Evaluation of the AirLand Battle Management Advanced ... · Evaluation of the AirLand Battle...

AD-A280 241

Research Product 94-07

Evaluation of the AirLand Battle

Management Advanced Technology

Demonstration Prototype Version 1.2:

Knowledge Base Assessment of the

Avenue of Approach Generation Tool

94-17380 qUrr IqNS E I

tDTICELECTE Il

April 1994 SIJUNJa1 :4,

Field Unit at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

Manpower and Personnel Research Division .

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Approved for public releae; distribution Is unlimited.

94 6'7 126

- 7I .

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdiction

of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSONDirector

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Technical review by

Charles Allen IIHMary C. BerwangerBattle Command Battle Laboratory,Combined Arms Command, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

NOTICES

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Product may be destroyed when it is no longer needed.Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: This Research Product is not to be construed as an official Department of the Armyposition, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Fcrm Ap•,vod

________________________________________________ _ I o mit NO. 0704-078"

PUNa oIC 9 f tW Ves C ot ,.;vC.&tiO at ] .. Ut to t 4. I our~ U .--.--ooftt me t'm It 16b.ewe ,fwtrW:tu aach.,n at:.mg Gat&-- w tcs.gatatwutg Ofd gaantamf," t ol uat nd, adoges W come n 8- ft. S Vme _ .ane eem .a •.0e_.art b%~ .Uitnate or anty othm• m-w Of W-e.,

co~aO'at enoeeaen. anltd=g wrteamtdedean liu era to *wWgI. Mdar"M SoIE1 Wu__-_aj owaaonandft 8 pawti 121 J@If tDavie a.*a•y. Suit 0ad to me CVci a, Ma ageuuetnd• aPd rW-m n.uegton. oC 20••.

t. AGENCY USE ONLY (LOdVO osanx) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

1994, April Final Aug 92 - Feb 934. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERSEvaluation of the AirLand Battle Management Advanced MDA903-92-D-0039Technology Demonstration Prototype Version 1.2: Knowledge 63007ABase Assessment of the Avenue of Approach Generation Tool 793

6. AUTHOR(S) 1122Col

McKeown, Paul E.

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADORESS(ES) S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

CAE-Link Corporation REPORT NUMBER

Suite #300, 5111 Leesburg PikeFalls Church, VA 22041

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADORESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/ MONITORINGU.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Social Sciences ARI Research ProductATTN: PERI-RK 94-07Bldg. 90, McClellan AvenueFort Leavenworth, KS 66027-0347

II. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESSee also Riedel, S. L., McKeown, P. E., Flanagan, J. P., & Adelman, L. (Inpreparation). Evaluation of the ALBM ATD Prototype Version 1.2: Knowledge Base

(Continued)12a. DISTRIBUTION i AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRISUTION CODEApproved for public release;distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200words)This report documents subject matter experts' (SMEs) assessments of the

knowledge base of the Avenue of Approach (AA) Generation Tool, a module of theAirLand Battle Management (ALBM) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) decisionaid prototype, version 1.2. This is one of a series of assessments of the ALBMATD prototype conducted during its development. The AA Generation Tool willgenerate an AA given an initial location, objective, and force template. It usesterrain data obtained from the Tactical Decision Aids terrain data base ingenerating the AA. In general, SMEs thought that the concept for automatic AAgeneration was good, but the current implementation was of marginal use. Specificrecommendations for improvement are provided.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGESCommand and control Avenue of Approach Generation Aid 83ALBM ATD Decision aid evaluation 16. PRICE CODETactical planning aids Knowledge base assessment --

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFiCATION 20.ATION TION OF ABSTRACTOF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited-NSN 7540-O1-280-SSOO Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)1

it~n~ ft ANSI %%d JM5-I

ei

ARI Research Product 94-07

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES (Continued)

Assessment of the Avenue of Approach Comparison Tool. ARI Research Product 94-09.Contracting Officer's Representatives, Jon J. Fallesen and Sharon L. Riedel

ILoaesuulon Pow

STISDIC TAB 0Unranuo aced

JuStification

biUt Ib• ut1IR• ,

Aa-llab~lzlt Cc&"

, II1i Iad/or

-iti

'

Research Product 94-07

Evaluation of the AirLand Battle Management

Advanced Technology Demonstration Prototype

Version 1.2: Knowledge Base Assessment of theAvenue of Approach Generation Tool

Paul E. McKeownCAE-Link Corporation

Field Unit at Fort Leavenworth, KansasStanley M. Halpin, Chief

Manpower and Personnel Research DivisionZita M. Simutis, Director

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

April 1994

Army Project Number Human Factors in Training2Q263007A793 Operational Effectiveness

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

lii

FOREWORD

This document contains the results of an early assessment ofthe Avenue of Approach Generation Tool, a module of the AirLandBattle Management (ALBM) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD)prototype, version 1.2. ALBM ATD is a program to developdecision aid prototypes to support Army division-level tacticalplanning. This assessment is one of a series of life cycleassessments of ALBM ATD being conducted by the U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) during thedevelopment of the system. The results will be used by thedeveloper and government sponsors of ALBM ATD to guide furtherdevelopment of the system.

The research was conducted under the ARI research taskentitled "Support for Command and Control Research." Theassessment was in support of the Combined Arms Command (CAC), theprogram's user representative. A Memorandum of Agreement was ineffect with the Combined Arms Combat Developments Activity,"Development and Implementation of the Future Battle Laboratory,"dated 30 June 1989. The results of this review were briefed topersonnel from the Battle Command Battle Laboratory, CombinedArms Command; Communications and Electronics Command; Lockheed;and MITRE on 7 January 1993. Brigadier General Anderson, DeputyCommanding General for Combat Developments, Combined Arms Center,was briefed on the findings presented in this report on25 January 1993.

EDGAR M. JOHNSONDirector

v

EVALUATION OF THE AIRLAND BATTLE MANAGEMENT ADVANCED TECHNOLOGYDEMONSTRATION PROTOTYPE VERSION 1.2: KNOWLEDGE BASE ASSESSMENTOF THE AVENUE OF APPROACH GENERATION TOOL

CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....... 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Overve .. ............ . 3Description of ALBM ATD ........ ........... 3Description of the AA Generation Tool . . . . . . . . . 5Example of AA Generation Using the Cognitive Map . . . 8

METHOD ................... .......................... 9

Assessment Issues .............................. . 9Subject Matter Experts ......... ...... . 9Documentation of Algorithms and Procedures . . ..... 10Materials .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... 10Procedure . . . ........................ 11Data Analysis .................... . . . 11

RESULTS ............................... 13

Cognitive Map .............. . . . ....... 13AA Path Generation . .................... 16SME Confidence in the AA ............... 18Parameters That Control AA Generation . . . . . . . . . 19Usability of Displays . . . . . .............. 21Compatibility With Doctrine . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 21General Comments . . . . .................... 22

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . ............ 23

REFERENCES . . . .......................... 27

APPENDIX A. EXAMPLE OF AA GENERATION ... .......... A-1

B. BRIEFING MATERIALS . . . ............. B-1

C. QUESTIONNAIRE AND RELEASE FOM .. ....... .. C-i

D. SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT BACKGROUND ...... .. D-1

E. LOCATION ANALYSIS TOOLS RATINGSAND COMMENTS ................... E-1

vii

CONTENTS (Continuedl

Page

APPENDIX F. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . . . F-1

G. RESULTS OF CONFIDENCE IN GENERATED AA . . .. G-1

H. RESULTS OF PARAMETER USE ...... .......... H-1

I. USABILITY OF DISPLAY RESULTS ........ .. I-1

J. COMPATIBILITY WITH DOCTRINE RESULTS . . . . J-1

K. AA GENERATION QUESTIONNAIRE ANDINTERVIEW RESULTS GENERAL COMMENTS ..... K-i

L. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . . . L-I

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. SME Comments on the Cognitive Map ....... 14

