 (U Uz r f L'V*0

W 3 - %-0

C rCW 4 u/ to )C\ea3 Ca C *- W (U0

'A 4- u( 0 -J-W

eL- O C m. >, , 4-m - o M('V m Cin -W, C L a 2)cu 4.j fr_ (

0. D 0 ( a0 L f IV C- LA *-j

00 3J . C- 1-4- - = 4- C 4- J/3 %A

o 1 fO 31D Q M .. 4-' C.L 'V CL)

= - - v C 12

,'

I IV

.4d

I--

-L 4.

4z4.

4.J

I..-. I. '.

i "ea

ea VL

t-4-

0 W\ a~)<I

L --

-• L. - a,

* cc .,) 0 ea

I*-. ".-.4c

S-,j 4..

go ui0..

, Q A.

w. 0

'A *~.'--.

4.J wV 10U UC 1.6 fo 0C Q~ W V 'V m

0 0- 0 LL. 0~ Lfl 0CM-Un

'0 0 to- - 0 C

C 'A .C Ui7'-

U-.'V 3C 0.0 'A V 0)"-

...- .-.-.-...-' -.... ". .: .'. ' . 6 0.'. .' .' .' .'. '. .- 0-.L ' .' . . 0)-. .- . .., . . . . . . . " ., . . ' ' .' . - .. ' . ' .. .

qL.

>< ><~ -:

10

L L n

-o CA

-- 4- -

S-f . = .-

3C~~ a) eu4).4

Cd t==ea Cd aj c c Eo VI 41c r 0. e

faa m 10>d cZ l 4-.0'a fa 0 m 'M % C -j = -L

E~~~J c w~ 0j 10r v cu

(v 4-3~ 06 j'A~ 4-) cu U- 4

n . L . 0 4 r .3 0n C0 0v LA 0 0)- kA S- C C U

9 ); k ua43 Iv 1 c C c014c c

Aj 4- 4.J .3 4 4- '

U 41 to -j 2 = eU (U LA M AL%- 4* 1 44- -ZC z06 w~ ef L 04 . 0 - I

00n 40C. 0 z 0 a(1 41 0Q w L C 0 0. - -U-L.Q.- LA- -16.

*I.p

, 1

< a,

CD >< >> >

Cr

LOI

U -

ev 0IV)

(U 4.j

. I U U 1

0 n4j .

IV~~ Q) *V I - 0 .

Ne 0) Cu) v 4) .-V) fa 4) (V ~ -. (3) w) a f- 4- r

C~ ~~~ Q)i'V * £ ~ .

r= -0 0.- C 0 W 0~d) 0 )J 41 1. CV 0 - t- ) = U '

VVE 0) C)' Lu to CU M- (1 v' Q~~~~ 0jJ '. = 0 U - C

(I Cj- 0)L 0 Cu 1- 0)1a 4) )

CCI 2-- 4C. cr cc (a 0c C. '4C 0)r

i-jo 0)4~*I IV0C 6L 'V*C0~- 0) ~ C0~- 0 0 0 0 IA C')0A

0)~L ' V - . 4I*4 Z 06 - -

N 6+~ 5-41 0).~ U V O' U15

Ln

LL

7-5 a) C( <)

CA >1 n 0..

0 C.

* LL.

ell

I.- .1 6

SAMPLE TASK REFERENCE SHEET

G3 TASK REFERENCE SHEET ID

1. TASK: Organize and equip units for combat.

2. SUPPORTI NG DOCUMENTS: ARTEP 100-2, FM 101-5.

3. TASK DECOMPOSITION:

a. Compile and maintain the troop list to include continual review andrevision to ensure that the numoer and type of units assigned are tnosewhicn can Dest accomplish and support tne co,,;iand mission.

b. Recommend the organization and equipping of units: estimate numbersand types of units to oe organized ard priority for phase-in or replacementof personnel ano equipment in those units.

c. Recommend assignment or dttachnmeit of comoat, combat service supportunits or teams, and unit repidcements; assign sucn units within the commandin accordance witn requirerents of the situation.

a. Receive and process assigned units or teams to include suchorientation, training, and reorqanization as may be required. Prepare planto activate and deactivate units. Prepare plans for mobilization anddebiooilizacion.

e. Tnis task is successfully accomplished if tnh unit prioritizesassignment of replacements to subordinate units and task organizes in aimanner wnicn will mass superior combat power at tne critical time and place.

