Supporting OOTW with Analysis: Missing Tools

Dean S. Hartley III
dhx@ornl.gov

Abstract: Our analysis tools to support war are not perfect, but we have lots of them. Fortunately, wars are infrequent. On the other hand, the military is supporting 30-40 operations other than war (OOTW) each year and it would almost be true to say we have no analysis tools to support them. This paper sketches the un-met needs, as determined by a recent project sponsored by the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM).


BACKGROUND

The past several years have seen an increasing recognition of the need for analysis tools to support planning and execution of military OOTWs. Analysis tools to support decision-making for large-scale military operations (such as major regional contingencies) are relatively mature. In contrast, OOTW analysis tools are embryonic or non-existent. Because the U.S. military involvement in OOTWs is expected to be increasingly frequent during the post-Cold-War era, USPACOM has argued that development of OOTW analysis tools should receive higher priority than continued enhancement of analysis tools for large-scale military operations.

USPACOM instituted a project to define the requirements for analysis tools to support OOTWs. These requirements would then influence the development of OOTW analysis capabilities within the Joint Warfare System (JWARS), which is being developed under the sponsorship of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Program Analysis & Evaluation). Because current plans for JWARS development do not call for OOTW analysis capabilities to be incorporated for several years, the project would also identify opportunities for developing interim OOTW analysis capabilities, including exploratory tools for possible incorporation into JWARS.


PROCESS

Figure 1 capsulizes the sequence of events over the duration of the project. USPACOM initiated the process and sponsored a workshop held at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey in February 1996.

Figure 1. Project Overview

This workshop was attended by representatives of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Commands, the Services, and numerous other organizations. This author wrote a draft document based on that workshop, other conferences on OOTWs, and research of the literature on OOTWs. USPACOM sponsored a second Monterey workshop in September 1996 to review and extend the draft document. This workshop identified and categorized the many types of operations that can be considered operations other than war; examined the attributes of different kinds of OOTWs; and identified similarities and differences of U.S. military tasks that must be performed in OOTWs. The draft document was refined, creating a second draft, and USPACOM circulated the result to the Commanders in Chief (CINCs), the Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and J-8. The final document provided the basis for the MORS workshop, which created more detailed plans for accomplishing the requirements. This process, and the detailed results obtained, are fully described in the research report [Hartley]. The report of the MORS workshop is forthcoming [Staniec].

Context

The operational context drives the requirements for analysis tools. A particular OOTW, or concern about OOTWs in general, generates tasks, some of which require analysis to produce results. The requirements identified in the USPACOM project are based on those tasks that require tools, but for which none are available or adequate. The tool requirements discussed here may coincidentally support non-analysis (e.g., operational) tasks or non-OOTW tasks; however, that is a bonus, not a central goal of the USPACOM project. In defining the requirements, it is important to realize that if a tool is needed, and available to support the analysis, it is the analyst who produces the result, not the tool. The tool serves the analyst not vice versa.

Concept

The diversity of operations that may be categorized as OOTWs creates an initial organizational difficulty. A taxonomy was needed to aid in the discussion of the problem and to clarify potential solutions. The cube of three-way connections of categories, attributes, and tasks in Figure 2 illustrates the taxonomy of OOTW tools that was created to address this issue. The project defined the details of this taxonomy and, by so doing, created the analytical tools requirements. Based on similarities of requirements across different kinds of OOTWs, the similarity of tasks performed, the maturity of methods, and the availability of data to support tool development, the requirements were grouped into ten generic tools.


Figure 2. OOTW Taxonomy

The taxonomic indices (categories, attributes, and tasks) are briefly listed below. The values that were derived by creating this taxonomy are fully described in the research report [Hartley].