2. SME Comments on Path Generation ....... .. 17

3. SHE Comments on Parameters That ControlAA Generation .................... 20

viii

EVALUATION OF THE AIRLAND BATTLE MANAGEMENTADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROTOTYPE VERSION 1.2:

KNOWLEDGE BASE ASSESSMENT OF THE AVENUE OF APPROACH GENERATIONTOOL

Summary

This study evaluated the completeness, accuracy, andadequacy of the knowledge base (i.e., procedures, data base, andalgorithms) of the Avenue of Approach (AA) Generation Tool, amodule of the AirLand Battle Management Advanced TechnologyDemonstration (ALBM ATD) version 1.2 prototype. The study wasperformed as part of the Army Research Institute's (ARI) supportof the Battle Command Battle Laboratory (BCBL).

Six Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) participated in individualevaluation sessions. In the evaluation, the procedures, database, parameters, and algorithms of the AA Generation Tool werebriefed to each SME. Following the briefing, SMEs completed awritten questionnaire. Throughout the briefing and whilecompleting the questionnaire, each SME was encouraged to askquestions and make verbal comments.

Analysis of the data collected for the AA Generation Toolshowed that the data base was "borderline adequate" to support AAgeneration. The data base lacked certain needed information, andthe information contained was not sufficiently detailed. The AAsgenerated were not optimum due to artifacts caused by thealgorithm. The SMEs felt the parameters used to control AAgeneration and the displays produced were "rather adequate" to"borderline adequate." They wanted a broader range of controland more detail in the displays was desired. The SMEs also feltthat the AA Generation Tool was "rather compatible" to"borderline in compatibility" with Army doctrine regarding AAs.This was due to the simplification of the data base and thesuboptimal paths generated for the AAs. In general, the SMEsthought the concept for automatic AA generation was good, but thecurrent implementation was of marginal use. If suggestedimprovements would be made, automatic generation would be auseful tool at division and corps echelons, although the SMEswould regard the generated AAs as suggestions and guides toassist them in manually developing AAs.

It is concluded that the AA Generation Tool in the ALBM ATDversion 1.2 prototype is not adequate for use at this time. Ifimprovements are incorporated, the AA Generation Tool would beuseful at division and corps echelons. It is recommended thatthe AA Generation Tool be improved before it is provided to unitsfor operational use. The improvements suggested includeexpanding the goals for determining the path of an AA, includingadditional terrain data for determining the AA path, andincluding tactical considerations (e.g., boundaries,contamination areas) as constraints in generating an AA.

1

Introduction

Overview

The purpose of this report is to document the results of aknowledge base assessment of the AA Generation Tool, a module ofALBM ATD. This evaluation is one of six conducted by ARI of theVersion 1.2 prototype of ALBM ATD. The assessments are part of aset of life cycle evaluations conducted on the ALBM ATD prototypeduring development. The purpose of life cycle evaluation is toprovide user and subject matter expert feedback to the governmentsponsor and contractor developer in order to guide the design anddevelopment of the system and to provide information formanagement decisions. In this way, it is hoped that the finaloperational system will have capabilities that will improve userperformance.

Assessments conducted on the version 1.2 prototype includeknowledge base reviews of four tools, a human factors assessmentof the interface, and a user and SME review of demonstratedprototype capabilities. In addition to this report, theseassessments are documented in separate ARI reports (Flanagan, inpreparation; McKeown, in preparation; Rappold & Flanagan, inpreparation; Riedel, McKeown, Flanagan, & Adelman, inpreparation).

The objectives of the evaluation described in this reportwere to assess the completeness, accuracy and acceptability ofthe AA Generation Tool algorithms, procedures and products, asreported by subject matter experts. The study involvedobtaining, recording, and analyzing feedback from six SMEs on thecurrent functionality of the AA Generation Tool. Therefore, theprocedure for conducting the study centered on obtainingreactions to the existing tool, rather than on obtainingsuggestions on how the AA Generation Tool should function. Therewas no attempt to elicit design suggestions, although some werevolunteered and captured during the study. As a result, thisstudy presents problems, deficiencies, and omissions in thefunctionality of the AA Generation Tool, without alwayspresenting approaches for overcoming these problems. It is hopedthat system engineers and system designers will be able to reviewthe results contained herein, and develop appropriateenhancements or corrections to the current design of the Tool.

Description of ALBM ATD

ALBM ATD is a Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) andArmy Materiel Command (AMC) program. The main purposes of ALBMATD are to (1) define and refine operational requirements forautomated decision aids for planning, (2) develop operationalprototypes based on advanced technologies, and (3) facilitatetransition of the decision aids to the Army Tactical Command andControl System (ATCCS). The decision aids are intended tosupport corps, division and brigade level commanders and theirstaffs in tactical planning operations. The Communications and

3

Electronics Command at Fort Monmouth is responsible for theoverall management of the program; the Combined Arms Command,Combat Developments at Fort Leavenworth is the users'representative responsible for functional requirements, knowledgeelicitation with SMEs, and the operational evaluations; and theProgram Executive Office for Command and Control systems (PEO-CCS) is responsible for integration with the Army TacticalCommand and Control System (ATCCS).

Two force level control (FLC) advisors are under developmentas part of the ALBM ATD system - MET 4 and FITE. MET 4 (Mission,Enemy, Terrain, Troops and Time Available Tools) is intended toaid commanders and their staffs from brigade through corps toanalyze the area of operations and to assess the enemy andfriendly capabilities. FITE (Force Interactive TacticalEvaluator) interacts with MET 4 to aid commanders and theirstaffs to develop, wargame, and compare courses of action.

MET4 has four basic components.

-Battlefield Area (BA) component assists commanders andstaff to analyze the terrain and develop and analyze avenues ofapproach.

-The Enemy Situation and Capabilities (ESC) componentinteracts with the other MET 4 components to aid commanders andstaffs to anticipate enemy operations. Its principal focus is onprobable enemy courses of action.

-Friendly Situation and Capabilities (FSC) componentinteracts with other MET 4 components to assist commanders andstaffs to analyze missions received from higher headquarters, toassess the friendly situation and to determine the generalability of the unit to accomplish its assigned mission. Thefocus is on projecting friendly unit readiness and capabilities.

-The Execution Monitor (EM) component interacts with ATCCScomponents, FITE, other MET 4 components, and other decision aidsto aid commanders and staffs to monitor current operations. Italerts commanders and staffs when the current operation deviatesfrom the operations order (OPORD). EM aids commanders and staffsto determine when orders should be issued to implement new phasesor branches provided for in the current plan and whenmodifications of the current plan or replanning are necessary.

FITE interacts with MET 4 to aid commanders and staffs todevelop, wargame, and compare courses of action (COAs). It alsoaids commanders and staffs to properly synchronize operations ofsubordinate and supporting units in order to concentrate combatpower at the critical place and time to accomplish the commandersintent. Its principal focus is on COA development, preparationof the COA sketch, COA analysis (wargaming) and comparison, andon an execution synchronization matrix.

