Simulation Standards Guide v3 3 - LISTSERV 16.0 Simulation Standards Guide vii Version 3.3 FOREWORD...

Simulation Standards Guide

Version 3.3

SIMULATION STANDARDS GUIDE This Australian Defence Simulation and Training Centre Guide —Simulation Standards Guide, is issued for use by the Australian Defence Force and is effective forthwith. This guide supersedes all previous version of the Defence Simulation Standards Guide.

P Spedding, AM DSC Commodore Director General Australian Defence Simulation and Training Centre & J7

Joint Operations Command CANBERRA ACT 2600 June 2015

Simulation Standards Guide ii

Version 3.3

© Commonwealth of Australia 2015

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Australian Government Department of Defence.

Announcement statement — may be announced to the public.

Secondary release — may be released to the Australian Government Department of Defence, its contractors and their equivalents in the United States of America, Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand, and to other Australian Government departments and agencies.

All Defence information, whether classified or not, is protected from unauthorised disclosure under the Crimes Act 1914. Defence information may only be released in accordance with the Defence Security Manual as appropriate.


Version 01 05 April 2012 Version 02 10 May 2012 Version 2.3 22 May 2014 Version 2.4 23 June 2014 Version 3.0 June 2014 Version 3.3 xxxx 2015

Sponsor:

Director General Australian Defence and Training Centre

Developer:

Simulation Standards Officer

Publisher:

Australian Defence Simulation and Training Centre Department of Defence CANBERRA BC ACT 2610

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C1968A00063

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C1914A00012


iii

Version 3.3

AMENDMENTS

Proposals for amendment of Simulation Standards Guide, Version 3.3 may be sent to:

Australian Defence Simulation and Training Centre PO Box 7940 CANBERRA ACT 2610 [email protected]

Amendment Description of Revision

Number Date

2.4 23 June 2014 Update of document to reflect change to ADSTC

3.0 June 2014 Official release

3.3 xxxx 2015 Update to reflect Defence Standards Library Changes and inclusion of enumerations information


iv

Version 3.3

DOCUMENT REVIEW

This document was reviewed at Version 3.3 by the following Defence Simulation Standards Reference Group (DSSRG) members:

Name Appointment

CMDR Dan Crocker DD Navy Simulation

MAJ Troy Stevens SO2 Simulation Development

Mr Glen Bethel Simulator Systems Engineer

WGCDR Steve Laredo Deputy Director Live, Virtual and Constructive Integration - Air Force

Dr Peter Ryan DSTO

Mr Saurabh Anand Enterprise Architect – ICT Development Division

Ms Michelle Bouldin Defence Spatial Standards Office

MR Ralph Wittwer DASSSO

DR Chris Janczura CDG – Modelling and Simulation


v

Version 3.3

CONTENTS

Page

Amendments .................................................................................................................. iii Document Review .......................................................................................................... iv Contents .......................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ................................................................................................................ vi Foreword ....................................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1-1 Developers Role ......................................................................................................... 1-1 Aims of this Guide ....................................................................................................... 1-1 Scope of this Guide .................................................................................................... 1-2 Users of this Guide ..................................................................................................... 1-2 When should this Guide be used? .............................................................................. 1-6

CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1

DEFENCE M&S STANDARDS GOVERNANCE ....................................................... 2-1 Strategic Objectives for Simulation in Defence .......................................................... 2-1 Simulation Governance Framework ........................................................................... 2-1 Relationship between this Guide and SIMMAN .......................................................... 2-1 ADSTC Authority and Responsibility .......................................................................... 2-2

CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 3-1

DEFENCE M&S STANDARDS FRAMEWORK AND BASELINE ............................ 3-1 Concept of Simulation Interoperability ........................................................................ 3-1 Defence M&S Standards Framework ......................................................................... 3-1 Framework Explanation .............................................................................................. 3-2 Defence M&S Simulation Standards Baseline ........................................................... 3-4

CHAPTER 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-1

ACCESSING THE DEFENCE M&S STANDARDS BASELINE ................................ 4-1 Finding the appropriate M&S standards ..................................................................... 4-1 Standard Baseline Repository .................................................................................... 4-1 Accessing copies of M&S Standards .......................................................................... 4-4 Seeking Guidance on Defence M&S Standards ......................................................... 4-4 Accessing Standards Baseline Information ................................................................ 4-5

CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 5-1

THE DEFENCE M&S POLICY FOR AUSTRALIAN ENUMERATIONS FOR DISTRIBUTED SIMULATION .................................................................................... 5-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5-1 Scope .......................................................................................................................... 5-1 Process ....................................................................................................................... 5-1 Australian variants: under Australian country code or original country code.............. 5-2 Defence M&S Enumeration Site ................................................................................. 5-3

CHAPTER 6 ......................................................................................................................................... 6-1

CHANGE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................... 6-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6-1 Defence M&S standards working groups and committees ......................................... 6-1 Proposing changes to simulation standards policy ..................................................... 6-1 Proposing changes to the standards baseline ............................................................ 6-1

ANNEX A. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................. 1

ANNEX B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON M&S STANDARDS ................................................. 1

ANNEX C. STANDARDS CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS ........................................................ 2

ANNEX D. DEFENCE M&S STANDARDS BASELINE CHANGE REQUESTS .................................. 1


vi

Version 3.3

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.1: Simulation Stakeholders – Users of this Guide 1-3 Figure 1.2: Capability Systems Life Cycle 1-6 Figure 1.3: M&S Application Areas 1-6 Figure 2.1: Relationships between Policy and Simulation Manual Documents 2-2 Figure 2.2: Delegation of Authority for M&S Standards to ADSTC 2-4 Figure 3.1: Levels of Simulation Interoperability 3-1 Figure 3.2: Defence M&S Standards Framework 3-2 Figure 4.1: Using the SSG and the Defence M&S Standards Baseline 4-1 Figure 4.2: Metadata Framework 4-2 Figure 4.3: Metadata Framework – General Information 4-3 Figure 4.4: Metadata Framework – General Information 4-3 Figure 4.5: Metadata Framework – Standard Summary Information 4-4 Figure 4.6: Metadata Framework – Project Attributes 4-4 Figure 4.7: SharePoint site – Standards Information 4-5 Figure 4.8: SharePoint site – Standards Title 4-5 Figure 4.9: SharePoint site – Standards Categories 4-6 Figure 4.10: SharePoint site – Datasheet Format 4-6 Figure 4.11: SharePoint site – Excel Spread Sheet 4-7 Figure 4.12: DSL site – Standards Page 4-7 Figure 4.13: DSL site – Simulation Business Area 4-8 Figure 5.1: Overall process for requesting enumerations 5-2 Figure 5.2: Overview of ADSTC approval process 5-2 Figure 5.3: Australian Only Enumerations Lists 5-3 Figure 5.4: SISO Enumeration Information 5-4


vii

Version 3.3

FOREWORD

1. The Simulation Standards Guide (SSG) provides a source of information and advice in relation to current and emerging modelling and simulation standards applicable to the applications areas cited in the Defence Simulation Strategy and Roadmap. The Guide also directs the reader to where more detailed information and advice can be found.

2. As standards reflect a consensus view of current technology they have a limited validity before requiring review, withdrawal or revision. The SSG will be updated as required, to reflect these changes and any changes in Defence policy or guidance. Comments or further clarification on any aspect of the SSG are welcomed. Please complete the evaluation form at the back of this document.


1-1

Version 3.3

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 The definition of Modelling and Simulation (M&S) as list in the Simulation Glossary1 is, ‘Modelling and Simulation (M&S) - An academic discipline focused on the study, development and use of live, virtual, and constructive models.’ This guide is intended to provide guidance on the selection and use of M&S standards to promote interoperability. There may be occurrences where the wording ‘simulation standards’ is used in place of the full M&S standards wording.

