monitoring

Recommendations

Info

UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE —APPENDICES— Appendix A. Unabridged Description of a Proposed M&V Analytical Methodology Chapter 4 presented a candidate analytical methodology for prioritizing among the many operational and acquisition options to advance the nation’s <strong>monitoring</strong> and verification capabilities. A more complete description is provided in this appendix. A.1. Elements of an M&V Analytical Methodology There are several key elements proposed as a necessary part of an enduring M&V analytical methodology, as laid out in Figure A‐1. • First, there is the “problem space”, which consists of a set of frameworks that describe the M&V challenge independent of any proposed solutions. This is a critical component in the proposed approach, as it provides the basis that will serve as a common foundational understanding for solutions to be built upon and assessed for fitness. • Second, there exists a “solution space”, in which proposed capability architectures are crafted. These architectures are collections of technologies, operations, and capabilities DSB TASK FORCE REPORT Appendix A: Unabridged Description | 78 Nuclear Treaty Monitoring Verification Technologies UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE that work together to accomplish the goals and objectives identified through examination of the problem space. • Third, there must be a Bridging Methodology which allows for the “back and forth” between requirements and objectives that any solution must meet, as dictated by the frameworks that describe the problem, and architecture features and assessments of the solution space that are mapped into the analyst’s understanding of the problem itself. • Finally, there must be a rigorous and repeatable portfolio decision methodology that allows for the values of the decision maker and his/her organization to be incorporated, and for defensible, tractable decisions to be made. Figure A‐1 Elements of an M&V Analytical Methodology A common issue in the development of analytical frameworks has been the tendency to frame the problem and solution together. The conflation of “problem space” and “solution space” brings with it several consequences. First, it tends to promote metrics and assessments that maximize elemental solution parameters such as detector performance, rather than system performance against the actual threat space, by assuming that they are proximate. Second, it tends to lead analysts to fixate on a narrower problem (such as detector performance) rather than assessing those issues in the context of the larger whole. Third, it does not enable a common understanding of the problem space itself, allowing solutions to be framed in whatever manner the solution proponent deems suitable. The entire set of symptoms run counter to enabling the decision maker to achieve his/her ultimate goal: rendering and defending a provably effective investment strategy for M&V capability development. Separating the “problem space” from the “solution space” and analyzing them independently can therefore yield benefits by eliminating or mitigating these issues. DSB TASK FORCE REPORT Appendix A: Unabridged Description | 79 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 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36: UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD
Page 85: UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD
Page 111: UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD
show all

monitoring

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

Delete template?

Save as template?