Change search
Refine search result
1 - 3 of 3
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.
    Carlerby, Mats
    et al.
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Command and Control Section.
    Johansson, Björn J.E.
    Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut.
    The lack of convergence between C2 theory and practice2017In: The 22nd International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, 2017, p. 1-20Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The purpose of this article is to discuss and make conclusions from more than 15 years research within the field of C 2 and what possible impact that has been accomplished. The point of departure is accordingly a paper presented just after the shift of the millennium where the possible impact of novel ideas and technologies for command and control (C2), such as the network centric approach and radical views on the design of command posts were in focus. Some of the fundamental ideas of what was in vogue at the time was questioned and the “old” was put in contrast with the “new.” Looking back, our thoughts as well as other contributors from that time, and the progression of theory within the field of C2, we suggest that we are at a status quo. What actually has been achieved, may be the worst of the two straw men worlds that where suggested at the time. We suggest that it is necessary to: 1) further develop adaptive approaches to the organization and conduct of military operations, 2) develop enabling instead of controlling technologies, 3) switch focus from structure to function, 4) develop tools for assessing adaptive capacity in sociotechnical systems.

  • 2.
    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.

  • 3.
    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: / [ed] Dr. David S Alberts, 2017Conference 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).

1 - 3 of 3
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