Multilevel Security Assessment for the Distributed Mission Operations Network (DMON)

Bonnie Danner, CISSP Tony Valle, Ph.D.

Northrop Grumman Sparta

Orlando, Florida

This paper presents the technical and policy issues, architectural considerations, ongoing assessment results, and plans for Distributed Mission Operations Network (DMON) multi-level security (MLS) implementation.  In this paper, the Combat Air Force (CAF) Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) Operations and Integration (O&I) team builds on previous Combat Air Force Distributed Mission Operations Multi-Level Security feasibility research and recommendations.  Combat Air Force Distributed Mission Operations involves simulations built from components provided by independent vendors for different training communities.  The Combat Air Force Distributed Mission Operations MLS problem comes when not all participants have the appropriate clearances for all information.   There is a need for aircrews with different capabilities at different security levels, need-to-know, and categories to train together.  MLS for simulation is a very challenging problem, not yet solved globally, yet critical to accurate representation of war fighting to distributed audiences at different security levels. 

Findings in this paper are based on a Combat Air Force Distributed Mission Operations O&I research and development (R&D) task order focusing on the integration of a MLS Guard into the Combat Air Force Distributed Mission Operations Network. The research involves analyzing and documenting technical architectures for incorporating a MLS Guard into the evolving Combat Air Force Distributed Mission Operations system. The research also will include assessment of the MLS Guard integrated with the Combat Air Force Distributed Mission Operations Portal Kit in a test environment and on the Distributed Mission Operations Network.  In addition, the research addresses training feasibility and associated limitations of the guard security rule sets. 

2005 Paper No. 2165

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Integrating Multi-Level Security into the Joint Warfighter Training Environment

Gerald McGowan and Chris Raney

US Joint Forces Command, JTASC

Suffolk, Virginia

U.S. Joint Forces Command’s (USJFCOM) establishment of a Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) has added significantly to the ability to increase the tempo of joint training for the Department of Defense.  At the same time, the persistent, extended infrastructure has made it possible to expand the training audience to include multi-national and federal, state, and local agency personnel.   In order to serve this diverse training audience in the future, methods of sharing information across security domains is essential. A brief discussion of the motivating forces, challenges and requirements as they exist and are understood is presented.  A discussion of the distinction between Multi-level Security (MLS) and Multiple Single Levels of Security (MSL) is also presented.  The above will be followed by a more detailed discussion of past and current MLS and MSL efforts to fulfill requirements.  The discussion will include descriptions of several technologies that have been explored (software, hardware, and procedural), an accounting of lessons learned, and an assessment of where we currently stand.  We will also present a brief survey of some current programs and budding technologies and their applicability to the Joint Warfighter environment. 

2005 Paper No.2252

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Transitioning from DIS to HLA in a Distributed Simulation Environment

Paul E. Hanover

CMSP Science Applications International Corporation

Orlando, FL

The Army’s Battle Lab Collaborative Simulation Environment (BLCSE) has undertaken a project to transition their fifteen DIS (IEEE 1278) simulations to HLA (IEEE 1516).  In practice, these simulations, together with six others that are already HLA-compliant, interoperate across 14 different sites to provide a full spectrum of battlefield objects, command and control structures, and engagements to support future force analysis through experimentation.  BLCSE experiments typically comprise over 300 instances of these simulations interoperating at one time.  To accomplish a transition of this magnitude under tight schedule constraints, SAIC constructed and began executing detailed resource requirements plans, work plans, and schedules.  This paper is written from a program manager’s perspective, and discusses the costing, planning steps, processes, and management challenges experienced in accomplishing the DIS-to-HLA transition for the BLCSE community. 

2005 Paper No. 2311

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

The Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) Strategic Framework

Captain David Frost and Mr. Greg Knapp

 Joint Management Office Joint National Training Capability

 Joint Forces Command

 Suffolk, Virginia

The JNTC continues to transform training in the Department of Defense as we build on the initial operational capability experiences.  The second phase of the transformation incorporates a Strategic Framework that defines the fundamental elements of the JNTC and their interdependencies. This paper will outline JNTC implementation of the Strategic Framework as the capability transitions from an event-centric to a program-centric paradigm.