OOTW Categories

Following the second Monterey workshop and for purposes of this project, four OOTW categories have been defined: Peace Operations (PO), Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR), National Integrity (NI) operations, and Military Contingency operations. These four categories have been subdivided, resulting in 11 major subcategories, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. OOTW Categories

Peace Operations (PO)Peacekeeping(PK)
Peace Enforcement (PE)
Humanitarian Assistance/DisasterHumanitarian Assistance
Relief (HA/DR) Operations Disaster Relief (DR) - foreign
DR - Domestic
National Integrity (NI) OperationsCounterdrug (CD)
Combatting Terrorism (CT)
CounterInsurgency (CI)
National Assistance (NA)
Military Contingency OperationsNoncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEO)
Many Others

OOTW Attributes

Fifty OOTW attributes were identified and organized an expansion of the Army's Mission, Enemy, Troops, Terrain/Weather and Time Available (METT-T) paradigm. For OOTW use, "enemy" has been expanded to include both human and physical opposition (such as volcanos); "troops" may refer to friendly non-military and non-U.S. personnel; and "terrain/weather" has been expanded to include both the physical environment of terrain and weather and the human geopolitical environment. The values of certain attributes discriminate among the OOTW categories and these attributes were labeled "definitive." Table 2 displays the list of attributes.

Table 2. Attributes

OOTW Tasks

53 OOTW tasks were identified and grouped into non-mission-related analyses and phases of mission planning and execution. Following the second Monterey workshop, the tasks have been regrouped into seven groups: non-mission-related analysis; mission definition and analysis; Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I); mobilization/deployment; force employment; sustainment; and redeployment. The tasks were defined and related to the Uniform Joint Task List (UJTL), version 3.0 [Joint Staff]. Table 3 shows the tasks in the non-mission-related analysis group.

Table 3. Tasks

Each category, attribute, and task was carefully defined. The categories' definitions were based on Joint definitions; however, many concepts were not fully defined there and the great number of other sources of definitions were not consistent. Hence, the definitions were created to serve the purpose of defining requirements for analysis tools.


REQUIREMENTS

The project identified 10 requirements for analysis tools. Each requirement is described below in terms of the tool (or tools) needed to satisfy the requirement, the tasks that the requirement supports, the requirement's priority, a characterization of the difficulties involved in satisfying the requirement, and recommended action.

1. Situational Awareness

This tool supports the generation of a complete picture of the current and likely future situation. It includes both an operational mission component and a non-mission, regional or global component. All elements of the situation are included: red elements (threat, both human and natural, e.g., volcanoes), white (ostensibly neutral) elements, and blue (allied) elements. The factors that must be considered include location, intent, cultural and political environment, potential flashpoints, and centers of gravity.

The tool must support analysis of infrastructure status, evaluation of physical disaster effects, and display of engineering density predictions. This tool helps evaluate general support requirements, migrant interdiction, people's reactions to disaster effects, personnel tracking and locating, and visualization of refugee flows. Existing models and data, e.g. environmental, demographic, health, and other complex models require specialized support, which is not readily available to the CINC users. The tool must permit rapid update of locations of forces and population centers needing support.

· Provide instability forecast, impact forecast (psycho-social), task # 1.1: Forecast the regions of potential instability, the predicted dates, the related probabilities, and the nature of the instabilities. Forecast the impact of various actions, both those intended to be remedial and otherwise.

· Estimate readiness, task # 2.6: Estimate the readiness of U.S. military forces, U.S. agency elements, and coalition elements to perform the mission.

· Perform intelligence collection and ISR, task # 3.10: Define Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) needs and collect information and intelligence to support the mission, including information concerning threat, friendly and neutral elements and environmental information.

· Establish cultural awareness, task # 3.11: Establish and maintain awareness of significant cultural issues.

· Establish red teams, task # 3.12: Establish teams to think as opposition forces, providing realistic opposing courses of action.

· Perform METT-T analysis, task # 3.13: Perform complete METT-T analysis.

· Identify centers of gravity, task # 3.14: Identify locations at which minimal actions will produce maximal results, both desirable and undesirable.

· Estimate threat, task # 3.15: Estimate the nature and severity of threats to mission success.

· Support media / public affairs, task # 3.16: Provide media and public affairs support.

· Execute PSYOPs, task # 3.17: Conduct psychological operations (PSYOPs) (both benign and offensive) to induce desired actions.

