​During the past year, Naval Aviation made meaningful strides toward improving readiness and sustainability across our strike fighter communities. 

Boots on the Ground are a common activity. Site visits noted across the board, we saw substantial improvements in workspace layouts, turnaround times for maintenance, backorders of high-priority requisitions that are missing from the supply shelf and planning for the future.

During these visits, we observed firsthand the progress we have made on maintenance, production and supply. We spoke directly to members of these and other teams who work on our aircraft every day to hear what improved their operations and where we can provide assistance.

Across the board, we saw substantial improvements in workspace layouts, turnaround times for maintenance, backorders of high-priority requisitions missing from the supply shelf and planning for the future. Daily meetings in various Production Control Centers are identifying and elevating issues for resolution more quickly. Improved floor organization makes finding parts and pinpointing support required by the supply chain more efficient.

More importantly, we witnessed an improved morale on these lines and in those shops where the changes were accomplished. An important part of this change is the intent to treat artisans as precision specialists, providing all the parts and tools they need for their jobs at the site rather than having them take time from fixing aircraft to search for supplies.

We found that the aircraft production line at Fleet Readiness Center is sustaining reforms in its component shops; and has continued to sustain reforms for critical component shops and expanded reforms to aircraft planned maintenance interval lines.

Reforms have been implemented at several locations. an activity not originally planned but subsequently prioritized by the Air Boss were we were able to take on all long-term down aircraft for maintenance and allow the operational squadrons to manage and maintain their normal allowable number of aircraft.

We now must expand the improvements we’ve achieved to all shops, repair lines and squadrons across Naval Aviation.

This is phenomenal work, and it’s all contributing to the sustainment of Mission Capable MC Super Hornet numbers above 325-- which have historically hover around  250-260. In addition, Legacy Hornets are returning to service in days versus weeks after maintaining percentages in the high 70s for MC aircraft.

MC aircraft make up the critical baseline of our future readiness for the high-end fight. Without “up” aircraft, we cannot prepare to meet mission requirements; with them, we can build for whatever operations come our way. 

MC aircraft mitigate problems across the enterprise, including projected pilot shortages. More MC aircraft mean more aircraft available for the training commands and Fleet Readiness Squadrons. They also mean more flying hours for our trained pilots, so they can develop their skills.

Together, we’re seeing remarkable change, but we still have much work to do.

We now must expand the improvements we’ve achieved to all shops, repair lines and squadrons across Naval Aviation. In addition, we still have vital components that must be available in greater numbers and repaired in less time to increase lethality and survivability, per Air Boss priorities. 

We will continue to attack readiness degraders through the Reliability Control Boards RCBs, making better use of data to refine our maintenance programs and supply forecasting. Across all these efforts, we must integrate improved cost management.

It is powerful to see the close alignment between the Navy and Marine Corps as we advance these priorities. This is a true partnership—one team with one fight. And it is encouraging to receive the positive feedback from our artisans, maintainers and production support personnel who are super motivated to provide quality products, and who are taking ownership of these reforms.  

Marine expeditionary force or any smaller combination of MAGTF will always require Logistics officers with diverse skill sets. If the maintenance battalion is supporting MAGTFs smaller than a Marine expeditionary force, it forms platoon detachments from each of the functional companies while maintaining unit integrity assigned to the supporting combat service support element. The detachments are task-organized to provide all echelon secondary reparables capabilities. Maintenance support of major end items is provided by maintenance support teams whenever possible.

Maintenance battalion is organized with a headquarters, support elements, several commodity maintenance companies, and a general support maintenance company  It is staffed and equipped to be employed in two modes simultaneously. First, with task-organized detachments and maintenance  teams that provide support and on-site repairs for supported units. Second, as a functional commodity area company that operates a control maintenance facility.

The battalion is effective when it is co-located with its sources of supply or as task-organized detachments/ maintenance support teams. to provide the most effective means of support based on mission requirements and available resources.

Battalion Maintenance Companies differ not only in the kind of equipment they repair but also in the level and type of repairs they can perform. Engineer, motor transport, and ordnance maintenance companies are the most mobile and perform maintenance on their respective types of equipment by replacing end item parts or components. The electronics maintenance, ordnance, and general support maintenance companies also repair their own components, but their work generally requires more sophisticated tools and test equipment and environmentally-controlled work areas making them the least mobile of the battalion’s units.

The electronics maintenance company’s main emphasis is the repair of secondary reparables and their subsequent return to float stockage. Little maintenance is performed to end items. The secondary responsibility of the electronics maintenance company is the calibration and repair of test equipment for all commodity areas.
 
So employment of the company and its detachments may be different than the employment of the other commodity areas. The electronics maintenance company commander is responsible to the commander for dispersing assets to cover the numerous floats spread out in support of the combat elements while still maintaining sufficient equipment to provide timely repairs for all floats. 

For example, the commander may attach small detachments to a float for the repair of most communications and electronics equipment and establish evacuation procedures to send difficult or time consuming repairs to the rear.

Marine Wing Support Group and Marine Wing Support Squadron support group is limited to first echelon maintenance. The Marine wing support squadron is authorized first and second echelon maintenance on ground equipment and some third and fourth echelon maintenance on expeditionary airfield-related equipment. If requirements exceed this capability, the maintenance battalion provides intermediate support.

Must ensure maintenance operations interface with maintenance-related programs and encourage economic use of maintenance resources. Supervising maintenance training within the shop make sure proper transactions are submitted into the Field Maintenance Subsystem for maintenance actions completed and changes in  status.

The administrative section performs functions associated with equipment receipt and transfer, technical data research, tool issue, shop property control, and the recording and reporting of completed maintenance actions within the shop. An administrative section can range from one person in small shops to several people in larger shops.

Services sections perform functions in support of equipment maintenance; for example, welding, battery shop service, inspection, quality control, while the actual performance of maintenance is accomplished by maintenance sections. These sections may be organized in a number of different ways:

By function e.g.,  maintenance checks, services and modification. By equipment e.g., light, medium, heavy, or specific equipment type. By commodity e.g., motor transport, ordnance, engineer, ground maintenance equipment or by echelon level. 

“As always, your general officers and senior executive service leaders are committed to providing the resources needed to accomplish our mission. Don’t hesitate to let us know what is needed. Fly, fight, lead and win!”

1. Custom vehicle and equipment design, drawings, schematics, and equipment weight studies

2. Working with internal customers, vendors, compliance and regulatory bodies

3. Organizational guidelines that deal with a piece of equipment’s initial design to its final disposition into the field

4. Acquires detailed technical specifications for the procurement of vehicles for business application 

5. Develops and maintains vehicle technology analysis that support business processes

6. Prepares reports and provides initial coaching and on-going support for user community

7.  Identifies and recommends opportunities to apply fleet technology to business unit functions and processes

8. Maintains and modifies vehicle configurations to support on-going business needs

9. Participates in or leads projects to reengineer vehicles for business processes 

10. Serves as business unit contact/technical lead on projects; plans or leads vehicle development projects

11. Troubleshoots and resolves new technology and specification problems and issues for business unit applications

12. Coordinates problem resolution activities between users, technical support staff and/or vendors.

13. Designs principles and concepts of data management 

14. Specialized business unit work processes and fundamentals 

15. Concepts of Fleet system applications, including desktop, client-server and mainframe environments 

16. Develops centralized and distributed concepts

17. Methods and techniques of troubleshooting and problem resolution

18. Principles of project planning and scheduling

19. Modifies fleet development life cycles

20. Business system design methods and techniques 

21. Methods and techniques of vehicle application and integration
 
22. Principles of data retrieval and reporting 

23. Information processing hardware, software, and data communications 

24. Departmental policies, procedures, and standards; office procedures, methods 

25. Write functional design specifications, policy and reports documentation 

26. Conduct feasibility studies provide solutions in order to meet business requirements

27. Provide effective consultation to users/clients 

28. Apply analytical thinking to resolve business and Fleet application problems

29. Develop, test, and implement vehicle technology applications

30. Learn new and existing vehicle technologies, tools and methods to support and develop business applications

31. Translate technical terminology into non-technical terms 

32. Manage and organize workload on several projects simultaneously 

33. Prepare feasibility reports and make presentations, communicate effectively orally and in writing internally/externally

34. Research and development of comprehensive technical specifications for fleet vehicles and equipment 

35. Understanding of the benefits and limitations of different design configurations used in construction 

36. Ability to manage multiple projects and tasks simultaneously over multiple project years.

37. Ability to forecast and develop short and long-term fleet replacement forecasts.

38. Understanding of the principles and functionality of vehicle and equipment design and operation

39. Knowledge of mobile programs and be able to incorporate into specifications and requirements

40. Ensure vehicle design and operation complies with strategic, long term and safety goals and requirements

41. Ability to determine if and when existing vehicle and equipment assets should be replaced, retired or reallocated 

42. Analysis of maintenance and usage records and benchmarking data

43. Monitor and track vehicle utilization and make recommendations for reassignment of under or over utilized vehicles.

44. Research, monitor, recommend and incorporate new technology available through manufacturers and vendors

45. Provides analytical methods and research techniques development of business unit systems 

46. Implements vehicle design maintenance directives and implementation 

47. Include training for computers and database applications 

48. Establish and maintain effective working relationships with internal/external agents

49. Recommend alternative fleet dispatch strategies and opportunities for implementation into mobile operations

50. Recruit agents in areas of Fleet work include data analysis, specification development and application support 

Marine Corps  aviation logistics depot workforce strives to ensure Marines have assets repaired for when  they need them.  Depot Maintainers  are focused on the same tasks: aircraft readiness and supporting  the war fighter.     
                                        
Aviation maintenance officers are required to have a detailed working knowledge of all occupational specialties in sponsored aviation maintenance programs and processes  focused on the training program management of maintenance activities in accordance with  standard operating procedures.

All the skill sets work together to accomplish the aviation logistics mission for tactical, operational, and strategic level aviation units.  The combined occupational specialties develop aviation logistics officers with cross training in the management of aviation maintenance and aviation supply programs.  

All the members listed must have understanding of operational  logistics chain requirements from user level component repair to theater wide push/pull asset demand.   Formal training in one  field would eliminate the “on-the-fly” training aviation supply and aviation maintenance officers are currently receiving.  

The development of true aviation logisticians through formal technical training, operational experience, and mentorship would align the community with these goals and would produce a more diversified aviation logistics population. 

 Most aviation Logistics, supply and maintenance officers already understand that mission success requires more than a basic knowledge of the skill sets of all workers in the organization. Complementing technical area team integration is required to provide aviation support to the war fighter. 

1. Fleet Mechanics Function Specialist

Develop solid work schedules and manage campaigns to ensure equipment is properly maintained with timely status updates on materiel conditions

2. Digital Traffic Specialist 

Creating and maintaining cross channel traffic instructions for internal marketing initiatives. Ensures marketing advertisements air across various cable networks in accordance to periodic media plans. Provide assistance with monthly media planning, post-reporting, and auditing activities

3.  Marketing Associate 

Managing daily administrative tasks to ensure the Marketing department runs smoothly. Conducting market research to identify new revenue opportunities. Gathering and analyzing consumer behavior data e.g. web traffic and rankings

4. Process Safety Engineer 

Developing risk assessments and designing safety operating practices for construction and manufacturing companies. Provide technical leadership and support to identify hazards, assess risks and provide cost-efficient management solutions

5. Applied Communications Lab

Develop and manage programs related to the development and education of senior executives. Work collaboratively across a wide range of stakeholders to improve educational outcomes across all educational programs. Teach, conduct research, and provide internal/external service

6. Building Inspector 

Review plans to ensure they meet building codes, local ordinances, and zoning regulations. Use survey instruments, metering devices, and test equipment to perform inspections. 

7. Fire Hazards Analyst 

Preparing fire hazards analyses, technical reports and supporting studies and design documentation, and performing calculations using engineering software.

8.  Chief Information Officer 

Creating, communicating and implementing a strategic vision for technology that works across divisions to support training, administrative, strategic and tactical goals.

9. Fleet Technical Lead

Perform data analysis, specification development, or application support are used in the development, management and maintenance of business unit systems and applications.

10. Equipment Operator

Performing routine equipment checks and maintenance, loading and unloading equipment, and ensuring sites are kept clean and equipment is safely turned off and stored. Observe the distribution of concrete and complete relevant paperwork and reports.

11. Production Technician

Perform equipment setup, operation, equipment adjustments and minor preventative maintenance tasks to meet all standards for safety, quality and efficiency. Run tests on all assemblies and equipment to test for safety and productivity before they are put into production.

12.  Network Security Forensic Analyst 

Retrieves and analyzes data, network traces and other evidence from computers, networks and data storage devices physically damaged or corrupted, accidentally or intentionally.

13. Field Service Coordinator

Coordinates, monitors and improves fields service activities for an organization. Provides support and guidance to service personnel who perform on-site routine services including installation, maintenance, and repair. Ensures field services are effective and customers requirements are met.

14. Computer Engineer

Researching, designing, developing and testing computer hardware and equipment, including chips, analog sensors, circuit boards, keyboards, modems, routers and printers. Work on the manufacturing of these components, as well as the installation.

15. Property Control Manager 

Responsible for all phases of warehouse operations, including receiving, storing, issuing, delivering, shipping, and disposal of widely diversified and specialized supplies, equipment

16. Security Operations Specialist

Identifies, reports, and resolves security violations. Ensure records of all information systems security related incidents and violations 

17.  Functional Safety Architect

Leading and contributing to the development of new functional safety architectures for fleet market. Working directly with fleet customers to understand their requirements and design constraints in order to enable the specification of optimal solutions

18. Accounting Policy Manager 

Leading fieldwork, managing performance and keeping engagement leaders updated on client engagements. Demonstrate expertise in analyzing and recommending appropriate strategies and accounting treatment of routine and complex financial transactions

19. Local Market Engagement

Build regional marketing campaigns that connect segment marketing objectives to field marketing execution. Create integrated campaign plans including core campaign idea, messaging structure, guidelines, assets and measurement that are executable across multiple regions

20. Business Analytics 

Conduct market analyses, analysing both product lines and the overall profitability of the business. Develop and monitor data quality metrics and ensure business data and reporting needs are met.

