Version 4.0 The Impact of Multi-Institutional Semi-Structured Learning Environments Learning Environments A presentation to the 7 th International Conference on Systems of Systems Engineering (IEE SoSE 2012) Dr. Raymond R. Buettner Jr.
Disclaimer • All statements and opinions provided in this All statements and opinions provided in this presentation are the responsibility of the author and do not represent the policy or beliefs of the and do not represent the policy or beliefs of the United States Navy, the Naval Postgraduate S h School or any other government agency. l h 2
Introduction/Biases • Associate Professor of Information Sciences, Chair of Technical Operations (JS) and Director Chair of Technical Operations (JS) and Director, Field Experimentation • PhD, College of Engineering, Stanford University • Masters Degree System Engineering NPS Masters Degree, System Engineering, NPS • Bachelors Degree, Political Science & Sociology • Previous life – Entrepreneur (founded hi tech start-up) Entrepreneur (founded hi tech start up) – Naval Officer (completed warfare qualifications under on and over water) under, on and over water) 3
NPS Field Experimentation Program • Quarterly Events • Attributes – Multi-Institutional Multi Institutional – Semi-Structured – Learning Environment Learning Environment • Addresses – Problem Domains Problem Domains – Cost, Schedule & Quantity – System of Systems Challenges System of Systems Challenges • Agile Response • Test and Evaluation Design • Concurrent Systems Evolution 4
Academic Centers • Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely Piloted Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely Piloted Aircraft Studies (Bob Bluth) • Center for Network Innovation and C t f N t k I ti d Experimentation (Dr. Alex Bordetsky) • Center for Autonomous Vehicle Research (Dr. Isacc Kaminar and Doug Horner) Isacc Kaminar and Doug Horner) • Simulation, Experiments and Efficient Design Center (Drs. Susan Sanchez and Tom Lucas) • Others as appropriate Others as appropriate 5
RELIEF 6
TNT & JIFX • 11-4 TNT Event – 850 participants p p – 70 government agencies – 130 industry organizations – 5 universities 5 i iti – 72 scheduled experiments – 18 adhoc experiments – 18 adhoc experiments • Government Impact – Improved cost, schedule and quantity Improved cost, schedule and quantity – Identification of emergent solutions – Innovative collaborative research relationships • Civilian Impact – Multi-company collaboration & new products – Cyber Security Evaluations C b S it E l ti – Optimized IRAD 7
Multi-institutional 8 Local & Federal Government Private Industry Non-profit Acadamia Participation: 2009-2012
Semi-structured 9 "Ad Hoc" Experiments Planned Experiments Type of Experiments: 2011-2012
Dynamic 10 One Time Participation Repeat Participation Participation by Organizations: 2009-2012
Venue @ Camp Roberts 11
Unique Assets = Resources Technical Operations Center (TOC): Both Light Reconnaissance runs experiments and is the venue for SA and Vehicle (LRC) COP experiments. Midnight Sun – Joint and Interagency Sponsored Classified g y p Thesis Developed under an SBIR/CA 12
Collaborative Resources Special Operations Research ULTRA-vis S Support Element t El t HIMEMS PM Boot Camp USASOC/SOCOM provided special operators to provide SOF Warfighter Assessments as well as less p g formal feedback to participants. 13
Potential Solutions Demonstrated Vehicle Bourne Automated Co-located Air Support Platforms Detection System (VBADS) Light Squad Automatic Weapon High Resolution Imagery from a Small “C “Caseless” Ammunition l ” A iti UAS UAS Light Armor Piercing Round 14
Process Model 15 Video Available Prezi Model Prezi Model
Community Feedback • “What we do is combine SOCOM with NPS and leverage more than $60 million of capability gap research into material $ f p y g p and non-material solutions designed to help the SOF operator,” Dennis Granger, SOCOM Horizons magazine, Summer 2010 • “This (TNT process) has already had the impact of improving This (TNT process) has already had the impact of improving force protection, identifying suicide bombers before they were able to cause damage to U.S. installations and SOF personnel.” William M. Shepherd, USSOCOM Science Advisor • “This may be the most effective use of taxpayer’s dollars in DoD.” RADL Gary W. Rosholt, Deputy Commanding General, Special Operations Command, U.S. Central Command 16