 In FY04, four exercises were enhanced by the added joint context of JNTC, proving the utility of the JNTC concept.  In FY05 the program continued to employ an “event centric” methodology, with 15 JNTC-enhanced exercises planned.  However, a permanent capability, one that the Services and Combatant Commands (COCOMs) could leverage for the majority of their training, was always the intent of the JNTC.  It was clear that permanence could not be achieved through an event-centric methodology. Therefore, the capability is now transitioning to a “Program Centric” methodology that is the centerpiece of the JNTC Strategic Framework. 

The JNTC Strategic Framework includes these elements: 

• Program Centric  - shifts resources and efforts from a selected number of exercises to investments in permanent capabilities at Service and COCOM organizations and programs.

• Accreditation of Service and COCOM nominated training programs

• Certification of sites and systems. Investments in these two elements will provide the persistence needed to provide joint context to a broad range of training activities, and improve readiness of joint forces.

• Training Transformation (T2) Investment Framework (T2IF) - provides guidance on how to invest T2 resources.  

• Programs augmented by a JNTC Support Element, providing manpower to support planning and execution of JNTC. 

• A Collaborative Planning process that engenders a cooperative approach to identify and validate funding requirements and map them to the budget.

• A comprehensive Roadmap and Strategic Investment of consolidated operational and technical funding requirements.

• Coordinated scheduling of Service training that economizes on the limited assets available while optimizing joint training – Force Mapping. 

• Designation and assignment of forces to be jointly trained – Service Joint Utilization.  

In summary, building on a strategic framework the JNTC is moving toward a persistent capability aligned with Service and COCOM training organizations and programs.  By understanding and leveraging the interdependencies of the key elements, JNTC will foster new efficiencies and improved effectiveness of joint training.

2005 Paper No.2232

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Designing a Block Assessment of Training Transformation

Annie Patenaude and Fred Hartman

Office of the Secretary of Defense (USD(P&R))

Washington, DC

The DoD Training Transformation (T2) program, as outlined in the “Training Transformation Strategic Plan (March 1, 2002),” has two major, interrelated missions:  The first is to transform training to better enable joint operations in the future.  The second is to function as the key enabler to achieving the operational goals of the overarching transformation of the Department of Defense. In the T2 Strategic Plan, DoD leadership and stakeholders recognized the requirement for the assessment and reporting of joint training readiness, joint and interoperability training performance, and overall T2 program performance. Training Transformation’s impact on training, and training’s impact on joint operations, as aspects of force readiness, must be assessed and reported in order to provide effective feedback mechanisms for programmatic decisions and lessons learned.  The impact of training and T2 on the emerging training needs of DoD Force Transformation also must be assessed and reported.  The T2 Implementation Plan established biennial Joint Assessment Enabling Capability (JAEC)-led Block Assessments as the primary mechanism for assessing joint training capabilities and T2 integration and management.  The first of these Block Assessments will occur in FY 2005.  The 2005 Block Assessment will examine and leverage the Training Capabilities Analysis of Alternatives, the DoD Balanced Score Card, the Defense Readiness Reporting System and the Individual Training Readiness Report to provide consistent measures of merit for Training Transformation.  This paper and presentation will address approach and metrics development for the Block Assessment.

2005 Paper No. 2079

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

It’s Not the Technology, Silly:  Why Process Matters

Amy Aukema, Weston Wolfertz

IBM Business Consulting Services

Fairfax, VA

Larry Hughes

SRRS Project Office, AETC (MITRE Corp)

Randolph AFB, San Antonio, TX

Large organizations frequently suffer from premature implementation of hot new technologies, in part because they lack understanding of their core business processes and required capabilities. The learning community is not immune to this. Learning management technologies have greatly advanced in the last decade and tempt many with “easy” solutions. But successful transformation must begin with a solid view of desired processes and architectures that support the learning mission, followed by identification of enabling technologies and infrastructure.  

