Abstract:
An architecture is provided for incorporating systems-thinking and cognitive psychology. A simulation nodule partners with a systemizing nodule to develop a solution (a countermeasure) a problem that an opponent could apply to injure the entity. Problem-defining, solution-developing, weakness-exposing, and/or solution-revising steps can be conceptualized from the opponent&#39;s viewpoint thanks to a role-reversing nodule, defensive theories can be tested by a combat-imitating nodule, and conclusions can be confirmed via a reality-checking nodule.

Description:
[0001]    This application claims priority under 35 USC 119 from U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/185,611, filed Jun. 10, 2009, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. 
     
    
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0002]    “Virtual” and other types of simulators are routinely used during training sessions or other experience-seeking exercises. By simulating unfamiliar scenarios, people can be programmed to respond in an appropriate manner to similar situations when later encountered. Simulation technology allows a replication of realtime tension, whereby human participants remain more involved and in a more intense mindset. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0003]    A simulation architecture is provided that may prove especially useful when addressing not yet encountered concerns or threats, often generated through unfamiliar modes of thought. In a military situation, for example, centuries-worth of historical data on conventional warfare (e.g., soldiers wearing uniforms, civilian lives spared whenever possible, etc.) does little good when facing today&#39;s terrorists. In a business situation, products which integrate emerging technology cannot depend upon traditional business plans to guarantee commercial success. From the financial side, the framework of a bailout policy should not rest upon the same outline that caused the underlying crisis. And with respect to our planet&#39;s climate-change conditions, there are no handbooks on dealing with the environmental consequences of melting polar caps. 
         [0004]    The architecture allows (and preferably requires) a situation to be comprehended as system of interacting events, whereby a larger pattern can be located among seemingly random acts. This approach dramatically expands the experience sphere beyond that of traditional training (where problem solution-generation is limited to known problems). The architecture prompts participants to see adversarial events as a system and to correspondingly create counter systems in response. 
         [0005]    According to an aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture for a party aligned with an entity includes a simulation nodule and a systemization nodule. The simulation nodule includes an internal problem-defining node, an internal solution-developing node, an internal weakness-exposing node, an internal solution-evaluating node, and an internal solution-revising node. The problem-defining node defines a problem that an opponent could impose to injure the entity. The solution-developing node develops a solution to the problem defined by the problem-defining node. The weakness-exposing node exposes weaknesses in the solution developed by the solution-developing node. The solution-evaluating node evaluating the risk of the weaknesses in the solution exposed in the weakness-exposing node. The solution-revising node revises the solution to address the weaknesses exposed in the weakness-exposing node. The weakness-exposing node also exposes weaknesses in the solution revised by the solution-revising node. The solution-revising node, the weakness-exposing node, and the solution-evaluating node are cycled until risk accessed by the solution-evaluating node is acceptable to the entity. The systemization nodule incorporates systems-thinking tenets into one or more nodes of the simulation nodule. 
         [0006]    According the another aspect of the invention, the systemization nodule includes: an interdependence-examination node that examines the interconnectedness of the objects and the interaction of their attributes; a pattern-deciphering node that deciphers the emergent properties that holistically arise from the objects&#39; interconnection and the attributes&#39; interaction; a goal ascertaining node that ascertains the goal or final state resulting from the emergent properties; an input/output determining node determines the objects, modifications, and/or changes that must enter/exit the system exploitation to reach specific goals; a transformation-tracing node that traces the transformation of inputs into outputs; an entropy-evaluation node that evaluates the disorder or randomness present during such transformation; a feedback-finding node that finds the feedback and regulation employed to insure predictable operation; a hierarchy-ranking node that ranks subsystems within their parent systems; a specialty-differentiating node that differentiates among specialized units and/or specialized functions; a convergence node that identifies alternate inputs that can achieve the same objectives; and a divergence node that identifies alternate objectives that can be attained from the same inputs. 
         [0007]    According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture for a party aligned with an entity includes a simulation nodule and a systemization nodule, wherein: the simulation nodule develops a solution to a problem that an opponent could impose to injure the entity; the systemization nodule incorporates systems-thinking tenets into execution of the simulation nodule. The systemization nodule includes: an interdependence-examination node that examines the interconnectedness of the objects and the interaction of their attributes; a pattern-deciphering node that deciphers the emergent properties that holistically arise from the objects&#39; interconnection and the attributes&#39; interaction; a goal ascertaining node that ascertains the goal or final state resulting from the emergent properties; an input/output determining node that determines the objects, modifications, and/or changes that must enter/exit the system exploitation to reach specific goals; a transformation-tracing node that traces the transformation of inputs into outputs; an entropy-evaluation node that evaluates the disorder or randomness present during such transformation; a feedback-finding node that finds the feedback and regulation employed to insure predictable operation; a hierarchy-ranking node that ranks subsystems within their parent systems; a specialty-differentiating node that differentiates among specialized units and/or specialized functions; a convergence node that identifies alternate inputs that can achieve the same objectives; and a divergence node that identifies alternate objectives that can be attained from the same inputs. 
         [0008]    According to yet another aspect of the invention a simulation architecture has a systemizing nodule that is executed during a/the problem-defining node of the simulation nodule. 
         [0009]    According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture has a systemizing nodule that is executed during a data-organizing subnode of the problem-defining node. 
         [0010]    According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a systemizing nodule that is executed during a/the solution-developing node of a simulation nodule. 
         [0011]    According to a still further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a systemizing nodule that is executed during a problem-predicting subnode, a problem-preventing subnode, a problem-detecting subnode, a problem-neutralizing subnode, and/or a damage-mitigation subnode of the solution-developing node. 
         [0012]    According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a systemizing nodule that is executed during a/the solution-revising node of the simulation nodule. 
