Decision Infrastructure for Counterinsurgency Operational Planning (DICOP)

This paper describes a new Decision Infrastructure for Counterinsurgency Operational Planning (DICOP). DICOP facilitates the cognitive processes of the command team by providing a method for organizing relevant situational data, visualizing and modeling operational factors, assessing uncertainty and risk, and identifying and planning courses of action that are likely to provide the greatest utility. DICOP is organized around three main components: Mission Analysis; Mission Modeling; and Mission Planning. Mission Analysis provides a method for rapidly organizing and analyzing incoming intelligence and situational information. Mission Modeling provides a structure for constructing campaign models (lines of effort, objectives, and end states), using doctrinal templates, assessing the impact of situational factors, and associating intelligence information with the model. Mission Planning supports resource to task allocation, scheduling, and order generation. Initial positive evaluation by US Army command personnel has shown that DICOP is a powerful tool that fits the needs of the counterinsurgency planning team. Users highlighted three key cognitive features: (1) the ability to explicitly represent and manipulate operational factors in a modeling framework, (2) the ability to directly associate intelligence in support for or against those factors, and (3) numerical measures of utility and risk for different courses of action. The paper describes the DICOP cognitive rationale, its functional features, its initial evaluation, and the plans for further empirical evaluation in an operational environment.

[1]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[2]  G. Klein,et al.  Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods , 1993 .

[3]  Pat Langley,et al.  User modeling in adaptive interfaces , 1999 .

[4]  Raj M Ratwani,et al.  Thinking graphically: Connecting vision and cognition during graph comprehension. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[5]  J. Pearl Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference , 2000 .

[6]  Ronald A. Howard,et al.  Influence Diagrams , 2005, Decis. Anal..

[7]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  From Specific Information Extraction to Inferences: A Hierarchical Framework of Graph Comprehension , 2004 .

[8]  Marvin S. Cohen,et al.  Warrants for Prescription: Analytically and Empirically Based Approaches to Improving Decision Making , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[9]  Ronald A. Howard,et al.  Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis , 1989 .

[10]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[11]  Finn V. Jensen,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs , 2001, Statistics for Engineering and Information Science.

[12]  Kevin B. Bennett,et al.  Ecological Interface Design for Military Command and Control , 2008 .

[13]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Making Hard Decisions with DecisionTools , 2013 .

[14]  Paul K. Davis,et al.  Implications of Modern Decision Science for Military Decision-Support Systems , 2005 .

[15]  Marvin S. Cohen,et al.  A new Tactical Group Decision Analysis System (TGDAS) combining analytical and naturalistic decision modeling , 2007, 2007 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems.

[16]  G. Gigerenzer Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious , 2007 .

[17]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Book Reviews : Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improv ing Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998, 136 pages, $26.00 , 1998 .