monitoring

Recommendations

Info

UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE resolution to the analysis. A system of decomposition layers is then constructed beneath the scenario nodes. Those layers, with increasing levels of specificity, are: 1. Strategic Capability Areas – This layer centers on core elements of the mission space associated with reducing risk. 2. Functional Objectives – Within each Strategic Capability Area, several functional objectives are articulated to capture high‐level operational objectives that must be achieved. 3. Tasks – Each functional objective is further decomposed into a set of tasks. The tasks themselves are part of prospective solution architecture – i.e., tasks, just like objectives, are not universally defined, but proposed as part of a solution option. 4. Assets – Each task is accomplished through the employment of assets. Assets can include hardware, platforms, people, training, concepts of operations, and programs – essentially any capability that can be specifically invested in. Each node in the scenario framework proposed in Section 4.3 will have at least one unique decomposition map associated with it in a fully formed analytical effort. There are only a limited number of unique investible assets that may be incorporated in prospective solution architectures, and many assets are likely applicable to several different functional objectives and tasks. These observations imply that most assets will aggregate requirements from multiple scenario nodes, strategic capability areas, functional objectives, and tasks. Assets must be assessed against each set, and synergies may be identified and leveraged when designing solution architectures. Optimistically, the same asset may have sufficient performance and applicability across multiple tasks, functional objectives, strategic capability areas, and scenario nodes. 4.4.2. Decomposition Map Example The overall decomposition approach described in Section 4.4.1 may be best described through the example illustrated in Figure 4‐3. The example decomposition map begins with a focus on the scenario node “Non‐State Attempt to Move Weapon.” The scenario node is decomposed into more specific scenario sub‐nodes; in this case the analyst is concerned with “In Country Movement” of a nuclear weapon or asset. DSB TASK FORCE REPORT Chapter 4: Address the Problem | 44 Nuclear Treaty Monitoring Verification Technologies UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Figure 4‐3 Example Decomposition Map The next step of decomposition moves from the problem description (the top shaded area, labeled “Scenario Maps,” in the decomposition map) into development of a solution architecture (the blue shaded area in the decomposition map). The scenario sub‐nodes are decomposed into strategic capability areas dividing the problem space into discrete mission areas – in this case the strategic capability area of border <strong>monitoring</strong> is highlighted for further decomposition. Of several possible functional objectives for border <strong>monitoring</strong>, our example will consider perimeter control, which can be further decomposed into a set of tasks that must be accomplished in order fulfill that objective. These tasks and the assets associated with them represent a proposed solution architecture for accomplishing the objectives specified. For example, items that pass through that perimeter must be inspected to ensure that no nuclear contraband is passing across the perimeter. As noted with the arrow on each side of the decomposition map, the requirements and metrics by which proposed assets are to be assessed have been derivatively defined from the previous layer. As assessments are made and analytical results obtained, they are aggregated into performance assessments of higher and higher layers. The derivation of a tractable set of DSB TASK FORCE REPORT Chapter 4: Address the Problem | 45 Nuclear Treaty Monitoring Verification Technologies UNCLASSIFIED
Page 1 and 2: UNCLASSIFIED TASK FORCE REPORT: Ass
Page 3 and 4: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Page 5 and 6: • Even “traditional” nuclear
Page 7 and 8: UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD
Page 51: UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD
Page 103 and 104:
UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111:
show all

monitoring

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?