Management Project:
1) New System Option:
For a completely new system, available software depends on the hardware chosen. A
PDA or laptop is a reasonable choice for battalion level use. The durability of the system is
strongly related to the hardware choices. With smaller and more flexible devices, more
protection is needed. Larger devices are easier to be hardened, but the cost to flexibility may
exclude these choices. For each selection, communication and operating system are important
characteristics to consider. Other considerations are training requirements, interoperability with
other software, and the user interface.
 PDA: A hardened PDA is attractive for field-use due to its small form factor. The small
size keeps processor power at a minimal (roughly 200mhz). As there are currently no
known applications for working linear optimizations on a PDA platform, linear
optimization software would need to be custom written and sufficiently limited in scope
in order to perform in a timely manner on a PDA. Complex portions of the software can
reside on a more powerful remote computer if less optimal solutions are acceptable in
time intensive scenarios. The PDA could communicate wirelessly with a distant
organizational structure through various avenues (local networking to a communications
server, cellular adapters, or satellite links). A custom data-input application can be
written to suit the demands of individual battalions.
 Laptop/Tablet: Mobility is sacrificed for processing power. Processors on high-end
laptops are marginally less powerful than a standard desktop computer but more powerful
than PDAs. Communication options are similar to those on PDAs, but more specialized
hardware exists to take advantage of a wider assortment of infrastructures. Laptops are
powerful enough to efficiently run linear optimization software, custom applications or
off-the-shelf solutions. Similarly, input software can be custom built software or
templates in existing applications such as Microsoft Word or Excel.
 Communication: Ideally, data files could be encrypted using a high-quality encryption
algorithm such as SSH or PGP and transmitted either through a secure communications
line (SSH tunnel through wireless link) or physical transportation of a storage device
(flash based memory is recommended for its ruggedness). Current open implementations
of software for both laptops and PDAs provide tested code bases and examples with
liberal licenses. SSH is better suited to live communications, but existing libraries lack
communication solutions that would involve physically moving media. PGP would be a
better solution in this example, and is already used to encrypt and verify emails (similar
in concept).
 Operating Systems: There are four main categories of operating systems that need to be
evaluated.
o Microsoft: This would be the most familiar setup for the target users. A wealth of
rebuilt software exists for the Windows platform, however all Microsoft operating
systems have regular, serious security flaws which may render it an unacceptable
choice for sensitive information.
o Apple: Also familiar, the most recent operating system from Apple, OS X,
currently provides several security features which effectively protect sensitive
data with little to no extra effort. However, Apple provides limited hardware
choices and a smaller set of existing software.
o Linux: Linux offers the best security features of the three options but is likely the
least familiar operating system. The cost of Linux exists in the setup and
maintenance of the software to perform the specified tasks. Limited software
currently exists, but the majority of optimization and data entry functionality
would need to be custom written.
o Other: There are minor operating systems available for PDAs. These vary
according to manufacturer of the hardware. For each of them the functionality of
all the components needs to be developed.
 Training Requirements: The training requirements for a completely new system are
extremely extensive. Primary users, secondary users, and Information Systems support
personnel would all require training. The training requirements for completely new
system of this nature would range from 2-3 days for the secondary users to 1-1.5 weeks
for primary users and support personnel.
 Interface/Interoperability with other software: Depending on hardware selection, an
array of existing software packages are available for all aspects of this project.
o GAMS and other commercial optimization software components are readily
available for use. The disadvantages of these systems range from a limited ability
to interface with other programs, expensive per-user licensing, and increased
processor requirements as a result of the general nature of their problem solving.
o Data entry can be handled by various applications. The Microsoft Office Suite of
software provides the ability to develop custom forms, templates, and program
modules for custom calculations. Analogous systems exist for Macintosh and
Linux with varying levels of custom software development needed.
o Communications would be the most difficult to incorporate securely with other
applications. The simplest solution is to offer a separate application to handle all
of the communication needs. A simple file format, such as encoding the
information as XML, would allow almost any options for communication to be
viable.
o User Interface: The interface is very dependant on the hardware selection. All
selections below should provide a streamlined interface that combines the data entry,
communication, and optimizations in a simple process preferably in a single application.
