Measuring Dimensions of Command and Control Using Social Network Analysis. Extending the NATO SAS-050 model

This paper takes the NATO SAS-050 Approach Space, a widely publicized model of command and control, and gives each of its primary axes a quantitative measure using social network analysis. Deriving such measures means that the actual point in the Approach Space adopted by real-life command and control organizations can be plotted, along with the way in which that point varies over time and function. Part 1 of the paper presents the rationale behind this innovation and how it was subject to verification using theoretical data. Part 2 shows how the enhanced Approach Space was put to use in the context of a large scale military command post exercise. Issues regarding emergent properties and interface bottlenecks were revealed by the analysis, which was further extended to offer quantitative insights into agility and tempo. Above all, the findings show that it was the humans in this particular live NCW situation that granted the levels of agility and tempo that were observed.

[1]  David S Alberts.  Agility, Focus, and Convergence: The Future of Command and Control , 2007 .

[2]  Y. Bar-Yam.  Making Things Work: Solving Complex Problems in a Complex World , 2004 .

[3]  John D. Lee,et al.  Emerging challenges in cognitive ergonomics: Managing swarms of self-organizing agent-based automation , 2001 .

[4]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Analyzing Communication Sequences for Team Training Needs Assessment , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Ken-ichi Matsumoto,et al.  Social Network Analysis on Communications for Knowledge Collaboration in OSS Communities , 2006 .

[6]  Alex Bavelas.  A Mathematical Model for Group Structures , 1948 .

[7]  William N. Dember,et al.  VIGILANCE AND WORKLOAD IN AUTOMATED SYSTEMS. , 1996 .

[8]  C W Clegg,et al.  Sociotechnical principles for system design. , 2000, Applied ergonomics.

[9]  C. J. Harris,et al.  Advances in Command, Control and Communication Systems , 1987 .

[10]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Facilitating distributed team collaboration , 2006 .

[11]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[12]  Frank Harary,et al.  Graph Theory , 2016 .

[13]  W. Ashby,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957 .

[14]  E. Trist,et al.  The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments , 1965 .

[15]  James Gleick.  Chaos: Making a New Science , 1987 .

[16]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  WESTT (workload, error, situational awareness, time and teamwork): an analytical prototyping system for command and control , 2008, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[17]  John Scott.  What is social network analysis , 2010 .

[18]  Richard E. Hayes,et al.  Understanding Command and Control , 2011 .

[19]  H. Leavitt.  Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. , 1951, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[20]  Anthony H. Dekker.  A Category-Theoretic Approach to Social Network Analysis , 2002, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[21]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT) , 1988, Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference.

[22]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Command and control in emergency services operations: a social network analysis , 2006, Ergonomics.

[23]  M. Mitchell Waldrop,et al.  Complexity : the emerging science and the edge of order and chaos , 1992 .