Distributed Debrief Control Protocol

1
Distributed Debrief Control Protocol Study Group
Organizational Meeting
2
Agenda

• Study Group Status
• Invited Speakers
• Product Nomination
• Closing

3
Study Group Status

• Final Report Submitted (Feb 16, 2009)
• SAC Feedback
• Clarify sections 1.1 1.2
• Add more data about known implementations,
  section 2.1.2
• Add survey and survey results for archival
• Fix grammatical errors
• Product Nomination in work
• Focus on developing an object model

4
Invited Speakers

• Lumir Research / AFRL
• Erik Watz
• TNO-NLR
• Paul Kuiper

5
Product Nomination

• Product Nomination title
• Name of proponent(s) and contact information
• Type of product that will be produced, or product
  to be modified
• Identification of the community to which the
  product applies
• Problem(s) and/or issue(s) that the proposed
  product addresses
• Indication of the maturity of proposed productto
  include alternatives discussed, prototypes,
  impacts of product, impact of lack of product
• Planned compliance testing for items built using
  the product (only applies to Standards Products)
• Schedule of product development milestones
  including reviews, reports, and balloting
• Candidate volunteers for the effort
• Suggested periodic review cycle once the product
  is approved.

6
Backup
7
Final Report Comments

• The DDCP Final Report does a satisfactory job of
  outlining the details of the different dimensions
  of need for a DDCP Standard.  The 9 survey
  responses fall a bit short in demonstrating an
  overwhelming community desire for such a
  standard.  However, the DDCP SG working group
  meetings at the SIW were well attended.  Perhaps
  the community has not yet experienced a
  persistent, wide-spread need for this type of
  debrief because coordinated large scale team and
  team-of-team after action review is not yet
  prevalent in the community.   I am concerned that
  a DDCP PDG will not have sufficient contributors
  to be successful.  However, a standardization
  activity may indeed convert any wall-flowers who
  have been watching from the sidelines to active
  contributors.
• The final report does communicate the need for
  such a standard, but does not specify the product
  requirements of a standardization effort.  I
  would have liked to have seen more firmly
  developed requirements however the DDCP team
  feels those detailed requirements are the purview
  of a future PDG.

8
Final Report Comments (cont)

• With the following modifications, I recommend the
  acceptance of the final report, and I request the
  DDCP SG assemble a Product Nomination for the
  establishment of a DDCP PDG.
• Section 1.1 and 1.2 do not do a good job of
  describing the current lack of capability without
  the proposed DDCP standard.  This section should
  be crystal clear to those who understand
  distributed simulation and training, yet may not
  have experience in distributed after action
  reviews.
• In section 2.1.2, Id like to see a more complete
  description of the known implementations, with
  organizational reference and contact information.
  
• In Section 2.3.1.1 The documented sources do not
  have sufficient information to allow the reader
  to find them.
• The survey and responses should be archived with
  the final report.
• There are various grammatical errors including
  inconsistent tense.

9
Officers

• Randy Pitz, Chair
• Steve Padilla, Vice Chair
• John Jinkerson, Secretary

10
Emergent Need

• V. Travers, W. Ferguson, T. Langevin (2006). A
  Federating Protocol for Distributed After Action
  Review. Proceedings of 2006 Interservice/Industry
  Training, Simulation, and Education Conference.
• K. Barrera, W. Bennett, B. Blueggel, M. Nash
  (2007) Data, Functionality, and Collaboration
  Identifying and Evaluating Briefing and
  After-Action-Review Capabilities, 07S-SIW-095,
  Simulation Interoperability Workshop, March 2007
• R. Ford, J Shockley, C Kobryn (2007). A Proposed
  Distributed After Action Review (DAAR) Standard
  Based on the Joint Training Experimentation
  Program (JTEP) DAAR. Simulation Interoperability
  Workshop, September 2007.
• R. Pitz, C Armstrong (2007). Advanced Distributed
  Debrief for Joint and Coalition Training.
  Proceedings of 2007 Interservice/Industry
  Training, Simulation, and Education Conference.

11
Study Group Goal

• The goal of the Distributed Debrief Control
  Protocol Study Group is to evaluate industry and
  government interest in developing a distributed
  debrief control protocol standard.
• Final Report for Fall 2008 SIW

12
Tasks

• Review current activities within government and
  industry to identify potential stakeholders for
  an interoperability standard to support
  distributed debrief/after-action review.
• Survey the benefactors (buyers of simulators),
  the integrators (builders of simulators/integrator
  s of debrief systems), and the implementers
  (builders of debrief systems) to establish the
  need (or not) for a distributed debrief protocol
  standard.
• Review and evaluate on-going activities to
  identify requirements and potential solutions for
  a distributed debrief protocol standard.
• Evaluate methods for establishing compliance to a
  potential distributed debrief protocol standard.
• Write a report that captures the results of the
  study group activities.

13
Study Group Product

• The product of the study group will be a report
  that addresses
• The results of a survey of interests
• A top level technical review of the current
  distributed debriefing protocols techniques
  including relevant government and industry
  requirements and approaches.
• Enforcing interface compliance
• Next step recommendation(s) - (may include a
  Product Nomination)