Offense: As a general guide, tne force ratio (relative combatpower) of trie friendly force to tne enemy force should be 5:1 or better atthe point of tne main effort.

Defense: As a general guide, tne force ratio (relative combatpower) of the friendly force to the enemy force Should be no worse than 1:3at the point of tne enemy main attack.1

1 These force ratio guidelines for offense and defense are taken fromARTEP 100-2.

Figure 4. Example G3 task reference sheet

17"!::44 -"-", .' ',2 ,'" .- '.'.. 'i,.-.: -v' .,- '-- ' - '- ..., , "- ' i ' "- k -" .' " -.

T able t' f-,3 a. in r 3r': a 3 1 ,uC S v..1

GPORD *TasK (rjanization

Si tuationMission

ExecutionService SupportCommanu and SignalFire Support AbnexAir Defense AnnexEngineer Annex

Obstacle AppendixDenial AppendixADM Appendix

Deception AnnexArmy Aviation AnnexRear Area Protection Annex "Operations Security AnnexAirspace Management Annex -

Psycnological Operations AnnexCivil Affairs AnnexCE AnnexN6C Defense AnnexCnemical Support AnnexSer ice Support AnnexTask Organization AnnexIntelligence AnnexElectronic Warfare AnnexRoau Move;nent AnnexAir Movement AnnexOperations Overlay Annex

Warning OrderFray OrderMovement OrderAamin/Logistics OrderAircraft Mission Request (Army Aviation)Artillery Situation ReportAir Request/TasK Message (Pre-plannea)ADMi Target FolderPost Striee Analysis (Nuclear Strike)Cnemical Strike WarningNucitar StriKe WarningECM Daily SummaryElectronic Warfare Support Measures (ESM) ReportEngineer Barrier ReportEngineer Mission Coordination SneetEngineer Trace ReportEngineer Situation Report

* GPLAN is not included separately; difference between OPORD and OPLAN is .

that OPLAN contains assumptions and specifies the time or conditions underwnicn it will be placed into effect.

18

7777

." . . . .. .. . "

Table 2. G3 tiain forrial products (concluded)

Engineer Report-DamageAir Defense Status Report I;,Aircraft Hostile Fire ReportAir Defense Engagemient ReporcCoinander's Situation Report (SitRep)Unit Location UpdateCominand, Control and Cornaiunication CA Spt RequestMinefield ReportEngineer Spot ReportAir Request/TasK Message (Immediate)PSYREPSpot PSYREPAirspace Management Procedures Request .ECM Mission RequestIntel 1 igence Sumiiary - -

NBC I (Observer's Initial Report)NBC 2 (Evaluated Data Report)NBC 3 (Immediate Warn of Expected Contam)NBC 5 (Rpt of Areas of Actual Contami)NBC 6 (Detailed Information on Cnem/Bio AttacK)NUC Downwind MessageMTJI ReportOPSEC Spot ReportRequired Aninunition Supply Rate (RSR) ReportPSYOP Support RequestMovement CodeTraining Plansmaintain/Update TSOPNuclear Release RequestChemical Release Request

Table 3. G3 Main implied products

Mission AnalysisOperations EstimateDirected Staff EstimatesBriefingsMaintdin the Current SituationProject Unit StatusProject Critical SnortagesMaintain the Staff JournalAllocate/Prioritze Replacement Personnel, Materiel and UnitsMaintain the Troop ListExcnange of Information

19

TASK la: N.,

Prepare and communicateplans and orders.

.'.5

TASK ib: G3 MAIN PRODUCT:

Organize and equip OPORD (TASK

units for combat. ORGANIZATION AWNEX)

TASK 3a:Implement and updateplans and orders.

Figure 5. Task mapping for G3 Main product Task Organization

20

t.-.

-- -T -- \ '- ' " -C , "": " :

--- -- ... .. . -- - .- - - . , r

(3) Analysts mace an assss,,,Qnt or tne speciric aidin tecnriologi-eswnicn coulo be applied to G3 Main products. In some cases, particularly in AItecnnoloyie ), a positive assessment cuuld not oe made due to tne relativeimmaturity of the tecnnology. However, for most products and technologies, aposiLivv assessment was possiole. Tne TaSK Organization product aas assessedas definitely requiring information processing and user interface tecnnologiesand medium probability of analytic upport using DA tecnniques, lowprobability of mathematical model support, and uncertainty concerning Alapplications.