4

Description of the AA Generation Tool

This section provides a brief and simplified description ofthe ALBM ATD AA Generation Tool as it existed in November 1992,the time of this study. The AA Generation Tool automaticallygenerates an AA given an initial location and objective. It willapply data obtained from Tactical Decision Aids, rules fordoctrinal force frontages and terrain query capabilities tosearch for a satisfactory avenue of approach. The followingdescriptions of AA Generation components are provided in thissection: (1) Cognitive Map structure, (2) unit templates, (3)disaggregation, (4) path deflection, (5), logic of AA pathgeneration and (6) example of AA generation using the CognitiveMap. SMEs were briefed in these areas as part rf the assessmentand data collection session. The figures referenced in thissection are all contained in Appendix A.

Cognitive Map Structure. The method of developing theCognitive Map is explained in this section. The examples use a1:250,000 scale map of a portion of Germany (see Figure A-i).

Cognitive Map is the name given to the computerrepresentation of terrain that is used to automatically generateAAs. It is intended to represent the Combined Obstacles Overlay(i.e., GO, SLOW-GO, and NO-GO terrain) which is used manually todevelop AAs.

The starting point for developing the Cognitive Map is theEngineering Topographic Laboratory (ETL) Cross-Country MobilityTactical Decision Aid (TDA), which provides NO-GO, SLOW-GO, andGO data. An off-line software process analyzes this data toderive NO-GO polygons. This is done by determining the densityof NO-GO data. If a small piece of NO-GO is isolated from otherNO-GO data, it is ignored. If pieces of NO-GO are gathered innear proximity, a polygon is developed to include the NO-GO data.Figure A-2 shows the same terrain as Figure A-i, but with darkslanted lines depicting NO-GO terrain, and light slanted linesrepresenting SLOW-GO terrain as provided by the ETL TDA. InFigure A-3, slanted lines represent the ETL TDA NO-GO data, andpolygons enclosing the ETL TDA data are the developed NO-GOpolygons. Because the source data only considers cross-countrymobility, urban areas are not included. To cover this omission,Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) Interim Terrain Data (ITD) is usedfor its polygons representing built-up areas, which aredesignated as NO-GO. In Figure A-3, these are the large polygonswith a small amount of slanted lines (i.e., ETL TDA data) withinthem.

Lines of shortest distance are drawn between each NO-GOpolygon connecting with all other nearby NO-GO polygons, as longas a line does not itself cross an intervening NO-GO polygon.These lines are called "minimum gaps". The lines are thendecluttered by finding all intersecting lines and removing thelonger of the intersecting lines. The result is an allocation ofthe map area into NO-GO and GO (i.e., areas other than NO-GO)

5

polygons. Figure A-4 shows the results of this process. Each GOpolygon (i.e., areas other than NO-GO) is then described in termsof the percentage of the polygon that consists of SLOW-GO terrainas derived from the ETL TDA shown in Figure A-2.

The Cognitive Map shown in Figure A-4 consists of polygonsof NO-GO terrain, and polygons of calculated percentages of SLOW-GO and GO terrain. These latter polygons are separated byminimum gap lines drawn between neighboring NO-GO polygons. Thepoints, lines, and areas that make up this collection of polygonsare stored as a "fully integrated topologically linked polygonnetwork structure" (Burrough, 1990), to facilitate automatedprocessing. This polygon network is the terrain representationused by the AA Generation algorithm to develop AA paths.

Unit templates. The various echelons have doctrinal minimumand maximum frontages (ST 100-9, The Command Estimate Process).Basically, an AA must be at least as wide as the minimum frontagefor the desired echelon (i.e., the AA must pass between NO-GOareas that are no closer than the minimum frontage distance).The user can modify the minimum frontage width of the desiredechelon through use of the Choke Factor. The Choke Factor is adistance in meters that the minimum frontage requirement can berelaxed to allow an AA to exist. For example, a brigade minimumfrontage of 3 kilometers would not pass through a gap between NO-GO areas of 2.9 kilometers. A Choke Factor of 100 meters wouldallow the brigade to pass through the 2.9 km gap with no penalty.

DisacareQation. The ST 100-9 also specifies a doctrinalmaximum separation of subordinate units. If an AA cannot befound for a unit at a given echelon and the option to maintainsubordinate unit proximities has been turned off, then an attemptis made to find separate AAs for the subordinate units. That is,gaps between NO-GO areas may not allow a brigade to pass, but itmay be possible for subordinate battalions to pass through thegaps. If such AAs can be found, the paths for the subordinateAAs are averaged to present the AA for the echelon that wasoriginally desired.

Path deflection. The user has the option to restrict thelength of the AA being generated in relation to the straight-linedistance from the starting point to the destination. Anydeviation from a straight-line path is termed a path deflection.A path deflection of 50% would indicate the desire to limit thetotal AA length to no more than 50% greater than the straight-line distance. If no path exists that is shorter than allowed bythe path deflection limit, then the lowest-cost (shortest time)path will be found regardless of the length.

Logic of AA path generation. The algorithm used to generatean AA path is shown and explained briefly in Figure A-5. Thefollowing paragraphs provide a more detailed explanation of thealgorithm.

6

The user specifies starting and ending points for an AA.Also specified are the parameters discussed above, namely, forceechelon, choke factor, subordinate unit proximity requirement,path deflection limit, and whether the AA path will be allowed tocross NO-GO terrain. The system attempts to find the shortest(i.e., in time) path from start to finish. The time is based ondoctrinal unopposed daytime movement rates for mechanized forcesover the terrain classes found in the cognitive map polygons.

The starting point of the first line segment of the AA pathis the midpoint of a gap line that is long enough to allowpassage of the user-specified echelon. If no gap line is ofsufficient length (after allowing for the choke factor, if any),a determination is made whether or not the user required thatsubordinate unit proximities be maintained.

If subordinate unit proximities are to be maintained,the search for the AA path fails, and the user ispresented with a message that the AA search wasunsuccessful.

If subordinate unit proximities are not required to bemaintained, the unit will disaggregate as described inthe Disaggregation section, and the search for asufficient gap line will be repeated using the smallerunit frontage.

There are three or more gap lines bounding each polygon.All gap lines of sufficient length are considered for use in theAA path, in terms of the movement time from start to finish. Thepath will be constructed using the gap line that provides theshortest total movement time.

The movement time can be calculated for the current polygon,since the percentages of SLOW-GO and GO terrain are known forthat polygon. To arrive at the total time from start to finish(i.e., the goal is to find the shortest total time), the systemassumes a straight-line path from the end of each of the currentsegments to the finish point, using SLOW-GO movement rates.

The end of the first segment is at thn midpoint of a gapline that separates the starting polygon from an adjoiningpolygon. The path search continues by looking at all other gaplines of the new polygon (i.e., if at least two exist) to see ifany are of sufficient length to allow passage of the specifiedechelon.

If only one gap line qualifies, it will be used by default.

If two or more gap lines qualify, then the one that providesthe shortest total travel time will be used for the AA path, asdescribed above. Although only the path that results in theshortest travel time is pursued into the next polygon, thecalculated times for all other paths are kept (i.e., remembered).Thus, the travel time of the path being pursued is always

7

compared to the travel times of the other remembered paths. Thepath with the shortest travel time is then pursued into its nextpolygon.

If no other gap line in the new polygon qualifies to allowpassage of the echelon, then that path is a dead-end. The systemexamines all remembered paths (i.e., those that provided longermovement times than the one that led to the dead-end). The pathchosen is the one that had the next shortest total travel timecalculated as described above.

The process continues until a path is constructed to thefinish, until all possible paths end in dead-ends, or until allpossible paths exceed the specified deflection limit.

