U.S. patent application number 14/521194 was filed with the patent office on 2015-04-23 for methods, systems and computer program products for evaluating system performance.
The applicant listed for this patent is Sandia Corporation. Invention is credited to John H. Gauthier, Hai D. Le, Dennis E. Longsine, Nadine E. Miner, Michael L. Wilson.
Application Number | 20150112905 14/521194 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 52827084 |
Filed Date | 2015-04-23 |
United States Patent
Application |
20150112905 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Miner; Nadine E. ; et
al. |
April 23, 2015 |
METHODS, SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR EVALUATING
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Abstract
Methods, systems and computer program products to evaluate or
assess strategies for operating and designing complex systems,
including systems of systems, are disclosed. The methods, systems
and computer program products provide describe and evaluate the
behavior of systems in real-world environments where future
conditions are highly uncertain are disclosed. The present
disclosure identifies a set of important strategies, a set of
concomitant actions, and a set of environmental conditions that
form the basis of strategic change rules. These rules can be
incorporated in a simulation to modify the behavior of the
simulated system. These methods, systems and computer program
products offers a capability, which has not been previously
available, to evaluate the adaptability of complex systems
Inventors: |
Miner; Nadine E.;
(Albuquerque, NM) ; Gauthier; John H.;
(Albuquerque, NM) ; Wilson; Michael L.;
(Albuquerque, NM) ; Le; Hai D.; (Albuquerque,
NM) ; Longsine; Dennis E.; (Leander, TX) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
Sandia Corporation |
Albuquerque |
NM |
US |
|
|
Family ID: |
52827084 |
Appl. No.: |
14/521194 |
Filed: |
October 22, 2014 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
61894208 |
Oct 22, 2013 |
|
|
|
61894251 |
Oct 22, 2013 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
706/13 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/067 20130101;
G06N 7/00 20130101; G06N 20/00 20190101; G06Q 10/0637 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
706/13 |
International
Class: |
G06N 5/04 20060101
G06N005/04; G06N 99/00 20060101 G06N099/00 |
Goverment Interests
GOVERNMENT RIGHTS
[0003] This invention was made with Government support under
Contract No. DE-AC04-94AL85000 awarded by the U.S. Department of
Energy. The Government has certain rights in the invention.
Claims
1. A method for providing an informed strategy for determining the
composition of a system of system, comprising: a) define a problem
having a design and a scenario; b) choose one or more performance
metrics; c) select one or more measures for the one or more chosen
performance metrics; d) evaluate the one or more measures for the
design and scenario; e) redefine design; f) repeat steps a through
e to create one or more designs; g) compare the one or more designs
based on the evaluation of the evaluated performance metrics; and
h) provide a final design from the one or more designs based on the
evaluation of the evaluated performance metrics.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more performance
metrics is selected from a group consisting essentially of cost,
availability, efficiency, sustainability, and survivability.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the performance metric is
availability and availability is measured by the following formula:
A SoS = 1 t tot i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i max j = possible "
success - path " combinations [ min k = SP requirements ( N
operating | operable k , j , i N required k , j , i ) ] .
##EQU00041##
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the performance metric is
efficiency and efficiency is measured by the following formula:
excess_power _ratio = i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i j = 1 N gen Q j , i
i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i j = 1 N gen Q j , i tot .
##EQU00042##
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the performance metric is
survivability and survivability is measured by the following
formula: combat_damage _downtime _frac = j = 1 N sys t j damaged j
= 1 N sys t j tot . ##EQU00043##
6. A system comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage
medium encoded with programming for evaluating strategies for
operating and designing complex systems, the non-transitory
computer readable medium with programming configured to: a) define
a problem having a design and a scenario; b) choose one or more
performance metrics; c) select one or more measures for the one or
more chosen performance metrics; d) evaluate the one or more
measures for the design and scenario; e) redefine design; f) repeat
steps a through e to create one or more designs; g) compare the one
or more designs based on the evaluation of the evaluated
performance metrics; and h) provide a final design from the one or
more designs based on the evaluation of the evaluated performance
metrics.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein one or more performance metrics
is selected from a group consisting essentially of cost,
availability, efficiency, sustainability, and survivability.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the performance metric is
availability and availability is measured by the following formula:
A SoS = 1 t tot i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i max j = possible "
success - path " combinations [ min k = SP requirements ( N
operating | operable k , j , i N required k , j , i ) ] .
##EQU00044##
9. The system of claim 7, wherein the performance metric is
efficiency and efficiency is measured by the following formula:
excess_power _ratio = i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i j = 1 N gen Q j , i
i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i j = 1 N gen Q j , i tot .
##EQU00045##
10. The system of claim 7, wherein the performance metric is
survivability and survivability is measured by the following
formula: combat_damage _downtime _frac = j = 1 N sys t j damaged j
= 1 N sys t j tot . ##EQU00046##
11. A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer
readable medium, wherein executed by a process, the computer
program product configured to: a) define a problem having a design
and a scenario; b) choose one or more performance metrics; c)
select one or more measures for the one or more chosen performance
metrics; d) evaluate the one or more measures for the design and
scenario; e) redefine design; f) repeat steps a through e to create
one or more designs; g) compare the one or more designs based on
the evaluation of the evaluated performance metrics; and h) provide
a final design from the one or more designs based on the evaluation
of the evaluated performance metrics.
12. The computer program product of claim 8, wherein one or more
performance metrics is selected from a group consisting essentially
of cost, availability, efficiency, sustainability, and
survivability.
13. The computer program product of claim 12, wherein the
performance metric is availability and availability is measured by
the following formula: A SoS = 1 t tot i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i
max j = possible " success - path " combinations [ min k = SP
requirements ( N operating | operable k , j , i N required k , j ,
i ) ] . ##EQU00047##
14. The computer program product of claim 12, wherein the
performance metric is efficiency and efficiency is measured by the
following formula: excess_power _ratio = i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i
j = 1 N gen Q j , i i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i j = 1 N gen Q j , i
tot . ##EQU00048##
15. The computer program product of claim 12, wherein the
performance metric is survivability and survivability is measured
by the following formula: combat_damage _downtime _frac = j = 1 N
sys t j damaged j = 1 N sys t j tot . ##EQU00049##
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent
Application No. 61/894,208, "QUANTIFYING RELATIVE SYSTEM
ADAPTABILITY," filed Oct. 22, 2013, and U.S. Provisional Patent
Application No. 61/894,251, "STRATEGY-BASED SIMULATION," filed Oct.
22, 2013, both of which are incorporated by reference herein in
their entireties.
[0002] This application is related to U.S. Non-Provisional patent
application Ser. No. 14/521,091, titled "METHODS, SYSTEMS AND
COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR QUANTIFYING RELATIVE SYSTEM
ADAPTABILITY," filed Oct. 22, 2014, and U.S. Non-Provisional Patent
Application titled, "METHODS, SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS
FOR DETERMINING SYSTEM RE-TASKING," filed Oct. 22, 2014, both of
which are co-owned by the owner of this Application, and the
disclosures of which are incorporated by reference herein in their
entireties.
FIELD
[0004] The present disclosure is generally directed to fields of
systems engineering and systems analysis, and is more particularly
directed to methods and systems to evaluate or assess strategies
for operating and designing systems of systems (SoS).
BACKGROUND
[0005] Society is increasingly reliant on systems and
interoperating collections of systems, known as systems of systems
(SoS). Example of SoS include power grids, space systems,
distribution systems, industrial production, organizational
operation and structure, such as, but not limited to military
deployment. In addition, our national security is built on SoS,
such as military units, airport security, and nuclear weapons
security. These SoS are often subject to changing environmental
factors such as, but not limited to budgets, changing missions
(e.g., nation-building, arms-control treaties), changing threats
(e.g., asymmetric warfare, terrorism, WMDs), and changing natural
environments (e.g., climate, weather, natural disasters). It is
important that SoS adapt to these changing environmental factors
effectively and efficiently. Past disclosures on adaptability have
focused on qualitative behaviors.
[0006] What is needed is a quantitative method and system for
evaluating strategies for the design and operation of SoS.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0007] FIG. 1 is an illustration of SoS adaptability metrics with
performance measures according to an exemplary embodiment of the
disclosure.
[0008] FIG. 2 is a flow diagram for adaptability assessment
according to an exemplary embodiment of the disclosure.
[0009] FIG. 3 shows examples for the SoS diversity measure
according to an exemplary embodiment of the disclosure.
[0010] FIG. 4 shows a diagram of a method to determine which
strategies for operating an SoS would be best for changing
missions, threats, and environments according to an exemplary
embodiment of the present disclosure.
[0011] FIG. 5 shows dSoS locations in an example according to an
exemplary embodiment of the disclosure.
[0012] FIG. 6 shows an example Fuel Network in dSOS according to an
exemplary embodiment of the disclosure.
[0013] FIG. 7 shows a military deployment adaptability metric test
case according to an exemplary embodiment of the disclosure.
[0014] FIG. 8 shows histogram results of an example of 1000 trials
of military deployment test case according to an exemplary
embodiment of the disclosure.
[0015] FIG. 9 shows a chart of SoSAI as an indicator of performance
for 1000 trials according to an exemplary embodiment of the
disclosure.
[0016] FIG. 10 illustrates SoSAI as indicator of better and worse
performing trials according to an exemplary embodiment of the
disclosure.
[0017] FIG. 11 shows a diagram of a method to determine an
effective design for re-tasking systems in an SoS subjected to
changing missions, threats, and environments according to an
exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure.
[0018] FIG. 12 shows an SoS with multiple functions that can be
fulfilled by different sets of different systems according to an
exemplary embodiment of the disclosure.
[0019] FIG. 13 shows an algorithm flow for evaluating A.sub.SoS
according to an exemplary embodiment of the disclosure.
[0020] FIG. 14 shows a flowchart for determining which systems to
order according to an exemplary embodiment of the disclosure.
[0021] FIG. 15 shows a block diagram illustrating the general
components of a computer according to an exemplary embodiment of
the disclosure.
[0022] Wherever possible, the same reference numbers will be used
throughout the drawings to represent the same parts.
SUMMARY
[0023] Methods, systems, and a computer program product to describe
and evaluate the behavior of systems in real-world environments
where future conditions are highly uncertain are disclosed. In
real-world situations, system behavior is dynamic and subject to
various strategic decisions that attempt to better position the
system to respond to changes--i.e., strategies that affect the
system adaptability to the changing environment. To accurately
evaluate the system performance, a simulation must reflect these
strategies and changes in strategies. The present disclosure
identifies a set of important strategies, a set of concomitant
actions, and a set of environmental conditions that form the basis
of strategic change rules. These rules can be incorporated in a
simulation to modify the behavior of the simulated system. These
methods, systems and computer program products offers a capability,
which has not been previously available, to evaluate the
adaptability of complex systems.
[0024] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, a
method for providing an informed strategy for determining the
composition of a system of system is disclosed that includes:
[0025] a) define a problem having a design and a scenario; [0026]
b) choose one or more performance metrics; [0027] c) select one or
more measures for the one or more chosen performance metrics;
[0028] d) evaluate the one or more measures for the design and
scenario; [0029] e) redefine design; [0030] f) repeat steps a
through e to create one or more designs; [0031] g) compare the one
or more designs based on the evaluation of the evaluated
performance metrics; and [0032] h) provide a final design from the
one or more designs based on the evaluation of the evaluated
performance metrics.
[0033] According to another embodiment of the present disclosure, a
system including a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
encoded with programming for evaluating strategies for operating
and designing complex systems is disclosed, the non-transitory
computer readable medium with programming configured to: [0034] a)
define a problem having a design and a scenario; [0035] b) choose
one or more performance metrics; [0036] c) select one or more
measures for the one or more chosen performance metrics; [0037] d)
evaluate the one or more measures for the design and scenario;
[0038] e) redefine design; [0039] f) repeat steps a through e to
create one or more designs; [0040] g) compare the one or more
designs based on the evaluation of the evaluated performance
metrics; and [0041] h) provide a final design from the one or more
designs based on the evaluation of the evaluated performance
metrics.
[0042] According to another embodiment of the present disclosure, a
computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer
readable medium is disclosed, wherein executed by a process, the
computer program product is configured to: [0043] a) define a
problem having a design and a scenario; [0044] b) choose one or
more performance metrics; [0045] c) select one or more measures for
the one or more chosen performance metrics; [0046] d) evaluate the
one or more measures for the design and scenario; [0047] e)
redefine design; [0048] f) repeat steps a through e to create one
or more designs; [0049] g) compare the one or more designs based on
the evaluation of the evaluated performance metrics; and [0050] h)
provide a final design from the one or more designs based on the
evaluation of the evaluated performance metrics.
[0051] One advantage of the present disclosure is to provide a
method and system for quantifying the effects of strategies for the
design and operation of SoS.
[0052] Another advantage of the present disclosure is to provide a
method and system to address unknown or unknowable threats and/or
disruptions.
[0053] Other features and advantages of the present disclosure will
be apparent from the following more detailed description of the
preferred embodiment, taken in conjunction with the accompanying
drawings which illustrate, by way of example, the principles of the
disclosure.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0054] According to an embodiment of the invention, methods,
systems and computer program products that include a set of metrics
that can be applied relatively and used to determine an
adaptability index for systems of systems (SoS) are disclosed. The
term systems of systems (SoS) is used to describe a system that is
a member of a group of systems and that contains one or more
components. Throughout this application, the term system may be
used interchangeably with SoS as describing a system with the SoS.
The metrics and adaptability index can measure performance under
variable objectives, such as mission space, and for uncertain
system environmental factors, such as threat environment. The
metrics and adaptability index create an analytic capability to
assist in the design and operation of adaptable systems and SoS and
prepare those systems to be better able to respond to changing
operational environments: natural environments, threats, missions,
competition, organizational composition, resource availability
(resource reliability, maintenance, etc.) and budgets. The methods,
systems and computer program products of any of the embodiments
described herein can be collectively or individually be referred to
as a "tool."
[0055] The term "adaptability" is used in this disclosure to mean
adjustment or modification of the system in response to changing
operational factors. The disclosed methods, systems and computer
program products provide a quantitative basis for comparing
adaptability of system designs and identifying which aspects of
adaptability have the greatest impact on performance.
[0056] Table 1 shows four examples of SoS, an exemplary threat,
exemplary hardware or entities or procedures, and exemplary
adaptability metrics. As can be seen in Table, 1, the application
of metrics and adaptability can be made to a wide range of SoS.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Exemplary SoS designs and Adaptability
Metrics Systems of Hardware or Entities or Systems Typical Threat
Procedures Adaptability Metrics* Military Enemy vehicles, aircraft,
UAVs, mobility, logistics capability, Deployment storage tanks,
power modularity, substitutability, generators, construction
storage, self-organizing ability, equipment, facilities, comm
complexity, overbuild equipment, operations, soldiers, etc.
Electrical Grid Natural disaster power generators (coal,
modifiability, modularity, natural gas, renewables, diversity,
storage, integratability, etc.), power lines, scalability,
complexity, transformers, facilities, etc. redundancy,
reparability, durability Package Delivery Competition vehicles,
aircraft, modularity, diversity, Company communications, staff,
substitutability, storage, self- warehouses, etc. organizing
ability, scalability, complexity, reparability, durability Supply
Chain Enemy, suppliers, sub-contractors, logistics capability,
modifiability, Health counterfeiter transportation links,
diversity, substitutability, warehouses, storage, self-organizing
ability, operations/procedures, complexity, overbuild monitoring
stations, etc. *Note that, in some instances, all adaptability
metrics can be applied to each SoS.
[0057] According to an example that uses goal-question-metrics
(GQM), three example SoS were compared: a military deployment
(e.g., an Army brigade), the US Post Office, and a regional power
grid. Table 2 summarizes these SoS. It is immediately evident that,
even in this restricted set of SoS, there are different missions,
compositions, and adaptability issues. Further, the response to the
adaptability issues could be different for each SoS. For instance,
the military might replace vehicles to better counter an adversary
(e.g., Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to counter
IEDs); the US Post Office might reduce services to meet costs and
counter a more cost-effective competitor; and a regional power grid
might require energy storage units at substations to handle the
fluctuations in electricity from third-party photovoltaic or wind
power.
TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Example SoS with Possible Adaptability
Issues SoS Primary Mission Composition Adaptability Issues Military
Secure territory and Combat and support vehicles, Changing mission
Deployment build nation states base infrastructure, (strategic and
communications, etc. tactical), adaptive enemy US Deliver mail to
every Hubs, airplanes, Packages generate more Post customer in the
trucks, post offices, revenue, email, Office country delivery
vehicles, etc. competition (a type of adaptable enemy), manpower
requirements Regional Generate and Power plants, Environmental
Power distribute electricity to distribution lines, impact,
renewables Grid customers maintenance equipment, etc.
penetration
[0058] Such differences in the basic character of SoS and
differences in their adaptability issues leads to the following
observations:
[0059] 1) Adaptability of an SoS cannot be described with a single
metric. The different characteristics of SoS and the many
adaptability issues require many metrics.
[0060] 2) The different natures of SoS precludes absolute
adaptability metrics. Consider that complexity (one of the metric
candidates) in a military deployment is not the same as, nor does
it have the same effect as, complexity in a regional power grid.
For a military deployment, increased complexity might be an
advantage because it could potentially respond to a greater variety
of situations than a deployment with less complexity. For a
regional power grid, increased complexity might be a detriment for
many reasons, such as greater maintenance and training requirements
than for a simpler system. Therefore, the measures of the
individual adaptability responses must be relative. That is, the
amount of complexity in different designs of the same SoS can be
measured to determine how adaptable one design might be relative to
another.
[0061] 3) Not all facets of adaptability apply to every SoS, thus
the applicability of adaptability metrics depends on the SoS under
study. For example, a self-organizing metric might not apply to the
Post Office, and a diversity metric might not apply to a regional
power grid.
[0062] Based on the initial list of adaptability concepts and the
lessons learned from the GQM, a list of 15 metrics was developed.
Each metric is intended to address a different facet of SoS
adaptability. Depending on the SoS under study, the metrics could
be organized and named differently. FIG. 1 shows a baseline
organization of the 15 adaptability metrics organized into four
categories: Changeability, Composition, Organization, and
Robustness. A fifth category, Performance, provides various
measures to assess the impact of adaptability. Performance is
discussed in more detail later in this disclosure.
[0063] The Changeability category is most similar to biologic
evolution. This category may be referred to as reconfigurability,
where the metrics indicate the ease with which systems can change
over time. Not all of the metrics in each category will apply to
every SoS under study, and they might have different
interpretations depending on the particular SoS. For example, in a
military deployment, the Changeability metric of mobility might
refer to an aggregate measure of vehicle mobility, while in a power
grid, mobility might refer to a measure of energy movement through
the SoS.
[0064] The Composition category, also called Structure, includes
metrics that often enable survival. The Organization category is
derived largely from CAS theory, e.g., neurons in a brain or a
flock of birds. The Robustness category includes metrics that
measure how well an SoS can meet changing circumstances without
changing the SoS architecture. In contrast, the categories of
Changeability, Composition, and Organization, contain measures of
how well an SoS adjusts in response to changing circumstances (or
functional modification). Only a subset of the metrics--mobility,
modularity, modifiability, integratability, redundancy,
repairability, and durability--are expected to apply to individual
systems, while the entire set of metrics could apply to an SoS.
[0065] Metric calculations are expected to depend on the study and
the available tools. Some calculations can be straightforward. For
example, the complexity metric can be a count of the nodes
(systems) and edges (interconnections between systems) in an SoS.
The repairability metric can be calculated as the average mean time
to repair for the systems in an SoS. The logistics-capability
metric can be calculated as the quantity of materials that can be
transported to the point of need (e.g., the shipping capacity).
Some of the metrics, however, might require more involved
calculations. For example, some problems might require a different
aspect of logistics capacity, such as logistics utilization. A
logistics utilization measure could be calculated as the
time-averaged ratio of the number of operating logistics systems to
the total number of logistics systems. In addition, each metric can
be measured in multiple ways. Using a military deployment example,
the storage adaptability metric can be measured by the available
fuel storage capacity, and how well the storage is utilized.
Likewise, the logistics capability metric can be measured by the
convoy frequency and the number of failed fuel orders. Furthermore,
the metrics can be interdependent. For instance, a logistics
capability metric might be dependent on a storage metric--logistics
might require stored parts, or stored parts might be sufficient to
reduce the need for logistics. Correlations might need to be
considered when calculating these metrics. Thus, which metrics
apply and how they are calculated is very application specific.
[0066] In addition to the 15 adaptability metrics, performance (or
health) metrics are included that measure the end result of
adaptability, and allow comparison of adaptability. The premise is
that a more adaptable system will perform better in a changing or
dynamic environment. The performance metrics are SoS-related, and
depend on the "goodness" of the SoS' adaptability. For example,
survivability of an SoS is not an adaptability metric per se, but
it should reflect some aspect of an SoS' adaptability. A more
adaptable SoS should be more survivable than a less adaptable SoS
under changing conditions, and conditions of stress where
adaptability matters. The applicability of the performance metrics
will vary depending on the system or SoS under study.
[0067] A typical use for the adaptability metrics might be to
determine which of a set of designs for an SoS would be best for
changing missions, threats and environments. Such a study would
involve the following steps: (1) Choose applicable metrics from the
list. (2) Select appropriate measures for those metrics. (3)
Evaluate the measures for each system design and scenario of
interest. Then (4) Compare the designs and (5) Inform the selection
of a design that meets needs best.
[0068] FIG. 2 shows a diagram of a method to determine which of a
set of designs for an SoS would be best for a given mission
according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. The
steps may vary based on application-specific requirements. Details
could vary from implementation to implementation, for example by
iterating among a subset of the steps to broaden the range of
designs or scenarios considered based on preliminary results. In
the following, each step is discussed in greater detail.
[0069] Referring to FIG. 2, the method includes the following
steps:
[0070] Problem Definition.
[0071] Before starting, it is necessary to have a clear definition
of the problem to be solved; the basic designs that are to be
evaluated, including any options that each design may have; and the
kinds of scenarios for which improved adaptability and performance
are desired.
[0072] Choose Applicable Metrics.
[0073] The metric list has been made as general as possible so that
it can be applied to a wide range of different problems (from a
single device to a large SoS like a supply chain, for example).
However, because of the generality, not all metrics will apply to a
given situation. Thus, the first step is to consider each metric in
the list and determine whether it is applicable to the systems
being evaluated. The metrics were introduced above and are
discussed in greater detail in the following discussion. As
previously discussed, there are five categories of metrics:
Changeability, Composition, Organization, Robustness, and
Performance. The first three categories encompass the ideas most
usually associated with adaptability. The fourth category,
Robustness, is complementary, and includes attributes like
overdesign and durability, which can enable a system to meet some
changing circumstances without modification. The fifth category,
Performance, contains metrics that can be used to judge how
successful a system has been at adapting, such as availability, and
metrics that potentially need to be traded off against
adaptability, such as cost and sustainability. At least one metric
should be chosen from each category, since the categories represent
different aspects of adaptability.
[0074] Select Appropriate Measures.
[0075] The detailed discussion in the next section includes
possible measures for the metrics, but they are intended only as
examples. The best measure to use for a given metric depends
strongly on the particular situation, so the measures listed should
be considered a starting point. Additional measures might need to
be developed for the particular metrics depending on the
situation.
[0076] Evaluate Measures.
[0077] Apply the quantitative measures selected or developed in the
previous step to the system designs of interest for a variety of
change scenarios of interest. As an example and as discussed later
in this disclosure, software contained in a computer system and
computer program product can be used to generate scenarios and
evaluate metrics for a simplified military deployment problem.
[0078] Scenarios.
[0079] The scenarios used for the evaluation step can include many
types of changes appropriate to comparison of the systems,
including changing threats, missions, budgets, environments (e.g.,
changing weather conditions, natural disasters), etc. The
comparison could be done for a set of fixed scenarios, but
stochastic simulations with random variation of important variables
can be more appropriate. Random variations (for example, of the
timing and magnitude of changes in threat or mission) introduce
unpredictability and allow evaluation of how well a given design is
able to cope with this unpredictability. A major issue with
adaptability is how to handle unforeseen (and even unforeseeable)
situations. An approach to addressing such possibilities could be
to include some random loss or degradation of system functions in
the scenarios in addition to the "expected" losses and degradations
caused by known threats, changes in environments, etc.
[0080] Compare Designs.
[0081] The designs of interest can be compared for particular
scenarios, or for the entire set of scenarios by using suitable
statistical measures. For each design, measures of both
adaptability and performance should be compared in order to
determine, for the particular set of designs and scenarios, which
adaptability metrics are the best predictors of performance. It is
also possible to define a single overall adaptability value by
using a weighted combination of all the adaptability measures being
used (see the discussion of SoS Adaptability Index (SoSAI, below).
Knowledge gained from the design comparison could potentially be
applied to similar situations (i.e., similar designs/scenarios)
without having to rerun the entire method.
[0082] Inform the Design Selection.
[0083] The final step is to use the quantitative comparison results
to help select the "best" design(s), where "best" refers to the
design that best meets the given criteria and requirements. The
selection is informed by the insight gained from the measures of
adaptability and performance, but other sources of information can
be used as well. It is important to note that tradeoffs will likely
be necessary. As an example, the most adaptable design might not be
the lowest-cost design, so additional weightings might be needed,
to define the relative importance of adaptability, cost,
performance, etc. If two or more designs are ranked very closely,
the tie can be broken by going back and evaluating additional
scenarios or additional variations within the original
scenarios.