· Assess casualties and perform medical treatment analyses, task # 5.4: Analyze casualty and medical treatment data to support Course of Action (COA) development and Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) assessment.

· Identify infrastructure improvement requirements, task # 5.5: Identify infrastructure improvements needed to conduct the mission and needed under the humanitarian or nation building aspects of the mission.

· Provide indigenous/client/refugee support, task # 6.7: Provide support to ensure the safety of civilians. This includes location tracking.

This is primarily a display tool to support decision making. The priority is 2; modelability is rated as Yellow (Y); and the data availability is rated as Very Hard (V). The recommended action is to start work on the tool.

2. Impact Analysis

This tool supports the analysis of the impact of human actions (own-side, opposition or neutral parties) on the current situation and on future plans. The human environment that must be considered includes the political environment, the economic environment, and the cultural environment. The tool includes both an operational mission component and a non-mission, regional or global, component. Elements include: impact of proposed or current OOTWs on strategy, other missions, such as Major Regional Contingencies (MRCs) and other OOTWs, and Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) tasking; instability analysis - predicting future trouble spots; and visibility for unintended consequences.

· Provide instability forecast, impact forecast (psycho-social), task # 1.1: Forecast the regions of potential instability, the predicted dates, the related probabilities, and the nature of the instabilities. Forecast the impact of various actions, both those intended to be remedial and otherwise.

· Establish cultural awareness, task # 3.11: Establish and maintain awareness of significant cultural issues.

· Perform METT-T analysis, task # 3.13: Perform complete METT-T analysis.

· Identify centers of gravity, task # 3.14: Identify locations at which minimal actions will produce maximal results, both desirable and undesirable.

· Support media / public affairs, task # 3.16: Provide media and public affairs support.

This is a complex model, which must display the range of likely results in an understandable manner. Careful attention must be paid to the user interface. The priority is 1; modelability is Red (R); and data availability is Very Hard (V). Because of uncertainties concerning the best modeling approach, the recommended action is to start research and development on the tool.

3. Mission Definition and Analysis

This tool supports mission definition in its broadest sense. At the National Command Authority (NCA) level this includes the basic definition of the mission, while at the CINC level this includes suggested refinements or requests for clarification.

· Develop mission, MOEs, etc., task # 2.1: Develop the proposed mission and its elements and the MOEs necessary for evaluating the progress of the mission.

· Determine ROEs, task # 2.2: Determine the appropriate ROEs for the proposed mission and its elements under various potential situations.

· Define end-state, transition criteria, task # 2.3: Define the mission end-state and the nature of the transition to be carried out at mission end. Define the criteria for the elements of the transition.

· Create command arrangements, span of control, task # 3.1: Define the relationships among the military, government agencies, coalition forces, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)/ Private Volunteer Organizations (PVOs).

This is a simple decision support tool that supports the organization and display of inputs and choices. The priority is 2; modelability is rated as Green (G); and the data availability is rated as Available (OK). The recommended action is to do now.

4. Force Planning: Designing Forces

This tool supports the design of primary and secondary forces for use in OOTWs, where the primary forces may consist of forces that belong in the secondary category in combat operations. These forces include U.S. non-military and non-U.S. elements.

Elements include:

Considerations include: There is a high priority need for tools to: The analysis tool must tie to the infrastructure evaluation, physical disaster effects models, and engineering density predictions of situation awareness. It must also be based on indigenous/client/refugee support needs from situation awareness.

· Determine force structure, heavy vs light forces, weapons mix, task # 2.4: Determine the appropriate force structure for the mission. This force includes forces needed to open and maintain Lines of Comunication (LOCs), as well as the employment force.

· Determine active/reserve mix to meet force requirements, to include tailoring, task # 2.5: Determine the mix of active and reserve forces required to accomplish the mission, the service mix (including Coast Guard), the coalition forces mix based on task allocations. The decisions of this task are also conditioned on the range of expected contributions by civilian organizations, including NGO/PVOs.

· Support media/public affairs, task # 3.16: Provide media and public affairs support.

· Identify infrastructure improvement requirements, task # 5.5: Identify infrastructure improvements needed to conduct the mission and needed under the humanitarian or nation building aspects of the mission.