AETC’s mission is to recruit, train, and educate Airmen to sustain the combat capability of the USAF. This complex organization operates with an annual budget of over $8 billion and graduates 430,000 students in over 5,800 courses. To plan and execute this mission, AETC requires accurate and timely personnel, recruiting, and training information at all times. To address its information challenges, AETC is designing a holistic solution that improves effectiveness and efficiencies in student registration and management processes and supporting technologies, improves AETC leadership’s visibility into its data and processes, thus enhancing decision-making and reducing "time-to-train", and prepares for an enterprise-wide system implementation.  

The first step in implementing this solution was to understand AETC’s current student management processes. Teams visited over 30 AETC sites, conducted interviews with over 150 organizations, and documented 87 As-Is processes. This paper highlights the business drivers for a learning solution, vision for Student Registration and Records System (SRRS), the command’s process- focused approach, and our lessons learned to date. 

2005 Paper No. 2378

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Challenges Faced in Supporting Deployed Gunnery and Marksmanship Trainers

Jude M. Tomasello

US Army Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation (PEO STRI)

Program Manager Field Operations and Support (PM Field OPS)

Virtual Training Lead

Orlando, FL

There is no question about the sacrifice and bravery our uniformed service personnel exhibit every day in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Often overlooked, however, are the contributions of our deployed Life Cycle Support Service (LCCS) civilian Contractors who provide around the clock, high quality training support to these troops.  The Virtual Man-in-the-Loop deployed simulators these LCCS contractors maintain in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan include the Engagement Skills Trainer2000 (EST 2000) for small arms marksmanship as well as several variants of Abrams and Bradley precision gunnery trainers. These contractors live on the compound under the same conditions as (and under the protection of) US Army Soldiers.  They live by no clock or set schedule and training or maintenance can be required and conducted at any time.  Night and day become one entity, except when the tranquility of a desert night is shattered by the likes of a low flying A-10 Warthog or AH-64 Apache, small arms fire, or incoming rocket and mortar fire.  This paper will describe the many challenges our deployed LCCS contractors face as they are entrusted to keep these mission critical training devices operational at peak performance (under extreme environmental conditions and severe logistical constraints)to provide Active and Reserve US Army, National Guard, Multi Service, and Multi National superior training whenever called upon.

2005 Paper No. 2127

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Flight School XXI Simulations:  Unique Acquisition Process

Kevin Hottell

PEO STRI Field Operations

Fort Rucker, AL

Pam Stallings

FSXXI/PEO STRI SETA/Morgan Research

Fort Rucker, AL

Aviation Transformation demands a new training concept for the Army’s aviators.  1970’s style aviation training does not meet the needs of a 21st century commander.

Previously, graduates from flight school arrived in their new unit at a Readiness Level (RL) -3, which required at least two additional months of training to function as a copilot. Flight School XXI provides the field commander a new RL-2 ready aviator who should be capable of functioning as a copilot almost immediately.  This program moves half of the aircraft training time in the instruments phase and all of the aircraft training time in the combat skills phase into an advanced aircraft.  Flight hours in the training aircraft (TH-67) were reduced by one-third, while flight hours in advanced aircraft were doubled to increase the advanced aircraft experience level of flight school graduates.  In general, simulator hours for flight training were doubled across the board. 

FSXXI Simulation Services is a long-term contractor provided service.  It is a turn-key operation, where the contractor is paid for simulator availability.  The steady state annual cost of FSXXI Simulations Services is $ in Operations and Maintenance funds.  This translates to an average cost of $330 an hour in simulations of all kinds; compare this to an average cost of $2,700 per hour of live flight.  It also provides the simulators in half the time of a standard acquisition, beginning at 22 months versus 3 to 5 years. Estimates show that the FSXXI Simulations Services contract saves the Army $600M over twenty years compared to a standard simulator acquisition program. 

FSXXI Simulations consists of three parts:  TH-67 Virtual Simulators, Advanced Aircraft Virtual Simulators, and a training support/management oversight capability.  Systems are maintained, operated, serviced, and managed by the contractor with government oversight and approval. 

2005 Paper No. 2104

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

How to Justify and Deploy Performance Support Tools for Maintenance

Roger LaPlante and Anna Liisa Van Mantgem

REI Systems, Inc.

