Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachto
MilitaryUASAirspaceIntegration
LukeC.G.Cropsey,Major,USAF
PhoneNumber:49‐711‐680‐6498
Email:[email protected]
Introduction
Integrating unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into nonsegregated1 airspace is a topic of
muchdebateandsignificantenergy,particularlywithrespecttomilitaryoperations.This
paperappliesleading‐edgeresearchinenterprisearchitectingandvaluefocusedthinking
toexaminethedevelopmentofalternativeapproaches to theU.S.military’sUASairspace
integration challenge. The motivation for this research drew upon several years of
experiencetheauthorhadinattemptingtocoordinateandintegratemultipleU.S.military
and other government agencies in an effort to secure wider operational use of
nonsegregatedairspaceformilitaryUASoperations.
Figure1providesagraphicalperspectiveonwhatfullyintegratedmilitaryUASoperations
in nonsegregated airspace might look like. The author’s experience suggested the
challenges at hand were significantly broader than just the technological hurdles.
Capturingthecomplexitiesandmotivationsofeachofthekeyplayersprovedtobeakeyin
chartingacourseforward.Thispaperisabriefoverviewdescribingtheapproach,analysis
and recommendations for moving the integration of military UAS into nonsegregated
1 Nonsegregated airspace, as used in this article, refers to civil airspace that is open togeneralaviationuseandnotrestrictedtomilitaryonlyoperations.
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page2
airspaceforwardwithinthecontextofU.S.nationalairspacewiththehopethattheissues
and principles described in the approach may find some broader applicability in the
internationalenvironment.
Figure1.APerspectiveonIntegratedUASOperations.[1]
Approach
TheapproachtakeninthisresearchwastoidentifyaspecificsetofUASplatforms(inthis
case, high‐ and medium‐altitude U.S. Air Force UAS2) and the key organizational
stakeholdersinvolvedintheapprovalprocessesforthoseUAStooperateinnonsegregated
airspace. A value focused, enterprise framework provided the basis for key stakeholder
2U.S.AirForceUASwerechosenasarepresentativesetofplatformswithwhichtoconductthisstudy.ThechallengesandresultspresentedinthisresearcharenotuniquetotheU.S.AirForce.Theyprovideawell‐scopedcontextforarealworldforcestructurewhilebeingrepresentativeofchallengesfacedacrosstheunmannedaircraftcommunity.
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page3
interviews,dataanalysis,andsynthesisofalternativesolutions. Keeney[2]describesthe
valuefocusedapproachinthefollowingway:
"...value focused thinking suggests a different paradigm for addressing decisions
from the standard alternative‐focused thinking paradigm. It is different in three
importantways. First,significanteffortisallocatedtoarticulatingvalues. Second,
thisarticulationofvaluesindecisionsituationscomesbeforeotheractivities.Third,
the articulated values are explicitly used to identify decisionopportunities and to
createalternatives.”
Keeney is contrastingavalue focusedapproach to thatof analternative‐focusedmethod
wheredecisionsaremadepredominatelyonthevarioussolutionsthatcometomindwhen
apersonisthinkingaboutaproblemthatneedstobesolvedinsteadofdeterminingwhat
theunderlying value is that needs to bedelivered as a result of solving a problem. The
issuethatoftenariseswithanalternative‐focusedapproachisthattheunderlyingproblem
thatneedstobeaddressedisalltoofrequentlydismissedaspeopleandorganizationsjump
straightintodiscussionsofpotentialalternativesolutionswithnoclearpictureofwhatthe
problemordesiredend‐statereally looks like. Whentheunderlyingvaluesandproblem
statements are not clearly understood across an enterprise with complex stakeholder
issues,thisoftenleadstoalotofactivitybutlittlerealprogressbecausesolutionsarebeing
discussed to different problems, often unknowingly. Conflictwithin the enterprise is an
almost inevitableresultofthiskindofapproach,andthedataconsistentlybearsthisout.
Value focused thinkingstays in theproblemspaceuntil a clearpictureof theproblem is
articulated—thenthehuntforalternativesolutionsbegins.