If no path is found, then adjustments are made to the searchcriteria as specified by the user, namely disaggregation of theechelon as described earlier. If the user had not allowed fordisaggregation, then the search fails, and the user will bepresented a message that the AA search was unsuccessful.

Example of AA Generation Using the Coqnitive Map

Figure A-6 shows the centerline of an AA generated for abattalion force from point 1 to point 2. The first pathattempted was directly towards the end point, but the gapsbetween NO-GO areas were too narrow at 3. Therefore, thealgorithm pursued the path to the south. The somewhat waveringnature of the path at 4 is due to the algorithm passing throughthe midpoint of the gap lines. At 5, it would appear more directto proceed to the east, rather than north to 6. The travel timecalculated at 6, however, must have been shorter, if even by asmall amount, than that proceeding to the gap line east of 5. At7, the configuration of the polygon and the requirement to passthrough the midpoint of the gap line, took the AA path markedlysouth, directly over a NO-GO polygon. Note that this is not anerror, but a result of the requirement to draw the path betweenthe midpoints of the gap lines. Also, the path made a subsequentmove markedly north of a direct path at 8.

8

Method

Assessment Issues

This assessment addresses the following issues:

Is the underlying data base an adequate representationof terrain from the standpoint of AA generation?

Does the method of generating a path of an AA reliablyresult in an adequate AA?

How much confidence does the user have in the generatedAA?

Do the parameters that control AA generation provideadequate ability for the user to represent his desires?

Are the AA Generation products (i.e., displays) usable,in terms of information content and format?

* Is the AA Generation method compatible with doctrine(i.e., with the methods and procedures currently taughtand used to generate AAs)?

Subject Matter Experts

Six subject matter experts participated in the assessment.The following is a summary of their backgrounds ar,' -xperience.

* There are five Majors and one Lieutenant Colonel.

* Their length of service averages 15 years, ranging from11½ to 19 years.

0 All are graduates of the Command and General StaffOfficers Course.

0 Three are students in the School of Advanced MilitaryStudies, two are observers/controllers of division andcorps level G2 (Intelligence) activities for the BattleCommand Training Program, and one is in the TreatsDivision of the Combined Arms Center

Their tactically relevant experience averages 50 monthsper SME.

The experience of five of the SMEs pertains toproduction of intelligence products, including terrainanalysis and AA generation and the experience of oneSME is in operations (i.e., the use of terrain analysisand AAs generated by intelligence planning activities).

9

Appendix D contains specific information about the militaryservice, military education, and job experience of the sixparticipating SMEs.

Documentation of Algorithms and Procedures

Descriptions of the AA Generation algorithms and procedureswere obtained from Software User's Manual for the ALBM ATD ForceLevel Control Advisor System (Lockheed, 30 May 1992) and personalcommunications with Lockheed personnel.

The set of briefing materials used for each SME is includedin Appendix B. The following topics are included:

0 Explanation of the ALBM ATD program and the role of

this study within the program

0 Brief review of Army doctrine relating to AA generat

* Overview of the AA Generation process in ALBM ATD

0 Description of the method used to construct theCognitive Map

0 Explanation of the parameters by which the usercontrols the ALBM ATD AA Generation process

0 Description of the method used in AA Generation tosearch for the best AA path

To further illustrate the AA Generation process, colorprints of the ALBM ATD workstation screen were obtained showingvarious aspects of the AA Generation Tool. Black and whiteversions of these prints are contained in Appendix A.

Color prints of the ALBM ATD workstation were used in lieuof the actual workstation. This was done to separate thesoldier-machine interface function and system performance aspectsof the ALBM ATD System from the underlying knowledge base (e.g.,procedures, algorithms, and parameters) of ALBM ATD AAGeneration. In this way, biases regarding other functionalaspects of the ALBM ATD system would not influence the results ofthis study.

A questionnaire was developed based on the six key issuesidentified earlier. The questionnaire required ratings of theALBM ATD AA Generation function for each of the six issues, andinvited written comments on each issue. Also, a questionnairewas developed to obtain demographic information on each SME, anda release form was signed by each SME regarding video-taping ofthe session and participation in the study. These materials arecontained in Appendix C.

10

Procedure

Two researchers, with backgrounds in Army division tacticaldecision making, conducted individual evaluation sessions. Thesessions lasted approximately 1 to 2 hours and were conducted atthe ARI Field Unit Laboratory at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

This study was conducted immediately prior to an assessmentof the ALBM ATD prototype module Location Analysis Applications(McKeown, in preparation). The AA Generation Tool and LocationAnalysis Tools are highly related in content. By conductingassessments of the two tools sequentially, duplicate briefingmaterial was eliminated. The same SMEs participated in bothassessments.

Following is a chronological listing of activities performedduring each session.

Release form (see Appendix C) regarding participationin the study and video-taping of the sessionadministered.

Demographic questionnaire (see Appendix C) administered

Presentation of briefing (see Appendix B) explainingthe study purpose, doctrinal background, and theknowledge base of AA Generation. Questions andcomments are encouraged from the SME, and are recordedmanually by the researcher.

Presentation of color prints of an example AAGeneration (Appendix B) which illustrates the knowledgebase of AA Generation. Questions and comments areencouraged from the SME, and are recorded manually bythe researcher.

Questionnaire concerning the six research issuesadministered. Again, verbal questions and comments areencouraged from the SME, and are recorded manually bythe researcher.

Data Analysis

Due to the limited number of qualified SMEs available forthis study, no statistical analysis was performed on theirratings of the six research issues; instead, responses wereexamined to assess the SME's subjective appraisal of the AAGeneration Tool.

The written and verbal comments made by the SMEs on thefunctionality of AA Generation in ALBM ATD were categorizedaccording to the six research issues. Comments concerning theALBM ATD program, or the AA Generation function as a whole, wereassigned to a "General" category.

11

Verbal comments duplicating a written comment by the sameSME were discarded. Verbal and written comments that exactly orclosely replicated comments made by another SME were retained andcategorized to indicate a degree of consensus on a topic.

The comments in each of the six research categories werethen reviewed to discern common threads or topics. This allowedthe researcher to discover the SME's major concerns andsuggestions.

12

Results

This section presents results of written and verbal datacollected from SMEs on the following research issues: CognitiveMap, AA Path Generation, SME Confidence in the AA, Parametersthat Control AA Generation, Usability of Displays, Compatibilitywith Doctrine, and General Comments.

Cognitive MaD

The SMEs were asked to provide a rating based upon thequestion "Is the cognitive map an adequate representation ofterrain from the standpoint of AA generation?" In addition, theSMEs were asked to list any deficiencies and suggest changes.These detailed results are contained in Appendix E.

Number of SMEs giving the indicated ratings are thefollowing:

Highly Rather Borderline Somewhat DecidedlyAdequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate

F 11 3 .1 2 1t

The written and verbal comments were categorized by topic,and are shown in Table 1. The following summarizes thesecomments:

Additional terrain attributes should be considered inthe cognitive map such as roads, rail nets, bridges,and hydrology (e.g., fords, unfordable places).

SLOW-GO terrain should be explicitly considered. A bigconcern in generating AAs is maneuvering around SLOW-GOareas.

Information is needed as to why an area is consideredNO-GO. Edges of NO-GO areas may be unusable to certainforces. Certain types of NO-GO adjacent to a force maycause problems with exposed flanks, or coordinationwith adjacent forces.

Tactical considerations (e.g., boundaries, phase lines,contamination areas) should be included. Cover andconcealment should be considered. The effect ofprevious vehicle traffic on the mobility of the terrainshould be considered.

The use of non-German terrain and non-mechanized forcesshould be provided.