Vienna, Virginia

In the 15 years since the concept of the “Performance Support System” (PSS) first made its debut, all branches of the United States military and countless commercial organizations have prototyped and tested various PSS applications for maintenance with impressive results. The most significant and common PSS metric—a 30% reduction in the time required to complete fault diagnosis and repair tasks—translates into substantial cost avoidance (particularly for today’s complex, costly weapons systems) and improved readiness rates. Despite these positive results (which validate the PSS concept and prove its return-on-investment potential) and tremendous advances in both software and hardware capabilities, military program managers have yet to fund and deploy a comprehensive PSS for an entire weapon system. 

This paper examines the organizational, administrative, and political barriers that sometimes impede PSS development and provides strategies for overcoming these challenges. Lessons learned from recent PSS endeavors (including a 2005 PSS developed by private industry in conjunction with the United States Naval Air Systems Command [NAVAIR]) are presented along with specific metrics and results that demonstrate the business case for PSS technology. U.S. Department of Defense policies and documentation that advocate and encourage the adoption of performance support technology are also cited to justify future investments in PSS. Tips and suggestions from experienced human performance technologists are included to provide program managers with all of the strategies and knowledge they need to successfully implement Performance Support Systems for maintenance now.

2005 Paper No. 2176

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Prototypes, Technologies and Concepts Integration into Joint Training

Mr. Billy Dodson, Commander Robert Laubengayer,

USN USJFCOM Joint Warfighting Center

Suffolk, Virginia

USJFCOM is specifically chartered by the Department of Defense (DoD) Training Transformation Implementation Plan (T2I Plan) with responsibility for the integration of experimentation prototypes, technologies and new warfighting concepts into the Joint Training System. Consistent with that guidance, USJFCOM JWFC coordinates and facilitates the Joint Experimentation, Joint Test and Evaluation, and Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (collectively referred to as “JETAs”) Integration Process. 

The JETA Integration Process is the formal mechanism whereby prototypes, maturing technologies and new concepts are introduced into USJFCOM sponsored and supported training events and programs.  The primary purpose of the JETA Integration Process is to test and review potential solutions to warfighting gaps and seams (identified through real world operations, exercises, or other means) in joint exercises and to facilitate presentation of validated solutions to those deficiencies to the Joint Staff.  Coordination and management of the JETA Integration Process is a shared responsibility.  Capabilities improvement sponsors are tasked with ensuring that their JETA initiatives are tested and validated under realistic conditions with the appropriate joint context.  They develop and evaluate emerging technologies in simulations, war games, limited objectives experiments or similar venues.  This effort requires close coordination between the joint training community at JWFC and the JETA sponsors in order to identify the “best fit” joint exercise for the improvement initiative.  Ideally, the exercise selected should be the best available platform for testing the JETA, and the integration should be managed carefully to minimize disruption to exercise events, missions and training objectives.  The ultimate goal of the JETA Integration Process is to accelerate the fielding and delivery of new or improved warfighting capabilities to the Combatant Commanders.

2005 Paper No. 2011

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Creating a Joint Urban Operations Training Strategy LTC

Michael L. Whetstone

USA USJFCOM, JWFC

Suffolk, VA

The US Joint Forces Command’s J9/Joint Urban Operations Office (JUOO) and J7/Capabilities Group Joint Urban Operation (JUO) Training Branch, working in concert, are developing a Joint Urban Operations Training Strategy. Using Lessons Learned from the Global War on Terrorism, the DOD Training and Facilities Study, combined with the best elements of the Service Strategies, a Joint Urban Training Strategy will provide timely and relevant training to an interoperable Service, Multinational, and Interagency training audience. The strategy leverages the Joint National Training Capability and provides Concept Development and Experimentation to the Combined Joint Task Force. To facilitate the Joint Urban Operations Training Strategy, the objective of the Joint Urban Operations Training Branch, a group of subject matter experts, is to provide solutions for identified JUO deficiencies, gaps and seams found in real world missions and training exercises. The JUO Training Branch integrates combined Service, Combatant Command, Interagency, and Multinational stakeholder urban operations training strategies; Develops Joint Professional Military Education; Integrates JUO concepts into Joint National Training Capability accredited venues and certified programs, supports Service, CoCom and Multinational training exercises, and provides a JUO Fusion Center, a single point of interest for all urban operations concepts. This paper will provide a historical background, propose a JUO Training Strategy and provide a baseline for future Joint Urban Training.

