Change search
Refine search result
1 - 10 of 10
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.
    Baroutsi, Nicoletta
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section. Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
    A Practitioners Guide for C2 Evaluations: Quantitative Measurements of Performance and Effectiveness2018In: ISCRAM 2018 Conference Proceedings: 15th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management / [ed] Boersma, Kees; Tomaszewski, Brian, Rochester, NY, USA: Rochester Institute of Technology , 2018, p. 170-189, article id 1546Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Quantitative evaluations are valuable in the strive for improvements and asserting quality. However, the field of Command & Control (C2) evaluations are hard to navigate, and it is difficult to find the correct measurement for a specific situation. A comprehensive Scoping Study was made concerning measurements of C2 performance and effectiveness. A lack of an existing appropriate framework for discussing C2 evaluations led to the development of the Crisis Response Management (CRM) Matrix. This is an analysis tool that assigns measurements into categories, and each category display unique strengths, weaknesses and trends. The analysis yielded results proving to be too rich for a single article, thusly, this is the first of two articles covering the results. In this article, the Practitioners Guide focus on results valuable for someone interested in evaluating C2. Each evaluation has specific requirements that, for best result, ought to be reflected in the chosen measurement.

  • 2.
    Granåsen, Magdalena
    et al.
    Swedish Defence Research Agency, Sweden.
    Barius, Per
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Hallberg, Niklas
    Swedish Defence Research Agency, Sweden.
    Josefsson, Anders
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Exploring Mission Command in a Concept for Future Command and Control2018In: 23rd International Command and Control Research & Technology Symposium (ICCRTS): Multi-Domain C2 / [ed] Alberts, David, International Command and Control Institute , 2018, Vol. Topic 3, article id 22Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Future Command and Control (C2) need to be both agile and resilient to cope with unpredictable operational environments and to make use of the technological advances. The Swedish Armed Forces develops a concept for future C2 of military operations. The objective of this paper is to explore the utilization of mission command in a future C2 concept. Sweden has a solid tradition of mission command, promoted by the Swedish culture of participation and empowerment. However, the future operational environment demands a need for organizational agility, thus changing the prerequisites for mission command. The future C2 concept, which is under development, encompasses centralized and decentralized command in fixed and temporary organizations. Centralized approaches may be preferred when it comes to prioritization of technologically advanced exclusive resources. On the other hand, dynamic situations demand rapid decision making and seizing the opportunity given in the moment. The future operational environment includes hybrid warfare and gray zone issues, demanding thorough analysis in order to foresee the political consequences of decisions. Sensor and communication technologies enable enhanced situation awareness; however, the infrastructure is vulnerable. The current paper analyses the application of mission command in the future operational environment, and further mission command in relation to organizational agility. The conclusion is that mission command is still relevant in the complex future operational environment. However, the increasingly complex operational environment demands continuous development of the C2 function.

  • 3.
    Hallberg, Niklas
    et al.
    Swedish Defence Research Agency, Sweden.
    Granåsen, Magdalena
    Swedish Defence Research Agency, Sweden.
    Josefsson, Anders
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Ekenstierna, Christina
    Swedish Armed Forces, Sweden.
    Framework for C2 Concept Development: Exploring Design Logic and Systems Engineering2018In: 23rd International Command and Control Research & Technology Symposium: Multi-Domain C2 / [ed] Alberts, David, International Command and Control Institute , 2018, Vol. Topic 9, article id 23Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The conditions for military operations have changed due to, e.g., globalization, climate change, and nations' ambitions and actions. This has resulted in new demands on command and control (C2) capability. Further, the rapid evolution of information technology has provided vigorous opportunities to enhance the C2 capability, e.g., through advanced communication, information management, and decision support. However, the need to rely on modern technology also causes increased vulnerabilities. The sociotechnical nature of C2 systems means that the development of C2 systems is complex and challenging. Developing C2 concepts requires collaboration between people from different knowledge disciplines, traditions, and perspectives. Therefore, there is a need for elaborated concept development approaches and structures that promote collaborative efforts. The objective of this paper is a framework for the development of C2 concepts that enhance the collaboration of people from different traditions. The study was carried out as case study performed in two steps: theoretical development and formative evaluation. The case study targets the development of C2 concepts for future military operations of the Swedish Armed Forces. The framework includes terminology models, a development process, and system representations. The case study shows that in diverse teams, it is essential to agree upon terminology, development process, and systems representations used for the development to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary rework. The framework explored in this paper is only in its first version. However, the development and the application of the framework was found to facilitate and focus the work of the multi-disciplinary team.