1.2 Establishing and adhering to M&S standards offers significant advantages to Defence in terms of interoperability (between different simulation systems within Australia and overseas) and re-use (of simulation and simulation-related data and models). With interoperability and re-use come the added advantages of enhanced simulation utility and scales of economy. This is further iterated in the Defence Simulation Strategy and Roadmap (DSSR), which states, “Simulation is an integrated enterprise capability that enables Defence to:

lift the excellence of individual and collective training by enhancing the realism of training

analyse and fully understand the cost of ownership of capability

provide enhanced support to decision makers in a cost effective and efficient manner.” 2

1.3 Application of simulation in Defence is not just focussed on the individual but includes collaboration between individuals and groups as well as our allies. Simulation applications are to expand from specific technical disciplines to a coherent suite drawing on a common pool of data and assumptions. Simulation in Defence will aim to support strategic decision making, capability development, acquisition, operations and through life support.

1.4 The continued adoption, use and development of standards by simulation stakeholders will support the effective and efficient use of simulation across Defence to meet the goals of the Defence Simulation Manual (SIMMAN), DSSR and the Defence Standards Manual (STANMAN).

Developers Role

1.5 This Guide is developed, updated and managed by the Australian Defence Simulation and Training Centre (ADSTC), as part of the Joint Operations Command (JOC). The Director General (DG) is also the J7 responsible for joint exercises and providing simulation support to coordinate, schedule, and manage activities necessary to achieve and maintain required levels of Australian Defence Force (ADF) preparedness.

1.6 ADSTC is the author of this guide and uses it to disseminate information regarding the use of M&S standards within Defence to simulation stakeholders. ADSTC also uses this guide to provide a mechanism for feedback from simulation stakeholders to further develop and maintain the SSG currency and applicability of the SSG and the associated simulation standards framework and baseline.

Aims of this Guide

1.7 The ADSTC has developed this guide to assist simulation stakeholders in Defence or working with Defence to navigate the sometimes complex world of M&S standards. The primary aims of the SSG are to:

a. support simulation stakeholders to identify relevant standards associated with their simulation needs

b. facilitate simulation interoperability across the ADF

c. provide simulation stakeholders with access to appropriate points of contact and expertise for M&S standards

1 ADSTC Australian Defence Simulation Glossary Version 3.2 August 2014.

2 Defence Simulation Strategy and Roadmap, 2015.

http://intranet.defence.gov.au/DRMS/uR6053%5cR16403628.pdf

http://intranet.defence.gov.au/home/documents/data/DEFPUBS/DEPTMAN/STANMAN/STANMAN.pdf


1-2

Version 3.3

d. document the change management process to maintain the currency and relevancy of the SSG and the standards baseline

e. assist with re-use of M&S products

1.8 An integral part of this guide is the ADSTC M&S standards framework (herein identified as the standards framework). This framework provides a series of logical categories to allocate standards based on their applicability. The framework is based on a well-established and internationally recognised NATO standards profile.3

1.9 Once the framework is populated, it is identified as the ADSTC simulation standards baseline (herein identified as standards baseline) which is the recommended list of commonly used M&S standards across Defence.

1.10 The standards baseline is managed as part of the responsibilities of M&S Nominated Standards Authority (NSA) under STANMAN, and available via the Defence Standards Library (DSL) and the ADSTC SharePoint site. Guidance for how to use these sites is provided in section 4.11.

1.11 The SSG also documents a change management process to allow simulation stakeholders to propose additions, deletions or modifications to simulation policy on standards, this guide and the standards baseline. ADSTC considers this feedback loop as a key contributor to maintaining a current and relevant simulation standards policy and standards baseline. This in turn contributes to the success of promoting interoperable and reusable simulations across Defence.

Scope of this Guide

1.12 This Guide introduces a comprehensive standards framework and the resultant standards baseline which attempts to cover all areas of standards application that are of interest to the Defence M&S community. However, it is not possible, nor is it desirable, for this guide to attempt to list, reference and mandate every standard that could possibly impact on simulation activities.

1.13 The SSG covers the M&S standards that should be used by Defence stakeholders to support the development, integration and employment of M&S across the capability lifecycle within Defence.

1.14 In the cases where standards are being managed within the ADSTC, the standards baseline provides detailed information on those standards and an ADSTC and/or Defence point of contact (POC) for further information. In cases where the standards are being managed outside of ADSTC, the DSL refers to the appropriate POC within Defence where users can reach out for additional information and support. By referring rather than replicating, the standards baseline avoids duplicating effort and avoids the problems associated with conflicts across different standards authorities in Defence.

Users of this Guide

1.15 The Australian Defence Simulation Glossary4 identifies a large number of simulation stakeholders. These stakeholder classes are summarised in Figure 1.1. Individuals or groups who are classified as simulation stakeholders are the primary users of this guide.

3 AMSP-01 NATO Modelling and Simulation Standards Profile, Edition (C) Version 1 March 2015.


http://intranet.defence.gov.au/home/documents/data/DEFPUBS/DEPTMAN/STANMAN/STANMAN.pdf

http://caas/Areas/CORP/DSL/default.aspx

http://caas/Areas/WAFI/ADSTC/SitePages/Home.aspx


1-3

Version 3.3

Standards Bodies

Simulation Developers

External Stakeholders

Accred, V&V Agents

Simulation Generalist

Simulation Enablers

Simulation Managers

Simulation Sponsors

Simulation Experts

Simulation Users

Simulation Supporters

Simulation Acquirers

Figure 1.1: Simulation Stakeholders – Users of this Guide

1.16 Individuals or groups may belong simultaneously in more than one stakeholder class, or they may change stakeholder class over time. Association with specific stakeholder class(es) provides stakeholders with an insight into areas of interest within the M&S standards framework used in this guide.

1.17 To assist users of this guide, a list of acronyms and abbreviations used has been included at Annex A. Background information on M&S standards is included at Annex B.

1.18 Definitions of the simulation stakeholders are provided in the Simulation Glossary5. The following paragraphs will provide an explanation of the simulation stakeholders.

1.19 Simulation Acquirer. Examples of the assistance that can be provided to simulation acquirers by reviewing and using standards documented in this guide include but are not limited to:

a. improved requirements consistency, clarity and verifiability

b. clear and consistent articulation of integration, interoperability and data requirements or constraints

c. alignment with mandatory Defence policy in areas such as security, Information Technology (IT) infrastructure and regulatory accreditation

d. appropriate rigour in simulation verification, validation and acceptance



1-4

Version 3.3

e. cost-effectiveness and lifecycle benefits from utilising data and model standards against which compliant (Defence-owned) data sets have already been procured

1.20 Simulation Developer. The simulation developer’s goal is to convert simulation requirements into simulations in the most cost effective manner. The use of M&S standards, whether dictated by the acquirer or selected by the developer, offers the developer a number of advantages including:

a. superior requirements quality as described above

b. effective communication of requirements amongst stakeholders during the design and development phases

c. contribute to reducing technical and project risks

1.21 Simulation developers also have the opportunity to use this guide and associated change management process to suggest updates to the M&S standards being used within Defence.

1.22 This valuable role helps ensure that Defence stays abreast of changes to standards and their implementation within industry.

1.23 Simulation User. Users are generally responsible for defining their requirements for the simulation, and passing these requirements onto the acquirer. Users also need to define the level of accuracy required from the simulation.

1.24 M&S standards assist the user in defining their requirements by providing requirements sets and guidelines for different elements of simulation. The standards are also written to support objective verification to allow users to gain confidence in the level of simulation that has been provided.

1.25 Simulation Manager. Simulation managers rely on M&S standards to ensure that simulations under their control:

a. continue to be validated against the current and future capability requirements of the users

b. remain verified against specifications

c. make use of current simulation data sets

d. conform to regulatory requirements

1.26 Simulation Supporter. The simulation supporter is likely to be responsible for simulation software and data updates, revalidation and certification of the simulation after any upgrades or data updates through its life. The SSG and the standards baseline will assist the simulation supporter to fulfil their responsibility by providing standards information relating to technology issues, data formats and exchange, simulation interoperability, and accreditation and certification.