21. Field Instrument Technician

Test, calibrate, install, repair, and inspect manufacturing equipment and monitoring devices. Perform general maintenance on the equipment and design new measuring and recording equipment.

22. Electrical Technician

Create, maintain and repair the electronic components and equipment used in any electrical equipment or device. work with electricians or electrical engineers, or work on site to keep machinery and specialty equipment running correctly.

23. Network Resilience Technology Analyst

Prepares analysis of technology solutions to determine how designs and practices can be improved to increase both the ability to absorb network related shock and the ability more rapidly recover when impacts do occur.

24. Network Security Specialist 

Monitor computer networks for security threats or unauthorized users. analyze security risks and develop response procedures. Developing and testing software deployment tools, firewalls and intrusion detection systems.

25. Information Security Policy Lead 

Protecting computers, networks and data against threats, such as security breaches and computer attacks prevent intrusions capable of disrupting information technology systems or lead to a loss of confidential information.

26.  Inside Service Sales Representative 

Communicating with customers, making outbound calls to potential customers, and following up on leads. Creating and maintaining a database of current and potential customers. Explaining and demonstrating features of products and services.

27. Risk Management Program Participant

Providing reporting and process oversight related to operational risk programs. Organizing and analyzing fiscal portfolio data. Performing research and review of higher risk customers. Preparing and organizing documentation for regulatory exams.

28. Construction Laborers

Perform physical labor on construction sites. prepare sites by cleaning, loading or unloading materials and removing hazards. Run some types of equipment, or put together and take apart scaffolding and other temporary structures.

29. Fleet Technician

Perform maintenance, diagnosis, and repairs on cars, trucks, and off-road equipment in a safe, efficient, quality minded and customer focused manner. Perform maintenance and repair on aerial lift equipment to manufacturer's guidelines to maintain the safety and reliability of the unit.

30. Technology Project Solutions Consultant 

Performing project management tasks related to information technology implementations, upgrades, conversions, and recoveries. Responsible for managing multiple projects and/or a single significant project

31. Process/Asset Development Engineer 

Supports delivery of capital portfolio and long-term plan. Participates in pre-project development and assessment work processes, working closely with the business improvement and commercial teams to evaluate project business cases, leading the conceptual design of projects and supporting later project execution phases

32. Fleet Material Handling Technician 

Performs technical record keeping and record verification tasks supporting warehouse operations and transportation functions.  Maintains computerized and written records relating to commercial truck fleet and drivers and material handling equipment fleet and operators.

33. Automotive Vehicle Technician 

Perform repair and preventive maintenance of automotive equipment. Performing inspections, diagnostic testing of vehicles, and replacement of worn components include brakes, engines, steering, and electrical systems.

34. Data Technical Support 

Provides support to system users by responding queries, fixing technical issues and keeping network, software, and computer equipment in  working condition

35.  Enterprise Account Executive 

Responsible for managing the business relationships with an  larger customers, enterprise accounts or key accounts. Sell business products segment their markets into enterprise, small and medium-sized business sectors.

36. Financial Analyst 

Identifies financial status by comparing and analyzing actual results with plans and forecasts. Guides cost analysis process by establishing and enforcing policies and procedures; providing trends and forecasts; explaining processes and techniques; recommending actions.

37. Market Development Representative 

Qualify leads from marketing campaigns as sales opportunities. Contact potential clients through cold calls and emails. Identify client needs and suggest appropriate products/services customized solutions to increase customer satisfaction

38. Security Officer 

Secures premises and personnel by patrolling property; monitoring surveillance equipment; inspecting buildings, equipment, and access points; permitting entry. Obtains help by sounding alarms. Prevents losses and damage by reporting irregularities

39.  Data Scientist/Analytics Manager 

Compile and analyze data to help clients gain valuable insights and influence decision-making including data mining and management, developing and implementing analytics solutions, and generating reports in an effort to improve their clients' performance and achieve their business objectives.

40.  Call Center Supervisor 

Enters orders by transmitting information. Provides product/service information by answering questions; offering assistance. Maintains call center database by entering and verifying information; updating contact log. Improves quality results by recommending changes

41. Receptionist 

Serves visitors by greeting, welcoming, and directing them appropriately. Notifies company personnel of visitor arrival. Maintains security and telecommunications system. Maintains security by following procedures, monitoring logbook, and issuing visitor badges.

42. Field Service Coordinator

Coordinates, monitors and improves fields service activities. Provides support and guidance to service personnel who perform on-site routine services including installation, maintenance, and repair. Ensures field services are effective and customers requirements are met.

43. Quality Engineering/Spec Specialist 

Works within the quality team to ensure the overall quality of a manufactured product and is tasked with creating documentation, devising quality tests and defining the criteria a test result should meet. Play a key role in fixing issues when they arise.

44. Control Systems Engineer 

Designing, developing, installing, managing and maintaining equipment used to monitor and control engineering systems, machinery and processes. Make sure these systems and processes operate effectively, efficiently and safely.

45. Product Support Engineer 

Analyze and resolve customer concerns and problems, diagnose the root cause, and document interactions. Provide on-call and ongoing troubleshooting, technical, and hardware advice and suggestions. Support remote and local upgrades, installations, and maintenance.

46. Process Safety Engineer

Developing risk assessments and designing safety operating practices for construction and manufacturing companies. Provide technical leadership and support to identify hazards, assess risks and provide cost-efficient management solutions

47.  Accounts Payable Accountant 

Completes payments and controls expenses by receiving, processing, verifying, and reconciling invoices. Maintains accounting ledgers by verifying and posting account transactions. Verifies vendor accounts by reconciling periodic statements and related transactions

48. Vulnerability Identification/Configuration Monitor 

Operation of vulnerability assessment tools, scanning, researching and analyzing vulnerabilities, identifying relevant threats, corrective action recommendations, summarizing and reporting results.

49. Information Security Support Engineer 

Engineering, implementing and monitoring security measures for the protection of computer systems, networks and information. Identifying and defining system security requirements. Designing computer security architecture and developing detailed  security designs.

50. Client Development Manager
​
Develop relationships with existing and prospective clients. Track competitors, trends, challenges, and opportunities for sales. Document interactions and scheduled time in organizational information systems. Negotiate and facilitate sales and outreach activities

The future Marine aviation logistics plan states that aviation  logistics will be guided by transformation objectives and  principles in integration between the Navy and Marine Corps service logistics practices and work to promote a closer bond between workers with different skill sets 

Marine programmes are streamlining aviation operations and  maintenance training regimes, providing the critical tools necessary to facilitate units in the achievement and sustainment of combat readiness.

Aviation Logistics officers are responsible for  planning, directing, and controlling the performance and  execution of all aviation supply functions within a Marine  Aircraft Wing MAW, a Marine Aircraft Group MAG  a Marine  Aviation Logistics Squadron MALS  and on various type model  series T/M/S commander staffs. 

Marine Aviation Training and Readiness T&R program is used as a foundation to develop, approve and publish training plans, as well as manage, record and report scheduled T&R completion. Together, this powerful solution enables unit operations departments to track an entire unit’s progress through the training regime. The T&R program sets the training stage, providing the necessary guidance for attainment and maintenance of individual, crew and unit combat skills.

The Marine Corps  Aviation Readiness Program  is a network interface maintenance training management system designed to provide automated scheduling, training and resource management, operational risk management, and real-time reporting capabilities to Mairne aviation units. In an ongoing initiative to improve training management systems the program provides end users with critical skills. 

Marines are provided with the ability to produce and manage flight, ground, simulator, resource and duty scheduling, logging, tracking, reporting of schedule execution, and resource utilization. It also produces and manages individual qualifications, designations, and proficiencies with integrated business rules based upon workforce team training policies

1. Technical Product Manager 

Taking business requirements and translating them into technical requirements. Identify customer needs, develop strategies to meet customer demands, work with departments to implement the latest technology, and monitor progress.

2. Principal Application Engineer

Assists in analyzing, planning, implementing, maintaining, troubleshooting and enhancing large complex systems or networks consisting of a combination that may include physical and logical components that integrate these systems together as an enterprise networking backbone.

3. Industrial Control Specialist 

Managing workflow of outbound department include managing the workflow of outbound orders across multiple processes and managing customer experience while minimizing fulfillment cost. communication of workflow status with Operations and Area Managers and escalating any Customer Experience Risks and reporting failure risks or deviation from Standard Work

4. Operations Tech Assistant 

Resolving customer issues, filling orders, and inspecting merchandise. Help with office and employee management. perform tasks such as ordering supplies and preparing sales reports.

5. Technical Sales Architect

Establishes new accounts and services accounts by identifying potential customers and planning and organizing sales call schedule. Prepares cost estimates by studying all related customer documents, consulting with engineers and architects.

6. Emergency Operations Coordinator 

Developing coordinated plan of emergency resource identification, coordination of local emergency service providers; and the coordination of the necessary response activities before, during and following a significant emergency.

7. Manufacturing Engineer

Evaluates manufacturing processes by designing and conducting research programs; applying knowledge of product design, fabrication, assembly, tooling, and materials; conferring with equipment vendors; soliciting observations from operators.

8. Business Control Specialist 

Manage multiple work efforts in an operations type environment, processes and procedures related to risk and issue management for project support. Initiate and maintain relationships with project stakeholders including team members, vendor managers, and other affected departments to coordinate efforts across multiple business units and ensure continuous efficient management of work efforts.

9. Change Management Specialist · 

Maximizing human capital resources and assisting them to facilitate change. utilize project management and process improvement disciplines to help employees accept organizational change

10.  Network Security Engineer 

Provisioning, deployment, configuration, and administration of many different pieces of network and security-related hardware and software.  Include firewalls, routers, switches, various network-monitoring tools, and virtual private networks

11. Business Information Security Officer 

Establishes and maintains security vision, strategy and programs. build staff to support security needs include business continuity plan, corrective action plan, penetration testing and vulnerability assessment.

12. Business Control Specialist

Manage multiple work efforts in an operations type environment. develop processes and procedures related to risk and issue management, governance and project support. Initiate and maintain relationships with project stakeholders including team members, vendor managers, and other affected departments to coordinate efforts across multiple business units and ensure continuous efficient management of work efforts.

13.  Dev/Ops Network Security Response Engineer 

Provide advice to client management for security issues. Assists in the review, development, testing and implementation of security plans, products and control techniques. Coordinates the reporting data security incidents.

14. Network Administrator

Managing the daily operations of computer networks. overseeing digital security and performing maintenance to ensure that the system is operating at full capacity. Installing hardware and software when necessary.

15. Business Development Specialist 

Assists with core business development activities include generating pitch decks and communicating with clients and competitors to better understand business trends. Seeks out new market insights and business opportunities through research and analysis.

16. Operational Risk Associate 

Implement operational risk policy and procedures in line with regulatory and market changes. Identify, review, analyze and manage operational risks in business units. Implement strategies to prevent, eliminate and mitigate operational risks.

17. Fleet Technician

Perform maintenance, diagnosis, and repairs on cars, trucks, and off-road equipment to  be safe, efficient, promote quality and customer focus.. Perform maintenance and repair on aerial lift equipment to manufacturer's guidelines to maintain the safety and reliability of the unit.

18.  Adminstrative Technician 

Supervise support clerical staff. Review, track and prepare budgets; maintain records and databases. Coordinate space and office organization; purchase and manage supplies and equipment. Coordinate office and/or departmental operations.

19.  Demand Planner 

Use analytical, marketing, and sales data to effectively estimate future product demands., include planning inventory flow, analyzing statistical data, and generating forecasting solutions

20. Sales Route Driver 

Collecting payment from customers and maintaining delivery records. organize and maintain  vehicles to ensure that goods are not damaged and are accessible when the truck reaches its destination.

21. Machine Operator

Assist with equipment installation and help maintain it by performing periodic tests and repairs. install machines, operate them to support plant processes, and perform routine maintenance checks.

22. Product Marketing Operations

Monitoring, measuring, and analyzing the effectiveness of marketing initiatives as they relate to overall oranisational goals. Work closely with sales teams, and sometimes also have a sales operations counterpart

23. Unstructured Data Solutions 

Provide technical expertise in support of Pre-Sales activities and maintaining specialist level technical proficiency assist in the analysis, design and development of fully integrated technology solutions. Assist Sales in developing opportunities, delivering product demonstrations, customer presentations, and responding to request for proposals

24. Scientific Software Engineer 

Develops information systems by designing, developing, and installing  solutions. Determines operational feasibility by evaluating analysis, problem definition, requirements, solution development, and proposed information needs, conferring with users, and studying systems flow, data usage, and work processes.

25. Marketing Manager

Managing all marketing and activities within the marketing department. Developing the marketing strategy in line with objectives. Coordinating marketing campaigns with sales activities. Overseeing the company's marketing budget.

26. Facilities Install/Service Technician 

Traveling to customers location, installing electronic equipment, troubleshooting problems with existing equipment, testing connections, providing user instructions to customers, and cleaning up after the job is complete

27. Retail Sales Manager

Execute day-to-day operations, oversees salespeople, customer service representatives and other employees. interview, hire and train new employees. Prepare schedules and assign duties for current employees

28. Process Controls Engineer 

Design, test, troubleshoot, and oversee implementation of new processes. Overseeing the larger production picture create and implement new strategies to improve process efficiency, as well as supporting start-up activities

29. Data Center Product Marketing Advisor 

Adjust strategies in response to market change and competition. Works closely with sales, product partners and vendors. goes beyond the customer value proposition to making sure product development is informed by customer insights

30.  Emergency Communications Specialist 

Serves as first contact for personnel who need immediate assistance from emergency agencies. receiving calls for assistance, prioritizing those calls, and dispatching using the appropriate procedures.

31. Finance Director  

Supervising accounting staff, overseeing internal controls, setting financial targets, implementing fund-raising strategies, engaging with investors, developing financial strategy, conducting feasibility studies, monitoring expenditure. 

32. Regional Operations Director 

Establish and carry out departmental or organizational goals, policies, and procedures. Direct and oversee financial and budgetary activities. Manage general activities related to making products and providing services.

33. Protective Security Operator

Secures premises and personnel by patrolling property; monitoring surveillance equipment; inspecting buildings, equipment, and access points; permitting entry. Obtains help by sounding alarms. 

