An Interoperable Framework for
Distributed Coalition Planning
The Collaborative Planning Model
KSCO, 15th February 2012
Tom Klapiscak, John Ibbotson, David Mott,
Dave Braines, Jitu Patel
Motivation
• Effective coalition planning requires that distributed
human teams working in specialised functional areas
maintain shared understanding.
• Various specialist software tools are used to support
planning within planning cells. However, these distinct
tools do not interoperate.
• Thus, communication between teams is inefficient and
lossy:
o Static, hard-copy office documents must be interpreted and adapted
manually.
o Only the outputs of planning activity are shared; intermediate steps in the
planning process (rationale, assumptions, constraints) are often omitted.
• “One size fits all” tooling is not feasible.
Proposed Solution
•
Adopt a shared, generic and machine-interpretable ontology for
the representation & communication of plans and planning
processes.
•
Develop mapping procedures to align the data models of
bespoke tools with the shared ontology.
•
Extend the shared ontology into new conceptual domains where
necessary.
•
The CPM was designed with this
purpose in mind:
o
o
o
Formal specification of the semantics of
planning and collaboration.
Layered design: general abstract
planning concepts can be extended to
cover new military domains.
Explicit encoding of the planning process.
Basic Logic and
Rationale
General
….
Collaborative
….
Assumption
Entailment
Constraint
Problem Solving
Problem
Solution
Planning
Planning
Problem
Plan
Military Planning
Mission
Intent
….
Reasoning
Step
Origins of the CPM
The International Technology
Alliance (ITA)
Initiated in May 2005
Fundamental research in network
and information sciences
An alliance between the US/UK
Governments and an IBM-led
consortium
5-year program extended in 2011
for a further 5 years
•
•
•
•
•
The CPM is based on:
o Established AI planning research
(PLANET [3], I-N-O-V-A [4])
o SME Consultation
o Extensive review of military
doctrine
Project 12: Semantic Integration and
Collaborative Planning
•
Task 1: Semantic integration and
Interoperability (Southampton, IBM UK, RPI,
DSTL, ARL)
•
Task 2: Plan representation for human to
human communications; and for human to
machine communication (IBM UK,
Southampton, Klein, DSTL, ARL)
•
The CPM has been the subject of
two previous empirical evaluations:
o In 2008 [5] and 2011 [6, 7]
o Both yielded valuable insights and
encouraging results
CPM Transition Project
•
•
•
•
Name:
CPM Interoperability Evaluation
Started:
November 2011
Partners:
DSTL, NATO, NC3A
Objectives:
o Define and implement an export capability for NATO TOPFAS
Operational Planning Tool (OPT).
o Demonstrate the representation of TOPFAS operational plans in
CPM.
o Demonstrate the sharing of plans between TOPFAS and countryspecific planning tools.
TOPFAS
Transformation
Semantic Equivalence
CPM
Tool for Operations Planning Functional
Area Services
•
Suite of planning tools developed by
the NC3A to support current NATO
planning doctrine
o Comprehensive Operations Planning
Directive (COPD) [1]
•
Collaborative environment for plan
development and knowledge capture
•
Existing Export facility: MS Office
documents design to support
commander’s briefing
o Meaning is opaque to machines
o Does not support interoperability
between tools
Operational Planning Tool
o Provides causal, spatial,
temporal and resource views
of an operations design
Initial Work
• Determine suitable (possibly composite) CPM
analogues for TOPFAS vocabulary
o Identify areas of apparent semantic consonance/dissonance
o Investigation is based on our interpretation of informal definitions of
TOPFAS vocabulary
• Partial coverage of TOPFAS OPT Vocabulary:
o
o
o
o
Objective
End State
Action/Task and Effect
Decisive Conditions and Lines of Operation
Example Plan: OPT Visualisation
We demonstrate our initial mapping procedure using a simple
operations design derived from TOPFAS training material.
