An Evolution-based Approach towards Next-Gen Defence HQ and

Energy Strategy Integration

Ovidiu Noran

and Peter Bernus

IIIS Centre for Enterprise Architecture Research and Management, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Keywords: 5

Generation Headquarters, Energy Strategy, Architectural Evolution, Life Cycle, Renewable Energy,

Hydrogen, Energy Security.

Abstract: There is an increasing worldwide impetus towards a ‘nil emissions’ industry and energy production. While

new technologies and materials have made the concept of renewable energy viable, there are still significant

challenges in regards to the transition process in view of balancing the economic, security and environmental

aspects. At the same time, the advent of the Internet of (Every)thing/s paradigm and the increasingly dynamic

balance of power manifesting itself in various parts of the world have brought about the stringent need to

evolve military defence doctrines, starting at the headquarters (command and control) level. As energy and

national security clearly display a strong connection, it would be highly advisable to maintain this bond along

the life of these two aspects, e.g. by evolving them observing similar principles and in a synchronised manner.

This paper describes challenges faced by the two aspects and proposes a way forward that preserves and

enhances the symbiosis necessary for a planned energy transition and effective national defence. Thus, while

each region and nation will face specific geo-political issues, this paper initiates the process of elaborating a

guiding framework (which can then be customised) meant to maintain the above-mentioned critical bond

during the various possible transition stages, in a holistic and life cycle-based manner.

1 INTRODUCTION

New technologies and materials have made viable the

concept of renewable energy, giving an increasing

worldwide impetus to achieving a ‘nil emissions’

industry and energy production. However, there are

still significant challenges in regards to the transition

process in view of balancing the ‘triangle’ of

economic, security and environmental aspects

(Umbach, 2012; Weiss, Pareschi, Georges, &

Boulouchos, 2021).

On the other hand, the rise of the Internet of

(Every)thing/s paradigm (Zdravković, Trajanović, &

Panetto, 2014) and the changes in the balance of

power worldwide have called for the evolution of

military defence doctrines, starting with the

headquarters (command and control) level. Energy

and national security clearly display a strong

connection (Blackburn, 2018; Flaherty & Filho,

2013; Hughes & Long, 2015), which should be

sustained along the entire life of these two areas. This

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2135-8533

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5371-8743

can be achieved by evolving them in a synchronised

and coordinated manner, while observing similar

architectural principles.

This paper aims to initiate the process of creating

a framework (customizable for specific geo-political

settings) meant to maintain the critical symbiosis

during the various possible stages of transition, in a

holistic and life cycle-based manner so as to ensure a

planned energy transition in sync with an effective

transition to a next-generation national defence.

This paper uses Energy Transition as an important

example of the fact that effective national defence is

not possible unless the country maintains a resilient

and agile critical infrastructure (which includes

multiple systems, such as various energy systems,

communication and cyber, manufacturing, logistics,

transport, etc.). The transition model presented in

Section 2 is intended to generalise over all of these

systems, including defence (Section 3).

Noran, O. and Bernus, P.

An Evolution-based Approach towards Next-Gen Defence HQ and Energy Strategy Integration.

DOI: 10.5220/0010411506890698

In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2021) - Volume 2, pages 689-698

ISBN: 978-989-758-509-8

689

2 TRANSITION STRATEGIES:

THE ELECTRICITY ENERGY

MARKET EXAMPLE

Discovery of new, cleaner and more efficient energy

sources and the required transition based on new

technologies of production and use have always been

present throughout history. Currently, the transition

encompasses fossil sources of energy giving way to

so-called renewables, which underpin the solution to

tackle climate change and water and air quality, as

well as to build a more resilient sovereign capability

to meet demand.

2.1 State of the Art and Challenges

Ambitious energy transition targets have been

proposed by governments worldwide; while global

action is paramount as we all share the same

environment, each region faces different geo-political

and economic issues. Therefore, generic high-level

tools and roadmaps such as those proposed by the

World Economic Forum (WEF, 2018) and the

International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA,

2018a) translate into a variety of strategies applicable

in view of the economic development level of regions

and the nature of the energy infrastructure

(Edenhofer, 2011).