13

Table 1

SHE Comments on the Cognitive Map

Topic SMEs Comments

The details of roads, rail, andhydrology are not considered.Depending on the type of operation youconduct, these items can be critical indetermining an AA.

Ignoring roads and actual waterwaylocations makes it difficult to relatethis representation with reality.

Account for road network and

Terrain capacities, and actual waterway impact.

attributes, Deals only with cross-country movement.other than GO, 5 Appears to allow forces to cross waterSLOW-GO,obstacles at will.

NO-GO are notconsidered Add road and bridge data.

The allure of existing road networkscan not be ignored. Units consciouslyor unconsciously migrate toward them.The road network probably captures thepath of least resistance or shortestdistance.

Weather has a major impact ondetermining GO, SLOW-GO, and NO-GOterrain.

SLOW-GO terrain is not specificallyconsidered in the generation of the AA.

Delineate the SLOW-GO terrain ascompared to combining it with the GOterrain as a percentage.

This representation is too general andSLOW-GO looks at things from too much of a

terrain not macro sense. While the need to reduceexplicitly 2 detail to accomplish calculations makesconsidered sense, generalizing SLOW-GO terrain

into an entire polygon trivializes itseffects.

Make SLOW-GO areas specific polygons.

GO and NO-GO areas are used. Thebiggest concern is how to maneuveraround SLOW-GO areas.

14

Table 1 (continued)

Topic SMEs Comments

It would be useful to know whatattribute caused an area to be NO-GO.An AA for a flank force may need toavoid passing by certain types of NO-GOterrain that cause coordination

3 problems, or expose a flank to attack.

It's unclear how exact the distinctionNO-GO is between GO and NO-GO areas.

information is Crossing into a NO-GO area guaranteesnot NO-GO movement rates, when the edges of

sufficiently the areas may not really be NO-GO.detailed

An area defined as NO-GO in thecognitive map may not be NO-GO to theuser (45% slope vice 44% slope).Knowing why an area is NO-GO would helpthe decision process.

Need differentiation between built-upareas and other NO-GO terrain.

Create an ability to modify the terrainas the operation progresses. Basedupon amount and type of traffic thatpasses over a certain area in a givenamount of time, the traffic of theterrain will most likely change.

It is desirable to include selected5 control measures (boundaries,

contamination areas, etc.) in thecognitive map.

Tacticalconsiderations Does not consider cover/concealment

are not factors.included

Allow for input of control measures.

Adequate from a purely "academic" viewof terrain, minus friendly and enemysituation and graphics. Both of theselatter factors determine AAs.

Friendly control measures (boundaries,phase lines, etc.) need to beconsidered along with terrain factors

I _ Ifor friendly AAs.

15

Table 1 (continued)

Topic SMEs Comments

The standards for GO, SLOW-GO, and NO-GO terrain are based on Germanoperations. The user may want to

4 provide alternate parameters for otherareas of the world.

Non-German Dismounted operations and terrain interrain and other parts of the world should be

non-mechanized accommodated.force

structures are SLOW-GO areas are vehicle dependent (M-not included 1 versus 2k ton truck). Need cognitive

maps for different force types.

G2/Terrain teams are required toproject AA for both friendly and enemy

I_ Iforces, yet parameters set only for US.

AA Path Generation

The SMEs were asked to provide a rating based upon thequestion "Does the method of generating a path of an AA reliablyresult in an adequate AA?" In addition, the SMEs were asked tolist any deficiencies and provide verbal comments. Thesedetailed results are contained in Appendix F.



2 2 2

The written and verbal comments were categorized by topic,and are shown in Table 2. The following summarizes thesecomments:

The path generated is not the most feasible. Placingthe path at the mid-point between NO-GO areas generatesa path that is adequate, but not necessarily optimum.The path should be generated to go more directly to theobjective.

Alternative paths should be presented. Or, the processcould be made interactive to allow the user to overriderestrictions when significant deviations from a directroute are impending.

Night movement rates are not considered.

16

Table 2

SME Comments on Path Generation

Topic SME Comments

Centering the path between NO-GO areas doesnot necessarily provide an avenue along thebest terrain from the start point to the endpoint (one may, in fact, have an avenue drawnthrough SLOW-GO terrain when GO terrain is toeither side).

The example shown didn't provide the mostfeasible AA because the avenue went throughNO-GO terrain when there was no need to,because of the center point and shortest timemethod of generating the AA.

AA didn't make sense approximately 33% of thetime. It went over NO-GO terrain and ignoredlogical mobility corridors.

Placing the AA path at the mid-point betweenNO-GO areas skews the path. It appears toidentify an adequate, but not necessarilyoptimum AA.

Perhaps the path could be refined (smoothed)An optimum after it has initially been drawn.

path is 6 Projects AAs solely on terrain considerationsnot that may be tactically infeasible.generated

The speed and directness of generated AAs isquestionable. Serpentine routes exposesforces for more time and requires soldiernavigation tools.

The system should take the force from A to Bby the most direct route and report problemsusing that route, allowing user override.

Use of mid-point between NO-GO polygonscauses poor route selection.

There is a fundamental flaw in the algorithm.After checking the mid-point of a gap betweenNO-GO polygons, it should look for a moredirect path to the end point.

As an alternative, draw a line form start toend and move the line as little as possibleto obtain the most direct route.

Perhaps the system should be interactive.

17

Table 2 (continued)

Topic I SMEI Comments

Allow for consideration of alternative AAsearly on.

only one 2 Calculating the route as you go, rather than

AA path using a decision tree of alternatives,is results in a rough AA. Perhaps the systemgn t should be interactive and prompt the user atgenerated points where extreme changes of direction, or

crossing of NO-GO terrain, occurs. The usercould then override or guide the system as tothe desired path.

Only Does not consider night movement.daytime 1

movementrates are

used

SME Confidence in the AA

The SMEs were asked to provide a rating based upon thequestion "How much confidence do you have in an AA generated byALBM?" In addition, the SMEs were asked to list any deficienciesand provide verbal comments. These detailed results arecontained in Appendix G.


Highly Rather Borderline Somewhat DecidedlyConfident Confident Unconfident Unconfident

1 15 1 1

The comments of the SMEs are summarized as follows.

* Not sufficiently confident to use the generated AAdirectly. The AA would be reviewed, then an AA wouldbe manually drawn.

0 Showing alternative paths, or allowing interactiveoverride of the generated path would provide moreconfidence.

* A 3-dimensional display of the AA would provide moreinformation on the validity of the path, and allow theuser to adjust the AA path to more reasonable areas.

18

Parameters That Control AA Generation

The SMEs were asked to provide a rating based upon thequestion "Do the parameters that control AA generation provideadequate ability for the user to represent his desires?" Inaddition, the SMEs were asked to list any deficiencies andprovide verbal comments. These detailed results are contained inAppendix H.



41

The written and verbal comments were categorized by topic,and are shown in Table 3. The essence of these comments are asfollows.

* In conjunction with the Choke Factor, allow the userthe specify the distance he/she will allow the force totravel through a narrowly restricted area.

* Provide a threshold of deviation from a direct routewhich would allow the user to interactively guide oroverride the AA path.

0 Automatically generate multiple paths using usercontrolled combinations of the parameters, and preservethe parameter set used with each AA to guide userselection of the desired AA.

* Add soil/path degradation factor corresponding to thenumber and type of vehicles traversing an area(modifies mobility class of terrain).

* Provide phase lines to allow specification of changesin movement formation.

* Forces normally move from assembly areas to objectiveareas. Perhaps multiple start points and multiple endpoints should be tried, since the path is highlydependent on the location of the start and end points.

