Change search
Refine search result
1 - 17 of 17
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Andersson, Kent
    et al.
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Bang, Martin
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Marcus, Carina
    SAAB Aerosystems.
    Persson, Björn
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Sturesson, Peter
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Hult, Gunnar
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Military utility: A proposed concept to support decision-making2015In: Technology in society, ISSN 0160-791X, E-ISSN 1879-3274, Vol. 43, p. 23-32Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A concept called Military Utility is proposed for the study of the use of technology in military operations. The proposed concept includes a three-level structure representing key features and their detailed components. On basic level the Military Utility of a technical system, to a military actor, in a specific context, is a compound measure of the military effectiveness, of the assessed technical system's suitability to the military capability system and of the affordability. The concept is derived through conceptual analysis and is based on related concepts used in social sciences, the military domain and Systems Engineering. It is argued that the concept has qualitative explanatory powers and can support military decision-making regarding technology in forecasts, defense planning, development, utilization and the lessons learned process. The suggested concept is expected to contribute to the development of the science of Military-Technology and to be found useful to actors related to defense.

  • 2.
    Axberg, Stefan
    et al.
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Andersson, Kent
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Bang, Martin
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Bruzelius, Nils
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Bull, Peter
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Eliasson, Per
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Ericson, Marika
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Hagenbo, Mikael
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Hult, Gunnar
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Liwång, Hans
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Löfgren, Lars
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Norsell, Martin
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Sivertun, Åke
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Svantesson, Carl-Gustaf
    Vretblad, Bengt
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Lärobok i Militärteknik, vol. 9: Teori och metod2013 (ed. 1)Book (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Ämnet militärteknik utgår från att tekniska system är officerens arbetsredskap och att en förståelse för och kunskap om dessa verktyg är central för att kunna utöva professionen framgångsrikt. Denna nionde volym av Lärobok i Militärteknik, benämnd Teori och Metod, behandlar centrala begrepp, teorier och postulat samt metoder för värdering av teknik och består av ett antal texter författade av 16 forskare och lärare vid den militärtekniska avdelningen. Volymen riktar sig främst till de som inlett sin officersutbildning och utgörs till stora delar av ett kompilat av publicerade och opublicerade militärtekniska texter och kan sägas utgöra militärteknikens ”state of the art”.

  • 3.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Military Studies, Command & Control Studies Division.
    Balancing bath tubs in math class2005In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, 2005Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 4.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Military Studies, Command & Control Studies Division.
    Does system dynamics or control theory help you strike a balance?2008In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, 2008Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 5.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Does teaching students how to explicitly model the causal structure of systems improve their understanding of these systems?2014In: European Journal of Engineering Education, ISSN 0304-3797, E-ISSN 1469-5898, Vol. 39, no 4, p. 391-411Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    If students really understand the systems they study, they would be able to tell how changes in the system would affect a result. This demands that the students understand the mechanisms that drive its behaviour. The study investigates potential merits of learning how to explicitly model the causal structure of systems. The approach and performance of 15 system dynamics students who are taught to explicitly model the causal structure of the systems they study were compared with the approach and performance of 22 engineering students, who generally did not receive such training. The task was to bring a computer-simulated predator-and-prey ecology to equilibrium. The system dynamics students were significantly more likely than the engineering students to correctly frame the problem. They were not much better at solving the task, however. It seemed that they had only learnt how to make models and not how to use them for reasoning.

  • 6.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Military Studies, Command & Control Studies Division.
    Good sensemaking is more important than information quality for the quality of plans2006In: Proceedings of the 11th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, 2006Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 7.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Command & Control Studies Division.
    How to Operationalize C2 Agility2012In: 17th ICCRTS (2012): Proceeedings, 2012Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Alberts has offered a definition of agility and its constituent components. This paper describes where in the C2 system, or the force, the different agility requirements will have to be met, and how to measure if they are. The purpose of a C2 system is to achieve focus and convergence of some entities (the force) somewhere (the context) to accomplish something (the task or mission), together (maybe with other organizations), within a certain amount of time. These factors determine the demands on a C2 system. Rasmussen’s abstraction hierarchy is used as the analytical framework, with the functions performed by C2 as defined by Brehmer. The paper discusses how to define the demands, i.e. the requisite agility, and how to assess if these demands can be met (potential agility), or have been met (manifest agility). The information requirements of a C2 system are determined by what is required of the commanded force for it to be agile in the present circumstances. The model traces the paths from the demands on the system to the parts of the system that are supposed to meet them, and makes possible the assessment of the manifest, and potential, agility of a C2 system.