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page4
ThemodelusedtoimplementthevaluefocusedapproachwasonedevelopedbyMurman
et al in Lean Enterprise Value [3] and depicted in Figure 2. At this level, themodel is
relativelystraightforward3.Theinitialfocuswasoncorrectlyidentifyingwhateachofthe
key stakeholders involved in the effort to integrate military UAS into nonsegregated
airspace valued from their unique perspectives (“value identification”). In otherwords,
whatwasthefundamentalproblemtheyneededtohavesolvedtodeclare“success”. The
next step required the development of alternative solutions that would simultaneously
provide each key stakeholder a significant level of value in exchange for the effort and
resourcescommittedtothepursuitofintegratingmilitaryUASintononsegregatedairspace
(“value proposition”). Viewed another way, this is an effort to seek out a solution to
simultaneouslysolveeachofthepreviousstep’sproblems.Thelaststepinvolvedcharting
a path from the current state of affairs to one in which the value proposition could be
constructedandthedesiredvaluedelivered(“valuedelivery”).Thisanswersthequestion
ofhowyougofromwhereyouaretowhereyouwanttobe.
3Giventhetimeandspaceconstraintsofthisarticle,thetreatmentofthemethodologyanddetailsconcerningthedatacollectionandanalysishavebeenleftoutofthediscussion.Forafulldevelopmentofwhatisrequiredtoimplementthevaluegenerationmodeldescribedin this paper, see “Integrating Military Unmanned Aircraft into the National AirspaceSystem: An Application of Value‐Focused Thinking and Enterprise Architecting” atreferencenumber[4]astheunderlyingbasisforthispaper.Thefullthesiscanbefoundatthefollowingwebsite:http://web.mit.edu/lcropsey/Public/Thesis/
Figure2.ValueGenerationFramework.
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page5
ValueIdentification
The above approach resulted in the identification of a number of key stakeholder
organizations thatare central tomovingAirForcemilitaryUASairspace integration into
nonsegregatedairspaceforward.Figure3detailsthesekeyorganizationsandindividuals
withwhominterviewswereconductedtoelicittheunderlyingvaluesofeachorganization.
Figure3.KeyStakeholderOrganizations.
ThedatafromtheinterviewswereinputintoanAccessdatabasesotheinformationcould
be resorted and filtered along organizational lines, professional backgrounds, expertise,
etc. The results of this analysis yielded a number of obvious observations, and several
others that were not so obvious. Two primary categories emerged in the data: those
findings that suggested a difference of opinion or perspective between the various
organizations (Figure 4) and those findings that suggested a consensus existed on a
particulartopicorissue(Figure5).
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page6
The differences in perspectives captured in Figure 4 were expected given the diverse
nature of the two primary organizations (the Department of Defense and the Federal
Aviation Administration). The difference that clearly dominates the others is that of
“Safety”.OnreasontheU.S.militarybuiltUASplatformswastoreducetheriskofloosinga
pilotduringoperations.Asaresult,thetypicalmilitaryperspectiveisthatlessinvestment
needs tobemade insystemreliabilityandredundancies,andmoreriskof failurecanbe
accepted in order to procure UAS at lower costs and for riskier missions. The Federal
AviationAdministration views the removal of thepilot from thephysical confines of the
flightdeckasareasontorequireadditionalsafeguardstoensuretheaircraftdoesnotpose
a danger to others flying in the same airspace. The same act (removing the physical
Figure4.DifferingPerspectivesofKeyStakeholders.
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page7
presenceofthepilotfromtheflightdeck)resultsinoppositeperspectivesabouttheneed
for UAS safety precautions. The same logic can be followed for the other two primary
differences inperspective, those involving the “Hurdles” thatmustbeovercome inorder
forprogresstobemade,andthe“Perceptions”eachofthetwoprimaryorganizationshave
ofeachotherandtheattitudewithwhicheachisapproachingthechallengeofUASairspace
integration.