[0084] The metrics for use in measuring adaptability are generally
discussed above. Table 3 provides an example of categories, metrics
and measures according to an embodiment of the invention. As can be
seen, Table 3 contains a more detailed summary of the metrics, and
further discussion is presented in following subsections.
TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Summary of Adaptability Concepts, Metrics,
and Measures Metric Example Measures Category 1: Changeability
(Reconfigurability) Mobility mobile fraction of systems, average
time to relocate systems (could be calculated over all systems or
over a functional collection [FC] of systems) fraction_mobile = N
mobile _ sys N sys ##EQU00001## t relocate _ ave = j = 1 N sys t
relocate j N sys ##EQU00002## Logistics average on-time delivery
(fraction of orders successful or that fail), average order fill
time, average Capability recovery time (average downtime or idle
time per order), logistics utilization, logistics capacity
fraction_ontime _orders = N ontime _ orders N orders ##EQU00003## t
order _ ave = n = 1 N orders t order n N orders ##EQU00004## t
recovery = n = 1 N orders t down n N orders ##EQU00005##
logistics_utilization = 1 t tot i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i N
logistic _ sys _ operating i N logistic _ sys i ##EQU00006##
shipping_capacity = 1 t tot i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i j = 1 N
transports Q transport j , i ##EQU00007## Modifiability # system
changes, # changes in system type, # possible system changes,
average time to change t modify = j = 1 N sys _ replaced t replace
j N sys _ replaced ##EQU00008## Category 2: Composition (Structure)
Modularity average # system types per FC (can be restricted to
specific system types or FCs) modularity = m = 1 N FC N sys _ types
m N FC ##EQU00009## Diversity diversity measure (note that in the
equation below, the fractions are assumed to be sorted from
smallest to largest) diversity_measure = 1 N FC m = 1 N FC N sys _
types m 1 + k = 2 N sys _ types m ( frac k , m - frac k - 1 , m )
##EQU00010## Substitutability # replacement consumables or systems
(could be calculated over all systems or over an FC)--see
Redundancy for systems substitutability Storage fraction of spares,
average consumable inventory level, average consumable usage over
storage capacity, storage utilization (could be restricted to
specific consumables) fraction_spares _stored = 1 t tot i = 1 N
times .DELTA. t i N consumables _ stored i N cosumables i
##EQU00011## storage_utilization = 1 t tot i = 1 N times .DELTA. t
i N consumables _ stored i N storage _ capacity i ##EQU00012##
Integratability degree of standardization (e.g., compatibility and
common interfaces), change in resource load, change in existing
system (e.g., number of connections) Category 3: Organization
Self-Organizing decentralization/hierarchy (# levels of system
types), strategy--anticipation, Ability hedging, on-demand (# extra
systems not used or # systems idle, # systems deficient or #
systems on order, # systems used or # systems operating--input
degree of anticipation, hedging), responsiveness to an adaptive
enemy (average strength ratio) strength_ratio = 1 t tot i = 1 N
times .DELTA. t i SoS strength i AE stength i + SoS strength i
##EQU00013## Scalability overhead change (e.g., supporting
infrastructure) or efficiency change per unit, economies of scale,
tipping points, centralization/decentralization Complexity degree
(average # connections per system), # dependents, path length, #
nodes, (Connectedness) # edges average_degree = 1 t tot i = 1 N
times .DELTA. t i j = 1 N sys i N connections j , i N sys i
##EQU00014## Category 4: Robustness Redundancy fraction of
redundant systems (could be calculated over all systems or over an
FC), fraction of stand-in redundant or substitute systems,
time-averaged fraction of redundant or substitute coverage
fraction_redundant _sys = j = 1 N sys N sys _ w _ backup j N sys j
##EQU00015## average_backup _coverage = 1 t tot i = 1 N times
.DELTA. t i j = 1 N sys i min ( 1 , N subs _ sys j , i + N backup _
sys j , i ) N sys i ##EQU00016## Overdesign excess capacity (e.g.,
average number of idle systems or average fraction of (Growth
Potential) unused fuel storage), average time unchanged
average_idle _sys = 1 t tot i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i N idle _ sys
i ##EQU00017## fraction_unused _fuel _storage = 1 t tot i = 1 N
times .DELTA. t i V unused _ fuel _ storage i V tot _ fuel _
storage i ##EQU00018## average_time _unchanged = j = 1 N sys t
unchanged j / t tot N sys ##EQU00019## Reparability average mean
time to repair (MTTR) (could be calculated over all systems or over
an FC) average_MTTR = j = 1 N sys MTTR j N sys ##EQU00020##
Durability system lifetime (time, # operations, # miles), mean time
between failures (MTBF) Category 5: Performance Cost implementation
cost, O&S cost, total consumable use (e.g., fuel) $
implementation = j = 1 N sys $ implementation j ##EQU00021##
tot_fuel _usage = i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i j = 1 N sys Q j , i
##EQU00022## Availability operational availability (A.sub.O),
sustainment availability (A.sub.S), SoS availability (A.sub.SoS),
downtime, time with needed inputs not available A SoS = 1 t tot i =
1 N times .DELTA. t i max j = possible " success - path "
combinations [ min k = SP requirements ( N operating | operable k ,
j , i N required k , j , i ) ] ##EQU00023## Efficiency/ fuel usage,
consumable usage, spares usage, idle-time fraction, ratio of power
Sustainability available to power needed (excess power ratio),
power utilization excess_power _ratio = i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i j
= 1 N gen Q j , i i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i j = 1 N gen Q j , i tot
##EQU00024## Survivability ability to withstand threats (e.g.,
downtime due to combat damage), # systems (Hardness) not killed, #
fatalities, average number of systems in vulnerable locations
combat_damage _downtime _frac = j = 1 N sys t j damaged j = 1 N sys
t j tot ##EQU00025##
[0085] As reflected in FIGS. 1 and 3, there are several major
approaches to adaptability. The first to be discussed here is
changeability. An ability to change in response to changing
conditions is clearly one way of being adaptable. Reconfigurability
may be considered as one of the "evolvability design principles,"
and reconfigurability aids evolvability through enabling the system
to change easily over time by removing, substituting, and adding
new elements and functions, or simply relocating existing elements
and functions. Three types of changeability are included in this
exemplary list of metrics: mobility, logistics capability, and
modifiability.
[0086] One way to change in response to changing conditions is to
move to another place where conditions are more favorable. For
example, mobility may be discussed in the context of adapting to
environmental changes. Thus, mobility is included as an
adaptability metric.
[0087] Possible measures of mobility in an SoS are the fraction of
systems that are mobile and the average time to relocate systems.
Depending on the situation, it might be desirable to calculate the
fraction or the average over all systems in an SoS or over a
subset, such as a functional collections of systems (e.g.,
power-generation systems).
[0088] Changing or reconfiguring an SoS in response to changing
conditions might require ordering parts, fuel, or even new systems.
Thus, logistics capability (the ability to place orders and send
and receive shipments efficiently and in sufficient volume) can be
an important aspect of adaptability. There are many possible
measures of logistics capability, which can be more or less
applicable to any given situation: [0089] average on-time delivery
(fraction of orders successful and fraction of orders that fail);
[0090] order turnaround time, or the amount of time it takes to
resupply systems from the time an order placed until it is
fulfilled; [0091] order failure rate or number of order failures
(for example, when resupply is too late); [0092] average recovery
time (average downtime or idle time per order of critical
supplies); [0093] logistics utilization (for example, the fraction
of systems involved in logistics--e.g., delivery trucks--that are
operating at any given time); [0094] shipping capacity.
[0095] Modifiability refers to how easy it is to change individual
systems or to change to different systems in an SoS. It is
difficult to quantify the ease of change, so exemplary measures for
this aspect of adaptability have to do with how many times changes
are made, or how often, or how long it takes to make a change:
[0096] number of changes to systems in an SoS; [0097] number of
changes in system types; [0098] average time it takes to replace a
system; [0099] number of possible system changes.
[0100] Various aspects of the composition or structure of a system
or SoS can affect its adaptability. Aspects included in our list of
metrics are modularity, diversity, substitutability, storage, and
integratability.
[0101] Modifiability refers to how easy it is to change individual
systems or to change to different systems in an SoS. It is
difficult to quantify the ease of change, so exemplary measures for
this aspect of adaptability have to do with how many times changes
are made, or how often, or how long it takes to make a change:
[0102] number of changes to systems in an SoS; [0103] number of
changes in system types; [0104] average time it takes to replace a
system; [0105] number of possible system changes.
[0106] Various aspects of the composition or structure of a system
or SoS can affect its adaptability. Aspects included in our list of
metrics are modularity, diversity, substitutability, storage, and
integratability.
[0107] Modularity makes it easier to change configurations or make
substitutions if needed, so it is expected that a modular SoS would
be more adaptable. Modularity can be considered an "evolvability
design principles." A possible way to measure modularity is to
consider how many different types of systems compose an SoS. A
modular SoS would have fewer different types because of the
standardization implied by modularity. Thus, one measure of
modularity is simply the number of different system types in an
SoS. An elaboration of this simple measure would be to break the
SoS into different functional collections and determine the average
number of system types per functional collection (FC). A functional
collection is a set of systems that all have the same basic
function. An example would be power-generation systems, which could
include diesel generators, solar panels, etc. If all of the
power-generation systems were the same (perhaps a particular type
of diesel generator), that would be indicative of a modular SoS. If
there were many different types, that would be a non-modular
SoS.
[0108] Diversity is almost the opposite of modularity. Under some
conditions, having a variety of different system types is
preferable to having only a single type. This is the basis of
biological evolution: Organisms have a range of characteristics. If
conditions change, different characteristics might be preferred
than were preferred under the old conditions, so different
organisms might become successful. The same concept can apply to
SoS under changing, uncertain conditions.
[0109] According to an embodiment, the following formula can be
used to measure diversity:
diversity_measure = 1 N FC m = 1 N FC N sys _ types m 1 + k = 2 N
sys _ types m ( frac k , m - frac k - 1 , m ) . ##EQU00026##
[0110] In this formula, the basic measure of diversity for a
functional collection of systems is
N sys _ types 1 + k = 2 N sys _ types ( frac k - frac k - 1 ) ,
##EQU00027##
[0111] so the overall diversity measure is simply the average
diversity over all FCs.
[0112] Here, N.sub.FC is the number of functional collections of
interest in the SoS, N.sub.Sys.sub.--.sub.types is the total number
of system types in the functional collection, and frac.sub.k is the
fraction of the overall functional-collection function that is
performed by system type k. The basic measure gives a greater
values, and thus rewards, (1) SoS with greater numbers of different
systems in a functional collection, and (2) SoS which more equally
divide the performance of their functions among different
systems.
[0113] The rationale of the basic measure for an FC is that maximum
diversity is obtained when there are equal contributions of the
system types and there is minimum diversity when one type is
dominant. To apply the formula, it is necessary that the fractional
contributions of different system types be sorted from smallest to
largest so that the terms (frac.sub.k-frac.sub.k-1) are all
nonnegative.
[0114] FIG. 3 shows an example of SoS diversity measure. As can be
seen in FIG. 3, if the systems are equally divided, the diversity
measure just reduces to the number of system types (2 and 4 for the
top two examples). If one system type is dominant, the diversity
measure is smaller than the number of system types, being ever
smaller the more the FC is dominated by one system type (1.33 for
the middle example on the left vs. 1.05 for the bottom example on
the left). To complete the example, we can suppose that the overall
SoS is composed of the four FCs in FIG. 3, then the overall
diversity measure is the average of the FC diversities:
d.sub.SoS=average(2, 1.33, 1.05, 4, 2.17)=2.11. Note, by the way,
that the fractions should not be determined by the number of
systems in each group, but by the contribution to the
functionality. Thus, 200 kW of power generation composed of four
10-kW diesel generators, two 30-kW wind turbines, and one 100-kW
solar array would have fractions of 0.2, 0.3, and 0.5, which would
lead to a diversity measure of 2.31.
[0115] Substitutability is an aspect of adaptability that is
closely related to modularity and diversity. The whole point of
modularity is that the modules are easily substituted if need be.
And diversity is useful to the extent that the diverse system types
can be substituted for each other. Thus, it is probably not
appropriate to use all three of these metrics for a given problem;
one or the other of them might be the best choice depending on the
situation. If all of them were used, they would be expected to be
highly correlated. Substitutability is included because it is
important to adaptability and resilience. Substitutability is a
feature that enhances the adaptive capacity that contributes to
system resilience.
[0116] A possible measure related to substitutability is quantity
of replacement parts, consumables, or systems kept on hand.
Substitutability is related to redundancy, which is discussed below
under Robustness.
[0117] Storage is related to the concepts of modularity and
substitutability, in that storage of extra parts, consumables, or
systems enhances the ability to substitute them when needed.
Possible measures of storage include the fraction of spare parts or
consumables stored (that is, the ratio of the quantity stored to
the quantity in service), the average inventory of spare parts or
consumables, the ratio of the usage rate of spare parts or
consumables to the storage capacity for them, and the storage
utilization (ratio of the quantity of spare parts or consumables
stored to the storage capacity for them). The tool, dSoS, that
includes dSoS software may include calculation of one measure
related to storage, that being the average amount of fuel present
at the command outpost (COP).
[0118] Integratability (integrability) is also related to the
concepts of modularity and substitutability. It refers to the
ability to integrate the parts of a system or SoS into the whole.
Integrability may be referred to as one of the evolvability design
principles that may be characterized by compatibility and common
interfaces. This goes hand-in-hand with modularity; modules are
only as good as the interfaces through which they interact.
Possible measures of integratability include the degree of
standardization (e.g., compatibility and common interfaces), and
the amount of change needed to a system (e.g., to the number of
system connections) and to resources to switch from one type of
system to another or to add or subtract systems.
[0119] The organization of an SoS obviously affects its ability to
adapt to changing conditions (for example, a hierarchical
organization might be expected to be more rigid and inadaptable
than a decentralized organization). Aspects of organization
included in our list of metrics are self-organizing ability,
scalability, and complexity (connectedness).
[0120] Adaptive capacity may be considered as one of the intrinsic
characteristics that contribute to system resilience, and it is
possible to equate adaptive capacity to the degree to which the
system is capable of self-organization for recovery of system
performance levels. Self-organizing ability may be considered as a
set of properties that reflect actions that result from ingenuity
or extra effort over time, often in response to a crisis situation.
Some possible measures related to self-organizing ability are as
follows. [0121] A measure of the degree of hierarchy or
decentralization is the number of levels in the hierarchy of
systems in the SoS. Only one or two levels would indicate a rather
decentralized organization, whereas many levels would indicate a
hierarchical organization. [0122] The strategies that an SoS uses
to respond to needs are a reflection of the ability to
self-organize. For example, strategies for ordering spare parts or
consumables include anticipation (extrapolating current rates and
ordering early so they are available when needed), on-demand (only
ordering when needed), and hedging (somewhere in-between--"hedging
your bets" to try to avoid having too much or too little
inventory). Measurable quantities that can provide an indication of
the degree to which these strategies are being used include the
number of extra or idle systems, the number of systems deficient or
on order, and the number of systems in use or operating. If known,
the degree of anticipation or hedging in ordering can be used
directly. [0123] In a military simulation, a possible measure of
the success in anticipating and responding to enemy attacks is the
average strength ratio (the ratio of the SoS strength to enemy
strength or to the combined SoS plus enemy strength, averaged over
time or over attacks).
[0124] Scalability refers to how things scale as an SoS gets
larger. Does the efficiency per unit increase or decrease? Are
there economies of scale? Are there tipping points, where
efficiency, cost, etc. increase or decrease drastically?
Scalability is another of the "evolvability design principles."
Note that scalability is related to
centralization/decentralization, and decentralization is another of
the "evolvability design principles." Possible measures of
scalability include overhead change (e.g., supporting
infrastructure needed) or efficiency change per unit as the number
of units increases.
[0125] Complexity is an aspect of adaptability, though it can be an
advantage or a disadvantage under different circumstances. In
network terms, complexity refers to how interconnected the systems
(network nodes) are. A highly interconnected system could be very
adaptable if the connections represent something like communication
paths (e.g., if a communication link is cut off, the communications
are easily routed by other paths) but very inadaptable if the
connections represent something like requirements (if every system
depends on every other system, then failure of one system would
cause all of the others to fail as well). Some basic measures from
network theory are number of nodes, number of edges (connections),
degree (number of connections per node), number of dependents
(in-degree or out-degree for directed connections), and path length
(shortest path between two nodes). The tool, dSoS, that includes
the dSoS software may include calculation of one measure related to
complexity: the average number of edges (connections) in the
fuel-delivery network.
[0126] Robustness represents a different approach to adaptation.
Rather than flexibility to change if needed, a robust SoS can meet
many challenges without needing to change. Vugrin et al. (2010)
discuss system robustness as being a feature that enhances the
absorptive capacity that contributes to system resilience. Aspects
of robustness included in our list of metrics are redundancy,
overdesign (growth potential), repairability, and durability.
[0127] System redundancy may be considered as being a feature that
enhances the absorptive capacity that contributes to system
resilience, but we consider redundancy to be simply one form of
robustness. If a system or SoS has a lot of redundancy, then it is
able to continue functioning if some of the redundant systems are
incapacitated under adverse conditions. Possible measures of
redundancy include the fraction of systems that are redundant or
that have backups or possible substitutes. Variants would be to
calculate based on initial conditions, instantaneous conditions, or
average over time.
[0128] Overdesign, or overbuild, refers to designing in extra
capacity to allow for future growth. This is obviously related to
redundancy, as the additional capacity is redundant, at least
initially. Possible measures of overdesign include the amount of
excess capacity (e.g., the average number of idle systems or the
average fraction of unused fuel storage), and the average time that
the overall SoS or a subsystem or FC goes without changes. The tool
that includes the dSoS software may include calculation of one
measure related to overdesign: the average number of idle systems
at the COP.
[0129] One of the intrinsic characteristics that contribute to
system resilience is restorative capacity, which is defined as "the
ability of a system to be repaired easily," which may be referred
to as repairability. A possible measure of repairability is the
mean time to repair (MTTR), which is the amount of time it takes to
repair a system when repairs are needed. As an adaptability
measure, the MTTR could be averaged over all systems in an SoS, or
possibly only over a particular FC.
[0130] Durability is clearly an aspect of robustness. If a system
is durable, it will need fewer repairs, have less downtime, and be
more likely to be available when needed. Possible measures of
durability include system lifetime (in terms of time, distance,
number of operations, etc.), mean time between failures (MTBF), and
mean downtime.
[0131] For a system with n contributing components, MTBF can be
calculated as follows:
MTBF = 1 i = 1 n FR i , ##EQU00028##
where FR.sub.i is the failure rate of component i.
[0132] The mean downtime of the system is given by
Mean Downtime = i = 1 n ( FR i * DT i ) n = 1 n FR i ,
##EQU00029##
where DT.sub.i is the downtime of component i.
[0133] The mean downtime is therefore the sum of the individual
component downtimes weighted by their failure rates and multiplied
by the MTBF.
[0134] FIG. 4 shows a diagram of a method to determine which
strategies for operating an SoS would be best for changing
missions, threats, and environments according to an exemplary
embodiment of the present disclosure. The steps may vary based on
application-specific requirements. Details could vary from
implementation to implementation, for example by iterating among a
subset of the steps to broaden the range of strategies or scenarios
considered based on preliminary results. In the following, each
step is discussed in greater detail.
[0135] Referring to FIG. 4, the method includes the following
steps:
[0136] Problem Definition.
[0137] Before starting, it is necessary to have a clear definition
of the problem to be solved; the basic strategies that are to be
evaluated, including any options that each strategy may have; and
the kinds of scenarios for which improved adaptability and
performance are desired.
[0138] Choose Metrics.
[0139] Metrics should be chosen from the Performance category
including cost, availability, efficiency, sustainability, and
survivability. Metrics from the other adaptability categories can
be chosen (if applicable) to give a complete picture of the effects
of different strategies. Due to the generality of the Performance
metrics list, not all metrics will apply to a given situation.
Thus, the first step is to consider each metric in the list and
determine whether it is applicable to the systems being
evaluated.
[0140] Select Measures.
[0141] The detailed discussion above includes possible measures for
the metrics, but they are intended only as examples. The best
measure to use for a given metric depends strongly on the
particular situation, so the measures listed should be considered a
starting point. Additional measures might need to be developed for
the particular metrics depending on the situation.
[0142] Evaluate Measures.
[0143] Apply the quantitative measures selected or developed in the
previous step to the system designs of interest for a variety of
change scenarios of interest. As an example and as discussed later
in this disclosure, software contained in a computer system and
computer program product can be used to generate scenarios and
evaluate metrics for a simplified military deployment problem.
[0144] Scenarios.
[0145] The scenarios used for the evaluation step can include many
types of changes appropriate to comparison of the systems,
including changing threats, missions, budgets, environments (e.g.,
changing weather conditions, natural disasters), etc. The
comparison could be done for a set of fixed scenarios, but
stochastic simulations with random variation of important variables
can be more appropriate. Random variations (for example, of the
timing and magnitude of changes in threat or mission) introduce
unpredictability and allow evaluation of how well a given design is
able to cope with this unpredictability. A major issue with
determining acceptable strategies is how to handle unforeseen (and
even unforeseeable) situations. An approach to addressing such
possibilities could be to include some random loss or degradation
of system functions in the scenarios in addition to the "expected"
losses and degradations caused by known threats, changes in
environments, etc.
[0146] Select Strategies.
[0147] Strategies that can impact the way systems deal with
uncertain future conditions include, but are not limited to, the
following: [0148] centralize or decentralize the decision-making
for changes in system configuration; e.g., for decentralization,
allowing a subsystem to decide whether to increase or decrease in
number independently of the rest of the system; [0149] on-demand
meeting of functional needs; e.g., only order fuel based on current
need; [0150] anticipation of future functional needs; e.g., order
more fuel in anticipation of increased demand; [0151] hedging of
future functional needs; e.g., order half of the fuel anticipated
of increased demand; [0152] outsourcing of functional needs; e.g.,
use contractor resupply for certain consumables; [0153] increasing
adaptability by taking steps that increase one or more other
adaptability metrics; e.g., because of poor reliability increase
redundancy or logistics capability.
[0154] Changes in conditions that could affect the system during
the simulation include, but are not limited to, the following:
[0155] threat environment: targets, frequency of attack, method of
attack, etc.; [0156] mission environment: offensive, defensive,
peacekeeping, humanitarian, etc.; [0157] natural environment:
weather (cold, heat, sandstorms, etc.), terrain, etc.; [0158]
natural disasters: flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, tsunami,
volcanic eruption; [0159] external economic pressures; e.g.,
disruption of supply chain; [0160] budgetary pressures for
maintaining or updating the system; [0161] reduced number of
operating or operable parts/systems of a given type because of
reliability issues, overuse of consumables (e.g., fuel), combat
damage, or other events; e.g., desert operations decrease vehicle
reliability.
[0162] The strategies are tied to quantitative actions that can
effect a measurable change in system configuration and system
behavior. The actions include, but are not limited to, the
following: [0163] increase or decrease the number of subsystems (or
systems within an SoS); e.g., increase the stockpile of spares by
10%; [0164] increase or decrease the consumables stored; e.g.,
decrease fuel storage at downstream facilities by 50,000 gallons;
[0165] replace system components (or systems within an SoS); e.g.,
replace 100 tanks with 50 heavy guns; [0166] add or subtract
interconnections with other subsystems (or systems within an SoS);
e.g., reconnect all fuel-transport connections to a new
supplier.
[0167] The strategies are made usable by corresponding strategic
change rules. Each strategy of interest is accorded one or more
rules. Conceptually, rules are defined as a couplet consisting of
one or more conditions and one or more actions. For example, if the
existing threat changes to attacking convoys (the condition), then
switch fuel transport to helicopter delivery (the action). Rules
are specified initially and can either remain constant throughout a
simulation or can change the behavior of the system as the
simulation progresses or as conditions change.
[0168] Compare Strategies.
[0169] The strategies of interest can be compared for particular
scenarios, or for the entire set of scenarios by using suitable
statistical measures. Some strategies will typically be better for
some scenarios, and other strategies will be better for other
scenarios. Also, good strategies in some scenarios will sometimes
conflict with good strategies in others. Thus, all strategy choices
should be evaluated together to determine the best courses of
action. Knowledge gained from the strategy comparison could
potentially be applied to similar situations (i.e., similar
strategies and scenarios) without having to rerun the entire
method.
[0170] Inform Strategy Tradeoffs.
[0171] The final step is to use the quantitative comparison results
to help select the "best" strategies, where "best" refers to the
strategies that best meet the given criteria and requirements. The
selection is informed by the insight gained from the performance,
but other sources of information can be used as well. It is
important to note that tradeoffs will likely be necessary. As an
example, the most effective strategy might not be the lowest-cost
design, so additional weightings might be needed, to define the
relative importance of cost and performance.