Importantly, energy transition becomes an

increasingly complicated endeavour as it moves

between progressively more complex levels of energy

production, storage and use, and thus must be

supported by more involved technology and also

policies surrounding this change. This is an expected

effect, long recognised as the ‘requisite (and higher)

variety that must be displayed by a system controlling

another complex system (Ashby, 1958) so as to be

able to cope with its possible states. In addition,

energy transition can now more than ever evolve in a

non-linear but also unpredictable manner due to

factors such as the Internet of Things (IoT),

fragmentation of the energy system (WEF, 2017) and

mobility transformation. Moreover, certain local

factors may determine an accelerated transition in

some areas (IRENA, 2018b). We therefore witness a

change to an energy System of Systems (SoS).

2.1.1 Hydrogen

Hydrogen as a contemporary energy disruptor

deserves a special mention. Thus, the (re-)appearance

of hydrogen as a viable source of energy in the

context of technological advances has brought

additional complexity to the energy transition

challenge from multiple points of view such as

political, economic, geo-strategic etc (Staffell et al.,

2019). This is because hydrogen holds the promise of

a renewable, clean and efficient source of energy

(IEA, 2019) which could give the economic and

military edge to a region or nation (Pointon &

Lakeman, 2007). The typical phenomenon of

innovations in the military domain spearheading

application in the industry (with varying degrees of

delay (Buzan & Sen, 1990) is already manifesting in

the hydrogen area (Narayana Das, 2017).

The transition to a hydrogen-based economy

presents some specific opportunities and challenges,

such as the ubiquitous availability of the raw material

or the decision on whether to use existing

infrastructure with some authors calling on a ‘fresh

start’ so as to avoid inheriting systemically ill-

designed energy infrastructure paradigms

(Blackburn, 2018; Steen, 2016).

All of the above facts clearly spell out a

requirement for adequate strategies based on flexible

methods and architectures appropriate for various

local conditions. This strategy must ensure a steady

supply of suitable short-term steps that contribute to

a stable long-term change path. The main challenge

to energy transition is an out of control random

transition in leaps and bounds.

2.2 Transition Planning: An Enterprise

Architecture Approach

The design of the future integrated Energy System of

Systems structure must take a holistic perspective,

considering how the life cycles of contributing

systems relate to each another. One must consider two

essential relationship types in this perspective; firstly,

there are the operational relationships enabling the

independently controlled participating systems to

work together so as to fulfil a joint mission. This

encompasses the necessary functions of the energy

SoS and the required non-functional requirements.

Secondly, one has to analyse the relationships

allowing the systems in question and their socio-

technical environment to influence each other’s

evolution in time.

This leads to the need to a) adopt a life cycle-

based, enterprise reference architecture which

includes a comprehensive modelling framework

(MF) and b) to clearly distinguish between the

concepts of atemporal life cycle phases and a time-

based life history. This is necessary in order to be able

to represent all necessary decision-making aspects as

views of a comprehensive repository of system

ICEIS 2021 - 23rd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

690

models, covering both recurrent and unique

relationships across the SoS of interest. The manner

the above endeavour can be performed is described in

the following section.

2.2.1 Modelling of the Transition

Modelling a system of interest during its entire life (as

deemed desirable in this case) may be performed

considering each ‘phase’ of its life cycle at various

levels of abstraction, depending upon the level of

concrete detail required. In this context, a ‘phase’ is

understood as a set of activity types necessary to

develop these models and their descriptions. This

paper makes use of ISO15704’s (2019) architecture

modelling framework constructs featuring intrinsic

life-cycle phase representations so as to depict

perspectives reflecting typical stakeholder concerns.

This MF differentiates between the mission

fulfilment and the management and control tasks of a

system, whether partially or fully automated (see

Figure 1). This feature is very well suited for both

domains to be modelled, namely energy transition

management and Defence Command and Control.

Figure 1: Modelling scope of an entity of interest vs typical

stakeholder categories (perspectives, based on ISO15704

Annex B (ISO/IEC, 2019)).

The MF generally abstracts from the flow of time;

instead, it represents the fact that various aspects of

the entity of interest must be defined by some

stakeholders. Importantly, if all stakeholders are

internal, then the modelled system is able to

completely (re)design itself and its management is in

full control of the system’s destiny.

