monitoring

Recommendations

Info

UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE A.3. Analysis Within the Scenario Framework Analytically, the scenario framework serves several roles. Most importantly, it exists as a common frame of reference for describing the M&V problem space. Narrower problem definitions, metrics, and objectives can be derived where appropriate through decomposition (discussed more in Section A.5). Scenarios for analysis can be generated by stringing sequences of nodes together. Any starting point and ending point can be selected, and a path through the network selected to connect them. From that string of nodes, a more complete narrative can be constructed. The scenario framework can also allow for greater and more complete coverage in the design and analysis of solution architectures. A large family of scenarios can be analyzed by examining all nodes systematically node‐by‐node independent of end‐to‐end scenarios. An analyst can consider solution architectures that combat adversary success within a single node, and consider the collective impact it has on the complete scenario space by examining both upstream and downstream nodes. Additionally, tradeoffs between architectures designed for different nodes can be compared in an end‐to‐end system performance sense. This will aid the assessment of the complete set of architecture components within a portfolio of defensive measures and allow for complex trades to be made. While the scenario framework provides the structure for this kind of analysis, there is still the challenge of developing end‐to‐end metrics that are solution independent and common among all nodes. Further consideration of this issue is given in Section A.8. Finally, it should be noted that the scenario framework is not proposed to be the sole description of the problem space for the M&V mission. Rather, it is one useful construct for describing the problem space that lends itself to the analysis that is discussed in this chapter. As is often the case with large complex problems that have a myriad of stakeholders who might have competing objectives, there are likely many representations of the problem space that are all germane to evaluating potential solutions. While it is recommended that the scenario framework be considered as a unifying representation of the problem space for analysts and decision makers, it is also recognized that other representations exist and are useful. Such work should continue, but the need for integrating them into a common set of problem space models remains. Likewise it is recommended that the scenario framework be periodically reviewed and updated as appropriate based on real world experience and additional analytical studies. A.4. Bridging Methodologies While the scenario framework proposed in Section A.2 can provide a common frame for understanding the M&V problem space, any problem framework must be connected to potential solution options in order to be ultimately useful to capability investment decision makers, or policy makers and treaty negotiators. The method used to connect the problem and solution spaces is called a bridging methodology for the purposes of this report. A bridging DSB TASK FORCE REPORT Appendix A: Unabridged Description | 84 Nuclear Treaty Monitoring Verification Technologies UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE methodology approach allows for a breakdown and prioritization of goals and objectives in the problem space into requirements and metrics for potential solution architectures. It will also allow for the systematic aggregation of performance assessments and analyses into an overall picture of <strong>monitoring</strong> and verification architecture performance. A.5. Proposed Decomposition Map Approach The bridging method proposed by the Task Force is a decomposition approach that maps between problem space descriptions and prospective solution architect elements. This subsection describes the decomposition approach in general; the next one provides an example to illustrate its application. As envisioned, the proposed approach begins with the selection of any node in the scenario framework discussed in Section A.2. The selected node is decomposed into any sub‐nodes required to add appropriate fidelity or resolution to the analysis. A system of decomposition layers is then constructed beneath the scenario nodes. Those four layers are: 1. Strategic Capability Areas – This layer, while arbitrary, provides a convenient organizational structure when considering the universe of potential capability investments. As defined in this report, the strategic capability areas center on core elements of the mission space associated with reducing risk. 2. Functional Objectives – Within each Strategic Capability Area, several functional objectives can be articulated. These objectives are intended to capture high‐level operational objectives that must be achieved. The articulation of these objectives must be performed by the decision maker, as there is no universal set. The metrics used to assess performance against those objectives must be derived by the analysts from the articulation of risk in the problem space. 3. Tasks – Each functional objective can be 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. Each task defines a specific component of a functional objective, to be accomplished through the application of assets. The measures of performance used to assess the performance of a task are formulated derivatively from the metrics used to assess performance against the functional objectives. 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. Requirements and metrics for assets are established derivatively from the tasks. The mix of appropriate assets for consideration is dependent on the tasks proposed as part of prospective solution architectures. As assessments of performance of existing or proposed solution architectures and components are completed through analytical work, the results must be first cast in the framework of the DSB TASK FORCE REPORT Appendix A: Unabridged Description | 85 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:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42: UNCLASSIFIED DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD
Page 91: 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?