  • 4.
    Hedlund, Erik
    et al.
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Division of Leadership.
    Alvinius, Aida
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Ledarskapscentrum.
    Josefsson, Anders
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Ohlsson, Alicia
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Ledarskapscentrum.
    Wallenius, Claes
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Ledarskapscentrum.
    Larsson, Gerry
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Ledarskapscentrum.
    Ledarskap och ledning i en förändrad organisatorisk kontext2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Föreliggande bok har ambitionen att sätta samman tre års forskningsresultat (2016-2018) inom ramen för det av Försvarsmakten (FM) finansierade forskningsprojektet Ledarskap och ledning i en förändrad organisatorisk kontext och omsätta kunskaper till ett pedagogiskt och lättillgängligt material som kan användas i såväl Försvarshögskolans ordinarie kurs- och utbildningsprogram, som enskild läsning eller som utgångspunkt för gruppdiskussioner, seminarier och förberedelser inför något av de teman som tas upp i boken. Bokens innehåll speglar forskningsprojektets sammansättning som består av forskare från Ledarskapsavdelningen i Stockholm, Försvarshögskolans Ledarskapscentrum i Karlstad, och Ledningsvetenskap i Stockholm. Att bokens empiri kommer från militär kontext hindrar inte att bokens innehåll även kan vara av stort intresse för civila läsare, särskilt inom ramen för dem med intresse för civil-militär samverkan i såväl nationella som internationella insatser.

  • 5.
    Johansson, Björn J.E.
    et al.
    Department of C4ISR, Swedish Defence Research Agency, Sweden.
    Carlerby, Mats
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Alberts, David
    Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, USA.
    A Suggestion for Endeavour Space Dimensions2018In: 23rd International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium: Multi-Domain C2, International Command and Control Institute , 2018, Vol. Track 9, article id 66Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The purpose of this paper is to propose a set of dimensions for the “Endeavour Space” and provide a set of examples of endeavours that can be utilized for future studies that seek to determine the appropriate of different C2 approaches for different locations (regions) of this Endeavour Space.

  • 6.
    Pettersson, Ulrica
    et al.
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Uhr, Christian
    Department of Risk Management and Societal Safety, Lund University, Sweden.
    Who Commands Whom?: A Discussion on Bottom-up Behavior and its Consequencesin Military Influenced First Response Organizations2018Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The rationale behind this paper is to explore and conceptualize the dynamics taking place when bottom-up influenced management meets top-down influenced management in spontaneous reactive first response operations. We employ an interdisciplinary approach based on theoretical perspectives from Systems science, Command & Control science, and Disaster sociology.

    In order to stimulate a discussion on theoretical gaps and practical challenges, a model illustrating what we call Command & Control dynamics in spontaneous reactive operations is suggested. The model is applied as a conceptual tool for analyzing the response of the Swedish Police to a terror attack in Stockholm 2017. Both primary data from interviews and secondary data from official investigations are utilized as a basis for the analysis.

    We then continue the analytical discussion regarding Command and Control dynamics, and suggest that spontaneous reactive operations give rise to quite different prerequisites for Command & Control compared to planned operations. There is a risk that both academic and practical discussions on how to improve capability do not acknowledge these differences.

    Spontaneous reactive operations are likely to initially generate strong bottom-up influences in the Command & Control arrangement of a single organization. Initial decision makers will make rapid decisions and generate a direction that the superior commanders, who are not present from the beginning of the operation, must adapt to. We argue that the intent of the subordinates “restrict” the solution space for commanders on higher levels. Furthermore, we argue that in a spontaneous reactive response there is no specific Commander’s Intent from the start, only a doctrine. This leads us to suggest that the idea on mission tactics in civil operations must be problematized.

  • 7.
    Silfverskiöld, Stefan
    et al.
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Military Technology Systems Section.
    Liwång, Hans
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Military Technology Applications Section.
    Hult, Gunnar
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Sivertun, Åke
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Military Technology Systems Section.
    Bull, Peter
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Military Technology Applications Section.
    Sigholm, Johan
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Military Technology Systems Section.
    Lundmark, Martin
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Military Technology Systems Section.
    von Gerber, Carl
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Military Technology Applications Section.
    Andersson, Kent
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Military Technology Systems Section.
    Sturesson, Peter
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Military Technology Systems Section.
    Technology Forecast 2017 - Military Utility of Future Technologies: A Report from Seminars at the Swedish Defence University’s (SEDU) Military-Technology Division2017Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Two technology forecast reports from the Fraunhofer Institute, three reports from the Swedish Defence Research Institute (FOI) and two publications from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have been reviewed by staff at the Military-Technology Division at the Swedish Defence University (SEDU). The task given by the Defence Material Administration (FMV) was to assess the military utility of the given technologies in a time frame to up 2040, from a Swedish Armed Forces (SwAF) perspective.

    In the review we assessed the military utility of certain technologies as possible contributions to the operational capabilities of the SwAF, based on identified and relevant scenarios. Because a new capability catalogue is under development at the SwAF Headquarters, this report only presents general assessments of the capability impact of the technologies studied.

    The technologies were grouped into four classes: potentially significant, moderate, negligible, or uncertain military utility.

    The classification uncertain military utility was given to technologies that are difficult to put in the other three classes, it was not because the technology readiness level (TRL) will not bereached by 2040.

    The following technologies were assessed to have the potential for significant military utility:

    - Nanocarbons for photonic applications

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

    - Internet of things (IoT)

    - Materials and technologies for protection against chemical agents

    The following technologies were assessed to have uncertain military utility;

    - Post-quantum cryptography

    - New applications for hyperspectral image analysis for chemical and biological agents

    No technology was found to have negligible military utility.