[0172] As a simple example of the strategy-based simulation method
applied to a complex system, consider the following. An Army combat
outpost (COP), which consists of multiple power generators, fuel
tanks, fuel delivery trucks, and accompanying patrol bases (PBs),
is modeled. Of interest is a strategy (with a corresponding set of
rules) that can be effective given possible changes in missions and
threat environments. During the simulation, missions and threats
are changed at random times and multiple realizations are simulated
to incorporate uncertainty. The mission is to supply a number of
PBs; a change in the number of PBs is considered to be a change in
mission. The threats are combat damage to COP systems; a change in
the target is considered to be a change in the threat. Four example
simulations could be conducted: (1) a base case initialized to a
run without threats, where all PBs are functional. (2) a global
on-demand-strategy case where the rule is that whenever a system is
inoperable (e.g., because of combat damage or reliability issues),
a replacement is ordered from a forward operating base; (3) a
global anticipation-strategy case where the rule is that two
replacements are ordered for an inoperable system, under the
assumption that such systems are likely to become inoperable more
often; (4) a decentralization-strategy case where COP systems that
are better protected from combat damage (the generators and fuel
tanks) operate by on-demand rules and the other COP systems operate
by an anticipation rule. In this simple example, the rules are set
to be constant during the simulations to allow system performance
evaluation given the various strategies. Dynamically chosen rules
could be used to investigate other aspects of the problem, such as
whether it is beneficial to change strategy based on the situation.
During the simulations, the mission availability of the COP is
monitored; here, mission availability is defined as the
time-weighted percent of PBs that are functional. The four
simulations are then conducted and the results compared. By
comparison with the basecase, it is possible to determine the
operational strategy (among those evaluated) that best supports the
mission of the COP. The cost of each strategy could also be
determined based on the number and cost of systems in the
simulation. The overall cost could then be compared and, because
cost could be inversely related to the availability, it could be
traded off with the availability results. In this way, the
performance of the COP under different strategies, especially with
regard to its adaptability to different threats, can be
evaluated--a capability that has been heretofore nonexistent.
[0173] In an embodiment and as further discussed below in
application to an example, this tool can be used to calculate two
measures related to logistics capability: the time required to
resupply patrol bases from the time the order is placed until it is
fulfilled and the fraction of failed orders. As discussed
previously, performance and health metrics provide a basis for
comparison of adaptability. For example, if two competing designs
are put through the same set of stressing scenarios, the one with
the better performance is presumable more adaptable. As with the
adaptability metrics, the applicability of the performance metrics
will vary depending on the system or SoS under study. It is also
important to note that differences are expected among the
performance metrics. It is likely that the SoS with better
availability or survivability will have higher cost; therefore,
tradeoffs will be necessary. The aspects of performance discussed
here, out of cost, availability, efficiency, sustainability, and
survivability, are cost and availability.
[0174] Cost is obviously an important consideration, and one that
often goes against other performance measures. The usual cost
categories are implementation cost, which is the up-front cost, and
operation & support (O&S) cost, which is spread out over
time and is usually expressed as a time rate. Total cost is the sum
of both, and depends on the expected or actual time period
involved.
[0175] Aside from actual cost, other quantities can be used as
stand-ins or surrogates for cost. For example, total fuel usage
could be a measure of cost (one part of O&S cost). Total number
of systems could be used as a measure of cost (assuming no large
discrepancies in the cost per system). The tool, dSoS, that
includes the dSoS software includes calculation of one measure
related to cost: the total amount of fuel used (see below).
[0176] Generally speaking, availability is the fraction of time
that a system or SoS is available to perform its function. Several
specific measures of availability are used, with differences in
exactly what it means to be available. Two common measures for
military SoS are operational availability (A.sub.O) and sustainment
availability (A.sub.S). Mission availability can also be defined as
the amount of time that systems are actually available to perform a
mission divided by the amount of time they were supposed to be
available, and energy availability as the amount of time that
energy is actually available versus total mission time. Simpler
measures related to availability include downtime and time with
needed inputs not available (e.g., number of hours with no fuel);
these are in a sense opposites of availability (larger downtime
implies smaller availability).
[0177] The present disclosure also includes a new availability
measure called SoS availability (A.sub.SoS), which takes into
account the possibility of stand-in redundancy, meaning the
possibility of systems with similar functions being able to
substitute for each other. The definition of A.sub.SoS starts with
a set of functions and a set of "success paths" for each function.
A success path is list of system types and their count such that if
they are operating there is a full level of success for the
function. An example helps to explain the concepts.
[0178] Consider two functions: targeting and lethality, both of
which can use UAVs. Targeting can be done with any combination of
two UAVs (U) or satellites (S). Specifically there are 3 success
paths for targeting: [0179] 1. 2U [0180] 2. 1U+1S [0181] 3. 2S
[0182] Lethality can be accomplished with any combination of three
Apache helicopters (A) or UAVs. Specifically there are 4 success
paths for lethality: [0183] 1. 3A [0184] 2. 1U+2A [0185] 3. 2U+1A
[0186] 4. 3U
[0187] The combined success paths are ordered pairs of the success
paths: (1, 1), (1, 2), . . . , (3, 4). Here (1, 1) means the
combination of 2U for targeting and 3A for lethality. Stand-in
redundancy comes in for a combination like (1, 3), which is a
combination of 2U for targeting and 2U+1A for lethality. If we
assume that the 2U can be used for both targeting and lethality,
then (1, 3) collapses to 2U+1A. If the 2U cannot be used for both
targeting and lethality, then success path (1, 3) would instead
require 4U+1A. Such choices would have to be specified as part of
the problem.
[0188] With this background, then, A.sub.SoS is defined as
follows:
A SoS = 1 t tot i = 1 N times .DELTA. t i max j = possible ``
success - path '' combinations [ min k = SP requirements ( N
operating | operable k , j , i N required k , j , i ) ] ,
##EQU00030##
which is just the time average of the instantaneous SoS
availability:
max j = possible `` success - path '' combinations [ min k = SP
requirements ( N operating | operable k , j N required k , j ) ] .
##EQU00031##
[0189] The outer "loop" is the maximum overall success-path
combinations (the ordered pairs in the example above). The inner
"loop" is the minimum of the numbers available for each system type
divided by the number of that system type required for the
success-path combination.
[0190] To continue the example, suppose that 2U, OS, and 1A are
available. If the U's are able to cover both functions (targeting
and lethality), then we know from the example above that 2U+1A are
sufficient for combined success path (1,3). If the U's are not able
to cover both functions, then the availability calculation would be
as shown in 4.
TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Example of A.sub.SoS Calculation
Success-path combination Availability (outer loop) (inner loop) (1,
1) Required: 2U + 3A Avail. = min(2/2, --, 1/3) = 1/3 (1, 2)
Required: 3U + 2A Avail. = min(2/3, --, 1/2) = 1/2 (1, 3) Required:
4U + 1A Avail. = min(2/4, --, 1/1) = 1/2 (1, 4) Required: 5U Avail.
= min(2/5, --, --) = 2/5 (2, 1) Required: 1U + 1S + 3A Avail. =
min(2/1, 0/1, 1/3) = 0 (2, 2) Required: 2U + 1S + 2A Avail. =
min(2/2, 0/1, 1/2) = 0 (2, 3) Required: 3U + 1S + 1A Avail. =
min(2/3, 0/1, 1/1) = 0 (2, 4) Required: 4U + 1S Avail. = min(2/4,
0/1, --) = 0 (3, 1) Required: 2S + 3A Avail. = min(--, 0/2, 1/3) =
0 (3, 2) Required: 1U + 2S + 2A Avail. = min(2/1, 0/2, 1/2) = 0 (3,
3) Required: 2U + 2S + 1A Avail. = min(2/2, 0/2, 1/1) = 0 (3, 4)
Required: 3U + 2S Avail. = min(2/3, 0/2, --) = 0 A.sub.SoS =
max(1/3, 1/2, 1/2, 2/5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) = 1/2
[0191] The idea in choosing the maximum of the possible
availabilities is that the systems are assumed to be deployed in
such a way as to maximize the functionality: (1, 2) or (1, 3) in
this example. The tool that includes the dSoS software includes
calculation of three measures related to availability: the fielded
PB availability, the number of hours with no fuel, and the SoS
availability (see discussion of dSoS below).
[0192] Another performance metric of interest is efficiency, which
is related to sustainability. Efficiency is the degree to which
something is done well or without wasted energy. Possible measures
related to efficiency include the amount of fuel or other
consumable usage (low for efficiency), idle-time fraction (low for
efficiency), the amount of excess power-generation capability (low
for efficiency), ratio of power available to power needed (low for
efficiency, but not lower than 1), and power utilization (high for
efficiency). The tool, dSoS, that includes the dSoS software
includes calculation of two measures related to efficiency: the
average number of idle systems and the average excess-power ratio
(see below).
[0193] If a system or SoS is "hard," or has high survivability,
that means that is has the ability to withstand threats with low
downtime. Possible measures of survivability include the number of
systems not killed and the number of fatalities (low for good
survivability). If some locations are more dangerous than others
(e.g., higher rate of combat damage), then the average number of
systems in these vulnerable locations could be used as a measure of
survivability (a system design that is able to limit such exposure
would be better). The tool, dSoS, that includes the dSoS software
includes calculation of one measure related to survivability: the
average number of systems in transit (see dSoS discussion
below).
[0194] The SoS Adaptability Index provides a method to combine
individual adaptability metrics into an overall adaptability
measure, and is useful to compare adaptability of different SoS
designs. Different designs can address different facets of
adaptability; with SoSAI, the different facets can be considered as
a cohesive group in an unbiased manner. SoSAI combines only the
adaptability metrics relevant to the problem being explored rather
than the complete metric set.
[0195] To calculate the SoSAI, a standardized weighted average is
applied:
SoSAI = i = 1 n w i X i - .mu. i .sigma. i ##EQU00032##
[0196] where i is the index for the metrics being calculated for a
given trial (i.e., a simulation run corresponding to a mission or
scenario), n is the number of metrics being calculated, X.sub.i is
the value of a metric, .mu..sub.i and .sigma..sub.i are the
arithmetic mean and standard deviation of the metric distribution
across all trials, and w.sub.i is the weight for that metric.
Typically, n would be a minimum of four, one metric from each of
the adaptability categories, as is true in our case. Thus, the
SoSAI for each trial or simulation run is the sum of the
standardized, relevant individual metrics.
[0197] As a starting point, all metrics are weighted as .+-.1,
depending on whether the metric is one that is desirable to
maximize (+1) (e.g., storage utilization, availability) or minimize
(-1) (e.g., hours without fuel, failed fuel orders, number of idle
systems). The default is plus one (+1) for the metrics that are
neither maximized nor minimized (e.g., fuel level, ordered
replacement systems).
[0198] According to another embodiment of the invention, methods,
systems and computer program products are disclosed that evaluate
the suitability or usefulness of adaptability metrics in the
context of an SoS operating under changing environments. Any of the
methods, systems and computer program products may be referred to
as a tool in the context of this disclosure. The method, system and
computer program product, which may be referred to as a "tool." may
be referred to as dynamic System of System (dSoS) methods, systems
and computer program products, and will be discussed hereafter by
referring to dSoS. The purpose of the dSoS is to provide a
quantitative analytical method system and tool to answer specific
questions concerning the efficiency, effectiveness, and
adaptability of dynamic Systems of Systems (dSoS). In an
embodiment, dSoS may be used to answer specific questions
concerning the efficiency, effectiveness, and adaptability of
dynamic Systems of Systems (dSoS) that are important to SoS design
and operation, such as, but not limited to national security, power
grids, space systems, distribution systems, industrial production,
organizational operation and structure, such as, but not limited to
military deployment.
[0199] Current practice in designing dSoS is to use teams of
specialists guided by manuals and databases--but without a holistic
assessment of the design or its evolution. In some respects, dSoS
resembles complex adaptive systems (CAS), and research in CAS is of
academic interest (e.g., community building and social network
development using artificial-life techniques and of interest to
business (e.g., supply chain management. The disclosed tool, dSoS:
(1) concentrates on generally applicable dynamic SoS analytics and
the adaptability metrics to evaluate them; (2) incorporates
automatic adaptation in multiple executions, with assessment of
adaptation metrics in post-processing; (3) develops the capability
to provide quantitative answers to questions of efficiency,
effectiveness, and adaptation for a dSoS.
[0200] Table 5 shows high level requirements for a general purpose
exemplary dSoS toolset. The dSoS requirements may be expanded,
modified or a subset of the requirements listed in Table 5.
TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 High level requirements for a general
purpose dSoS. Post Office & Military REQ Mission dSoS shall
provide a means to define Deliver mail mission performance and end
conditions, Deploy and sustain patrol bases including: mission
success, mission failure, and mission duration. Examples of end
conditions include blue team availability of key systems <75%
and adversary availability <75%. dSoS shall provide a means of
describing blue and red team activities (e.g. scenarios), and allow
probabilistic definitions of parameters (e.g. time, size of
convoys, adversary attack points, etc.) that control the
activities. dSoS shall provide a means of describing the activities
of an aggregated pool of systems and allow probabilistic
definitions of parameters that control the activities. For example,
the op tempo of an aggregation could be different for different
locations. Jack's issue: How do we have the analyst set up the
triggers/thresholds for adding/closing patrol bases (branch
offices) and COPs and FOBs. Model Structure dSoS shall allow
definition of logical Logical locations (versus physical)
locations. Locations can be initially empty. Buildings, facilities,
homes - hierarchical dSoS shall allow definition of system types.
Network/topology structure is important (not dSoS shall allow
system type properties, physical location) and is changeable such
as capacity and throughput. System (continuous and by trigger
activation) types can suffer reliability failures. Physical
distance can be represented by delay dSoS shall allow specification
of the time between deliveries or communications number of initial
system instantiations Nodes w/properties attributes within each
system type and the location of Capacity, throughput (changeable)
each system. (inbound/outbound maximum rate of flow) dSoS shall be
able to add and subtract one Ability to add new nodes based on
trigger or more systems during execution based on Edges
w/properties, distances & connections conditions and trigger
activation, including Node and edge Attributes settable and change
meeting a demand, combat damage, in response to trigger
environmental damage, strategic goals, and Nodes can be
created/destroyed changing mission. Mobility of Nodes dSoS shall
allow aggregation of one or Edges become available or not (comms)
more systems into a pool, whereby Communications systems can be
managed as a group as Lack of communication could result in:
opposed to individually. delays Systems within the pool shall
inherit the impacts combat damage level gross behaviors of the pool
(e.g., decreased situational awareness movement, power usage, op
tempo). and therefore delay in response to System properties shall
be changeable adaptive enemy during execution (e.g. rate of flow)
based Transportation of information on conditions and trigger
activation. Time scale is seconds to hours dSoS shall allow
definition of connection types (for definition of potential
movement or communication between locations). Connection types
shall be specified by starting and ending location, the system type
or consumables that will use the connection, and the travel time
and/or other delay times (for deliveries, communications, order
delay times, etc.) for systems over this type of connection. (Note:
Information - communications - can be considered a consumable or
system type or other.) Other properties of the connection type
shall be possible, such as distance, directionality, and capacity.
dSoS shall be able to add and subtract connections during execution
based on conditions and trigger activation. dSoS shall allow
counting the number of trips over a connection or the number of
connections, depending on how connections are implemented. (Note:
connections can be implemented in at least two different ways: 1)
semi- permanent connections that are active or not, 2) only exist
when active.) dSoS shall allow selection of functions for each
system type. The functions shall include (at least) mobility,
storage, C3, protection, transport, power generation, and
lethality. The user shall be able to specify properties for each
function, such as consumable usage rate and capability of a
function (e.g., capacity, throughput) that is assigned to a system
type. These properties can include a threshold value associated
with a trigger. In order to group and display results, dSoS shall
allow hierarchical organization of locations and possibly systems
types and aggregated pools. Transport Entities - See above: system
types, system instances, Trucks, airplanes, humans, etc and see
above connections Model each individual or are they aggregated dSoS
shall provide the ability to (e.g. to a fleet)? - aggregating an
option probabilistically model failures, repairs, and Could be an
object that has state (e.g. hours different SoS, system functions,
and since purchased, last repaired), would travel connections (e.g.
operating, operable, etc.). along edges, associated with nodes At a
minimum, dSoS systems and Different size/type vehicles and
quantities connections shall have operable, operating, Reliability
and inoperable states. Need to be able to model individual vehicles
dSoS shall provide the ability to model a Need protection force
(note: 1 protection means to counter or diminish the effects or
vehicle for every 3 cargo vehicles) frequencies of adversary
attacks or influences (e.g. FedEx influencing US Post office
customers to switch). Consumables dSoS shall allow definition of
consumables. User/target Entities - mailboxes, homes Pre-defined
consumables shall include Capacity, quantity fuel, water, and
ammunition. The user Customer "consumes" certain amount of shall be
able to define one or more mail/packages per day - demand
consumables and indicate what functions Receiving locations (e.g.
COP, PB) use that consumable and at what rate Fuel storage tanks -
capacity, quantity based on system state (demand). Applies to
consumables: spares, replacement dSoS shall allow definition of
consumable systems, fuel, etc. amount (quantity) for system
instances and consumable storage capacity for system types. dSoS
shall provide ability to order consumables and systems based on
conditions and trigger activation. dSoS shall provide ability to
supply consumables and systems based on conditions, triggers (e.g.
orders), or user specification. dSoS shall allow definition of
supply capacity (weight, volume, supply rates). Transport
Capability dSoS shall provide the ability to transport Ability to
assemble "convoy"/delivery based consumables and systems. dSoS
shall allow on demand (one entity with a # vehicles it definition
of transport capacity (count, contains) (Assemble individual
entities) weight, and volume) or transport rates. Demand: weight
and volume dSoS shall provide ability to model orders, Capacity:
weight and volume including order fulfillment, backlog Travel time
(storage), and queuing. Backlog (number of mail items that have
Note: "convoy" is covered under the "pool" accumulated - maybe part
of facility?) concept. Travel time and delays under Delays due to
traffic, accidents, etc. captured connections and delay times and
delivery in "time to travel" or rate of delivery rate above Income
dSoS shall provide a means to associate an Cost to mail packages
(variable) income amount (which can change over Users bring items
to local facility for delivery time) with systems instances or
consumables (e.g. mail). Expenses dSoS shall provide a means to
associate an facilities, cost to transport, employees expense
amount (can change over time) Regulations with systems instances
(e.g. facilities, Administrative overhead convoys) or consumables
(e.g. fuel). Expenses Note: Regulations and overhead could be
Soldiers (versus employees) modeled by their impact on expenses.
Adaptive Threat (competition, congress) dSoS shall provide for one
or more Targeted at customer nodes adaptive enemies (AE). Affects
demand and income An AE consists of a finite level of resources
Natural disaster - random loss of function that can be used in
attacks. A property of Threat is enemy forces an attack is the
allocation of resources by Adaptive enemy (red team) an AE. An
attack can target one or more Blue team responds to attacks
(actually whatever is on the connection). Properties of an adaptive
enemy Note: might want to assign target AE is a finite force
priorities for systems in a location, pool, AE behavior reinforced
by success, connection (might have multiple lists; diminished by
failure might be properties of the AEs). ditto for strength dSoS
shall provide for a probability of AE has a corresponding adaptive
blue damage to a target given an attack. protective force (PF) of
finite force Damage will be a reduction in functionality AE can
attack blue locations, systems, and or metric value (e.g., income)
up to and connections including complete loss. an attack inflicts
combat damage dSoS shall determine the probability of combat damage
success is governed by a damage as a function of the AE and blue-
probability team resources allocated. Resources can blue PF can
reduce combat damage be modeled as explicit systems or more
simplified as units of force or resources. dSoS shall provide for a
means to increase or diminish AE resources in an attack
commensurate with the size and success of the attack. Blue team
resources can be ordered using triggers and thresholds (similar to
replacing other systems). dSoS shall provide for global threshold
levels of AE and blue-team resources and triggers that stop
execution once one of the thresholds is crossed (see Mission
Requirements). dSoS shall provide for assigning a time- dependent
probability or frequency of attack to a location, a pool, and a
connection type. dSoS shall provide for increasing (decreasing) the
probability or frequency of attack on similar types of targets
based on the success (failure) of previous attacks. Business Rules
Note: Business rules would be Ability to define business rules
implemented through thresholds and Rules changeable triggers and
corresponding actions. Strategies of how to deal with adaptive dSoS
shall allow trigger thresholds and the threats actions they trigger
to be applied hierarchically or at the individual system or
connection (centralization vs. decentralization). Triggers dSoS
shall allow user-definable metric Ability to define metric
thresholds thresholds that can trigger a user-definable "Action"
defined based on trigger activation action or behavior. (including
attribute value modification and Trigger thresholds and actions
shall be network structure modification) changeable over time. One
possible action could be to change the threshold. Trigger
thresholds and actions can be associated with any type or instance
of systems, pools, connections, or resources, including both blue
and red teams. dSoS shall allow actions such as: attribute value
modification, network structure modifications (including
addition/deletion
of systems), mobility actions, resource changes, etc. Metrics dSoS
shall provide for defining metrics and Adaptability Metrics
tracking metric values, including Ability to measure impact of
adaptability and operational metrics. change on system performance
orders and successful orders Measure of how well threat is changes
in consumables, systems, dealt with connections Correlate with
success #triggers triggered and #thresholds crossed Operational
Metrics Ability to define metrics (operational) Evaluate at each
time step and/or continuously End Condition See Mission Time In
response to trigger Other?
[0201] The dSoS capability concentrates on adaptability
quantification of SoS, and provides a general capability for
evaluating adaptability and the relative effectiveness of decision
strategies and rules. An example focused on the military forward
basing environment is disclosed below. It should be noted that this
example may be modified to different systems and environments as
would be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art. This
environment must have SoS that can change rapidly due to changing
mission requirements and significant threat conditions. The dSoS is
intended to provide an analytical tool to help evaluate the
relative adaptability performance of different basing designs and
strategies.
[0202] According to this example, the software models a
reactive/dynamic system of systems. [0203] 1. The systems must
respond to changing conditions [0204] 2. Systems can be eliminated
or added [0205] 3. The reasons for addition of systems are governed
by the input and changing conditions [0206] 4. Results that are
relevant to adaptability metrics must be captured and reported
[0207] The high level requirements for a specific
military-deployment instantiation of dSoS are as follows: [0208] 1.
There must be a descending hierarchy of locations [0209] a.
Location one is used to simulate a forward operating base (FOB)
[0210] b. Location two is used to simulate a command outpost (COP)
[0211] c. Location three is used to simulate an area (PBA) in which
patrol bases (PBs) are fielded [0212] d. The FOB supplies the COP
with systems and fuel [0213] e. The COP supplies fuel to the
fielded PBs [0214] 2. There must be a variety of systems types each
with defined roles [0215] a. A convoy system carries fuel and
replacement systems from the FOB to the COP [0216] b. The COP has a
fuel supply inventory system (fuel tanks) [0217] c. The COP has
generator systems to supply electricity to itself [0218] d. The COP
has fuel carrier systems (fuel trucks) to supply fuel to the
fielded PBs [0219] e. The COP has combat system types to enable its
function and security [0220] f. A PB is an aggregated patrol base
system that accounts for the fuel usage of its generators and
vehicles [0221] 3. The COP operations can be user defined [0222] a.
COP functions typically include base security and external combat
operations [0223] b. The user defines combinations of system types
and their counts needed to accomplish the functions. Stand-in
redundancy is allowed. [0224] c. The number and type of escort
systems for fuel deliveries to a PB are user defined [0225] 4. The
COP commander must have a measure of operational effectiveness on
which to base decisions [0226] a. The measure should account for
stand-in redundancy [0227] b. Threshold values are user defined to
help make decisions [0228] c. The current value can trigger the
ordering of additional systems [0229] d. The current value can
allow/disallow fuel delivery to a PB [0230] 5. The systems must
respond to changing conditions [0231] a. Any system can suffer
combat damage while either stationary or in transit [0232] b. A
system can run low on (or out of) fuel and must request
replenishment [0233] c. A PB can return from the field if fuel
supply is not forthcoming [0234] 6. Systems can be eliminated
[0235] a. A system is eliminated if it is totally disabled by
combat damage [0236] b. A system is effectively eliminated if is
considered surplus at the COP [0237] 7. A commander decides the
number of PBs to field [0238] a. The decision occurs periodically
[0239] b. The decision can be to increment by one, decrement by
one, or no change [0240] 8. Results that are relevant to
adaptability metrics must be captured and reported [0241] a. Actual
and desired deployed patrol base hours, and their ratio [0242] b.
Total fuel used, average fuel level, and hours with no fuel; all at
the COP [0243] c. Hours that generators over-, under-produce, and
average production/need ratio at the COP [0244] d. Successful fuel
orders and their required time and unsuccessful orders and the
reason [0245] e. System counts for total, idle, ordered, and in
transit [0246] f. Nodes and edges for the COP fuel network [0247]
g. SoS Availability (A.sub.SoS) used as the measure of
effectiveness at the COP
[0248] The design of dSoS meets the requirements stated previously.
Conforming to the military forward basing use case, there are three
(virtual) locations. The design allows that system types and the
roles they play to be flexible in number. Systems travel between
locations using defined connections. Systems are subject to combat
damage both while on base on in transit. The primary function of
the middle location is to field patrol bases but the design allows
the user to define other functions. The base commander makes
decisions both at random and based on current conditions.