34. Supply Chain Director 

Directs overall supply chain operations, including purchasing and inventory of materials, selection of vendors, and distribution of finished goods. Develops strategic plans to improve productivity, quality, and efficiency of operations.

35. Data Protection Systems Engineer 

Expanding and optimizing data and data pipeline architecture. optimizing data flow and collection for cross functional teams. Support software developers, database architects, data analysts and data scientists on data initiatives and will ensure optimal data delivery architecture is consistent throughout ongoing projects.

36. Retail Service Associate 

Addressing customers, responding to questions, improving engagement with merchandise and providing outstanding customer service. Operating registers, managing financial transactions, and balancing drawers. Directing customers to merchandise.

37. Investigations Specialist 

Monitoring of alerts, creation and investigation of assigned cases. Prepare and prepare suspicious activity report filings based on the findings of their assigned investigations.  Review potential suspicious activity identified by monitoring software.  Complete investigations per policies and procedures to determine if further action is required

38. Project Engineer 

Preparing schedules, pre-planning and resource forecasting for engineering and other technical activities relating to the project. Administer performance management of vendors. Ensure projects are completed according to project plans

39. Operations Tech Specialist

Resolving customer issues, filling orders, and inspecting merchandise. Assist with office and employee management. Complete tasks such as ordering supplies and preparing sales reports.

40. Tool Test Specialist 

Test new product  applications, determine and remove tool defects. Help customer service through call escalation and conduct training. Oversee customer sites to detect functional tools defects.

41.  Marketing Experience Information Analyst 

Tracking advertising costs, researching consumer behavior and exploring market trends and opportunities. Manage campaigns, processing and analyzing marketing data.

42. Communications Modeling Simulation Engineer

Developing concepts and corresponding models to support analysis of communication systems at many different levels, ranging from the generation of new systems architectures down to detailed interoperability studies.

43. Investment Options Officer

Identify business opportunities and secure investments that promote the financial interests. managing portfolio projects, handling financial transactions, and building client relationships.

44. Digital Production Manager 

Support production of digital media content, providing industry engagement. execute responsibilities based off a pre-determined digital content strategy. Works closely with stakeholders include department staff, field offices, program consultants and vendors to manage all phases of content production and improve cross-platform user experience for target audience.

45.  Project Proposal Manager 

Lead proposal and business development functions. Helping prepare proposal material and presentations, organizing/updating database of project information and coordinating meetings.

46.  Project Control Analyst 

Identify and resolve risks and financial discrepancies or variances. Oversee project closings and update processes. Create financial reports and forecasts, and fit them to known trends.

47.  Inside Product Specialist 

Responsible for defined set of data center products and services. Provides technical advice to the inside sales teams during the sales process. Advises customer of product features, configurations, pricing, services and availability.

48. Software Engineer 

Develops information systems by designing, developing, and installing software solutions by studying information needs, conferring with users, and studying systems flow, data usage, and work processes. Initiates investigation problem areas.

49. Database Manager 

Maintains database results by setting and enforcing standards and controls. Prepares for database expansion by studying plans and requirements; advising senior technical management; coordinating design and programming. Maintains database performance by troubleshooting problems.

50. Customer Service Agent
​
Supports customers by providing helpful information, answering questions, and responding to complaints. Serves as front line of support for clients and customers to help ensure customers are satisfied with products, services, and features.

​Increased domain interconnectivity and growing cross-domain interdependence underpin an emerging vision of future warfare that is beginning to take shape. Historical approaches to achieving superiority in the air, land, and sea domains may no longer be valid. 

Navy and Marine Corps are working together to advance a new operating concept aimed at maintaining maritime superiority. The concept, formally known as expeditionary advanced base operations is “all about distributing lethality across the battle space in support of a larger maritime campaign.

Through the concept, the services are looking to establish expeditionary bases at sea. Once established, the bases could be utilised for a variety of missions.  “That expeditionary advanced base can be used as a forward arming and refueling point for aircraft from the joint force.

They could also be used as sensing platforms to collect intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information, or as strike platforms to achieve sea control, no easy task. The real challenge is that we will be performing and operating in a widely distributed area ... and supporting a larger maritime campaign.

“What they did during the exercise we look to operationalise and execute some of these concepts that we were talking about. Marines went out and they worked at how would we establish advanced expeditionary bases and how would we establish forward operating areas.

Armchair Generals many times dissect the latest war gaming events, including failures of strategic thinking. Yet those same military professionals often begin at the tactical level when contemplating future warfare, as is the case for the solution of the day

Multi-domain operations began as the more tactically-focused multi-domain battle. There is a need for a more strategic approach to multi-domain operations to represent more dymanic concepts of joint operations, but it is also not no without context in that it is not meant to be a response to a specific strategic challenge. 

Joint warfare, the backbone of how Marines fight, might no longer be enough in the face of dramatic technological change. How will Marines fight in a future where its traditional dominance on land, sea, and in the air might no longer suffice. The answer is slow in coming, but many suggest that war will need to be fought simultaneously across traditional warfighting environments as well as space and the electromagnetic spectrum. 

The concept is still in early stages of planning and the services have only recently begun exploring combining their individual efforts on multi-domain operations. Yet momentum is building as the concept spreads throughout the military. It now appears that multi-domain operations will change how Marines fights at the operational level of war if it can overcome several significant challenges to enable the services to cooperate more seamlessly.

Emerging technologies have added new dimensions to the traditional combined and joint layers of warfare: artillery, infantry, armor and air power.” These developments center largely on the electromagnetic, space, network and information domains. Some challenge that infantry and “tactical art” at the tip of the spear and everything else in a support role. 

Proponents represent a true challenge to multi-domain operations, and that is not always the right answer. What the Army proclaims is the “central idea” of multi-domain operations is the “rapid and continuous integration of all domains of warfare” in the context of the challenges of “layered stand-off” posed by adversaries. 

An infantry-centric approach removes the principal of combined arms warfare that long has been essential to how the military wages war. Furthermore, this setup would neglect the complex and extremely challenging task of networking effects in other domains at the tactical and operational levels to enable the infantry’s manoeuvre.

Focus on tactical manoeuvre, also moves  traditional supporting enablers such as fires and intelligence further back on the battlefield. Indeed, these tactical units – i.e. infantry – will be required to “increasingly fend for themselves.” Their principle purpose, though, is not primarily to “win the close fight.” Rather, their main job is to “work as human sensors, decisional ‘gatekeepers,’ and facilitators responsible for translating killing power residing at a distance into lethal effects on adversaries.” 

Because technology such as F-35s and tanks are on the verge of obsolescence, according to this argument, the infantry is left with a “fires app” from which they can rapidly acquire “precision mortars, precision grenade launchers, and immediate access to cheap, proliferated precision delivered from artillery and aircraft.”

Some want units being “surrounded by a constellation of unmanned vehicles” as they communicate with higher headquarters via networked applications. What is missing is an understanding of the extreme vulnerability of these units via the electromagnetic spectrum. Soldiers and their unmanned vehicles will be emitting signatures that cannot be hidden; the more these troops and their unmanned aerial vehicles communicate the easier they are to target. 

Adversaries have demonstrated the capability to track electromagnetic signatures and exploit them with devastating effect. The military’s reliance on the electromagnetic spectrum is significant and growing, as demonstrated in some of the technologies being developed in the Close Combat Lethality Task Force, yet the military’s understanding of the accompanying risks is lagging. 

The only way for such a well-connected unit to arise is if the services first gains electromagnetic superiority. The reality is the military will likely be forced to fight in a communications degraded environment. Mission command, coupled with secure communication limited to only the most essential information, will play an integral role in multi-domain operations conducted in a contested, degraded, and operationally limited battlespace.

Multi-domain operations, at the core, recognise the six domains the military operates in – the electromagnetic spectrum, space, air, land, maritime, and the human domain – and the vulnerabilities and opportunities that exist in each. 

They call for a more inclusive understanding of these domains and networking of effects in two or more domains towards mission objectives. Because of advances in technology in every domain, war has become even more complex. As a result, the established paradigms of combined arms and joint warfare alone are not enough to deal with this complexity.

This is also where a strategic perspective is essential, but remember good tactics cannot overcome bad strategy. And one of the most compelling elements of this concept may be the least appreciated and understood. Multi-domain operations forces planners and commanders to think higher in the levels of war because it requires the networking of effects far outside their component, service, and domain. 

This requires a strategic perspective that is challenging to acquire. Strategic design’s focus goes far beyond a region or joint operations area. The primary reason for this geographical spread is that the problem and/or solution may exist far outside the confines of a distinct region or area of operations. Strategists must be able to recognise global system linkages, understand the effective use of instruments of power, and evaluate actions that impact the long-term attainment and preservation of force objectives.

For example, a multi-domain operation where the objective is to disrupt an adversary’s command-and-control network could combine networked actions in the electromagnetic, air, land, sea, space, and human domains, which would require a host of entities to work together at a very high level. 

Naval underwater unmanned vehicles could be used to cut or degrade sea cables connecting the mainland with nearby islands containing early warning radars. Air Force F-35s could be used to slip through the gaps in the enemy’s radar coverage to strike elements of their integrated air defense system on the mainland, enabling fourth-generation fighters to perform strikes on command-and-control centers. Special Forces elements on the ground could cause confusion throughout the local defense by targeting the enemy’s tactical communications. 

Each of these actions are significant efforts on their own. The coordination required to ensure that each action occurs at the right time and delivers the desired effect would be a huge undertaking in the current decision-making structure – not to mention the authorities an operation like this would require. Such an operation would require the strategic vision to leverage capabilities across domains and throughout the services. 

This is why each service cannot have its own version of multi-domain; the employment of service-centric concepts to a whole-of-military problem will fail. That is how multi-domain operations answer the query “What’s after joint?” and that is where a tactically focused approach to how we will fight and win a future near-peer conflict falls short.

While the technological and logistical challenges of small unit manoeuvre on the future battlefield are significant, the military has a tendency to focus on the tactical as quickly as possible. This is understandable, for many senior leaders had their formative experiences at the tactical level. They are most comfortable in the cockpit, in the battalion tactical operations center, or on the bridge of the frigate. When faced with the extremely challenging problem of fighting a near-peer conflict in an anti-access/area denial environment, solving the tactical level of war is easier than providing solutions at the operational and the strategic levels. 

Tomorrow’s battlefield may look quite different to rifle units, but the vision of an extremely well-connected soldier with a host of capabilities at their fingertips and a constellation of drones ready to do their bidding cannot become reality without a complete understanding of how the warfighting domains interact and well-executed multi-domain operations. 

None of it will matter if actions at the tactical and operational levels do not meet national aims at the strategic level. Let’s get strategy right first to understand fully how to fight in a multi-domain battlespace.

Perhaps the solution to restoring the offensive lies somewhere in the deep definitional recesses of multi-domain warfare. Time will tell. But what about the tactical consequences of a future battlefield dominated by the defensive? What can we learn today from those who fight close? 

Let’s begin the premise that battlefield dominated by firepower and the defensive compels units to disperse, disaggregate and go to ground. Disaggregation is good in that it lessens the killing effects of firepower but bad because dispersed forces are less able to mass, and mass is essential if manoeuvre is to be restored.

Dispersal changes the shape and contours of the battlefield. Linearity disappears. Large groups of combat and support units moving together are replaced by smaller clusters of tactical units separated by empty spaces. 

A disaggregated battlefield favors autonomy and demands that close-combat units operate for long periods without reinforcement. An aerial view would leave the impression of emptiness. Urban terrain will provide sanctuaries for units seeking to avoid destruction by firepower. The smaller and more discrete the tactical disposition the more likely a force will be able to survive  what many believe is the next conflict.

In turn, a dispersed tactical disposition alters both the shape and composition of the tactical units themselves. As the space between close-combat units opens up, units become more isolated, forcing greater self-reliance and independent decision-making. 

Traditional supporting enablers such as fires, intelligence, logistical support and external sensors are positioned far to the rear to avoid destruction by fire strikes. Isolated small units must increasingly fend for themselves, learn to survive, sustain and fight as self-contained entities capable of remaining effective  for extended campaigns.

The purpose and utility of small units changes on a distributed battlefield. The mission of small units will no longer be simply to win the close fight. In fact a small unit or team engaged so decisively that it has no alternative but a face-to-face firefight might be considered to have failed. 

Direct action will distract them from their principal work as human sensors, decisional “gatekeepers” and facilitators responsible for translating lethal force residing at a distance into imposing effects on the enemy. In the future, small units will become virtual outposts, in effect the eyes and probing fingers of a larger supporting operational force placed out of reach of  long-range fires from adversaries

“Over the horizon” enabling elements will provide close-combat forces in the battle area with a “cone of impunity.” The cone protects the unit by projecting and overlaying it with distant intelligence, command and control, and sensor capabilities that are routinely provided today for special operations teams. The cone will insulate small units from surprise and will allow them to employ many of the assets formerly reserved for combat forces three or four levels above such as armed drones, intelligence feeds from operational and strategic assets and  resupply from unmanned aerial and ground robotic vehicles.

Imagine an irregular, checkerboard-like pattern of small units embedded into complex terrain or urban clutter and scattered across a wide expanse. To advance, an enemy ground force would have to destroy in detail every small unit waiting in its path. But these close-combat units would be impossible to approach without being observed and killed by supporting ground- or air-delivered precision fires.

The question is whether or not technologies are present to permit today’s tactical forces to operate on a dispersed battlefield. The answer? Fortunately, yes, and soon. The military established the first organisation intended solely to enhance the lethality of close-combat small units. 

So far, the Close Combat Lethality Task Force has succeeded remarkably in reimagining the lethality of tactical ground forces. The sum of these new developments will change fundamentally how ground warfare is prosecuted. Many technologies embraced by the task force come from sources outside the military: Artificial intelligence, micro-miniaturization, reach-back, the soldier’s “air force,” carry-along precision, soldier networks, robotics, and sensors.

To enhance the fighting power of tactical forces, many of the complexities of modern operations should be pushed downward. For this to work, decisions formerly made by colonels must be made by sergeants. Artificial intelligence offers a solution. Think of small unit apps that connect a leader to a constellation of decision-enhancement tools. 