Operational Level
OA-01: Enforce
no fly zone over
Red Sea
OE-01: No fly
zone enforced
over Red Sea
OA-02: Deploy
MCC forces in
theatre
Political / Strategic Level
ES-00: A sufficiently SASE in EC
to allow HA ops and to handover
security responsibilities to a FOF.
OA-03: Conduct
counter-piracy ops in
Red Sea
SO-01:
SASE for
HA in Tytan
OE-02: MCC
forces deployed in
theatre
OE-03: Piracy no
longer impacts on
FON
SO-02:
Effective arms
embargo in
place
OO-01: Effective maritime
arms embargo ops
established
OP Level:
Maritime Security
ODC-01: Robust
maritime presence
in the region
established
ODC-02: Freedom
of navigation in
Red Sea
Objective-Goal Mapping
Comparison of TOPFAS Objectives and CPM Goals based on our
interpretation of informal TOPFAS vocabulary definitions
TOPFAS Objective
• “A clearly defined and
attainable goal to be
achieved.” [1]
CPM Goal
• “A statement about the world held by
an agent which the agent desires to
be true” [2]
SO-02: Effective arms
embargo in place
has as subgoal
OO-01: Effective maritime
embargo ops established
• Some Similarities
o
o
o
o
“Goal to be achieved” ≈ “Desired world state”
Both associated with an owner (or commander) ultimately responsible for its
attainment
Both permit decomposition into sub-objectives
In both, sub-objectives can be used in the delegation of responsibilities from superior
to subordinate
Objective-Goal Mapping
• Some Issues
o No obvious CPM analogue for some attributes held by TOPFAS
objectives: e.g. Acceptability, Feasibility, Suitability
o Notable difference in expressed temporal attributes:
• CPM permissible intervals vs. TOPFAS “end date” instant.
• What is the precise meaning of ”end date”?
• The mapping must ensure temporal implications of the CPM model
are aligned with those of TOPFAS
Earliest Start
CPM:
Earliest Completion
Latest Start
Actual Duration
Minimum Duration
Maximum Duration
TOPFAS:
End Date
Latest Completion
Example plan: CPM Visualisation
KEY
ES-00: A sufficiently SASE
in EC to allow HA ops and
to hand over security
responsibilities to a FOF.
NAC
SACEUR
JFCNP
SACEUR Mission
ACC
MCC
has as subgoal
has as endstate
Operational Level
SO-01: SASE for HA in
Tytan
has as subgoal
Political / Strategic Level
SO-02: Effective arms
embargo in place
OA-01: Enforce
no fly zone over
Red Sea
OA-02: Deploy
MCC forces in
theatre
ES-00: A sufficiently SASE in EC
to allow HA ops and to handover
security responsibilities to a FOF.
OA-03: Conduct
counter-piracy ops in
Red Sea
SACEUR Intent
has as subgoal
OO-01: Effective maritime
embargo ops established
realises
OE-01: No fly
zone enforced
over Red Sea
SO-01:
SASE for
HA in Tytan
OE-02: MCC
forces deployed in
theatre
OE-03: Piracy no
longer impacts on
FON
Establish effective
maritime arms
embargo ops
JFCNP Mission
has as subgoal
SO-02:
Effective arms
embargo in
place
ODC-01: Robust
maritime presence
in the region
established
has as subgoal
ODC-01: Robust maritime
presence in the region
established
ODC-02: Freedom of
navigation in Red Sea
realises
OO-01: Effective maritime
arms embargo ops
established
OP Level:
Maritime Security
has as subtask
ODC-02: Freedom
of navigation in
Red Sea
Establish robust maritime
presence in the region
realises
has as subtask
has as subtask
occurs after
OA-01: Enforce no fly
zone over Red Sea
OA-03: Conduct counterpiracy ops in Red Sea
OA-02: Deploy MCC
forces in theatre
has as effect
has as effect
preconditions
has as effect
preconditions
OE-01: No fly zone
enforced over Red
Sea
OE-02: MCC
forces deployed in
theatre
JFCNP Intent
ACC Mission
MCC Mission
OE03: Piracy no
longer impacts on
FON
Example plan: CPM Visualisation
KEY
ES-00: A sufficiently SASE
in EC to allow HA ops and
to hand over security
responsibilities to a FOF.
