This document proposes a concept for modeling effects in command and staff training simulations. The concept involves linking a cross-CTE MEL (Master Event List) management system with localized "effectors" that can create detectable events to represent factors like bombings, demonstrations, or CBRN incidents. This approach aims to address shortcomings of previous methods by providing trainers more control over linked scenario events and outcomes, while allowing industry flexibility. Next steps proposed include gaining approval from stakeholders, adding the concept to requirements documents, and presenting it to industry.

1. A Possible Approach to
Modelling Effects in
Command And Staff Training
DES LE JBTSE-RM1

2. Problem
• Current SIMs based on warfighting legacy.
• Recent Operations - Iraq and Afganistan.
• Desire to represent FSO.
• FSO, EBO, EBA, NKE, Comprehensive Approach, COE, etc…
• Lack of practical definition - what is it?
• Lack of practical approach - how do we represent it?
• Failure to match to training - how do we support training?
– Training Commanders & Staff (rather than education)
• PSOM

3. Attempts of Overcome the Problem
Using MEL.
• Cold War technology (the "book of events").
• Script (nothing hidden, nothing unexpected).
• Very dependent on quality and imagination of LOCONs.
• Lack of consistency between training events.
• Temptation to re-use identical events.
• Can become "box ticking" exercise rather than training.
• Not linked to Simulation (by process or physically)
– Sim perceptions.
– Sim / MEL get out of synch - unreality
– Sim marginalised.

4. FCAST
If "effects" can't be defined properly in the Requirements…
• They can't be bounded.
• They can't be costed.
• They can't be properly contracted.
• Any proposed solution can't be measured or accepted.

5. Aim
To come up with a practical proposal that:
• Can be broadly defined.
• That could meet the requirements.
• That is acceptable to Stakeholders.
• That supports the current training structures and organisations.
• Is under control of the Trainers (match to Trg Audience).
• Is incremental and has an understood development path.
• Can be costed.
• Can still providing industry with latitude for innovation.

6. Concept
Linked and integrated MEL Management and Effectors:
• Cross-CTE MEL Management System
– External injects - Political, Media, etc.
– Overall Macro Management.
• CTE dependent "Effectors":
– Elements that are created in time and space to:
• Detect things.
• Record things.
• Inform people.
• Create effects.
• Can be controlled.

8. Effects Vignettes
• Mass Grave / Narcotics crop - location with free text.
• Bombing Hospital - J5 locations (Schools, Hospitals, Mosques, etc).
• UAV / Helo overflight - Crown disperse.
• Light vs Heavy - Foot and wheels vs Warrior and MBTs.
• Sights and sounds - Free text "Chrome" to scenario.
– Call to Prayer, smoke plumes, civilian "attitudes".
• Election Day:
– Pattern of life.
– Traffic Congestion.
– Hostile Demonstration.

9. Other Factors
Can be used to fulfil other Requirements:
• CBRN - Chlorine Tanker.
• IPB Evaluation - Objective Measurement.
• Safety in Live Training.
Important to emphasise:
• Incremental capability .
• Man in the Loop - under the control of the Ex Director.

10. Future Developments
• Real links:
– MEL Events to Effectors.
– Effectors to "floating" MEL Events.
• More Automation (If… Then… Else… Not…).

11. Possible Commercial Approach
• Include this idea in URD.
• Present to industry an explanation (Industry Day).
• Emphasise this is baseline approach use to evaluate solutions.
• Industry could merely follow this idea.
• Industry could come up with something else:
– Integrated MEL and Effectors in CTE.
– Integrate into CSF (so simulation independent).
– Something completely new.
• Tender can be scored against this approach using exemplar
vignettes.

12. Next Steps
• Approve Concept in FCAST (JBTSE Team, Gareth, Craig & Ed
Whishall).
• QQ generate strawman CONEMP.
• Reduced initial circulation:
– Craig, Ed W, Martin, Duncan, Gareth, Sim Cell Triumvirate?
• Incorporate changes.
• Full Circulation to FCAST Stakeholders.
• Endorse approach (key stakeholders?).
• Add to FCAST CONEMP (in body or as an annex).
• Add to URD (in body or as an annex).