         [0013]    According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes systemizing nodule that is executed during a problem-predicting subnode, a problem-preventing subnode, a problem-detecting subnode, a problem-neutralizing subnode, and/or a damage-mitigation subnode of the solution-revising node. 
         [0014]    According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture also may include a role-reversing nodule that aids the party in putting themselves mentally into the opponent&#39;s thought process, the role-reversing nodule being executed with one or more nodes of the simulation nodule. 
         [0015]    According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include a role-reversing nodule that includes a planning node, a scouting node, a resource-acquiring node, a building node, a training node, a deploying node, and/or an assessing node. 
         [0016]    According to a still further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may have a role-reversing nodule that is executed during a/the problem-defining node of the simulation nodule. 
         [0017]    According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include a role-reversing nodule that is executed during a/the weakness-exposing node of the simulation nodule. 
         [0018]    According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include a conflict-imitating nodule that allows an issue to be played out in competitive setting, the conflict-imitating nodule being executed during one or more nodes of the simulation nodule. 
         [0019]    According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may have the conflict-imitating nodule include a team-assignment node, a team-isolating node, an opponent-briefing node, and/or a teams-engaging node. 
         [0020]    According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes the conflict-imitating nodule being executed during a/the solution-developing node of the simulation nodule. 
         [0021]    According to a still further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may have the conflict-imitating nodule executed during a problem-predicting subnode, a problem-preventing subnode, a problem-detecting subnode, a problem-neutralizing subnode, and/or a damage-mitigation subnode of the solution-developing node. 
         [0022]    According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture has a conflict-imitating nodule that is executed during a/the solution-revising node of the simulation nodule. 
         [0023]    According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture has a conflict-imitating nodule that is executed during a problem-predicting subnode, a problem-preventing subnode, a problem-detecting subnode, a problem-neutralizing subnode, and/or a damage-mitigation subnode of the solution-revising node. 
         [0024]    According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a reality-checking nodule that is used to endorse conclusions reached during execution of the simulation nodule. 
         [0025]    According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a reality-checking nodule that includes a historically-inconsistent node that reviews historical data for inconsistencies; an entity-attempted node that reviews data collected by prior attempts by the entity; a public-broadcast node, and/or literature-scan node. 
         [0026]    According to a still further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include the reality-checking nodule being is used to verify a defined problem, solution, and/or a risk evaluation in the simulation nodule. 
         [0027]    According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture also includes a cross-pollinating nodule allows an exchange and comparison of conclusions, projections, estimations among simulation nodules. 
         [0028]    According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may be used for a military application, wherein the entity is allied forces and the opponent is the enemy. 
         [0029]    According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture can be used for a business application, wherein the entity is a business company and the opponent is a commercially competing company. According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture can be used for a financial application, wherein the entity is an economically-linked society and the opponent is non-economically linked party. 
         [0030]    According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture can be used for a natural disaster application, wherein the entity is a geographic region and the opponent is a natural occurrence. 
         [0031]    According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture can include a plurality of simulation nodules. 
         [0032]    According to a still further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes four to eight simulation nodules. 
         [0033]    According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes each simulation nodule being executed by a group of five to twenty people. 
         [0034]    According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture is executed such that each group of people includes persons of intellectual diversity. The intellectual diversity includes backgrounds in science, engineering, business, military, religion, sociology, economics, and/or management. The group, or any groups utilizing the architecture may be assembled in the same general space. The group members may be assembled in a classroom-like environment. The group members may be assembled in an issue-analogous arena. 
         [0035]    According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture includes a plurality of outside informational nodules that supply information to the simulation nodule. The outside information nodules may stem from different sources. The informational nodules may also supply information to the systemization nodule, a/the role-reversing nodule, a/the conflict-imitating nodule, a/the reality-checking nodule, a/the cross-pollinating nodule, a/the technology-inventory nodule, a/the device-manufacturing nodule, and/or a/the mission-mapping nodule. 
         [0036]    According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may also include a technology-inventory nodule that inventories the capability necessary to implement the solution developed to the problem. The technology-inventory nodule may also include a technology-inventorying node, a technology-gap identifying node, a capability-required requisitioning node, a success-criticality rating node, a gap-filling-technology proposing node, a design-differentiating node, and/or a take-forward-technology selecting node. The simulation nodule may include an internal technology-inventory node that inventories the capability necessary to implement the solution developed to the problem. The technology-inventory node may include a technology-inventorying subnode, a technology-gap identifying subnode, a capability-required requisitioning subnode, a success-criticality rating subnode, a gap-filling-technology proposing subnode, a design-differentiating subnode, and a take-forward-technology selecting subnode. 
         [0037]    According to another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may also include a device-manufacturing nodule that manufactures a device necessary to implement the solution. 
         [0038]    According to yet another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may also include a mission-mapping nodule that maps a mission to implement the solution. 
         [0039]    According to still another aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include a simulation nodule that includes an internal device-manufacturing node that manufactures a device necessary to implement the solution. 
         [0040]    According to a further aspect of the invention, a simulation architecture may include a simulation nodule that includes an internal mission-mapping node that maps a mission to implement the solution. 
         [0041]    According to another aspect of the invention, a method may include executing a simulation architecture, and further may include manufacturing a device to implement the solution. The method may include the device-manufacturing step including designing the device, prototyping the device, testing the prototype, and fabricating the production device. The method further may include mapping a mission to implement the solution. 
         [0042]    According to yet another aspect of the invention, a mission-mapping step of a method includes planning the mission, training for the mission, trial-running the mission, and launching the mission. 