The world is getting smaller and with smaller size comes greater mobility and convenience. A radio that took up the back of a vehicle twenty years ago fits into a soldier’s pocket today. Hundred-million-dollar fighter planes can be kept at bay  by small shoulder-fired missiles. The tank isn’t dead but it’s far easier to kill today thanks to very precise and portable guided missiles. An onboard analog computer gives the M1 Abrams tank a single-shot kill probability out to two miles. Today, micro-miniaturization technology borrowed from civilian industry will allow Abrams-like precision to be squeezed into a rifle sight with the same one-shot-one-kill probability.

Tomorrow’s small-unit soldier and leader will never be able to carry all of the combat gear necessary to keep the unit functioning in the close fight. But they will be able to “reach back” to access combat resources residing well to the rear, at sea or perhaps outside the theater of war. Efficient supply chain technologies will allow battlefield delivery of supplies quickly enough to reduce the logistical load a small unit must take with it into the close fight.

Miniaturization has cheapened and proliferated unmanned vehicles to the extent that you can buy a drone at Walmart. Small units will profit from the drone revolution. Today units routinely fly command-guided, unmanned flying vehicles over the battlefield to sense and seek enemy locations and detect explosive devices. Think of a future close fight in which every small unit is surrounded by a constellation of unmanned vehicles ranging from hand-carried lethal drones to orbiting tactical weapons platforms robust and deadly enough to replace traditional air and surface fire support.

Recent developments in portable precision enhance the ability of a small unit to fight autonomously. Some precision weapons are in soldiers’ hands today: The Javelin anti-tank missile fundamentally changes the lethality equation between large armored formations and small units, in favor of the latter. Soon soldiers will possess precision mortars, precision grenade launchers, and immediate access to cheap, proliferated precision delivered from artillery and aircraft.

In order to dominate the close fight, small units must be enveloped in an impenetrable sensor bubble that provides early detection out to a distance beyond the range of enemy small arms and mortars. Sensors must be layered and redundant and should include feeds from tactical drones, body sensors and mobile, robotic sensors surrounding a unit on the march.

Tactical reform is dependent on more than just technology. The military must find the means to expose soldiers to the stress of close combat before the first shot is fired. The additional tasks and responsibilities placed on small units may bring into question the size and composition of squads and teams. 

1. Defining  Operations within a Continuum of Cross-Domains Windows of Superiority or Access/Manoeuvre

2. Emphasis on Lower-Echelon Orient Decide and Act Speed

3. More Possibilities in More Domains Means Increased Complexity/Vulnerability

4. Requirements for Multi-domain Observing and Orienting 

5. Making Decisions with Complexity and Voluminous Data

6. Implications for the ISR Enterprise 

7. Redefine Battlespace Actors and Activities 

8. Change How We Interact with Observe/Orient the Battlespace
 
9. Change How We Architect and Develop ISR System
​
10. Change How We Organize to Orient

​We train Marine combat leaders to making successful decisions under pressure. In a war game, troops play their own company, a select group of their competitors and the marketplace. A control team plays all other entities that affect the field units. The game begins with a prepared set of conditions and, when the whistle blows, anything goes - that is, anything that can happen in the real world, 

When the dust has settled, Marines look back on these simulations as one of the most challenging and stimulating exercises of their careers. The sessions actually last several days. 

To be most effective, war games should include certain specific real world conditions. These include a strongly competitive battlespace, so that players must react to each other’s actions. Another is unpredictability, illustrated by changing technologies and shifts in battle space target demand. 

A long-term perspective is also required, to show how decisions made now will affect field level success later on. One important result that makes wargames supremely worthwhile: troops learn the importance of being absolutely clear in their communications with the market.

The current method of creating strategy--strategic planning--does not work. It fails because it incorrectly assumes that discontinuities can be predicted, that strategists can be disconnected from the operations and that strategy-making itself can be formalised. 

Traditional planning will not lead to strategy because strategy is about integration, which brings ideas together, and planning is about analysis, which seeks to decompose the ideas into their constituent parts. 

The solution to this problem is to emphasize informal learning and personal vision. In view, strategic ideas must bubble up from the operations organisation. Yet planners will still have a role so we offer several models to follow, depending upon the situation.
 
There is another answer to the problem that has proven dozens of times that there is a way to formulate strategy that deals with discontinuities, involves both planners and troops and makes a virtue of an informal approach, yet also has a well-tested framework and methodology. 

This approach is war gaming also called dynamic competitive simulation. Simulation does all of the things strategic formulation should do. It integrates learning into a vision of the direction that the field units should pursue. It acts as a catalyst, involves intuition and creativity and delivers an integrated perspective of the enterprise. And along the way, it builds the enthusiasm of both troops and planners for the journey they will ultimately take together.

In a war game, teams of the senior leaders of a field unit play their own company, a select group of their competitors and the battlespace. A control team plays all other entities that affect the battle. The exercise simulates a set of  conditions and offers lessons and guidance for the real thing. 

During the game, teams lay out objectives and strategies, decide on targets, product lines, etc. The team assesses battlespace reaction and awards authorities model provides the  implications of actions the teams take by returning to them an assessment of their performance.There are no complicated or contrived rules. Anything that can happen in the real world is allowed, including mergers and acquisitions, alliances and battlefield disasters. 

Simulations are usually most effective when several conditions hold in the real world. 

First, when field units in question has a competitive dynamic, namely that the players are affected by each other's actions. For example, if a target is introduced that competes with yours, you may react by cutting your bottom line while another competitor might drop out of the battlespace. The response can be a service increase. 

The battlespace reaction is partly or wholly unpredictable because of rapid change, the introduction of new technologies, shifts in target demands, etc., none of which could be forecast with a deterministic model. For example, troops first have to react to target introduction, then the price of action cut and finally those two in combination with my service increase. Finally, the customers of the company that quit the field now have to choose among the remaining players. 

The validity of the answer will be greatly enhanced if the problem is looked at dynamically over time. Assumptions about customer behaviour in today's world are irrelevant once the new product is introduced, there has been a cut, a service increase and one player has exited. And company is concerned not just about the product introduction but also about how to sustain battlefield success later on. 

Simulations are the only viable way of gaining insights when there are too many unknowns to be amenable to a straightforward, quantitative solution, there are too many dimensions of the problem to consider or it is impossible to capture the interactions among all of these. For example, troops can’t model or predict all of the reactions of competitors in the battlespace.

In situations like this, typical analysis-intensive strategic planning will not work because analysis will only interpret the past and suggest how the future might evolve if, indeed, there is little change from the past. 

Generally, this assumption is self-defeating, as the past never really repeats itself. Analysis cannot predict how competitors will behave when faced with changing conditions, as in the case of a product introduction. Scenario planning, which uses historical analysis to plot future outcomes, can be dangerously deceptive when these conditions apply. Scenarios are, in the end, simply a best guess at the future, tempered by informed judgment as to how trends may play out over time. 

The risk here is that it is very easy to believe the future that plays into our own set of biases. Compounding this is the absence of any way of predicting when discontinuities might logically occur or what their impact might be on the competitive environment. 

In almost all situations, a simulation can be designed to deal with a strategic problem. Some troops have expressed initial concerns that simulation is not appropriate for slow-moving or stagnant battlespace. But to the contrary, it is often in just these battlespaces where strategic innovation is most likely. Therefore, the importance and usefulness of a proven approach to strategy formulation increases.

Wargaming is often the best tool to help field units deal with strategic formulation. It works because it addresses concerns about planners planning in isolation, dealing with discontinuities and integration. It is also forward thinking, an area in which traditional analysis is weak, and it is dynamic, which both traditional analysis and scenario planning are weak on. 

Finally, and most powerfully, gaming is a whole enterprise. Strategy is indivisible. Remove one part or take away the bridges and the glue that tie the parts together and you don't have strategy, but tactics. Tactics are the elements that relate to the execution of the strategy. Those elements are discrete and divisible and can be examined and evaluated separately. Gaming forces the participants to look at the totality of the plan, not a set of aggregated parts. 

Simulation is about bringing diverse ideas together and it is based on fact. Bringing ideas together is the primary function of the competitor and battlespace teams. Discussions within the cross-functional teams of senior decision-makers during the moves of the game bring together a wide variety of ideas and perspectives into a set of objectives, a strategy and a plan to be played out in the simulation. 

Simulation is rooted in reality.  Even more than bringing ideas together, simulation challenges conventional wisdom and allows management teams to break with "known truths" and personal assumptions about competitors and their own strengths and weaknesses. 

Simulation sheds light on explicit and implicit assumptions, forcing troops to think about the unthinkable and to answer the what-ifs. For example, a vehicle manufacturer was looking for an alliance partner. In a simulation examining battlespace rationalisation, it found that a small player, previously eliminated from consideration, was actually the best potential partner. 

The manufacturer subsequently formed a very profitable alliance with this company. Without the simulation, this highly successful alliance would never have been formed. 
Another major concern about the current state of strategic planning is that it assumes it can predict discontinuities, which are often unpredictable. 

While simulation does not purport to predict discontinuities, it does confront them in two ways. First, discontinuities can be added to a simulation forcing the competitor teams to deal with both changes. Second, discontinuities are often created by the teams in the simulation. For example, when one team vertically integrated during a game, that fundamentally changed the way the other teams approached the ballespace.
 
Unlike traditional planning, simulations are also able to confront discontinuities because they explicitly deal with difficult-to-model, but nonetheless critical variables in an interactive and dynamic, rather than static, fashion. A customised, open-ended simulation design is crafted for each situation, allowing for flexible time frames and constraints.

Real troops think about real problems, incorporating the learning as it happens and as they experience it during the simulation, from one move to the next. This is not a computer model with preprogrammed responses to predetermined moves. 

A manufacturer of heavy equipment, for example, wanted to better understand its alliance options and how the competitive dynamics of its battlespace would change as alliances were formed. In a simulation, the client learned that alliances would form much faster than expected and that the company had very little to offer as a partner, necessitating a re-examination of its capability set. These dynamic aspects of simulations are rarely captured in either a traditional planning process or a computer-modeled game. 

Simulations are able to accomplish paradigm shifts and foster "out of the box thinking" because they explore the implications of changes in strategy in a "no risk" manner. Participants are able to get a taste of the future without having to make investments and commit their careers to these plans, for example wanting to create a strategy for a market that did not yet exist but to do so would require heavy investment. The simulation revealed that it should not, in fact, enter the battle space at all--a conclusion that would have been almost impossible to come to in a traditional planning process. 

In addition to being dynamic, simulation is forward thinking in that it plays out the company battlespace into the future. Moves can be measured at different times depending upon the situation. But in all cases, players are forced to deal with what they have created in each move as the starting point of the next move, and not base decisions on today's situation or preplanned scenarios. 

And because the starting point of the move is determined by what happened during the last move, not by static assumptions, it is necessarily adaptive and forward thinking. That was the case for the company noted above. In its simulation, the company allowed technology changes to occur much faster than they would have in reality in order to test. The simulation showed that the combination of orders and technology changes needed for the strategy to work was so distant and so unlikely that the company would, in fact, need a different approach to be successful. 

Simulation also provides a view of the battlespace that cannot be seen through even the best of research. Because a team is actually playing the battlespace and is backed up by the black-and-white facts of available customer research the competitor teams are able to have a dialogue with the battlespace about why they did or did not behave in a certain way. 

In almost every game we have run, troops come away with a renewed understanding of the importance of clear communication with the battlespace. For example, many competitors in one simulation believed that changes in the battlespace would result in each company providing a fully integrated solution to customers, rather than different companies providing different parts of the value added. 

One competitor simply launched a fully integrated service offering, expecting it to dominate the battlespace because it had allied with the highest-quality providers. But the members of the battlespace team reacted extremely negatively, contending that the integrated service offering seemed to cut down severely on their flexibility. 

When pressed, they explained that the competitor had not made any attempt to explain why the integrated offering was beneficial. This was a huge surprise to the competitor team that made the move. 

Simulation also develops an articulated view of the full range and nature of potential outcomes, including any discontinuities, and participants are forced to create plans to deal with them. A telecommunications player wanted to develop a strategy for entry into the battlespace. The simulation allowed participants to see how the battlespace might change and forced them to take action under different conditions. 

Because there was a "real" market team responding to the various competitors, these players were forced to develop explicit plans and dynamic strategies for the changing battlespace in order to persuade customer commitment to their product or service. In many cases,  teams defer commitment decisions because competitor plans are too vague for decision-making--just like in the real world. 

Many strategic plans fail because they are developed by a small set of troops and/or planners in isolation and, therefore, are not advisable or actionable. Simulation involves the full set of decision-makers, including planners, thereby enabling team building and bonding as well as ownership of strategic alternatives and a shared vision of the future. 

Simulation gets nonbelievers to believe. Planners work side by side with operating troops during the simulation to play out the moves, capture learning and articulate potential solutions. Leaders who were once unwilling to agree are better able to work together after having lived through the simulation experience and come to conclusions together.
 
For example, a consumer products company wanted to convince the leaders of its various divisions that if they worked together to win in targeted battlespace opportunities they would have a much higher success rate. But the individual decision makers were concerned about short-term gains and losing control of their targets.

The simulation provided decision makers an opportunity to think more strategically about their businesses and, as a result, they came to the same conclusion themselves that there were huge benefits to a focused strategy of cooperation. 

Strategic planning in many companies is too formal. Strategic thinking would be more successful if it took place continuously throughout the organisation, but troops rarely have the time and often don't have the training to deal with strategy. 

Although simulation is an event, it is an event that sets aside time for strategic thinking and trains troops on the dynamic aspects of strategic planning and allows them to live through an "alternative future." Decision makers who are otherwise unable to find the time to think strategically are put in a situation where they must do so if the companies they are playing are to survive. 

Simulation both improves strategic thinking capabilities and disposes them to devote more time and resources to the task going forward. Virtually all of the troops who have been involved in simulations report that the experience was one of the best strategic  exercises they ever had. They emerged from the simulations with a renewed enthusiasm to keep strategic issues in the forefront. Many now keep closer track of competitors and some consider simulation an important part of the ongoing strategic formulation process.