1.27 Simulation Sponsor. A simulation sponsor is the individual or organisation that utilises the results or products from specific applications of M&S. Simulation applications are discussed further in the Australian Defence Simulation Glossary. The results or products of the application may be trained personnel, information, or recommendations. Simulation sponsors are generally responsible for providing funding for the development and evaluation of the simulation, and for the support of that simulation over time.

1.28 The simulation sponsor does not have to be one of the Capability Managers (CM). For example, a joint capability is funded (i.e. by definition above “Sponsored”) by a joint organisation. However the services or products delivered can be given to a CM for ongoing management and support.

1.29 It is expected that simulation sponsors will be interested in standards because the use of standards:

a. can offer significant benefits from the potential reuse of expensive simulation enablers such as corporately-owned simulation data and models

b. will also protect the sponsor’s investment as open, standards-based models and simulations will generally be more supportable and more likely to be suitable for reuse in the future

c. will also provide the sponsor with some level of assurance or confidence in the ability of the simulation to deliver desired results and a level of interoperability with other simulations


1-5

Version 3.3

1.30 Simulation Expert. Simulation experts are expected to be deeply interested in the standards within their area of expertise. The Defence simulation community relies on simulation experts to provide advice on a range of issues including standards. It is expected that simulation experts will be involved in the decision making process associated with adding, modifying or deleting standards from the standards baseline. Additionally, it is expected that simulation experts will act as points of contact for other users of this guide to contact with detailed questions regarding individual standards.

1.31 Simulation Generalist. It is not expected that a simulation generalist will have a great demand for or interest in specific M&S standards, although if the need arises they should have an awareness of the existence of this guide and the guide’s ability to provide an insight into M&S standards and their applicability in the Australian Defence context. The simulation generalist should also be aware of the existence of the change management process that can be used if changes are required to the standards list.

1.32 Simulation Enabler. These are typically organisations outside of Defence that work with simulation but supply simulation product or provide services in Defence supporting simulation capability. These individuals or organisations may not consider themselves to be simulation stakeholders. Examples include:

a. Data-related. Some external organisations, through their core business, produce, procure, process, utilise and store data-sets that are of direct interest to the simulation community. Example data-sets include, but are not limited to, geographic data and models, weapons systems models, hydrographical data and models, and environmental data.

b. Process-related. Engineering and engineering management processes.

c. Regulation-related. Certification and accreditation constraints.

d. Infrastructure-related. Communication and computing infrastructure upon which simulation resides.

1.33 Accreditation Agent. Associated with accreditation agents are those individuals or organisations who are responsible for Verification, Validation and Accreditation (VV&A) and/or Verification, Validation and Certification (VV&C).

1.34 Accreditation agents and V&V-related organisations are responsible for assessing simulations against prescribed standards and/or specifications. Accordingly, this group of stakeholders are expected to use this guide to help identify relevant VV&A-related standards. As with other simulation experts, accreditation agents and V&V specialists are expected to be involved in the revision process in this guide (to add, modify and delete standards as appropriate) and are also expected to act as expert points of contact for other simulation stakeholders.

1.35 External Simulation Stakeholder. External simulation stakeholders are members of the simulation community who can take on the defined simulation roles but are not within the Defence organisation in a services or product delivery capacity. (i.e. These are members that are either currently not employed by Defence nor are they engaged through formal contracting mechanisms.)

1.36 An individual or an organisation can change their stakeholder status a number of times a year. An example scenario is detailed as follows:

a. Contract SimX is a simulation developing firm that is part of the Defence industry simulation community. SimX has a vested interest to keep abreast of simulation policy within the Australian Defence Organisation (ADO). SimX is currently classified as an external stakeholder.

b. However, in another month’s time, company SimX will secure a contract with ADO for providing a simulation program for a new maritime platform. From next month onwards, post contract signature, SimX will be classed as a “Simulation Developer” for the duration of the contract and will be required to adhere to Defence simulation policy.

1.37 Simulation Standards Bodies. Simulation standard bodies are a key stakeholder and enabler for the utilisation of standards in Defence. Though a standard body may not read or use this guide, the interaction and process for engaging simulation standard bodies will be explained in this document.


1-6

Version 3.3

When should this Guide be used?

1.38 M&S has the potential to provide positive influence on all stages of the capability systems life cycle (Figure 1.2) from needs phase decisions and options considerations, through requirements exploration and acquisition decision-making, to sustainment activities in the in-service phase through to capability disposal.

Needs Requirements Acquisition In-Service Disposal

Figure 1.2: Capability Systems Life Cycle

1.39 Further detail on how M&S can be applied across the capability lifecycle can be found under the ‘Chapter 6: Best Practice and Guidance’ chapter of SIMMAN maintained by the ADSTC.

1.40 This guide is designed to provide reference information that is largely independent of the capability lifecycle phase. However some parts of the standards framework and standards baseline are likely to be naturally more applicable in some phases of the capability lifecycle than others.

1.41 The guide is also written to be independent of M&S application. However, when considering M&S application based on the capability lifecycle stages, there is likely to be some natural alignment between the framework categories and the M&S applications.

1.42 The potential M&S applications areas in Defence are shown in Figure 1.3 and these are defined in the Australian Defence Simulation Glossary.6

Simulation Application Area

Research & Development Preparedness

Capability Development

Individual & Collective Training

Support to Decision Making Mission Rehearsal

Acquisition Support to Operations Planning

Figure 1.3: M&S Application Areas




2-1

Version 3.3

CHAPTER 2

DEFENCE M&S STANDARDS GOVERNANCE

Strategic Objectives for Simulation in Defence

2.1 Defence’s strategic simulation requirement and recommendations are provided in the Defence Simulation Strategy and Roadmap (DSSR). 7

2.2 The DSSR recognises that in order to achieve these recommendations, Defence will need to adopt ”a structured approach to simulation standards supporting re-use”. 8

2.3 There is a general expectation that simulation will grow in relevance and evolve from the focus of a few individuals up to large groups including groups from allied nations. To achieve this vision, critical enablers such as interoperability and compatibility will be key and the adaptation of M&S standards by the wider Defence community will become increasingly important. The SSG assists the ADO and external stakeholders to efficiently achieve the strategic goals of Defence simulation.

Simulation Governance Framework

2.4 Simulation Policy. The Defence level policy that underpins Simulation Standards is the Defence Simulation Manual (SIMMAN). It states, “As an enabling capability, simulation is to be coordinated at the enterprise level. Simulation must be governed and managed efficiently across the Defence enterprise through the full Capability Systems Life Cycle, to ensure that it is fit for purpose, is appropriately integrated with, and supported by, the underlying ICT environment, and to ensure the maximum utilisation of simulation products and services with minimal duplicated investment.”

2.5 Furthermore, the need to adopt M&S standards to achieve the Defence vision for simulation has been specifically recognised in Chapters 7-11: Service and Group policy chapters.

2.6 The guiding principle for the use of standards is that M&S standards should be applied unless there is documented evidence that shows the cost of compliance outweighs the benefits (to the whole of Defence) of complying with the standard.

2.7 It should be noted that the initial cost of complying with standards may be offset and balanced by savings in the total cost of ownership across the simulation system lifecycle.

2.8 In some cases this assessment has been undertaken by others resulting in the requirement to comply with a standard being mandated through regulation or legislation. The most common examples of this are safety and security standards.

Relationship between this Guide and SIMMAN

2.9 This Guide is part of the SIMMAN which, in turn, supports Defence simulation policy and implementation as shown in Figure 2.1.





2-2

Version 3.3

Figure 2.1: Relationships between Policy and Simulation Manual Documents

ADSTC Authority and Responsibility

2.10 As stated in the Developers Role section of Chapter 1, ADSTC authority to develop and set simulation policy for ADO is delegated from Vice Chief of the Defence Force (VCDF) as the Joint Capability Authority (JCA). On behalf of the VCDF, Chief Joint Operations (CJOPS) oversees the execution of the simulation governance functions of the ADSTC.

2.11 An aim of this delegation is to prevent, as much as possible, areas of overlap and potentially conflicting policy in relation to M&S standards. The delegation establishes the simulation standards boundary within the Defence standards community.

