1. Ward Page CPOF Program Manager DARPA
Command Post of the Future Limited Objective Experiment - One (LOE-1) Some Results
William Wright
Principal Investigator
DARPA CPOF
Visual Insights Inc.
By Permission
Ward Page
CPOF Program Manager
DARPA
Richard Hayes
President
Evidence Based Research

2. Acknowledgement Most of the presentation materials here
were provided by Ward Page and Dick Hayes.

3. Overview Command Post of the Future Limited Objective Experiments
Scenario Space
Data Collection
Significant Findings
Summary

4. Command Post of Today (What the services are developing)
Forward TAC
Division Advanced Warfighting
Experiment
4th Infantry Division
Ft. Hood, TX
Main TOC
Planning Cell

5. Command Post of Today Current Limitations
Characteristics
60+ Workstations, 100+ people
People are flooded by individual data streams
Disjointed data systems; fragmented pictures of the battlefield
No portrayal of uncertainties, inconsistencies or unknowns
Requires too many people, too much communication
Consequences
Disjointed systems can cause negative situational awareness
Increased time to comprehend significance on information
Incomplete, inaccurate understanding of the battlefield
Delayed decisions while waiting for more data, understanding
Mismatch between available data and Commander’s cognitive model.

6. Command Post of the Future Operational Impact
Increased Operational Tempo
Faster recognition and better understanding of significant battlefield changes
Faster and more complete exploration of available courses of action
More rapid and more accurate dissemination of commands
Smaller, More Mobile Command Structures
Fewer staff members
Smaller support trail & reduced deployment requirements
More mobile, distributed command organizations
Increased Span of Control

7. Command Post of the Future
Command Post of the Future (CPOF) is a DARPA program that aims to:
Increase Speed and Quality of Command Decisions
Faster recognition and better understanding of changing battlefield situation
Faster and more complete exploration of available courses of action
Provide More Effective Dissemination of Commands
COA capture for dissemination of commander’s intent
Status and capability feedback from deployed operators
Enable Smaller, More Mobile and Agile Command Structures
More mobile, distributed command element
Smaller support tail & reduced deployment requirements
The goal of CPOF is to shorten the commander’s decision cycle to stay ahead of the adversary’s ability to react.

8. “We Own The Last 18 Inches”
Visualization and Human-Computer Interaction
From Other Programs:
Analysis Tools and
Planning Aids;
Information Management;
Networking and Comms
18”
CPOF Will Create Design Rules Enabling a New Interface Metaphor for C2 After Next

9. Command Post of the Future Tailored Visualizations
Immediate Understanding
Match user’s cognitive model
Data => Information => Knowledge
Intuitive visual presentations
Abstract as well as geospatial
Temporal as well as static
Decision-Centered
Information tailored to decisions
Show decision-relevant details
Highlight relevant changes, anomalies, exceptions
Uncover battlespace patterns
Portray uncertainties
Tailored to User
Current echelon, task & situation
User’s functional role
User’s background & preferences

10. CPOF Experiments x Users CPOF Technology Known Situation Noise
CPOF Aces (8-15)
Battle Lab Students (40)
Users
CPOF
Technology x
Known Situation
Asymmetric
Threat (IW or BIO)
Chem/Bio attack
Info warfare attack
Guerrilla
Dispersed guerilla force
Threatened urban attack
HADR
Urban disaster
Peace Keeping
Stability
Imminent attack
Sustained
Engagement
Opportunity to attack
Multiple avenues of attack
Random forces
Noise
Pedigree
Completeness
Accuracy
Consistency
Perishability
Decision Performance
Time
Situation
Awareness
Control
Condition S M L
C1 C2 T1 T2 T3
Trial Matrix
Trial Conditions
Conditions
Time
Experts
Students
Core Hypotheses
Improve Decision Speed & Quality
H1: Improve Situation Awareness
H2: Improve COA Generation
H3: Improve COA Selection
H4: Improve COA Communication

11. Limited Objective Experiment - 1 (LOE -1)
Hypothesis:
Tailored visualizations will improve Situation Awareness
MOE:
Correctness of Situation Awareness comprehension
Quality of Pattern Recognition
Greater Entity Retention

12. LOE-1 Scenario Space Less Complex More Complex Situation 10
Force-on-Force
Situation 4
Situation 5
Insurgency

13. F on F
Treatment B
Blobs, 3D

14. F on F Treatment A Color Coded Legend Bn - enemy Co - enemy Pt - enemy
Bn - friend
Co - friend
Pt - friend
Legend
F on F
Treatment A
Color Coded

15. Haiti Sit4B - 5 Critical Events
Insurgency
Treatment B
Time-Space-Event View
Haiti Sit4B Critical Events

16. Insurgent activity in Haiti by category and region
Civil
Preparatory
Military
Insurgency
Treatment A
Drill Down
Significant preparatory activity in Port-au-Prince
Military activity only in the North
Dormant South

