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 />
A.3. Analysis Within the Scenario Framework<br />
Analytically, the scenario framework serves several roles. Most importantly, it exists as a<br />
common frame of reference for describing the M&V problem space. Narrower problem<br />
definitions, metrics, and objectives can be derived where appropriate through decomposition<br />
(discussed more in Section A.5). Scenarios for analysis can be generated by stringing sequences<br />
of nodes together. Any starting point and ending point can be selected, and a path through the<br />
network selected to connect them. From that string of nodes, a more complete narrative can<br />
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. Additionally, 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. While the scenario framework provides the<br />
structure for this kind of analysis, there is still the challenge of developing end‐to‐end metrics<br />
that are solution independent and common among all nodes. Further consideration of this issue<br />
is given in Section A.8.<br />
Finally, it should be noted that the scenario framework is not proposed to be the sole<br />
description of the problem space for the M&V mission. Rather, it is one useful construct for<br />
describing the problem space that lends itself to the analysis that is discussed in this chapter. As<br />
is often the case with large complex problems that have a myriad of stakeholders who might<br />
have competing objectives, there are likely many representations of the problem space that are<br />
all germane to evaluating potential solutions. While it is recommended that the scenario<br />
framework be considered as a unifying representation of the problem space for analysts and<br />
decision makers, it is also recognized that other representations exist and are useful. Such work<br />
should continue, but the need for integrating them into a common set of problem<br />
space models remains. Likewise it is recommended that the scenario framework be<br />
periodically reviewed and updated as appropriate based on real world experience and<br />
additional analytical studies.<br />
A.4. Bridging Methodologies<br />
While the scenario framework proposed in Section A.2 can provide a common frame for<br />
understanding the M&V problem space, any problem framework must be connected to<br />
potential solution options in order to be ultimately useful to capability investment decision<br />
makers, or policy makers and treaty negotiators. The method used to connect the problem and<br />
solution spaces is called a bridging methodology for the purposes of this report. A bridging<br />
DSB TASK FORCE REPORT Appendix A: Unabridged Description | 84<br />
Nuclear Treaty Monitoring Verification Technologies<br />
UNCLASSIFIED