NAC
SACEUR
JFCNP
SACEUR Mission
ACC
MCC
has as subgoal
has as endstate
Operational Level
SO-01: SASE for HA in
Tytan
has as subgoal
Political / Strategic Level
SO-02: Effective arms
embargo in place
OA-01: Enforce
no fly zone over
Red Sea
OA-02: Deploy
MCC forces in
theatre
ES-00: A sufficiently SASE in EC
to allow HA ops and to handover
security responsibilities to a FOF.
OA-03: Conduct
counter-piracy ops in
Red Sea
SACEUR Intent
has as subgoal
OO-01: Effective maritime
embargo ops established
realises
OE-01: No fly
zone enforced
over Red Sea
SO-01:
SASE for
HA in Tytan
OE-02: MCC
forces deployed in
theatre
OE-03: Piracy no
longer impacts on
FON
Establish effective
maritime arms
embargo ops
JFCNP Mission
has as subgoal
SO-02:
Effective arms
embargo in
place
ODC-01: Robust
maritime presence
in the region
established
has as subgoal
ODC-01: Robust maritime
presence in the region
established
ODC-02: Freedom of
navigation in Red Sea
realises
OO-01: Effective maritime
arms embargo ops
established
OP Level:
Maritime Security
has as subtask
ODC-02: Freedom
of navigation in
Red Sea
Establish robust maritime
presence in the region
realises
has as subtask
has as subtask
occurs after
OA-01: Enforce no fly
zone over Red Sea
OA-03: Conduct counterpiracy ops in Red Sea
OA-02: Deploy MCC
forces in theatre
has as effect
has as effect
preconditions
has as effect
preconditions
OE-01: No fly zone
enforced over Red
Sea
OE-02: MCC
forces deployed in
theatre
JFCNP Intent
ACC Mission
MCC Mission
OE03: Piracy no
longer impacts on
FON
Future Work
• Identify suitable CPM analogues for more TOPFAS
OPT vocabulary
• Validation of proposed mappings is needed
o Qualitative: E.g. SME review
o Quantitative: E.g. (Semi-)formal verification techniques
• Demonstration of proof of concept implementation:
14th March 2012
• Demonstration of final implementation: Summer
2012
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[1] “Allied Command Operations Planning Directive COPD Interim V1.0”,
17 December 2010.
[2] Mott, D. “CPM: Visual Guide to the CPM v3”,
https://www.usukitacs.com/node/1712, 2011
[3] Gil, Y and Blythe, J. “PLANET: A Shareable and Reusable Ontology for
Representing Plans”, 2000, http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/421975.html
[4] Tate, A. “Representing Plans as a Set of Constraints – The <I-N-O-V-A>
Model. In proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence Planning Systems, 1996
[5] Dorneich, M.C., Mott, D., Bahrami, A., Yuan, J., Smart, A. “Evaluation of
Shared Representation to Support Collaborative Multilevel Planning”,
Technical Report, See http://usukita.org
[6] Michael C. Dorneich, David Mott, Ali Bahrami, John A. Allen, Jitu Patel
and Cheryl Giammanco “Lessons Learned from an Evaluation of a
Shared Representation to Support Collaborative Planning”
[7] Dorneich, M.C., Mott, D., Bahrami, A., Patel, J., and Giammanco, C.
“Evaluation of a Shared Representation to Support Collaborative,
Distributed, Coalition, Multilevel Planning”, The 5th Annual Conference of
the International Technology Alliance, Maryland, US, August 2011