Notice

Intelligent Ship Phase 3: Pre-Launch Event Clarifications

Updated 17 May 2023

1. Questions asked during Intelligent Ships Phase 3 Collaboration event, March 1st 2023

Q. Are there any standards that apply to the proposed system that we would need to adhere to?

A. For this competition we would be working to existing DEFSTANS. Thought is being given to the future standards that would have to apply to these systems but this is a new area of research, so there are gaps in those standards, and activities such as this project will help to inform future standards.

Q. In the review of Phases 1 and 2 there was no strong conclusion. Is this because it ‘was a mess’?

A. We set ourselves a challenging target and much was ‘designed by accident and opportunity’. We realised that development capability in Phases 1 and 2 was naturally limited by time and current technology. We learned that we need to limit the number of dimensions and that learning will be brought into Phase 3.

Q. In Phases 1 and 2 the use of VBS brought opportunities and constraints. What is the intended situation for Phase 3?

A. In the next phase we will allow more scope for innovators to test in different environments and with different simulation options. We will still be aiming to integrate the solution into Dstl’s Command Lab and the end of the phase to allow future exploitation an exploration.

Q. Are we moving towards a ‘Standard architecture’ and if so, when?

A. This is a challenge which is being addresses elsewhere in the Autonomy programme – again this project informs that activity

Q. How do we understand if our solutions work from a human perspective? Is the target to get more/different output from people or reduce people?

A. Phase 2 focused on improving capability and this will still be the overall aim of Phase 3. This time we want to identify how the human and machine elements can be best integrated into the team as a whole to achieve the best combined capability result. We are open to alternative approaches that reduce the burden on human operators, but support a net improvement in capability, keep operators engaged and situationally aware. I.e. manpower reduction is not a primary aims, capability enhancement is.

Q. Is there any requirement for data collection/management technologies e.g. sorting the wheat from the chaff?

A. This is being addressed in other areas of Dstl and hence no directly addressed by this competition – a clear enabler to the capability being investigated and developed however.

Q. Feedback loops?

A. We realised in Phase 2 that it was necessary to keep operators more situationally aware on what the autonomy was doing and why. We did design some solutions to improving this issue, but we need to more in Phase 3.

Q. Were usability assessments of agents done before testing in Command lab. What testing was done to assess work load?

A. Some agents did as part of their individual development, however others were adapted from agents designed to support full autonomy – i.e. there was a mix of maturities with respect to how they interacted with humans and, in for example their developed UIs. Usability was assessed at a whole system level as part of the evaluations, which also provide some limited insights into individual agent’s usability.

Q. Does the agent need to run on Command Lab?

A. We are open to proposals that are evaluated on alternative environments and with alternative simulation engines. We would require a risk based assessment of the benefits and costs of using an alternative vs. Command lab, both from a technical perspective and from a practical location impact on movement and access for both contractors, Dstl staff, and wider MOD stakeholders.

Q. Will the MODREC committee be notified in advance that we are expecting submissions to speed up approval?

A. Yes, the committee will be informed about our competition – however the committee take no action until formal applications/ submission are made – i.e. early dialogue is unlikely to reduce timescales

Q. What classification will apply and if it is at Official will that compromise output?

A. The project aims to remain at Official-Sensitive or lower to maximise the ability to share learning and outputs widely. Command lab would give an options to manage data at higher levels if required or desirable to improve outputs, but we would need to balance the risks and benefits of doing so.

Q. What is the budget for Phase 3?

A. We are unable to say before the official competition launch

Q. Is Dstl going to coordinate the collaborative team required for the single successful proposal? Is there previous experience of similar approaches?

A. There have been previous examples of multiple organisations working together in DASA competitions (swarming drones). We expect organisations to form their own teams and choose a lead to make the submission. We would need visibility of the team and its structure. There is a collaboration survey which can support organisations in identify links to other organisations.

Q. You mentioned that development will need to be flexible. Are there any commercial issues with this?

A. In terms of flexibility – we expect to practically need a degree of flexibility within a fixed budget and timescale – i.e. the ability to re-prioritise activities or sub-tasks depending on what is discovered during the development of and evaluation of the system. This was achieved via routinely updating a MOSCOW analysis in phase 2 for example.

Q. Do you foresee contributors changing during the project?

A. This is an S & T project so is exploring a technical space rather than specifying a detailed solution; this inevitably leads to subtle changes in scope based on learning and evaluations throughout the activity, potentially impacting individual team member’s scope – see question on flexibility above. We don’t expect wholescale change to the team make-up during the project however.

Q. If we have existing projects in other areas can we bring these in?

A. Yes, providing there development or adaption isn’t a significant element of the overall proposed scope – i.e. it’s not a ‘distraction’ form the overall call aims.