         [0043]    According to still another aspect of the invention, a system-of-systems architecture has a simulation nodule that includes an internal problem-defining node, an internal solution-developing node, an internal weakness-exposing node, an internal solution-revising node, and an internal solution-evaluating mode; wherein: the problem-defining node defines a problem that an opposer (enemy) could impose to injure an entity; the solution-developing node develops a solution to the problem defined by the problem-defining node; the weakness-exposing node exposes weaknesses in the solution developed by the solution-developing node; the solution-revising node revises the solution to address the weaknesses exposed in the weakness-exposing node; the weakness-exposing node also exposes weaknesses in the solution revised by the solution-revising node; the solution-evaluating node accesses risk of the weaknesses in the solution exposed in the weakness-exposing node; and the solution-revising node, the weakness-exposing node, and the solution-evaluating node are cycled until risk accessed by the solution-evaluating node is acceptable to the entity. The simulation nodule may further include an internal technology-comparison node wherein available technology is compared with technology necessary to implement the solution having the acceptable risk assessment by the solution-evaluating node. 
         [0044]    According to a further aspect of the invention, a method for improving an entity through simulatory context includes the steps of: (a) defining a problem that an opposer (enemy) could apply to injure the entity; (b) developing a solution to the problem defined in step (a); (c) exposing weaknesses of the solution developed in step (b); (d) revising the solution to address weaknesses from step (c); (e) exposing weaknesses of the revised solution from step (d); (f) revising the solution again to address weaknesses from step (e); and (g) repeating steps (e) and (f) until weakness exposure is reduced to an acceptable risk. Step (a) is performed by: collecting data relevant to things that could hurt the entity; organizing at least of portion of the data into a system; and formulating a plan to hurt the entity. A device may be manufactured to incorporate the solution from step (e). A mission plan may be drafted to incorporate the solution from step (e). Participants may directed in steps (a), (b), (c) and/or (e) to conceptualize from the viewpoint of the opposer. 
         [0045]    According to a still further aspect of the invention, a method of developing countermeasures for an entity includes the steps of: a) defining a problem that an opposer (enemy) could apply to injure the entity; b) developing a solution to the problem in step (a); c) exposing weaknesses of the solution in step (b); d) revising the solution to address weaknesses from step (c); e) repeating steps (c) through (d) until weakness exposure is reduced to an acceptable risk; f) manufacturing the device to incorporate the solution from step (e). Step (a) is performed by: collecting data relevant to things that could hurt the entity; organizing a portion of the data into a system; and formulating a plan to hurt the entity. 
         [0046]    According to another aspect of the invention, a method of developing countermeasures to an adversary (enemy) includes the steps of: providing participants with a playbook containing information regarding the adversary; dividing the participants into groups; directing the groups to develop plans for achieving goals of the adversary; and having the participants critique one or more of the plans and/or develop systems to counter one or more of the plans, from a point of view of an opponent of the adversary. 
         [0047]    According to yet another aspect of the invention, a method of developing countermeasures to an enemy includes the steps of: providing background information to participants regarding a problem related to the enemy; dividing the participants into red force groups; providing each of the red force groups with a playbook describing a scenario related to the problem, from the point of view of the enemy; directing the red force groups to develop plans for achieving goals of the adversary, as described in the playbooks, from the point of view of the enemies; having the red force groups identify vulnerabilities in the plans developed from the point of view of the adversary; dividing the participants into blue force groups; and directing the blue force groups to develop countermeasure plans to the red force plans, from the point of view of an opponent of the adversary. 
         [0048]    According a further aspect of the invention, a method of developing countermeasures to an adversary (enemy) includes the steps of: providing participants with a playbook simulating information provided by or to the adversary; dividing the participants into groups; directing the groups to develop plans, from a point of view of the adversary, for achieving goals of the adversary; and having the participants critique one or more of the plans and/or develop systems to counter one or more of the plans, from a point of view of an opponent of the adversary. The playbook may simulate information that an adversary would provide to its cohorts, such as members or allies of the adversary. The dividing the participants into groups may involve dividing them into groups that simulate the adversary&#39;s group structure. The directing of the groups may include a task or tasks that involve immersing the participants in an adversarial mindset, so that the participants think and plan from that adversarial mindset. 
         [0049]    To the accomplishment of the foregoing and related ends, the invention comprises the features hereinafter fully described and particularly pointed out in the claims. The following description and the annexed drawings set forth in detail certain illustrative embodiments of the invention. These embodiments are indicative, however, of but a few of the various ways in which the principles of the invention may be employed. Other objects, advantages and novel features of the invention will become apparent from the following detailed description of the invention when considered in conjunction with the drawings. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS 
         [0050]      FIGS. 1A-1C  each show an example of simulation architecture, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. 
           [0051]      FIGS. 2A-2H  each show a simulation nodule  200  (and/or nodes and subnodes thereof) and its interaction with outside information nodules  100 . 
           [0052]      FIGS. 3A-3C  show a systemizing nodule  300  and its interaction with nodules  100  and  200 . 
           [0053]      FIGS. 4A-4B  show a role-reversing nodule  400  and its interaction with nodules  100 ,  200 , and  300 . 
           [0054]      FIGS. 5A-5B  show a conflict-imitating nodule  500  and its interaction with nodules  100 ,  200 , and  400 . 
           [0055]      FIGS. 6A-6E  show a reality-checking nodule  600  and its interaction with nodules  100 ,  200 ,  300 ,  400 , and  500 . 
           [0056]      FIGS. 7A-7F  show a cross-pollinating nodule  700  and its interaction with nodules  100 ,  200 ,  300 ,  400 ,  500 , and  600 . 
           [0057]      FIGS. 8A-8B  show a technology-inventory nodule  800  and an analogous node  280  of the simulation nodule  200 . 
           [0058]      FIGS. 9A-9D  show a device-manufacturing or mission-planning nodule  900  and analogous nodes  290  of the simulation nodule  200 . 
           [0059]      FIG. 10  is a high-level flow chart of a method of developing countermeasures, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. 
           [0060]      FIG. 11  is an example of a first chart that may be used in performing the method of  FIG. 10 . 
           [0061]      FIG. 12  is an example of a second chart that may be used in performing the method of  FIG. 10 . 