    The method used in this technology forecast report was to assign each report to one reviewer in the working group. Firstly, each forecast report was summarized. The Fraunhofer assessment of technical readiness level (TRL) in the time period was held to be correct. Each technology was then put into one or more scenarios that were assessed to be suitable for assessing the military utility as well as indicating any possibilities and drawbacks. Based on a SWOTanalysis, the assessed contributions to the fundamental capabilities, and to the factors DOTMPLFI (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities and Interoperability), were listed. Furthermore, the expected SwAF R&D requirements, to facilitate the introduction of the technology are given. The Military utility was assessed using a model developed by the Military-Technology Division. Finally, conclusions and an overall rating of the potential military utility of each technology were presented.

    The chosen definition of military utility clearly affects the result of the study. The definition used here (“the military utility of a certain technology is its contribution to the operational capabilities of the SwAF, within identified relevant scenarios”) has been used in our Technology Forecasts since 2013.

    Our evaluation of the method used shows that there is a risk that assessments can be biased by the participating experts’ presumptions and experience from their own field of research. It should also be stressed that the seven technologies’ potential military utility was assessed within the specific presented scenarios and their possible contribution to operational capabilities within those specific scenarios, not in general. When additional results have been found in the analysis, this is mentioned.

    The greatest value of the method used is its simplicity, cost effectiveness and that it promotes learning within the working group. The composition of the working group and the methodology used are believed to provide a broad and balanced coverage of the technologies being studied. This report should be seen as an executive summary of the research reports and the intention is to help the SwAF Headquarters to evaluate the military utility of emerging technologies within identified relevant scenarios.

    Overall, the research reports are considered to be balanced and of high quality in terms of their level of critical analysis regarding technology development. These reports are in line with our task to evaluate the military utility of the emerging technologies.

  • 8.
    Spak, Ulrik
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    The common operational picture: A powerful enabler or a cause of severe misunderstanding?2017In: 22st International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS): Frontiers of C2 / [ed] Alberts, David, International Command and Control Institute , 2017, Vol. Topic 4, article id 63Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The representation of the operational environment is crucial in all military operations because it is a necessity for the command and control (C2) function that provides the operation with direction and coordination. The representation, typically in the form of a common operational picture (COP), is considered the key element for establishing situation awareness and understanding for the commander and his/her staff. This article begins by presenting a theoretical overview of the COP concept. Thereafter, empirical support is given that officers conceptualize the COP differently, relating it to different stages of the C2 process and referring to the COP as sometimes an artifact and sometimes a mental state or a product in the human mind. For example, some officers may focus on the representation of the current operational environment; others may focus on representations of courses of actions whereas others may focus on future planned events. This may cause severe misunderstanding when officers use the COP concept in communication.

    This article provides a proposition to make the COP concept more specific – connecting the different stages in the C2 process to specific instantiations of the COP. Moreover, regardless of which stage in the C2 process the instantiations of the COP relate to, it has to be adapted to that specific stage in order to be a powerful enabler. This article concludes by introducing a new concept, the Prepared Common Operational Picture (PCOP).

  • 9.
    Spak, Ulrik
    et al.
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Andersson, Isabell
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Design logic in practice: a method to extract design criteria for future C2 systems2018In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS): Multi-Domain C2 / [ed] David Alberts, International Command and Control Institute , 2018, Vol. Track 3, article id 61Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The world we live in is a complex system tinged with constant change. In order to cope with this fact, a defense mission system needs to adapt to these challenges. The command and control (C2) system is the component of the defense mission system that is our system of interest, our unit of analysis, in this paper. We present a first attempt to use a method based on design logic complemented with scenario driven exercises, to extract requirements and more fine-grained design criteria to enhance design of future C2 systems.

    As a starting point, three scenarios were developed that intended to reflect key features of future potential conflicts. A number of subject matter experts (SMEs) participated representing strategic, operational and tactical levels of command. The SMEs were asked to state their C2 requirements in each of the scenarios. The resulting set of C2 requirements were analyzed to find design criteria pertaining to the general C2 functions (Data Providing, Orientation, Planning, Influence, and Communication) in Brehmer´s design-logic hierarchy (Purpose, Function and Form). The results indicate that the method can be usefull to find requirements and design criteria for future C2-systems.

  • 10.
    Spak, Ulrik
    et al.
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Carlerby, Mats
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Modelling command and control: the challenge of integrating structure and behaviour2018In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS): Multi-Domain C2 / [ed] David Alberts, International Command and Control Institute , 2018, Vol. Track 5, article id 72Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper presents an introduction to why it is difficult, and still desirable, to integrate the perspectives of structure and behaviour when modelling command and control (C2). We use basic systems theory in combination with theories from the field of C2 as underpinning for our arguments. The structural perspective is necessary to describe the organization of, and relation between, entities relevant for C2. The behavioural viewpoint is necessaryto put focus on the purpose of C2, which is to enable an adequate response to a problemor a situation at hand. The various problems are typically of a complex character, which includes dynamic changes and therefore has to be handled with feedback, or cybernetic, approaches. However, structure and behaviour are not easy to integrate, as will be evident in this paper.

1 - 10 of 10
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