Typically, the redesign capability (and thus the

system’s agility (Dove, 1999)) is limited or non-

existent, as its management has multiple constraints

(policies and laws, internal or external capability

limitations, and so on). It is therefore important to

model and understand the desired responsibilities and

authorities (and juxtapose these against capabilities

necessary for one entity to influence or dictate one or

more of these aspects of other entities). The range and

role of the various constructs available must be

understood in order to ensure the feasibility of a long-

term energy transition strategy and plan.

2.2.2 Dynamic Business Model

The modelling constructs covering the entire scope of

the entity of interest’s life cycle (see Figure 1) can be

used to create a ‘dynamic business model’

representing life cycle relationships underpinning a

transition strategy and plan a transition of the present

business architecture (‘AS-IS’) to the envisioned

future state (‘TO-BE’). In order to do this, one must

first identify the entities or systems of interest in the

transition planning, which will populate the business

model. Such entities may be (using for example the

Australian electricity energy market):

1. Regulators:

- Federal Government

- National Energy Regulator (NER)

- Australian Energy Market Commission

(AEMC, including former COAG Energy

Council functions)

- Energy Security Board (ESB)

2. National Electricity Market (NEM)

- Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)

- Energy Production, Transmission, Delivery and

Retailers

- Australian Renewable Energy Agency

(ARENA)

- Producers, Consumers (note that some may be

both, i.e. prosumers (Leal-Arcas, Lesniewska, &

Proedrou, 2018)).

These entities and their life cycle relationships are

then represented using the construct defined in

Section 2.2.1 and Figure 1, as depicted in Figure 2.

Note the important fact that a Programme and its

Projects are treated as ‘first class’ entities in this

model.

Identity

BusinessConcept

(strategy,policies,principles)

Requirements(F,NF)

Highlevel(architectural)design

Detaileddesign

Implementation/Build(EPC)

Operation

Decommissioning

Mission

fulfilment

Management& Cont

business

user,analyst

architect

designer

builder

feCycle

activitytypes

Typ

cal

perspectives

Ent

ofInterest

An Evolution-based Approach towards Next-Gen Defence HQ and Energy Strategy Integration

691

Figure 2: Coordination of transition policies and principles.

Figure 2 shows that the mechanism to coordinate the

multiple Projects involved in energy transition is

administered by a Transition Programme that decides

on supporting and coordinating them as they make

changes to the National Energy Market (NEM)

participants. The principal task of the Transition

Programme is to coordinate and synchronise the

investment, typically based on public-private

partnerships.

3 TRANSITION STRATEGIES:

‘5

GENERATION’ DEFENCE

EXAMPLE

The spread of IoT and artificial intelligence (AI)-

based autonomous agents is having an increasingly

widespread impact, with the battlespace concept and

the Command and Control (C2) in charge being no

exceptions. Importantly, proven doctrines and

strategic theories may no longer work in a hybrid, AI-

enhanced environment (Benson & Rotkoff, 2011);

this calls for new and innovative concepts that are

likely to transform C2 into a socio-technical and

cyber-physical system-of-systems. For the above

reasons, it is imperative that the analysis of such a

transformation involves a construct that can

encompass and master technical but also social

aspects, and among others, is able to natively

represent the extent of automation, i.e. boundaries of

human and machine domains (essential e.g. in the

case of hybrid agents).

C2 failures, directions of improvement and future

trends have been investigated in the relevant

literature. Thus, Vassiliou et al. (2015) identify

(interrelated) failure pressure points, such as an

inappropriate C2 approach, inadequate systems

architecture, and a lack of agility, trust and

interoperability. These issues, already complex and

currently not properly addressed (ibid.), are likely to

be exacerbated in the context of the major changes

Projects

Regulator

Entities

ARENA&

EnergyTransition

Programme

Energy

Consumers

SupplyChain

Partners

(EPC,MRO)

NEM+AEMO

(Producer, Transport &

Distribution Entities)