(4) Analysts assigned a descriptor (naiie) to eacn analytic aidingopportunity. A Task Organization aid could be developed, employing analytictecriiques to iinprove quality and timeliness, witn consideration of variablessuch as weather, terrain, unit status, leadersnip, etc.

d. G3 Main products and appropriate aiding tecnnologies. Table 4 showsthe matrix which was developed to list the 59 G3 Main products and to mapappropriate aiding technologies to support product development. Tne matrixreflects the qualitative assessment of aiding opportunities for eacn product.In some cases, a single product mignt be supported by nore tnan one analytic Liaid. In table 4, for example, two potential analytic aids to supportdevelopment of the Execution paragraph of tne Operations Order were identifiedand were listed in the right-hand column with appropriate aid descriptors.

Figure 6 is a brief description of tne potential analytic aids wnicn might bedeveloped for the products shown on the first page of the matrix in table 4.A total of 53 different analytic aiding opportunities were identified at thispoint in the analysis. Each analytic aiding opportunity was identified by adistinct aid descriptor.

e. Prioritization of analytic aid candicates.

(1) A prioritization metnodology was aevelopeo based on an

investigation of alternative techniques for structuring preferences. ThomasL. Saaty's analytic nierarcny process (AHP) (reference 10) provided anobjective method to obtain a priority value for eacn individual aid. Anierarcny of separable criteria was tormulated, and a method of pairwisecomparisons was.used to determine the relative utility (weight) of eachcriteria. A comniercial software application, "Expert Cnoice," facilitatea tnecomputation of criteria values. Local and global weignts of the criteria andsubCriteria are reflected in figure 7.

(2) The 53 analytic aiding opportunities were prioritizeo based onadjusted ranks. Tne ranKs were based on trie total adjusted score for eacnaiding opportunity. Table 5 snows the prioritized list. A graphical displayof aid scores was developed to examine the distribution of aids over thescoring spectrum. Figure 8 presents a leaf plot of adjusted scores which

shows the distribution of scores and the aid identification numbers I whichfall in eacn cell. Insignts derived from tnis display were that adjustedscores nad a single mode, were slightly skewed toward higher scores, and thatthe distribution of scores was approximately normal. Use of a leaf plot as

opposed to a bar chart further conveyed information concerning the specificaiding opportunities contained in each cell. Eignt of the top 2u are in tnetwo hignest cells of the leaf plot. Additional technical information isavailable in appendix I, annex V.

1 Aia identification numbers, such as 3-i, 3-2, etc., were assigned to anapproximately alphabetical listing of aid descriptors. The "3" stands for"G3. 11

21 1.

-.-. '

b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W -W -. A A - -- . . - . . t -

L.N CL

V)V

S...~v 00-NVVJ

o eo V4. 0 ' 0 Zea~ 0 0 ~V W

.C UL

0 C0 C a in a- aV 0 -Vt)0 Vt~)

0 .0 ~ .- 1-LA. .0LJ

0 ) 0 0V) 1.. V - -)- - . -

I- ~ a o I. I -L

LLJ

*S Ln -

00 - - -L-. --

CO ~ ~ C 4-J ~C~ux-. V) 17 < L

di W a)* A -L. OL 4-

E I . IL. L J

Cl.. -

LAI <

CUI

.~ aj

OV .- C - - -1

.- to

* LU

0) -)0

C) U )I- I

(D~~~a LL I4 A a

LO 0

VtU~ N4.J '-~S.22

---.W...- -m ii

4o C- L- '..1 L

(A o = -- ... -f

-r cc V) =

10 S- m 0CC..jC

wj C-iL - s- ~ - x S- I- *~LU

C. CL4 C 1. L (JL J

0 ) *

LUi

L- I. IZZ (.j j--:: -J E Z.J.I

* CC

* C - - ..- *-* -.--. --.-.- -. -

.4 Uvi

c a CC.m C

4) fa>-4) c

2v 4. < cc x -OW 4)

.- a C (1 c,-- 4c4c L

J LU23

4ci I)

C)

U 4- .6-

',- 0 >N > W

oj .6.)04= .4J w

o e -- 2)u

F- U 0~- . 1

V) ~ U.; W W

~~L L. -w) ~LAJ~ --- --- -- -

LI-vi 'IA _ 1A

0.~.iLLJ L

VI LU -

LL- w -

C I --

LLJ 4 ' JF F

AJ m z

s- Cz (0

C> a) LI.) vi

I. 4nJ U

w 4JJ <0.