Although every simulation is different, there are a few things that a company could expect to take away from the experience.  The first is that your view of the world will change--it will be like turning a map on its side to see what was on the other side of the mountain. Implicit and explicit assumptions about your company, your competitors and your industry will have been challenged. 

Some of the assumptions will have survived, others will have been rejected and the result will be a fresh outlook. And because of this new outlook, things that never would have hit the radar screen before will now look like opportunities, some old bright ideas will have been put to rest and you will be far more aware of the pitfalls that lurk all around. 

A simulation will also give you a view of how battlespace and competitor action might change and, more important, an understanding of the drivers of that change. Simulation is not meant to be predictive, although it has often been. It gives companies an opportunity to see "what would happen if we did X..." 

This allows both for testing of our own ideas and seeing how competitors might react to particular situations. Moreover, walking in the competitors' shoes gives a company a better understanding of why they react the way they do and what drives their decision-making. It is this understanding of the dynamic drivers of competition that is a key lesson to take back to the real world. 

Troops who have participated in a simulation agree that it was one of the most challenging and stimulating strategic exercises they had ever participated in, particularly in companies where the culture is to fire before aiming, troops walk away with a new capacity for and appreciation of strategic thinking. 

Simulation is a way to experience the future together as a field unit. This becomes a shared experience for the troops who participate for a typically intense training period. Having lived through the simulation together, they will now have the same assumptions about their competitors and battlefield dynamics. 

After the exercises, participants were brought back to the real world where they started. But there were several critical differences. All participants agreed that they had new respect for the importance of dealing with the potential for structural change in the battlespace and that they had a new appreciation for the role of strategic thinking in dealing with change. They also had a much better understanding of what drives change and how they and their competitors were likely to react to it and why. 

So Troops gained the ability to ask fundamental questions and had the beginnings of some answers for several situations they might actually run into in the real world. 

The application of simulation involves specific steps in order for the simulation study to be successful. Regardless of the type of problem and the objective of the study, the process by which the simulation is performed remains constant. The following briefly describes the basic steps in the simulation process:

1. Problem Definition

The initial step involves defining the goals of the study and determining what needs to be solved. The problem is further defined through objective observations of the process to be studied. Must determine if simulation is the appropriate tool for the problem under investigation.

2. Project Planning

The tasks for completing the project are broken down into work packages with a responsible party assigned to each package. Milestones are indicated for tracking progress. This schedule is necessary to determine if sufficient time and resources are available for completion.

3. System Definition

This step involves identifying the system components to be modeled and the performance measures to be analyzed. Often the system is very complex, thus defining the system requires an experienced simulator who can find the appropriate level of detail and flexibility.

4. Model Formulation

Understanding how the actual system behaves and determining the basic requirements of the model are necessary in developing the right model. Creating a flow chart of how the system operates facilitates the understanding of what variables are involved and how these variables interact.

5. Input Data Collection & Analysis

After formulating the model, the type of data to collect is determined. New data is collected and/or existing data is gathered. Data is fitted to distributions. For example, the arrival rate of a specific part to the manufacturing plant may follow a normal distribution curve.

6. Verification 

Verification is the process of ensuring that the model behaves as intended, usually by debugging or through animation. Verification is necessary but not sufficient for validation, that is a model may be verified but not valid
. 
7. Validation

Validation ensures that no significant difference exists between the model and the real system and that the model reflects reality. Validation can be achieved through statistical analysis. Additionally, face validity may be obtained by having the model reviewed and supported by an expert.

8. Experimentation & Analysis

Experimentation involves developing the alternative models, executing the simulation runs, and statistically comparing the alternatives system performance with that of the real system.

9. Documentation & Implementation

Documentation consists of the written report and/or presentation. The results and implications of the study are discussed. The best course of action is identified, recommended, and justified.

10. Decisions for Simulating
​
Completing the required steps of a simulation study establishes the likelihood of the study's success. Although knowing the basic steps in the simulation study is important, it is equally important to realize that not every problem should be solved using simulation. In the past, simulation required the specialized training of programmers and analysts dedicated to very large and complex projects. Now, due to the large number of tools available, simulation at times is used inappropriately by individuals lacking the sufficient training and experience. When simulation is applied inappropriately, the study will not produce meaningful results. The failure to achieve the desired goals of the simulation study may induce blaming the simulation approach itself when in fact the cause of the failure lies in the inappropriate application of simulation.

​Current military planning doctrine was built to transform “strategic defense objectives into activities by development of operational products that include planning for the mobilization, deployment, employment, sustainment, redeployment, and demobilization of joint forces.”

As a tool to achieve limited and clearly identifiable objectives, the process is exceptional. Also like a tool, the user risks injury when it is misapplied. Planning doctrine was built to achieve operational level objectives limited in flexibility, scope, and duration.
 
This doctrine is fundamentally constrained by a presumption that military operations can generate predictable, repeatable effects, and that contextual variables can be foreseen and controlled.

But in designing strategies for flexible, perpetual, real-time competition, the concept of achievable end-states is largely immeasurable and unattainable. There is no end state in perpetual competition, and therefore any attempt to reverse-engineer a path will prove futile. 

The defense planning enterprise must realize the inadequacies of current doctrine and adopt a different tool for strategy: strategic design.

Strategic design differs from planning not only in its strategic context, but also in purpose, methodology, and output. Unlike plans, which attempt to script out a sequence of actions, strategic design should aim to comprehensively and continuously understand the problem. 

Such a strategy must remain above the level of operational detail, and instead convey a grand, system-level, conceptual overview. It should provide an orientation to the commander’s understanding and intent, like a compass bearing that points toward desired or acceptable futures. From this understanding, subordinate operations can be devised and executed, via delegation and the principles of mission command.

Designers must remain constantly vigilant for emerging opportunities to experiment and capitalize upon promising leads. They must continuously challenge assumptions, remain vigilant to changes in the environment, and be empowered to adapt designs accordingly. Perhaps most importantly, a strategy for a complex problem must remain adaptable to the inevitable changes in the environmental context.

Adoption of strategic design will require several significant changes. Foremost,  you needs a means by which planners may conscientiously orient between the operational and strategic frames of reference. 

One framework model distinguishes between the complicated, operational and complex strategic problem contexts, and offers guidance on how to approach problems in each. Complicated environments require a sense-analyze-respond approach, like that prescribed in planning doctrine, which allows the planner to select the best course of action to reach a planned terminus based on a fixed set of measurable variables. 

Complex environments, as in the competitive strategic realm, require a completely different response. Because of the lack of an identifiable end-state, and because the system variables change with every interaction, these sorts of problems instead require application of a probe-sense-respond methodology that seeks to discover and capitalize upon emergent, novel solutions.

Once the correct environmental context is identified, planners may then use the corresponding approach to frame recommendations. However, when planners misidentify their environmental context, the framework predicts they will fall into a state of disorder.

Planners in this state tend to grasp for external excuses why the particular plan failed, yet make no attempt to change their approach. Unfortunately, the frustration caused by disorder is all too familiar amongst today’s planning staffs. Adding a preemptive step to planning doctrine that forces identification of one’s contextual environment could alleviate much of this frustration and wasted effort.

Strategic design teams must be constructed differently than operational planning teams. Unlike secluded military-centric operations planning, the nature of the complex realm necessitates inclusion of other  agencies/partners from the start. Interagency equities must be included from the start to provide a deeper and broader optic of the environment, allowing designers to better appreciate emergent aspects that otherwise would remain unexplored. 

This construct also enables design participants to build, test, and strengthen connections and concepts throughout the process. Furthermore, an inclusive design team enables participants to bring the capabilities of their respective organizations to bear.

Team composition is key to the strategic design process. The team should be formed around a core nucleus of dedicated individuals. This core must be empowered to build a network of expertise and interest from a wide range of sectors beyond the military community.. 

Because they must communicate continuously, the primary task of the core members would be to facilitate discussion and an open exchange of relevant information and ideas between the networks of other team members as they work to develop the strategy products described below. 

Once interesting and plausible operational ideas surface, the core team would then be responsible for coordinating with those assigned to resourcing, controlling, and executing the initiatives. Most importantly, the team must have a timely and appropriate feedback mechanism to judge the effects of the strategy so that they can look for subsequent investment opportunities.

Designers must adopt a new language that better conveys the characteristics of strategic design. Operational terms like end state, measures of performance, assessment, and lines of effort have no meaning in the complex realm. Just as hockey lexicon is poorly suited to call a baseball game, designers should adopt a different language to help planners shift to the complex realm. 

The language of investment banking makes for an excellent candidate for adoption. When discussing competition strategies, designers could employ terms such as diversification to convey a range of options intended to generate many incremental gains; return on investment to judge the effect a particular action; analysis to describe the effort to understand past system trends; prospectus as a means to convey a summary and prediction of those system trends; and divestiture to convey the need to abandon a particular effort. 

This investment-framed methodology also inspires innovation, and mitigates large-scale risk by accepting failure as not just possible but inevitable. It promotes the employment of control measures to minimize risk by allowing invalid approaches to fail in a safe and controlled manner, so they may then be abandoned at minimal cost. 

Adopting the language of investment also helps military planners better communicate with non-military stakeholders, and better conveys the perpetual, emergent nature of the complex competitive realm.

Finally, new  guidance is required to account for the different methods and desired outputs of strategic design. While operational design orients toward a single course of action, strategic design should aim to test a variety of simultaneous, controlled experiments to determine viability. 

Designers must be allowed to study, experiment, and iterate indefinitely, as the problem sets they face are likewise continuous and unending. Most importantly, initiatives must be allowed to fail, safely and early, as new innovative solutions will emerge only through experimentation. 

But timely determination of failure, however, requires a deep understanding of the underlying systems. Therefore, strategic designers must remain a step removed from operational planning, and instead focus their efforts on developing a comprehensive, team-based understanding of the systems of the strategic environment. 

This systemic understanding can then better guide the strategic design process, and subsequently identify operational opportunities to invest or divest resources through subordinate activities.

With this new guidance must come an understanding that the products of a complex-realm strategy design effort will look vastly different from those characteristic of operational planning. There will be no force deployment synchronization matrix, no quantifiable progress objectives, and no subordinate taskings. There will be no phasing discussion, lines of effort, or end states. 

Such a strategy should also be brief, with illustrations and diagrams as welcome inclusions, and could even be presented as a compelling narrative. The resulting strategy should explain the system of concern, the rules of that system, inherent relationships, an outline of the overall strategic approach, an exploration of potential futures, and identify indicators that would inform future vectoring decisions.

Another design model serves as a good starting point by which to craft a process to design complex strategy. Strategic designers must first develop a deep understanding of the problem and its systemic trends. 

Must convey the need to thoroughly understand the system and the motivations of those involved.

Unlike operational planning, identification runs continuously and simultaneously throughout the design process, as actions taken can change the surrounding context. Next, designers must seek to define the specific issue they intend to address, considering the variable and reactive nature of the complex environment. 

Designers must ideate repetitiously to develop multiple possible recommended actions before. Then, using controlled simulations such as war gaming or red teaming, designers can prototype, test, and adjust these concepts in controlled environments before prescribing real-world application.

Another model worth considering is the Orient-Observe-Decide-Act loop to explain how the key to victory in an aerial dogfight is to make decisions faster than one’s opponent. This model offers a partial point of discussion relevant to the strategy design process in that it must be flexible, agile, and responsive to the surrounding context but is limited in that they are intended for application towards a singular problem.

By combining elements of several concepts emerges a model that may be more adaptable to the continuous nature of strategic design. This resulting Design Model orients designers to revolve around a hub of continuous identification, allowing an unlimited number of design and experimentation processes to spin off. In this effort, designers must be cognizant of the inherent nature of the complex environment, in which any experiment may drive unpredictable system responses, in turn affecting the entire underlying system.

This model is but one suggestion for how to approach strategic design, intended only as a starting point for discussion. Design by nature is fluid, adaptable, and contextual, and any strategic design process should remain likewise. As strategic designers seek to better understand the environment, they may very well determine another model or process would better serve their particular approach.

Strategic design and the associated Design Model are neither static nor prescriptive, but rather a starting point for designers seeking to design complex non-linear strategies. As experiments change the system, they may also very well change the nature of the approach required to plan within the system. 

Therefore, strategic designers must be allowed not only the flexibility to design adaptable complex strategies, but also to simultaneously redesign the process by which the strategy itself is designed.

As the military wrestles with how to transform to meet the trans-regional and trans-domain challenges characteristic of the modern and future competition space, military planning doctrine offers an excellent starting point to begin this transformative effort. 

Simply admitting that existing operational planning methodology and doctrine are not applicable for complex strategic problem sets is a crucial first step. Once we break this paradigm, military strategists will be empowered to design new and better paradigms, yielding novel methods to more appropriately meet our nation’s strategic needs.

Innovative learning will require the Military Services to embrace new, fundamental principles.
1.Leverage data analytics in context of mutidomain operations

Since military leaders rely on pattern recognition in decision making, enhancing their situational awareness is an imperative. New tools can collect and quantify survey data to reveal trends and extract insights in real time at unprecedented levels of understanding and accelerating operational tempo. Especially given the expanding role of artificial intelligence, combat training centers and deployment archives offer vast data sources, the overwhelming majority exists unstructured data that cannot generate insights in its current form and is consequently underleveraged. 

2: Embrace crowdsourcing. 

Solution-generation tools combine the power of crowdsourcing with the warfighter,  problem owner leaders and experts with an accelerated timeline. The power of collective intelligence has been underleveraged by the Services. Strategies for the behavioral and structural changes needed to create a soldier-centric innovation sourcing funnel can be found in case studies like Turn the Ship Around from Submarine Program.

3. Foster subordinate ownership with control over organizational direction

Innovation teams can focus on key commander priorities and can become clusters of excellence by identifying existing and often underutilized experts within formations. This allows for highly capable subordinates to influence decisions and shape implementation—bringing the right people into the discussion and pacing organizational progress off the speed of its top talent, instead of bottlenecking with leadership experiences.

4. Create decentralized experimentation structure instead of compliance. 

While mission command  has been embraced in tactical operations, leaders often slow experiments by requiring approval for each phase of testing. A more powerful paradigm focuses on eliminating barriers for subordinates instead of adding layers of approval—accepting that risk is the cost of opportunity. Relinquishing control should not be done blindly. Leaders must learn to craft initial guidance clearly enough to empower decentralized experimentation, so commanders can focus on coordinating lines of efforts.

