The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Network Enabled Capability (NNEC) addresses technical and cognitive abilities of NATO requiring technical and operational interoperability standards and targets for adaptation. Net-enabled Modeling and Simulation (M&S) can support in all life cycle phases. The paper evaluates the contribution of four example technical activities of NATO conducted by different bodies of the Research and Technology Organization: net-enabled M&S by the Modeling and Simulation Group, semantic interoperability by the Information Systems Technology panel, new command and control concepts by the System Analysis & Studies panel, and human factors for NNEC by the Human Factors & Medicine panel. The results request a framework that included technical and operational aspects as well. The technical challenges can be supported by the Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model, which is extended to an Interoperability Maturity Model. The operational challenges can be supported by the NNEC Command and Control Maturity Model. Both models are aligned to provide the necessary support to address NATO’s technical and cognitive abilities by M&S services.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MCM-0032-2006. NATO Network Enabled Capability (NNEC) vision and concept. 19April2006.
2.
TolkADialloSYTurnitsaCDWintersLS. Composable M&S web services for net-centric applications. J Defense Model Simulat2006; 3: 27-44.
3.
KanisGJvan EttingerMR. Operational assessment of a NATO response force. In: Proceedings of Human Factors and Medicine Panel Symposium in Adaptability in Coalition Teamwork, RTO-MP-HFM-142, Paper 21, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2008.
4.
NATO code of best practice for C2 assessment. Revised ed.Washington, DC: Command and Control Research Program (CCRP) Press, 2002,
5.
PawlowskiTJ (ed.). Command, control, communications, intelligence, electronic warfare measures of effectiveness. Military Operations Research Society Workshop Final Report, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 1992.
6.
TolkADialloSYTurnitsaCD. Applying the levels of conceptual interoperability model in support of integratability, interoperability, and composability for system-of-systems engineering. J Syst Cybern Inf2007; 5: 65-74.
7.
AmbrosioRWidergrenSE. A framework for addressing interoperability issues. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Power and Energy Society (PES) General Meeting, Tampa, FL, 2007.
8.
AlbertsDSHuberRKMoffatJ. NATO NEC C2 maturity model. Washington, DC: Command and Control Research Program (CCRP) Press, 2010.
9.
Guide to modelling & simulation (M&S) for NATO network-enabled capability (“M&S for NNEC”). RTO Technical Report, TR-MSG-062 Final Report Brussels, Belgium, February2010.
Exploring new command and control concepts and capabilities. RTO Technical Report, TR-SAS-050 Final Report, Brussels, Belgium, April2007.
12.
Human systems integration for network centric warfare. RTO Technical Report, TR-HFM-155 Final Report, Brussels, Belgium, February2010.
13.
KingRD. On the role of assertions for conceptual modeling as enablers of composable simulation solutions. PhD dissertation, Batten College of Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 2009.
14.
DialloSY. Towards a formal theory of interoperability. PhD dissertation, Batten College of Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 2010.
15.
PageEHOpperJM. Observations on the complexity of composable simulation. In: FarringtonPANembhardHBSturrockDTEvansGW (eds) Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference, ACM Press, New York, 1999, pp.553-560.
16.
YilmazLOrenT. Exploring agent-supported simulation brokering on the semantic web: foundations for a dynamic composability approach. In: IngallsRGRosettiMDSmithJSPetersBA (eds) Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, ACM Press, New York, 2004, pp.766-773.
17.
DavisPKAndersonRA. Improving the composability of DoD models and simulations. J Defense Model Simulat2004; 1: 5-17.
18.
SpiegelMReynoldsPFBroganDC. A case study of model context for simulation composability and reusability. In: Proceedings of the2005 Winter Simulation Conference, ACM Press, New York, 2005, pp.437-444.
19.
TolkADialloSYKingRDTurnitsaCDPadillaJJ. Conceptual modeling for composition of model-based complex systems. In: RobinsonSBrooksRKotiadisKvan der ZeeD-J (eds) Conceptual modeling for discrete-event simulation. CRC Press, 2010, pp.355-381. Boca Raton, FL, USA
20.
DialloSYPadillaJJTolkA. Why is interoperability bad: towards a paradigm shift in simulation composition. In: Proceedings of the Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, 20–24 September2010.
21.
TolkADialloSY. Model-Based Data Engineering for Web Services. IEEE Internet Comput2005; 9: 65-70.
22.
TolkADialloSY. Using a formal approach to simulation interoperability to specify languages for ambassador agents. In: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, Baltimore, MD, December2010, pp.359-370.
23.
DialloSYTolkAGraffJBarracoA. (2011). Using the levels of conceptual interoperability model and model-based data engineering to develop a modular interoperability framework. In: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, Phoenix, AZ, December2011 [in press].
24.
Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO). Coalition Battle Management Language (Trial Use Version), 26January2011.
25.
Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO). Military Scenario Definition Language, Released Standard SISO-STD-007-2008, 14October2008.
26.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 10731:1994. Information technology – open systems interconnection – basic reference model – conventions for the definition of OSI services. ISO Press, 1994, Geneva, Switzerland.
27.
DobrevPKalaydjievOAngelovaG. From conceptual structures to semantic interoperability of content. In: Conceptual structures: knowledge architectures for smart applications. Berlin: Springer, 2007, pp.192-205.
28.
PageEHBriggsRTufaroloJA. Toward a family of maturity models for the simulation interconnection problem. In: Proceedings of the Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, IEEE CS Press, 2004.
29.
PaulkMCWeberCVCurtisBChrissisMB. The capability maturity model: guidelines for improving the software process. Addison-Wesley Professional, 1994, Reading, MA, USA.
30.
WangWTolkAWangW. The levels of conceptual interoperability model: applying systems engineering principles to M&S. In: Proceedings of the Spring Simulation Multiconference, San Diego, CA, ACM Simulation Series41, 2009, pp.375-384.
31.
WintersLSGormanMGTolkA. Next generation data interoperability: it’s all about metadata. In: Proceedings of the Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Paper 06F-SIW-059, Orlando, FL, September2006.
32.
US DoD, OSD (C3I), CIO, Director for Architecture and Interoperability. Levels of information systems interoperability. C4ISR Architectures Working Group, 30March1998.
33.
ClarkTJonesR. Organisational interoperability maturity model for C2. In: Proceedings of the 4th Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, US Naval War College, Rhode Island, 1999.
