1 of 26

presented at the 30th ICCRTS��David S. Alberts� Institute for Defense Analyses �Björn Johansson �Linköping University�Magdalena Granåsen �Swedish Defence Research Agency �Ulrik Spak �Swedish Defence University  �

1

Command and Control (C2) Basics

2 of 26

Agenda

  • Command and Control (C2)
  • Agile C2
  • Multi Domain C2
  • C2 Design
  • Discussion

2

3 of 26

Agenda

  • Command and Control (C2)
  • Agile C2
  • Multi Domain C2
  • C2 Design
  • Discussion

3

4 of 26

30 Years of Basic C2 Research*

4

C2 Approach Space (2006)

Understanding Command and Control

​

​

​

​

​

EXPLORING NEW COMMAND AND CONTROL CONCEPTS AND CAPABILITIES

​

Final Report January 2006

NEC C2 Conceptual Reference Model (2006)

NATO SAS-050

Network Centric Warfare Tenets / Value Chain (1999)

Network Centric Warfare

C2 Maturity Levels (2010)

NATO NEC C2 Maturity Model

Agile C2 (2011)

The Agility Advantage

NEC2 – Edge Approach(2003)

Power to the Edge

* DoD CCRP / NATO SAS

5 of 26

Evolution of Command and Control

C2 Agility Tutorial

5

Commander as Head of State

Command and Control (1838)

“The Command of Armies and

the supreme Control of Operations”

Command and Control (WWII)

​

“Take command and control of the forces”

Baron Jomini

Frederick the Great

Alexander the Great

Napoleon Bonaparte

Truman and Macarthur

6 of 26

Traditional Military Command and Control

6

1 Source: Joint Publication 1-02, DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 08 November 2010, as amended through 15 August 2012.

Commander

Subordinate Commanders

Subordinate Commanders

assigned forces

Direction

Delegated Authority

Legal, Commander-centric Perspective

  • The exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission. 1
  • Assumptions
  • Someone in charge
  • A single, unified chain of command
  • Hierarchical structure and information flows
  • Measures of C2 Effectiveness
  • None specified, mission accomplishment implied
  • As a measure of C2 Effectiveness, mission accomplishment is problematic

7 of 26

Command and Control Assessment and Metrics

7

  • C2 is not an end unto itself; rather it is a means (enabler) of value creation – mission success
  • While even “perfect” command and control can not guarantee success, better command and control can improve the probability of success by better utilization and employment of resources (including information)
  • Thus, a measure of C2 Quality that relates to the accomplishment of C2 functions is needed

8 of 26

To Better Understand C2

8

  • What C2 seeks to accomplish - (objectives)
  • How C2 seeks to accomplish its objectives - (means)
  • The metrics associated with its accomplishment C2 - (quality)
  • Different approaches to C2 - (when they are appropriate)
  • Assumptions, conditions, and constraints

9 of 26

Levels of C2

9

  • C2 takes place simultaneously at many different levels
    • Inter-agency, Coalition
    • Institution (e.g. Department, Ministry)
    • Strategic, Operational, Tactical

​

  • Approaches (as well as their success) can vary between and among levels
  • Missions / Tasks can vary greatly by type and scale
  • C2 effectiveness depends upon the compatibility of the approaches adopted as well as their appropriateness

10 of 26

A Practical View of C2

10

  • Focuses on the Approach to C2

- how the functions could be performed,

- how well they are performed, and

- what difference it makes

  • The C2 Approach View of C2

- is not about every decision commanders make,

- rather, it is about but the C2 Approach itself that shape

behaviors and information flows

  • The C2 Approach establishes the conditions under which sensemaking and execution take place

C2 is about bringing all available resources and information to bear

11 of 26

C2 Approach Space

11

  • There are a great many possible approaches to accomplishing the functions that we associate with Command and Control.
  • Developing the “option space” for Command and Control requires that major differences between possible approaches are identified.
    • Centralized v. Decentralized
    • Fixed Vertical Stovepipes v. Dynamic Task Organized
    • Limited information dissemination (need to know) v. broad dissemination (need to share)
  • These difference are reflected in the dimensions of the C2 Approach Space (options available)
    • Allocation of Decision Rights (within an entity or to the collective)
    • Patterns of Interaction
    • Distribution of Information

12 of 26

Approaches to C2

12

patterns of interaction

distribution of information

tightly constrained

​

none

allocation of decision rights

unconstrained

broad

none

an approach to C2

broad

13 of 26

Traditional Military C2

13

patterns of interaction

distribution of information

tightly constrained

​

none

allocation of decision rights

unconstrained

broad

none

broad

14 of 26

14

The Future of Command and Control

Changing Missions and Environments

​

State of the Practice

​

Advancing Technology

opportunities

requirements

suggestions

experiences

​

Theory

Drivers of C2 Evolution

15 of 26

Drivers of Evolution

15

The Future of Command and Control

Changing Missions and Environments

​

State of the Practice

​

Advancing Technology

opportunities

requirements

suggestions

experiences

​

Theory

16 of 26

Information Age C2

16

A robustly networked force

Information Sharing

improves

Information Sharing

and

Collaboration

Quality of Information

and

Shared Situational Awareness

enhances

Shared situational awareness

enables

Collaboration

and

Self-synchronization

These, in turn, dramatically increase mission effectiveness.

Tenets of NCW

The power of NCW is derived from developing and adopting network-enabled C2

17 of 26

Some C2 Research Questions

17

  • Is the traditional approach to command and control appropriate for all of today’s missions and circumstances?

​

  • If, not, why not?

​

    • What changes are needed to the way we approach command and control?
    • What are the implications for doctrine, education, training, and systems ?

These questions were raised by the proponents of NCW (NEC)

18 of 26

Network-enabled C2

18

patterns of interaction

distribution of information

tightly constrained

​

none

allocation of decision rights

unconstrained

broad

none

broad

19 of 26

NEC2 Migration Path

19

4

3

2

1

0

20 of 26

The Challenge of Complex Endeavors

20

  • Complex Endeavors involve Complex Enterprises
  • Entities will each have their own intent.
  • The situation will be, in part, unfamiliar to all entities.
  • There will be multiple planning processes.
  • Critical information and expertise necessary to understand the situation will be spread among different organization.
  • Actions, to be effective, will require developing synergies between and among entity actions.

Complex Endeavors call for command arrangements are more distributed and network-enabled

21 of 26

The Challenge of Unpredictability

21

  • Increased complexity will make the unexpected occur with greater frequency
  • The effective lives of plans will be shorter – they may expire within the planning cycle.
  • Critical information and expertise necessary to understand the situation will not be available
  • Traditional approaches to decision making under uncertainty will be less applicable

The most appropriate response to increased complexity and the associated increases in uncertainty and risk is increasing C2 Agility

22 of 26

22

  • Traditional approaches to Command and Control are increasingly unable to satisfy critical mission requirements
  • The economics of Command and Control have changed significantly and continue to change at a rapid pace
  • New Command and Control concepts and approaches are needed to satisfy mission challenges
  • Fortunately, changes in the economics of communications and information are expanding the space of the possible
  • Therefore, long held assumptions need to be revisited to allow access to this expanded space of C2 approach options

Observations

23 of 26

NATO NEC C2 Approaches

23

None

Tightly Constrained

Broad

None

​

Unconstrained

Collaborative C2

Approach

​

Coordinated C2

Approach

​

De-Conflicted C2

Approach

Conflicted C2 Approach

Source: NATO NEC C2 Maturity Model

Broad

Edge C2 Approach

24 of 26

NATO NEC C2 Approaches

24

None

Tightly Constrained

Broad

None

​

Unconstrained

Collaborative C2

Approach

​

Coordinated C2

Approach

De-Conflicted C2

Approach

Conflicted C2 Approach

Source: NATO NEC C2 Maturity Model

Broad

Edge C2 Approach

​

These approaches differ in the way they approach C2.

​

More networked enabled approaches are not necessarily more appropriate for a given mission and circumstance.

​

25 of 26

C2 Research Questions

25

  • Is the traditional approach to command and control appropriate for today’s missions and circumstances?

​

    • For some, but not for all missions and circumstances
  • If, not, why not? … what changes are needed?

​

    • More networked-enabled C2 Approaches (NEC2)
    • Improved Force-level C2 Maturity
    • Better management of Cyber Risk to Missions
    • Etc.

26 of 26

26

Questions?

Comments?