19

Table 3

SME Comments on Parameters That Control AA Generation

Topic SMEs J Comments

Incorporate the distance that the user willallow the force to travel throughconstricted terrain as an additional facetof the Choke Factor parameter.

Need ability to control illogical deviation,i.e., agree/disagree withomajor deviationsfrom the logical path.

Early comparisons of alternate AAs/MCs.

Calculate the AA using all the possibleparameters. The chosen parameters define,but also restrict, the AA. The user needs

Additional to have displayed, without asking, whatparameters alternatives are available by changing theare needed parameters. This could increase confidenceto control that the correct AA was selected and not

AA path unduly biased by a single parameter. Thegeneration result of all possible parameter

permutations should be available to the userto ensure parameters are defining, notrestricting, the AA generation.

G2/Terrain teams are required to project AAfor both friendly and enemy forces, yetparameters set only for US.

Parameters for friendly and enemy AAs shouldbe different.

Add time as a factor. A route could bechosen that is the shortest but traverseslargely SLOW-GO terrain.

Add soil/path degradation factor, todescribe the change in the condition of anarea over time given numbers and types ofvehicles planned to traverse the area (may

Additional change GO to SLOW-GO or NO-GO).parametersare needed There should be a threshold value for theto control 3 "Avoid NO-GO" parameter, to allow a portionuse of the of the path to cross NO-GO terrain.Cognitive

Map Provide phase lines for variation inmovement formation.

Allow for cover and concealmentrequirements.

20

Usability of Displays

The SME6 were asked to provide a rating based on thequestion "Are the products (displays) usable, in terms ofinformation content and format? In addition, the SMEs were askedto list any deficiencies in writing, and suggest changes. Thesedetailed results are contained in Appendix I.


Highly Rather Borderline Somewhat DecidedlyUsable Usable Unusable Unusable

3 3

The comments of the SMEs are summarized below.

Displaying NO-GO and SLOW-GO terrain, and hydrology, onthe map makes visualizing and manually drawing AAs mucheasier.

Display the AA as wide as the mobility corridor, rather

than the doctrinal echelon frontage.

* Display time and distance from start to finish.

For presentation and briefing purposes, provide largescreen displays or color printouts.

Compatibility With Doctrine

The SMEs were asked to provide a rating based on thequestion "Is the AA generation method compatible with doctrine?"In addition, the SMEs were asked to list any deficiencies andprovide verbal comments. These detailed results are contained inAppendix J.



12 - 14

The comments of the SMEs are summarized as folluws.

It's generally compatible, but too rudimentary andrigid.

* A big deficiency is ignorance of hydrology and roads.

Viewing the terrain as a map is different than viewingit "on the ground." The AA generation process is toosimple and structured to accommodate all necessaryfactors.

21

Compatible, minus the ability to define friendlycontrol measures. Boundaries must be considered todetermine friendly AAs.

In the real world, the G3 determines the area ofoperations and doesn't follow the rote proceduredescribed in ST 100-9.

General Comments

During the course of the assessment session, the SMEssometimes made comments that did not conveniently fall into oneof the issue categories. These comments provide additionalinsight into the potential usability of the AA Generation Tool inthe field. They also provide information for consideringpossible improvements and enhancements of the AA Generationfunction.

A summary of general comments are as follows (see Appendix Kfor the detailed comments).

A similar capability is provided by the "Hawkeye", nowrenamed "Warrior", system, which was used in DesertStorm. The developer is PM-ASAS.

If fixes can be made, automatic generation of AAs wouldbe useful at division and corps to show major problemsin the terrain, and allowing "what-if" analysis thatcan't typically be done at those echelons.

Automatic calculation of AAs using "school rules" isvery useful, although the user would probably draw hisown AA after viewing the automatically generated AA.

An ideal situation is an interactive system thatprompts the user when a problem ari-es during AAgeneration.

22

Conclusions and Recommendations

Several themes emerged during the review of the ratings andcomments made on the individual issues. These themes appear tobe critical to achieving a feasible and usable automated AAgeneration capability. They are presented below as the keyconclusions elicited from the study.

AA Generation in its current form is of marginal usefulness.particularly considering the terrain display products available.

The general consensus was that the cognitive map and the pathgeneration algorithms were not sufficiently sophisticated toproduce viable AAs. At the same time, the SMEs did like andappreciate the displays of terrain attributes and mobilitycharacteristics. In current operations, this added informationoften is not readily available, and planners must rely solely onthe map while generating AAs. When used in conjunction with thebackground map display (i.e., EMAP), the SMEs felt these terrainoverlays provided information that would assist the planner inmanually generating an AA, and that it would generally besuperior to the automatically generated AA.

Unless major fixes are made to AA Generation, the Tool will notbe useful.

Although the SMEs did not care for the current AA Generationfunction, they identified specific deficiencies, which if fixed,would improve the capability. It was not possible in this studyto determine the acceptability of the Tool if these deficiencieswere corrected. Without correction, however, the Tool would notbe acceptable.

The major recommended fixes are summarized as follows (seethe Results section of this report for details of thedeficiencies).

- The Cognitive Map should include data on hydrology, roads,and bridges, and should provide specific information on SLOW-GOterrain, and the path generation algorithm should use this data.

- The option should be available to restrict AA paths withinprovided control measures (boundaries, phase lines), specifynight or day movement, and to specify starting and ending areas.

-The AA path should be generated to proceed as directly aspossible to the destination.

- An interactive way should be provided for a user tooverride certain critical (i.e., major deviations from a directcourse) decisions made by the AA Generation algorithm.

- The AA should be displayed with the actual width of themobility areas.

23

Recommendations

The following recommendations are the result of thesynthesis of data from this study, the background researchperformed in order to understand the AA Generation function, andthe evaluator's experience with division-level command groupplanning.

Reconsider the relationship of the AA Comparison Tool to AAGnrto In ALBM ATD, there are two tools involving AAs: AAGeneration, which is the topic of this assessment, and the AAComparison Tool (AACT). The latter tool allows the user toselect two or more AAs for analytical comparison using thedigitized terrain data available in ALBM ATD. The AAs beingcompared can be automatically generated using the AA Generationtool, or the user can manually draw them using the interactivegraphics capabilities of ALBM ATD. The data used in AACTincludes cover and concealment, obstacles, and roads -data thatthe SMEs indicated would contribute positively to the AAGeneration function. Thus, in AA Generation AAs areautomatically generated using basic, rudimentary data. These AAsare then compared and analyzed in a separate process usingadditional, more detailed data. The AAs are also compared andanalyzed using a procedure that allows mission requirements andpriorities to be associated with the terrain data. That is, thegoals of the AA directly influence the outcome of the AACTprocess.

Observations of mission planning activities have shown thatthe process used by the planner in developing an AA isiterative - decisions regarding potential paths for the AA aremade in conjunction with an analysis of the terrain attributesrelated to the potential alternative paths. Thus, based on themission of the forces and tactical constraints, the first AAgenerated by the planner is usually the AA considered to be best.

Currently, AA Generation has a single goal: to have theshortest travel time from start to end of the AA. The AACTfunction allows specification of multiple goals. For example,certain missions may require that concealment be as important astravel duration. AA Generation uses only GO, SLOW-GO, and NO-GOterrain locations and mobility speeds for determining the pathsof AAs. AACT uses a richer set of data to analyze the terrainattributes of an AA. The analysis data set used by AACT could beprofitably used by AA Generation in generating the AAs.