2.12 This boundary is carefully selected to only capture standards that are:

a. not already mandated and managed by another Defence organisation

b. applied specifically to M&S efforts

2.13 M&S standards in the broader simulation community (both nationally and internationally) are reviewed and considered by ADSTC and the Defence Simulation Standards Reference Group (DSSRG) for applicability and suitability in Defence context before being included in the standards baseline. Defence standards entities outside ADSTC may reference the ADSTC standards baseline and its associated framework, but should not duplicate or contradict this baseline. Similarly the standards baseline may reference complementary standards specific to other Defence capability domains where those standards are of interest to the M&S community, but the standards baseline will always endeavour to minimise duplications.

2.14 The standards baseline is a recommendation and it is not mandated. ADSTC’s authority is exercised, but not to dictate the simulation community in what do to. ADSTC’s role is to be the coordinator of simulation activities across the ADO and provide guidance and support to the user community.


2-3

Version 3.3

2.15 Part of ADSTC’s delegation involves being the prescribed Defence point of contact for liaison with relevant standards organisations (both national and international) in relation to M&S standards. This liaison role effectively forms another boundary; this time between the ADO and standards organisations that develop M&S standards. At the time of development of this guide, ADSTC has developed and maintained effective working relationships with a number of these standards organisations. It is recommended that Defence entities wishing to contact or be involved in M&S standards-related work with these standards organisations should do so through ADSTC in the first instance. This will ensure the best approach for avoiding duplicated effort within Defence.

2.16 Figure 2.2 illustrates the delegation of responsibility and authority to ADSTC for simulation standards policy. It also shows the boundaries between ADSTC and other Defence standards entities, and between ADSTC and standards organisations that develop M&S standards. Figure 2.2 also illustrates the roles of this guide and the standards framework which when populated forms the standards baseline.


2-4

Version 3.3

Figure 2.2: Delegation of Authority for M&S Standards to ADSTC


3-1

Version 3.3

CHAPTER 3

DEFENCE M&S STANDARDS FRAMEWORK AND BASELINE

Concept of Simulation Interoperability

3.1 Levels of Conceptual Interoperability. The main purpose of implementing standards is to promote simulation interoperability at all possible levels of integration. This is one of the many ways the simulation interoperability space will be facilitated.

3.2 The standards framework aims to support interoperability at ‘all levels’. Taking the Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model (LCIM)9 as guidance, the standards framework triggers design consideration to support as much integratability, interoperability and composability in the design as possible. This is illustrated in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Levels of Simulation Interoperability

3.3 The standards framework attempts to identify the categories that need to be considered when defining, designing, developing and/or acquiring a simulation system in Defence. Having a consistent set of standards improves the ability to reach a level of conceptual interoperability across the Defence simulation systems.

3.4 The standards framework will not solve the problem of interoperability and there are many implementation considerations that need to be incorporated into the design solution. However it will take the user community through a prescribed series of considerations so the outcomes may be standardised across Defence.

Defence M&S Standards Framework

3.5 The Framework is based on a well-established and internationally recognised NATO standards profile10 and is illustrated in Figure 3.2.

9 Tolk et al, Applying the levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model in Support of Integratability, Interoperability, and Composability of Systems-of-Systems Engineering, Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Volume 5 Number 5.

10 AMSP-01 NATO Modelling and Simulation Standards Profile, Edition (C) Version 1 March 2015.


3-2

Version 3.3

Figure 3.2: Defence M&S Standards Framework

Framework Explanation

3.6 M&S Methodology, Architecture and Processes. This category is for general standards that apply to the entire lifecycle of simulation; from the establishment of the need for the simulation through to its discontinued use and eventual disposal, and comprises:

a. Architecture Frameworks. This subcategory contains references to standards that govern high-level development of systems, typically at the enterprise level. Architecture framework standards are typically very general and not specific to M&S system development, but they are still applicable. The Australian Defence Architecture Framework (AUSDAF) is an example.

b. Systems Engineering. Systems engineering standards document rigorous and methodical processes that aim to deliver a whole of life system solution to the complex problems of stakeholders. Systems engineering is broadly applicable to the solution of all complex problems, including those involving M&S. Accordingly, systems engineering standards are applicable, but not unique, to M&S.

This subcategory references extant, general systems engineering standards and also references any M&S-specific systems engineering standards such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) 1730 – Recommended Practice for Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process (DSEEP).

c. Verification, Validation and Accreditation. V&V is a key M&S issue because they ensure that M&S systems are built according to specification, fit for their intended use, and documented accordingly. Since software engineering standards are not sufficient, the M&S community has developed M&S-specific standards such as the “VV&A overlay on the HLA Federation development and execution process (FEDEP)”; however, more complementary standards are required. Note that V&V is not a unique acronym in this area; VV&A, which stands for Verification, Validation and Accreditation (or Acceptance) is also widely used.


3-3

Version 3.3

3.7 Conceptual Modelling and Scenario Standards. Conceptual Modelling (CM) is commonly associated with the “Needs” and “Requirements” phase of the capability lifecycle as it is able to support the translation of the user requirements into formal statements that are understandable by both humans and machines. It is an active research area but CM-specific standards have yet to be developed; in the meantime, some software engineering standards are used.

3.8 Scenario standards are also associated with “Needs” and “Requirements” phases of the lifecycle. The purpose of scenario standards is to enable the exchange, archiving and reuse of scenarios by describing the scenarios using standardised means. An example is the Military Scenario Description Language (MSDL), a Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) standard, which has been designed to enable different simulation programs or federates to share scenario description files, rather than having to recreate a scenario in multiple proprietary file formats for each application.

3.9 M&S Interoperability Standards. M&S interoperability standards support distributed simulations development by defining the interconnection of simulation applications, simulators, live systems and supporting tools. The standards support the efficient distribution of simulation data over computer networks. This standards category includes the IEEE 1516 High Level Architecture (HLA), and the IEEE 1278 Standard Series for Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS).

3.10 Information Exchange Data Models. This category is closely related to the previous one, M&S interoperability, because data needs to be exchanged between components of distributed simulation systems and the structure of the data (number of fields in a message, number of bytes per value, etc.) affects system development. Thus, standards in this category also relate to Steps 3-6 of DSEEP.

3.11 Some of these standards are in fact a part of the main M&S interoperability standards. The HLA Object Model Template (OMT) is a typical example. Some standards belonging to this category are not related to any particular interoperability standard such as the emerging “Coalition Battle Management Language” (C-BML) that will facilitate data exchange between C4ISR systems and simulations.

3.12 Software Engineering Standards. This category refers to general-purpose software engineering standards that are very well suited to software-intensive M&S systems. An example is Extensible Mark-up Language (XML) that is prevalent in software development programs.

3.13 Synthetic Natural Environment. The development, archiving and reuse of natural and human-made environmental databases are very important parts and a significant cost driver of M&S systems. Database development is a complex process and the interoperability of environmental databases is also a key issue. Many “de facto” standards are in use and official standards are few or just emerging. Categorising such standards appeared very important because all standards are not equal and many come from different domains such as gaming or digital geography. Thus, this category was decomposed into the following subcategories:

a. Data Sources and Formats: for standards that define such things as elevation data, vector data and imagery. Example standards include DTED, VMAP, GeoTIFF.

b. 3D-Models: for standards that define how two-dimensional images and three dimensional entities are to be stored. Example standards include Collada.

c. Interchange of Environmental Data: for standards whose primary purpose is to provide a format to exchange or archive environmental data. The SEDRIS Transmittal Format (STF) is an example standard.

d. Production Processes: for standards that define how environmental data is to be produced. Example standard includes RIEDP (expected).

e. Visualisation Systems Interfacing: for standards that define how visual data is to be offered for visualization, such as the emerging Common Image Generator Interface (CIGI).

f. Multiple: for standards that are very flexible and do not predefine how environments are to be modelled. An example is the Synthetic Environment Data Representation and Interchange Specification (SEDRIS) series of standards.