           [0062]      FIG. 13  is an example of a third chart that may be used in performing the method of  FIG. 10 . 
           [0063]      FIG. 14  is an example of a fourth chart that may be used in performing the method of  FIG. 10 . 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
       [0064]    The simulation architecture  10  is shown in  FIG. 1A  and it generally includes nodules  100 ,  200 ,  300 ,  400 ,  500 ,  600 ,  700 ,  800 , and  900  that form part of a system-of-systems network. The architecture  10  is intended for use by a party that is aligned (patriotically, politically, commercially, contractually, ethically, etc.) with a predetermined entity. By executing the architecture  10 , the party can prepare to protect this entity against a problem that could be imposed by a predetermined opponent. In a military application, for example, the entity would be the allied forces and the opponent would be the enemy. In a business application, the entity would a particular corporation, and the opponent would be industrially competing companies. In a financial application, the entity-at-interest would be an economically-linked society, and the opponent would be non-ethical banking institutions. In a natural disaster application, the entity would be a geographic region, and the opponent would be Mother Nature herself. 
         [0065]    The simulation architecture  10  can comprise one or more outside informational nodules  100 . ( FIGS. 1A-1C .) These nodules  100  research, gather, supply, or otherwise provide background information relevant to the subject simulation. The informational nodules  100  can comprise, for example, historical patterns, general observations, intelligence gained by strategic surveillance, etc. Preferably, the data originates from different (although sometimes overlapping) sources. The informational nodules  100  have a “one-way” information path in that data is conveyed from the nodules  100  to other nodules of the architecture  10  (e.g., simulation nodules  200 , introduced below), but usually no information will be directed transmitted, transferred, or otherwise imported to the nodules  100 . That being said, the feeding of information compiled during earlier simulation sessions into the information nodules  100  for later use is possible and contemplated. 
         [0066]    The simulation architecture  10  comprises one or more simulation nodules  200 . ( FIG. 1A .) Each simulation nodule  200  is executed or performed by a group of people. A group can comprise, for example, five to twenty people, and is preferably compiled with the greatest possible amount of intellectual diversity. The backgrounds of the group members could include, for example, science, engineering, business, military, religion, sociology, economics, management, etc. The wider the diversity, the more robust the architectural results. 
         [0067]    The group members can be geographically together (e.g., in the same room) during execution of the simulation nodule  200 , and this is usually the easiest way for group members to express ideas and exchange input. Personal human contact is often an extremely effective catalyst for creativity, and in-person conversations foster this approach. But it is also possible to execute the simulation nodule  200  with group members situated at a plurality of locations, especially with the modern technologies (e.g., video-teleconferencing) that come very close to duplicating in-person communications. 
         [0068]    The group members can be situated in a classroom-like environment, removed from the atmosphere of the issues being addressed. Such emotional distance may allow the group members to be more relaxed and thus more productive. But in some situations, it may be beneficial to introduce tension, so that group members can better appreciate the reactions of those involved in an actual occurrence. Hybrid arrangements are also possible. For example, group members could be moved between a classroom and an issue-analogous arena while executing the simulation nodule  200 . And/or some group members could be located in a classroom and other group members could be located elsewhere. 
         [0069]    The architecture  10  can be applied in a seminar-like setting and, if so, there will typically be four to eight simulation nodules  200 . Too few simulation nodules  200  can limit the cross-pollination process while too many simulation nodules  200  can dilute its effects. That being said, a single simulation nodule  200 , a pair of simulation nodules  200 , three simulation nodules  200 , and/or more than eight simulation nodules  200 , are certainly possible and contemplated. 
         [0070]    Each simulation nodule  200  includes a plurality of sequential internal nodes. In the context of the present architecture, the term “internal node” refers to the steps (or system of steps) that are performed solely by the members assigned to the respective nodular group (although they may receive information from the external data nodes  100 ). The illustrated stimulation nodules  200  can each comprises an internal problem-defining node  220 , an internal solution-developing node  230 , an internal weakness-exposing node  240 , an internal solution-revising node  250 , and an internal solution-evaluating node  260 . ( FIG. 2A .) 
         [0071]    In the problem-defining node  220 , a problem is defined that the opponent could impose to injure the entity. The problem-defining node  220  can include subnodes  221 - 223  that entail data collecting, data organizing, and problem-planning steps. ( FIG. 2B .) The data collecting subnode  221  and/or the problem-planning steps can receive relevant information from the outside nodules  100 . 
         [0072]    In the solution-developing node  230 , a solution is developed to the defined problem. The solution-developing node  230  can comprise a problem-predict subnode  231 , a problem-prevent subnode  233 , a problem-detect subnode  232 , a problem-neutralize subnode  234 , and a damage-mitigate subnode  235 . ( FIG. 2C .) Information from outside nodes  100  can be conveyed to one or more of these subnodes  231 - 235  during execution of the solution-developing node  230 . 
         [0073]    In many simulation circumstances, the most desirable solution will involve predicting the problem and then preventing it from occurring. The next most desirable solution will entail detecting the problem and then neutralizing its effects. The least desirable solution (but sometimes only) solution is mitigating the damage caused by the problem. Approaches can be adopted to shift analysis focus away from a damage-mitigating solution and towards what are usually more productive solutions. For example, a minimal amount of brainstorming space/time can be allotted to damage-mitigating issues so that the predict-prevent discussion and/or the detect-neutralize discussion monopolizes conversations. 
         [0074]    In weakness-exposing node  240 , the weaknesses to the solution developed during the execution of node  230  are exposed. The node  240  can include subnodes  241 - 244  that allow an analysis of the solution&#39;s vulnerabilities. ( FIG. 2D .) For example, an effectiveness subnode  241  rates the solution&#39;s capability to prevent, neutralize, and/or mitigate the problem. A casualty-count subnode  242  takes into account the collateral effects of the solution. An interruption-potential subnode  243  gauges the opponent&#39;s chances of aborting the solution. And a recovery-time subnode  244  addresses the ability of the opponent to regroup and re-attack upon discovery of the solution. Some or all of the subnodes  241 - 244  can be supplied with relevant information from the outside nodes  100 . 