AsFigure5illustrates,therewerethreemainpointsonwhichconsensuswasevidentinthe
data collected during the interviews: the need for “Advocacy” by senior leadership, the
general“Approach”thatshouldbetakentoformulatingasolution,andthedesiredoverall
“End‐State” for integrated UAS operations in nonsegregated airspace. The consensus
Figure5.PointsofConsensusofKeyStakeholders.
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page8
observed in the data on these points provides common ground for beginning to build a
basisforsuccessfulcooperationandastrategyformovingforward.
Figure6illustratestheresultsofthecompleteddataanalysisfortwokeystakeholders,the
UASmilitaryoperator(AirCombatCommand)andtheairspaceregulator(FederalAviation
Administration).Eachboxrepresentsaspecificitemofvaluetothatorganization,andthe
colorrepresentsthecurrentextenttowhichthatorganizationbelievesthevalue isbeing
delivered(blue=high,green=satisfactorily,yellow=marginally,red=marginally).Thisis
denoted by the vertical position on the graph. The value is also ranked by its relative
importancetothestakeholder,themostimportantvaluesoccurringfurthertotheright.
Figure6.CurrentValueDeliveryofTwoKeyStakeholders.
It is worth noting that these values and the extent of their delivery are taken from the
perspectiveoftheorganizationitself.Thisexercisewasrepeatedforeachkeystakeholder.
A successful effort occurs when all of the values articulated by each stakeholder are
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page9
deliveredatanacceptablelevelofvalue.Thegoalofthenextphaseoftheanalysis,“Value
Proposition”,istoarchitectaconceptwherebythisgoalcanbeattained.
ValueProposition
Thisphaseoftheeffortrequirestheabilitytoseethesituationfromtheperspectiveofeach
ofthekeystakeholders,toputyourselfintotheirframework,andthenfocuscreativityon
generating alternative solutions for delivering value to each of the stakeholders. The
theoretical development needed in system and enterprise architecting will not be
addressedinthispaper,butthereaderisreferredtoreference[4]foracompletetreatment
ofthemethodologyusedtodeveloptheresultspresentedinthefollowingsection.
Inthemostgeneralsense,thegoalofthisphaseintheanalysisistoachievealignmentin
the values of each stakeholder with respect to the objectives of the effort. Significant
discussion and analysis revealed that the currentdefinition and scopeof activities being
pursuedbythekeystakeholderswerenotsufficientlyalignedtoprovidethevaluedelivery
each sought in return for their efforts. Figure 7 illustrates this disconnect by
demonstratinghowagivenUASlevelofperformancetranslatesintotwodifferentlevelsof
operational flexibility inmilitary controlled airspace versus civil controlled airspace. In
militaryairspace,thedecisiononoperationalflexibilityrevolvesaroundthecapabilitythe
UASbringstobearonthemissionobjectiveswhileweighingtherisktothemilitaryservice
member engaged in themission versus the risk ofmission non‐accomplishment. In the
civil airspace, the emphasis is on preserving the safety of the airspace users and
populationsonthesurface‐‐whilemaintainingthecapacityof theairspacetosupport the
ever‐increasingdemandsofboththenumberofaircraftandrequestedroutes.
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page10
Figure7.Defining"OperationalFlexibility"fromDifferentPerspectives.
Theimmediateimpactofthesetwofundamentaldifferencesinthewaytheseorganizations
approachtheproblemisthelevelofoperationalflexibilityeachiswillingtoassigntoa
givenUASperformancelevel.Ingeneral,themilitaryiswillingtodrawsignificantlyhigher
levelsofoperationalflexibilityfromaUASthanthecivilregulatorduetothesedifferences
inunderlyingvaluesandobjectives.Thechallengeistoarriveatanobjectivethatboththe
militaryandtheFAAwillseeasdirectlycontributingtotheirprimaryvalueneeds.In
Figure7,the“Capability”axiswasusedasaproxyforthevaluesof“Training”and
“Operations”detailedinFigure6.Pastandcurrenteffortswerescopedtoenablethesetwo
militaryvalues.Unfortunately,thesetwomilitaryvaluesdonotinherentlycorrespondto
primaryFAAvalues.