5.  Create a culture where failure does not trigger micromanagement. 

Teams must have the “belief that you won’t be punished when you make a mistake or for speaking your mind.”  Leaders can create these environments by integrating behavioral changes—for example, having leaders personally admit mistakes or consistently executing learning conversations that encourage subordinates to share their failures. A guiding principle in these command climates is not to mistake disagreement for disloyalty, since that triggers risk aversion and bureaucratic stagnation.

6.  Design sprints, and design blitzes. 

Bring diverse stakeholders and experts together to develop solutions in a compressed time period to solve challenges at the installation/unit level and develop leadership teams. Team-development tools  introduce controlled chaos to train collaboration, communication, and design-thinking skills while racing against deadlines and also amplify  outreach. Systematically understand problem, develop prototype test plan and validate user feedback to determine success. Create series of design drills sequenced around specific outcome goals and time periods to provide leaders with the structure required to use blitzes at scale.

7: Permeate innovative design systems to the tactical level

Import Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation Model to enhance outcome quality defined with key performance indicators by the commander at the onset of training using training resources/time, pivoting from executing training for the sake of checking blocks towards achieving clearly defined/evaluated outcomes. Solidify concepts via rapid testing cycles with mini-experiments proactively hunt for causes of failure by identifying what can go wrong in advance, and user feedback strategies

8: Make knowledge management strategies self-sustaining. 

Since knowledge is expensive to generate and wasted if it is not captured and employed, leaders must create systems whose simplicity incentivizes use by saving their battle drill teams time/experience to simplify future decisions and creating enormous competitive advantages with speed. Since standard operating procedures for most units are unclassified use tools approach to standard operating procedures and supporting rapid onboarding during leader transitions. 

9. Create time for aggressive and innovative tactical learning,
 
As military leaders engage with modernization challenges, we must design appropriate learning frameworks, both procedurally and culturally. While the procedural frameworks can be imported from innovative  industries, they must be complemented by military initiatives.

10. Take steps to close capability gaps 

Protect innovative capital and fostering transitional change as troops take solutions to future assignments. It would also provide the Services with trained disruptive innovators who embrace discovery learning and can diverge from the status quo. Most importantly, it will build the military as a force prepared for the challenges of tomorrow’s battlefield.

​Objective is to develop and test a semi-autonomous wide area threat detection capability for site security using networked low-power, multi-modal signal acquisition nodes combined with machine learning for event classification and determination of hostile intent. 

Our fixed sites face a wide area of security threats including traditional asymmetric weapons such as snipers, artillery, rockets & mortars, and more recently, the coordinated multi-agent “swarm” of low-cost drones. Other threats include physical incursion, vehicle-based improvised explosives, etc. Battlefield sensor technologies have been developed to provide threat reports to central command posts. 

Typically, these systems are used to indicate the threat point-of-origin, and corresponding track if available. For area-target weapons, such as mortars, rockets, and RPGs, the point-of-impact locations may also be resolved. In many cases, the weapon type may be determined, which is vital to deploy countermeasures effectively. 

Traditionally, sensor node locations are placed at fixed sites often constrained by availability of power and network communications. Once commissioned, surveillance systems are usually static, but the threat remains dynamic based on the conditions outside the fixed site and within the fixed site as critical assets are moved/relocated.

New directions for multiagent systems in wireless sensor networks are gaining increasing interest for military applications and potential frameworks have been proposed for dealing with the challenges of multiagent-based applications in the wireless sensor networks.

Efficiency of multiagent systems in wireless sensor networks prompts the use of  emerging mobile software packets in different simulated approaches or real-world applications. Heterogeneous and distributed wireless sensor networks could be integrated with the multiagent systems to map the real-world challenges into the artificial intelligence world. 

 Other factors affecting sensor performance are also variable such as weather. Perhaps most importantly the enemy is adept at learning where surveillance systems are located and understanding capabilities and limitations. As the enemy learns, they are able to postulate means of avoidance and/or defeat. 

Multiagent systems have been applied from simulated approaches like object detection/tracking, control/assistant, and security systems to real-world applications, including unmanned aerial vehicles. Furthermore, the integration of wireless sensor networks with multiagent systems have emerged novel applications like mobile robots. However, the extensive use of mobile agents in wireless sensor networks has posed different challenges for the military, including security, resource, and timing limitations. 

Using the capability of the multi-agent technology in networks could enhance most of the military applications like target tracking, urban control systems, firefighter assistant, data aggregation, detecting and monitoring the events, and intrusion detection. Mmulti agent systems have become an essential part of the real-world applications of networks like Swarm Sense robotics-based systems.

A common drone swarm system could consist of two drones unmanned aerial vehicle/over thousands of drones. The required autonomy increased to control such systems without any manual pilots, when the number of drones in a swarm system exceeded a predetermined threshold. Therefore, it is vital to create the autonomous drones which manage themselves automatically, effectively, and robustly in any anti-access, bandwidth-limited, and area-denied environments. 

Due to the interconnection of multi agent systems and wireless networks, group of drones can be enabled to cooperate and coordinate them to perform the missions automatically, which require a large-area coverage, immediate data processing, efficient deployment without exact pre-planning, and uninterrupted cooperation and coordination during the emergency operations. 

This project proposes technology for wide area surveillance in-and-around fixed sites providing mobile, semi-autonomous sensors which may be continually relocated/repositioned in lieu of changing threats or environmental factors. 

This topic envisions utilization of recent advances in cost-effective, semi-autonomous/robotic platforms and low-power multi-node communications technology. Drone-based technology could be leveraged for aerial surveillance and/or node relocation. It is recommended to seek utilization of existing mobile robotic platforms, keeping in mind cost per node, payload, mission run time, and other factors. 

A multi-modal approach is required and this could include some combination of visible and/or infrared electro-optical, radar, ultrasonic, acoustic, laser, etc. This topic should foster concepts leveraging advances in the field of deep learning. 

Event analysis in consideration of historical data can improve assessments of hostile intent. Especially when such events are detected by a number of sensors, across several disparate modalities. 

Over the past few years, commercial off-the shelf hardware allows for “big data” processing on conventional desktop computers and laptops. New types of processors are being developed optimized for such computations. This topic proposes a boundary condition limiting the utilization of hardware feasibly used in a tactical operations center or similar facility in a desktop or laptop computer platform. 

The objective of Phase I is to demonstrate feasibility of a semi-autonomous mobile multi-modal sensor network via study, simulation, and practical testing. The result should be a design which can be realized in Phase II providing detailed information on selected mobile platforms such as cost, power, payload, terrain capability, etc.
 
Based on the design established in Phase I, a system should be designed implementing a group of mobile, semi-autonomous agents accomplishing detection using a various sensor modalities. The system should be demonstrable in a relevant environment. A range of threats should be simulated demonstrating detection capability across several modes, allowing exploration of design tradeoffs discussed. Data exfiltration to other systems should be considered, to support activation of countermeasures. 

Based on results from Phase II, the system will be optimized for commercialization and transition to military platforms providing new and improved wide area security capabilities for DoD bases.

We present the following framework for the representational system of a distributed artificial intelligence task for solving constraint problems by individual agents. This framework serves as a guide for our product demonstration report.

Responsible Agents for Product-Process Integrated Design Project is developing agent-based tools using market place signals among members of a distributed design team to coordinate set-based design of discrete manufactured products.

Trade offs between industrial requirements and Multi-Agent System characterisation in design, implementation, and testing are described.

Programme will have one or two dozen component agents and on the order of a hundred characteristic agents. In the current implementation, agents are not created, destroyed, divided, or fused during operation, but as the system matures, designers will need a way to add both component and characteristics agents to the community as a design is refined.

Agents communicate digitally, and currently use point addressing. Messages do not persist outside of agents, and agents do not move over the network. Fixed market protocol is used but also provides for the design engineers behind component agents to communicate directly with one another using standard work orders.

The initial configuration of component agents and characteristic agents is defined when the system is initialised, but component agents can engage in markets for other characteristics as the system runs.

Like any industrial project, it begins with requirements of the problem domain, and draws selectively from results of investigations to meet those requirements.

The flow of information is not unidirectional. In the process of addressing its requirements, project developed some new concepts that hold promise for broader application to distributed constraint optimisation.

Agents sponsor product support activities case study to delineate any limitations, constraints or boundary conditions so obstacles to executing coordinated field-level operations are reflected.

Application problems in distributed artificial intelligence are concerned with finding a consistent combination of agent actions to be formalised as distributed constraint satisfaction problems involved in effort to find consistent assignment of values to variables distributed among multiple automated agents.

Distributed artificial intelligence is concerned with interaction, especially coordination between agents exhibiting auto behaviour. Since distributed network solution strategies are spreading very rapidly due to tech advances, commanders have pressing needs for distributed techniques in mission readiness determination.

Product Design is an issue of information processing when information characterises requirements for product to be converted into knowledge key to Prototype Trade-Offs about a product. One of the challenges designers deal with in product design is a lack of detailed information. At start of design process, less is known about the design problem at hand.

Agents buy and sell the various characteristics of a design. Each characteristic agent is a computerised agent that maintains a marketplace in that characteristic. In the current implementation, the agents representing components are interfaces for human designers, who bid in these markets to buy and sell units of the characteristics. 

A component that needs more latitude in a given characteristic like more weight can purchase increments of that characteristic from another component, but may need to sell another characteristic to raise resources for this purchase. In some cases, models of the dependencies between characteristics help designers estimate their relative costs, but even where such models are clumsy or nonexistent, prices set in the marketplace define the coupling among characteristics. 

Set-based reasoning is used to drive the design process towards convergence. Most design in industry today follows a point-based approach, in which the participating designers repeatedly propose specific solutions to their component or subsystem. The chief engineer is expected to envision the final product at the outset, specifying to the designers what volume in design space it should occupy and challenging them to fit something into that space. 

In set-based design, tasks of the chief engineer is not to guess the product location in design space, but to guide the design team in a process of progressively shrinking the design space until it collapses around the product. Each designer shrinks the space of options for one component in concert with the other members of the team, all the while communicating about their common dependencies. 

This approach directly reflects consistency rules for solving constraint problems. If the communications among team members are managed appropriately, the shrinking design space drives the team to convergence.

Agents represent entities in the shop. represent manufacturing resources such as machines. These domain-oriented agents are clustered into communities, and each community has several service agents: a bidding agent that handles all transactions among domain agents, a constraint propagation agent that propagates task dependencies and does some constraint satisfaction, and a meta agent that registers the skills of the domain agents in the community.

Many configuration systems do not allow manufacturers to collaborate on networks for offer-generation or sales-configuration activities. 

But the integration of configurable products into the supply chain of a business requires the cooperation of the various manufacturers’ configuration systems to jointly offer valuable solutions to customers like contract type sequencing for satisfaction of task allocation with leveled agent commitments.

In automated negotiation systems consisting of self-interested agents, contracts have traditionally been impossible to breach. Such contracts do not allow the agents to efficiently deal with future events. This deficiency can be tackled by using a leveled commitment contracting protocol which allows the agents to decommit from contracts.

Concerning solution quality, the leveled commitment protocols are significantly better than the full commitment protocols of the same type, but the differences between the different leveled commitment protocols are minor
 
1. How many possible task allocations are there? 

2. List each agent's numeric value preference for each of these. 

3. Which task allocation will be chosen? 

4. List the route of each agent and travel cost incurred?
 
5. How much of charge does each agent pay/receive? 

6. What is the budget balance/deficit? 

7. How can some agents beneficially collude by revealing untruthful preferences 

8. How can general equilibrium market economy satisfy gross substitutes property? 

9. . How much can one agent can gain by acting strategic/speculating instead of acting competitively as price taker? 

10. Where would contracts lead to a local optimum when agents use per contract individual rationality as their decision criterion?

​Advanced Battle Management System is a key technology the service is banking on to connect the information collected by various platforms into a complete picture of the battlespace to rapidly share data about a simulated attack.

That information, as well as other data from platforms participating in the exercise, was then pushed to a control command post where leaders could watch updates in real time.

The technology under development in the ABMS program will give platforms the ability to simultaneously receive, fuse and act upon a massive collection of data from all domains instantaneously.

ABMS will require software and algorithms so that artificial intelligence and machine learning can compute and connect vast amounts of data from sensors and other sources at a speed and accuracy far beyond what is currently attainable” as well as hardware updates that include “radios, antenna, and more robust networks.”

Battlegroup stock of radios and other tactical communications systems is slated for an upgrade. Through a series of experiments, soldier feedback is being used to determine what its future communications systems will look like on tomorrow’s battlefields. 

The teams are pursuing different types of servers down to the battalion level to increase the mobility of the unit. Typically, battalions need to rely on a brigade headquarters, but integrating new servers would eliminate that need.

“The brigade would have to be out in the field for all the battalions to be able to talk to each other. This breaks that paradigm by moving some of that compute capability down to the battalions … so they can operate independently.”

There are also additional ways to connect or extend system ranges. The Army has tethered drones that can elevate radios 200 or 300 feet in the air for better connectivity and data throughput. Army wants its tactical communications network to have modular systems so it can make quick upgrades.

“If we have modular systems,  not pulling out necessarily the whole system isn’t being pulled out — maybe a part of this system of systems — and that allows us creativity and allows us modernization. As the service moves ahead in its capability sets, it will need to build upon previously fielded equipment.

Successful application of agents tech focus on a particular capability e.g., communication, planning, learning and seeks practical problems to demonstrate the usefulness of this capability. The design engineer has a practical problem to solve, and cares much more about the speed and cost-effectiveness of the solution than about its elegance or sophistication.

To the engineer, it offers an overview of the kinds of design problems faced, and some examples of agent technologies that have made their way into practical application.

To the engineer it explains why agents are not just the latest technical hype, but a natural match to the characteristics of a broad class of real problems includes selected design development projects that are not yet industrial strength, but embody industrially important concepts or are being conducted in a way likely to lead to deployable technology.

Also emphasises agent applications in manufacturing and physical control over other fielded industrial applications such as information-gathering agents, network management, or business planning agents.