         [0075]    In the solution-evaluating node  250 , the solution is evaluated in light of the weaknesses exposed during the execution of the node  240 . The node  250  can comprise, for example, a weakness-weighing subnode  251 , a summing subnode  252 , a risk-success ratio subnode  253 , and a risk-evaluation subnode  254 . ( FIG. 2E .) The subnode  251  can weigh the effectiveness, casualty, interruption, and recovery weakness factors of the solution, and the subnode  252  can sum these weighted factors. Based on this weighted sum, the subnode  253  can calculate the chances of success and/or risk and this calculation can be used to evaluate whether the solution would be acceptable to the entity. Outside nodules  100  can supply some or all of the subnodes of the solution-evaluating node  250  with pertinent information. 
         [0076]    The solution-revising node  260  can comprise subnodes  261 - 265  similar to those in the solution-developing node  230  and one or more of these subnodes can receive information from the outside nodes  100 . ( FIG. 2F .) The weakness-exposing node  240 , the solution-evaluating node  250 , and the solution-revising node  260  are repeated (e.g., cycled) until a solution is with a risk factor acceptable to the entity. ( FIG. 2G-2H .) This iteration builds on—and beyond—baseline familiarities and thereby steers participants towards a more robust appreciation of possible problem and solutions. 
         [0077]    Now referring to  FIGS. 3A-3C , the architecture  10  can include a systemizing nodule  300  with a series of internal nodes  310 - 320  that together force the incorporation of systems-thinking tenets into the relevant analysis. This nodule  300  prompts participants to view the opponent&#39;s actions as a system, not just a series of isolated acts. The party can thereby use systems-thinking to outwit the opponent&#39;s system. 
         [0078]    The systemizing nodule  300  can be executed at various stages during the simulation exercise. The nodule  300  can be executed, for example, during the problem-defining node  220 , and specifically, for example, during the data-organizing subnode  222 . ( FIG. 3B .) The systemizing nodule  300  can be executed during the solution-developing node  230  (during some, any, or all of the subnodes  231 - 235 ) and/or during the solution revising node  260  (during some, any or all of the subnodes  261 - 265 ). ( FIG. 3C .) While systemizing nodule  300  may not be directly executed during weakness-exposing exercises, it lays the groundwork for recognizing (and then responding to) the vulnerabilities of each stage/object of the opponent&#39;s problem-imposing system. 
         [0079]    In the illustrated nodule  300 , an interdependence-examination node  310  examines the interconnectedness of the objects and the interaction of their attributes. A pattern-deciphering node  311  deciphers the emergent properties that holistically arise from the objects&#39; interconnection and the attributes&#39; interaction. A goal ascertaining node  312  ascertains the goal or final state resulting from the emergent properties. An input/output determining node  313  determines the objects, modifications, and/or changes that must enter/exit the system exploitation to reach specific goals. A transformation-tracing node  314  traces the transformation of inputs into outputs. An entropy-evaluation node  315  evaluates the disorder or randomness present during such transformation. A regulation-realization node  316  finds the feedback and regulation employed to insure predictable operation. A hierarchy-ranking node  317  ranks subsystems within their parent systems. A specialty-differentiating node  318  differentiates among specialized units and/or specialized functions. A convergence node  319  identifies alternate inputs that can achieve the same objectives, and a divergence node  320  identifies alternate objectives that can be attained from the same inputs. 
         [0080]    By addressing each node  310 - 320  in the systemizing nodule  300 , a complex system can be outlined in the flowchart-like manner. This approach reveals hidden systems, encourages the development of deliberate response systems, allows visualization of plans, permits validation of visions, uncovers traps, and/or predicts behavior. When used in conjunction with the simulation nodule  200 , the systemizing nodule  300  integrates engineering expertise, cognitive psychology, and situational awareness. This integration accelerates the generation of innovative solutions to threats in the relevant arena. And sometimes more importantly, this simulation-systemization partnership fosters foreseeing unknown problems that could occur in the future. 
         [0081]    The role-reversing nodule  400  aids the party in putting themselves mentally into the opponent&#39;s thought process and to “think like the enemy.” The party is caused to disassociate from a familiar mode and engage in opposite-agenda activity. By trading roles, perspective is added to the process and it is easier to project/predict adversarial behaviors and the reasons therefor. 
         [0082]    To route role-reversing in realistic directions, the nodule  400  can include a planning node  410 , a scouting node  411 , a resource-acquiring node  412 , a building node  413 , a training node  414 , a deploying node  415 , and an assessing node  416 . ( FIG. 4A .) One, some, or all of these nodes  410 - 416  can be fed information from outside nodules  100  and/or they can be systemized via nodules  300 . 
         [0083]    The role-reversing nodule  400  may be especially useful during the problem-defining node  200 , as it may help to identify not yet encountered problems. ( FIG. 4B .) Likewise, the role-reversal can be helpful during the weakness-exposing node  240 , as the opponent will be seeing the solution with fresh eyes, and a perspective towards exploiting its vulnerabilities. In most cases, the party will return to its entity-aligned state of mind when developing, revising, and/or evaluating solutions. That being said, an architecture situation executing the role-reversing node  400  during solution-related stages is certainly possible. 
