Possible vulnerabilities

The neglect of the human factor might be crucial to understand why there are prob-lems related to the implementation of Network Centric Warfare, and hence also Network Based Defence. Focusing on knowledge and skills as the main reasons for unadjusted processes, possible vulnerabilities introduced into a human-technical system might be inadequate level of trust and inappropriate situational awareness [25].

“Trust is defined "to believe that someone is good and honest and will not harm you, or that something is safe and reliable" [26] “

“Situational awareness (SA) is how individuals collect and utilize information;

Figure 3: The triadic model. Adapted from Hancock et al [1]

.

and is based on attention, recognition and communication [27]”.

Trust

Jian et al [28] found that people do not perceive trust differently whether the relationship was general trust, human-human trust or human-machine trust. This indicates that results from studies related to human-human relations, also can be employed to understand the trust between humans and networked systems.

During the PhD study "The perception and measurement of human-robot trust"

done by Schaefer [25], trust between humans and robots are thoroughly described.

A trust scale is developed to measure an individual’s trust to a robot, and also what inflicts the individual’s change in trust. Attributes related to humans, robots and the environment are identified based on the work "A Meta-Analysis of Factors In-fluencing the Development of Human-Robot Trust" by Hancock [1], representing potential antecedents of trust. The identified antecedents are organized into 3 dif-ferent areas; human related, robot related and environmental. The antecedents have the potential to affect the development of trust within human-robot interac-tion. Figure3illustrates the organization of the antecedents, and is referred as the triadic model of trust.

Figure 4: Perception

The triadic model of trust includes several factors, also relevant to military technological command and control systems. Competency, training and situation awareness are parts of the human related antecedents of trust, and are central aspects for knowledge based processes in relation to Network Based Defence. In addition, trust is tightly connected to the user’s perception, because the definition of trust is to believe that something is reliable or good. In "Trust in Automation:

Designing for Appropriate Reliance" [29], Lee emphasized that appropriate trust is necessary to achieve superior performance in a human–automation system. It is therefore important that the operators get proper training in order to understand the intended use of the system, and expected reliability. Inappropriate trust levels can affect the operator’s willingness to employ the system [16]. On the flip side, too high reliance on the system can result in the operator not noticing system fails.

Inappropriate trust levels can be caused by unreliable systems, but also that the user is not familiar with the systems, or do not have the correct competence and experience.

Situational awareness

Correct situational awareness (SA) is a prerequisite for information superiority [11], and is also said to be an antecedent of trust. In addition, SA is about predict-ing and plannpredict-ing future actions based on present information [30]. If the operators are not able to collect the correct data, and if the data is analysed based on wrong assumptions, the result will be faulty plans and increased number of incidents. Re-duced or wrong SA will therefore represent vulnerability in military operations in addition to be an antecedent of trust.

In a military context, situational awareness (SA) is the ability to identify, pro-cess, and comprehend important information affecting the mission; understanding the situational picture. In the simplest form, SA is about perceiving relevant in-formation from the environment, meaning that relevant data has to be identified and collected in its raw form [2]. The more complex part of SA, is to comprehend

Figure 5: Three-level model of situational awareness. Adapted from Endsley [2]

the current situation based on perceived information, and to predict future actions.

The three levels illustrated in figure5represent an increasing degree of awareness, as the information is processed at the higher levels. By achieving appropriate situa-tional awareness, the commanders are able to know their risks, vulnerabilities and current capabilities to make informed tactical and strategic decisions.

SA is said to be enhanced by Network Enabled Operations [11], enabling more information sharing in a shorter time, and also improving the collaboration be-tween different units. By faster information exchange, the speed of commands in-creases significantly, enhancing the effectiveness of the missions. It is assumed that the more information shared, the better situational awareness due to information superiority [11]. But the quality of the situational picture depends on the informa-tion quality. Bolia et al [16] argue that a higher quantity of informainforma-tion can lead to the cost of quality within the information, resulting in wrong information. Wrong information can be a result of wrong analyses of the data, but also due to com-promised or missing data, faulty sensors or inaccurate software. In addition, the enemy can fill the system with wrong sensor data or other misleading intelligence.

The illusion of a complete war picture might also lead to wrong information, not knowing or not being aware that some information is missing. Incomplete, wrong, compromised and unavailable data or information is part of the CIA triad [31]. CIA is an abbreviation for confidentiality, integrity and availability and has for several decades been the main components of information security.

When the operator is presented a vast amount of information, it exceeds his

ability to analyse it in a proper way, and the information lost might be the most critical. When it comes to interpretation of the situation, it can be assumed that knowledge and previous experience will affect how well this is done. Situational awareness (SA) is described by Schaefer [25] as an antecedent of trust, but is also about predicting and planning future actions based on present information [30].

If the operators are not able to collect the correct data, and if the data is analysed based on wrong assumptions, the result will be faulty plans and increased number of incidents. Wrong interpretation of the situation together with varying quality of the information, will affect the SA. Reduced SA will therefore represent vulnerabil-ity in military operations in addition to be an antecedent of trust. It can be assumed that an experienced commander is able to analyse a situation correctly even with reduced information quality. SA is therefore tightly connected to knowledge, in-cluding both competence and experience. In addition, knowledge will highly affect how the users employ the system. In order to accomplish the objectives of Network Based Defence, the people employing the information systems needs to know what to report, understand the importance of what they are reporting and also trust the system so they do not avoid to report.