2005 Paper No. 2058

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Joint Warfighting Center (JWFC) Technology Plan For 2020

Christopher Raney

USJFCOM/JWFC

Suffolk, VA

Carroll “Tom” Wilson

Hewlett Packard Corp.

Suffolk, VA

A key enabler of the Joint Force Trainer’s strategy for the warfighter is insertion of new technology into the JWFC training environment.  This paper describes the system engineering process and methodology by which requirements are transformed through prototypes into integrated solutions for the JWFC Training and Exercise (JTEX) system. The process is mission-critical for the Joint Force Trainer as it delivers timely technology solutions that emulate or stimulate capabilities in the training environment that warfighters employ in the battlefield, and enables training providers’ processes for event planning, execution and assessment.  We also explain the live-virtual-constructive event infrastructure required for the current JTEX and prospect forward through operational and systems views to the training environment of the future. We outline a methodology for analysis of requirements, functional capabilities, candidate technology solutions, priorities, and measures of effectiveness that help derive the most appropriate technical infrastructure investments in a financially constrained environment.  

2005 Paper No. 2247

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

The NASMP Portable Source Initiative Shifting the Contracting and Acquisition Paradigm

W. Kent Nichols

NAVAIR

Patuxent River, MD

For many years, the U.S. Government and the training industry at large has been forced into paying for visual and sensor databases over and over again, due to the proprietary nature of every Image Generator (IG) vendor’s hardware and software solution.

The Naval Aviation Simulation Master Plan (NASMP) has initiated an effort to not only standardize the methods by which databases are built and delivered, but to drive policy and contracting paradigms in this regard to acquire data that is both usable and useful to multiple training platforms across multiple services, thereby leveraging development costs.

To date, the NASMP Portable Source Initiative (N-PSI) has put in place processes and procedures to define content development guidelines, contracting policy for acquisition of databases, archival capability for storing and distributing data, and configuration management policy for updating and enhancing existing datasets.

Here is an inside look at some of the challenges and risks encountered in developing this capability, as well as some success stories and return on investment from cross-platform, cross-service reuse of datasets contracted, built, stored, and distributed using these methods and policies.

2005 Paper No. 2153

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Using Open Industry Standards to Share Visual Simulation Databases

Ted Stokes and Bud Stephens

US Air Force

Hill AFB, UT

Two years ago, we accomplished the Travis Open Database Proof of Concept and showed that a simulation database developed to industry standard, open formats could be easily targeted to a variety of image generators.  Furthermore, we showed that we could save considerable time and money by reusing this open database.  This paper will show how we used the results of this proof of concept to develop a standard to purchase open databases.  As we found out, developing a standard like this is very complex management task and requires coordination with many different organizations.  We reviewed several DoD open database programs as well as our own work before we settled upon an approach; but, even after we settled on our basic approach, we still had many issues to resolve.  Some of those issues were:  data rights, metadata, cross-service standards, management consensus, database libraries, sensor databases, etc.  This paper will show how we addressed these issues and then show the standard that resulted from this work.

2005 Paper No. 2279

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Open Source Game Engines: Disruptive Technologies in Training and Education