· Support humanitarian operations, task # 5.6: Support all aspects of humanitarian operations as called for in the mission.

· Perform interdictions, raids, stings, infiltration, task # 5.9: Perform military contingency operations in cooperation with government agencies, host government, or coalition forces as appropriate.

· Balance tooth to tail ratio, task # 6.1: Maintain the desirable ratio of combat, combat support, and combat service support forces, given the needs of all parties in the mission.

· Provide engineering support, task # 6.4: Provide engineering support needed for mission accomplishment and humanitarian and nation building elements of the mission.

· Provide medical support, task # 6.5: Provide medical support to mission forces and to accomplish humanitarian mission elements.

· Provide joint/interagency/coalition support, task # 6.6: Provide needed support to all parts of the mission forces, as required.

· Provide indigenous/client/refugee support, task # 6.7: Provide support to ensure the safety of civilians. This includes location tracking.

· Determine priorities: effectiveness vs availability/feasibility, task # 7.1: Determine redeployment priorities, comparing effectiveness in current and future tasks against the availability or feasibility of alternative options. This includes consideration for rotation of troops.

· Determine reconstitution requirements, task # 7.4: Determine what retraining, etc., is needed to reconstitute the forces.

This is a decision support tool, with graphical user interface (GUI), and must be tied closely to current large databases. The CAPS and FAST-OR tools are candidates for enhancement. The priority is 1; modelability is rated as Yellow (Y)-Red (R); and the data availability is rated as Expensive ($)-Very Hard (V). The recommended action is to create the tool now.

5. Force Planning: Deployment Scheduling

This tool supports the timing and prioritization of deployment scheduling, including U.S. non-military and non-U.S. elements. It includes the logistics support planning and transport planning. The goal is to support a 6-8 hour turn around from a no-plan situation.

There is a need for user-friendly interfaces to permit experimentation with different schedules. The tool must not be just U.S. military oriented. It needs to specifically address the inter- and intra-theater and intermodal seams and provide mobility network analysis. It should be able to infer supply needs once the force structure has been determined.

· Initiate appropriate reserve call-up, task # 4.1: Determine what reserves are needed and request call-up where appropriate. This task requires maintenance of information on immediate availability of reserves and availability of active service time.

· Determine deployment timing, task # 4.2: Determine the sequence of arrival by units required to accomplish the mission and provide security.

· Determine deployment priorities, task # 4.3: Determine deployment priorities to resolve bottlenecks.

· Determine transport capabilities, task # 4.4: Determine availabilities and capabilities of the transport resources needed to accomplish the mission, including any transport needed for other agencies, coalition partners, and NGOs/PVOs.

· Establish LOCs, task # 5.1: Establish the lines of communication.

· Perform logistics planning/resupply, task # 6.2: Provide adequate logistics and supply for all mission forces and to support humanitarian mission needs.

· Provide transport support, task # 6.3: Provide transportation support for mission forces, including appropriate NGOs/PVOs and media personnel.

This is a decision support tool that displays options and results. The Force Deployment Estimator (FDE) and JFAST models are candidates for enhancement. The priority is 1; modelability is rated as Green (G)-Yellow (Y); and the data availability is rated as Available (OK)-Expensive ($). The recommended action is to create this tool now.

6. COA Development, Analysis, Comparison

This tool supports both mission definition and force employment COA development, analysis, comparison, estimates of success and casualty predictions, risk modeling, and especially recommendations.

· Evaluate risks and do 'worst case' gaming, task # 2.7: Evaluate the risks of mission failure, both as to failure modes and severity. Perform gaming to identify worst case results.

· Estimate probability of mission success, task # 2.8: Estimate the probabilities of mission success associated with likely geopolitical and operational events.

· Develop COAs, task # 3.2: Develop courses of action.

· Perform staff estimates, task # 3.3: Prepare staff estimates.

· Evaluate COAs, task # 3.4: Analyze and compare courses of action.

· Protect forces, task # 5.2: Ensure adequate protection of all forces, including other agencies, coalition forces, and NGO/PVOs.