An a rrow re p resentsth ero leo fon e

e n ti tyi nthel ifecycl eo fan othere n tity

De fi nelaws ,p o l icies,ru les &p rin ciples

thattheProgrammeenforcesthroughProjects

ParticipateinProgramme

andProjectGovernance

De f i nemandate&s co pe

ofrenewableenergy

facilitiesand

cha ngeprojects

D e s ign &EPCo f

Energyfacilities

ICEIS 2021 - 23rd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

692

ahead and thus should form part of the requirements

in the quest for a new C2 paradigm. Thus, it may be

in fact the case that unresolved issues are carried on

to a next generation HeadQuarters (HQ) before being

addressed. This is typical of an accelerating pace of

technological advances that increasingly leaves the

legal, ethical (e.g. regulatory (Marchant, 2011)) and

social (such as trust (Brown, 2020)) aspects behind.

3.1 Next Gen HQ Defence Concepts

In the process of characterizing the future (TO_BE)

state for the 5

generation HQ, it would be very

helpful to define some important features for this

state. Yue et al (2016) have attempted to define

essential properties of an AI-enhanced HQ supporting

operations in a complex battlespace; this was called

‘5

Generation HQ’, based on analogies made with

other related Defence areas. They have defined

managed cyber visibility, organisational agility,

advanced C2 decision systems, network information

fusion and versatility as essential characteristics. The

question is: how do these translate in terms of the

entities participating and interacting within the

transition to a 5

Generation HQ?

According to Yue et al. (ibid.), managed cyber

visibility in the case of HQ refers rather to security

and required footprint and less to stealth; this may

translate in advanced encrypting technology,

communications governance comprising a separate

evolvable and resilient network infrastructure,

properly managed and defended.

C2 agility becomes paramount as battlespace

complexity increases; thus, for any given scenario

there should be a matching organisational structure

able to manage it as per Mintzberg’s theory (1979),

also observing the above-mentioned requisite variety

requirement (Ashby, 1958). Hence a 5

gen HQ

should display organisational agility. This could e.g.

be based on a knowledge repository of possible

organisational forms out of which the suitable format

could be chosen, involving sudden transitions from

centralised to distributed C2.

In this sense both Operations and Missions are

‘Virtual Enterprises’ (VEs) (Camarinha-Matos, Pereira-

Klen, & Afsarmanesh, 2011) created and re-created on

demand. The VE is the organisational HQ structure

required, the Headquarters Joint Operations Command

(HQJOC). Notice the requirement for a double loop of

generating the requisite organisational structure both on

the HQJOC and missions’ levels (see Figure 3).

In theory, the missions are created as required

(including missions to project forces) (for simplicity

this is not shown in the figure): there are two things

to be created (by configuring platforms and personnel

for mission fulfilment, and by configuring mission

command – which of course would rely on pre-

designed ‘building blocks’). However, mission

command (which in the extended sense consist of all

agents involved in C2, down to the level of the

individual warfighter) is now in charge of negotiating

(possibly sudden) changes in C2 structure. The first

loop is this self-configuring ability, while the second

loop is the one between HQJOC and the Mission,

whereupon HQJOC has the ability to reconfigure the

mission (including the Mission Capability and

Mission Command).

Evolved Situation Awareness (SAW) (Niklasson

L. et al., 2008) is at the core of advancing C2 decision

systems both in HQJOC and Mission Command. As

the number of sensors and thus available data

increases and warfare is likely to increasingly become

accelerated, the time available for decision-making is

continuously contracting; therefore, appropriate

decision support systems are paramount. In addition,

established doctrines and theories may become

unable to cope with the new situations; hence, new

(or the re-consideration of existing) theories, logic

and SAW paradigms (Goranson & Cardier, 2013;

Noran & Bernus, 2018) is imperative, as technology

advancements alone are necessary but not sufficient

to enable ‘next generation’ leaps (Fletcher, 2015).

In the IoT environment, more and more objects

are designed with native networking capabilities.