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page11
Figure8illustratesthelogicusedtore‐scopetheUASairspaceintegrationeffort,changing
theprimaryfocusfromthatof“Training”and“Operating”(Denotedinthefirstpartofthe
figureasthe“OriginGoal”oftheactivity)to“RestorethePrincipleofManeuver”inthe
secondpartofthefigure.Thisrepresentsafundamentalshiftinperceptionandexecution
ofasolution.Onthemilitaryside,“training”and“operating”arenotinandofthemselves
thepurposeforfieldingaUAS(theyaremeanstoanend).Ratheritistoachievesome
battlespaceeffectwhileconformingtoagivensetofconstraints(denotedinthesetof
boxesatthetopofeachoftheschematicsinFigure8).Themorefundamentalrequirement
forachievingthisbattlespaceeffectistheneedtorevitalizethe“PrincipleofManeuver”4on
theUAStoenabletheabilityofthemilitarytoFind,Fix,Track,Target,EngageandAssess
(F2T2EA)anenemyasset.
4The“principleofmaneuver”isahigher‐levelobjectiveofthemilitary–oneofnine“principlesofwar,”outlinedinU.S.militarydoctrine.Theprincipleofmaneuvercallsforplacingtheenemyinapositionofdisadvantagethroughtheflexibleapplicationofcombatpower.AsitrelatestotheUASissue,itcanbemorespecificallytiedtothosecharacteristicstraditionallyembodiedinairpower,requiringfreedomofnavigation,globalaccess,flexibilityandresponsiveness.Allofthesecharacteristicsdependontheprincipleofmaneuvertoenablethem,andallofthemaresignificantlylimitedincurrentlyfieldedUAS.
Figure8.AligningPurposetoValues.
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page12
FromtheFAAperspective,trainingandoperatingwithUASdidnotaddresstheneedto
preservethesafetyorthecapacityoftheairspaceinanyintrinsicway(illustratedinthe
firstschematicinFigure8astheredboxtotheleft).Infact,onthefaceofit,allowing
militaryUASintononsegregatedairspaceactuallycausesadecreaseinthesafety,reducing
thecapacityoftheairspacetoaccommodateessentialmarginsinspaceandtime.The
extenttowhichtheFAAiswillingtoprovideadditionaloperationalflexibilitytoUAS
operationsisdirectlytiedtotheirperceptionofhowwelltheUAScandiscernlocalair
trafficandmaneuvertoavoidpotentialmid‐aircollisionsandrespondtoairtraffic
controllersre‐routingtheUAStoaccommodatethechangingairspacepicture.Thecurrent
FAAperceptionisthatthereisverylittleabilityonthepartoftheUAStomaneuverina
responsivewaytoavoidpotentialmidaircollisionthreatsortorespondtoFAAdirection
(botharelegalrequirementsforflightinnonsegregatedairspace).Bychangingthescope
oftheactivityto“RestoreManeuver”,boththemilitaryandtheFAAfindapurposethat
deliversthedesiredvaluefortheiractiveengagementontheissue.Inthisway,asingle
problemdefinition(“RestoreManeuver”)nowaddressesthefundamentalvalueorproblem
statementfromeachkeystakeholder.
ValueDelivery
Thefinalstepintheanalysiswastotaketheinsightsfromtheabovevalueidentification
andvaluepropositionsteps,considerthecurrentcontext,andthenarchitectapath
forwardthatwillprovidefortheconditionsneededforsuccessfulvaluedeliverytoeach
keystakeholderparticipatingintheeffort.Severalalternativearchitectureswere
consideredforthis,butonlythefinalarchitecturewillbediscussed.Onceagain,thereader
isreferredtoreference[4]foracompletedevelopmentoftheresultsofthisanalysis.