[0249] The dSoS physical model uses three locations. The input
refers to these as locations one, two, and three and the user can
provide any names for them. For the use case example the first
location is a forward operating base (FOB) and it is assumed to
have unlimited resources. The FOB responds to the needs of the
second location which is a command outpost (COP). The COP is
supplied by the FOB and it is responsible for its own security and
combat operations, and fielding and supporting PBs. The general
area within which the PBs are deployed is the third location,
referred to as the patrol base area (PBA).
[0250] FIG. 5 shows the concept of operations for the dSoS. There
are connections between the three locations that provide movement
of fuel and systems between the locations. Further assumptions for
the locations include: [0251] 1. The FOB can produce limitless fuel
and replacement systems for the COP [0252] 2. Systems at the FOB
are not subject to combat damage [0253] 3. Systems at the FOB are
not active (do not use fuel) [0254] 4. Systems at the COP can be
active or standby [0255] 5. Systems at the COP are subject to
combat damage and there is a COP-wide multiplier applied to each
system's combat damage rate [0256] 6. Systems at the COP can have
different fuel usage rates when active and standby [0257] 7. The
user specifies the standard number of personnel at the COP [0258]
8. The only system types at the PBA are patrol bases except the
temporary time when a fuel truck and its escorts are delivering
fuel to a PB [0259] 9. Fielded patrol bases are subject to combat
damage and there is a PBA-wide multiplier applied to each one's
combat damage rate [0260] 10. The initial number of systems and
their types must be specified for the COP and FOB [0261] 11. The
minimum number of systems and their types must be specified for the
COP (which can be zero)
[0262] Each system type is characterized by several properties
including the role it is to play in the simulation. Some properties
are not used by a given system type. In the descriptions that
follow only the applicable properties are discussed. If there are
to be N instances of a system type, N systems are derived from the
type. The feature that distinguishes the instances of the mobile
systems and generators is the rate at which they burn fuel. The
nominal burn rate for the system type is defined. For each system
instance, a value is randomly sampled from the multiplier
distribution for the system type and the product of nominal rate
times sampled value becomes the burn rate for the system
instance.
[0263] The FOB supplies the COP via periodic convoys. dSoS assumes
there is always one convoy. The convoys carry fuel and replacement
systems. The latter can be fuel storage tanks, electrical
generators, systems used for operations at the COP, and systems
used to supply PBs (fuel trucks). Properties of the convoy system
are: [0264] 1. Frequency (hrs). The time after time zero of the
first convoy and then the time between convoys [0265] 2. Build time
(hrs). The time required to rebuild a convoy if one is totally
destroyed while en route to the COP. Once it is rebuilt, it leaves
the FOB immediately. [0266] 3. Capacity (gals). The fuel capacity
of the convoy [0267] 4. Combat damage rate (hrs).sup.-1. The rate
parameter for the exponential distribution that describes the
time-to-combat-damage. [0268] 5. Disable probability. Conditioned
on the occurrence of a combat damage event, this is the probability
that the convoy is totally disabled. [0269] 6. Fuel loss
distribution. When a non-disabling combat damage event occurs and
the fuel carriers are damaged, this distribution is randomly
sampled to determine the fraction of fuel lost. [0270] 7. FOB to
COP connection. The connection is specific to a convoy. [0271] a.
Connection type is Move Both which means the convoy can carry both
systems and fuel [0272] b. Source location is the FOB and
destination is the COP [0273] c. The system type being moved is the
Convoy [0274] d. Delay time distribution (hrs). The transit time
from the FOB to the COP. [0275] e. Threat multiplier distribution.
The combat damage rate is multiplied by this to (presumably)
increase the combat damage rate while the convoy is in transit
[0276] There is special treatment in dSoS when there is a
non-disabling combat damage event on a convoy during transit.
[0277] The code counts the systems the convoy is carrying and adds
one for the fuel, say N. [0278] The fuel and each system are given
probability 1/N of suffering damage. [0279] If a system is damaged
its system type has a probability of disabling damage. If the
system is disabled, a replacement system is placed in the next
convoy. If it is not disabled it can be repaired. Thus, it is
delivered to the COP and spends some time being repaired before it
is eligible for use. Repair time is also a property of each system
type. [0280] If the fuel carriers are damaged the fuel loss
distribution is sampled and the remaining fuel is calculated. If
the remaining fuel is zero, the convoy turns back to the FOB. It is
treated the same as a disabling event on the convoy. Otherwise it
continues on to the COP but may not have sufficient fuel supply to
completely fill the fuel tanks at the COP.
[0281] The convoy can be carrying fuel and/or the tanks used at the
COP to hold the fuel. If it is bringing replacement tanks they are
filled (if possible) with the convoy fuel. If the convoy is not
bringing replacement tanks, it fills the existing tanks to the
extent possible. The convoy returns to the FOB carrying any excess
fuel. As soon as the COP storage tanks are filled, all potential
user systems are pinged to see if they need fueling.
[0282] The return trip from the COP to the FOB is not modeled, so
it requires zero time and zero fuel, and is not subject to combat
damage. The convoy can already have orders. These are for those
systems disabled during the current trip and those requested after
the convoy left the FOB. The orders are collected but the convoy
must wait until its next scheduled time to deliver them.
[0283] The COP requires combat vehicles for its operations. They
are subject to combat damage and they require fuel. Various system
types can be defined and used for specific functions. Properties to
be defined are: [0284] 1. Fuel level (gals). The capacity of fuel
tank [0285] 2. Usage rate (gals/hr). The nominal rate at which this
system type burns fuel [0286] 3. Reorder fraction. The vehicle
orders fuel replacement when its fuel reaches this fraction of its
Fuel Level. [0287] 4. Usage rate multiplier distribution. This
distribution is sampled and the result is multiplied by the Usage
Rate to get the specific fuel usage rate for an instance of this
type [0288] 5. Standby utilization. The fraction of the usage rate
burned while the system is on standby at the COP [0289] 6. Surplus
time (hrs). The number of consecutive hours that the system is on
standby to be considered surplus at the COP [0290] 7. Combat damage
rate (hrs).sup.-1. The rate parameter for the exponential
distribution that describes the time-to-combat-damage. One rate
while on standby and another while active. [0291] 8. Disable
probability. Conditioned on the occurrence of a combat damage
event, this is the probability that the system is totally disabled.
[0292] 9. Repair time distribution. When a non-disabling combat
damage event occurs, this distribution is randomly sampled to
determine the time to repair (hours) the system. The systems do not
burn fuel while they are down for repair.
[0293] When combat systems are included in COP operations their
status affects the measure of effectiveness (A.sub.SoS). When
non-disabling combat damage occurs, A.sub.SoS is reduced while the
system is being repaired. If the system is disabled the commander
decides whether to replace the system and could order a different
system type. A.sub.SoS is reduced until replacement systems arrive
on the next convoy.
[0294] Escort vehicles can be required for each fuel delivery from
the COP to the PBA. The user specifies the count, which can be
zero. If N>0 are required, then there must be N available before
the delivery can depart. Because it travels with the fuel truck the
time an escort vehicle is in transit is the same as that for the
delivery, and return. These special vehicles can also be used for
COP functions, typically as stand-ins for other combat systems.
They are subject to combat damage and they require fuel. Only one
system type can be defined as an escort. Properties to be defined
are: [0295] 1. Fuel level (gals). The capacity of fuel tank [0296]
2. Usage rate (gals/hr). The nominal rate at which the system type
burns fuel [0297] 3. Reorder fraction. The vehicle orders fuel
replacement when its fuel reaches this fraction of Fuel Level.
Also, the system is automatically filled when it returns from a
delivery. [0298] 4. Usage rate multiplier distribution. This
distribution is sampled, the result is multiplied by the Usage Rate
to get the specific fuel usage rate for an instance of this type
[0299] 5. Standby utilization. The fraction of the usage rate
burned while the system is on standby at the COP [0300] 6. Surplus
time (hrs). The number of consecutive hours that the system is on
standby to be considered surplus at the COP [0301] 7. Combat damage
rate (hrs).sup.-1. The exponential distribution rate parameter that
describes the time-to-combat-damage. One rate while on standby and
another while active. [0302] 8. Disable probability. Conditioned on
the occurrence of a combat damage event, this is the probability
that the escort vehicle is totally disabled. [0303] 9. Repair time
distribution. When a non-disabling combat damage event occurs, this
distribution is randomly sampled to determine the time to repair
(hours) the system. The systems do not burn fuel while they are
down for repair.
[0304] If an escort system is combat damaged while en route to the
PBA, the fuel truck continues on without it. If the escort is
totally disabled, the fuel truck also returns to the COP without
it. If it has repairable damage, it is repaired at the PBA and both
it and the fuel truck return to the COP after repair is completed.
If an escort system is combat damaged while returning to the COP,
the fuel truck continues on without it. If it has repairable
damage, it is repaired at the COP.
[0305] Because an escort system can optionally be used for COP
operations, it can be active in those operations when a fuel order
from a PB is placed. The commander must decide whether to release
it for fuel delivery or continue its use for operations. There is a
threshold value for this decision discussed below in Command
Decisions.
[0306] Fuel at the COP is treated as a pooled resource system. It
is subject to combat damage and is always active so standby
properties are not required. Properties of the COP fuel pool are:
[0307] 1. Capacity (gals). The total fuel that can be held in the
tanks [0308] 2. Combat damage rate (hrs).sup.-1. The rate parameter
for the exponential distribution that describes the
time-to-combat-damage. [0309] 3. Disable probability. Conditioned
on the occurrence of a combat damage event, this is the probability
that the COP fuel pool is totally destroyed [0310] 4. Fuel loss
distribution. When a non-disabling combat damage event occurs, this
distribution is randomly sampled to determine the fraction of fuel
lost
[0311] Even though its status is "active", the COP fuel pool takes
no action. Whenever another system requests part of its fuel, the
amount is deducted from its inventory. It is refilled when the next
convoy arrives.
[0312] The COP requires electricity for its operations which is
supplied by generators. They are subject to combat damage and they
require fuel. Generators at the COP are treated differently from
those included in a patrol base aggregation system. There is a
calculation (shown below) to determine how many generators are
required to meet the demands of the COP. If more are needed they
are either activated from a standby generator at the COP or are
ordered from the FOB and will arrive with the next convoy. If there
are more than enough, some are shut down and after a period of time
could be considered surplus at the COP. In that case the generator
is returned to the FOB. Properties of the generators are: [0313] 1.
Fuel level (gals). The capacity of the fuel tanks [0314] 2. Usage
rate (gals/hr). The nominal rate at which the system type burns
fuel [0315] 3. Reorder fraction. The generator requests fuel
replenishment when its fuel reaches this fraction of its Fuel
Level. [0316] 4. Usage rate multiplier distribution. This
distribution is sampled and the result is multiplied by the Usage
Rate to get the fuel usage rate for an instance of a generator
[0317] 5. Surplus time (hrs). The number of consecutive hours that
the generator is on standby to be considered surplus at the COP
[0318] 6. Capacity (kW). The kW produced by the generator [0319] 7.
Combat damage rate (hrs).sup.-1. The rate parameter for the
exponential distribution that describes the time-to-combat-damage.
The rate can be different when the generator is active versus when
it is on standby. [0320] 8. Disable probability. Conditioned on the
occurrence of a combat damage event, this is the probability that
the generator is totally disabled. [0321] 9. Repair time
distribution. When a non-disabling combat damage event occurs, this
distribution is randomly sampled to determine the time to repair
(hours) the generator. The generator does not burn fuel while it is
down for repair.
[0322] The COP generators supply the needs for the standard number
of personnel at the COP. The total personnel at the COP can
fluctuate according to the number of standby patrol bases it
houses. The personnel for a patrol base utilize the electricity of
the COP while there. Their own generators are only used when they
are deployed in the field.
[0323] To determine the required number of active generators at the
COP, [0324] Let P=the number of personnel currently at the COP
(standard number plus standby patrol base personnel) [0325] Let
D=demand for a single person (kW/Day) [0326] The power required
each day is then R=P.times.D. [0327] Divide R by the generator
capacity and round up to get the number of generators needed
[0328] The COP supplies the fielded patrol bases with fuel on
demand using supply vehicles (fuel trucks) and optionally escorts.
Properties of the fuel supplier system are: [0329] 1. Fuel level
(gals). The amount of fuel in the tank of the fuel truck [0330] 2.
Usage rate (gals/hr). The nominal rate at which the system type
burns fuel [0331] 3. Reorder fraction. The fuel truck orders fuel
replacement when its fuel reaches this fraction of its Fuel Level.
Also, the truck is automatically filled when it returns from a
delivery. [0332] 4. Usage rate multiplier distribution. This
distribution is sampled and the result is multiplied by the Usage
Rate to get the specific fuel usage rate for an instance of the
fuel truck. [0333] 5. Surplus time (hrs). The number of consecutive
hours that the fuel truck is on standby to be considered surplus at
the COP [0334] 6. Capacity (gals). The fuel capacity of the fuel
truck (the fuel being carried to a patrol base) [0335] 7. Combat
damage rate (hrs).sup.-1. The rate parameter for the exponential
distribution that describes the time-to-combat-damage. The rate can
be different when the fuel truck is active (in transit) versus when
it is on standby (at the COP awaiting the next fuel order). [0336]
8. Disable probability. Conditioned on the occurrence of a combat
damage event, this is the probability that the fuel truck is
totally disabled. [0337] 9. Repair time distribution. When a
non-disabling combat damage event occurs, this distribution is
randomly sampled to determine the time to repair (hrs) the fuel
truck. The fuel truck does not burn fuel while it is down for
repair. [0338] 10. COP to PBA connection. The connection between
fuel truck and PBA to deliver fuel. [0339] a. Connection type is
Move Fuel [0340] b. Source location is the COP and destination is
the PBA [0341] c. The system type carrying the fuel is the fuel
truck [0342] d. The system type receiving the fuel is the patrol
base [0343] e. Delay time distribution (hrs). The transit time for
the delivery. It is sampled once for the outbound trip from the COP
to the PBA and once again for the return trip [0344] f. Threat
multiplier distribution. The combat damage rate is multiplied by
this to (presumably) increase the combat damage rate while the fuel
truck is in transit
[0345] When a PB requests fuel from the COP, there is a search for
an available fuel truck. [0346] There are two fuel truck lists:
those that are idle and operable and those that are not. [0347] If
there is at least one idle fuel truck, one of these will be
selected. The selection is made to maintain surplus hours, that is,
if a fuel truck is near the time to be considered as surplus it is
not selected. So the fuel truck with the longest time left to be
considered surplus is selected. [0348] If there are no idle fuel
trucks and no other fuel trucks, the order is not placed. [0349]
Otherwise the other fuel trucks are screened for those that do not
need fuel. If all do need fuel they will presumably get it at the
same time, which is the arrival of the next convoy. The selected
fuel truck is then the one with the shortest estimated delivery
time for those orders in its queue. [0350] If some do not need fuel
then estimated delivery time for those orders in its queue is added
to the time remaining until they are repaired (if they are down).
The selected fuel truck is the one with the shortest total
time.
[0351] When fuel truck departs the COP toward the patrol base the
time required for the trip is sampled as is the time for the next
combat damage event. If the latter exceeds the former then the fuel
truck will arrive without damage. Otherwise it will incur
damage.
[0352] Repairable damage is assumed to be field repair repairable.
The time to repair distribution is sampled and the arrival at the
patrol base is delayed by that time (or more if a second combat
damage event occurs before arrival). If the damage is not
repairable the fuel truck is disabled. All of its orders are
canceled and the patrol bases that were to receive fuel are pinged
to reorder from a different supplier. The fuel truck is replaced on
the next convoy if the minimum number of fuel trucks at the COP is
now violated, otherwise it is not replaced.
[0353] When a fuel truck arrives at the PBA, it transfers fuel to
the requesting PB in zero time and then starts back to the COP. The
time required for the return trip is sampled, as is the time for
the next combat damage event. If the latter exceeds the former then
the fuel truck will return without damage. If the damage is
repairable the return trip is delayed by the sampled repair time.
If it is disabled the order cancelation and potential replacement
considerations are the same as for the outbound trip.
[0354] When a fuel truck arrives back at the COP it immediately
requests fuel from the storage tanks both for the fuel burned for
the trip and to refill its inventory. If both cannot be completely
filled, the fuel truck is considered unusable until it is filled.
It remains that way until more fuel is available in the COP storage
tanks. If it can be filled, it sits as standby if it has no further
orders or departs for the next PB in its queue otherwise.
[0355] Fuel truck departure can be delayed if escort systems are
required and the minimum number is not available. In that case the
fuel truck sits on standby at the COP until escorts become
available and are released by the commander.
[0356] A PB is aggregated into a single mobile unit and it can
travel throughout the theater on its own. The aggregation means
that the personnel, vehicles, generators, etc. are treated as a
single entity that requires fuel. PB units are active when deployed
to the PBA, are on standby while at the COP, and are inactive while
at the FOB. Periodically a PB is deployed or stood down so it
changes location over time.
[0357] Properties of the PB system are: [0358] 1. Fuel level
(gals). The amount of fuel stored by the patrol base [0359] 2.
Usage rate (gals/hr). The nominal rate at which the system type
burns fuel [0360] 3. Reorder fraction. The patrol base orders fuel
replacement when its fuel reaches this fraction of their Fuel
Level. [0361] 4. Usage rate multiplier distribution. This
distribution is sampled and the result is multiplied by the Usage
Rate to get the specific fuel usage rate for an instance of a PB
[0362] 5. Standby utilization. The fraction of the usage rate
burned while the patrol base is on standby at the COP [0363] 6.
Surplus time (hrs). The number of consecutive hours that the patrol
base is on standby to be considered surplus at the COP [0364] 7.
Combat damage rate (hrs).sup.-1. The rate parameter for the
exponential distribution that describes the time-to-combat-damage.
The rate can be different when the patrol base is active (in
transit or at the PBA) versus when it is on standby at the COP
[0365] 8. Disable probability. Conditioned on the occurrence of a
combat damage event, this is the probability that the patrol base
is totally disabled. [0366] 9. Repair time distribution. When a
non-disabling combat damage event occurs, this distribution is
randomly sampled to determine the time to repair (hours) the patrol
base. The patrol base does not burn fuel while it is down for
repair. [0367] 10. COP to PBA connection. The connection is
specific to deploying a patrol base. [0368] a. Connection type is
Move System [0369] b. Source location is the COP and destination is
the PBA [0370] c. The source and destination system type is the
patrol base [0371] d. Delay time distribution (hrs). The transit
time for the move. [0372] e. Threat multiplier distribution. The
PB's active combat damage rate is multiplied by this to change the
combat damage rate while the patrol base is in transit [0373] f.
Fuel used (gals). The amount of fuel required for the trip [0374]
11. PBA to COP to connection. The connection is specific to
recalling a patrol base. [0375] a. Connection type is Move System
[0376] b. Source location is the PBA and destination is the COP
[0377] c. The source and destination system type is the patrol base
[0378] d. Delay time distribution (hrs). The transit time for the
move. [0379] e. Threat multiplier distribution. The PB's active
combat damage rate is multiplied by this to change the combat
damage rate while the patrol base is in transit [0380] f. Fuel used
(gals). The amount of fuel required for the trip [0381] 12. FOB to
COP to connection. The connection is specific to replacing a
standby patrol base at the COP or as the first leg of deploying a
patrol base from the FOB to the PBA via the COP. [0382] a.
Connection type is Move System [0383] b. Source location is the FOB
and destination is the COP [0384] c. The source and destination
system type is the patrol base [0385] d. Delay time distribution
(hrs). The transit time for the move. [0386] e. Threat multiplier
distribution. The PB's active combat damage rate is multiplied by
this to change the combat damage rate while the patrol base is in
transit [0387] f. Fuel used (gals). The amount of fuel required for
the trip [0388] 13. Additional patrol base properties. [0389] a.
Number of personnel. Used to increment the count of personnel at
the COP whenever a patrol base is on standby at the COP [0390] b.
Critical fuel level fraction. This should be less than the reorder
fraction. If fuel reaches this level a deployed patrol base returns
to the COP. The only exception occurs if there is a fuel truck en
route to the patrol base, in which case it waits.
[0391] When a PB suffers disabling combat damage it cancels any
incoming fuel order. If it is not the active order for the fuel
truck it is removed from the fuel truck's queue. If it is the
active order and the fuel truck is on its way, the truck is
reversed and heads back to the COP. The decision to replace the
patrol base depends on the following circumstances. [0392] If the
patrol base is en route from the FOB to the COP, it is replaced.
Another PB is immediately sent from the FOB. [0393] If the patrol
base is on standby at the COP, it is replaced only if required to
maintain a minimum number of PBs at the COP. [0394] In any other
circumstance the decision to replace the patrol base or not is made
the next time there is a patrol base deployment decision.
[0395] If the combat damage is repairable, it is assumed that
repairs can be made wherever the PB is located. The time to repair
distribution is sampled and the PB is down for that time. It burns
no fuel during the repair time.
[0396] A patrol base can arrive at the COP for three reasons. (1)
It is ordered from the FOB to serve as a standby PB at the COP. Its
status is set to standby. (2) It comes back from the PBA on its own
accord due to critically low fuel. It attempts to fill its tanks
from the COP fuel storage and its status is set to standby (and
needing fuel or not). (3) It has been ordered back by command. If
the COP already has its minimum number of standby PBs, the PB is
sent back to the FOB. Otherwise it attempts to fill its tanks from
the COP fuel storage and its status is set to standby (and needing
fuel or not).
[0397] Any time a PB leaves or arrives at the COP the generator
load is adjusted. Generators can be shut down and their surplus
time clock started or they can be activated or ordered from the
FOB.
[0398] When the number of fielded PBs is to be increased, command
looks first at the COP. If there is a PB on standby and its fuel
levels can be topped off, it is sent out to the PBA. If the minimum
count at the COP is then violated, a new PB is ordered from the
FOB. If there is no eligible PB at the COP, one is ordered from the
FOB. It travels to and through the COP out to the PBA. So travel
times and fuel usages are added for the two legs of the
connection.
[0399] When the number of fielded PBs is to be decreased, the
selection of which PB should return is random. Each has an equal
chance of being selected.
[0400] Combat damage in dSoS is treated as a Poisson process. As
such the time-to-damage distribution is an exponential distribution
that requires one parameter--a rate (hr).sup.-1. Rates are assigned
to each system type for when the system is active and when it is on
standby (see System Types). The rates can also be modified
depending on where the system is stationed (see Locations) or when
it is in transit (see the connections for each system type in
System Types). The modifiers are multipliers so the system type
rate is multiplied by the user-defined factor.
[0401] Let .lamda. be the combat damage rate (appropriately
modified). The sampled time to the next combat damage event is then
T=-ln(1-u)/.lamda., where u is a random number between 0 and 1. If
the system changes location before time T, time T is discarded and
then recalculated for the new modified rate.
[0402] The initial number of fielded patrol bases is specified by
the user (see Locations). The following inputs are used to
determine how this count changes with time. [0403] 1. Random seed.
An integer seed for the random number generator [0404] 2. Number of
trials. The number of deployment scenarios to simulate [0405] 3.
Simulation time (hrs). The time to simulate the system of systems
[0406] 4. Scheduler distribution. When sampled it gives the time
(hours) from the current deployment decision time until the
next
[0407] So that PB deployment scenarios will be reproducible, the
first action that dSoS takes is to seed the random number
generator. It then generates a number of scenarios specified. Each
scenario starts at time zero. The scheduler distribution is sampled
to get the elapsed time until the next change.
[0408] At the time of change there is an equal probability (1/3) of
decrementing the deployed count by one, incrementing it by one, or
making no change. In the case of decrementing it is the same as no
change if there are no PBs currently deployed. The scheduler
distribution is sampled repeatedly until the cumulative sampled
time exceeds simulation time. At that point the scenario is fully
defined. The next scenario is then generated, up to the number of
scenarios (trials) requested.
[0409] Future implementation may require that the deployment
decision be based on current or cumulative past circumstances. This
can be accomplished by changing the deployment probabilities from
equal to some other disjoint set of values. Also, the scenarios
would not be developed a priori but rather during the
simulation.
[0410] In addition to fielding and supplying PBs, the user can
define any number of other COP functions (e.g., base security, area
presence). dSoS uses a novel definition of availability of system
of systems (A.sub.SoS) to measure how well these functions are
being performed.
[0411] The user specifies the system types and their counts needed
to accomplish each function. All eligible system types must be COP
combat systems (optionally including escorts). Different mixes of
system types that can serve to accomplish a given function are
called different success paths in dSoS. Each function can have
multiple success paths. All combinations of success paths (taking
one from each function) are formulated and the total number of each
system type required by a combination is determined. The ratios of
available to required systems are used to calculate A.sub.SoS (the
calculation is discussed in Metric Definitions). At each point in
time that the availability of one of the systems involved in the
COP functions changes, A.sub.SoS is recalculated and the current
value is compared to user-specified thresholds. [0412] A.sub.SoS
threshold for command decision. If the value of A.sub.SoS is below
this threshold for the specified number of consecutive hours (see
next), the COP commander makes a decision. [0413] A.sub.SoS hours
below threshold. If the value of A.sub.SoS is below its threshold
(see above) for this number of consecutive hours, the COP commander
makes a decision. [0414] Command decision. When prompted by
threshold, the commander can decide to [0415] Take no action. In
this case the enemy can increase its attack frequency by applying a
multiplier to combat damage rates. If the multiplier is set to 1,
there is no change. [0416] Order more systems. dSoS will either
find the one system that, if available, would increase A.sub.SoS by
the greatest amount or find the best mix of systems that, if
available, would increase A.sub.SoS to 1. The identified systems
are ordered for the next convoy. (These two options are not
currently exposed to the user.) [0417] Abandon the COP. All
simulation stops for the current trial (scenario).