4/24

CIV

4 .

~~ap I 0.) *

el - v e5

CL c .

01 L to. *- U .L I- ( = o.

0) M L'i~ U 4-

0)J OJ

0)J ix.V~- ~vi LU -LUCL

-- - -

).- -3:. L

-V VI

;A -LUQ4- LA& C

* ~25

.4 -WTV~ MI V-- -

>4 u

0) 4-1

0. 22

VIV

c 0 cc

LL5-c..LJ

- - - - - _ - _ __ - - _ _

C....) * 4

CL

I- - - - . - -- - - -- .. S

I- -

*~0 1) - fa.- ~ A~-

Cc %-- V

LL 0 r_-- - -.- - -0

i 0- -LJ cc0-0 l

*- C.. 06 4.* o f

C=~0 V '-m &0614-

- 6. 4- 1 p

en=-u 11 )I- f-=. x_ 7_ _~ _

I-,

~ 26

* ~ ~ e . 1. . . . .

CJ-j-

c. j Ca) L

LA a, 4-J M.L)

CA 4 4 1 4-

- L-

LULC

LUJ

C -

Ul :-

CALUU

Ln

Cn

* ;A

-W.. aLoU ) 1 II- C ) L

L.J fa

rd 0.

M, 4a1 a, w -j aG_CL ELZ a 0C w -r 5 ' a

CA~0 2) = UllU a 0 - C 4.' ~ . 0 -. m. -

27 !il ;.

~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~-lw W-. W W-- i ~-. ~ -rp ~vw v wvru'~vuv.vJyj' W Zw w~ I -- 7 .2 .-TIENI W- . rv-w &-

4-) 4.4-

LUu a

o. L-) CL

I-T

- L)2.I

'VC)

0 C

.- -

en ,.. -- -L -j -

Q La co 1. L. 4 LL

C~) '28

0 CC3

.4'0 %_ V4- -.m LAl 41~ C~ T -. Q -

C 4.-L 'A- 0 ~ U._ 10 u Z

Nz 0 -'4 a) 4- 0 4 -i =41U a, 4-'O NL0

- ~ ~ ~ ~ . SC~ J ~ CJ'

O- mA~ C S.4 C -S..- 4 '-O O .

CD CuL 'A 'C Q4j CU 'oA=

~J CW J'L uC WC.4-1 C-. CML CoO

41 >~ 0) Ad a).0 ~ Cto' =.-4' *-,.) 4 -1 CfL U

220- !2 -!D (v 'afl "a A4m-0 C 'V2 0A~.

Ln C ' 4- C 0J r- r_ L.a C 0 a 'o)d)'M 4- Cm 0 V)' CIO

4= -- ' .- a) ~ C-C3 CAL

CA C o a cm4 C CLA 4- LC v (od

a W vO C~ IV ~ . * cA V) 'AL. VJ eAU ' W AOo'C -4

0 A v 4: LAL (V Q- UA 0L C)

'Dr ~ ~ 0 .''- a z 'D CO~~

4J

o 0

06 06 CC IC ) vi

En 0

d) 4)410

E xcc V)

Q) . 0OfI.. a. CD. 0 C)4- 0

0o CL 0L U-.- (L)

N1 640 7

c 29CL M' P- (A* .* *

ADJUSTED UJTILI TY

1.*1PORTANC E ESIilLTYL : 0.667 L : 0.333G : 0. 557 G: 0.333

'"'

1 .I E 1riIE 5 QUA' OP ENV .T

.5.

L0..097L .L: 0.153 L: 0.3 71-L0.36 0.107 0.98 9 0 .33'

L : Local utility weighting for criteria/subcriteria.

G: Global utility wveighting for criteria/subcriteria.

S.,

Figure 7. Hierarchy, local i and gl3"a1 weigWis

30

.b*.. -,.a 5 ..- 5 5

[-V, r..

Table 5. Analytic ai'inq opportunities (acjusted ran< orcer)

(continued on following pages)

ABSOLUTE ADJUSTED ADJUSTED

AID DESCRIPTOR AID ADJUSTED RAW RANK IMPORTANCE FEASIBILITY

IJ4 RANK RANK DIFF RANK RANK

Unit Movement Planner 3-51 1 1 0 1 12

Force Iov ,iert Analyzer 3-24 2 3 1 2 II

Air Movement Analyzer 3-04 3 4 1 4 19

Fuel Consumption Rates 3-26 4 5 I 7 10

Air Movement Planner 3-05 "5 2 3 13 3 .,.