3.14 Simulation Analysis and Evaluation Standards. This category is intended to include standards that define how simulation data is captured at run-time and processed afterwards for analysis purposes. An example standard for this category is the expected Distributed Debrief Control Architecture (DDCA) which is being developed under SISO auspices.


3-4

Version 3.3

3.15 M&S Miscellaneous Standards. This category covers standards that are difficult to assign elsewhere. This category is currently being used to accommodate general standards that may eventually be referenced by the framework rather than being accommodated within the framework.

Defence M&S Simulation Standards Baseline

3.16 The populated Defence M&S standards framework is used to produce a structured list of standards that are recognised by ADSTC. The structured list is known as the Defence M&S simulation standards baseline.

3.17 The standards baseline is managed as a separate document to this guide to enable the configuration of the baseline to be managed independently from this guide.


4-1

Version 3.3

CHAPTER 4

ACCESSING THE DEFENCE M&S STANDARDS BASELINE

Finding the appropriate M&S standards

4.1 Stakeholders seeking information on M&S standards are able to find that information in three broad ways. The most direct way is by using this guide and the accompanying standards framework. A second approach is via one of the other guides within SIMMAN as shown in Figure 2.1. Those guides will direct readers to the relevant section of the standards framework. The least direct way is via the Defence Standards Library (DSL). The DSL provides a reference to the information contained within the SSG and information on other standards utilised within Defence.

4.2 If stakeholders are unable to locate the standard they are looking for, or would like to make suggested changes to this guide, the standards framework and/or standards baseline, they are able to do this by following the procedures described in the Proposing changes to simulation standards policy or Proposing changes to the standards baseline sections of Chapter 6 of this Guide.

4.3 Figure 4.1 illustrates the three broad ways in which stakeholders can locate M&S standards, and the process for requesting changes or guidance.

Figure 4.1: Using the SSG and the Defence M&S Standards Baseline

Standard Baseline Repository

4.4 Deployment Method of the Standards Baseline Repository. The metadata framework explained in the following paragraphs, will be implemented and refined as the task for implementation of the standards framework is developed. The standards baseline is available on the ADSTC SharePoint site, on the DRN, or email [email protected] – attn.: Standards and Certification Officer.

4.5 Metadata for the Standards Baseline Repository. The metadata framework has been developed to facilitate the ease of access by the user to the standards baseline repository. The metadata has been developed to improve the experience of users and to ensure efficient access to the simulation baseline and to align with the DSL metadata.





4-2

Version 3.3

4.6 Depending on the simulation baseline user experience, application and the role, the simulation baseline can be filtered to find required standards and high level information about the standard.

4.7 The metadata framework is outlined below in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Metadata Framework

4.8 Metadata Framework Explanation. The metadata framework elements are explained below:

a. General Information. General Information focus on the clear identification of the standard. Decomposition of the general attributes and their descriptions is shown in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4.


4-3

Version 3.3

Figure 4.3: Metadata Framework – General Information

Figure 4.4: Metadata Framework – General Information

b. Standard Summary Information. The standard summary information contains information that provides additional information on the standard that may be helpful to the user and are shown in Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6.


4-4

Version 3.3

Figure 4.5: Metadata Framework – Standard Summary Information

Figure 4.6: Metadata Framework – Project Attributes

Accessing copies of M&S Standards

4.9 A large number of the standards listed in the standards baseline are available in the public domain via sources such as the internet and the standards organisations. Where stakeholders are unable to source a standard listed in the framework, they should request assistance via [email protected] - attn.: Simulation Standards and Certification Officer.

Seeking Guidance on Defence M&S Standards

4.10 The DSL includes designated points of contact for each of the standards or groups of standards. These points of contact provide stakeholders with access to sources of additional information and expertise on each of the standards. If users are not able to obtain the necessary guidance directly, ADSTC may be able to assist stakeholders with obtaining additional points of contact.



4-5

Version 3.3

Accessing Standards Baseline Information

4.11 The preferred method of accessing the standards baseline is via the ADSTC SharePoint site. To access the standards baseline perform the following steps:

a. Select the standards information page.

Figure 4.7: SharePoint site – Standards Information

b. You will then be at the standards information page. This page provides a list of the ‘core’ simulation standards listed as a matrix as described in the chapter above. The information in the left column is the standard number, hover over the number to obtain the title name of the standard.

Figure 4.8: SharePoint site – Standards Title

c. In the example above, the IEEE 1278.4 standard is the IEEE Recommended Practice for Distributed Interactive Simulation – Verification, Validation and Accreditation.

d. If you select the standard, you will be provided with a PDF document that contains more detailed information on this standard.

e. If you are looking for a list of standards in a standards framework category, these are available by selecting the category across the top row.



4-6

Version 3.3

Figure 4.9: SharePoint site – Standards Categories

f. This will provide a list of standards that are related to that category.

g. You can also obtain all of the standards in the share point datasheet format, via the link at the bottom of the page.

Figure 4.10: SharePoint site – Datasheet Format

h. From this page you are able to export the baseline into an excel spread sheet by using the export to excel function at the top of the page.


4-7

Version 3.3

Figure 4.11: SharePoint site – Excel Spread Sheet

4.12 The DSL can also be used to search for other standards, and will also provide a list of standards that are linked to the standards baseline. To search the DSL for M&S standards, perform the following steps:

a. access the DSL intranet site

b. select the ALL Standards page

Figure 4.12: DSL site – Standards Page

c. enter ‘3.6.7’ into the business area under Key Filter, then select the ‘Apply’ button



4-8

Version 3.3

Figure 4.13: DSL site – Simulation Business Area

d. This will give you the list of standards that are currently in the Standards Baseline. NOTE: the DSL site also gives you obsolete standards that are no longer current.


5-1

Version 3.3

CHAPTER 5

THE DEFENCE M&S POLICY FOR AUSTRALIAN ENUMERATIONS FOR DISTRIBUTED SIMULATION11

Introduction

5.1 Originating from work associated with the Distributed Interaction Simulation (DIS) protocol, a requirement emerged to be able to individually describe and identify entities or models to provide coordination across linked simulations. A managed set or list of numerical values and associated definitions for Protocol Data Unit (PDU) fields (Enumerations) therefore began to be formed.

5.2 In time, a wider applicability than just DIS grew for a co-ordinated international Master Enumerations List (MEL) for distributed simulations and responsibility for its management was placed under the auspices of the Simulation Interoperability Standards organisation (SISO).

5.3 The “Enumerations for Simulations” reference document (SISO-REF-010) produced by the SISO Distributed Interactive Simulation Product Support Group (DIS PSG) Enumerations Working Group (EWG) is the result of the above and the latest version of it is available at http://www.sisostds.org/ProductsPublications/ReferenceDocuments.aspx

5.4 It is recommended that stakeholders take the time to read this document prior to submitting any enumeration change requests.

Scope

5.5 The Defence Simulation Standards Reference Group (DSSRG) is responsible for the configuration management of Australian enumerations to support modelling and simulation on behalf of Defence. The Australian list of enumerations is to be a subset of the MEL managed by SISO.

5.6 The ADSTC will maintain an additional Australian-only enumerations set, dependent upon:

a. Australian national interest

b. classifications levels (SISO is UNCLASSIFIED only)

c. project specific requests

d. equipment that is currently being procured, but has not yet reached initial operation capability (IOC)

e. non-procured and research equipment

Process

5.7 The starting point for all Defence enumeration enquiries is the ADSTC Standards and Certification Officer. If the requirement is unclassified and if the SISO MEL does not contain the enumeration(s) required, then new enumerations can be requested from SISO. If appropriate, ADSTC will issue intermediate enumerations, and assist the requesting organisation to complete the required Change Requests (CRs) for subsequent integration into the SISO set.

5.8 If the required enumerations are outside SISO applicability as described above then a local process will be followed. These enumerations will be held separately and distributed by the ADSTC to inform Australian programs.

5.9 Figure 5.1 illustrates how ADSTC will issue and control Australian enumerations:

11 Adapted from THE DEFENCE TRAINING & EDUCATION CAPABILITY (DTEC) PROGRAMME - Policy for UK Enumerations for Distributed Simulation.