Expand AA Generation to include data analysis and goaldefinition algorithms. This will allow for the generation of AAsthat more accurately reflect the desires of the planner.

Allow the algorithms to exploit the data processing andcalculation capabilities of automation. Include the user in theAA aeneration process to provide decisions and guidance thatreauire coanitivelv complex integration of facts. That is, allowthe computer to aid the user by rapidly processing large amountsof data that the user would be unable to handle, and allow theuser to guide the computer operations, particularly in addressingunique, unforeseen tactical situations.

24

Ig~lement the major fixes identified Dreviously in this

Consider and evaluate for correction the other deficienciesidentified by the SMEs. as documented in this section.

25

REFERENCES

Burrough, P. A. (1990). Principles of aeoaraDhic informationsystems for land resource assessment. Washington, DC:Clarendon Press.

Command and General Staff College. (1992). The command estimate2rocs. ST 100-9.

Lockheed Austin Division. (1992). Draft software user's manualfor the AirLand Battle Manaaement Advanced TechnologyTransition Demonstration Force Level Control (ALBM ATD FLC)advisor system, version 0.1. Austin, TX.

Flanagan, J. P. (In preparation). Evaluation of ALBM ATDprototype version 1.2: Review of the Trend Analysis andProjection Tool. ARI Research Product. Alexandria, VA:U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and SocialSciences.

McKeown, P. E. (In preparation). Evaluation of ALBM ATDprototype version 1.2: Knowledae base assessment of theLocation Analysis ADvlications. ARI Research Product.Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for theBehavioral and Social Sciences.

Rappold, V. A., & Flanagan, J. P. (In preparation). Evalaionof ALBM ATD prototype version 1.2: Human factors assessmentof the Soldier Machine Interface. ARI Research Product.Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for theBehavioral and Social Sciences.

Riedel, S. L., McKeown, P. E., Flanagan, J. P., & Adelman, L.(In preparation). Evaluation of ALBM ATD prototVye version1.2: Knowledge base assessment of the Avenue of ARDroachComparison Tool. ARI Research Product. Alexandria, VA:U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and SocialSciences.

27

APPENDIX A

EXAMPLE OF AA GENERATION

A-1

10

cc

A-2

%' \\

A-3

.r4I..

-. 4,.

0 ,,

'a'S. lo

4u

A-3.

*A

'-pF-4

-S4~0

A-4-

-- -------

-- ----------

/r

A-5

LL 0 0 o

CD .co in ac C . 0

'U -0

if 0 0 '4.

CD 0 E m E,

-~0 >)0 cm~~ CmC .C16w0 0 c )0 0Ic) =2 0 "oa- ~ 0.0)0 (

00 W-rM

E E 0.6

o Co~j am0 o 00E Ma~O oi (M O-

M 0> C - ~

73 r- A-.

0 00

C.)as 0

00

0 (

E 1CD 0 0 - 0

U. 0)- (

W) E m- .o w ( 0 )

cc CM r ' MUt wM) CIS 0

cc.-:

0* 0 0C 1

wig E 0 cc C CL C

= C -(D Z%-0c

cc 0 0.A-c

""\ .. : \-..

I"I' "7

A4 .

-", .... " " - - - V':

S. .... -" A..,

- V,

" -.-. -5 _I 4,,

2-

APPENDIX B

BRIEFING MATERIALS

B-I

.00

.0CMa

00

00

4)) E 0C O .- 0 .00 cc

-02 34.2C

E a r- C7Wa ) 0 E<0 E

0d 0 6oý- <

c 0 0o

(D. o 0 2

c3 < 00(U ~ 0 0 2 -.CL 0

<0 0 V

C30 w 10 mcu*o 00W 0 >U

o0.C (D ,. CoCD .= 0. c - ,E 5C

co: (D C 0 iE.~<0 ~c C 4)S

E 0

0L C 0 0CD > c cc 0

oJ Clc0~ 0 * C * oL

0 0 c

a B-2 C

0.0.

cc 'mI 0

0 0 CL t0 0c

CD ~ So E c cO00

CaC

e0 0 %

o0 0m C 0c ca C -r-

0 4) *. C E5EMO 000 0

.= lo r ~ 0E w gcE 0 .Cw. 01

c0 >% 0

4)..c u~ d E <~ <

00 a: < u 0

C)0 c ma 0 C 0c E o 0 C)L

<i 0da U cC

0.0 c ca rcc CL 0!9 c c3

< 0 ul

coo

ca *0oc3 m-a -0CL

0) C) CL-4

0

cm

LIJ,-

C1d) 0

01-

~co

0--

C0a U) U .

(U CL, CLU0- .C

im0.0- 0.

0 0>SC,

o a,

CL ( a, c

a, ~.~ a, , B-4

7'I

00

wIMi

C2

0

V0 .co E0?

0c CEl *1EE0 4) c

0

A

Dtow 00

w~ .

0L a 0 0)

B-5-

10

0~ 0Cl) LI

I I

LU)

oJ 0

a z

rD r

* 16

S re .- t

ai9

-. OS MA Z .v vi

B-6

0

4001

00

0 .0

0II

ca 8z Q2

o 0 UL

-21 0

0~4 0) .0 CC 0D0'

C 08 0I.- C! o

o -S .60Ii !i 0 0_10

0 ~ ~ o e=0-i W0 c .0

ME oCI E,~U ~ofU) 00 .- 0 U

O 8- C 0 o00- 0 =.a

c 4)

* o. .4 )U)0,

0 0 0 0 0 0

R-~7

Lu&

CC

ctS0 - .2 az

4.0 -a03t o v~ *

- .06

00

0) 0

B-

Ob

00

60 0.0

0,0

6.a E•

0.z

0.

= =C

o o-0Ta MmS2 E00)

(J2.1E00

o 500.0CuC00N

oI

0

c.

6E

j~~IB-9

0

0 t0.

I--

0

O)

CL

00

.2

000

B-C

0) . .,, , i , fi l i l I I I I II II I I II I I

CO 00

2 10 0 20

E 0"o 0C

E E.9 aC(% 0

E - 0 Th. C"%. -E -= s E 0 a

00 . Za E.-**t~o ~ .22 E, 2

0E C- 0O CO s 24) 22LL LLL

cc ~ EE 220 1! 0.E E -x -x O

o O C CACCL CE Ca, _

0 C00 Z" I'0C) a CO 0

- 0 0 C 4) z .C000 0@ 1 -a ,

cL .2 Vc a. I

0 -= 0.

w0 ca

a, 0 0 a :52CL CLz I- 's-=c 00 I LI-E CU. =0

c<0z

B-l

L L 0 .&!• - .,.,U) 0 1)

CL 0

B-0

I1 0

CO Ow0 0) E

CL 0 0.. 4-C

0 o0 --- mo' 0 mE0-- 0 0~co

0 8 ..L4) c e a) I-

h .- C.)~ CL 5 Do

Sc (D .2 *-SE 0 0r% CL - S ' 0 o- O

SDm.Cc cm M.;CL 0.

0. .... 0 .. C 0 w0 E * CCL0 Co) CD mz0=

E0. woE E.- V 0r:

M > 3 i e~o. co.. c co

-. -o -cC 0 S O

B -12

0

CL

ILL

cCUD, = d . oE~ 0..-1

0) 0) -(D 0 O. 0- 00 ý 0 om)

CL0

B-13.

APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRE AND RELEASE FORM

C-I

Cognitive Map

Is the cognitive map an adeauate representation of terrain fromthe standpoint of AA generation?