Like any other technology, agents are best used for problems whose characteristics require their particular capabilities. Agents are appropriate for applications that are modular, decentralised, changeable, poorly structured, and complex In some cases, a problem may naturally exhibit or lack these characteristics, but many industrial problems can be formulated in different ways.

In these cases, attention to these characteristics during problem formulation and analysis can yield a solution that is more robust and adaptable than one supported by other technologies. Agents are pro-active objects, and share the benefits of modularity enjoyed by object technology. They are best suited to applications that fall into natural modules.

An agent has its own set of state variables, distinct from those of the environment. Some subset of the agent's state variables is coupled to some subset of the environment's state variables to provide input and output. An industrial entity is a good candidate for agency if it has a well-defined set of state variables that are distinct from those of its environment, and if its interfaces with that environment can be clearly identified.

The state-based view of the distinction between an agent and its environment suggests that functional decompositions are less well suited to agent-based systems than are physical decompositions. Functional decompositions tend to share many state variables across different functions.

Separate agents must share many state variables, leading to problems of consistency and unintended interaction. A physical decomposition naturally defines distinct sets of state variables that can be managed efficiently by individual agents with limited interactions. The choice between functional and physical decomposition is often up to the system analyst.

Emphasising the physical dimension enables more modular applications Because the agent characterizes a physical entity, that entity can be redeployed with minimal changes to the agent's code. As a result, the cost of design reconfiguration drops dramatically, and reusability increases.

Decentralisation is important because an agent is more than an object; it is a pro-active object, a bounded process. It does not need to be invoked externally, but autonomously monitors its own environment and takes action as it deems appropriate. This characteristic of agents makes them particularly suited for applications that can be decomposed into stand-alone processes, each capable of doing useful things without continuous direction by some other process.

Many industrial processes can be organised in either a centralised or a decentralised fashion. Centralized organisations focus on a central authority and elaborate bureaucracy to manage the flow of control down and information back up.

There is an alternative approach. The power of decentralisation has been made clear for the contrast in performance. Modern industrial strategists seek to eliminate excessive layers of management and push decision-making down to the very lowest level, and are developing the vision of the "virtual enterprise," formed for a particular market opportunity from a collection of independent firms with well-defined core competencies.

Agents are well suited to modular problems because they are objects. They are well suited to decentralised problems because they are pro-active objects. These two characteristics combine to make them especially valuable when a problem is likely to change frequently.

Modularity permits the system to be modified one piece at a time. Decentralisation minimizes the impact that changing one module has on the behavior of other modules. Modularization alone is not sufficient to permit frequent changes. In a system with a single digital thread of control, changes to a single module can cause later modules, those it invokes, to malfunction.

Decentralisation decouples the individual modules from one another, so that errors in one module impact only those modules that interact with it, leaving the rest of the system unaffected. From an industrial perspective, the ability to change a system quickly, frequently, and without damaging side effects is increasingly important to competitiveness.

The fundamental challenge in applying agents to both planning and control is satisfying a global criterion on the basis of parallel local decisions. In spite of the benefit centralisation has in dealing with control criteria, case studies show that many users have found agents an even better approach.

Operational systems must be maintained, and it is much easier to maintain a set of well-bounded modules than to make changes to a large programme. The move toward supply chains means that the manufacturing system is geographically distributed, and agent decentralisation reduces communication bottlenecks and permits local parts of the enterprise to continue operation during temporary lapses in connectivity.

Competitiveness increasingly depends on adjusting system operation frequently to track customer requirements, benefiting from the ability of agent systems to undergo change. The ability of agents to deal with poorly structured systems is less important in the operation of an engineered system than in its design.

However, the ability of agents to deal with complex changing structures means that computers can now be applied to direct systems such as networks of trading partners that formerly required extensive manual attention. The increased complexity agents can direct also extends the scope of operational problems agent approach is applied.

Here we present simple classification of the elements of agent-based systems: agents and mobile mission space. Both agents and mission space can be either simulated or real-world entities. The distinction is important since an agent-based system can be purely a simulation, a collection of realistic agents living in the mission space, or a hybrid e.g., real-world agents living in simulated mission space.

We have suggested some fundamental requirements for modeling and simulation of agent-based system and provide categories based on support for 1) architectural integrity, 2) modeling agents and their mission space and 3) computational foundation. Several important issues that must be dealt with in order to build agents capable of footprint in their intended scenarios.

Of particular importance here are the following issues: accounting for agent and mission space complexities e.g., assumptions such as complete and error-free information about the mission space an agent's complete knowledge about its mission space, an agent's capability to fully achieve its goals, providing a well-defined model of time, supporting multiple agents, well-defined interfaces between the agents and mission space, and exogenous events.

We have included these issues within the set of requirements for architectural support of agent-based system development:

1. Architecture must be layered to support well-known traits such as extensibility, scalability, and portability. Other key benefits offered by a layered architecture are process/storage management, persistence, and fault tolerance.

2. Architecture should encourage reuse, allow a layer to be exchanged with another using well-defined interfaces, and if necessary only loosely implementation dependent, supporting procedural, and declarative knowledge representation. Support for reuse can range from component level to layers of the proposed architectures. At the component level, a sensor or its model may be made reusable. More challenging is the ability to reuse a layer or a combination of layers. To achieve reuse for layers, as it is required at the component level, well-defined interfaces are needed. Realisation of interfaces, however, is considerably more difficult.

3. Architecture should treat modeling and simulation/execution as distinct layers. The separation of modeling and simulation activities has big impact on reusability and portability in integrated concurrent engineering. Existing tools tend to support either depth in modeling of decision behaviors or depth in traditional simulation concerns such as production facilities, output assessments, etc. However, few tools attempt to support constructing models with decision agent behaviour that can be simulated in realistic mission space and with the full power of traditional simulation systems. Such tools tend to tightly bind their modeling and simulation facilities so that models developed can only be executed by the simulation engine provided by the tool. So despite being capable of modeling agent behaviours, the models so developed cannot be tested in realistic simulation mission space. The modeling and simulation subsets should be fully integrated, i.e., based on the same structural context for their modeling constructs. Separation of models from simulators also has an important secondary benefit. This is the possibility it opens up to replace the simulation engine with an execution mission space so models are executed in real-time as well as logical time. This would make it easier to migrate agent models from simulation to actual operation after fully testing their logistics capacity. Transition of models from the design phase to the implementation phase is a key feature of Simulation-based acquisition efforts.

4. Modular model structure supports development and testing of complex agent architectures. To avoid the pitfalls of huge models, it is necessary to adopt a modular model representation scheme. Modular construction enables verification and validation at every stage of a decomposition ordered by multiple levels.

5. Systematic model selection and composition based on generalisation and granularity Constraints ie, multi-resolution should be supported. Since model designers are generally faced with alternative choices -- specialisation and multiple-level decomposition for a given model, it is important to be able to represent a family of models in an exact structure. Such model representation schemes, allow model designers to compose many variations of models using a set of well-defined operations choosing one model variation vs. another, putting together a large model using alternative sets of model components.

6. It is key to specify early attempts at modeling constructs and model components. To support the flexibility demanded by any agent-architecture, its modeling environment should provide basic modeling constructs as well as modeling components. Generic modeling constructs are early types which can be employed to represent varying levels of model components. Such components can range from generic to highly domain specific. For example, lower-level model components might be different kinds of generic queues, and higher-level domain-specific model components might be processors servicing time-critical commands of a robot. The model components ie, agents are "canned" components with well-defined input/output interfaces and behaviour.

7. Must support realistic virtual environments in which agent behaviours can be tested. The architecture should support construction of very responsive physical and behavioural mission space and stand in for the challenging real world counterparts in which agents are designed to function. This is a particular strength of an architecture that incorporates state-of-the-art simulation capabilities.

8. Accounting for executing the modeled behavior of agents and mission space is dependent on the classification of the agent-based system and support for collaborative model development and model repositories. Collaborative modeling enables dispersed modelers to develop modular model levels both coupled and uncoupled. In such application based cooperative working scene, model repositories are essential to support efficient and systematic model reuse and integration. Repositories can be built from widely employed relational systems to be scaleable and provide standard queries for access to and from model content. But many challenges remain to support collaborative development of levels based modular models and components within distributed and networked mission space. For example, a lot of work is required to develop workable schemes to assign ownership rights of enterprises and within enterprises and functional teams. participating in a model development effort.

9. Real-time distributed and parallel execution should be supported to enable execution of simulated agents and deal with model complexity, effective use of distributed, distinct computing platforms, and to facilitate assessments of large systems. The simulation architecture should enable distribution of the model composed of several modules on nodes within network. Distribution should be automated and distribution policies could take into account load balancing requirements, mobility of agents, and other state-dependent factors. Moreover, the architecture should provide for both logical-time and real-time execution of models to accommodate the types of simulated and real agent-based systems and their interoperation.
​
10. Support for information distribution comprises the set of services that attempt to reduce the message interchange traffic without impacting the accuracy of the simulation. Service sets include message filtering and when subscribers declare their interest in receiving from a subset of status posters. To the extent information mitigates growth in capacity requirements for large numbers of entities, it is a critical factor in obtaining simulation results in reasonable time.

​Military will rely much more on distributed drone swarms and autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles. These may be called on to do actual fighting on the front lines. But as military leaders warn, their preference is to keep some deal of control in the loop, especially when it comes to weapons.
​
That means that tomorrow’s drone swarms and self-driving truck convoys will have to be able to communicate at high rates of speed and data with one another and potentially with operators afar; millimeter waves, hardened against adversaries, will be critical there as well. 

Military will need terminals that work with more than GPS, so plans are in the works to develop a prototype receiver that can use GPS and other GNSS signals, which could increase the resilience of the military’s position, navigation and timing equipment.

The primary source of the military’s PNT data is the Global Positioning satellite system. But with adversaries developing GPS jamming technology and anti-satellite weapons that could potentially knock out one or more of those satellites, leaders want a receiver capable of utilizing other global navigation satellite systems.

We need to develop a prototype receiver capable of utilizing multiple global navigation satellite systems in addition to GPS so if the GPS signal is degraded or denied, war fighters could switch to one of those other systems to get the PNT data they need

If commercial 5G millimeter-wave gear can be hardened against jamming, Army thinks it might gain a real battlefield edge.

You may not have heard of millimeter waves, but they will play a critical role in tomorrow’s super fast and capable 5G wireless internet environment. Because the 30-to-300-gigahertz band has only recently been harnessed for use by new antennae and other technology, bandwidth is plentiful. Because millimeter waves are inherently directional, they make signals hard to intercept. All this has drawn the attention of Army, which may put them to use for swarming drones, rapid maneuvering, and a battlefield network

That’s where the service’s mm-wave project comes in. 

Phase one will focus on defining the architecture for millimeter-wave networks that offer  multi-gigabit-per-second links across hundreds of meters, “the range of maybe a convoy of vehicles. 

Other applications might be data centers and peer-to-peer networks. 

“Could be maybe on-soldier; could be back on a base.”

But the stakes are a lot higher than a single soldier. In a fast-moving confrontation between great powers, millimeter waves might just help determine victory or defeat. Military planners expect that future warfare will be incredibly fast and deadly. Enemy forces will require a lot less time to target their adversaries’ critical elements. That means the ability to move quickly, and especially command and control nodes, will be essential.

A typical modern command post, even one set up relatively quickly, still requires connecting cables, erecting towers, installing servers, etc. Such posts take “a platoon of roughly 30 soldiers a day to install or dismantle. This is far too slow for the command post of the future that requires agile deployment and even continuously mobile operation.”

“A high capacity, high bandwidth, wireless [Local Area Network] will eliminate the cables and connections and would allow for quick installation/dismantling, and for headquarters elements to be dispersed, thus decreasing their visual footprint and vulnerability to attack. 

Cutting the time schedule necessary to stand up or dismantle command hubs will allow the military to make such nodes more mobile, allowing for faster-coordinated attacks and forcing the adversary to make faster, and presumably more predictable, decisions.

Multi agent systems approach is a branch in artificial intelligence providing a new way for solving distributed, dynamic problems. Agent technology has been widely accepted and developed in implementation of scheduling and distributed control system. Multi agent-based platforms are usually equipped with distributed intelligent functions, and are becoming a key technology in new manufacturing systems built in a distributed manner.

Agent-based systems have advantages of less sensitive to fluctuations in demand or available vehicles than more traditional transportation planning factors like local control and serial scheduling, providing a lot of flexibility by solving local problems . 

Manufacturing control systems using Distributed Artificial Intelligence techniques have so far not achieved practical implementation in real world factory cases due to lack of standards so there is a need for conducting more inquiry in this field.  Agent based systems have provided an excellent opportunity for modeling and solving dynamic scheduling problems. 

Here we present a multi agent based scheduling decision-making system for automated service process flexible command post assembly line considering customer demand. Dynamic behaviours in service company such as diversification of production and reconfiguration are taken into consideration. 

Best product for customers has a tremendous advantage. One of the most effective means to determine the features that customers like is to turn out as many different product variations as quickly as possible, sampling customer response and adjusting new offerings accordingly.

The multi agent scheduling system is developed based on general-purpose design agent systems not tied to any specific model of agency  in platform. The multi agent based scheduling system is completely designed mainly for the work cell with time-based constraints, although it is applicable of keeping the work cell free from time-based constraints.       

Rescheduling decision-making problem is an important issue in modern manufacturing system with the feature of combinational computation complexity. Must introduce a multi-agent based approach of detailed process. used for the design of a simultaneous rescheduling decision making for flexible flow line manufacturing system working under dynamic customer demand. 

An automated fabrication process is composed of several components with deferent shape and size requires many operations with entrant flow consists of some workstations and each contains one or even more machines. 

Flow line manufacturing system schedule scheduling problem with time based customer demand constraints limitations depends on both logical and time-based correctness. The logical correctness refers to the satisfactions of resource capacity constraints and precedence limitation of operations. The time-based correctness, namely timeliness, refers to the satisfactions of the time-based constraints such as interoperation time-based constraints and due dates. 

The scheduling techniques of real time systems are divided into static offline scheduling and dynamic scheduling. Static scheduling techniques are applicable to real time systems in which jobs are periodic. They perform offline feasibility or schedule ability assessments.