Rudolph P. Darken, Perry McDowell

MOVES Institute, Naval Postgraduate School

Monterey, California

Curtiss Murphy

BMH Associates, Unc

Norfolk, VA

While visual simulation technology has changed dramatically over the past 15 years – faster graphics, computing, networking – the business model behind our industry has remained relatively unchanged. The model that developed when a reasonable computer cost $500,000 is still around when we could be using game consoles at $250 each. There must be a better way. The future of defense training and education is very different from what it is today. The trend will be towards small, low-cost simulators that are readily accessible to trainees because more of them are available. They will be available in distance learning modes as part of curricula and as stand-alone applications. When we look at initiatives in the Navy to transform training and education, we see that there will be literally hundreds of training applications developed for very specific requirements. The current business model is not conducive to this end. The way software is licensed, sold, and supported is based on a “few, expensive” model rather than a “many, inexpensive” model. We describe why open source software is a disruptive technology to the defense training and simulation industry and we outline business models that fit this new paradigm in simulation development. We determined that most of what is currently available in proprietary game engines and visual simulation tools is already available in open source. The problem is that the needed functionality is scattered across many disparate open source projects. The framework we describe is a unifying layer that pulls these individual open source products together into a common API that is also open. The advantages to the customer are numerous and include (1) the availability of all source code for developed applications – maximizing flexibility in future enhancements, (2) utilizing free software and the ability to benefit from a community of developers to keep up with rapidly changing hardware and software, and (3) leveraging a large community of developers for support. We conclude with recommended actions our industry should take to benefit from open source software.

2005 Paper No. 2403

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Applying Macroergonomics Principles to Enhance Technology Implementation Effectiveness

Michael C. Mihalecz, Nathan R. Bailey

Virginia Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation Center,

Old Dominion University

Suffolk, VA

Charles W. Robinson

Joint Warfighting Center, SIM-C4,

United States Joint Forces Command

Suffolk, VA

LVC simulation technology is becoming increasingly prevalent and sophisticated.  However, too often, system design initiatives and technology innovation related to LVC M&S technology ignore the impact of higher-level organizational factors.  Because work is inherently a social phenomenon, it should never be assessed apart from the organizational context in which it exists. As such, any introduction of new tools or restructuring of organizational processes should always consider the technical, human, and organizational aspects of system design.

Using a macroergonomic framework, the paper will focus on two critical issues impacting the efficiency of new technology implementation and restructuring of work processes: lack of readiness for organizational change and resistance to change.  We will outline techniques for creating readiness including sensitizing organizations to pressure for change, revealing discrepancies between current and desired practices, and conveyance of credible, positive expectations for change.  We will also identify potential sources of resistance, methods to improve organizational cooperation, and the creation of system ownership among stakeholders. As a specific example, we will outline macroergonomic strategies used during the user requirements identification phase for developing the Joint Rapid Distribute Database Development Capability (JRD3C).

2005 Paper No. 2047

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Using Simulation to Build a Better Management System

Mrs. Sarah Aust, CPT; Mr. Daniel McDonald, PhD; Mr. Jerel Brett Hollowell; Mr. Arthur Klauss

Human Performance Center

Orlando, Florida

Ms. Cathy Parker

MANCON

Orlando, Florida

The Navy’s Revolution in Training (RIT) initiative has set aggressive goals for improving Fleet performance and measurement, while simultaneously streamlining operations and reducing cost.  The enormity and aggressive timeline of this initiative has necessitated the implementation of a more comprehensive management system to facilitate the achievement of these goals.  A balanced scorecard approach provides the missing elements.  A balanced scorecard leverages key organizational performance parameters to provide insight into the current and future health and effectiveness of an organization.  While the concepts behind balanced scorecard offer management a promising approach, implementation is often the weakest link for success.   

In complex social systems such as the Navy, root causes for performance problems are often far removed from the problem manifestation.  Too often, balanced scorecards fail because of erroneous assumptions that are made and not corrected about the cause and effect relationships within the complex system.  This results in erroneous adoption of leading and lagging organizational indicators, poor situational awareness, and a decreased capability to make effective decisions for an organization.  The Human Performance Center is using System Dynamics simulation to improve the construction and accuracy of balanced scorecards.  Similar to simulation-use within the acquisition community, the balanced scorecard simulation will be a predictive tool. Management will be able to test scenarios and view potential impacts on the desktop, rather than through real-world occurrences. These simulations can also be used as a self-learning and organizational improvement tool. This paper will describe the process for creating an accurate balanced scorecard using system dynamics simulation; demonstrate how to anticipate behaviors in a complex social system; and describe effective methods for identifying the most reliable balanced scorecard indicators to support organizational success. 