17. Insurgent activity in Haiti by week and category14 12 10 8
Civil
Number of incidents
Preparatory
Military 6 4 2
C-140
C-133
C-126
C-119
C-112
C-105
C-98
C-91
C-84
C-77
C-70
C-63
C-56
C-49
C-42
C-35
C-28
C-21
C-14
C-7
Current
Week
Increase in preparatory activity (last 9 weeks)
Decrease in civil activity
Low level military activity

18. Preparatory incidents by week and type2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Week
Number of incidents
Recruiting
Leadership
Logistics
Arms shipment
Propaganda
Preparatory type
C-140
C-133
C-126
C-119
C-112
C-105
C-98
C-91
C-84
C-77
C-70
C-63
C-56
C-49
C-42
C-35
C-28
C-21
C-14
C-7
Current
Very active recruiting
Increasing propaganda and logistics
Leadership activity throughout the period

19. Significant Findings
Visualization technologies generated better Situation Awareness
CPOF strongest in complex situations
CPOF strongest in force-on-force situations
CPOF strongest in understanding adversary’s situation
Different Strengths Emerged from Alternative CPOF technologies
Treatment B strongest where force ratio is important in force-on-force scenarios
Treatment A strongest in overall sketch scores in insurgency situations
Treatment A strongest in overall Situation Awareness scores in insurgency situations

20. Significant Findings (cont.)
Time Issues and Others
Some changes due to control scores getting worse rather than CPOF scores greatly improving
Time appeared to help in case where visualization technique introduced new concept
Longer viewing time did not always result in higher scores

21. CPOF Technologies Significantly Outperform Control in Overall Scores
Unprompted
Prompted
33.86
25.62 x
25.80
23.40
17.77
21.41
22.30
23.89
Control
CPOF Technologies s
N= p=.058
N= p=.007
Interpretation
CPOF Technologies generated:
Better situation awareness (higher mean or x)
CPOF Technologies performance improves for prompted

22. CPOF Technologies Significantly Outperform Control in Complex Situations
Prompted
Unprompted
19.96 x
18.28
17.24
18.53
5.10
8.85
3.95 s
6.28
Control
CPOF Technologies
N=78 p=.000
N=78 p=.000
Interpretation
CPOF Technologies generated:
Better situation awareness (higher mean or x) in complex situations

23. CPOF Technologies Significantly Outperformed Control in Force-on-force Situations
Unprompted
Prompted
29.69 x
21.51
18.55
16.73
16.95
19.37
10.10
11.87
Control
CPOF Technologies s
N=78 p=.020
N=78 p=.019
Interpretation
CPOF Technologies generated:
Significantly better situation awareness than Control for both prompted and unprompted in Force-on-Force situations

24. CPOF Treatments Vs.Control for Enemy Representation in Insurgency
Treatment A Vs. Control
17.58
18.20
33.13
22.25
Treatment B Vs. Control
35.13
21.55
22.25
17.58
Control
Treatment A/B
Interpretation
Treatments A and B significantly outperformed control in representing enemy force information

25. Treatment B outperforms Treatment A in Overall Situation Awareness in Situation 13
Unprompted
Prompted
29.66 x
14.85
22.93
15.93
12.21
12.71
15.00
12.06 s
Treatment B
Treatment A
N=29 p=.073
N=29 p=.002
Interpretation
Treatment A used icon visualization scheme (color coded) that subjects stated was confusing.

26. Differences between Treatments A & B in Insurgency Situations
Overall Sketch Score
Prompted Situational Awareness
72.20
17.13
64.87 x
16.21
45.48
30.93
30.83
24.88 s
Treatment B
Treatment A
N=59 p=.07
N= 59 p=.05
Interpretation
In Insurgency Situations:
Treatment A outperforms Treatment B in overall sketch score
Treatment A significantly outperforms Treatment B in prompted overall Situational Awareness

27. More Time is Not Always Better
(Percent of instances where time did not help, when significant differences between times were found)
39%
23%
20% 8%
Situation 10
Situation 4
Situation 13
Situation 5
Interpretation
In less complex situations, more reversals in performance between times were found (subjects performed worse when given 5 minutes when compared with 3 minutes) with force on force, situation 10, containing the highest percentage of instances.

28. More Time Helped Only in More Complex Situations

29. Situation 4

30. Situation 5

31. Situation 10

32. Situation 13

33. Summary CPOF technologies appear to make a difference
CPOF experimental approach captures the strengths and weaknesses
CPOF technologies appear to improve subjects’ overall Situation Awareness when compared to traditional methods
CPOF experimental approach captures strengths and weaknesses of each treatment