[0418] The same command decisions can be based on the ability to
successfully deploy PBs. dSoS defines an instantaneous PB
availability as the number of PBs deployed to the PBA divided by
the desired number. The threshold and time for this decision are
parallel to that for A.sub.SoS. The only difference is in the
decision of which systems to order. [0419] PB availability
threshold for command decision. If the value of PB availability is
below this threshold for the specified number of consecutive hours
(see next), the COP commander makes a decision. [0420] PB
availability hours below threshold. If the value of PB availability
is below its threshold (see above) for this number of consecutive
hours, the COP commander makes a decision. [0421] Command decision.
When prompted by threshold, the commander can decide to [0422] Take
no action. In this case the enemy can increase its attack frequency
by applying a multiplier to combat damage rates. If the multiplier
is set to 1, there is no change. [0423] Order more systems. The
commander orders one extra PB and one additional fuel truck. If
escorts are required for a fuel delivery the commander also orders
one additional escort system. [0424] Abandon the COP. All
simulation stops for the current trial (scenario).
[0425] The minimum number of systems required by the COP is large
enough to maintain a large value of A.sub.SoS, the decision to
order more systems based on the value of A.sub.SoS may have very
little impact on the simulation. The same applies to the number of
standby PBs at the COP. That is, if loss of a system results in a
violation of the minimum number to maintain at the COP, a
replacement is automatically ordered. Thus, the potential
opportunity to encounter smaller values of A.sub.SoS or PB
availability can be greatly reduced. To observe the maximum impact
of the command decision thresholds, the minimums to maintain should
be zero.
[0426] Fuel deliveries to the PBA can be directly affected by the
current value of A.sub.SoS. An escort vehicle might be involved in
the COP functions (an escort vehicle is assumed to also be a combat
system). If releasing that escort to accompany a fuel delivery
would compromise the COP functions, the commander must decide which
has priority. To this end, the user specifies [0427] Number escorts
per delivery. One combat system type can be designated as an escort
system for fuel deliveries from the COP to the PBA. This is the
number of escort systems required per delivery. [0428] A.sub.SoS
allow delivery threshold. When a fuel request arrives from a PB and
an available fuel truck is identified, a search is made for
available escort systems. If N are required and there are fewer
than N escorts currently on standby at the COP, but there are some
currently active in COP operations, the commander must decide
whether to release the active escorts for the delivery. If
releasing sufficient escorts will not reduce A.sub.SoS to a value
below this threshold, the escorts are released for the delivery.
Otherwise the delivery is delayed until a change in available
systems occurs.
[0429] dSoS does not perform sensitivity analysis but offers the
option to select input and output variables on which such analysis
can be performed. It reports values for each trial in a handy
tabular format to facilitate post-processing. The trial to trial
variation is separate from the randomness inherent within a given
trial (i.e, within a given PB deployment scenario).
[0430] The randomness within a trial in dSoS arises from several
sources: [0431] 1. PB deployment scenario. The scheduler
distribution is randomly sampled to define the time between
deployment decisions. This is repeated until accumulated time
exceeds simulation time. At each decision point the code randomly
elects to deploy a PB, recall a PB, or neither. If the decision is
to recall and there are multiple candidates, one PB is selected at
random. [0432] 2. Fuel usage rate. Whenever an instance of a system
type is to be created, the fuel usage rate multiplier distribution
is randomly sampled and the result multiplies the nominal fuel
usage rate to determine a rate for the instance. [0433] 3. Combat
damage time. Whenever the location of a system changes the
applicable combat damage rate is found. Then assuming an
exponential time-to-occurrence distribution, a time of damage is
sampled. [0434] 4. Whenever combat damage occurs to a system, a
random number is compared to the disable probability to determine
if the damage is disabling or repairable. [0435] 5. Whenever
repairable combat damage occurs to a system, the repair time
distribution is sampled to determine the downtime for the system.
If the system stores/carries fuel the distribution is interpreted
as the fraction of fuel lost to the damage. [0436] 6. When a
connection is established to move a system, fuel, or both, two
distributions are sampled. One gives the one way travel time to the
destination and the other gives a threat multiplier to apply to the
affected systems' combat damage rate during transit.
[0437] Because the sensitivity variables apply internally within a
scenario simulation, there is no control as to the frequency of
their application. Thus to perform a sensitivity analysis, a set of
inputs was selected to have distributions that are to be sampled
once at the beginning of a scenario and remain fixed throughout the
simulation of that scenario. Table 6 shows a list of candidate
input variables. On any given run all are optional, but if
selected, a variable must have a valid distribution. Also, none
will be sampled if the user elects not to do sensitivity analysis.
If sensitivity analysis is to be done, the sampling scheme can be
Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) or random.
[0438] Table 6 lists the candidate input variables.
TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Candidate Input Variables Base CD Rate for
Convoys Base CD Rate for COP Combat Vehicles Base CD Rate for COP
Fuel Storage Base CD Rate for COP Generators Base CD Rate for PB
Suppliers Base CD Rate for PBs Convoy Build Time (hrs) Convoy
Frequency (hrs) Convoy Fuel Capacity (gals) COP Initial Systems
Combat Vehicles COP Initial Systems Generators COP Initial Systems
PB Suppliers COP Initial Systems PBs COP Minimum Systems Combat
Vehicles COP Minimum Systems Generators COP Minimum Systems PB
Suppliers COP Minimum Systems PBs Fuel Storage Capacity at COP
(gals) PB Critical Fuel Level Fraction PB Personnel Count PBA
Initial Systems PBs Personnel Power Usage (kW/day)
[0439] Table 7 lists the output variables that can be saved. dSoS
writes all results to a table in the form of a
comma-separated-values (CSV) file. Each trial is represented by a
row. The selected input columns appear first and contain the
sampled input. The selected output columns appear next and contain
the value generated by trial.
TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Candidate Output Sensitivity Variables
Category Variable COP Fuel Hours With No Fuel COP Fuel Total Fuel
Used COP Fuel Average Fuel Level COP Fuel Fuel Level Before Refill
COP Fuel Storage Utilization FOB-Ordered Systems Total Number
FOB-Ordered Systems Number Generators FOB-Ordered Systems Number
Fuel Storage FOB-Ordered Systems Number Fuel Suppliers FOB-Ordered
Systems Number Combat Vehicles FOB-Ordered Systems Number Patrol
Bases Fuel Orders Total Number Fuel Orders Successful Number Fuel
Orders Successful Delivery Time Fuel Orders Successful Fraction
Fuel Orders Failed Fraction Fuel Orders Failed PB Critical Fuel
Orders Failed PB Ordered Back Fuel Orders Failed PB Disabled Fuel
Orders Failed Supplier Down Fuel Orders Failed Simulation End
Generator Power Underpowered Hours Generator Power Overpowered
Hours Generator Power Usage Ratio ASoS ASoS PB Deployment Intended
Hours PB Deployment Actual Hours PB Deployment Number Deployed PB
Deployment Function Availability Idle COP Systems Total Number Idle
COP Systems Number Generators Idle COP Systems Number Fuel
Suppliers Idle COP Systems Number Patrol Bases Idle COP Systems
Number Combat Vehicles COP Systems Total Number COP Systems Number
Generators COP Systems Number Fuel Storage COP Systems Number Fuel
Suppliers COP Systems Number Combat Vehicles COP Systems Number
Patrol Bases COP Fuel Network Number Nodes COP Fuel Network Number
Edges In Transit Number Moving In Transit Total Number In Transit
Fraction Mobile
[0440] Following the pattern of the SoSAT software, dSoS stores its
input in Access database tables. The tables that contain input
definitions (System Types, Locations, Connections, and Functions)
require an integer ID field and a string Name field, both of which
must be unique to the table. The Name is used when interfacing with
the user. The ID field is internally generated and used by the code
to identify and link objects. Subordinate tables (System Locations
and Success Paths) use the ID to identify parents. The tables for
Simulation Parameters, Sensitivity Input, and Sensitivity Output
are special cases.
[0441] All input tables are presented in the text that follows and
a list of system types and descriptions is shown in Table 8. The
meaning of each field should be clear from the variable name and
description. Further details are shown as notes for each table, as
necessary.
[0442] System Types
TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 System Types and Descriptions Variable Type
Description ID Integer Unique identifier for the system type Name
String Name of the system type Role Enumerated Role the system type
plays in the analysis Full Level Single Number of gallons of fuel
the system holds Reorder Single Fraction of fuel remaining to Level
trigger a reorder Usage Rate Single Fuel usage rate (gals/hr) Rate
Enumerated Type of distribution for varying Multiplier Dist system
usage rates Rate Single First parameter of the selected Parameter1
multiplier distribution Rate Single Second parameter of the
selected Parameter2 multiplier distribution Rate Single Third
parameter of the selected Parameter3 multiplier distribution
Standby Single Fuel utilization fraction while on Utilization
standby Max Surplus Single Considered surplus if idle for Time
these consecutive hours Capacity Single Fuel inventory (gallons) or
generator power (kW) Cost Single Cost to purchase CD Standby Single
Combat damage rate (1/hr) while on Rate standby CD Active Rate
Single Combat damage rate (1/hr) while active Disable Single
Probability that combat damage Probability disables system CD
Effect Enumerated Type of distribution for effect of Dist
non-disabling combat damage Effect Single First parameter of the
selected Parameter1 effect distribution Effect Single Second
parameter of the selected Parameter2 effect distribution Effect
Single Third parameter of the selected Parameter3 effect
distribution Notes The enumeration for the Role is: ID Name
Description 0 Combat This system is involved in COP operations 1
Patrol Base This system gets deployed and removed on a schedule 2
Fuel Storage This system holds fuel for the COP 3 Electric This
system generates electricity Generator 4 Fuel Supplier This system
carries fuel from the COP to fielded patrol bases 5 Periodic Convoy
This system emulates an entire convoy 6 Fuel Truck This system
escorts a fuel Escort delivery from the COP to the PBA
[0443] Full Level is the fuel tank size in gallons for the system
(combat, patrol base, generator, fuel supplier, escort). Capacity
is the gallons of fuel carried (fuel supplier, convoy, storage
tanks) or the kW power produced (generator). [0444] None of the
Reorder Fraction, the Usage Rate, or the Usage Rate Multiplier
Distribution is used for the convoy and the fuel pool. The
distribution type for usage rate multiplier can be Fixed, Uniform,
Normal, or Triangular. They will require 1, 2, 2, and 3 parameters,
respectively. [0445] Standby utilization is applied to patrol
bases, combat systems, and escorts when they are idle at the COP
[0446] Max Surplus Time applies to combat systems, escorts,
generators, fuel suppliers, and idle patrol bases. [0447] Cost is
not currently used. [0448] The Active Rate for combat damage
applies to all systems when they are active. [0449] Convoys, fuel
suppliers, and escorts when in transit [0450] Combat systems and
escorts when performing COP functions [0451] Always for the fuel
pool [0452] Patrol bases when they are fielded or in transit [0453]
Generators when they are in use [0454] The Standby Rate for combat
damage applies to idle systems. [0455] Fuel suppliers and escorts
when awaiting their next order [0456] Patrol bases when they are on
standby at the COP [0457] Generators and combat systems when they
are not in use [0458] When sampled, the Combat Damage Effect
distribution value is the repair time (combat systems, generators,
patrol bases, fuel suppliers, and escorts) or the fraction of fuel
lost (convoys, fuel pool). The distribution type for combat damage
effect can be Fixed, Uniform, Normal, or Triangular. They will
require 1, 2, 2, and 3 parameters, respectively.
[0459] Area Locations
[0460] Table 9 shows a list of area location types and
descriptions
TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Area Locations Types and Descriptions
Variable Type Description ID Integer Unique identifier for the
location Name String Name of the location Number Integer Typical
personnel count for Personnel the location Threat Single Multiply
system's combat Multiplier damage rate for each system here Level
Integer 0, 1, or 2 for FOB, COP, and PBA Notes Number of personnel
is only used to determine generator demand and only applies to the
COP. The threat multiplier is ignored for the FOB - combat damage
does not occur there
[0461] System Locations
[0462] Table 10 shows a list of system location types and
descriptions
TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 System Locations Types and Descriptions
Variable Type Description ID Integer Unique identifier for system
type and location pairing Location Integer The ID for the location
ID System Integer The ID for the system type Type ID Number Integer
Number of system instances Assigned initially assigned to the
location Minimum Integer Minimum number of system instances Number
that are to be maintained at the location Notes Only convoys should
be assigned to the FOB. Only patrol bases should be assigned to the
PBA. The minimum number of systems is only applied for the COP.
[0463] Connections
[0464] Table 11 shows a list of connection types and
descriptions.
TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 Connections Types and Descriptions Variable
Type Description ID Integer Unique identifier for the connection
Name String Name of the connection type Purpose Enumerated What
does the connection Move (Fuel/System/Both)? From Location ID
Integer The originating location From System Type Integer System
type supplying or moving ID To Location ID Integer The destination
location To System Type Integer System type receiving (if Move
Fuel) ID Fuel Required Single Gallons of fuel required to move a
system (if Move System) Time Delay Dist Enumerated Distribution for
time required for one way transport (hr) Time Parameter1 Single
First parameter of the selected time distribution Time Parameter2
Single Second parameter of the selected time distribution Time
Parameter3 Single Third parameter of the selected time distribution
Threat Mult Dist Enumerated Type of distribution for multiplying
combat damage rates Threat Mult Single First parameter of the
selected Parameter1 multiplier distribution Threat Mult Single
Second parameter of the selected Parameter2 multiplier distribution
Threat Mult Single Third parameter of the selected Parameter3
multiplier distribution Notes The Purpose of the connection can be
to Move Fuel (0), Move System (1), or Move Both (2). The first is
for supplying fielded patrol bases with fuel. The second is for
relocating patrol bases. The third is for convoys. The Fuel
Required is only used when relocating patrol bases. The
distribution type for delay times and threat multipliers can be
Fixed, Uniform, Normal, or Triangular. They will require 1, 2, 2,
and 3 parameters, respectively
[0465] Functions and Success Paths
[0466] Tables 12 and 13 shows function variables, types and
descriptions and success paths variables, types and descriptions,
respectively.
TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Function Variables, Types and Descriptions
Variable Type Description ID Integer Unique identifier for the
function Name String Name of the function
TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 Success Paths Variables, Types and
Descriptions Variable Type Description ID Integer Unique identifier
for the success path Function ID Integer The ID for the owning
function Success Path Num Integer The success path number within
the function System Type ID Integer The ID for a system type
required System Count Integer Number of the system type required
Notes If a function has K success paths they are initially numbered
1 through K. The numbering could change as the user edits the
initial input. If success path K involves M system types, K will be
repeated M times.
[0467] Simulation Parameters.
[0468] Table 14 shows a list of simulation parameters types and
descriptions.
TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 Simulation Parameters Types and
Descriptions Variable Type Description Seed Integer Seed that is
used to initialize the random number generator Number Sims Integer
Number of simulations/scenarios to generate and run Duration Single
Total problem simulation time for each scenario (hr) Keep Details
Boolean Keep all change details for every scenario Do Sensitivity
Boolean Sample distributions assigned/selected for various inputs
Sampling Scheme Enumerated Use LHS or random sampling Change Time
Dist Enumerated Type of distribution for scheduling patrol base
deployment Rate Parameter1 Single First parameter of the scheduler
distribution Rate Parameter2 Single Second parameter of the
scheduler distribution Rate Parameter3 Single Third parameter of
the scheduler distribution Change Probability Single Probability of
considering a change in patrol base deployment at each sampled
change time PB Personnel Integer Number of personnel assigned to a
patrol base PB Vehicles Integer Number of vehicles assigned to a
patrol base PB Vehicle Usage Single Average fuel usage rate for a
typical patrol base vehicle (gallons/hr) PB Generator Usage Single
Average fuel usage rate for all generators at a patrol base
(gals/hr) Personnel kW Usage Single Average daily kW usage per
person for all personnel (kW/person/day) PB Fuel Return Single
Fraction of fuel remaining at a PB to trigger a return to the COP
PB Fuel Interval Single PB will receive fuel at this many hour
intervals Convoy Interval Single Number of hours between convoys
Convoy Build Time Single Number of hours to rebuild a convoy if one
is totally disabled PB Availability Threshold Single If PB
availability less than this for defined time (next), trigger a
command decision PB Availability Hours Single If PB availability
less than defined threshold (previous) for this time, trigger a
command decision ASoS Threshold Single If ASoS less than this for
defined time, trigger a command decision ASoS Hours Single If ASoS
less than defined threshold (previous) for this time, trigger a
command decision Command Decision Enumerated Action to take Enemy
Rate Adjust Single If command decision is no action, multiply
combat damage rates by this value Num Escorts Per Delivery Integer
Number of escort vehicles required for fuel delivery, COP to PBA
ASoS Allow Threshold Single Allow/disallow escort vehicle to be
removed from COP functions to escort delivery based on new ASoS
compared to this value Notes Keep Details only applies for fewer
than 25 trials If Do Sensitivity is false all sensitivity input and
output is ignored The sampling scheme for sensitivity analysis can
be LHS (0) or random (1) The distribution for time to change the
patrol base count can be Fixed, Uniform, Normal, or Triangular.
They will require 1, 2, 2, and 3 parameters, respectively. None of
PB Vehicles, PB Vehicle Usage, and PB Generator Usage is currently
used. They can be used outside dSoS to calculate a total PB fuel
usage rate. PB Fuel Interval is not used. Fuel is ordered on
demand. Command actions to take are no action (0), order systems
(1), or abandon COP (2).
[0469] Sensitivity Input Variables
[0470] Table 15 shows a list of sensitivity input variables types
and descriptions.
TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 15 Sensitivity Input Variables Types and
Descriptions Variable Type Description Name String Variable to
sample (not editable) Include Boolean Sample this variable for this
run or not Dist Type Enumerated Type of distribution for this
variable Sens Parameter1 Single First parameter of the distribution
Sens Parameter2 Single Second parameter of the distribution Sens
Parameter3 Single Third parameter of the distribution Notes The
distribution type can be Fixed, Uniform, Normal, or Triangular.
They will require 1, 2, 2, and 3 parameters, respectively
[0471] Sensitivity Output Variable
[0472] Table 16 shows a list of sensitivity output variables types
and descriptions.
TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 16 Sensitivity Output Variables Types and
Descriptions Variable Type Description Selected Boolean Include
this variable in the output or not Category String General category
for the variable (not editable) Name String Specific variable
within its category (not editable) Grid String Name of the grid
used to store this output (internal use) Role Enumerated System
type role if applicable, else 255 (internal use)
[0473] dSoS is designed to compute selected adaptability metrics.
The general category for each metric and the specific measure are
discussed in the following paragraphs. All values are written to
predefined worksheets in an Excel workbook or to CSV files. The
former is only practical when the worksheets are small (typically
for runs with 25 or fewer trials).
[0474] Changeability--Logistics Capability
[0475] There are two measures to help quantify the logistics
capability in dSoS. One is the time required to resupply patrol
bases from the time the order is placed until it is fulfilled.
Another is the fraction of failed orders.
[0476] An order is placed when the patrol base fuel level reaches
its reorder level. The search for a fuel truck is described in
Patrol Base Suppliers. If necessary, escort systems must be
identified. Upon departure from the COP, the distribution of fuel
delivery times is sampled to get a delivery time for the order. In
the absence of resource contention and combat damage then, the
average delivery time would be the mean of the distribution. If the
fuel truck has to finish other orders in its queue before starting
out to the requesting PB, it prolongs the delivery time. If the
fuel truck is combat damaged on the way to the PB, it also delays
the delivery. Thus the average order fill time will generally
exceed the mean of the delivery time distribution.
[0477] An order will fail to be fulfilled for 5 reasons in dSoS.
[0478] 1. The delay is long enough that the fuel at the PB reaches
a critical level and the PB cancels the order and returns to the
COP. [0479] 2. The PB becomes disabled by combat damage after
submitting the order and before it is delivered. [0480] 3. The PB
is ordered to return to the COP after submitting the order and
before it is delivered. [0481] 4. The fuel truck is disabled by
combat damage while on the way to the PB. [0482] 5. The simulation
ends before the fuel is delivered.
[0483] The count of these reasons is tracked and reported. None of
the time consumed for failed orders is included in the average
order fill time for the successful orders.
[0484] Composition--Storage
[0485] The measure to help quantify storage in dSoS is the average
amount of fuel present at the COP. The fuel level in storage at the
COP is frequently changing. It is increased with the arrival of a
convoy. It is decreased with each demand from the generators,
combat systems, fuel trucks, escorts, and standby patrol bases at
the COP. A time-weighted average of fuel level is calculated for
each scenario.
[0486] Organization--Complexity (Connectedness)
[0487] The measure of connections within a system of systems is
proportional to the complexity level. For dSoS the network of fuel
delivery connections is of interest. An example network is shown in
6. It is frozen in time for the system counts shown but will change
as conditions change.
[0488] There is a single connection for fuel (via the convoy) from
the FOB to the COP. The connections from the COP fuel pool to its
users depend on the number of active generators, patrol base
suppliers, escorts, and combat vehicles plus the number of idle
patrol bases. The number of possible connections from the patrol
base suppliers to the fielded patrol bases is the product of their
counts.
[0489] As can be seen in the example shown in FIG. 6, the number of
nodes is 10. In general the number of nodes is the sum of: [0490]
The number of convoys [0491] The number of COP fuel pools [0492]
The number of active generators at the COP [0493] The number of
patrol base suppliers assigned to the COP [0494] The number of COP
vehicle systems (combat and escort) [0495] The number of idle
patrol bases at the COP [0496] The number of fielded patrol bases
at the PBA
[0497] In the example, the number of edges is 11. In general the
number of edges is the sum of: [0498] The number of convoys [0499]
The number of active generators at the COP [0500] The number of
patrol base suppliers assigned to the COP [0501] The number of COP
vehicle systems (combat and escort) [0502] The number of idle
patrol bases at the COP [0503] The product of the number of patrol
base suppliers assigned to the COP with number of fielded patrol
bases at the PBA
[0504] The counts change with time and could be tracked as such.
However, dSoS uses the time-averaged system counts for scenarios to
obtain the time-averaged number of nodes and edges.
[0505] Robustness--Overdesign (Growth Potential)
[0506] This measure is the excess number of systems at the COP. It
is the number of idle PBs plus the number of idle generators plus
the number of idle COP systems (combat and escort). The temporary
time that patrol bases suppliers spend as idle is not included
here.
[0507] A patrol base can be on standby at the COP for two reasons:
[0508] 1. By design. The analyst can specify that a minimum number
of PBs be kept at the COP at all times and [0509] 2. When it
returns from the field prematurely from the PBA to the COP due to
critical fuel levels. It is held there until the next deployment
decision.
[0510] Note, if a PB is ordered back from the PBA and the count of
PBs at the COP exceeds its minimum requirement, the PB is
immediately sent back to the FOB as surplus, and hence is not
counted as idle.
[0511] A generator is shut down if the remaining generators can
adequately meet the electricity needs of the COP. A surplus time
can be specified for generators. If they are idle for that length
of time they are sent back to the FOB and are no longer counted as
idle at the COP. Combat systems will also be idle when there are
more than enough to serve the COP functions. They also have a
surplus time specified and can be sent back to the FOB.
[0512] Performance--Cost
[0513] Theoretically the cost of operations would include both fuel
costs and replacement system costs. But the FOB is assumed to have
infinite systems so their cost is already absorbed. Thus cost is
focused on fuel usage at the COP. There is no input item for cost
of fuel per gallon in dSoS so total fuel used by the COP is the
surrogate for cost. This is available for each scenario.
[0514] Performance--Availability
[0515] Two standard metrics are used to judge availability for
operations at the COP. The first is fielded PB availability. Over a
given period of time, commanders order that a changing number of
PBs be deployed. PB availability is measured as the actual deployed
PB hours divided by the desired deployed PB hours.
[0516] The second is fuel availability. The unavailability is the
number of hours the COP has no fuel divided by the simulation time.
The complement is the availability.
[0517] Performance--Availability of SoS (A.sub.SoS)
[0518] In dSoS, A.sub.SoS is used to aid the COP commander in
making decisions and is also reported as an output value. The
analyst defines: [0519] 1. The functions that the COP must perform
(apart from fielding PBs). [0520] 2. The mix of system types and
their counts that can be assigned to accomplish each function.
[0521] If each function can only be performed by a single system
type, the A.sub.SoS calculation is simplified. The availability of
each function at a given point in time is the number of available
systems divided by the number required for the function. In this
case A.sub.SoS can be defined as the minimum availability taken
across all functions.
[0522] If a function can have multiple system type combinations
that can be used to successfully perform the function and some of
the system types could be used for more than one function, a more
general definition is needed. A single mix of systems that can
perform a function is referred to as a success path in dSoS. For
example if function F.sub.1 can be accomplished with a mix of 3
instances of system type A and 2 instances of system type B, {3A,
2B} is a success path. Function F.sub.1 can have any number of
alternative workable system type mixes, hence success paths.