2005 Paper No. 2410

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

1st Line Supervisors Skills Development Program in the Defense Industrial Base

Joseph C Barto President and CEO

Training Modernization Group

Chesapeake Virginia

Meeting the government’s needs while realizing a profit requires a skilled and competent group of 1st Line Supervisors in the defense manufacturing industry, especially when there is ever increasing pressure on cost and improving quality.  Their ability to lead is core to improving the defense industrial base’s business performance as we face ever more pressures to deliver our products more cost competitively while maintaining a reasonable profit.  These leaders in their first management and leadership positions are the ones who are driving the defense manufacturing businesses everyday.  With this in mind, it is not enough to have broad-based leadership training focused on the soft management skills but programs focused specifically on those hard core skills  these new leaders must master to be successful.  We will present proven methods to identify exactly what these first time leaders are required to do; actual high performance behaviors, and then methods on how to improve their skills through a focused behavior based development strategy.  U.S. defense manufacturing and services companies require this critical level of leaders to meet schedule, quality and cost goals profitably by having the right leaders with the right skill sets in the right places to execute their programs.  This paper will present a Behavior Based 1st Line Leader Skills Development Program proven in two settings.  The first a defense manufacturing corporation and the second a defense services provider.  The paper will detail a behavior based leader assessment methodology, an analytical tool, a Performance Improvement Model codified in a Skills Development Strategy template, and the return on investment results of actual implementations with Lessons Learned to date. 

2005 Paper No. 2092

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

OneSAF:  A Case Study in Agile Methods and Extreme Programming

Mr. Doug Parsons, LTC John Surdu

US Army, PEO STRI

Orlando, FL

Mr. Derrick Franceschini

Science Application International Corporation

Orlando, FL

OneSAF Objective System is the next generation simulation system planned to provide the U.S. Army with an entity-level simulation to serve three modeling and simulation domains.  Software development of the OneSAF application has been conducted in a highly robust systems engineering environment based on commercial and government best practices.  The OneSAF program has tailored techniques of Extreme Programming (XP) and Agile Methods (AM) into a development environment that has resulted in several industry awards, most recently the National Training Systems Association (NTSA) Cross Function Award for the Integrated Product Team.  These externally-certified CMMI level-5 processes are credited with keeping the program on-schedule and on-budget, while meeting performance requirements. This paper will discuss which XP and AM techniques were used, which were not, and why.

2005 Paper No. 1978

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Just In Time Development (JITD)

Lieutenant Colonel Emily Andrew, Mr Robert Engstrom

USJFCOM / JWFC Sim/C4 Group

Suffolk, Virginia

The USJFCOM JWFC is on the verge of a major paradigm shift in thinking on how to support an ever increasing warfighter appetite for simulated training and mission rehearsal exercises.  Implicit in this ‘hunger’ is the desire for simulation to support a multitude of exercises with often very little notice of new requirements.  This increased ‘ops tempo’ is a result of a projected growth in the need for simulated exercises within the next couple of years from approximately eight to well over 40 events per year.  Stretched thin already by limited resources to prepare and execute simulations, the JWFC needs a highly effective approach if it is going to be able to continue responding to both planned and short notice demands for simulated Joint training exercises.  Included in this new approach is the need to provide short notice support for last minute requirements for Joint exercises.  This last minute approach has been coined ‘Just in Time Development’ or JITD.  JITD occurs with much less time allotted for development, testing, and execution of new capability in Joint simulations than methodological plan-driven software development practices recommend.   

The JWFC has been able to produce high quality software with abbreviated production cycles in the past because the simulations were less complex and the customer was less demanding.  Now, with a greater need for more simulated Joint exercises and for those exercises to provide increased resolution, the JWFC needs a modified approach that results in little increase in simulation development resources.  This paper describes what it means to execute a JITD approach but with a different ‘twist’ than is currently implemented that will enable the JWFC to be highly effective in providing Joint training simulations well into the next decade.

2005 Paper No. 2341

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Agile Training - Infusing a Culture of Innovation into Training Warfighters

COL(R) Matt Fair

Icon Systems, Inc.