         [0084]    The conflict-imitating nodule  500  allows an issue to be played out or otherwise simulated in a competitive game-like setting. ( FIG. 5A .) The nodule  500  can include a team-assignment node  510 , a team-isolating node  511 , an opponent-briefing node  512 , and a teams-engaging node  513 . In the illustrated conflict-imitating nodule  500 , simulation nodule  200 A and simulation nodule  200 B are assigned to the opponent team and the simulation nodule  200 C and  200 D are assigned to the entity team. Outside information (e.g., team-assignments, combat-conducive data, etc.) can be supplied by the outside nodules  100 , systemizing aid can be provided by the nodule  300 , and/or role-reversing can be performed by the nodule  400 . The conflict-imitating nodule  500  can be useful for testing the validity of solutions reached during the execution of nodes  230  and  260 , and/or supplement the execution of the weakness-exposing node  240 . ( FIG. 5B .) 
         [0085]    The reality-checking nodule  600  can be used to endorse conclusions reached during execution of the simulation nodule  200 . This check can confirm understandings and regulate robustness during the creative progress. It builds participants&#39; confidence in the simulation process and can add or verify insights. 
         [0086]    The reality-checking nodule  600  can include a historically-inconsistent node  610  (that reviews historical data for inconsistencies), an entity-attempted node  611  (that reviews data collected by prior attempts by the entity), a public-broadcast node  612 , and a literature scan node  613 . ( FIG. 6A .) The nodule  600  can (and probably will) receive information from outside nodules  100 , and its nodes can be integrated with a systemizing nodule  300 . The reality-checking nodule  600  can be used to verify a defined problem, solution, and/or a risk evaluation in the simulation nodule  200  ( FIG. 6B ), during systemizing nodes of the nodule  300  ( FIG. 6C ), during role-reversing nodes of the nodule  400  ( FIG. 6D ), and/or during briefing of the opponent team in nodule  500  ( FIG. 6E ). 
         [0087]    The simulation architecture  10  can comprise a cross-pollinating nodule  700  that allows an exchange and comparison of conclusions, projections, estimations among simulation nodules  200  throughout the simulation process. ( FIG. 7A .) The nodule  700  can comprise, for example, a node  710  that receives multi-nodular data, a node  711  that compiles this data, a node  712  that summarizes the compiled data, and a node  713  that distributes the summarized data back to one or more nodules and/or nodes. The nodule  700  (e.g., nodes  710 - 712 ) can receive information from outside nodules  100  and/or the nodule  700  (e.g., nodes  711 - 712 ) can systemize via nodules  300 . The cross-pollinating nodule  700  can be employed in conjunction with the simulation nodule  200  (e.g., nodes  220 ,  230 ,  240 ,  260 ), the systemizing nodule  300 , the role-reversing nodule  400 , the conflict-imitating nodule  500  (e.g., node  511 ), and/or the reality-checking nodule  600 . ( FIGS. 7B-7F .) 
         [0088]    Once an acceptable solution has been reached by the node  260  in the simulation nodule  200  (with or without the help of nodules  300 ,  400 ,  500 ,  600 , and  700 ), the architecture  10  can invoke its technology-inventory nodule  800 . This nodule  800  inventories the capability necessary to implement the solution in response to the defined problem. The nodule  800  can include a technology-inventorying node  810 , a technology-gap identifying node  820 , a capability-required requisitioning node  830 , a success-criticality rating node  840 , a gap-filling-technology proposing node  850 , a design-differentiating node  860 , and a take-forward-technology selecting node  870 . Information can be supplied from outside nodules  100  and the systemizing nodules  300  can be employed with one or more of the nodes  810 - 870 . 
         [0089]    The node  810  inventories the technology necessary to implement the solution (and is especially enhanced by the solution being systemized) and the node  820  identifies the gaps in technology in this inventory. The node  830  is a requisitioning of gap-technology as if it was available and detailed specifications were being provided by a potential customer. The node  840  rates the criticality of the gap-technology to solution success (another step especially enhanced by the solution being systemized). In the node  850 , technology is proposed based on the requisition and criticality, preferably with a systemized approach gained by drawing the systemizing nodule  300  into the process. The node  860  differentiates the proposed designs on particular factors (e.g., operational difficulty, cost, technology-readiness level, ease of manufacture, etc). The node  870  then selects the gap-technology equipment that should be taken forward. 
         [0090]    The architecture  10  shown in  FIG. 1A  incorporates a plurality of the simulation nodules  200  shown in  FIG. 2A . These nodules  200  can separately, jointly, and/or commonly execute the technology-inventory nodule  800  to select gap-technology equipment that should be taken forward. 
         [0091]    The architecture  10  shown in  FIG. 1B  and  FIG. 1C  incorporates a plurality of the simulation nodules  200  shown in  FIG. 2G  and  FIG. 2H , respectively. In these simulation nodules  200 , there is no separate nodule  800  but instead each simulation nodule  200  includes an internal technology-inventory node  280 . ( FIG. 8B .) The node  280  includes subnodes  281 - 287  corresponding to the nodes  810 - 870  of the nodule  800 . With these architectures, each simulation nodule  200  performs its own technology-inventory steps (although there may be cross-pollination thereamong via the nodule  700 ). 
         [0092]    The architecture  10  can further comprise a device-manufacturing or mission-mapping nodule  900 . ( FIGS. 9A and 9B .) With this nodule  900 , a device can then be designed and manufactured with unconventional features, and/or a mission can be planned that incorporates fresh strategies, to implement the solution. 
         [0093]    If the manufacture of a product is the objective, the nodule  900  can comprise a device-designing node  910 , a device-prototyping node  920 , a prototype-testing node  930 , a device-manufacturing node  940 , a device-delivering node  950 , a customer feedbacking node  960 , and/or a design-updating node  970 . ( FIG. 9A .) If the execution of a mission is the objective, the nodule  900  can comprise a mission-planning node  910 , a mission-training node  920 , and mission-trialing node  930 , a mission-preparing node  940 , a mission-executing mode  950 , a surveillance feedbacking node  960 , and/or a mission debriefing node  970 . ( FIG. 9B .) Information can be supplied from outside nodules  100  and the systemizing nodules  300  can be employed with one or more of the nodes  810 - 870 . 
