Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis for Defense Transformation National Academy of Sciences Building Washington, D.C. April 14-15, 2005 REVISED AGENDA Thursday, April 14 Closed Session 8:00 Breakfast in meeting room 8:30 Welcome; update on progress since last meeting and goals of this meeting 9:00 Discussion of proposed study goals from Steve Robinson Open Session 10:15 Break 10:30 Meet with COL Glasow and others from DMSO 11:30 Discussion of M&S adequacy for test and evaluation Phil Coyle, former head of DoD Operational Test and Evaluation 12:15 Lunch in meeting room 1:00 Discussion of M&S adequacy for strategic planning and analysis Jim Johnson, DoD Plans, Budgets, and Analysis (may have to cancel; if that happens, we might move the 4:45 talk to this slot) 1:30 Discussion of M&S adequacy for personnel planning and analysis David Chu, DoD Personnel and Readiness 2:30 General discussion with guests 3:00 Break Closed session 3:15 Develop preliminary list of committee findings, conclusions, and recommendations. For each, agree on definitions, identify missing inputs and viewpoints, and identify what can be drafted now and who should do it. 4:45 Discussion of simulations of dirty bomb attack on Long Beach Harbor: An example of today’s capabilities and limitations (Detlof von Winterfeldt) 5:30 Reception 6:30 Working Dinner Friday, April 15, 2005 Open Session 8:00 Breakfast in meeting room 8:30 Overview of J-9’s M&S challenges for Joint Experimentation, how they solve what they can, and their development directions “Bud” Hay, J-9 (supported by Tony Cerri) 9:15 Overview of J-7’s use of MS&A in Joint Training (successes, plans, challenges, etc.) Steve Moore, J-7 10:00 M&S goals for DARPA’s Integrated Battle Command program John Allen, DARPA 10:45 General discussion with guests Closed Session 11:00 What have we learned from our invited speakers at the October, January, and April meetings? What can we say about the fit between M&S capabilities and the needs of strategic decision-makers? Can we say anything about the way the overall defense M&S enterprise is organized? Identify emerging findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Identify remaining information needs and how to fill them. 12:00 Lunch 12:45 Continue to develop preliminary list of committee findings, conclusions, and recommendations. For each, agree on definitions, identify missing inputs and viewpoints, and identify what can be drafted now and who should do it. 1:45 Develop report outline 2:15 Summarize assignments and required data gathering. 2:30 Set dates, locations, and topics for next two meetings Agree on schedule for the remainder of the study. 3:00 Adjourn Information Provided by Committee Members Since the January Meeting Following are some of the items submitted by committee members since the meeting in January: § Draft outline for a DoD M&S “body of knowledge, prepared by M. Petty and B. Loftin § Excerpt from a RAND monograph on model validation by James Bigelow and Paul Davis § M&S-related excerpts from a 2002 review of urban conflict conducted by Bill Hurley and others at IDA Summary of our Information-Gathering to Date This Tab is meant as a refresher of the committee’s information-gathering to date. The committee has been briefed by the following leaders of the defense MS&A community (through April 15): •Donald R. Bates, Director, JWARS Office, OSD (PA&E) •Gregory Melcher, Acting Director, Assessment Division, Chief of Naval Operations Staff •Michael Bailey, Technical Director, Training & Education Command (TECOM), U.S. Marine Corps •David Weddel, Director SPAWAR Washington Operations and Deputy N61, US Navy •ADM Arthur K. Cebrowski, Commander, Office of Force Transformation •Fred Hartman, OSD (P&R) •Jacqueline Henningsen, Director, Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency •W. Forrest Crain, Director, Capabilities Integration, Prioritization, and Analysis, Headquarters, Department of the Army G37 •Matt Carlyle, Naval Postgraduate School •Randy Michelsen, Los Alamos National Laboratory •Al Sciarretta, CNS Technologies, Inc. •John "Buck" Surdu, TRAC •Randy Hill, Institute for Creative Technologies, Univ. of Southern California •COL Jerry Glasow and others from DMSO •Phil Coyle, former head of DoD Operational Test and Evaluation •Jim Johnson, DoD Plans, Budgets, and Analysis (tentative) •David Chu, DoD Personnel and Readiness •Steve Moore, J-7 • “Bud” Hay, J-9 •Tony Cerri, J-9 •John Allen, DARPA The slides that follow give some basic information about the defense M&S enterprise (excerpted from DMSO presentations). At the end of this Tab are some budget figures for Air Force, Navy, and DMSO M&S expenditures. Because of the distributed nature of the M&S enterprise, these budget lines do not cover all the M&S work of the AF and Navy, and we have not gathered similar information for the Army, Marine Corps, OSD, or JFCOM. What, if anything, needs to be done to complete our picture of the defense M&S enterprise? Possible Report Structures In addition to the report structure implied by Steve Robinson’s note in Tab B, others can readily be envisioned: § The committee could create a report structured around the major classes of strategic decision-making, as shown on the attached chart developed at the last committee meeting. § The committee could create a report structured around the four quadrants, as shown in the report outline (drafted by Weidman) that follows. Other Information This Tab contains additional information of possible use to the committee: § Briefing titled “CSA Update—Unit Manning Initiative”. This briefing was supplied by Mike McGinnis following our January meeting as an example of how information is conveyed to strategic decision-makers. Mike said that this briefing led to decisions by the Chief of Staff of the Army that determined the way combat brigades are built and rotated today in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  § Report titled “Communicating Risk to Senior EPA Policy Makers: A Focus Group Study.” This report presents some insights about how senior decision-makers interpret information and what formats they prefer. § Information about Rep. Randy Forbes’s interest in M&S. The committee should stay aware of any initiatives that emerge from the Congressional M&S Training Caucus.