Assign Critical Replace- 3-08 6 6 0 11 13

ment Units, Personnel,

and Materiel

Terrain Managemnent 3-46 7 12 5 10 29

Denial Preparation 3-19 8 22 14 12 30

Time Analyzer 3-47 9 7 2 23 4

Pre-Position Decontamina- 3-18 10 17 7 15 27

tion Supplies

Compare Alternate Courses 3-13 11 42 31 3 49

of Action

Obstacle Preparation 3-31 12 14 2 17 28

Predict Contamination 3-39 13 9 4 36 2

(ID Affected Units)

Forecast Unit Status 3-52 14 30 16 6 40

Chemical Effects 3-20 15 18 3 23 18

Prcdiction

Expenditure Rates (FS) 3-22 16 11 5 33 6

Basic Load Allocations 3-10 17 8 9 42 1

Nuclear Effects Prediction 3-21 18 16 2 30 15

Aircraft Asset Analyzer 3-02 19 10 9 26 21

Priorities of Fire (FS) 3-40 20 24 4 18 32

Priorities/Allocation 3-38 21 33 12 9 43

(ADA)

Rear Area Protection 3-41 22 39 17 8 45

Capabilities

31

I 'i.

• - " " " " " " " -" " -.. .. " "" " " ""-"".."-'-''," "' " " "'- .'."''" "'."-' ."-',-'" "',.5 - -''-.".. ".

-_77

(continuea)

AcSOLUTE ADJUSTED AJUSTED

AID DESCRIPTOR AID ADJUSTED RAW RANK I"iHPORTANCE FEASIBILITY

ID# RANK RANK DIFF RAhK RANK

Troop Exposure (NBC) 3-50 23 19 4 35 17

Evaluate Damage Repair 3-17 24 27 3 21 31

Alternatives

Furecast Tuoe Replace- 3-25 2 13 12 39 9

ment (FS)

Forecast Usdge Rates 3-53 26 23 3 32 23

(RSR)

Allcate CAS an,; mECCE 3-11 27 23 I 31 25

Controlled Supply Rate 3-15 23 13 15 43 7

(C Sk

kQute Evaluation (AIS) 3-44 29 35 6 5 52

ADM Employment 3-33 30 29 1 38 20

TasK Organizatiun 3-45 31 31 0 22 34

Target Allocation 3-48 32 25 7 40 16

(Cneicald IAircraft Requireiaents 3-03 33 32 1 25 35

Prescribed Nuclear 3-37 34* 26 8 37 22

Loao (Pi L)

Prescribed Cneical 3-36 34* 26 8 37 22

Load (PCL)

Optimal Friendly Employ- 3-34 35 36 1 14 44

ment (EW)

Organize fur CoIDat (FS) 3-35 36 37 1 24 36

Allocate Engineer Re- 3-07 37 15 22 41 26

sources

.4 .

. Ties were allowed for ranks. PCL and PNL nad a tie for all scoring scnemes. Tnerefore,

. tne adjusted ranks ranged from 1-52 for a total of 53 aiding opportunities.

32

(concluaeo)

'A6SOLUT, ADJUST-b ADJUSTED

AID DESCRIPTOR AID ADJUSTED RAW RANK IMPORTANCE FEASIBILIT

ID# RANK RANK DIFF RANK RANK

Target Susceptibility 3-49 38 34 4 27 37

(NBC)

Fallout Prediction 3-23 39 21 18 a8 8

(Nuclear)

Hazard Areas (NBC) 3-27 40 20 20 45 14

Allocate keplacements 3-06 41 43 2 16 48

Obstacle Emplacement Pian 3-30 42 41 1 29 39

Integrate CAS (FS) 3-28 43 44 1 20 42

Relative Coiioat Power 3-42 44 45 1 34 38

Control Procedure (A2C2) 3-14 45 46 1 19 51

NBC EffecLs EvaluaLionf 3-29 4o 38 8 47 24

Post-StriKe Analysis 3-16 47 31 16 50 5

(Nuclear)

De~ermine Rdplacemnent 3-43 48 47 I 44 41

Priorities

Al locate Critical Assets 3-01 49 40 9 51 33

(ECM)

Assin PSYOP Assets 3-09 50 49 1 46 47

Obstacle Effectiveness 3-12 51 48 3 49 46

PSYOP Effectiveness 3-32 52* 50 2 52 50

* Ties were allowed for ranks. PCL aiia PNL nac a tie for all scoring scne-mes. Tnerefore,

tne adjusted ranks ranged from 1-52 for a total of 53 aiding opportunities.