Dynamic scheduling techniques are advantageous in  systems with uncertainty such as taking into consideration periodic jobs and machine failures. Dynamic scheduling techniques are divided into planning-based and best effort approaches. In planning-based approaches, schedule ability is checked at run time when a job arrives, and the job is accepted only if timeliness is guaranteed.

On the other hand, best effort approaches do not check schedule ability at all. So planning-based approaches are adequate for the real-time systems with hard deadlines, whereas the  best effort approaches are adequate for those with soft deadlines. 

Proposed architecture is designed for handling machine breakdown and optimising machine utility  focused on reconfiguration of control system but scheduling and customer demand is not considered.

Agent-based models consist of rule-based agents with many interactions. The agents within the systems with interacts, can create real-world-like complexity. Based on that observation,  we provide context schedule the machine and material handling system by means of emphasising flexibility in a flow line manufacturing system through Multi-Agent System approach. 

Agent-based modeling and design differs from the conventional systems design. System is not tied to any specific model of agency platform defining a detailed process for specifying, designing, implementing and testing/debugging agent-oriented systems. In addition to detailed processes and many practical tips,  it defines a range of artifacts that are produced along the way. 

The system specification phase focuses on identifying the goals and basic functionalities of the system, along with input/output actions. The architectural design phase uses the outputs from the previous phase to determine agent types the system will contain and how they will interact. The detailed design phase looks at the internals of each agent and how it will accomplish its tasks within the overall system. 

Distributed problem solving artificial intelligence facilitate agent cooperation work where distribution of capability, information, and expertise make no single agent solution to tasks possible.

Many techniques of distributed problem solving have been used e.g., on distributed constraint satisfaction, multi-agent planning or agent-based simulation, but there are not many specifically aiming at developing formulas for solving distributed configuration problems.

Must create infrastructure to model and solve a variety of problems from the area of Multi-agent Systems and distributed Artificial Intelligence including distributed resource allocation, scheduling or verification maintenance. Modeling and solving distributed configuration problems, in which several agents jointly and in a loosely coupled, non-parallel manner cooperate in the problem solving process.

Distributed event simulation is particularly suitable for modeling systems with inherent uncoupled parallel characteristics, such as agent based systems. However the efficient simulation of multi-agent systems presents particular challenges which are not addressed by standard parallel discrete event simulation models and techniques.

Several motivations for application of distributed planning include using distributed resources concurrently to speed-up problem solving by agents thanks to determine what degree problem is characterised by parallel mechanisms. 

Problem is to find sequence of moves with capacity to achieve the goal state. Another motivation for distributed problem solving and planning requires distributed agent expertise or other problem-solving capabilities.

Site Visit Executive is able to maximise readiness and overcome equipment shortfalls by manipulating the timing and sequencing of tasks/subtasks involved in operational scenarios. Can involve reordering certain tasks over others or staggering tasks rather than attempting to execute them concurrently.

High-level programming techniques have been created for next generation sequence alignment tools for both productivity and well-defined performance. Sequences are lists of tasks that changes according to some pattern. Pattern-based programming framework provides agents with high-level parallel patterns. 

Must differentiate between sequence numbers and unique sortable identifiers by a specific criteria typically generation time. True sequence numbers imply knowledge of what all other agents have done, so a shared state is required. It is virtually impossible to do this in a distributed, high-scale manner.

There is the problem of parallel alignment so you must review how popular alignment tools function in single high-level parallel strategy. By using a high-level approach, you don't need to be concerned with complex aspects of parallel programming, such as linking task scheduling, so you can achieve seamless performance tuning.

Approach introduced into artificial intelligence typically considered distributed systems where each individual in such systems possesses potential for action based on events. By having separate modules for coordination and local scheduling, we can take advantage of advances in real-time scheduling to produce cooperative distributed problem solving systems responding to real-time deadlines. 

Critical decision point in simulation training action commits organisational resources to a specific product, sustainment profile, choice of supplier/design contract terms, schedule & sequence of events leading to mission field deployment in theatre.

1. Manufacturing system schedule is static scheduling

2. Machine stations have no autonomous scheduling unit for operations

3. System lacks real time scheduling

4. Customer demand is not flexible

5. Difficult to schedule in dynamic environment

6. Justification of Developing multi agent based dynamic decision system

7. Decision making system schedule when customer demand accrues

8. Development of multi agent decision system scheduling in machine fail disturbance.

9. System makes autonomous station level
​
10. Multi-agent structure creates real time communication in system

Navy faces significant challenges in maintaining its current fleet and realising full benefit of the ships it has in its inventory today due to persistent and substantial maintenance delays. The Navy has made progress identifying the causes of their maintenance challenges and has begun efforts to address them. However, delays continue to persist and these challenges will require years of continued executive attention and substantial investment to be resolved.

The FY20 Maintenance and Modernization Plan begins to capture the requirements necessary to maintain the Navy’s fleet mission-ready. This plan forms the basis for future industrial base capacity requirements with the following key themes:

Shows that maintaining and modernizing the fleet requires a sustained and sufficient investment, and a close partnership with the public and private ship repair industrial base.

Demonstrates that as the Navy grows to 355 battle force ships, the demand on the industrial base must change to effectively maintain and modernize a growing and changing fleet. This will require changes to industrial base infrastructure, workforce, and business processes to prepare for the future workload.

Reaffirms that maintenance and modernizations rely on a robust and highly efficient supply chain to deliver material to the fleet. As the fleet grows in size, complexity and age, the supply chain vendor base must deliver the material support necessary to achieve the required level of readiness.

Demonstrates that continued maintenance of ships in accordance with the applicable class maintenance plans is necessary to allow the Navy to achieve the maximum service life of ships and submarines as well as extend the service lives of select classes of ships to achieve a battle force of 355 ships.

This plan describes the Navy’s continued challenges with high-tempo operations that has resulted in a maintenance backlog and reduced readiness rates for Navy ships. It is baselined on the current 2019 inventory and PB-2020 data with updates from the FY 2020 Shipbuilding Plan, planned selected service life extensions and projected decommissionings during the next 30 years.

Navy status updates related to the delivery and subsequent post-delivery period for selected ship platforms have been assessed to determine to what extent Navy provides quality, complete ships to the fleet and sustains the fleet over the service life.

We assessed what work was incomplete or deficient when each case study ship was delivered to the Navy from the shipbuilder, providing updates about the availabilities, tests, and trials each ship completed during the post-delivery period; and the condition of each ship when it was provided to the fleet following the post-delivery period as well as current maintenance actions required for sustainment.

In particular, for the selected ships that have already completed the post-delivery period, we assessed the number and type of deficiencies at the time of ship delivery and tracked these through the post-delivery period into sustainment phase maintenance activities to determine whether they were passed to the fleet core requirements.

For each case study, we reviewed such status updates for delivery, readiness briefings for Board of Inspection/Survey trials, trial cards and reports, Material Inspection and Receiving Report for operational assessments and maintenance availability stats throughout each sustainment phase.

For example, flexible coupling on the starboard main propulsion diesel failed in transit resulting in loss of propulsion to one of the four engine shafts. Couplings were intended to last the life of the ship and no spare parts were available.

Maintenance optimisation models maximise balance between cost/benefit of maintenance. For given system with failure rate profiles of its components and the available maintenance resources, maintenance optimisation model provides the answer to questions like:

“What is the optimal number of maintenance tasks required on this piece of equipment for a given time horizon?”

“When is the appropriate time to execute maintenance action?”

In more complex cases, optimisation model also includes decisions about the spare parts policy for components & estimating number of maintenance crews required in given shift.

Capacity for applications described in this report currently consider only subset of missions and focuses on equipment-specific planning factors.

Future work will expand application to include other missions and will include additions or process advance of existing features—for example, the addition of a consistency test for relative task importance selection.

The first challenge is how to deal with common tasks when considering multiple missions. It may be the case that a single command centre is all that is required to accommodate multiple missions, but the equipment needed to support each mission may differ in some way. In other words, although the task is “common,” there may be unique, mission-specific requirements for accomplishing it.

Second challenge concerns sequencing tasks and assigning relative importance at the task level versus the mission level. A typical example might be transport of equipment to new staging area. If mission A is designated more important than mission B, does that mean that all tasks associated with mission A have absolute priority? If not, how do we provide the user with the ability to designate exceptions at the task level?

Congress provides guidance on accounting for depot maintenance by listing exceptions to the definition. The existing exclusions are confusing. For example, any modification designed to “improve performance” is not considered depot maintenance. The installation of parts for modifications is depot maintenance, but not the acquisition of those parts. 

Current acquisition guidance does not provide any emphasis/direction for core assessments. Acquisition policy addressing core maintenance capabilities is largely absent. 

Almost all of major programmes failed to identify core requirements within the required timeframe, and many didn’t identify core requirements until either the production/deployment phase or the sustainment phase of the acquisition process.

Delay results in core requirements not being identified early enough in the acquisition process to allow for the establishment of organic core capabilities mandated by DoD policy.

Depot Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process, addresses only tasked or fielded systems. It does not cover those systems still in the acquisition process. There also is little, if any, core workload focus on jointly developed systems, resulting in capabilities determinations not up to par.

The Navy reported workload shortfalls in aircraft component, aircraft engines, ships, and communications and electronics. The Navy cited confusion between systems commands and an inability to obtain funds to establish organic capability. 

The Navy responds to demands for forces by resourcing a strategy that balances current and long-term readiness requirements by considering: 1) cost to own—maintaining ships and aircraft to ensure expected service life is met; 2) cost to train—producing the proficiency to operate ships and aircraft; 3) cost to operate—based on a fleet response plan FRP that provides deployed and surge-ready units and battle groups to support combatant commander demands. 

Alignment of the readiness requirements strategy allows for the balancing of the costs to train and operate flying hour and ship operations accounts with the cost to own, i.e., aviation and ship depot accounts. This balance facilitates the optimisation of achieving the FRP operational availability schedule in framework phases: 1) maintenance; 2) basic; 3) integrated; 4) sustainment. 

The number of required serviceable ships and airframes is based on meeting the readiness entitlement during each FRP phase. Readiness models estimate the cost of each FRP phase using pricing factors that are specific to field and depot maintenance actions flying hours, ship operations, and ship and aviation depot repairs. 

Combining the readiness output provided by each phase of the FRP with the cost of that phase creates the link between desired readiness output and budget levels. For example, Navy ships and aircraft are capital-intensive forces that, when properly maintained, last for decades and meet their associated expected service life.

The Navy recognises that scheduled maintenance of these ships and aircraft and the associated training and certification of their crews between deployments are key elements of the costs to own and operate the fleet. Readiness models can accurately reflect the cost to own, train, and operate Navy forces and fleets and to reach expected service life of its ships and aircraft.

 1. Decreased crew levels. 

Navy’s effort to reduce crew sizes corresponded with increases in maintenance costs that outweighed the savings achieved through reduced personnel costs. Shifts in maintenance workload from the organizational- and intermediate levels to depot-level maintenance increased overall maintenance costs. This change occurred in part because reduced crew sizes resulted in minor maintenance being deferred, which developed into more costly issues that had to be addressed later at the depot level.
  
2. Extended deployments. 

Navy decisions to extend deployments can lead to maintenance challenges, since these decisions have resulted in declining ship conditions across the fleet, and have increased the amount of time that ships require to complete maintenance in the shipyards.

3. Deferred maintenance. 

Maintenance deferred while a ship is deployed can develop into more costly issues that must be addressed later, often during depot-level maintenance. Deferred maintenance can lead to new work at the shipyards, as the degraded ship conditions result in the need for additional maintenance. Systems with the potential to reduce ship service life can be subject to maintenance deferrals in order to allow the ship to sustain a high operational tempo. 

4.  Difficulties in adhering to the maintenance planning process. 

Navy must accurately define the work for each ship’s maintenance period. To do this, the Navy’s maintenance planning process specifies planning milestones intended to ascertain the ship’s condition, identify the work needed, and plan for its execution. Missing or meeting planning milestones late can contribute to maintenance delays. 

5. Late discovery of additional workload

Navy does not always adhere to its own maintenance planning process due to high operational tempo, scheduling difficulties, or personnel shortages, among other factors. As a result, shipyards discover the need for additional repairs after maintenance has begun and adding time to the schedule for planning, contracting, or waiting for parts.  

6. Navy shipyards have shortages of skilled personnel. 

The Navy has reported a variety of workforce challenges at such as hiring personnel in a timely manner and providing personnel with the training necessary to gain proficiency in critical skills. Some occupations require years of training before workers become proficient. But neither  depots, their higher-level service component commands, nor the services have conducted an assessment to determine the effectiveness of these actions.                                                                                                                        
7. Infrastructure condition affect timeliness 

Poor condition of facilities and equipment at the shipyards contributed to maintenance delays for aircraft carriers and submarines. Navy shipyards do not track when facility problems leads to maintenance delays. Age of equipment at the shipyards is beyond its average expected service life posing an increased risk for maintenance delays or higher maintenance costs, affecting the depots’ ability to conduct work. 

8. The Navy shipyards lack the capacity to conduct required maintenance in the future. 

Navy shipyards cannot support many of the maintenance periods that aircraft carriers and submarines will require through 2040, due to a lack of dry dock capacity. Shipyards could have some additional capacity to conduct maintenance, but are hesitant to invest in creating this capacity without more certainty from the Navy. Optimal placement of facilities and major equipment can increase its maintenance efficiency by reducing the distance that workers and material will have to travel around the shipyards during the maintenance period. 

9. Hiring additional workers at shipyards. 

Shipyards have increased hiring, but it takes several years for workers to reach full productivity. In the past, new hires would take about 5 years to become fully productive, although Navy plans to reduce that time through new training techniques.  

10. Performance to Plan. 
​
The Navy has begun an analytical effort to better understand maintenance challenges and its capacity needs for the future, called “Performance to Plan.” Project is intended to help the Navy improve full and timely completion of maintenance, including for aviation, surface ships, and submarines. The effort for surface ship maintenance currently involves a pilot program looking at how to better plan and execute maintenance periods including examining how to improve the accuracy of forecasted maintenance requirements/duration and better adhere to planning milestones, among other