The Swedish Marines using
expert systems
Evaluating the state of readiness of a military unit is no
mean challenge. While it is conceivable to measure the significance
of each element of the process, it would be absurd to suggest that
a fighting unit without ammunition, for example, is marginally less
ready for action. It is just such a challenge that has faced the
Swedish Defence Material Administration (FMV) - and it is one that
has been addressed by the use of expert systems technology.
The Swedish armed forces source all their supplies through FMV.
From radar systems to pea soup, from combat aircraft to army boots,
everything is selected and tested through this organization, which,
with a total stock value estimated at US $33 billion, plays a major
role in the effective operation of the Swedish army, Airforce, Marines
and Navy. Although funding of equipment purchases is channelled
through the national defence administration, the users are individual
combat units (ranging from a coastal artillery unit to a group of
patrol boats or a single ship). FMV therefore has to work closely
with commanders of combat units to identify needs.
FMV requires every ounce of visionary thinking from its 3,000
staff to implement military solutions that will remain modern for
20-30 years. Indeed, many equipment systems may take 10-15 years
to move from idea to delivery. It is an approach that applies to
computer systems, which also come under the control of FMV. A major
reorganization within the armed forces over recent years, bringing
all the forces together under a single head, has prompted a review
of major computer systems, including a one billion Swedish Kronor
project to implement complete management and planning systems using
Object Orientated technology. Although the computer systems being
replaced were developed in the 1960s and 1970s the long-term approach
to systems renewal puts all new options under close scrutiny.
Equipment inspections are a routine task for any combat unit.
Although a commander will be expected to undertake an annual review,
a detailed evaluation is needed every 2-3 years in order to check
the existence and function of all equipment.
Bengt Lundell, Information Systems Manager from FMV, has worked
with commanders from the Marines to come up with a system that will
support this process: "If equipment is not working properly,
it is important to know how that will affect the capabilities of
the combat unit as a whole. We needed to come up with some rules."
Although scoring methods were considered, rule induction techniques
were preferred because of the greater resolution and the ability
to identify the role of a single factor in making a task good or
worthless. It is also possible to include qualitative and quantitative
information within the same software module. FMV chose a PC-based
solution in order that it could be implemented at combat unit level,
running on laptop machines. Working closely with Swedish expert
systems specialists in Ronneby, FMV implemented the XpertRule®
system from XpertRule Software Limited in Lancashire, England.
XpertRule, a software tool for developing intelligent applications,
graphically represents a hierarchy of decision-making "Tasks"
as a decision-tree. A major "Task" of a combat unit ("Attack",
for example) is broken down into a number of main functions and
sub-functions - terminating in equipment parts and components. By
using the experience and expertise of combat unit commanders to
assess the impact of low-level functions - rule setting - an audit
of the physical resources within a combat unit can be used to assess
the cumulative effect on the combat unit and its readiness to perform
each of the major tasks. Bengt Lundell observes that, given the
constant usage of equipment on ships and boats, there tends to be
a greater awareness of the effectiveness of equipment, compared
with land based forces, where much of the equipment is stored until
required.
Programming work has been undertaken by staff from FMV but, crucially,
the initial rule setting - initially undertaken at a three day conference
- has been consistently undertaken by combat unit commanders. Bengt
Lundell comments: "We preferred the simplicity with which rules
could be generated. Commanders have a very varied knowledge of Information
Technology but they do know what their combat unit has to do and
the effect of malfunctions."
He adds: "Initial responses range from immediate enthusiasm
to the very negative - although this tends to develop into a recognition
of the value of the approach. We now find that a period of only
two or three hours training is necessary to communicate the concepts
involved. The way of thinking is much like the evaluation process
used at previous group meetings of commanders. It is a formalisation
of how they think."
The prototype expert system was designed in 1991 and the existing
"BRUM" system, as it is known, is now linked to a software
application and graphical user interface that presents a user-friendly
version of the system for operation in the field. Bengt Lundell
points out that the rules continue to be adjusted on the basis of
practical experience: "It may stabilise with time". One
of the criteria set by FMV for this and other systems is an ability
to work independently of other systems, whilst using electronic
data interchange (EDI) to share data. The BRUM system links with
systems that report on technical performance, downtime and repair
history of equipment, as well as systems that are used to monitor
and manage action plans for ongoing maintenance.
The fact that XpertRule allows software development to be separated
from the rule setting has been an important factor in the success
of the system. Given the highly classified nature of much of the
information, it has been possible for access, as well as setting
of the rules, to be left to the experts, following limited training
in the methodology. Rudolf Sillén, Managing Director at Novacast,
believes that this degree of involvement of people with operational
expertise is an important movement in the area of systems development:
"Conventional computer languages and programming techniques
require a programmer to interpret the knowledge elicited from the
domain specialist. There are procedural and representational problems,
as well as those caused by misinterpretation. Use of XpertRule allows
the expert to enter the knowledge without the need for an intermediary.
The computer can become an intellectual partner - helping to create
new knowledge from information gathered."
Bengt Lundell stresses that the main value of the system is that
it solves a problem for the commanders; providing a better knowledge
of their combat units, including the cost implications of improvements
in performance. He also points out that the information is valuable
to the military headquarters where accurate information on the readiness
of armed forces, as well as cost control, is vital. "The view
from throughout the organization is that we must implement the system
as fast as possible." Bengt Lundell estimates that, with 75
combat units within the Marines, completion of this task will require
11/2 - 2 years of further work.
Already, interest is being shown by the Airforce for use on their
bases. Consideration is also being given to use of the system in
evaluating the ability of FMV's suppliers to meet contractual obligations
for the delivery of maintenance services.
Bengt Lundell believes that expert systems technology has much
to offer: "XpertRule provides a good fit to the problem and
we have certainly not used all the product's functions. There is
great potential for the use of this type of technology - beyond
the peripheral applications that tend to attract attention."
He continues: "I think that people are a little bit scared
- afraid that their expertise and knowledge is going to be removed.
Our experience in using expert systems shows that the truth is quite
the opposite. It is the commander who always remains in control
of the combat unit."
|