01.12.2014 Views

monitoring

monitoring

monitoring

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

UNCLASSIFIED<br />

DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE<br />

resolution to the analysis. A system of decomposition layers is then constructed beneath the<br />

scenario nodes. Those layers, with increasing levels of specificity, are:<br />

1. Strategic Capability Areas – This layer centers on core elements of the mission space<br />

associated with reducing risk.<br />

2. Functional Objectives – Within each Strategic Capability Area, several functional<br />

objectives are articulated to capture high‐level operational objectives that must be<br />

achieved.<br />

3. Tasks – Each functional objective is further decomposed into a set of tasks. The tasks<br />

themselves are part of prospective solution architecture – i.e., tasks, just like objectives,<br />

are not universally defined, but proposed as part of a solution option.<br />

4. Assets – Each task is accomplished through the employment of assets. Assets can<br />

include hardware, platforms, people, training, concepts of operations, and programs –<br />

essentially any capability that can be specifically invested in.<br />

Each node in the scenario framework proposed in Section 4.3 will have at least one unique<br />

decomposition map associated with it in a fully formed analytical effort. There are only a<br />

limited number of unique investible assets that may be incorporated in prospective solution<br />

architectures, and many assets are likely applicable to several different functional objectives<br />

and tasks. These observations imply that most assets will aggregate requirements from multiple<br />

scenario nodes, strategic capability areas, functional objectives, and tasks. Assets must be<br />

assessed against each set, and synergies may be identified and leveraged when designing<br />

solution architectures. Optimistically, the same asset may have sufficient performance<br />

and applicability across multiple tasks, functional objectives, strategic capability areas, and<br />

scenario nodes.<br />

4.4.2. Decomposition Map Example<br />

The overall decomposition approach described in Section 4.4.1 may be best described through<br />

the example illustrated in Figure 4‐3. The example decomposition map begins with a focus on<br />

the scenario node “Non‐State Attempt to Move Weapon.” The scenario node is decomposed<br />

into more specific scenario sub‐nodes; in this case the analyst is concerned with “In Country<br />

Movement” of a nuclear weapon or asset.<br />

DSB TASK FORCE REPORT Chapter 4: Address the Problem | 44<br />

Nuclear Treaty Monitoring Verification Technologies<br />

UNCLASSIFIED

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!