Orlando, FL

COL(R) John Antal

Gearbox Software

Plano, TX

Training is a cornerstone of our Army. In the 2005 Army Posture Statement, Well-Trained Soldiers led by Adaptive Leaders is one of the four key areas supporting Transformation. Currently we are fighting a 21st century enemy with many burdensome training tools and systems. We are fighting an adaptive/learning enemy and we need to be agile enough to anticipate and adapt to his changes in techniques in near real or real time. We must change our mindset as stated in a recent TRADOC website article “Adapt or Die” which stresses the need for a culture of innovation. In addition, we must have the flexibility to train across the full spectrum of warfare at a moment’s notice. There are exceptions, but agility is not currently a high priority in the training community. We propose using an Agile Program Management mindset to lay out a road map for providing training to our warfighters. The warfighter must take advantage of existing tools/technologies, like commercial games, and make ‘good enough’ adaptations to provide agile solutions for our Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airmen and Coast Guard. We will show how some of these ideas were used to quickly develop the successful Gauntlet Training Program used by the 16th Cavalry Regiment at Fort Knox to train Armor/Cavalry Soldiers. Some of these techniques included: quickly defining ‘good enough’ requirements; using commercial products to provide rapid prototypes and solutions; using simulation to provide multiple events at a low cost per iteration; and leveraging the skills of the instructors. We will also provide some lessons learned from the Gauntlet program and propose some ideas for a way ahead. Change is occurring at an astounding rate in our services today, and we must be ready with processes and products that support innovation to facilitate our agility on today’s and tomorrow’s battlefield.

2005 Paper No. 2317

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Live Training Transformation (LT2) – A Strategy for Future Army and Joint Live Training

Paul Dumanoir and Jorge Rivera

U.S. Army PEO STRI

Orlando, Florida

The Live Training Transformation (LT2) is a strategy that utilizes product line engineering development concepts and principles to guide the acquisition of the family of live training programs under the purview of U.S. Army Program Executive Office (PEO) Simulation Training and Instrumentation (STRI), Program Manager for Training Devices (PM TRADE). The LT2 strategy addresses a set of operational requirements defined by approved Operational Requirements Documents (ORDs), and is being transformed into an Army program as a Family of Training Systems (FTS) documented in the LT2-FTS Initial Capability Document (ICD). The LT2 product line management concept of operations focuses on the holistic requirements of all Live domain training systems, with the objective to maximize component reuse, reduce fielding time, minimize programmatic costs, and enhance training benefits afforded to the soldier. Through successful execution of the product line strategy, LT2 will deliver a set of common components that provide integrated and interoperable training solutions for live collective training across the home stations, Combat Training Centers (CTCs), deployed, and Joint training domains. This paper describes the innovative approach PEO STRI is using to manage the LT2 product line. In doing so it details the combination of organizations, processes, and technologies that encompass the LT2 concept to include the product line architecture known as the Common Training Instrumentation Architecture (CTIA).  In addition, this paper describes how the LT2 product line is being used to support the Future Combat System (FCS) Training Common Component (TCC) program and how it will interoperate with other Army and Joint architectures in support of a Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) training and test solution.

2005 Paper No. 1982

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.
 

Capabilities Improvement Initiative Team Process

LCDR Wayne A. Cross

Joint Warfighting Center

Suffolk, Virginia

Capabilities Improvement Initiative Teams (CIIT) are mandated in the Training Transformation Implementation Plan (T2IP) as a vehicle to address gaps and seams by subject matter experts, recommend solutions for the identified deficiencies, and then verify the solutions by re-entering into the Joint Training System (JTS).  Memberships consists of the subject matter experts (SME) provided by stakeholder(s) and interested parties, and are centrally located within the Joint Warfighting Center (JWFC) to enhance unity of effort, maximize reach-back to parent organizations, and to facilitate entry into the JTS. 

This paper will cover the development of the CIIT and its purpose.  The benefits of the CIIT to the Warfighter and the Joint Community will become clear as the intent and processes are explained.  To date, the only CIIT in existence are the Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (JCBRN) CIIT, and the Joint Command and Control CIIT.  The construct of a CIIT will vary depending on its designated focus but a general template will be discussed detailing the chartering process.  The CIIT requirements, prioritization, process, outputs, and measures of success will be included to provide the reader with an overall understanding of the CIIT process.

2005 Paper No. 2391

This paper is available on the 2005 I/ITSEC CD ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website.