5-2

Version 3.3

Figure 5.1: Overall process for requesting enumerations

5.10 Requests for enumerations will be assessed by the approvals process shown in detail in Figure 5.1. If the request is suitable it will be forwarded as a change request to SISO for incorporation into the SISO reference document. Otherwise it will be held separately in the AUS only enumeration document available on the ADSTC SharePoint site, or via request to ADSTC.

Figure 5.2: Overview of ADSTC approval process

5.11 The ADSTC approval process, shown in Figure 5.2, is overseen by the ADSTC and supported by the DSSRG. The technical review stage is to determine whether the request is one that should be forwarded onto SISO for consideration using their process described below. The stakeholder SME review is to ascertain that the enumeration(s) requested reflect the capability that is being represented (as listed in the DSSRG Terms of Reference). The Approval stage is undertaken by the ADSTC based on the recommendations of the previous stages.

5.12 At all stages the status of the request will be available on the ADSTC SharePoint site as described from Section 5.17. Once the approval has been granted or refused, the requestor will be informed by email of the outcome of their request, and any enumerations allocated. The outcome of the SISO review will be communicated back to the requestor. Whilst undergoing SISO review the enumeration will be held in the AUS only enumeration list, but removed once approved by SISO.

Australian variants: under Australian country code or original country code

5.13 Previously the practice was that entities would be listed under the country of design (e.g. the Australian FFG’s are currently listed under the United States country code).




5-3

Version 3.3

5.14 During recent updates to the SISO enumerations process, there is now the ability to have entity model variants, which will allow the entity to be listed under the country that performed the variation (e.g. the Australian FFG’s, are now so far removed from the original design by the Australian variations, that they could be moved to the Australian county code). This process is explained in the SISO-REF-010-01 EWG Operations Manual.

NOTE: This is not an excuse to create a force identification list within SISO, the entity must be physically changed from the original entity (e.g. The Australian F/A-18A/B models have been locally modified to such an extent that they would be considered as a country variant, but our C-17A aircraft have the same configuration as their US counterparts, so do not qualify as a country variant). This process is explained in the SISO-REF-010-01 EWG Operations Manual, and an extract of this paragraph is shown below:

7.4.1.2 General Rules on Country Code Changes

The following general rules apply to all change of country ownership or country design variations:

a) The country code shall be the new country of ownership (for a valid change in country ownership) or country of design (for a valid country design variation).

b) The Kind and Domain fields shall remain unchanged.

c) The Category, Subcategory, Specific and Extra fields need not match any previous owner entity type enumeration.

d) The entity type enumeration description shall reflect the English version given to the entity by the new country of ownership.

e) A new entity type enumeration shall not be created for the sake of force identification. If no redesign or new designation takes place, a new entity type should not be generated. This will eliminate duplicates of the same entity types.

5.15 If there is still a requirement to have an Australian variant for exercise use, then an NCTE Australian variant number should be add to the Australian Equipment Entity list. This number will have the enumeration subcategory number set at 15 higher than the highest SISO subcategory number. (e.g. To add the C-17A NCTE exercise number, we looked at the highest SISO subcategory number currently utilised by SISO for the Australian category. So we looked at the SISO list, and found that the C-27J was listed as 1.2.13.4.5.0.0, so the highest subcategory number is 5. We then created the NCTE C-17A as 1.2.13.4.20.0.0 and added it to the Australian Equipment Entity list).

5.16 An ‘Australian Equipment Entity’ list is available on the ADSTC SharePoint site, which lists the recommended enumerations numbers for Australian assets.

Defence M&S Enumeration Site

5.17 The Defence M&S enumeration site can be accessed via the ADSTC SharePoint site, using the enumeration link. Once into the enumeration pages, you will have several selections available as shown below:

Figure 5.3: Australian Only Enumerations Lists

a. The Australian Only Enumerations lists contain the enumerations numbers that have been through the approval process as described previously in this chapter, and the Australian Equipment Entity list.




5-4

Version 3.3

Figure 5.4: SISO Enumeration Information

b. The SISO Enumeration Information lists contain information relating to the SISO MEL, and also the information on the Australian CR’s currently under review (including the CR’s currently under review for inclusion in the Australian Only Enumerations lists). All enumerations CR’s are to be submitted using the Enumerations CR forms available from this section.

c. There is also a Working folder that contains other enumerations information

5.18 If further assistance is required, stakeholders can request assistance via [email protected] - attn.: Simulation Standards and Certification Officer.


6-1

Version 3.3

CHAPTER 6

CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Introduction

6.1 This chapter describes the processes for the management of Defence M&S standards.

Defence M&S standards working groups and committees

6.2 When a change to simulation policy on standards or an ADSTC standard change request is received, the Simulation Standards Officer commences the administrative process associated with the change in accordance with the proposing changes to simulation standards policy or proposing changes to the standards baseline sections of this chapter.

6.3 Change management and governance processes established by ADSTC for the maintenance and management of the standards baseline involves the following working groups and committees:

a. Defence Simulation Standards Reference Group (DSSRG). The DSSRG is responsible for providing simulation standards advice to the Defence Simulation Working Group. The DSSRG is chaired by the DD Sim Governance with the Simulation Standards Officer acting as Secretary. Relevant SMEs from the Defence community will be invited to be involved in the DSSRG sessions.

b. Defence Simulation Working Group (DSWG). The DSWG is responsible for providing simulation advice to the Joint Capability Coordination Committee (JCCC).

6.4 Changes to the simulation policy regarding standards, including this guide and the standards framework, may also be presented to the above mentioned committees as part of the change management process. Additionally the System of Defence Instructions (SoDI) mandated processes will be followed in the updated Simulation Manual which this Guide forms part of.

Proposing changes to simulation standards policy

6.5 All specific proposals for changes, updates, enquiries or assistance regarding simulation policy relating to standards, this guide and the detailed standards framework should be directed to the Simulation Standards Officer in the first instance.

6.6 Initial communication should be via a short email containing a summary of the request, proposed changed or assistance required. Email subject should have attention to the Standards Officer. After initial review of the email, the Simulation Standards Officer will contact the point of contact identified in the email for further discussion and progression of the request.

6.7 The contact details are:

Attn: Simulation Standards Officer Australian Defence Simulation and Training Centre PO Box 7940 Canberra BC ACT 2610 e-mail: [email protected] – attn : Simulation Standards and Certification Officer.

6.8 All requests, data created during the review and potential development activities and outcomes will be recorded by the Simulation Standards Officer in the ADSTC data repository on objective.

Proposing changes to the standards baseline

6.9 The standards baseline may be changed as a result of engagement with both internal and external stakeholders. Changes to the standards baseline may be required when:

a. new standards emerge

b. existing standards are revised

c. missing standards are identified

d. old standards become obsolete


6-2

Version 3.3

6.10 Stakeholders are encouraged to propose changes to the standards baseline to ensure that this baseline remains current and as relevant as possible. A simple process to facilitate changes is shown at Annex C, and consists of four major steps as described below:

a. Identifying the need for a change. In most situations, it is expected that the stakeholders will find applicability and appropriate standards within the standards baseline for a majority of M&S activities within Defence. However, in some circumstances, it is expected that stakeholders will either not be able to find an appropriate standard in the standards baseline, or may want to propose an alternative to the recommended standard. If this is the case, stakeholders are encouraged to liaise directly with the Simulation Standards Officer and raise an ADSTC change request via the form provided at Annex D. The form is also available on the ADSTC SharePoint site if required. The request form is designed to solicit all of the information necessary for ADSTC to process the change request.

b. Processing a change request. Once a change request has been raised, the Standards Officer will go through a process of research and discovery (including checking historical records of previous change requests) in order to determine the validity of the change request.

If the initial and internal ADSTC review recommends further consideration, the Standards Officer will distribute the request to relevant stakeholders and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) for further consideration and comment. These comments will be collated by the Standards Officer and presented to the DSSRG for recommendation to the DSWG.