Manipulating and storing information is paramount to

SAW, both for individual warfighters and the entire

battlespace. However, proliferation of the network-

enabled participants brings issues of (among others)

bandwidth, prioritisation, noise and interoperability,

which become essential enablers (or inhibitors) of the

required network information fusion. Ongoing work

on ‘universal’ interoperability (interoperability as a

property, IaaP) (Noran & Zdravković, 2014) is rather

in its infancy and raises the important issue of security

(e.g. undesired / unintended interoperability with foe

devices). Interoperability at organisational level is

also a key enabler of agility or versatility, although it

may conflict with another desired non-functional

requirement, namely resilience, due to the link to the

need to maintain integration. Thus, a balance must be

designed into the future state whereby a balance is

achieved between integration, resilience and

interoperability for each specific battlespace scenario.

An Evolution-based Approach towards Next-Gen Defence HQ and Energy Strategy Integration

693

Figure 3: (Dynamic business model of the) relations between the entities relevant to 5

Gen HQ transition.

3.2 Transition Modelling: Dynamic

Business Model

Since the framework adopted allows natively

representing all the essential aspects in an integrated

manner, the authors use the same constructs

subsumed by it (see Figure 1). These are used to

create once more a dynamic business model featuring

life cycle relationships reflecting the desired systemic

properties previously described. The entities or

systems of interest populating the business model

could be in this case:

- Government / Defence HQ (including

Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group,

CASG)

- The composing Forces and Platforms

- Joint Forces network

- Operations

- Missions

- Defence Logistics

- Other supporting Entities and Systems;

- Engineering Procurement Contract (EPC) /

Maintenance Repair Overhaul (MRO) supply

chains.

Figure 3 shows a dynamic business model of the

relations between the entities relevant to a planned 5

Gen HQ transition.

The model assumes that preparedness building for

such agile C2 starts with the definition of

architectural policies and principles by Government

and ADF HQ, on the level of capability acquisition

and transformation programmes which in turn

enforce these through co-ordinated acquisition and

transformation projects. Some of these projects are

aimed at platforms and some at the transformation of

Defence Forces and HQJOC; the latter two are

implied but for simplicity not explicitly shown in

Figure 3, as the detailed exposition of this so-called

‘dynamic business model’ is beyond the scope of this

paper.

Def.Forces

Acquisition &

Transformation

Projects

Gov&

ADFHQ

SupplyChain

Partners, EPC, MRO

Gen.

Capability

Acquisiton &

Transformation

Programme

JCEs

Mission(s)

Mi s sion

Cmnd

Mi s sion

Capability

Infrastructure &

Joint Def.Logistics

Operation(s)

JointOps

Cmd

Projected

Force

Platform(s)

ICEIS 2021 - 23rd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

694

4 ENERGY AND NEXT GEN HQ

EVOLUTION

4.1 The Link between Next Gen HQ

and Energy Transition

The link between Defence Force evolution and

Energy transformation is symbiotic as Defence needs

energy to operate (Samaras, Nuttall, & Bazilian,

2019) and energy resources, production, storage and

distribution need protecting by Defence (Hinsch &

Komdeur, 2017). In the context of climate change and

shifting global balance of power, many countries and

regions re-assess their weaknesses in regards to either

energy resources, production, storage and distribution

and aim to correct the situation by achieving energy

independence in all aspects. Thus, some countries

produce raw fuel but no longer process it due to

various reasons (political, economic etc. (Blackburn,

2014)), while others import raw fuel and export the

processed products due to scarcity of fuel resources

(Parthemore & Rogers, 2010).

The above scenarios are fraught with danger as

there is a lack of resilience and preparedness

expressed through an independent complete supply

chain that can ensure a minimum energy supply to

survive and defend oneself at least temporarily. E.g.,

for the first scenario, minimal processing capabilities

should be available and kept on stand-by so as to be

activated when necessary (and properly defended).

Blackburn (2018) draws an analogy between

Defence and Energy approaches by using the

Generations Concept, whereby the latest (5

)

attempts to adopt an integrated Systems of Systems

(Maier, 1998) approach. This similarity is clearly

warranted, as national security (underpinned by an

operational Defence) is intimately linked to economic

and energy security and as such, proposed strategies

should promote their concerted evolution, as also

advocated by many authors (Foxon (2011),

Safarzyńska et al. (2012), Cherp et al.(2018), etc.).

Planning can be conceived as a type of command and

control materialised on various lengths of time (called

horizons by Doumeingts et al. (1998)). Hence one can

in fact reason about synchronizing planning and C2.