         [0094]    The architecture  10  shown in  FIG. 1A  and  FIG. 1B  incorporates a plurality of the simulation nodules  200  shown in  FIG. 2A  and  FIG. 2G , respectively. These nodules  200  can separately, jointly, and/or commonly execute the nodule  900  to manufacture a device and/or execute a mission. In the architecture  10  shown in  FIG. 1C  (which incorporates a plurality of the simulation nodules  200  shown in  FIG. 2H ), there is no separate nodule  900  but instead each simulation nodule  200  includes an internal node  290 . ( FIGS. 9C and 9D .) The node  290  includes subnodes  291 - 297  corresponding to the nodes  910 - 970  of the nodule  900 . 
         [0095]      FIG. 10  shows a high-level flow chart of a method  1000  for carrying out a method using the simulation architecture  10  ( FIG. 1A ) described above. In broad terms, the method  1000  is a method of approaching a problem by directing participants to think outside their experience level. The problem may be any of a wide variety of problems, especially including problems faced by organizations. In narrower terms the problem may characterized as one involving determining countermeasures in opposition to an enemy (also termed the “red force” or “adversary”), whether the enemy is an individual, a group of individuals, or an organizations. The enemies/problems may be any of a wide variety of things, including military enemies, criminals, terrorist organizations, business competitors, border security, drug and gang activity, business intelligence activity, homeland security, information protection, and competitive intelligence, to give only a few examples. The side for which the countermeasures are developed may be referred to herein as the “friendly force” or “blue force.” It will be appreciated that the friendly force may be any of a variety of sizes and types of groups or organizations. Normally the blue force, or some entity sympathetic with the blue force, will be the one implementing the method  1000 . 
         [0096]    One of the important aspects of the method  1000  is getting participants to approach the situation from a variety of mindsets, directions, or orientations. In some of the tasks participants will be asked to approach a situation from the point of view of the enemy or red force, trying to develop and/or improve an enemy system. In other tasks the participants will be asked to adopt the mindset of the friendly or blue force, developing countermeasures in response to plans (systems or schemes) developed when the participants were acting from the mindset of the red force. 
         [0097]    The types or problems that may be subject to the method  1000  may vary considerably. However one common feature is that humans are on the opposing sides of the problem, adapting their behavior in response to or in anticipation of actions by the other side. Such problems have been termed “wicked problems,” problems for which technology alone is not sufficient, but for which social aspects of the problem often have to be understood and addressed. The role switching between red force mindset and blue force mindset is important for gaining a better understanding of the system. In essence the method  1000  may enable participants to think past and achieve more than the mere incremental gains in countermeasures that might be expected from examining only current conditions. 
         [0098]    In step  1002  of the method  1000  background information on the problem is provided to the participants. People who have direct knowledge of the problem, experience with it, and/or have done extensive research into the problem, share information about the problem, why it needs to be solved, ways that have already been tried to solve it, and challenges associated with solving it (among other possibilities). 
         [0099]    As part of step  1002  a set of starter tenets may be posted as a reference, to help anchor the process. A chart with the starter tenets may aid in communicating information to the participants to provide a jump-off point for assumptions to be mode in the process. For example, the chart may show certain tenets of the blue force, and well-educated assumptions concerning red force activities. This provides the participants with certain basic information from the point of view of the blue (friendly) forces, preceding a shift to the perception of the problem from the point of view of the red (enemy) force. The object at this point is not to provide the participants with the red force system, but rather to let that information develop later by examination of real events and exploration by the participants. It will be appreciated that this information may be presented in any of a variety of suitable ways. 
         [0100]    In step  1006  the participants in the problem-solving enterprise are divided up into multiple groups. If the participants are initially considered as a group, this step might be referred to as dividing the participants into subgroups. The dividing up of the participants may be used to allow different groups to approach the problem from different directions, and/or to perform different tasks in the process. In addition it will be appreciated that it may advantageous to have different groups because different groups will develop different ideas, ideas that can be brought together for a result that is greater than the sum of its parts. In brainstorming often a number of smaller groups will generate more ideas than one large group. 
         [0101]    In step  1008  one or more playbooks are provided to the participants in their groups. A playbook is a scenario, an activity to occur from the point of view of an enemy (adversary). The playbook presents participant with information concerning a situation faced by the enemy, perhaps in terms of a goal to be achieved, with procedures to achieve them, and resources available. The playbook aids in producing an enemy-oriented mindset, encouraging the participants to approach the scenario from the point of view of an enemy that is trying to accomplish the enemy goals of the scenario. Toward this end, the playbook may be written as if intended for enemy personnel, so as to encourage participants to adopt the mindset of the enemy personnel that is the (purported) intended audience of the playbook. The playbook may be in written form, but may include other types of media, such as video. Video segments may be adopted based on various criteria, for instance because they demonstrate a blue force problem or vulnerability; because they demonstrate red force tactics and capabilities; because they provide tactical context for scenario assumptions; or to provide richer detail in describing or conveying the scenario, to better give participants a flavor of the situation of the playbook, to facilitate getting participants in the right mindset. 
         [0102]    To give one example, the playbook may include a manual for a terrorist organization trying to accomplish a given goal, such as carrying out a series of certain types of terrorist attacks. The playbook could provide various roles needed to carry out a plan, and various instructions and procedures for carrying out attacks, possibly including procedures for reviewing and improving operations. The playbook could be written as if its intended audience was members of the terrorist organization, and may incorporate what is known about enemy motivations. Videos of actual attacks, for example drawn from the Internet, may be made a part of the playbook. The playbook written material may cause participants to think through a real event, a process that can be reinforced by video of the same or a similar event. This is a first step toward participants internalizing a red force mindset. 
         [0103]    Different playbooks may be used by different groups, with the different playbooks addressing different aspects of the problem. The playbooks guide a sort of simulation by the participants, in developing a hypothesized red force system. Providing different playbooks adds different perspectives as an input, facilitating later development of hypothesized systems. 
