the observable behavior, including sensing and perception, situation awareness, working memory, long-term memory for representing declarative knowledge, decision making, and task management. For larger units, it is important to represent the organizational structure as well as the products of those structures.
Added realism also can be achieved by representing a number of individual and organizational behavioral moderators. Moderators at the individual level, such as workload and emotional stress, serve to enhance or degrade performance, as reflected in the speed and accuracy of performance. Moderators at the organizational level, including the average level of training, whether standard operating procedures are followed, the level and detail of those procedures, and the degree of coupling between procedures, all affect performance.
It is also important, in the panel's view, to introduce learning and intrinsic variability into human behavior representations. Not only will learning allow human behavior representations to respond realistically to changes in the environment without having to anticipate every possible change ahead of time, but it will also allow the models to more closely reflect intelligent human behavior. Furthermore, capturing different levels of learning will allow the representation of different levels of skill, from novice to expert.
Real human behavior is inherently variable and unpredictable, sometimes even irrational. The same person does not always respond identically to identical situations. Although this kind of variability is supported by learning models, it may also be appropriate to introduce controlled randomness into human behavior representations. Trainees who are repeatedly exposed to the same simulations can be expected to learn their idiosyncrasies. The addition of learning and variability will tend to focus them on valid general rules.
When undertaking development of human behavior representation, the panel suggests that the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office encourage developers to make use of a systematic methodology. Such a methodology should include the following steps. First, they should employ interdisciplinary teams consisting of sociologists and cognitive psychologists, computer scientists who are knowledgeable in the contemporary literature and modeling techniques, and specialists in the military doctrine and procedures of the domain to be modeled. Second, they should review alternatives and adopt a general architecture that is most likely to be useful for the dominant demands of the specific situation. Third, they should review available unit-level frameworks and support the development of a comprehensive framework for representing the command, control, and communication structure. Fourth, they should review available documentation and seek to understand in depth the domain and its doctrine, procedures, and constraints. They should prepare formal task analyses that describe the activities and tasks as well as the information requirements and the human skill requirements that must be represented in the models. Also, they should prepare unit-level task analyses that describe such factors as resource allocation and communication protocols. Both individual and unit-level analyses should be guided by the computational