Suppose one of the success paths for function F.sub.2 is {1A, 2B,
2D}. To adequately perform both functions using this combination of
success paths requires 4A, 4B, and 2D systems. If there are that
many systems available then A.sub.SoS=1. Otherwise, the following
equation is used to define A.sub.SoS at any point in time:
A SoS = max J success path combinations [ min K system types ( N
available K N required K , J ) ] ##EQU00033##
[0523] The equation can be unpacked as follows. [0524] 1. For M
functions suppose function F.sub.N has S.sub.N possible success
paths for N=1, . . . , M. [0525] 2. Success path combination J is
found by selecting one path from function F.sub.1, one from
F.sub.2, etc. There are S.sub.1 .cndot. --S.sub.2 .cndot. . . .
S.sub.M such combinations and each is assigned a value. A.sub.SoS
is the maximum of those values.
[0526] To find the value for combination J, [0527] 3. Find the
total instances of each system type required. For a given system
type K this becomes the denominator for the innermost brackets in
the equation. [0528] 4. Count the number for each system type
currently available at the location. For a given system type K this
becomes the numerator for the innermost brackets in the equation.
Note that the numerator is fixed at the point in time, so the count
is independent of success path combination. [0529] 5. Over all the
system types included in success path combination J find the
minimum fraction, i.e., the worst ratio of available-to-required.
That value is assigned to success path combination J. Repeat steps
3 through 5 for each possible success path combination and find the
maximum value across all combinations. This is the value of
A.sub.SoS at the current point in time. It will continue to apply
until something changes the available system counts. At that time
the calculation is redone.
[0530] It should be noted that this formulation contains the
following assumptions. [0531] Each COP function has equal
importance and [0532] A given system can only perform one function
at a time An example of a system that can perform multiple
functions simultaneously is a UAV. It can help with targeting,
communications, and lethality effectively at the same time. In this
case we would find the maximum number of UAVs needed by any
function within a success path combination rather than the sum. The
same approach could be taken if none of the functions must be
performed simultaneously. This option is not currently implemented
in dSoS.
[0533] Item 4 requires the number of systems currently available.
The count is affected by combat damage and fuel supply. If a system
is damaged but is repairable, it is not available during the repair
time. If a system is disabled and ordered right away, a replacement
is not available until the convoy arrives. The delay time is then
the time interval until the next convoy departure plus the convoy
travel time. But the delay could also be affected by: [0534] The
system is disabled after the convoy has already departed, in which
case the delay includes the total time between convoys. [0535] The
replacement system is damaged while its convoy is en route. If the
damage is disabling, the replacement is reordered for the next
convoy. If the damage is repairable the system proceeds to the COP
either under its own power or is towed. Once it arrives, repair
begins and the system is not available until repairs are complete.
[0536] The entire convoy is destroyed. The convoy rebuild time is
added to the delay. [0537] The fuel tanks at the COP are empty.
When this happens the systems operate until their fuel is depleted
and they are no longer available at that point in time. When a
convoy successfully arrives with fuel, the systems are refilled and
can resume their function. The time delays can accumulate and are
important for commander decisions as discussed in the Command
Decisions section.
[0538] Performance--Efficiency/Sustainability
[0539] In dSoS two availability metrics could be used to judge the
efficiency of the COP. The first is the number of idle systems,
which is discussed under Robustness. The second is the generation
of electricity. The performance of generators is measured by the
power ratio, R, which is calculated as discussed in System Types
Generators. The time-weighted average of R is computed for each
scenario.
[0540] Performance--Survivability/Vulnerability
[0541] Vulnerability is directly proportional to the time in
transit and inversely proportional to survivability. In dSoS it is
the average number of systems in transit over time. At any given
time there could be: [0542] A convoy en route from the FOB to the
COP. The convoy system plus any replacement systems it is bringing
to the COP are counted. [0543] A patrol base supplier and escorts
en route to the PBA or returning from the PBA. [0544] A patrol base
deploying from the COP to the PBA, returning from the PBA to the
COP, deploying from the FOB to the PBA, or traveling from the FOB
to the COP as a replacement unit. These are weighted by the hours
spent in transit to calculate the average systems in transit over
time.
[0545] Output Files
[0546] dSoS generates the data to fill 22 worksheets. Within dSoS
the data for a worksheet is stored in a grid. For each grid, if the
grid is considered sufficiently small, the grid is saved directly
to a designated worksheet in a designated Excel workbook. This uses
a built-in Flexgrid-to-Excel connection that Flexgrid provides.
[0547] For larger grids this "save" operation is either prohibited
(limited to 256 columns) or requires an unacceptable amount of time
(writing grid cell to worksheet cell, one at a time--several
minutes). So for these grids the data is saved as a
comma-separated-values (CSV) file. To completely fill a spreadsheet
with all its tabs, such files must be copied into their appropriate
worksheet in their designated workbook. Table 17 provides a
description of the output workbooks and worksheets.
TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 17 Output Workbooks and Worksheets Workbook
Worksheet Contents COPFuel.xlsx COPFuel The fuel level in the COP
storage tanks versus time for each scenario Summary Total hours
with no fuel at the COP, total fuel dispensed by the COP, and
average fuel level at the COP over all time and just prior to
refill for each scenario COPGenPower.xlsx COPGenPower The fraction
of over- under-power produced by the generators at the COP versus
time (Generator Power Usage Ratio) Summary Total hours spent over-
and under-powered and average usage ratio for each scenario
COPSystems.xlsx Total_COPSys Total systems at the COP over time
broken down by system type, for each scenario Idle_COPSys Idle
systems at the COP over time broken down by system type, for each
scenario FOBOrderedSys Total number of systems ordered from the FOB
broken down by system type, for each scenario Total_Summary
Time-averaged total systems at the COP broken down by system type,
for each scenario Idle_Summary Time-averaged idle systems at the
COP broken down by system type, for each scenario Nodes_Edges
Time-averaged network nodes and edges, for each scenario
SysInTransit Number of systems in transit over time, for each
scenario SysInTransit_Summary Time-averaged number of systems in
transit, for each scenario SoSAvailability ASoS versus time for
each scenario SoSAvailability_Summary Time-averaged ASoS for each
scenario FuelOrders.xlsx FuelOrders Time each fuel order placed and
time delivered (success) or reason for failure, for each scenario
Summary Average delivery time (success) and count of failures for
each scenario PB_Deployments.xlsx Planned_Deployment Number of
patrol bases intended to be deployed over time for each scenario
Actual_Deployment Number of patrol bases actually deployed over
time for each scenario Availability Total and actual deployed hours
and their ratio (availability) for each scenario. (None)
SummaryOfSummary.csv The average over all scenarios for each
summary worksheet above. (None) AvailabilityPlotData.csv The
average over all scenarios of PB Availability and ASoS versus time.
(None) Sensitivity.csv Sampled input and generated output for
selected variables for each trial.
[0548] If a grid was saved to a CSV file, the name of the file is
the root name of the workbook to which it belongs, followed by an
underscore character, followed by the worksheet name, followed by
".csv". So for example, file COPSystems_Idle_COPSys.csv contains
the data for the Idle_COPSys worksheet of the workbook
COPSystems.xlsx. The exceptions are for the last three csv files
shown in the table, which have hard-wired names. [0549] Each
summary sheet gives the averages of values for each individual
scenario. It then takes averages over all scenarios. These latter
overall averages are collected by dSoS into a single grid and
written to the SummaryOfSummary.csv file.
[0550] Relation to SoSAT (System of Systems Analysis Tool)
[0551] According to another embodiment of the disclosure, a method,
system and software package, called SoSAT is disclosed. SoSAT may
be used to model a wide variety of SoS problems. The design of dSoS
borrowed much from the design of SoSAT. Although SoSAT implements
considerably more detail than dSoS, there are some features that
dSoS has that SoSAT does not. Similarities and differences are
discussed below.
[0552] Similarities
[0553] The code and interface structure for dSoS borrows heavily
from SoSAT. [0554] Both codes store input in database tables. dSoS
uses Microsoft Access which was used by earlier versions of SoSAT.
[0555] Both organize the editing of input with the use of a tree
structure. [0556] Once an input item is selected dSoS uses existing
SoSAT forms to display the current input and to allow editing.
[0557] Each code has a separate simulation DLL that the user
interface directs to run the trials. [0558] The simulation DLL is
event driven. dSoS uses the event scheduling software developed for
SoSAT.
[0559] Differences
[0560] SoSAT has considerably more sophistication than dSoS in
simulating systems of systems. In SoSAT systems can have multiple
functions and function performance can depend on element (part)
reliability, multiple consumable types, and functionality of other
systems. SoSAT can model more types of services and the rules to
select a service provider can be more refined. The combat damage
model in SoSAT can be tailored to individual parts of systems and
for weapon types. External conditions can affect the failure and
repair of elements, the usage of consumables, and the combat damage
model properties. Force structure in SoSAT can be realistically
modeled.
[0561] Classes
[0562] The class structure for dSoS simulation is similar that of
SoSAT, but has far fewer classes. The most important dSoS classes
are: [0563] 1. dSoS. This class initializes a run, initializes and
finalizes each trial (scenario), and finalizes the run. It also
stores the run parameters and collections of the input objects.
[0564] a. For run initialization scenarios are defined, initial
systems are distributed, and results grids are initialized [0565]
b. Trial initialization involves the freeing up of previous results
and starting over with initial system counts [0566] c. A trial is
finalized by writing the last row of results grids and writing the
fuel orders grid [0567] d. The run is finalized by summarizing any
of the grids that require it and writing the grids to their
appropriate worksheet or file. [0568] 2. Data Loader. This class
reads database tables and populates class properties. [0569] 3.
Scenario. This class generates and stores the time history for the
number of patrol bases to be deployed. (This could be done on the
fly during a scenario simulation but is done a priori for
reproducibility of scenarios.) [0570] 4. Active Scenario. This
class is used as the current scenario and it initializes results
grids for the scenario. An instance knows its scenario thereby
knowing all of its properties. It inherits the Activity class,
meaning that it places events in the discrete event queue. When the
next event in the simulation is one for this class, it determines
what to do next (deploy or recall patrol bases). It starts the PB
relocation process by selecting them, creating an order to move,
and scheduling an event to start each move. [0571] 5. Location.
Stores the properties of a location; level, initial systems, threat
multiplier, and personnel count. During the run it maintains a list
of current systems at the location. [0572] 6. System Type. This
class stores the properties of a system type; role, fuel usage
rate, usage rate multiplier distribution, full fuel level, fuel
capacity, standby utilization, surplus time, and combat damage data
(standby rate, active rate, disabling probability, and effect
distribution). It develops fuel triggers for the system type and
flags if the type can be idle at the COP. [0573] 7. System
Instance. When there are to be N instances of a system type dSoS
creates N instances of this class. Each instance knows its system
type thereby knowing all of the properties of the type. This class
inherits the Activity class, meaning that it places events in the
discrete event queue. When the next event in the simulation is one
for this class, it determines what to do next, implements the step,
and schedules the next event for the system instance. The step can
be [0574] a. Start a move--convoy sets out, fuel delivery truck
(and escort) starts to the PBA, or a patrol base starts relocation.
Determine travel time and modify the combat damage rate. Sample the
time to the next combat damage event. [0575] b. Arrives at
destination-- [0576] i. Convoy arrives at COP. Fill COP fuel pool
from convoy if possible and release systems being carried. Ping all
systems at the COP to see if they need fuel and if so schedule a
filling (event) with the fuel pool. [0577] ii. Fuel delivery truck
arrives at PBA. Fill the PB if and sample travel times for the
return trip and combat damage. [0578] iii. Fuel delivery truck
returns from PBA to the COP. Fill fuel tanks and inventory from the
fuel pool if possible. If fully filled then start out with next
order if one exists in the queue or sit as standby if not. If not
completely filled, cancel any orders remaining in the queue, set
system as standby and down, and wait for replenishment of the fuel
pool. If remaining on standby at the COP calculate time until the
next combat damage event. If there is an escort it returns at the
same time (barring combat damage on the return trip). It is fueled
and then is ready for escort duty with the current or other fuel
truck, or can be assigned to one of the COP functions. If there is
no demand for any of these, it is set to standby status. [0579] iv.
Patrol base arrives at its destination. If destination is the PBA
then set PB to begin burning fuel and calculate times to fuel order
and next combat damage event. If destination is the COP and the PB
came back because of critical fuel, fill its tanks if possible and
wait for the next deployment time. If COP is the destination and
the PB was ordered back, fill its tanks if possible and the PB
either goes on standby or returns to FOB surplus. If destination is
the COP and the PB is a replacement system for the COP, fill its
tanks if possible and set to standby. [0580] c. Update fuel
usage--calculate the fuel used since the last update and request
fuel if necessary. Initialize a PB relocation order if it is
critically low on fuel. [0581] d. Provide fuel from pool--respond
to a request for fuel from a system at the COP. Fill all of its
tanks if possible or provide all remaining fuel in the pool if not.
[0582] e. Examine combat damage--determine the extent of the
damage. [0583] i. If the system is disabled cancel any orders it is
associated with and check if it should be replaced. If so create an
order and schedule an event for the replacement system. [0584] ii.
If damage is not disabling, sample the fuel loss (convoy or fuel
pool) or repair time. Subtract the fuel or delay the system for
repairs. A system needing repairs is down and unavailable to
perform its intended function. [0585] f. Recovery from combat
damage--set the system properties to resume what it was doing when
it incurred repairable damage. [0586] g. Surplus time--send the
system to the FOB if it has sat idle for sufficient time [0587] 8.
Commander. This class calculates and tracks PB availability and
A.sub.SoS. When a command action is required it schedules an event.
So, this class inherits the Activity class, meaning that it places
events in the discrete event queue. When the next event in the
simulation is one for this class, it determines what to do next,
implements the step, and schedules the next event for the system
instance. The step can be: [0588] a. Take no action. The COP
commander takes no action but the enemy might. Apply the enemy rate
multiplier to the combat damage rates for all locations and
connection types. [0589] b. Order systems. Determine which systems
to order (see Command Decisions) and notify the next convoy. [0590]
c. Stop simulation. The commander abandons the COP thereby ending
simulation for the current trial. [0591] As part of the A.sub.SoS
calculation, this class determines if there are excess systems, if
so, place some on standby. If there are too few active systems,
activate some if available. In either case, an event is scheduled
for the systems undergoing a change in status. [0592] 9. Functions.
This class stores function definitions and their success paths. The
latter are stored with the help of a separate class called
SuccPathItem. [0593] 10. Connection Type. This class stores the
properties of a connection type; type of move, source location and
system type, destination location and system type, fuel required,
transit time distribution, and threat multiplier distribution. It
also instantiates a connection orders. This means finding a system
to move, creating one if necessary, or finding a fuel supplier
using the selection criteria. It means setting the system instances
involved, sampling transit time, and sampling the threat
multiplier. [0594] 11. Connection Order. Stores the properties of a
specific order; source system, destination system, transit time,
threat multiplier, time submitted, time started, and time
delivered. [0595] 12. Excel Operations. Provides the means to
connect with Excel to confirm whether worksheets exist and need to
be cleared or whether the worksheets must be created. [0596] 13.
LSHDLL. This class is used to sample input variables that are
selected for sensitivity analysis. It implements both Latin
Hypercube Sampling (LHS) and random sampling. It is supported by
three other classes. The LHSDist class stores a distribution. The
Correlation class stores the correlation between two variables (not
used in dSoS). The CorrelationSupport class implements the pairing
of sampled values to reflect correlations, all of which are assumed
to be 0 in dSoS.
[0597] Evaluation of Adaptability Metrics Example
[0598] Introduction
[0599] In order to evaluate a subset of the devised adaptability
metrics, a test case using dSoS based on a notional military
deployment as depicted in FIG. 6 was devised. The test case
consists of a forward operating base (FOB) supporting a combat
outpost (COP), which in turn is supporting several patrol bases
(PB). Generators and vehicles are assigned to the bases. Fuel is
the only consumable in the test case, and both generators and
vehicles use fuel. Fuel is supplied to the COP by convoy on a
regular schedule; the COP maintains fuel-supplier vehicles to
resupply fielded PBs on an as-needed basis.
[0600] Changing environments that necessitate adaptability are
considered. The changing mission requires varying the number of PBs
that must be supported at any given time. An uncertain enemy is
considered by the random application of combat damage to the PBs,
to the systems at the COP, and to the supply links between FOB and
COP, and between COP and PBs.
[0601] It is assumed that the most adaptable SoS designs (as
defined by the initial configuration and the operational
parameters) will perform better than the less adaptable SoS designs
in the uncertain mission and threat space of the test case. The
hypothesis being that the adaptability metrics, developed
independently of this test case, will distinguish between the
better-performing, more-adaptable SoS and the worse-performing,
less-adaptable SoS.
[0602] The analysis included a number of parameters defined by
probability distributions. These parameters were intended to
capture a range of possible SoS configurations and operations, and
therefore provide a set of different designs, with some being more
adaptable and some being less adaptable. Probabilistic parameters
included the following: [0603] initial number of PBs and the number
of PBs that must be fielded at any given time, [0604] initial
quantities of generators and fuel in storage, [0605] initial
numbers and types of vehicles, [0606] fuel re-order level and
fuel-delivery delay time, [0607] re-order number and order delay
time for systems and PBs, [0608] convoy capacity, build time, and
frequency, [0609] personnel numbers and power usage, [0610] combat
damage rates (combat damage modeled as occurring at random
intervals as specified by the rate, with different rates for
different systems and system locations).
[0611] Adaptability Metrics Considered
[0612] Due to the limited test case level of detail, only a subset
of the adaptability metrics were included in the analysis as shown
in 18. In addition, some of the measures that were evaluated showed
marginal response, such as the complexity measures. It is suspect
that this situation occurs often in reality: SoS with specific
missions and specific threats likely have a limited number of
factors that drive adaptability. In the test case, as shown below,
the adaptability measures related to logistics dominated.
TABLE-US-00018 TABLE 18 Adaptability Metrics Considered in the
Evaluation Test Case Adaptability Groupings Metric Measure
Calculation* Initial Logistics Convoy Frequency Selected from
U(480, 960) hours Conditions Capability Storage Fuel Storage
Capacity at COP Selected from U(5 .times. 10.sup.4, 10.sup.5)
gallons Complexity Initial Number of PBs at COP Selected from U(0,
4) PBs Overdesign Minimum Number of Fuel Suppliers Selected from
U(1, 5) suppliers Simulation Logistics Failed PB Fuel Orders Count
during simulation Results Capability Storage Storage Utilization
Storage Utilization = ave ( N consumables _ stored N storage _
capacity ) ##EQU00034## Complexity Number of Systems in Transit
Average Systems in Transit = ave(N.sub.sys_in_transit) Overdesign
Average Fuel Level Average Fuel Level = ave ( V used _ fuel
_storage V tot _ fuel _storage ) ##EQU00035## *The notation U(min,
max) indicates the uniform distribution with the specified minimum
and maximum values
[0613] One Performance metric, PB availability, was considered in
the test case (Table 19). PB availability is a direct measure of
the mission success. Future work will entail consideration of a
complex-systems-related availability, A.sub.SoS, which is
especially relevant to the substitutability of various systems as a
contingency to maintain operations (a hallmark of many SoS).
TABLE-US-00019 TABLE 19 Performance Metric Considered in the
Evaluation Test Case Performance Metric Measure Calculation
Availability PB Availability Time average of the normalized
difference between the number of PBs required and the number
fielded A PB = ave ( PB req - PB field PB req ) ##EQU00036##
[0614] Test Case Description and Results
[0615] Simulation runs of 1000 trials each were conducted for a
low-combat-damage case and a high-combat-damage case. The results
were similar between the two cases so only the results of the
high-combat-damage case are discussed here. For each trial, values
for the probabilistic parameters were randomly sampled from their
probability distributions.
[0616] Simulation results are summarized in FIG. 7. The histogram
shows the distribution of PB availability for the 1000 trials
ranges from about 45% to close to 100%, with most trials achieving
more than 90% PB availability. The figure also indicates the areas
of the better-performing trials (the Upper 25%) and the
worse-performing trials (the Lower 25%).
[0617] So do these results show whether an independently derived
SoSAI was a good indicator of higher and lower performance. FIG. 8
presents a scatterplot of the SoSAI for the 1000 trials (calculated
from the adaptability metrics in Table 17) plotted against PB
availability (Table 17). The SoSAI trend line for these data was
calculated using a least squares fit. The plot shows that SoSAI
captures the basic trend in the test-case results.
[0618] Given the wide range in SoSAI for the better-performing
trials, can SoSAI be used to distinguish between the
better-performing and the worse-performing trials? To address this
question, the trials were separated into two populations: those in
the lower quartile of performance (250 trials ranging from 45% to
75% PB availability), and those in the upper quartile of
performance (250 trials ranging from 96% to 100% PB availability).
It is noted that much of the difference between these populations
is caused by the lower quartile having to deal with more required
PBs or with more combat damage. These two confounding factors were
controlled by matching trials in the lower quartile with the
corresponding trials in the upper quartile that: (1) differed in
their time-weighted average of PBs fielded by 10% or less, and (2)
differed in their number of replacement systems ordered, again by
10% or less (in the test case, systems are only reordered if there
is disabling combat damage). Only 42 pairs of trials (out of the
1000) were discovered with these correlating characteristics. The
42 trials from the lower quartile were called the "worse
performers", and the 42 trials from the upper quartile were called
the "better performers". As mentioned above, the worse performers
were assumed to be less adaptable, because they performed worse
than the better performers with the same varying mission and
uncertain threat environments.
[0619] FIG. 10 shows the SoSAI for each of the 42 matched pairs. In
the plot, the numbers along the x-axis indicate the 42 pairs. Each
pair is represented by a red bar and a green bar. The red bar
indicates that the trial belongs to the worse-performing population
and the green bar indicates that the trial is from the
better-performing population. Of interest is whether the green-bar
(better-performing) SoSAI is greater than the red-bar
(worse-performing) SoSAI for a given pair of trials. The
better-performing SoSAI is shown to be greater than the
worse-performing SoSAI in 39 pairs. In only three pairs (numbers 6,
29, and 42) is the reverse true: the worse performing SoSAI is
greater than the better performing SoSAI. In addition, the average
SoSAI for the 42 better performers is 2.31; the average SoSAI for
the worse performers is -1.84. Thus, in most of the matched trials,
and on average overall, SoSAI--which is based only on adaptability
metrics and not performance metrics--discriminated the better
performers from the worse performers.
[0620] A single-tail paired t-test was applied to determine if the
results were significant. The t-test indicates that the probability
of the difference between the SoSAIs of the 42 better performers
and the SoSAIs of the 42 worse performers being due to chance alone
is 8.times.10.sup.-11, so the results are statistically significant
and the 42 pairs represent an adequate sample size.
[0621] How well do the individual adaptability metrics distinguish
the better-performing trials from the worse-performing trials is
also examined. Table 20 shows the difference between the averages
of the individual metrics for the better-performing half and the
worse-performing half of the matched pairs. The difference is
calculated as follows:
Difference = ave ( better ) - ave ( worse ) ave ( worse ) .
##EQU00037##
TABLE-US-00020 TABLE 10 Adaptability Metric Percent Difference for
Better- and Worse-Performing Matched Pairs Adaptability Differ-
Groupings Metric Measure ence Test Case Logistics Convoy Frequency
-15% Initial Condi- Capability tion (Possibly Storage Minimum
Number of 61% Predictive) Fuel Suppliers Complexity Initial Number
of 2%* PBs at COP Overdesign Fuel Storage Capacity 16% at COP Test
Case Logistics Failed PB Fuel Orders -92% Simulation Capability
Results Storage Storage Utilization 33% Complexity Number of
Systems -15% in Transit Overdesign Average Fuel Level 52%
*Inconsequential
[0622] For all but one of the measures, there is a notable
difference between the better and worse performers. As the test
case was primarily a logistics simulation, the clearest
discrimination occurs with the adaptability metric for logistics
capability. For the most part, the individual metrics discriminate
between the better- and worse-performing groups, indicating that
the individual adaptability metrics are viable measures of
adaptability.
[0623] In summary, (1) the test case presented here involved SoS
performance with changing mission and uncertain threat
environments. (2) The adaptability metrics were developed
independently of the test case. (3) The adaptability metrics and
SOSAI most often distinguished between the higher and lower
performing designs, although not perfectly. It can be concluded
that the adaptability metrics have value in indicating SoS designs
with greater adaptability. Caveats can be made that the test case
is a notional example, and the adaptability metrics are relative
and only apply to comparison of similar designs, thus more
experimentation and evaluation are required.
[0624] SoS Design for Systems Re-Tasking
[0625] According to another embodiment of the disclosure, methods,
systems, and computer program products for providing an informed
SoS based on effective re-tasking are provided. Systems re-tasking
(aka stand-in redundancy) is the process of using different systems
to substitute for non-operational systems to meet required
functionality, or using multi-function systems to fulfill
higher-priority tasks. This ability can increase the overall
operational availability of the SoS; it can also increase the
adaptability and resilience of the SoS to unknown or changing
conditions. The disclosed methods, systems and computer program
products include simulating an SoS over time, replacing systems
that become non-operational (or damaged) with systems that can
fulfill the same capability in order to maximize the SoS
availability. The end result is a design for the SoS that uses
effective systems re-tasking to achieve mission success. Systems
re-tasking has the potential benefits of reducing costs, increasing
efficiencies, increasing availability, plus allowing more adaptable
and resilient SoS.
