monitoring
monitoring
monitoring
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
UNCLASSIFIED<br />
DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE<br />
Blue‐colored nodes indicate “macro” nodes, or nodes that are easily decomposed into a<br />
common set of sub‐nodes. The “movement sub‐space” is examined as an example. This subspace<br />
corresponds to movement through the origin region, across international boundaries,<br />
through global commons, and into the target region. The movement sub‐space is laid out in the<br />
blue box on the right hand side of the framework diagram.<br />
4.3.1. Analysis Within the Scenario Framework<br />
The scenario framework serves several roles. Most importantly, it exists as a common frame of<br />
reference for describing the M&V problem space. Narrower problem definitions, metrics, and<br />
objectives can be derived where appropriate through decomposition (discussed in Section<br />
4.4.1). Scenarios for analysis can be generated by stringing sequences of nodes together. Any<br />
starting point and ending point can be selected, and a path through the network selected to<br />
connect them. From that string of nodes, a more complete narrative can be constructed.<br />
The scenario framework can also allow for greater and more complete coverage in the design<br />
and analysis of solution architectures. A large family of scenarios can be analyzed by examining<br />
all nodes systematically node‐by‐node independent of end‐to‐end scenarios. An analyst can<br />
consider solution architectures that combat adversary success within a single node, and<br />
consider the collective impact it has on the complete scenario space by examining both<br />
upstream and downstream nodes. In addition, tradeoffs between architectures designed for<br />
different nodes can be compared in an end‐to‐end system performance sense. This will aid the<br />
assessment of the complete set of architecture components within a portfolio of defensive<br />
measures and allow for complex trades to be made. The scenario framework should be<br />
periodically reviewed and updated as appropriate based on real world experience and<br />
additional analytical studies.<br />
While the scenario framework provides the structure for this kind of analysis, there is still the<br />
challenge of developing end‐to‐end metrics that are solution independent and common among<br />
all nodes. Further consideration of this issue is given in Section 4.5.1.<br />
4.4. Bridging Methodologies<br />
The method used to connect the problem and solution spaces is called a bridging methodology.<br />
It allows for a breakdown and prioritization of goals and objectives in the problem space into<br />
requirements and metrics for potential solution architectures. It also allows for the systematic<br />
aggregation of performance assessments and analyses into an overall picture of <strong>monitoring</strong> and<br />
verification architecture performance.<br />
4.4.1. Proposed Decomposition Map Approach<br />
The bridging method proposed by the Task Force is a decomposition approach that<br />
systematically maps problem space descriptions to prospective solution architect elements. The<br />
approach begins with the selection of any node in the scenario framework discussed in Section<br />
4.3. The selected node is decomposed into sub‐nodes required to add appropriate fidelity or<br />
DSB TASK FORCE REPORT Chapter 4: Address the Problem | 43<br />
Nuclear Treaty Monitoring Verification Technologies<br />
UNCLASSIFIED