The Standards Officer will also add the information to the standards baseline, with ‘Core Simulation Standard’ field set to ‘Under Review’ – this identifies to the stakeholders that this standard is already under review for consideration as a Core Simulation Standard.

If, at any stage, the change request is rejected, the Standards Officer will advise the stake holder who raised the request and will provide the point of contact of the request with a summary brief as to the reasons why the request was rejected. Additionally, the Standards Officer will update the ADSTC data repository containing historical records of change requests and outcomes.

c. Approving and promulgating the change. When the recommended change request is received by the DSWG, it will be considered and either approved or rejected. The Standards Officer will promulgate the changes once they have been approved by the DSWG and these changes will then become part of the Standards Baseline within Defence. The Standards Officer will also add details of the approved change to the ADSTC data repository.

d. Maintaining a history of change requests. Maintaining a history of change requests is an important part of robust configuration management of the Standards Baseline. The Standards Officer is responsible for maintaining a historical data repository that contains the records and results of all proposed changes to the standards list.

The data repository will become, over time, a valuable resource that will help prevent replication of effort when change requests are first raised. By searching on the repository, the Standards Officer will be able to identify new change requests that have been previously considered and rejected, and make a judgement on whether the change request warrants additional consideration.



A-1

Version 3.3

ANNEX A. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Listed below are the acronyms and abbreviation used in this guide.

Abbreviation/Acronym Explanation

3D Three Dimensional

ADF Australian Defence Force

ADO Australian Defence Organisation

ADSTC Australian Defence Simulation and Training Centre

AUSDAF Australian Defence Architecture Framework

C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance

CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority

C-BML Coalition Battle Management Language

CDG Capability Development Group

CIGI Common Image Generator Interface

CJOPS Chief Joint Operations

CM Capability Managers

CM Conceptual Modelling

CR Change Request

DD Deputy Director

DDCA Distributed Debrief Control Architecture

DG Director General

DIS Distributed Interactive Simulation

DIS PSG Distributed Interactive Simulation Product Support Group

DoD Department of Defense

DRN Defence Restricted Network

DSA Defence Simulation Architecture

DSEEP Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process


A-2

Version 3.3


DSL Defence Standards Library

DSSR Defence Simulation Strategy and Roadmap

DSSRG Defence Simulation Standards Reference Group

DSSSG Defence Simulation Standards Sub Group

DSWG Defence Simulation Working Group

DTED Digital Terrain Elevation Data

EWG Enumerations Working Group

FEDEP Federation development and execution process

GIS Geographic Information Systems

Gov Governance

HLA High Level Architecture

ICT Information and Communications Technology

IEC International Electro-Technical Commission

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IT Information Technology

JCA Joint Capability Authority

JCCC Joint Capability Coordination Committee

JOC Joint Operations Command

LCIM Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model

MEL Master Enumerations List


A-3

Version 3.3


MIL-STD Military Standard

M&S Modelling and Simulation

MOS Manual of Standards

MSDL Military Scenario Description Language

NATO NATO

NSA Nominated Standards Authority

OGC Open GIS Consortium

OMG Object Management Group

OMT Object Model Template

PDU Protocol Data Unit

RAAF Royal Australian Air Force

RAN Royal Australian Navy

RIEDP Reuse and Interoperation of Environmental Data and Processes

SDO Standards Development Organisations

SEDRIS Synthetic Environment Data Representation and Interchange Specification

Sim Simulation

SIMMAN Defence Simulation Manual

SISO Simulation Interoperability Standards Organisation

SME Subject Matter Expert

SoDI Standard Operational Data Item Manual

SSG Simulation Standards Guide

STANAG Standard NATO Agreement

STANMAN Defence Material Standards Manual

STF SEDRIS Transmittal Format


A-4

Version 3.3


US United States

USA United States of America

V&V Verification and Validation

VCDF Vice Chief of the Defence Force

VMAP Vector MAP

VV&A Verification, Validation and Accreditation

VV&C Verification, Validation and Certification

XML Extensible Mark-up Language


B-1

Version 3.3

ANNEX B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON M&S STANDARDS Definitions of Standards

Standards Australia defines a standard as a: “document, established by consensus and approved by a recognised body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.”12

Types of Standards

Official Standards. Official Standards are those standards developed by Standards Development Organisations (SDOs) with legal and recognised standing. Examples of official standards relevant to this guide include (but are not limited to) those published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), and the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO).

De facto Standards. De facto Standards are those standards that are commonly used, but are not official. For example, OpenFlight is a de facto standard in wide use around the world

Open Standards. Open Standards are those standards developed by SDOs to which membership is open, and the standard is available to the public for developing compliant products.

Proprietary Standards. Proprietary Standards are those standards that are privately owned and controlled by one company. Note that when a proprietary standard is widely used, it may become a de facto standard.

Local Standards. Local Standards are those standards that have been developed within a specific organisation, but are not in use in the international community. For example, the RAAF may develop its own internal set of standards for accreditation of RAAF aircrew training simulations, but these standards may not be used by Army and RAN, or the international community.

Benefits of Standards Application

Standards have an increasingly important role in enabling the efficient delivery and management of the Defence vision for simulation across the breadth of applications and the realisation of the benefits sought. Standards assist by providing proven industry consensus based methods of:

a. improving the communication within teams and with the broader simulation community by employing standard terms and methods of specifying requirements

b. defining common forms for representations, providing consistency and allowing for reuse and interchange of data

c. enabling interoperable distributed simulation by defining standard architectures and communications interfaces

d. ensuring confidence in the use of simulation and the simulated results by defining fidelity requirements and standard methods for validation, verification and accreditation of simulations

e. reducing development costs by using a standard language, approaches and verification methods to facilitate shareable, reusable simulation and simulation data components across Defence

f. benefiting from sharing of ‘data and ideas’, cooperation and interaction with the broader simulation community facilitated by the use of a common simulation engineering language, methods, tools and practices

g. reducing the training effort and improving resource availability through standardisation on procedures, practices and method by reducing the variety

h. simplifying life cycle issues by providing standard baseline formats and methods for data exchange formats between new and old systems and standard interfaces to legacy systems.

12 Standards Australia, Standards Development – SG-001 – Preparing Standards. Chapter 1.


B-2

Version 3.3

Limitations of M&S Standards

Standards are generally developed from a common need and consensus hence they tend to lag the latest developments. Standards are therefore best applied to aspects where a common need exists.

Demonstrating compliance with a standard typically adds to initial cost and delivery time. The extent of the additional cost and time will depend on the breadth of adoption and maturity of the standard.

Standards change with time in order to keep up with technology changes and changes in industry consensus and need. Although efforts are often made to provide some level of backward compatibility, there is no fundamental requirement for the developers of standards to guarantee that there will be a low cost (or any) migration path between various versions of standards.

The specification of proprietary standards may result in vendor lock-in, lack of interoperability or place unnecessary restriction on the ability of other vendors to offer products or services and should therefore be avoided. Where proprietary standards are specified the acquirer should ensure that a licence to use these standards is available at a fair price to all potential users.

Major Standards Organisations

Standards organisations have the responsibility for the development, approval/adoption, distribution and maintenance of standards. As such they are both the source of the latest standards information and the single point of contact for request for changes or additions to standards. There are many organisations within Australia and overseas who are actively involved in drafting, reviewing, approving and sponsoring M&S standards.

ADSTC actively engages with these organisations on behalf of the Australian Department of Defence. Contact with these organisations regarding M&S standards should, in the first instance, be made via ADSTC on behalf on the Australian Department of Defence.

This section contains a summary of some of the major world-wide standards organisations as applicable to M&S.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is responsible for the development of NATO standards (STANAGs). The NATO M&S Group, in particular the MS3 Working Group, is a permanent working group for M&S standards development. Further information on NATO can be found on the NATO website. A number of STANAGs are available for download from the website.

United States Department of Defence. The United States (US) Department of Defense (DoD) is responsible for the development and management of a large number of military standards belonging to the broadly applied MIL-STD series. These standards are generally freely-available from various web-based repositories.

Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization. The Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) is focused on facilitating simulation interoperability and component reuse through the interchange of ideas and education of M&S practitioners through forums, workshop and conferences and through supporting the development of standards and guides. SISO membership exceeds 1400 from 28 countries, representing well over 400 organisations, including commercial, academic, government, and military agencies.

SISO develops standards for simulation interoperability and component reuse across the US DoD, other government, and non-government applications. SISO standards are often endorsed and published by other standards organisations such as IEEE. Details of its structure and operations are provided on the SISO website.

International Organization for Standardization. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is the world's largest developer of standards, and is the network of the national standards institutes of 146 countries. It operates on the basis of one member per country and Standards Australia is Australia’s ISO member (representative). The ISO Central Secretariat coordinates the system and is located in Geneva, Switzerland.

ISO is a non-governmental organisation, acting as a bridging organisation between the public and private sector, in which a consensus can be reached on solutions that meet both the requirements of business and the broader needs of society, such as the needs of stakeholder groups like consumers and users. Many ISO standards are mandated by its’ member governments. ISO is funded from its national members and the sale of standards.


B-3

Version 3.3

Standards are developed by technical committees which are made up of technical experts and representatives of other relevant bodies such as, government agencies, testing laboratories, consumer associations, and environmentalists. The standards are developed following ISO rules and policy. Further details are provided on their website.

International Electro-technical Commission. The International Electro-technical Commission (IEC) is “the leading global organisation that prepares and publishes international standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies. These serve as a basis for national standardization and as references when drafting international tenders and contracts.” 13 The IEC jointly publishes standards with ISO.

Standards Australia. Standards Australia (SA) is Australia’s peak non-government standards development body. This status is recognised through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Commonwealth Government. SA is not-for-profit and consists of 72 Members representing groups with an interest in the development and application of standards and related products and services. SA is Australia’s representative on ISO and IEC.

Standards Australia develops standards through a consensus based development process. The process is based on transparency, consensus and stakeholder representation from interest groups that include governments, industry bodies, trade and professional associations, academia and consumer groups.

Standards Australia has also the established the following committees that are particularly relevant to M&S:

a. IT-031 Computer Modelling & Simulation (to focus on the Australian adoption and/or development of computer M&S standards).

b. IT-019-01 Information Technology for Learning, Education, and Training Committee (to focus on standardisation in the field of information technologies for learning, education, and training to support individuals, groups, or organisations, and to enable interoperability and reusability of resources and tools). Note: this committee is currently not in operation, but can be reformed if required.

Further details of SA’s mission, structure and operations are provided on their website.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) claim to be the world's largest technical professional society, developing standards covering: power and energy, biomedical and healthcare, information technology, telecommunications, transportation, nanotechnology and information assurance. IEEE’s standard’s development process is based on openness and consensus.

The Standards Association of the IEEE is headquartered in New Jersey, USA. Further information is provided on their website.

Open Geospatial Consortium. The Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. (OGC) is a non-profit, international industry consortium made up of private companies, government agencies and universities. It claims to be the leading developer of standards for geospatial and location based services. Its standards are developed through a consensus based program and are publicly available. It creates open and extensible software application programming interfaces for geographic information systems (GIS) and other mainstream technologies.

Furthermore, OGC and ISO TC211 have an agreement to sustain the technical alignment of their respective developments. This is accomplished through mutual review and development of draft documents. There are also scenarios where the OGC adopts Bilateral and Three Way reviews for progression of standards. More information can be found in the “OGC’s Role in the Spatial Standards World - An Open GIS Consortium (OGC) White Paper”. 14

The vision and mission and details of OGC operations are also provided on their website.

13 http://www.iso.org/iso/iss_home.htm

14 http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=6207&version=1&format=pdf


B-4

Version 3.3

Object Management Group. The Object Management Group™ (OMG™) is focused on producing and maintaining specifications for interoperable enterprise-wide applications. OMG standards cover software design, development, deployment and maintenance. It is a not for profit organisation based in the USA. Its specifications are publicly available.

OMG has a relationship with ISO that allows the specifications it develops to be submitted to ISO via their fast track adoption process. OMG also has relationships with a number of other standards related bodies. Further details of its structure and operations are provided on the OMG website.


C-1

Version 3.3

ANNEX C. STANDARDS CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS


D-1

Version 3.3

ANNEX D. DEFENCE M&S STANDARDS BASELINE CHANGE REQUESTS

Because the M&S standards baseline is a ‘living’ document, ADSTC welcomes your change requests and will use the requests to ensure that the Defence M&S Standards Framework and the standards baseline continues to meet the needs of the audiences for which it is intended.


D-2

Version 3.3

Change Request to the Simulation Standards Baseline

General CR Information

1 Standard Identifier or Version Number

Unique identifier for this standard.

2 Title of Standard Standard name in full.

3 Date Issued

The date this standard was issued / approved by its source Status Date

The date the Defence requirement was applied

4 Lifecycle Status

Current Lifecycle Status of the Standard or Blank if new (Current, Emerging, Superseded, Obsolete, Cancelled).

Defence Requirement

Current Defence Requirement for the Standard

(Mandated, Regulated, Recommended, Advised).

5 Publisher Status

Current publisher status of standard

(DRAFT, Emerging, Current, Aging, Obsolete)

Core Simulation Standard

Is this a core simulation standard?

(Yes, No, Under Review) or blank if new

6 Nominated Standards Authority (NSA)

NSA responsible for maintaining this standard

7 Source/Sponsor Which body published the standard

8 DoD Change Request Proposal

Brief description of required change. e.g. request to retire a standard.

9 Change Request Rationale

Why is this change required? e.g. the standard has been superseded.

10 Superseded By Identify the new standard or N/A.

11 Review Date Date you intend to review this standard or N/A.

12 Review Event What will trigger a review of this standard or N/A?

13 Classification of Document

Classification based on the current DSA SECMAN.


D-3

Version 3.3

14 Releasability

Any caveats or releasability restrictions. e.g. DOD Use Only, Commercial In Confidence.

Standard Summary Information

15 Abstract A brief description of the purpose and scope of the standard.

16 Applicability Brief summary on where and how this standard is expected to be used within Defence (informed by use cases).

17 Limitations of this Standard

Any know limitations or blank

18 Technical Maturity Description of the supporting technical information used to develop this standard.

19 Public Availability N/A or if publicly available provide the URL or describe method on how to obtain the standard.

20 Document Location

URL or instructions to Access or Acquire

21 Authority Which Defence policy(s) does this standard support?

22 Monitoring Committee / Working Group

Which standards committee/working group is responsible for development of this standard

23 Business Area(s) as per Defence BRM)

Which Groups and/or Services does this standard impact or apply to? (for M&S use ‘3.6.7 Simulation’)

24 Keywords (Comma Separated)

Any keywords that will assist in the search for this document.

25 Sim Standard Baseline Category

As listed in the Standards Guide

26 Guidance for Implementing this Standard

Specific examples of how the standard has been used in programs and products within Defence or other nations


D-4

Version 3.3

27 Information/ Guidance Linked to this Standard

Insert links to documents mentioned in Guidance here

28 Additional Comments

Add as appropriate.

CONTACT ADSTC WITH ENQUIRIES ON THE EMAILS BELOW:

Standards and Certification Officer Fax: (02) 6266 1780

Mr David Ronnfeldt DRN Email: [email protected] Group Email: [email protected] – attn: Standards and Certification Officer

Tel: (02) 6266 1674 Postal Address: PO BOX 7940, Canberra BC, ACT 2610

ADSTC Share Point Site (for DRN users only) http://caas/Areas/WAFI/ADSTC/SitePages/Home.aspx

Simulation Standards Guide v3 3 - LISTSERV 16.0 Simulation Standards Guide vii Version 3.3 FOREWORD...

Documents

Transcript of Simulation Standards Guide v3 3 - LISTSERV 16.0 Simulation Standards Guide vii Version 3.3 FOREWORD...