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page13
TheoverallapproachformovingforwardisdepictedinFigure9.Thebackdroptothis
architectureisathreefoldpolicyputforwardbytheU.S.DepartmentofDefenseto1)Do
noharmintheairspace,2)Conformtotheexistingairspacestructureratherthan
attemptingtocreatenewtypesofairspace,and3)Settheprecedentforhowfuture
activitiesofasimilarnatureshouldbepursuedandtoprovideanexampleofasuccessful
endeavorforothercountriestouseasatemplate.
Figure9.ArchitectureforAchievingUASIntegrationintoNonsegregatedAirspace.
Constrainingthewayforwardistheneedtodeveloptheappropriatestandardsfor
consistentachievementofobjectivesandperformancemeasuresthattranslatedirectlyto
keystakeholdervaluedefinitions.Atthecenteroftheentirearchitectureisacollaborative
processinwhichallofthekeystakeholdersareequalpartnersinchartingacourse
forward.Thiscollaborativeprocessisbuiltonthethreepillarsofeffectiveorganization,
knowledge,andinformationtechnology.Theoverarchingstrategyisoneinwhichasetof
simplerulesareusedtoguidethedirectionandintentoftheeffort,andasetofcritical
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page14
processesareputinplacebywhichtomakedecisionsortoestablishcriteriabywhich
decisionswillbemadeatsomefuturepoint.Alloftheseactionswillbetakenona
platform‐by‐platformproductdevelopmentbasisratherthantryingtocollectivelysolve
theentireproblemforalltypesofUASplatforms.
Thisprovidesaconvenient,top‐levelapproachforattackingthechallengespreviously
noted;however,itbecomesmuchmorecomplexasthedetailsforhowtoimplementthis
architectureareconsideredinlightofthemanyconstraintswithinwhichasolutionmust
bepursued(thesecontextspecificdetailsarenotconsideredhereforthesakeofspace).
Ratherthanprovidingthespecificsofacontextuallydependentsetofactions,anoverview
oftheenterprisetransformationprocessdevelopedbyNightingaleandSrinivasan[5]is
depictedinFigure10toprovidethereaderwiththescopeofactivitiesandtypesofissues
Figure10.EnterpriseTransformationProcess.
FindingCommonGround:AValueFocusedApproachtoMilitaryUASIntegration
Page15
thatmustbeaddressedinordertomoveaneffortfromitscurrentstatetooneenvisioned
bythevalueproposition.Withoutthisdetailedlevelofplanning,actuallyrealizingthelevel
ofdesiredvaluedeliverywillbearemotepossibility.
Conclusion
Insummary,thevalue‐focusedapproachimplementedinthisresearchprovedtobehighly
effectiveatidentifyingtheunderlyingvaluedefinitionswhileclearlydemonstratingthe
limitationsofthecurrentalternative‐focusedapproaches.Itnotonlyprovidedinsightinto
whytheexistingeffortstointegratemilitaryUASintononsegregatedairspacehavemet
withlessthanresoundingsuccess,butitalsoprovidedthebasisonwhichtogleanthe
insightsnecessarytorestructuretheeffortintoonethatshouldyieldmoresubstantive
resultsinthefuture.Thelynchpintofuturesuccesswillbetheextenttowhichtheeffort
canberecastaroundtheconceptof“maneuver”,andthedegreetowhichthekey
stakeholdersseethevalueinpursuingit.
References
1. RequirementsAnalysisActivityCenterUASAICONOPsBriefinginJIPTWorkingMeeting.DepartmentofDefense:Washington,DC.5June2007
2. Keeney, R.L.,Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking.1996,Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press.416.
3. Murman, E.,etal.,Lean Enterprise Value: Insights from MIT's Lean Aerospace Initiative.2002,New York, N.Y.:St. Martin's Press LLC Scholarly and Reference Division and Palgrave Publishers Ltd.343.
4. Cropsey, L.C.G.,Integrating Military Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace System: An Application of Value-Focused Thinking and Enterprise Architecting,inEngineering Systems Division.2008,Massachusetts Institute of Technology:Cambridge, MA.p.422.http://web.mit.edu/lcropsey/Public/Thesis/
5. Nightingale, D.andJ. Srinivasan,Enterprise Transformation Roadmap.Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge, MA.2008