33

.. ................... .... .... *****.*.*1'I

C"j

U.)

UU

Nc. r v<

C" C La

Cv) 0Y

La u

ca C" a

NZ a')

-4 cu :La 0 )

ND CD aNn 0

ccoC') C'- a) '4

-T Cu cu c

-u %I tn r- a)

U')C

aM:) a31srau

NIA3.N -4 3

q~.P4

N W C) N ) 34

7- ,-': 7N

- L. .- .,- 1.

f. Sensitivt analysis. A limited sensitivity analysis was performed toexamine the reltiosnIps etween adjusted scores, raw scores, scores basedsolely on feasibility, and scores based solely on Importance. Graphicalanalysis was the primary technique employed to investigate sensitIvity. Thegraphs are explained in detail in appendix 1. A summary is provided in thefollowing subparagraphs.

(1) Comparison of leaf plots. Five analytic aids consistently scoredin the top two cells across all scoring schemes. The specific aidingopportunities are: Air Movement Analyzer, Fuel Consumption Rates, AssignCritical Replacements, Unit Movement Planner, and Force Movement Analyzer.These aids were robust across all scoring schemes. The methodology embedded asensitivity data collection scheme. The raw scores reflect an equal weightingof utilities across subcriteria, while the adjusted scores reflect the neteffect of the pairwise comparison of subcriteria and criteria. Furtherdecomposition of scores in terms of feasibility and importance clarified theirnet effects on adjusted scores. Additional variation of scores was notfeasible nor necessary based on the results of the initial investigation.

(2) Comparison of scatter plots. Graphical techniques were alsoemployed to examine the relationships between adjusted, raw, importance, andfeasibility ranks. Figure 9 shows a scatter plot comparison of adjusted ranksand raw ranks. This figure shows that the top four aids were dominant (lowrank) for both raw and adjusted ranking procedures. Further, the bottom fiveaids were consistently inferior. However, in the rark interval 5-47 there wasa great amount of variability between raw and adjusted ranks. Additionalscatter plots are in appendix I.

(3) Conclusions from sensitivity analysis. Of the top 20 aids, basedon adjusted score, six consistently ranked in the top 20 over allscoring/ranking schemes. Aids in the midrange (approximately 10-40) arehighly sensitive to the effects of alternative subcriteria weights.

6. DISCUSSION. The following subparagraphs summarize the analysis andhighlight the key constraints which limit the extension of the analysis toother related command and control development activities.

a. Limitations.

(1) The analysis was based on the best available doctrinal literatureand references documenting aiding technologies. However, a corps headquartersARTEP has not been developed and the division headquarters ARTEP is underrevision. The Combined Arms Training Activity (CATA) is working tostandardize the critical tasks at division and corps, but a doctrinallyapproved and operationally validated consolidated list does not currentlyeiTst, In many cases, substantial additional research, experimentation, andfield observation will be required prior to development of specific automatedaids which will actually improve performance.

(2) Though analytic techniques were decomposed in the targetingprocess, It Is possible that a combination of analytic techniques may beembedded in a single aid.

(3) The possibility exists that analytic aids will evolve as the .automated environment and the literacy of automation users mature. In thisevent, an application which Initially employs math model techniques mightlater be revised to use artificial intelligence techniques.

35".; ,, '.. ..,, -; ..-.'..-...., .+ .', .. ,- +. -..... .-.:.. ,..-...... -. -. _-.- .. • . ,: .. .. .. -, -. .. -. +. . _. . . .. .. . -..

-4 X

f+t.

+ X

ci:

D X

+

+ X 1

+ x

+ + -

+ x

+ x in

) ++

i-n

+ x+ X Ln e=Z

+ < ow LUJ Sx + ro9

+ x

x x++X

>x +x +

+( x4

rrrrnT~ TpTrrrr-r-TqMM nT-qT II I'IrIrIrIrI

a) Lf (S (S m -

36r7

(4) Tnere fnay be a precedent relationship between candidate aids.IBM's Information Systems Planning Guide recommends that the initialapplication development project span the most tasks to facilitate follow-onapplication development. The IBM concept suggests a different prioritizatiunmetnhology. In the event a formal program is established to developapplicFtions, the IBM approach deserves consideration but was not feasible intne initial constrained andlysis of G3 Main tasKs.

b. Analysis summary.