· Allocate and station forces, task # 5.3: Determine optimal allocation and stationing of forces.

· Evaluate potential use of force, task # 5.7: Evaluate the need for force, whether lethal or non-lethal.

· Reposition assets, task # 7.2: Reposition forces and systems as needed.

This is a decision support tool that requires a good user interface. Responsiveness is the key factor. The priority is 1; modelability is rated as Red (R); and the data availability is rated as Very Hard (V). Because the best modeling approach is uncertain, the recommended action is initiate research and development.

7. Transition Planning and Tracking of Operational Data

This tool supports continued planning of the transition and tracking of MOEs, MOPs, end-state and transition criteria, and analysis of such things as casualties and medical treatments. It should track force status, readiness, morale (all elements of force) - expanded Global Command and Control System (GCCS) Status of Readiness and Training System (SORTS) concept. It should track historical data and trends. The system should perform roll-ups of subsidiary items.

· Maintain MOEs, including probability of mission success and end-state status, task # 3.5: Maintain current values for each of the mission MOEs on the appropriate periodic basis, whether daily, weekly, or monthly.

· Monitor situation and provide feedback, task # 3.6: Monitor the situation and provide feedback to all necessary parties.

· Assess casualties and perform medical treatment analyses, task # 5.4: Analyze casualty and medical treatment data to support COA development and MOE assessment.

· Perform transition, task # 7.3: Plan and conduct the transition of activities to follow on forces or civil authorities.

The need is for a simple system for entering tracking items and their connections. Linked spreadsheets, tied to data and rolodex type file of contacts. The priority 3; modelability is rated as Green (G); and the data availability is rated as Available (OK). The recommended action is to create the tool now.

8. Communications Analysis

This tool supports communications analysis. Analytic support for communications systems design and adaptation exists (e.g., the C3I-Network Analysis Model [C3I-NAM]), however, ease of use for planners could be improved. It needs to have an interoperability focus and include non-U.S. and non-military equipment.

· Design, install communications, task # 3.9: Design and install the communications systems, including non-standard communications with other government agencies, coalition forces, host government, and NGOs/PVOs.

This is a complex model/simulation. The priority is 3; modelability is rated as Yellow (Y); and the data availability is rated as Expensive ($). The recommended action is to start research on the tool.

9. Cost Analysis

This tool models costs of generic OOTWs for use in national force structure planning, input to decisions on engaging in an OOTW, and to estimate comparative costs during mission planning. Historical data are required.

Elements include:

· Estimate cost of operation, task # 1.2: Estimate the cost of operations, including both direct and indirect costs.

This is a medium-complexity model. The priority is 3; modelability is Yellow (Y); and the data availability is Expensive ($). Do it now.

10. Information Availability and Analysis

The tool consists of a database system to support data collection and analysis for all other tasks.

Elements include:

· Perform intelligence collection and ISR, task # 3.10: Define Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) needs and collect information and intelligence to support the mission, including information concerning threat, friendly and neutral elements and environmental information.

This is a database (possibly distributed) tool, with attention paid to standard feeds from current data entry and ease of data retrieval. The priority is 1; modelability is rated as Yellow (Y); and the data availability is rated as Very Hard (V). Because information availability is central to all of the other requirements and needs immediate attention at the research and development, experimental and user levels, the recommended action is to do now.

Connections between the Requirements

None of these requirements is completely independent of the others. The major relationships among the 10 requirements are shown in Figure 3. Some requirements support multiple functions, within the time and level of authority divisions shown in the figure. Some requirements, such as Cost Analysis, are repeated, indicating the possible need for differing tools, whereas the Information Availability & Analysis requirement is shown as a single entity, spanning and serving all divisions. Define Mission and Cost Analysis occupy the Strategic National Command Authority (NCA) level. The Strategic CINC level contains Analyze Mission, Force Planning: Design Forces, Force Planning: Deployment Schedule, Cost Analysis, and COA Development, Analysis, Comparison. The Operational Joint Task Force (JTF) level contains Situational Awareness, Communications Analysis, COA Development, Analysis, Comparison, Transition & Tracking, and Impact Analysis. The Non-Mission Specific Activities level contains Situational Awareness, Impact Analysis, and Cost Analysis. Information Availability & Analysis spans all levels because it supports all analysis efforts.