Mo’s SoSE Implementation Challenges • E enabling design • E-enabling design • Transportation • Transportation • Infrastructures • Healthcare • Sensor networks • Earth Observation • Services • Coastal MDA • Communication & • Future combat missions navigation navigation • National Security • National Security • Electric power systems • Environmental • Renewable Energy R bl E M Management t • Robotic swarms 17
Implementation Challenges Addressed • Transportation Transportation • E-enabling design E enabling design • Healthcare • Infrastructures • Earth Observation E th Ob ti • Sensor networks S t k • Coastal MDA • Services • Future combat missions • Communication & navigation • National Security y • Electric power • Robotic swarms systems syste s • Environmental • Environmental • Renewable Energy Management 18
Mo’s SoSE Theoretical Challenges • Open systems approaches Open systems approaches • Engineering (design) • Standards (extending SE is limiting) • Architecting Architecting • Simulation • Integration • Emergence • Emergence • Management 19
Theoretical Challenges Addressed • Open systems approaches Open systems approaches • Engineering (design) • Standards (extending SE is limiting) • Architecting Architecting • Simulation • Integration • Emergence • Emergence • Management 20
Some New Thoughts • MISSLE as an SoS? (All is one) • MISSLE as two SoS? (Plan/Execute) • MISSLE as two SoS? (Plan/Execute) • MISSLE as many SoS? (User defined) • Parasitic and/or symbiotic relationships • The significance of understanding existence of Th i ifi f d t di i t f SoS • The criticality of purpose in defining SoS, temporal aspects as related to building vs temporal aspects as related to building vs growing, or evolving, or integrating or parasitic and/or symbiotic and/or symbiotic 21 • Scary new thought , evolution and extinction…
MISSLE = SoS? • Multi-institutional might imply that MISSLEs Multi institutional might imply that MISSLEs are SoS. • More than one SoS? M th S S? • An SoS that “lives” in a cyclical manner? y • An SoS that changes form throughout its lifecycle? lifecycle? • I think so! 22
Bottom Line • We should not expect organizations and organizational systems evolved from a organizational systems evolved from a manufacturing and control perspective to be the best match for a SoS world best match for a SoS world. • New organization forms and new activities created from an understanding of SoS properties created from an understanding of SoS properties should be explored. • Ditto education and research approaches Ditto education and research approaches. 23
Final Thought We were defeated by one thing only - by th the inferior science of our enemies. I i f i i f i I repeat - by the inferior science of our p y enemies. Superiority - by Arthur C. Clarke We were defeated by one thing only - by the y g y y lack of understanding of our own SoS. I repeat - by the lack of understanding of our own SoS by the lack of understanding of our own SoS. Arrogance- by Raymond Buettner g y y forthcoming 24
References [1] R. Buettner, “Multi-Institutional Semi-Structured Learning Environments”, Proceedings of the 3 rd International Conference on , g Society and Information Technologies, 2012. [2] A. Bordetsky and D. Netzer, “Testbed for Tactical Networking and Collaboration”, International C2 Journal , Vol. 4, No. 3, 2010, pp. 19-20. [3] M. Swink, “Building Collaborative Innovation Capability”, Research Technology Management , Vol. 49, No. 2, 2006, pp. 37- 47 47. [4] B. Blanchard, Systems Engineering Management, John Wiley & Sons New York 2008 Sons, New York, 2008. [5] M. Jamashidi, “Systems of Systems Engineering - New Challenges for the 21 st Century”, IEEE A&E Systems Magazine , Challenges for the 21 Century , IEEE A&E Systems Magazine , Vol. 23, No. 5, 2008, pp. 4-19. 25
Additional Information Contact D Dr. Ray Buettner R B tt buettner@nps.edu 831 656 3387 DSN 756-3387 Special thanks to all reviewers for their consideration and suggestions! Special thanks to all reviewers for their consideration and suggestions! Acknowledgements: Dr. Dave Netzer Dr. Alex Bordetsky Dr. John Arquilla Dr. Kevin Jones M Marianna Jones i J C Carl Oros l O Michael Clement Ramsey Meyer Nelly Turley Tristan Allen And all the folks who help create our learning communities. 26
Recommend
More recommend
