Distributed Debrief Control Protocol - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 13
About This Presentation

Distributed Debrief Control Protocol


... the integrators (builders of simulators/integrators of debrief systems), and ... requirements and potential solutions for a distributed debrief protocol standard. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:37
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 14
Provided by: siso7


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Distributed Debrief Control Protocol

Distributed Debrief Control Protocol Study Group
Organizational Meeting
  • Study Group Status
  • Invited Speakers
  • Product Nomination
  • Closing

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

Invited Speakers
  • Lumir Research / AFRL
  • Erik Watz
  • Paul Kuiper

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.

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
  • 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.

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
  • 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 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.

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

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.

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

  • 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
  • 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.

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)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com