The RAND Corporation's Collection Operations Model (COM) is a stochastic, agent-based simulation tool designed to support the analysis of command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C3ISR) processes and scenarios. Written for the System Effectiveness Analysis Simulation modeling environment, the COM is used to study processes that require the real-time interaction of many players and to answer questions about force mix, system effectiveness, concepts of operations, basing and logistics, and capability-based assessment. It can represent thousands of autonomous, interacting platforms and explore the capabilities of a wide range of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. Through its flexible and friendly text-based input tables, the model represents a wide array of sensor capabilities, target properties, terrain and weather effects, and resource limitations. Its final output is a minute-by-minute account of each agent's changing operational picture. Since 2005, the COM has been used to model counterinsurgency, counterpiracy, and maritime surveillance scenarios and two major combat operations, and to study ad hoc collections, sensor cueing, dynamic retasking, and resource allocation. RAND has planned a number of upgrades to the COM, including the addition of space-based assets; a more robust model of sensor data fusion; communications modules that more accurately represent the advantages of a networked force; a more realistic representation of C3ISR workflow; sensor capability to generate false positives; and agent capability to practice deception. These extensions and enhancements are intended to result in a COM that can represent the entire C3ISR process specifically and network-centric operations in general.

Navy analysts are struggling to keep pace with the growing flood of data collected by intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sensors. This challenge is sure to intensify as the Navy continues to field new and additional sensors. The authors explore options for solving the Navy’s “big data” challenge, considering changes across four dimensions: people, tools and technology, data and data architectures, and demand and demand management.

To assist in moving intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) planning and execution forward from a fixed target and deliberate planning focus to one centered on emerging targets, the authors propose enhancing the collection management process with a strategies-to-tasks and utility framework. By linking collection targets to operational tasks, objectives, and the top-level commander's guidance with relative utilities, planning for the daily intelligence collections and real-time retasking for ad hoc ISR targets could be enhanced. When current tools are modified to provide this information, planners will be able to link collection targets to top-level objectives for better decision making and optimization of low-density, high-demand collection assets. Similarly, on the Air Operations Center (AOC) floor, intelligence officers will be better able to deal with time-sensitive, emerging targets by rapidly comparing the value of collecting an ad hoc collection with the value of collecting opportunities already planned. To handle the ISR demands posed by the rapidly changing battlefield of the future, this new, more-capable framework may be needed for making the best use of intelligence capabilities against emerging collection opportunities. Future research will focus on quantifying the advantages of this approach in comparison with the current process.

The authors develop methods for assessing the impact of deploying artificial intelligence (AI) systems to support intelligence missions.

Lingel et al. present alternative methods to approach U.S. Air Force intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) tasking and the command and control processes and assess the outcome of different information-collection strategies. They develop new assessment techniques and operational strategies to improve the use of ISR assets in dynamic environments.

The authors developed a repeatable process to measure the effectiveness of U.S. Central Command intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations; evaluate current performance; and plan for, influence, and resource future operations.

Over the past decade, especially, U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) intelligence has had to tailor its organization to meet the evolving demands of the operational environment. This has resulted in a number of ad hoc arrangements, practices, and organizations. A broad review of the organizational design of USMC intelligence examined how to align it efficiently and effectively with current and future missions and functions.