  • 8.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Military Studies, Command & Control Studies Division.
    Learning and transfer from a simple dynamic system2005In: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, ISSN 0036-5564, E-ISSN 1467-9450, Vol. 46, no 2, p. 119-131Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The amount of learning gained from being assisted in completing the task of bringing a predator-prey system into equilibrium by controlling the predator population was investigated. Learning was explored both by post-task questioning and by testing for transfer to another predator-prey task. Participants were 28 undergraduate psychology students, all female. They were randomly and evenly split into an experiment group that was subjected to a learning session with the first task before being tested in the second task, and a control group that only performed the second task. What was most needed in the first task was help in sticking to analytically derived conclusions by resisting "common sense" responses. There was a significant transfer effect on performance to the second task, stemming from learning shown by half the participants in the experiment group. The other half showed hardly any learning. Learning in about half the subjects has proven a stable finding.

  • 9.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Military Studies, Command & Control Studies Division.
    Mission design: fitting the solution to the problem2010In: Proceding of the 15th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, 2010Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 10.
    Jensen, Eva
    Örebro universitet.
    (Mis)understanding and learning from feedback relations in a simple dynamic system2003Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
  • 11.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Modelling command and control in networks2014In: Network Topology in Command and Control: Organization, Operation, and Evolution / [ed] T. J. Grant, R. H. P. Janssen, & H. Monsuur, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2014, p. 71-84Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This chapter proposes an approach to modelling the functions of C2 performed over a network of geographically distributed entities. Any kind of command and control (C2) organisation, hierarchical, networked, or combinations thereof, can be represented with this approach. The chapter also discusses why a theory of C2 needs to be expressed in functions in order to support design and evaluation of C2 systems. The basic principle of how to model functions performed by network is borrowed from Cares’ network model of warfare, which is also used to model the context in which C2 is performed. The approach requires that C2 is conceived of as fulfilling a set of necessary and sufficient functions. Brehmer proposes such a theoretical model that is at a sufficiently high level of abstraction to illustrate the suggested approach. More detailed models will be required, however, for the approach to be of practical use.

  • 12.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Military Studies, Command & Control Studies Division.
    Sensemaking in military planning: A methodological study of command teams2009In: Cognition, Technology & Work, ISSN 1435-5558, E-ISSN 1435-5566, Vol. 11, no 2, p. 103-118Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 13.
    Jensen, Eva
    et al.
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Military Studies, Command & Control Studies Division.
    Brehmer, Berndt
    Sensemaking in the fog of war:  an experimental study of how command teams arrive at a basis for action2005In: Proceedings of the 10th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, 2005Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 14.
    Jensen, Eva
    et al.
    Örebro universitet, Avdelningen för psykologi.
    Brehmer, Berndt
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Military Studies, Command & Control Studies Division.
    Understanding and control of a simple dynamic system2003In: System Dynamics Review, ISSN 0883-7066, E-ISSN 1099-1727, Vol. 19, no 2, p. 119-137Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study examined laypeople's understanding of a simple dynamic system, expressed in reasoning and strategies used by the subjects, and how it affected performance. Participants were 15 undergraduate psychology students. 4 male and 11 female; median age was 24 years, ranging from 21 to 31 years. The subjects' task was to establish equilibrium in a simple predator-and-prey system. A task analysis was performed to identify the problem structure, the vital aspects of the task, and the ideal strategies to perform the task. The subjects' actual performance was compared to these strategies. The results revealed that, even though the task was structurally simple, it was still difficult. Much of these difficulties seemed to stem from a low ability to apply indirect reasoning and thinking in terms of discrete time steps instead of in terms of continuous time.