(I) Seven major functions of the G3 and 43 G3 Main critical taskswere identified. Decomposition of critical tasks facilitated identificationof aiding opportunities. A single comprehensive, doctrinally approved andoperationally validated list of G3 critical tasks does not currently exist.Focused, structured observation and experimentation may nelp to further defineG3 critical tasks.

(2) Fifty-nine G3 Main products were identified. G3 tasks weremapped to the products wnicn they support to clarify opportunities foraiding. As witn G3 tasks, a single comprehensive, doctrinally approved andoperationally validated list of G3 products does not currently exist.

(3) A classification scheme (taxonomy) for aiding tecnnoloqies wasdeveloped and elaborated. The taxonomy facilitated targeting of appropriatetecnnologies to aiding opportunities identified during the detailed task andproduct analysis. Tne taxonomy is adequate as a first-order technique forassessment of potential tecnnology solutions to command and controldeficiencies.

(4) Fifty-tnree different G3 Main analytic aiding opportunities wereidentified wnicn have potential to support the development of specific G3products.

(5) A methodology for prioritizing analytic aiding opportunities wasdeveloped. Tne methodology employed a hierarchical model to assess therelative importance and feasibility of eacn aiding opportunity. Themethodology was consistently applied to the G3 analytic aiding opportunitiesto generate a recommended priority list for aid development.

(6) Several aiding opportunities were dominant for all scoringscnemes and several were clearly inferior across all scoring scnemes.Dominant aiding opportunities were Air Movement Analyzer, Assign CriticalReplacements, Force Movement Analyzer, Fuel Consumption Rates, and UnitMovement Planner.

7. CONCLUSIONS. The following conclusions resulted from the G3 analysis.

a. The objectives of the G3 analysis were accomplished.

b. Specific opportunities for aiding the performance of the G3 duringtactical operations were identified and appropriate aiding technologies weretargeted.

c. Fifty-tnree distinct G3 analytic aiding opportunities were identified.

37

- ... .-... ....-..... ..-.

. Criteria or inpor anc and reasiDility provide a rational oasis forprioritizing analytic aid development. Tne two primary criteria can befurtner decomposed to facilitate qualitative assessment of relevant factorssuch as aevelopment cost, training, frequency of product development, andpotential time savings. -

e. A recororanded priority for development of G3 analytic aids wascompiled based on the abrve criteria using a hierarcnical prioritizationstructure. Tne five aids wnicn consistently ranked at tne top of tne prioritylist are Air Movement Analyzer, Assign Critical Replacements, Force MovementAnalyzer, Fuel Consumption Rates, anu Unit Movement Planner.

f. Additional research, field observation, and experimentation arerequire to aefine and standardize 33 tasKs and products.

g. The methodology employed to analyze tne G3 Main may be applied tootner functional areas to identify and prioritize development of automatedaids.

n. Tne prioritized list of G3 analytic aiding opportunities provides arational basis for focusea development of decision aid prototypes.

8. RECOHMENDATIONS.

a. That tne G3 analysis be approved as an accurate, comprenensive studywnicn identifies and prioritizes G3 aiding opportunities based on currentdoctrine.

o. That tne G3 analysis be presented to tne Combat Developer (C31, CACDA)to assist in focused development of decision aids for the Maneuver ControlSystem (INICS) .

c. Tnat G3 Main products and tasks be standardized to enable efficienttraining of hign-performing staffs and to facilitate rapid, successfultransition from a manual to an automated U.S. Army Tactical Connand andControl System. %

d. That tne analytic methodology descrioed in tnis report oe approved asan appropriate metnodology for identifying aiding opportunities in battlefieldfunctional areas.

e. That increased emphasis be placed on analysis of tne command andcontrol process through observation and experimentation to define the processand to iaprove procedures witnin the process.

,3

38 ..-

wg~t..............

- J. -. - ~ ~ -. -- - -

'IA

V4,

'44.

Il-.I

4

"-I.

* ~

*1~ (I

I.

4

6-861

N*.?=~~.r"~XJ* \ - **.~ -*