         [0104]    In step  1010  the groups are given instructions to develop one or more red force plans for accomplishing the goals set out in the playbook. This activity is to be carried out with the participants adopting the role of the enemy (red force), trying to create and improve plans, a term which is broadly intended to encompass both procedures, and systems for carrying out of procedures. The developing of plans may involve or be aided by mapping, such as by using the system mapping chart  1020  shown in  FIG. 11 . The chart  1020  allows participants to map out elements of a (possible) system for carrying out the playbook scenario, such as acquiring resources, building, training, deploying, assessing, planning, and scouting. As indicated on the chart  1020 , participants may be directed to fill in elements on the chart  1020 , and make connections between them. The result is an example of a mindmap. Mindmaps provide a free-flowing way to parse ideas and develop detail for each of them. They function as work surfaces for participants to exchange and build on ideas. 
         [0105]    The participants may be given some input regarding possible elements of the red force system. For instance, some or all of the groups may be given a list or chart (or other information) regarding some likely elements of the red force system. However an important part of step  1010  is creative work by the participants in coming up with their own hypothesized red force systems. 
         [0106]    Particular attention may be directed to system vulnerabilities, and to fixing or avoiding those vulnerabilities, either in the step  1010  or in a later step, from the point of view of the enemy trying to improve its overall system or scheme. The weaknesses or points of vulnerability may be identified at the time the chart  1020  is filled out, or in a later step or substep. The creative aspect of step  1010 , both the mapping and identification of red force vulnerabilities, aids in getting participants to gain a better understanding of the dynamic social situation. 
         [0107]    In step  1024  the assembly of participants may be divided into blue force countersystems or countermeasures groups (either the same groups as in step  1006  or in different groups), and directed to work on blue force systems. The participants are directed to adopt the mindset of the blue force when performing this task. The groups may have different tasks, approaching the blue system countermeasure issue from different directions, with different instructions. One group (or subteam) may be a revision group that looks at current blue force countermeasure systems or concepts, with instructions to revise and/or update the current blue force countermeasures in light of the red force systems mapped or otherwise produced in step  1010 . Another group or subteam may be a creation group that creates countermeasure plans or systems in light of the red force systems of step  1010 , without examining current blue force countermeasures. It will be appreciated that there may be multiple revision groups and/or multiple creation groups. Having different groups examine the situation from different directions and with different information may aid in producing a wider range of potential solutions. Creative solutions may be fostered by the creation group, yet providing the revision group with information on present countermeasures ensures that information on present practices is not lost. 
         [0108]    The creative group may use a mindmap, such as the chart  1030  shown in  FIG. 12 , as a work space in performing its task. The chart  1030  may be purposed skewed in its layout. It may provide less space where usual situations emerge (the area labeled “mitigate” in the illustrated embodiment), with the view of discouraging usual solutions that may have proven less than adequate. The skewed chart  1030  provides the creative group with an unfamiliar work surface that serves to keep easy, non-inventive solutions from taking over. 
         [0109]    Although there are advantages to providing different groups with different tasks and/or different information for step  1024 , it will be appreciated that alternatively the development of blue force systems may be accomplished by only a single group, or by different groups charged with the same task. It will further be appreciated that a greater number of groups can be employed, with additional groups possibly repeating the same tasks as the creation group and the revision group. Another alternative is to have different groups create or revise systems handing different aspects of the problem or scenario. 
         [0110]    Next the groups merge their blue force strategy ideas together in step  1034 . The sharing allows adding perspectives to produce an improved countermeasure strategy. The merger of the ideas of the different groups results in an improved countermeasure system/plan that combines the best aspects of each group&#39;s output. This step serves to combine reality with purposeful innovation. The merger or consolidation may produce combined blue force system architecture or plan. 
         [0111]    After the consolidation of step  1036 , the participants produce output regarding what useful has been learned about the problem (and solutions). The output produced may be in a form that is useful to the host or sponsor of the event, which may be associated with the blue force. A description of the hypothesized red force system may be produced, along with a description of the strengths of that red force system. 
         [0112]    Charts may be provided to the participants to channel the output into useful forms. One example is a chart listing vulnerabilities  1040 , shown in  FIG. 13 . The chart  1040  provides an opportunity to list perceived red force (enemy) vulnerabilities based on the red force system or plan produced, a blue (friendly) force tenet to which each vulnerability applies (predicting, preventing, detecting, neutralizing, or mitigating, for example), and suggestions on how the enemy force can attempt to overcome these vulnerabilities. 
         [0113]      FIG. 14  shows another type of possible output, a chart  1044  for technology prioritization. The chart  1044  allows participants to identify currently unmet capabilities, required capabilities, criticality of the item, potential technical solutions, differentiators for the technical solutions (such as difficulty and/or cost), and technologies to take forward. This focuses the group on the technology needed to implement system solutions, provides a prioritized “to-do” list as output, and summarizes the work. 
         [0114]    It will be appreciated that the method  1000  described above is only an example. Not all of the steps described above should be taken as essential or critical, and one or more steps may be omitted or modified in suitable ways, if desired. 
         [0115]    Although the tools and methods have been shown and described with respect to certain embodiments, it is obvious that equivalent alterations and modifications will occur to others skilled in the art. In regard to the various functions performed by the above described elements (e.g., components, combinations, systems, devices, etc.), the terms (including a reference to a “means”) used to describe such elements are intended to correspond, unless otherwise indicated, to any element which performs the specified function of the described element (i.e., that is functionally equivalent), even though not structurally equivalent to the disclosed structure which performs the function. In addition, while a particular feature of the invention may have been described above with respect to only one or more of several illustrated embodiments, such feature may be combined with one or more other features of the other embodiments, as may be desired and advantageous for any given or particular application.