[0626] The ability to substitute different systems for
non-operational or disabled systems when needed to fulfill
different or higher-priority functions, is an important and
inherent aspect of many SoS. This ability is called systems
re-tasking or stand-in redundancy. An example of systems re-tasking
is, if satellite communication fails, the communications capability
of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) that are usually tasked only
with targeting would be used to temporarily fulfill the
higher-priority satellite communication capability. Another example
is switching personnel who are trained in two areas (e.g., trained
in communications and base protection) from one area to the other
as priorities demand. Systems re-tasking has the potential benefits
of reducing costs, increasing efficiencies, increasing
availability, and providing more adaptable and resilient SoS.
[0627] FIG. 11 shows a diagram of a method to determine an
effective design for re-tasking systems in an SoS subjected to
changing missions, threats, and environments according to an
exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. The steps may vary
based on application-specific requirements. Details could vary from
implementation to implementation, for example by iterating among a
subset of the steps to broaden the range of scenarios considered
based on preliminary results. In the following, each step is
discussed in greater detail.
[0628] Referring to FIG. 11, the method includes the following
steps:
[0629] Problem Definition.
[0630] Before starting, it is necessary to have a clear definition
of the problem to be solved; the functions that the SoS should
fulfill that might be subject to systems re-tasking, and the kinds
of scenarios for which improved adaptability and performance are
desired. The primary metric for this analysis is the availability
of the SoS (A.sub.SoS), but other adaptability and performance
metrics could be also be used. Due to the generality of the metrics
list, not all metrics will apply to a given situation. Thus, it is
necessary to consider each metric in the list and determine whether
it is applicable to the systems being evaluated.
[0631] Systems Re-Tasking Definition.
[0632] The collections of systems needed to fulfill all applicable
functions should be defined. For any given function, each
fulfilling collection of systems should differ from other
fulfilling collections by the type or numbers of systems of a given
type.
[0633] Scenarios.
[0634] The scenarios used for the evaluation step can include many
types of changes appropriate to comparison of the systems,
including changing threats, missions, budgets, environments (e.g.,
changing weather conditions, natural disasters), etc. The
comparison could be done for a set of fixed scenarios, but
stochastic simulations with random variation of important variables
can be more appropriate. Random variations (for example, of the
timing and magnitude of changes in threat or mission) introduce
unpredictability and allow evaluation of how well a given design is
able to cope with this unpredictability. A major issue with
determining acceptable strategies is how to handle unforeseen (and
even unforeseeable) situations. An approach to addressing such
possibilities could be to include some random loss or degradation
of system functions in the scenarios in addition to the "expected"
losses and degradations caused by known threats, changes in
environments, etc.
[0635] Success Paths.
[0636] For each scenario, whenever systems become inoperable,
determine the possible ways to adjust to the situation. Systems can
become inoperable due to reliability issues, combat damage,
environmental interactions, etc. Possible ways to adjust to the
situation include repairing the system, ordering new systems,
re-tasking systems within the SoS, etc. Typically, there is more
than one possible collection of new systems that can be ordered
and, similarly, there can be more than one possible way to re-task
systems. Each possible improvement is a success path.
[0637] Evaluate A.sub.SoS for Each Success Path.
[0638] For each success path, evaluate the availability of the SoS.
In a general situation, say we have N.sub.F functions involving
N.sub.S system types, and there are N.sub.P success-path
combinations. Then the A.sub.SoS is calculated as follows
A SoS ( t ) = Max ( Min { A j ( t ) R j , k ; j = 1 , N S } ; k = 1
, N P ) ##EQU00038##
(Note, ASoS is used here having slightly modified parameters from
the earlier usage herein, however, the methodology is consistent.
In this application, there is a distinction between systems that
can re-task and perform their original function at the same time
and those that cannot.) Here, A.sub.j(t) is the number of systems
of type j available at time t and R.sub.j,k is the required number
of systems of type j for success-path combination k. Note that
A.sub.SoS changes with time according to the availability of the
SoS. The required number of systems is given by
R j , k = i = 1 N F P i , j , k for case 1 ( no concurrent sharing
of systems between functions ) ##EQU00039## R j , k = Max ( P i , j
, k ; i = 1 , N F ) for case 2 ( systems can be shared between
functions ) ##EQU00039.2##
where P.sub.i,j,k is the required number of system type j for
function i in success-path combination k. In this step, for every
success path, A.sub.SoS is calculated for the entire SoS.
[0639] Incorporate Best Success Path.
[0640] Choose the success path that gives the best A.sub.SoS, and
continue the assessment. Often there is more than one success path
that has the greatest A.sub.SoS. In this case, one method of
selecting the best A.sub.SoS is to select it at random from the
best possibilities. Other screening criteria include cost, fuel
efficiency, maintenance and reliability history, availability of
mechanics, etc. At some point in every scenario, no success paths
will be able to improve upon A.sub.SoS. This eventuality can be
estimated after many attempts to find improving success paths. At
this point, the SoS will exhibit the most effective systems
re-tasking.
[0641] Compare Systems Re-Tasking Designs.
[0642] Systems re-tasking designs can differ between scenarios and
even within a single scenario. The systems re-tasking designs of
interest can be compared for particular scenarios, or for the
entire set of scenarios by using suitable statistical measures.
Some designs might be better for some scenarios, and other designs
will be better for other scenarios. Thus, all design choices should
be evaluated together to determine the best courses of action.
Knowledge gained from the design comparison could potentially be
applied to similar situations (i.e., similar designs and scenarios)
without having to rerun the entire method.
[0643] Inform SoS Design.
[0644] The final step is to use the quantitative comparison results
to help select the "best" designs, where "best" refers to the
designs that best meet the given criteria and requirements. The
selection is informed by the insight gained from the performance,
but other sources of information can be used as well, including
cost of the design, scoring from adaptability measures, minimizing
the number of systems involved (which can correlate with the use of
multi-functional systems), etc. Tradeoffs will likely be necessary.
As an example, the most effective systems re-tasking design might
not be the lowest-cost design, so additional weightings might be
needed, to define the relative importance of cost and
performance.
[0645] The present disclosure further includes a novel availability
metric, SoS Availability (A.sub.SoS) that allows measuring
availability of an SoS utilizing systems re-tasking. The methods,
systems and computer program products include simulating an SoS
over time, replacing non-operational or damaged systems with
systems that maximize A.sub.SoS. In this way, the SoS evolves to a
state that incorporates the maximum systems re-tasking to achieve
mission success. This final evolved state would be the initial
design of the SoS.
[0646] Purpose
[0647] A.sub.SoS determines the effect of the re-tasking by
measuring the availability of an SoS with multiple functions,
composed of multiple systems that can be used to accomplish more
than one of the functions as depicted in FIG. 10.
[0648] FIG. 12 shows and SoS with multiple functions that can be
fulfilled by different sets of different systems. Function 1 has
one success path (3X), Function 2 has two (either 2Y or 3Z), and
Function 3 has one (1Y and 4Z both required). Evaluation depends on
two factors: [0649] 1. At a given time are all 3 functions
operating concurrently? [0650] 2. In general can system Y or Z
perform two functions at once?
[0651] If the functions are performed concurrently and the systems
cannot multitask, then either {3X, 3Y, 4Z} or {3X, 1Y, 7Z} are
required for full functionality. If functions are never concurrent
or the systems can multitask then either {3X, 2Y, 4Z} or {3X, 1Y,
4Z} are required. The set of system requirements within braces is
called a success-path combination.
[0652] Now consider that the operating and operable systems are 3X,
1Y, and 2Z. For the first case, where systems cannot multitask,
either {3X, 3Y, 4Z} or {3X, 1Y, 7Z} are required. In either
success-path combination we have sufficient X systems, but with the
first combination we only have 1/3 of the required Y systems and
1/2 of the required Z systems. With the second combination, we have
sufficient Y systems, but only 2/7 of the required Z systems. For a
given combination ASoS is defined by taking the minimum over
systems for the combination, so the ASoS for the first combination
is 1/3 and the ASoS for the second combination is 2/7. Assuming
that systems are deployed in order to maximize ASoS, the first
combination would be used and the ASoS would be 1/3. The formula
for ASoS would thus be written, ASoS=max(min{3X/3X, 1Y/3Y, 2Z/4Z},
min{3X/3X, 1Y/1Y, 2Z/7Z})=1/3. For the second case, with
multitasking, the evaluation would be ASoS=max(min{3X/3X, 1Y/2Y,
2Z/4Z}, min{3X/3X, 1Y/1Y, 2Z/4Z})=1/2.
[0653] Generalization
[0654] In a general situation, say we have N.sub.F functions
involving N.sub.S system types, and there are N.sub.P success-path
combinations. Then the A.sub.SoS is given by
A SoS ( t ) = Max ( Min { A j ( t ) R j , k ; j = 1 , N S } ; k = 1
, N P ) ##EQU00040##
[0655] Here, A.sub.j(t) is the number of systems of type j
available at time t and R.sub.j,k is the required number of systems
of type j for success-path combination k. Note that A.sub.SoS
changes with time according to the availability of the SoS. The
required number of systems is given by
R.sub.j,k=.SIGMA..sub.i=1.sup.N.sup.F P.sub.i,j,k for case 1
(no concurrent sharing of systems between functions)
R.sub.j,k=Max(P.sub.i,j,k;i=1,N.sub.F) for case 2
(systems can be shared between functions)
[0656] where P.sub.i,j,k is the required number of system type j
for function i in success-path combination k.
[0657] Assumption
[0658] In the remainder of this description, it is assumed that
systems cannot be shared concurrently between functions for case 1
and systems can be shared between functions for case 2. The
formulation can be modified to allow a mix of these two
assumptions.
[0659] Using A.sub.SoS to Design SoS
[0660] There are two algorithms needed here: one to evaluate
A.sub.SoS and one to determine which systems to replace whenever
A.sub.SoS falls below a desired level. One implementation of the
first algorithm is depicted in FIG. 13.
[0661] The algorithm proceeds as follows:
[0662] Generate Success-Paths: The algorithm generates every
combination of success paths across the functions. Each combination
is viewed as an M-tuple and coordinate i contains the success path
number selected for function i. Every success path is characterized
by the system types and their count that could be used to satisfy
the function. So, the required system types can be either summed or
their maximum is found for the combination (for case 1 or case 2,
respectively).
[0663] Collect List of Best Success-Paths: Over all possible
success-path combinations those that yield the greatest value of
ASoS are collected.
[0664] Select Best Success-Path: If there is only one success-path
combination, it is the best. Otherwise, there is a secondary
screening that selects those combinations that require the fewest
total number of systems (a simple efficiency/cost criterion). If
there are still multiple candidate combinations, we select one at
random from that list. Other possible screening criteria could
consider cost, fuel efficiency, maintenance and reliability
history, availability of mechanics, etc.
[0665] The second algorithm determines a set of replacement systems
to obtain to increase ASoS back to unity. An example implementation
of this algorithm is shown in FIG. 14.
[0666] One implementation of obtaining the replacement systems
proceeds as follows: [0667] 1. Count Available Systems: The number
of available systems is found only for system types involved in the
functions. These counts include systems that are operating plus
those that are present but may be down for repairs or out of fuel.
[0668] 2. Calculate A.sub.SoS: The current counts are used to
determine A.sub.SoS as described in the previous algorithm. [0669]
3) A.sub.SoS check:
[0670] If ASoS=1, go to step 6
[0671] If ASoS<1, go to step 4.
[0672] Determine the system type to order, system type j: The
calculation of ASoS in step 2 preserves the winning success-path
combination, k, so we know Rj,k for each system type j. Because we
also know Aj(t) at the current time t, we can find the minimum
value of Aj(t)/Rj,k across system types j. This minimum ratio
determines the value of ASoS for combination k (the best
combination). So, it is the only system type that can be increased
that will increase ASoS, for combination k. (If we do not increment
the count for system type j, ASoS will remain the same because j is
driving the minimum).
[0673] Increment the count for system type j: The new extra system
is not currently present, but will be with the next convoy. We
assume it is present now and recalculate ASoS to determine if any
other systems should also be ordered.
[0674] Done: When sufficient systems are identified that will
restore ASoS to 1, the algorithm is complete and the systems are
ordered.
Example
[0675] The example problem setup has five system types (Table 21)
that can perform four functions (Table 22). The UHMV is only used
for one function (internal security). The AHMVs and APVs can help
serve 3 functions. The RVs and EVs can help serve 2 functions. This
example assumes case 1--no sharing of systems between
functions.
TABLE-US-00021 TABLE 21 Example problem functions. System Type 1
Unarmored HMMWVs (UHMV) 2 Armored HMMWVs (AHMV) 3 Raider Vehicles
(RV) 4 Area Presence Vehicles (APV) 5 Escort Vehicles (EV)
TABLE-US-00022 TABLE 22 Example problem functions with
success-paths shorthand. # Success Function Paths Possible Success
Paths Internal Base Security 4 {3 UHMVs} {2 UHMVs and 1 AHMV} {1
UHMV and 2 AHMVs} or {3 AHMVs} Base Perimeter 5 {4 AHMVs} Security
{3 AHMVs and 1 APV} {2 AHMVs and 2 APVs} {1 AHMV and 3 APVs} or {4
APVs} Conducting Raids 4 {4 RVs} {2 RVs and 4 APVs} {2 RVs, 2 APVs,
and 2 EVs} or {2 RVs and 4 EVs} Maintaining Area 3 {4 APVs}
Presence {2 APVs, 2 RVs, and 2 EVs} or {2 APVs, 2 RVs, and 2
AHMVs}
[0676] The Escort Vehicle (EV) type is also used to escort fuel
deliveries to fielded patrol bases (PB). No other type of system
can be used as a substitute for this task but the EVs can be used
to help perform two of the four combat/security functions. The task
to deliver fuel to the PBs is not explicitly included in the ASoS
calculation as a function because of its intermittent nature. But
it does cause potential resource contention for the use of the EVs,
thereby implicitly affecting ASoS. If available systems are scarce,
we must decide whether an EV can be released for a fuel delivery or
should remain to help with raids and/or area presence. The
potential release of an escort to accompany a fuel truck will cause
ASoS to either stay the same or to decrease. If it stays the same
the release is allowed. If it will drop but remain above the ASoS
delivery threshold (input by the analyst) the release is allowed.
Otherwise the commander disallows the delivery until other escorts
or combat systems become available, which then results in a retest
for the release.
[0677] The decision affects the ability to field patrol bases. If
fuel is at a low level at a patrol base and a delivery is not
forthcoming, the entire patrol base is withdrawn from the field.
The time during which that patrol base should be fielded but is not
reduces the PB availability metric, implying deployment
failure.
[0678] Note that there are 240 possible success path combinations
(4.times.5.times.4.times.3=240). Here we introduce a shorthand for
a success-path combinations: (1, 1, 2, 2) is the combination of the
first success path for the first function (i.e., {3 UHMVs} as shown
in Table 2), the first path for the second function (i.e., {4
AHMVs}), the second path for the third function (i.e., {2 RVs and 4
APVs}), and the second path for the fourth function (i.e., {2 APVs,
2 RVs, and 2 EVs}). Each combination represents a possible system
configuration to utilize. However, because a configuration is
characterized by the system counts required by the combination of
success paths, there is potential duplication. For example, the
success-path combination (1, 1, 2, 2) requires 3 UHMVs, 4 AHMVs, 6
APVs, 4 RVs, and 2 EVs. The same set of systems is required by the
combination (1, 3, 3, 3). Without duplicates there are 216 unique
configurations.
[0679] Two questions are posed here [0680] 1) Is there a preferred
configuration of systems (vehicles)? [0681] 2) If so, what
improvement occurs over other configurations?
[0682] Question 1
[0683] Scanning the 216 unique success path combinations, the total
number of systems required is always 15, 17, or 19. The counts of
the system types required can vary widely. Success path combination
(1, 2, 4, 3) requires a rather uniform count of {3, 5, 3, 4, 4}
systems {3 UHMV, 5 AHMV, 3 RV, 4 APV, 4 EV}. Contrasting, success
path combination (4, 5, 2, 1) requires a different count of {0, 3,
2, 12, 0} systems.
[0684] The method begins with success path combination (1, 1, 1, 1)
because it does not involve any re-tasking, that is, each function
is intended to be performed by a single system type. There are {3,
4, 4, 4, 0} systems required, which does not call for any EVs.
However for this example there are 3 fuel trucks initially assigned
with a minimum count of 2, so it makes sense to assign 3 EVs for
fuel deliveries also with a minimum count of 2. In this regard,
there is some initial overbuild for the ASoS calculation.
[0685] The minimum system count to maintain was set to 0 for each
of the 4 non-Escort system types. This is important because it
means that a replacement is not routinely ordered when a system
becomes disabled. Systems are only ordered when ASoS has been below
its threshold (0.8) for the prescribed amount of time (240 hours or
10 days). More than one system must be lost for ASoS to drop below
its threshold in this example so the commander orders multiple
system replacements. The identity and count of system types to
order are determined using the algorithm described above. The ASoS
delivery threshold was set to 0.6, so if escort systems are being
used as stand-in redundant systems for conducting raids or
maintaining area presence, and releasing an escort will cause ASoS
to fall below 0.6, fuel deliveries are postponed.
[0686] Two hundred trials were run with the starting configuration
of (1, 1, 1, 1). At the end of a 2-year simulation, the final
system counts were extracted. Some trials had clearly converged to
a fixed configuration while others were still in flux. If ASoS<1
at the end of the mission we continued the calculation until ASoS=1
and saved the resulting configuration.
[0687] The most noteworthy observations are: [0688] 1) No final
configuration dominated, but some occurred more frequently than
others. [0689] 2) For the 200 trials, the final configuration for
53 (26.5%) could be identified as one of two configurations: [0690]
a) 29 instances of {0 UHMV, 7 AHMV, 4 RV, 4 APV, 0 EV}. [0691] b)
24 instances of {0, 7, 8, 2, 0}. [0692] 3) No UHMVs appear in
either configuration, so internal base security is handled by the
more versatile AHMV. [0693] 4) No EVs appear in either
configuration, so the number of escorts present do not affect ASoS
for these particular configurations, only the ability to deliver
fuel. [0694] 5) The first configuration shown requires 15 systems,
the minimum possible over all configurations, whereas the second
requires 17.
[0695] Thus, we assert that the best configuration--the most
versatile configuration--is {0, 7, 4, 4, 0}. We call this the most
versatile configuration because it exhibits significant systems
re-tasking to achieve high ASoS.
[0696] Question 2
[0697] To compare system configurations, the starting configuration
is assumed to be the configuration specified by regulation. That
is, when there is a loss, a new vehicle of that type is immediately
ordered to reestablish the initial configuration. This is done in
our simulator by setting the minimum system type counts to the
initial counts and setting the ASoS threshold to 0.
[0698] The preferred configuration {0 UHMV, 7 AHMV, 4 RV, 4 APV, 0
EV} was run and compared to two other representative initial
configurations: {3, 4, 4, 4, 0} and {0, 3, 2, 12, 0}. (No escort
vehicles are included in the initial configurations in order not to
penalize the preferred configuration because we omitted escorting
the fuel deliveries to the patrol bases from the calculation of
ASoS.) Two metrics are summarized in Table 21. Both are averaged
over the 200 trials and over time within each trial. The
differences in ASoS and PB availability are significant for the
availability of an SoS, and the preferred configuration performs
better in both metrics. The configuration with no intended
re-tasking performs the worst in this case.
[0699] Table 23. A.sub.SoS and PB Availability calculated for three
vehicle configurations, showing better performance for the more
versatile configuration {0, 7, 4, 4, 0}.
TABLE-US-00023 TABLE 23 A.sub.SoS and PB Availability Starting
A.sub.SoS PB Availability {0, 7, 4, 4, 0} 0.891 0.734 {3, 4, 4, 4,
0} 0.863 0.702 {0, 3, 2, 12, 0} 0.875 0.729
[0700] Conclusion
[0701] During the mission, if triggered by a time interval when
ASoS is unacceptably low, the selection algorithm determines a set
of systems to order that will raise ASoS back to 1. We have found
that the resulting configuration changes over time cause migration
to a few configurations that outperform the rest. The final
configuration--the configuration that includes systems
re-tasking--demonstrates the best overall performance and therefore
should be used as the initial configuration in the SoS design.
[0702] Discussing the above example in more detail, the re-tasking
methodology is exercised by designing a collection of vehicles
involved in a military deployment. In the simulation, the mission
is to support a changing number of patrol bases under the pressure
of random combat damage. One finding of this effort is that systems
involved in re-tasking should also be backed up (e.g., by
re-tasking other systems) in the event that they become
non-operational or disabled.
[0703] Introduction
[0704] In the military a forward operating base typically has a
multi-function mission to accomplish and various systems to use
toward that end. If some of the systems can help serve more than
one function, there is flexibility in assigning systems to
functions. This becomes important when systems are lost--likely due
to disabling combat damage or catastrophic reliability failures. If
there is no system assignment configuration that could be made to
satisfy all functions, then an assignment should be made that
maximizes overall functionality for the base.
[0705] If each function can only be performed by a single system
type, then the availability of each function at a given time can be
defined as the ratio of the number of available systems to the
number required for the function. One way to define the overall
availability for the base is by the minimum ratio taken across all
functions.
[0706] If some systems are able to perform more than one function,
a more general definition is required to compare different system
assignment options. The methodology includes a single measure that
can distinguish the efficacy of assignment options. The single
measure is called Availability for Systems of Systems (A.sub.SoS),
discussed above. The term success path is used to describe a
potential assignment of systems that can fully satisfy a single
function and each function can have multiple success paths. When a
success path is selected for a function, the systems required by it
are taken from the pool of available systems and the systems that
remain in the pool are then available for success paths of the
other functions. The base commander has freedom to assign available
systems to maximize A.sub.SoS.
[0707] If the best A.sub.SoS is less than one at a point in time,
there is no system assignment that results in all functions being
fully available. Although the definition quantifies overall
availability, it does not address the actual assignment of
individual systems to individual functions. The issue addressed
herein is what configuration of systems should be initially
assigned to the base to help maintain high levels of A.sub.SoS
throughout the mission of the base?
[0708] If system re-tasking is a possibility there are potentially
multiple candidates that could be used as a starting configuration.
To determine the best, one approach would be to assign each
possible configuration as the initial configuration and run dSoS
for the mission. The resulting average A.sub.SoS over the mission
could be compared, along with other adaptability metrics, to select
the best starting configuration.
[0709] To avoid the time required to develop input for multiple
potential starting configurations, dSoS offers an alternative
approach. As systems become inoperable during the mission,
replacements are ordered using a prescribed algorithm (described in
the next section). Using this approach it has been determined that
the system configuration at the end of the mission tends toward a
small number of preferred configurations. The best starting
configuration could be selected from this small set or the set
could be used as a screening step to reduce the number of initial
configurations to implement into dSoS to compare.
[0710] Implementation
[0711] In dSoS the analyst defines: [0712] 1. The system types to
be assigned to the COP, their initial count, and the minimum number
to maintain. [0713] 2. The vulnerability of system type to enemy
attack in the form of combat damage frequency rates and the
probability that a hit will totally disable a system. [0714] 3. The
functions that the COP must perform. [0715] 4. The system types and
their counts that can be assigned to accomplish each function.
[0716] The first two items work together as follows. The initial
count of systems will not change unless there is disabling combat
damage. When that occurs, the COP commander only orders a
replacement for the affected system if the loss of the system means
that the minimum count will be violated for that system's type.
Items 3 and 4 are used to define the terms of the equation for
system of systems availability, A.sub.SoS.
[0717] In the dSoS code, the number of systems available at a point
in time is affected by combat damage and fuel supply. If a system
is damaged but is repairable, it is not available during the repair
time. If a system is disabled and a replacement is immediately
ordered from the FOB, the replacement is not available until the
next convoy arrives. The delay time is then the time interval until
the next convoy departure plus the convoy travel time. Delays could
also be affected because: [0718] The system is disabled after the
next convoy has already departed, in which case the delay includes
the total time between convoys. [0719] The incoming replacement
system is damaged while its convoy is en route. If the damage is
disabling, the replacement is reordered for the next convoy. If the
damage is repairable the system proceeds to the base either under
its own power or is towed. Once it arrives, repair begins and the
system is not available until repairs are complete. [0720] The
entire convoy is destroyed and the convoy rebuild time is added to
the delay. [0721] The fuel tanks at the COP are empty. When this
happens the systems operate until their fuel is depleted and they
are no longer available at that point in time. When a convoy
successfully arrives with fuel, the systems are refilled and can
resume their function.
[0722] During the time delays the value of A.sub.SoS can fall below
1 and the base will be operating at less than full functionality.