Importantly, adopting such a stance would have the

potential to turn energy transition planning into an

agile endeavour with all its components adapting to

technology advances and current situation – here for

example, global / regional military balance.

In a side-by-side comparison of C2 evolution and

energy transition, one can observe the following:

- On the one hand C2 needs to adapt to- and adopt

new technologies and paradigms (e.g. autonomous

agents) to cope with- and out-perform adversary

manoeuvres (such as in their Observe-Orient-

Decide-Act (OODA) loop as described by Osinga

(2006)), so as to ensure operational and effective

defence and thus to achieve the desired Joint

Capability Effects (JCEs);

- On the other hand, similarly, energy transition

strategies need to adapt to new technologies in order

to cope with changes in the energy market,

‘prosumer’ (Leal-Arcas et al., 2018) usage habits,

mobility and importantly due to shifting economic

and military balance of power affecting the national

energy strategy. This will allow it to generate

effective directives forming short term (operational)

steps that contribute to a stable transformation path

(Noran, 2019). Note that energy provision (in its

various forms) is one of the main elements of the

Infrastructure and Joint Defence Logistics

supporting all of the entities listed in Figure 3.

As one can see from the above, there are clear

connections and overlaps between the aspects that

need to be heeded in the operation, but also in the

evolution of the two domains. This brings about the

need for an integrated approach along the entire life

of the participant entities, rather than limited to a

snapshot reflecting only a particular life cycle phase

of each.

While Section 2 was concentrating on electricity

energy transition (for illustrative purposes), a similar

transition model can be drawn up for the rest of the

energy sector, such as fuel (petrol, diesel, aircraft

fuel, hydrogen, etc) and for any other critical

infrastructure.

4.2 Concerted Evolution Modelling

The authors will use the same modelling constructs as

previously in order to model a strategy to evolve

Energy towards a renewable form, and Defence HQ

towards a 5

generation paradigm. This is useful in

order to reason about and start the process of

concerted evolution; thus, decision-makers can see

clearly what entities (system components) are

involved and importantly, in which phase of their life

cycle, and whether this influences their command and

control- or product / service aspect.

In examining Fig 2 and Fig. 3, one may realise that

some entities in fact belong to a same type of

generalised entity (see Figure 4).

An Evolution-based Approach towards Next-Gen Defence HQ and Energy Strategy Integration

695

Figure 4: System of Systems depiction using the chosen

modelling construct.

Thus, for example the entity in Figure 2 subsumes

Producer, Transport and Distribution and the

Infrastructure and Defence Logistics entities in

Figure 3 are in fact of the same type that could be

defined as ‘critical infrastructure’ (see Figure 4) – and

in that sense, the Critical Infrastructure entity is in

fact itself a System of Systems.

This applies to several sets of entities from the two

figures. Based on this acknowledgement, one can

start identifying the necessary interactions between

the ‘akin’ (belonging to the same type) entities

previously found. This is illustrated in

Figure 5

, where such entities are linked by a few

sample relationships which are desired in an

‘concerted evolution’ TO-BE state. Thus, for

example, Gov’t and ADF HQ influence the operation

of Regulator Entities and vice versa, so that the

development and regulation policies are developed in

an integrated manner. Similarly, the Energy

Transition Programme influences the 5

gen

Acquisition and Transformation Programme and vice

versa. Note that the influence in this case manifests

itself from the operation of the originating entity to a

set of life cycle phases of the destination entity. This

signifies the fact that the (initial and re-) development

of the destination entity is accomplished taking into

account the issues brought in by stakeholders of the

originating entity. In contrast, in the first example the

influences manifested themselves only during

operation. This allows to reason and model necessary

interactions during the required life cycle phases.

Figure 5: Interactions between energy transition and next gen HQ entities (double headed arrows show reciprocal influence).

Comms,Fuel,

Water,R oads ,

etc.

CriticalInfrastructure

Production,

Transport,

Distribution

Infrastructure &

JointDefence

Logistics

Projects

Regulator

Entities

ARENA&

EnergyTransition

Programme

Energy

Consumers

Supply Chain

Partners

(EPC,MRO)

NEM

+ AEMO

(

Producer

,

Transport

&

Distribution Entities

)

Def.Forces

Acq.&Transf.