Highly Rather Borderline Somewhat DecidedlyAdequate Adequate Inadequate InadequateI I --I I

List any deficiencies

What changes would you make to the cognitive map to make itadequately represent the terrain for purposes of generating AAs?

C-2

AA Path Generation

Does the method of generating a path of an AA reliably result inan adequate AA?


List any deficiencies

How much confidence do you have in an AA generated by ALBM?

Highly Rather Borderline Somewhat DecidedlyConfident Confident Unconfident UnconfidentI II

What steps would you take to increase your confidence in thegenerated AA?

C-3

User Interaction

Do the parameters that control AA generation provide adequateability for the user to represent his desires?

Highly Rather Borderline Somewhat DecidedlyAdequate Adequate Inadequate InadequateI . -7 -

What other control mechanisms should be provided?

Are the products (displays) usable, in terms of informationcontent and format?

Highly Rather Borderline Somewhat Decidedly

Usable Usable Unusable Unusable

What other displays would be useful?

C-4

Compatibility with Doctrine

Is the AA generation method cpible with doctrine?

Highly Rather Borderline Somewhat DecidedlyAdequate Adequate Inadequate InadequateI I-I I

List any discrepancies

C-5

WALK THROUGH QUESTIONNAIREYour Background

Date:

Grade:Branch:

Time in Grade:Time in Service:

Current Position:Duties qf Current Position:

Highest level of civilian education:

Area of study:

Please indicate year(s) of attendance for military schools completed:

Officer Basic Course:

Officer Advanced Course:

Combined Arms & Service Staff School (CAS 3):

Command and General Staff Course (CGSOC or equivalent):

War College:

Other relevant military education:

Please indicate most significant tactical command or staff positions held:Echelon Unit Type Position Months in Position

Which of the following best describes your experience and level of skill with computers?

Less than I year, relatively unfamiliar

I - 3 years, somewhat familiar

More than 3 years, quite familiar

Which of the following best describes how you now do tactical planning?:

Manually

Use Maneuver Control System (MCS)

Use other aided systems (please list)C-6

VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT

I, (print name), hereby volunteer toparticipate in a study to evaluate the ALBM ATD prototype, FLCA 1.2, under the co-direction of Sharon Riedel from the Army Research Institute andMAJ M. C. Berwanger from the Battle Command Battle Laboratory, Ft. Leavenworth, KS.

The study has been explained to me and is described on the preceeding page, which I havesigned. I have been given the opportunity to ask questions concerning this investigationalstudy, and any such questions have been answered to my complete satisfaction.

I understand that I may at any time during the course of this study revoke my consent, andwithdraw from the study without prejudice.

signature date

witness signature date

C-7

APPENDIX D

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT BACKGROUND

D-1

i iILU in

0 -

0. cm -

co co0 0

C C

Q1 -

00

LUU

_ TI

x i "n __D

w~.

* .~ * ~ D-2

IL.

0C.C

LLJ LL) 0O ~ 0n

oc 0- )

~0 0 > ~

CLCJ9~~(I U) C n

0U c

E~ E~ C

D-3

APPENDIX E

LOCATION ANALYSIS TOOLS RATINGS AND COMMENTS

E-1

0 r

!S) OMcc11. * mj~.

T~ o CLS 2

-tl It -J '8 12J' I

oOC .I

0(0

.5

g o .C.-L

C 'DC

2~ <CCo

CeE-2

E ij Ii ~ i

U

ItIts

CL

.I Iii 5j++! J.ff 13

+.I !: . f I

is~ 00.2

a I"

(U) s

xIi

00o .2+ + t I

w_ _ _ _0 _ _ _ _ _ WLL.

E-3

APPENDIX F

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMNS AND ABBREVIATIONS

F-1

U) IE E

0,. 0

Et I

11 11SI i

C 4

(0 n

CF-~!

~c

r - IDx r 20 ~ i'~E Z

0D ; I~9 S ~ 36

00

)CL

CO

C0).6o n

E a

F-2

4t

rin

E j

00

'o

mI 9

10 r

:i~

ujj

F-3

- -• -

IIi-i

I~Il

G-2f

C :3-- ~0 I

C0 2 0~ (a ()

QWc a1-C -u CL

to

'flu .

0 C

00

C G-2

APPENDIX H

RESULTS OF PARAMETER USE

H-i

w iaa. ~E0

o '1is4 -0 r= * v2S~~ ISQ E a

El 0. -J

CC 0. II'f

-Ic~~~( c r -~ ~ iCol Q ) !--5

-H-2

APPENDIX I

USABILITY OF DISPLAY RESULTS

I-i

UU'

'A

soS

aE

* ~0 -

x -xei e

jes w:co :-1-2lar

APPENDIX J

COMPATIBILITY WITH DOCTRINE RESULTS

J-1

-

Ea0 ~

ej !,>I

a r ~ Is I

= al

ig E T

E~ c0~

.C~

a, xCE e E

oO L I

4- 0-2

APPENDIX K

AA GENERATION QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEWRESULTS GENERAL COMMENTS

K-1

- -

z1 0

w V(5 0

E -o0C. C

U 0).2 0 .0

0 0

f o

0, t ~ t -~ 9 EOV

co a, _ .E -9 a2 2

e. -0 l0 o0 0. .

S 0 Cf to: C 0~fC

m0 S0 E~ r* 00

ii 0

4) E w cc E V ro- -;

0 12 '?l :2 t - 01 9 , r

c E & '.C-I 'M &c0a v,~ a~o 0 o* 3att

to~~~~o E-cIc .cn. 0) 0l 0 2-t 70

c .5 r4 L- _0 9 2 -C) o2 cU~ o 1 .0 1 -6 a

C 0 C 0)c0~ U ) ~

0 b.0) 4 ) 0 2 0 Q-

3: 0- InOq - V.) a =0

to .- -c0. to-'

cc in -o 0' c' m~-

0 r

a0 0), Uv

CyM0, a,)1

CL 4) c = M -Kc2

010 4

,I ~IiOw a

9

5l

a V1

-K-

IL 0 IA.1 ~ ic

I K-3

APPENDIX L

GLOSSARI OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

L- 1

APPENDIX L

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AA Avenue of ApproachAACT Avenue of Approach Comparison ToolALBM AirLand Battle ManagementAMC Army Materiel CommandARI Army Research InstituteATCCS Army Tactical Command and Control SystemATD Advanced Technology DemonstrationBA Battlefield AreaBCBL Battle Command Battle LaboratoryC&C Cover and ConcealmentCAC Combined Arms CommandCECOM Communications and Electronics CommandCOA Course of ActionDMA Defense Mapping AgencyEM Execution MonitorESC Enemy and Situation CapabilitiesETL Engineering Topographic LaboratoryFITE Force Interactive Tactical EvaluatorFLC Force Level ControlFM Field ManualFSC Friendly and Situation CapabilitiesITD Interim Terrain DataLAT Location Analysis ToolsLOS Line of SightMAUA Multi-Attribute Utility AnalysisMCOO Modified Combined Obstacle OverlayMET4 Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops and Time Available

ToolsOCOKA Observation and Fire, Cover and Concealment,

Obstacles, Key Terrain, Adequacy of Maneuver SpaceOPORD Operations OrderPEO-CCS Program Exacutive Office for Command and Control

SystemsPM-ASAS Program Manager, All Source Analysis SystemSD Standazd DeviationSME Subject Matter ExpertTDA Tactical Decision AidTRADOC Training and Doctrine Command

L-2

Evaluation of the AirLand Battle Management Advanced ... · Evaluation of the AirLand Battle...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of the AirLand Battle Management Advanced ... · Evaluation of the AirLand Battle...