o Desktop: A standard application similar to other popular systems may be the best
option. Positive transfer and system-wide conformity are features that are easy to
achieve and can help greatly with the usability of the software.
o Laptop/Tablet: The semi-mobility of these solutions presents a challenge. In the
case of a laptop, keyboard navigation provides a distinct advantage over a track
pad, mouse-nub, or external mouse for instances when the user has no time to
settle down. A tablet can take advantage of its direct input technology and should
minimize any UI features that would require anything other than pen-based input.
o PDA: Lacking mice or keyboards, the only real input method is the pen-based
direct input. The interface must be designed to support pen-based navigation. In
order to limit scrolling on the smaller screen, the interface should display relevant
options (future input options are based on past inputs, e.g. if the user selects a
certain battalion, ammunition that battalion can be hidden) where possible while
allowing access to all options through advanced interfaces, and the interface
should segment the process into steps.
Costs Group
Army projects often reach astronomical levels of cost during their induction, fielding and
implementation within units. It is therefore unlikely that the costs associated with a technology
of this kind be considered too high. For example, CSSCS program costs were increased by
21.7% in December of 1998 from $324.6 to $395.1 million. Additionally, during the production
phase of the Force XXI Army initiative in May 2001, TRW, Inc., just one of the system
producers, was awarded a contract to produce FBCB2 systems for the Army at an estimated
cumulative total of $45,000,000.
Costs associated with our two options are likely to be vastly different. In the first option, the
introduction of a new technology on new platforms, costs are likely to be competative with those
associated with the Army’s Force XXI initiative. If, however, the choice is made to piggyback
our technology on the existing Force XXI systems, costs would be significantly lower focusing
primarily on fixing communications issues between the systems, adding the necessary software
capabilities and on training personnel on the system upgrades.
Levels of Implementation within organization Heather/Scott
The level at which this technology should be implemented depends on the method of pursuit. If
optimization is chosen, the lowest level at which it should be incorporated is brigade-level, in the
Forward Support Battalion where brigade logistics flow is controlled. Levels subordinate to the
brigade such as battalion and company would be equipped with a means of transmitting logistics
requests and receiving updated statuses but would not implement optimization at their
organizations.
However, since demand survey results show a need for logistics tracking and not a need for
optimization of supplies, the software should be employed at all levels from the individual
vehicle console to the company commander where data would be compiled and sent up to
battalion, brigade, etc… In this manner, consoles would be continuously updated with supply
requests. Organizations controlling those items would then have the ability to review and
comply with the need or respond that the request couldn’t be supported by their organization and
what further action was being taken in near real-time. As parts were sent forward to meet
requests, systems would be updated, thereby allowing constant oversight of the supply to the
customer.
Use as a planning tool or can we make it dynamic (time sensitive) Scott
The current optimization technology exists solely as a planning tool and is not stochastic. The
model can be altered to become dynamic, but at great expense to the solving time and
complexity of the optimization. In a highly stochastic, wartime situation however, a flexible
model would be most desirable and applicable. As such, the current model can be, and should be,
improved to take time into account. From a feasibility aspect the most effective way to
accomplish this task would be to treat time as discrete blocks of time, such as the common 24
hour replenishment periods.
2) Existing System Option:
Course of Action Analysis Software/ Decision Support Tools (Combined Arms and
Services Staff School) Heather
Existing decision support tools are complex making them not user friendly at soldier-level.
Although they can be implemented by ORSA officers, it is likely they won’t solve the
existing problems at Brigade-level and below. This results from the fact that one ORSA
officer is assigned per division, therefore databases would have to be compiled by the user,
placing weights on those items that are considered of greater importance. It would be
difficult to get an unbiased viewpoint and it is quite possible similar problems to the IASEB
case would be realized during and after their use.
Combat Service Support Control System (CSSCS)
Force XXI Battle Command Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2)
Mission of CSSCS:
"Provide timely situational awareness and force projection information to support current
operations and sustain future operations as a key logistical enabler for the Army
Transformation."
Description of CSSCS:
"The Combat Service Support Control System (CSSCS) is a decision-support system that
assists commanders and their staffs in planning and executing CSS operations. The CSSCS
will rapidly collect, store, analyze, and disseminate critical logistics, medical, and personnel
information."