  • 15.
    Jensen, Eva
    et al.
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Military Studies, Command & Control Studies Division.
    Sawicka, Agata
    What is the use of basic dynamic tasks?2006In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, 2006Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 16.
    Jensen, Eva
    et al.
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Military Studies, Command & Control Studies Division.
    Tehler, Henrik
    Avdelningen för brandteknik och riskhantering, Lunds universitet.
    Brehmer, Berndt
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Military Studies, War Studies Division.
    Indikatorer på lednings- och samverkansförmåga: En förstudie på uppdrag av MSB2011Report (Other academic)
  • 17.
    Silfverskiöld, Stefan
    et al.
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Andersson, Kent
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Hult, Gunnar
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Sivertun, Åke
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Bull, Peter
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Jensen, Eva
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Reberg, Michael
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Biverot, Erik
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Löfgren, Lars
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Persson, Björn
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Sigholm, Johan
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Sturesson, Peter
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Military-Technology Division.
    Technology Forecast 2013 Military Utility of Six Technologies: a Report from Seminars at the SNDC Department of Military-Technology2013Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Four technology forecast reports from the Fraunhofer Institute and two internet based search reports from Recorded Future have been reviewed by staff at the Department of Military- Technology at the Swedish National Defence College (Note that there probably are other technology areas, equally interesting, but not included in this study). The task given by FMV was to assess the military utility of the chosen technologies in a time frame from 2025 to 2030, from a SwAF viewpoint.

    We assess the military utility of a certain technology, as its contribution to the operational capabilities of the SwAF, within identified relevant scenarios.

    The technologies were grouped in three classes; technologies with potentially significant, uncertain or negligible military utility.

    The following technologies were assessed to have a potential for significant military utility;

    • Alternative fuels
    • High altitude platforms
    • Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
    • Cyber Defence
    • The forecasting and analysis technology described in the report "Future of Cyber Threats" if the tool is combined with advanced artificial intelligence algorithms

    The following technology was assessed to have uncertain military utility;

    • The forecasting and analysis technology described in the report "Future of Cyber Threats" in its present form

    The following technology was assessed to have negligible military utility;

    • Walking machines

    The method used was first to make a summary of each forecast report. The technology was then put into one or more scenarios that are assessed to be the best in order to show possible military utility as well as possibilities and drawbacks of the technologies. Based on a SWOT-analysis, the contribution to SwAF capabilities and the cost in terms of acquisition, C2 footprint, logistic footprint, doctrine/TTP, training, facilities and R&D were assessed. Conclusions regarding the military utility of the technology were drawn.

    Our evaluation of the method used shows that there is a risk that the assessment is biased by the participating experts’ presumptions and experiences from their own field of research. The scenarios that were chosen do not cover all aspects of the technology and their possible contribution to operational capabilities. It should be stressed that we have assessed the six technologies’ potential military utility within the presented scenarios, not the technology itself.

    The chosen definition of military utility clearly affects the result of the study. The definition (the military utility of a certain technology is its contribution to the operational capabilities of the SwAF, within identified relevant scenarios) has been slightly modified from the one used in the Technology Forecast 2012. It is believed to be good enough for this report, but could be further elaborated in the future.

    The greatest value of the method used is its simplicity, cost effectiveness and the tradeoff that it promotes learning within the working group. The composition of the working group and the methodology used is believed to provide for a broad and balanced coverage of the technologies under study. This report provides executive summaries of the Fraunhofer and Recorded Future reports and helps the SwAF Headquarter to evaluate the military utility of emerging technologies within identified relevant scenarios.

    Given the limited quantitative base (only 2 reports) for assessing the potential value of using the tool Temporal Analytics™ used by Recorded Future, our conclusion is nevertheless that the overall value of using the tool for technology forecasting is rather poor. Our assessment is that Recorded Future at present can’t be used as an alternative to the Fraunhofer Institute. Overall, the quality of the Fraunhofer reports is considered to be balanced and of a high level of critical analysis regarding technology development. These reports are in line with our task to evaluate the military utility of the emerging technologies. In the case of Recorded Future’s technology forecast, the sources that are relevant for making military predictions are considered to be ill-suited for aggregation in the form the tool in focus, Temporal Analytics™, provides. The tool requires further development to fit military purposes. Further use of Recorded Future in the technology forecast process is therefore not recommended, at least not until the tool has been combined with advanced artificial intelligence algorithms.

    We propose that the Department of Military Technology at SNDC could be involved in the early phase of the Technology Forecast process giving support to FMV in choosing which technology areas that should be selected to be studied by the Fraunhofer Institute within the framework of the Technology Forecast project (Teknisk Prognos).

1 - 17 of 17
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf