The Impact of Multi-Institutional Semi-Structured Learning - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the impact of multi institutional semi structured
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The Impact of Multi-Institutional Semi-Structured Learning - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 17, 2023 164 likes •436 views

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.

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Version 4.0

The Impact of Multi-Institutional Semi-Structured Learning Environments

A presentation to the

Learning Environments

7th International Conference on Systems of Systems Engineering (IEE SoSE 2012)

  • Dr. Raymond R. Buettner Jr.
slide-2
SLIDE 2

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 l h School or any other government agency.

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

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

slide-4
SLIDE 4

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

4

  • Concurrent Systems Evolution
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Academic Centers

  • Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely Piloted

Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely Piloted Aircraft Studies (Bob Bluth) C t f N t k I ti d

  • Center for Network Innovation and

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

slide-6
SLIDE 6

RELIEF

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

TNT & JIFX

  • 11-4 TNT Event

– 850 participants p p – 70 government agencies – 130 industry organizations 5 i iti – 5 universities – 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 C b S it E l ti

7

– Cyber Security Evaluations – Optimized IRAD

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Multi-institutional

Participation: 2009-2012

Local & Federal Government Acadamia Private Industry Non-profit

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Semi-structured

Type of Experiments: 2011-2012

Planned Experiments "Ad Hoc" Experiments

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Dynamic

Participation by Organizations: 2009-2012

One Time Participation Repeat Participation

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Venue @ Camp Roberts

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Unique Assets = Resources

Technical Operations Center (TOC): Both runs experiments and is the venue for SA and COP experiments.

Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (LRC) Midnight Sun – Joint and Interagency Sponsored Classified g y p Thesis Developed under an

12

SBIR/CA

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Collaborative Resources

Special Operations Research S t El t ULTRA-vis Support Element HIMEMS PM Boot Camp

USASOC/SOCOM provided special operators to provide SOF Warfighter Assessments as well as less

13

p g formal feedback to participants.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Potential Solutions Demonstrated

Vehicle Bourne Automated Detection System (VBADS) Co-located Air Support Platforms High Resolution Imagery from a Small UAS Light Squad Automatic Weapon “C l ” A iti UAS “Caseless” Ammunition Light Armor Piercing Round

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Process Model Prezi Model Prezi Model Video Available

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

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

  • perator,” 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,

16

Special Operations Command, U.S. Central Command

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Mo’s SoSE Implementation Challenges

  • E enabling design
  • Transportation
  • E-enabling design
  • Infrastructures
  • Transportation
  • Healthcare
  • Sensor networks
  • Services
  • Earth Observation
  • Coastal MDA
  • Communication &

navigation

  • Future combat missions
  • National Security

navigation

  • Electric power systems

R bl E

  • National Security
  • Environmental

M t

  • Renewable Energy

Management

  • Robotic swarms

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Implementation Challenges Addressed

  • E-enabling design
  • Transportation

E enabling design

  • Infrastructures

S t k Transportation

  • Healthcare

E th Ob ti

  • Sensor networks
  • Services
  • Earth Observation
  • Coastal MDA
  • Communication &

navigation

  • Future combat missions
  • National Security
  • Electric power

systems y

  • Robotic swarms
  • Environmental

syste s

  • Renewable Energy
  • Environmental

Management

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

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

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Theoretical Challenges Addressed

  • Open systems approaches

Open systems approaches

  • Engineering (design)
  • Standards (extending SE is limiting)
  • Architecting

Architecting

  • Simulation
  • Integration
  • Emergence
  • Emergence
  • Management

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

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

Th i ifi f d t di i t f

  • The significance of understanding existence of

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

  • Scary new thought, evolution and extinction…

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

MISSLE = SoS?

  • Multi-institutional might imply that MISSLEs

Multi institutional might imply that MISSLEs are SoS. M th S S?

  • More than one SoS?
  • An SoS that “lives” in a cyclical manner?

y

  • An SoS that changes form throughout its

lifecycle? lifecycle?

  • I think so!

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Bottom Line

  • We should not expect organizations and
  • rganizational systems evolved from a
  • rganizational 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

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Final Thought

We were defeated by one thing only - by th i f i i f i I the inferior science of our enemies. 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

24

g y y forthcoming

slide-25
SLIDE 25

References

[1] R. Buettner, “Multi-Institutional Semi-Structured Learning Environments”, Proceedings of the 3rd 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 21st 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

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Additional Information Contact D R B tt

  • Dr. Ray Buettner

buettner@nps.edu 831 656 3387 DSN 756-3387

Special thanks to all reviewers for their consideration and suggestions! Acknowledgements: Special thanks to all reviewers for their consideration and suggestions!

  • Dr. Dave Netzer
  • Dr. Alex Bordetsky
  • Dr. John Arquilla
  • Dr. Kevin Jones

M i J C l O Marianna Jones Carl Oros Michael Clement Ramsey Meyer Nelly Turley Tristan Allen

26

And all the folks who help create our learning communities.