Mission of FBCB2:
"Provide battle command and situational awareness information from brigade level down to
the soldier/platform level."
Description of FBCB2:
"The Force XXI Battle Command Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) forms the principle digital
command and control system for the Army at brigade levels and below. … The system
features the interconnection of platforms through a communications infrastructure called the
Tactical Internet to transmit situational awareness data."
The results from the Demand survey found that the problem was not necessarily in the
optimization of the distributed logistics, but in the actual process of distribution. The general
notes outlined the need for a networked battlefield and for the logisticians to have the same
communications capabilities as the warfighter. The Army is currently working towards
networking and digitizing the battlefield through the Force XXI initiative. Both the FBCB2
and CSSCS systems are part of this program. Both systems work towards sharing
information across all levels in order to maintain situational awareness and increase
communications.
The problem lies in the fact that the warfighter has the FBCB2 system for tactical
operations and the logistician has the CSSCS for logistical and support operations. While
both systems were extremely extensive and forward reaching, they are not currently linked.
As such, the warfighter requesting logistics does not see the same picture as the logistician
supporting him, and vice versa. This fact became evident in the Demand Survey where the
common warfighter comment was, "All logistical nodes need to be outfitted with FBCB2."
An additional complication arises in the target ranks for these two systems. The FBCB2 is
currently employed by only Brigade and below units, while the CSSCS is for Brigade and
above units, focusing mostly on Division, Corps, and Echelons Above Corps units.
These two problems show why the response to Survey was to fix the process over the
long term and not to apply a quick fix such as optimization. While the Feasibility team
outlined an entirely new system above, we also present here a second option. The current
FBCB2 and CSSCS systems could be adjusted and linked to solve the long term, process
problem the Army currently faces. The Army does have plans to eventually link the two
systems, but the option to use existing hardware and software explores taking this course of
action now, before the next conflict.
The FBCB2 and CSSCS systems can both be adjusted to network with each other
allowing units at all levels to network and communicate. In addition to the tactical screens
that the FBCB2 has, new, logistical functions can be added through coding. Likewise the
same can be done with the CSSCS for strategic and GPS information on tactical units. This
change would require little additional cost proportional to the current budgets of XXXX for
FBCB2 and XXXX for CSSCS. This upgrade would also allow the FBCB2 users to review
their request's status, receive confirmation of the request, and track delivery of their supplies
as they requested in the survey results.
Several feasibility issues are eliminated by this option. For example, units are currently
being outfitted with the hardware to run their respective system. This hardware has already
been field tested and accepted by the Army, removing a major step of implantation.
Furthermore, the user interface has proven usable and adaptable for the Army's uses, meeting
open system standards for interoperability. Lastly, the system management and
communications planning have already been established for wartime use. This planning
includes "loading network initialization data, maps, cryptographic keys, ..., laying out
networks, making frequency assignments, and specifying address/circuit assignments."
One remaining issue while discussing the option of modifying an existing system is that
of training. All users and systems maintenance personnel receive 24-35 hours of training on
the FBCB2 as part of their required Army training. Should an additional feature be added,
the necessary training would only increase by several hours which could easily be
incorporated into the training schedule.
Involvement of Functional Area 49 (Operations Research/Systems Analysis) - officers
Heather
The Operations Research/Systems Analysis (ORSA) officer introduces quantitative and
qualitative analysis to the processes used throughout the military. The kinds of techniques
ORSA officers apply include probability models, statistical inference, simulations,
optimization, economic models and operational experience. One of the key functions these
officers contribute to the US Army is resource management during wartime operations.
These officers are usually employed at Division-level and above and are tasked to use the
aforementioned methods to underpin decisions made by leaders and managers within the
Army. Based on this skill set, these officers can facilitate the introduction of new systems to
optimize and or track logistics in the military.
We already know that senior leadership, including the Army’s senior logistics officer,
recognizes the need for change in logistics operations during wartime. Once The Army
Science Board decides the method to pursue, ORSA officers are likely to be tasked to
conduct research regarding the efficiency of existing logistics distribution systems and to
model new technologies to determine which best supports the needs of the Armed Forces.
Introduction of our findings to The Army Science Board may result in their exploration as
feasible changes to the Army’s existing logistics model for wartime.