If A.sub.SoS is too small for some period of time, the base
commander has a decision to make. In addition to the above input,
the analyst can also supply: [0723] 1. A threshold value for
A.sub.SoS. At any point in time that A.sub.SoS falls below this
fraction, dSoS begins to accumulate the consecutive time when the
threshold is violated. [0724] 2. A time for action (hours). If the
consecutive time under the threshold reaches this value, it signals
a time for action. [0725] 3. An action to take. Currently in dSoS
there are 4 possibilities: [0726] a. Commander aborts the mission
(all simulation stops, for the current trial) [0727] b. Commander
orders additional system(s) [0728] i. Order one of the most
critical system type and increase its minimum count [0729] ii.
Order sufficient systems to bring A.sub.SoS up to 1, but do not
increase the minimum counts [0730] c. Commander does nothing. The
adaptive enemy can sense weakness and become more aggressive,
according to a user-specified combat damage rate multiplier.
[0731] This analysis focuses on the second sub-option of option b.
When time for action occurs, dSoS uses the following algorithm to
determine the set of systems to order: [0732] 1. Find the number of
available systems for system types involved in the functions. These
counts include systems that are operating plus those that are
present but may be down for repairs or out of fuel. [0733] 2. From
the available systems find the best success path combination
(discussed below) and calculate A.sub.SoS. [0734] 3. If
A.sub.SoS=1, save the systems to order and exit the algorithm.
[0735] 4. Else, determine the system type that has the smallest
ratio of available-to-required for the best combination. [0736] 5.
Add one of that system type to the list of systems to order and
temporarily assume it is now present and available (i.e., add one
to the current available system count). [0737] 6. Go to step 2.
[0738] To avoid duplication, dSoS examines the currently placed
orders for the next convoy. If a system is already ordered, it
removes it from the list generated here. This will frequently occur
if the minimum count for a system type is set to the initial count,
thereby lessening the impact of this action. In the initial example
problem setups the minimum counts are set to 0 so this algorithm
solely determines which replacement systems to order.
[0739] In step 2 dSoS examines all possible success path
combinations and collects those that yield the greatest value of
A.sub.SoS. If there is only one such combination it is the best.
Otherwise, there is a secondary screening that selects those
combinations that require the fewest total number of systems. If
there are still multiple candidate combinations, the code selects
one at random from that list. Other possible screening criteria
could consider system type fuel efficiency, maintenance and
reliability history, availability of mechanics, etc. These are not
currently included in dSoS.
[0740] As the simulation advances in time over the mission, the
number of times the commander must act largely depends on the
frequency and severity of combat damage on the affected system
types (dSoS does not currently account for catastrophic reliability
failures). To see the effect of commander actions on the system
type configuration, the combat damage rates should be relatively
high, implying an aggressive enemy.
[0741] Example Systems Re-Tasking Problem Setup
[0742] The problem setup has 4 functions that the combat systems at
the COP are to perform and is assigned 4 system types for these
functions, as numbered in Table 24.
TABLE-US-00024 TABLE 24 Example System Re-Tasking Example Problem
Setup Number Function Number System Type 1 Internal Base 1
Unarmored HMMWVs Security (UHMV) 2 Base Perimeter 2 Armored HMMWVs
Security (AHMV) 3 Conducting Raids 3 Raider Vehicles (RV) 4
Maintaining Area 4 Area Presence Presence Vehicles (APV)
[0743] The success paths for each function exhibit the stand-in
redundancy for the system types: [0744] Internal base security
requires any combination of 3 UHMVs or AHMVs. For the purposes of
dSoS this input requires 4 success paths. Let the first number
represent UHMVs and the second number represent AHMVs. The 4
success paths are then: (3, 0), (2, 1), (1, 2), and (0, 3). [0745]
Perimeter security requires any combination of 4 AHMVs or APVs. For
the purposes of dSoS this input requires 5 success paths. Let the
first number represent AHMVs and the second number represent APVs.
The success paths are then: (4, 0), (3, 1), (2, 2), (1, 3), and (0,
4). [0746] Raids are conducted using either {4 RVs} or {2 RVs and 4
APVs}. [0747] Area presence is assured using one of 2 success
paths: {4 APVs} or {2 APVs, 2 RVs, and 2 AHMVs}.
[0748] The UHMV is only used for one function (internal security).
The AHMV and APV can help serve 3 functions. The RVs can help serve
2 functions. There are 80 possible success path combinations
(4.5.2.2). Each combination represents a potential system
configuration to deploy at the COP. The questions are [0749] 1. Is
there a preferred configuration? [0750] 2. If so, what improvement
occurs over other configurations?
[0751] Question 1
[0752] Scanning the 80 success path combinations, the total number
of systems required is always 15, 17, or 19. The counts of the
system types required can vary widely. Success path combination {1,
1, 1, 1} requires a uniform count of {3, 4, 4, 4} systems {UHMV,
AHMV, RV, APV}. Success path combination {4, 5, 2, 1} requires a
disparate count of {0, 3, 2, 12} systems.
[0753] The analysis was started with success path combination {1,
1, 1, 1} because it is the most uniform and does not involve any
re-tasking, that is, each function is initially intended to be
performed by a single system type.
[0754] The minimum system count to maintain was set to 0 for each
of the 4 system types. This is important because it means that a
replacement is not routinely ordered when a system becomes
disabled. Systems are only ordered when A.sub.SoS has been below
its threshold (0.8) for the prescribed number of hours (240, or 10
days). More than one system must be lost for A.sub.SoS to drop
below its threshold in this example so the commander orders
multiple system replacements. The identity and count of system
types to order are determined using the algorithm described above
for option b part ii.
[0755] The starting configuration was run for 200 trials. At the
end of the 2-year simulation, the final system counts at the COP
were extracted. Some trials had clearly converged to a fixed
configuration while others were still in flux. If A.sub.SoS<1 at
the end of the mission we mimicked the commander reorder protocol
until A.sub.SoS=1 and saved the resulting configuration.
[0756] The most noteworthy observations were: [0757] No final
configuration dominated, but some occurred more frequently than
others. [0758] For the 200 trials, the final configuration for 97
(48.5%) could be identified as one of 2 possible configurations.
Either could be selected as the preferred configuration. [0759] 51
instances of {0, 7, 4, 4}. [0760] 46 instances of {0, 9, 2, 6}.
[0761] No UHMVs appeared in either configuration, so internal base
security is handled by the more versatile AHMV. [0762] The first
configuration shown requires 15 systems, the minimum possible over
all configurations, whereas the second requires 17. [0763] The
starting configuration {1, 1, 1, 1} was the final configuration in
only 3 trials.
[0764] Question 2
[0765] To compare system configurations we made 3 additional runs.
For each the starting configuration is assumed to be the
configuration specified by regulation. That is, when there is a
loss, the commander immediately orders one of that type to
reestablish the initial configuration. This is done in dSoS by
setting the minimum system type counts to the initial counts and
setting the A.sub.SoS threshold to 0.
[0766] Because it requires fewer systems, we select configuration
{0, 7, 4, 4} as the preferred configuration and compare it to two
other possible initial configurations: {3, 4, 4, 4} and {0, 3, 2,
12}. Two metrics are summarized in Table 25. Both are averaged over
the 200 trials. Even though differences are not large, the
preferred configuration performs better in both metrics.
TABLE-US-00025 TABLE 25 Key Metrics for System Re-Tasking Example
Starting ASoS PB Availability {0, 7, 4, 4} 0.877 0.746 {3, 4, 4, 4}
0.864 0.745 {0, 3, 2, 12} 0.858 0.731
[0767] Example Setup 2
[0768] The problem setup from the first example has the same 4
functions as the combat systems at the COP. In example two, there
is an additional system type for stand-in redundancy-Escort Vehicle
(EV) type as shown in Table 26. When fuel runs low at a fielded PB,
it requests resupply from the COP. Each delivery requires a fuel
truck and an escort, and only the EVs can escort. The EVs were
present in the first example, but they could not be used to perform
any of the 4 combat/security functions.
TABLE-US-00026 TABLE 26 System Re-Tasking Example 2 Setup Number
Function Number System Type 1 Internal Base 1 Unarmored HMMWVs
Security (UHMV) 2 Base Perimeter 2 Armored HMMWVs Security (AHMV) 3
Conducting Raids 3 Raider Vehicles (RV) 4 Maintaining Area 4 Area
Presence Presence Vehicles (APV) 5 Escort Vehicles (EV)
[0769] The success paths for each function exhibit the stand-in
redundancy for the system types: [0770] Internal base security is
the same as in example 1; any combination of 3 UHMVs or AHMVs.
[0771] Perimeter security is the same as in example 1; any
combination of 4 AHMVs or APVs. [0772] Raids are conducted using
one of 4 success paths: {4 RVs}, {2 RVs and 4 APVs}, {2 RVs, 2
APVs, and 2 EVs}, or {2 RVs and 4 EVs}. [0773] Area presence is
assured using one of 3 success paths: {4 APVs}, {2 APVs, 2 RVs, and
2 EVs}, or {2 APVs, 2 RVs, and 2 AHMVs}.
[0774] The UHMV is only used for one function (internal security).
The AHMV and APV can help serve 3 functions. The RVs and EVs can
help serve 2 functions. The task to deliver fuel to the PBs is not
explicitly included in the A.sub.SoS calculation as a function
because of its intermittent nature. But it does cause potential
resource contention for the use of the EVs, thereby implicitly
affecting A.sub.SoS.
[0775] If available systems are scarce the commander must decide
whether an EV can be released for a fuel delivery or should remain
to help with raids and/or area presence. The potential release of
an escort to accompany a fuel truck will cause A.sub.SoS to either
stay the same or to decrease. If it stays the same the release is
allowed. If it will drop but remain above the A.sub.SoS delivery
threshold (input by the analyst) the release is allowed. Otherwise
the commander disallows the delivery until other escorts or combat
systems become available--which then results in a retest for the
release.
[0776] The decision affects the ability of the COP to field patrol
bases. If fuel is at a low level at a patrol base and a delivery is
not forthcoming, the entire patrol base returns to the COP. The
time during which that patrol base should be fielded but is not
reduces the PB availability metric, implying that the COP is
failing at one of its responsibilities.
[0777] Note that there are 240 possible success path combinations
(4.5.4.3). Each combination represents a possible system
configuration to deploy at the COP. However, because a
configuration is characterized by the system counts required by the
combination of success paths, there is potential duplication. For
example, the success path combination {1, 1, 2, 2} signifies that
the first success path of internal base security and the first
success path of perimeter base security are combined with the
second success path of raids and area presence. The combination
requires 3 UHMVs, 4 AHMVs, 6 APVs, 4 RVs, and 2 EVs. The same set
of systems is required by the combination {1, 3, 3, 3}. In this
regard there are 216 unique configurations.
[0778] The same 2 questions are posed here [0779] 1. Is there a
preferred configuration? [0780] 2. If so, what improvement occurs
over other configurations?
[0781] Question 1
[0782] Scanning the 216 unique success path combinations, the total
number of systems required is always 15, 17, or 19. The counts of
the system types required can vary widely. Success path combination
{1, 2, 4, 3} requires a rather uniform count of {3, 5, 3, 4, 4}
systems {UHMV, AHMV, RV, APV, EV}. Contrasting, success path
combination {4, 5, 2, 1} requires a disparate count of {0, 3, 2,
12, 0} systems.
[0783] The analysis was started with success path combination {1,
1, 1, 1} because it does not involve any stand-in redundancy, that
is, each function is intended to be performed by a single system
type. There are {3, 4, 4, 4, 0} systems required, which does not
call for any EVs. However for this simulation there are 3 fuel
trucks initially assigned to the COP with a minimum count of 2, so
it makes sense to assign 3 EVs for fuel deliveries also with a
minimum count of 2. In this regard, there is some initial overbuild
for the A.sub.SoS calculation.
[0784] The minimum system count to maintain was set to 0 for each
of the 4 non-Escort system types. This is important because it
means that a replacement is not routinely ordered when a system
becomes disabled. Systems are only ordered when A.sub.SoS has been
below its threshold (0.8) for the prescribed number of hours (240,
or 10 days). More than one system must be lost for A.sub.SoS to
drop below its threshold in this example so the commander orders
multiple system replacements. The identity and count of system
types to order are determined using the algorithm described above
for option b part ii. The A.sub.SoS delivery threshold was set to
0.6 so if escort systems are being used as stand-in redundant
systems for the 4 functions of the base and releasing an escort
will cause A.sub.SoS to fall below 0.6, fuel deliveries are
postponed.
[0785] The starting configuration {1, 1, 1, 1} was run for 200
trials. At the end of the 2-year simulation, the final system
counts at the COP were extracted. Some trials had clearly converged
to a fixed configuration while others were still in flux. If
A.sub.SoS<1 at the end of the mission we mimicked the commander
reorder protocol until A.sub.SoS=1 and saved the resulting
configuration.
[0786] The most noteworthy observations were: [0787] No final
configuration dominated, but some occurred more frequently than
others. [0788] For the 200 trials, the final configuration for 53
(26.5%) could be identified as one of 2 possible configurations:
[0789] 29 instances of {0, 7, 4, 4, 0}. [0790] 24 instances of {0,
7, 8, 2, 0}. [0791] No UHMVs appeared in either configuration, so
internal base security is handled by the more versatile AHMV.
[0792] No EVs appeared in either configuration so the number of
escorts present did not affect A.sub.SoS for these particular
configurations, only the ability to deliver fuel. [0793] The first
configuration shown requires 15 systems, the minimum possible over
all configurations, whereas the second requires 17. [0794]
Disregarding EVs, the best configuration is identical to the best
in the first example.
[0795] Question 2
[0796] To compare system configurations, the starting configuration
is assumed to be the configuration specified by regulation. That is
when there is a loss, the commander immediately orders one of that
type to reestablish the initial configuration. This is done in dSoS
by setting the minimum system type counts to the initial counts and
setting the A.sub.SoS threshold to 0.
[0797] Because it requires fewer systems, we select configuration
{0, 7, 4, 4, 0} as the preferred configuration and compare it to
two other possible initial configurations: {3, 4, 4, 4, 0} and {0,
3, 2, 12, 0}. Two metrics are summarized in Table 27. Both are
averaged over the 200 trials. Even though differences are not
large, the preferred configuration performs better in both metrics.
The configuration with no intended system re-tasking performs the
worst in this case.
TABLE-US-00027 TABLE 27 System Re-Tasking Comparing System
Configurations Starting A.sub.SoS PB Availability {0, 7, 4, 4, 0}
0.891 0.734 {3, 4, 4, 4, 0} 0.863 0.702 {0, 3, 2, 12, 0} 0.875
0.729
[0798] Conclusions
[0799] dSoS software can be used to investigate adaptability in the
system of systems arena. It incorporates a novel definition of
system of systems availability (A.sub.SoS) and an algorithm to
select replacement systems when necessary. Together they can be
used to help determine initial preferred system configurations, for
maximizing A.sub.SoS over a mission.
[0800] The starting configuration is defined and dSoS simulates the
mission for a prescribed time. During the mission, if triggered by
a time interval when A.sub.SoS is unacceptably low, the selection
algorithm determines a set of systems to order that will raise
A.sub.SoS back to 1. The resulting configuration changes over time
and migrates to a few configurations that outperform the rest.
[0801] Comparing the best starting configuration for the two
example problems, average A.sub.SoS increased (0.877 to 0.891) with
the addition of the Escort Vehicles as potential stand-ins for the
other combat systems. There was also a decrease in patrol base
availability (0.746 to 0.734) due to the competition for the
escorts. The dSoS software is a useful tool to evaluate these sorts
of competing effects.
[0802] The technology described herein can be realized in whole or
in part on an information processing system, such as a personal
computer and/or a server. The processes previously described and
shown in the flowchart diagrams herein can be carried out by
executing instructions contained in a computer-readable medium and
read by the information processing system.
[0803] According to another embodiment of the disclosure, a system
is disclosed for performing the operations of the disclosed
methods. Referring now to FIG. 15, a block diagram 400 illustrating
the general components of a computer according to an embodiment of
the disclosure is shown. The computer 400 can be a digital computer
that, in terms of hardware architecture, generally includes a
processor 402, input/output (I/O) interfaces 404, network
interfaces 406, an operating system (0/S) 410, a data store 412,
and a memory 414. The components (402, 404, 406, 410, 412, and 414)
are communicatively coupled via a local interface 408. The local
interface 408 can be, for example but not limited to, one or more
buses or other wired or wireless connections, as is known in the
art. The local interface 408 can have additional elements, which
are omitted for simplicity, such as controllers, buffers (caches),
drivers, among many others, to enable communications. Further, the
local interface 408 can include address, control, and/or data
connections to enable appropriate communications among the
aforementioned components. The general operation of a computer
comprising these elements is well known in the art.
[0804] The processor 402 is a hardware device for executing
software instructions. The processor 402 can be any custom made or
commercially available processor, a central processing unit (CPU),
an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the
computer 400, a semiconductor-based microprocessor (in the form of
a microchip or chip set), or generally any device for executing
software instructions. When the computer 400 is in operation, the
processor 402 is configured to execute software stored within the
memory 414, to communicate data to and from the memory 414, and to
generally control operations of the computer 400 pursuant to the
software instructions.
[0805] The I/O interfaces 404 can be used to receive user input
from and/or for providing system output to one or more devices or
components. User input can be provided via, for example, a keyboard
and/or a mouse. System output can be provided via a display device
and a printer (not shown). I/O interfaces 404 can include, for
example but not limited to, a serial port, a parallel port, a small
computer system interface (SCSI), an infrared (IR) interface, a
radio frequency (RF) interface, and/or a universal serial bus (USB)
interface.
[0806] The network interfaces 406 can be used to enable the
computer 400 to communicate on a network. For example, the computer
400 can utilize the network interfaces 408 to communicate via the
internet to other computers or servers for software updates,
technical support, etc. The network interfaces 408 can include, for
example, an Ethernet card (e.g., 10BaseT, Fast Ethernet, Gigabit
Ethernet) or a wireless local area network (WLAN) card (e.g.,
802.11a/b/g). The network interfaces 408 can include address,
control, and/or data connections to enable appropriate
communications on the network.
[0807] A data store 412 can be used to store data. The data store
412 can include any of volatile non-transitory memory elements
(e.g., random access memory (RAM, such as DRAM, SRAM, SDRAM, and
the like)), nonvolatile memory elements (e.g., ROM, hard drive,
tape, CDROM, and the like), and combinations thereof. Moreover, the
data store 412 can incorporate electronic, magnetic, optical,
and/or other types of storage media. In one example, the data store
412 can be located internal to the computer 400 such as, for
example, an internal hard drive connected to the local interface
408 in the computer 400. Additionally in another embodiment, the
data store can be located external to the computer 400 such as, for
example, an external hard drive connected to the I/O interfaces 404
(e.g., SCSI or USB connection). Finally in a third embodiment, the
data store may be connected to the computer 400 through a network,
such as, for example, a network attached file server.
[0808] The memory 414 can include any of volatile non-transitory
memory elements (e.g., random access memory (RAM, such as DRAM,
SRAM, SDRAM, etc.)), nonvolatile non-transitory memory elements
(e.g., ROM, hard drive, tape, CDROM, etc.), and combinations
thereof. Moreover, the memory 414 may incorporate non-transitory
electronic, magnetic, optical, and/or other types of storage media.
Note that the memory 414 can have a distributed architecture, where
various components are situated remotely from one another, but can
be accessed by the processor 402.
[0809] The software in memory 414 can include one or more software
programs, each of which includes an ordered listing of executable
instructions for implementing logical functions. In the example of
FIG. 15, the software in the memory system 414 includes the
computer program product for performing the disclosed methods and a
suitable operating system (O/S) 410. The operating system 410
essentially controls the execution of other computer programs, such
as the interactive toolkit for sourcing valuation, and provides
scheduling, input-output control, file and data management, memory
management, and communication control and related services. The
operating system 410 can be, but is not limited to any of Windows
NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista (all available from
Microsoft, Corp. of Redmond, Wash.), Solaris (available from Sun
Microsystems, Inc. of Palo Alto, Calif.), LINUX (or another UNIX
variant) (available from Red Hat of Raleigh, N.C.), or other like
operating system with similar functionality.
[0810] In an exemplary embodiment of the technology described
herein, a computer 400 is configured to perform or execute the
steps as depicted in flowcharts shown in FIGS. 2, 4, 11 13 and 14,
and as described in the text of this disclosure. According to an
embodiment of the disclosure, a computer program product is
configured to perform one or more of the executable programs for
assessing system adaptability, providing an informed strategy for
determining the composition of a system of system, determining SoS
adaptability, and for determining effective system re-taskability.
The computer program product, located on computer 400, is
configured specifically to perform these tasks. The computer
program product is user-driven in a questionnaire style that
coaches the user throughout the methodology. The interactive
toolkit for performing the executable methods is configurable per
user and application.
[0811] According to another embodiment of the invention, a computer
program product is disclosed for performing the operations of the
disclosed methods depicted in flowcharts shown in FIGS. 2, 4, 11 13
and 14, and as described in the text of this disclosure. In an
embodiment, a computer program product is disclosed for performing
the operations of the disclosed methods for assessing system
adaptability. In an embodiment, the computer program product is
embedded within a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
readable by a processor of a computer and configured to store
instructions for execution by the processor for performing a method
including: [0812] a) defining a problem having a design and a
scenario; [0813] b) choosing one or more metrics; [0814] c)
selecting one or more measures for the one or more chosen metrics;
[0815] d) evaluating the one or more measures for the design and
scenario; [0816] e) redefining the design; [0817] f) repeating
steps a through e to create one or more designs; [0818] g)
comparing the one or more designs; and [0819] h) selecting a final
design from the one or more designs for recommendation.
[0820] Additional executable steps are as described in the method
description for assessing system adaptability.
[0821] In an embodiment, a computer program product is disclosed
for performing the operations of the disclosed methods for
providing an informed strategy for determining the composition of a
system of system. In an embodiment, the computer program product is
embedded within a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
readable by a processor of a computer and configured to store
instructions for execution by the processor for performing a method
including: [0822] a) define a problem having a design and a
scenario; [0823] b) choose one or more performance metrics; [0824]
c) select one or more measures for the one or more chosen
performance metrics; [0825] d) evaluate the one or more measures
for the design and scenario; [0826] e) redefine design; [0827] f)
repeat steps a through e to create one or more designs; [0828] g)
compare the one or more designs based on the evaluation of the
evaluated performance metrics; and [0829] h) provide a final design
from the one or more designs based on the evaluation of the
evaluated performance metrics.
[0830] Additional executable steps are as described in the method
description for providing an informed strategy for determining the
composition of a system of system.
[0831] In an embodiment, a computer program product is disclosed
for performing the operations of the disclosed methods for
determining effective system re-taskability. In an embodiment, the
computer program product is embedded within a non-transitory
computer readable storage medium readable by a processor of a
computer and configured to store instructions for execution by the
processor for performing a method including: [0832] a) define a
problem having a design, functions, and a scenario; [0833] b)
define possible re-tasking for each function; [0834] c) evaluate
performance of system of system under re-tasking using system of
system availability; [0835] d) redefine design; [0836] e) repeat
steps a through d to create one or more designs; [0837] f) compare
designs; and [0838] g) provide a final design from the one or more
designs based on evaluation of effective system availability.
[0839] Additional executable steps are as described in the method
description for determining effective system re-taskability.
[0840] In summary, the methods, systems and computer program
products of the present disclosure provide the following findings:
[0841] An SoS can be more or less adaptable, in the sense that the
design and operation of an SoS can contribute to how well it can
perform in changing mission spaces, changing threat environments,
and changing natural environments. [0842] Metrics exist that can
indicate the adaptability of an SoS. [0843] No single metric for
adaptability of SoS exists. There are many aspects to SoS (purpose,
functionality, structure, etc.) and many ways they can adapt to
changing conditions. [0844] No universally applicable SoS
adaptability metrics exist. Again, SoS differ in too many aspects.
Relative metrics for comparing designs within an SoS, however, can
be applied--one can say that a given design for a particular SoS is
probably more adaptable than another. [0845] Four categories of
adaptability metrics, including 15 individual adaptability metrics,
were developed that can cover a range of theoretical adaptability
facets. [0846] A Systems of Systems Adaptability Index (SoSAI) can
provide an aggregation of an application-specific subset of the
adaptability metrics. Both the individual metrics and SoSAI are
promising mechanisms for providing SoS adaptability insights.
[0847] A subset of the individual adaptability metrics and the
SoSAI correlate with performance in a notional military deployment
test case, and thus the metrics and SoSAI were useful to
distinguish more adaptable from less adaptable SoS designs. [0848]
The adaptability metrics suggest that substitutability of systems
in an SoS can be beneficial for adaptability. Substitutability,
also known as systems re-tasking or stand-in redundancy, can be
designed into an SoS. [0849] Adaptability metrics have other
potential benefits beyond assessing the adaptability of SoS. For
example, the complexity metrics can be used in determining the
integrity of supply chains. [0850] Also, the diversity metric can
be use in determining a representative set of components during
trade-space characterization.
[0851] While the invention has been described with reference to a
preferred embodiment, it will be understood by those skilled in the
art that various changes may be made and equivalents may be
substituted for elements thereof without departing from the scope
of the invention. In addition, many modifications may be made to
adapt a particular situation or material to the teachings of the
invention without departing from the essential scope thereof.
Therefore, it is intended that the invention not be limited to the
particular embodiment disclosed as the best mode contemplated for
carrying out this invention, but that the invention will include
all embodiments falling within the scope of the appended
claims.
* * * * *