Figure 3. Relationships among the requirements.


SUMMARY

The requirements (Rqmt), user level (Use), priority (P), and recommended actions (Act) are shown in the following table.

Priorities for each requirement are taken from a five-point scale. A priority of "1" represents a critical need for an automated supplement to current procedures, a "3" represents an important need, and a "5" represents an enhancement. Requirements scoring below a "3" have been dropped from this report. The priority values represent the consensus values of a group of knowledgeable analysts, including Combatant Command, Service, and Joint representatives. The recommended action for each tool is based on the priority and the estimated difficulty of developing the tool. Two basic actions are recommended, either "do now" or perform "research and development." One requirement has a modified "do now" recommendation of "start now," indicating an estimate of a more complex modeling/data problem.

The process of determining how to acquire tools that match the requirements will occupy the last part of fiscal year (FY) 97.

Table 4. Requirements

Rqmt Title Description Use Pri Act
1 Situational
Awareness
supports the generation of a complete picture of the current and likely future situation NCA
CINC
JTF
Serv
2 start now
2 Impact
Analysis
supports the analysis of the impact of human actions (own-side, opposition or neutral parties) on the current situation and on future plans NCA
CINC
JTF
Serv
1 R&D
3 Mission
Definition and
Analysis
supports mission definition in its broadest sense NCA
CINC
JTF
2 do now
4 Force
Planning:
Design Forces
supports the design of supporting and supported forces for use in OOTWs, where the supported forces may consist of forces that belong in the supporting category in combat operations - both parts may include U.S. non-military and non-U.S. elements CINC
Serv
1 do now
5 Force
Planning:
Deployment
Scheduling
supports the timing and prioritization of deployment scheduling, including U.S. non-military and non-U.S. elements CINC 1 do now
6 COA
Development,
Analysis,
Comparison
supports COA development, analysis, comparison, estimates of success and casualty predictions, risk modeling, and recommendations CINC
JTF
1 R&D
7 Transition
Planning and
Tracking of
Operational
Data
supports continued planning of the transition and tracking of MOEs, MOPs, end-state and transition criteria, and analysis of such things as casualties and medical treatments CINC
JTF
3 do now
8 Communication
Analysis
supports communications analysis, including interoperability of non-U.S. and non-military equipment CINC
JTF
3 R&D
9 Cost Analysis models costs of generic OOTWs for use in national force structure planning, input to decisions on engaging in an OOTW, and to estimate comparative costs during mission planning NCA
CINC
JTF
Serv
3 do now
10 Information
Availability
and Analysis
supports data collection and analysis and use by other tools NCA
CINC
JTF
Serv
1 do now


REFERENCES

Hartley, Dean S., III. Operations Other Than War: Requirements for Analysis Tools Research Report, K/DSRD-2098. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN: 1996.

Joint Staff. Universal Joint Task List, Version 3.0 (Initial Draft), CJCSM 3500.04A. Washington, DC: 1996.

Staniec, Cy. MORS Workshop on OOTW Analysis and Modeling Techniques (OOTWAMT). Military Operations Research Society, Alexandria, VA: 1997.


AUTHOR BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

DEAN S. HARTLEY III is a Senior Member of the Research Staff at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and other Department of Energy facilities, where he is Senior Scientist of the Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Gaming. He received his Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Georgia. Hartley is a member of the Board of Directors of the Military Operations Research Society (MORS). He is the Past President of the Military Applications Society (MAS) and a member of the College on Simulation, both subdivisions of the Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences (InfORMS). He is also a member of the INFORMS Board of Directors. Dr. Hartley's research interests include analysis of historical military combat data, verification and validation of military models, analytical support to military operations other than war (OOTW), and modeling information presentation.

For more information contact:
Dean Hartley at (423) 574-7670, Fax: (423) 574-0792
Email dhx@ornl.gov