Projects

Gov&

ADFHQ

SupplyChain

Partners,EPC,MR O

Gen.

Capab Acq &

Transformation

Programme

JCEs

Mission(s)

Infrastructure&

JointDef.Logistic

Operation(s)

Platf orm(s)

ICEIS 2021 - 23rd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

696

The above-described exercise is very useful in

allowing stakeholders to reason about, identify and

structure the necessary links enabling the required

concerted evolution of what are in fact subsystems of

the same ‘critical system of systems’ underpinning all

other aspects of contemporary life.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER

WORK

Technology is evolving at an accelerating rate,

making new sources of clean energy increasingly

feasible and promoting the introduction of AI-

enhanced autonomous agents in all aspects of life.

The transition to new forms of energy production,

storage and usage must be properly managed to

ensure security, sustainability and equity. Closely

linked to energy security strategies, Defence

spearheaded by its C2 must also evolve to take

advantage of the new AI technologies so as to cope

with a shifting global balance of power.

This paper has advocated a coordinated enterprise

architecture approach whereby the development of

the two areas is synchronised in a holistic manner

considering all necessary aspects and interactions, at

suitable abstraction levels and for each life cycle

phase.

Further work will seek case studies focused on

various areas in order to evolve and detail the

approach presented.

REFERENCES

Ashby, W. R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications

for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2),

83-99.

Benson, K., & Rotkoff, S. (2011). Goodbye, OODA loop:

A complex world demands a different kind of decision-

making. Armed Forces J., 149(3), 26-28.

Blackburn, J. (2014). Australia’s Liquid Fuel Security -

Part 2: NRMA Motoring Services.

Blackburn, J. (2018). Energy Security: Is there a problem?

Australian Defence Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/budget-

policy/energy-security-is-there-a-problem

Brown, M. W. (2020). Developing Readiness to Trust

Artificial Intelligence within Warfighting Teams.

Military Review, Jan/Feb, 36-44.

Buzan, B., & Sen, G. (1990). The Impact of Military

Research and Development Priorities on the Evolution

of the Civil Economy in Capitalist States. Review of

International Studies, 16(4), 321-339. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097234

Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Pereira-Klen, A., & Afsarmanesh, H.

(Eds.). (2011). Adaptation and Value Creating

Collaborative Networks. Heidelberg: Springer.

Cherp, A., Vinichenko, V., Jewell, J., Brutschin, E., &

Sovacool, B. (2018). Integrating techno-economic,

socio-technical and political perspectives on national

energy transitions: A meta-theoretical framework.

Energy Research & Social Science, 37, 175-190.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.015

Doumeingts, G., Vallespir, B., & Chen, D. (1998). GRAI

Grid Decisional Modelling. In P. Bernus, K. Mertins, &

G. Schmidt (Eds.), Handbook on Architectures of

Information Systems (pp. 313-339). Heidelberg:

Springer Verlag.

Dove, R. (1999). Knowledge management, response

ability, and the agile enterprise. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 3(1), 18-35.

Edenhofer, O., et al. (2011). IPCC Special Report on

Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change

Mitigation. Cambridge, UK; New York, N.Y.:

Cambridge University Press.

Flaherty, C., & Filho, W. (2013). Energy Security as a

Subset of National Security. In W. Filho & V.

Voudouris (Eds.), Global Energy Policy and

Security.Lecture Notes in Energy, (Vol. 16). London:

Springer.

Fletcher, R. (2015). Complexity and cultural transitions:

100,000 BP to the present. Paper presented at the

Conference on Complexity, Criticality and

Computation, C3-Autumn 2015, Sydney, Australia.

Foxon, T. J. (2011). A coevolutionary framework for

analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon

economy. Ecological Economics, 70(12), 2258-2267.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.0

Goranson, T., & Cardier, B. (2013). A two-sorted logic

for structurally modeling systems. Progress in

Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 113, 141-178.

Hinsch, M., & Komdeur, J. (2017). Punish the thief—

coevolution of defense and cautiousness stabilizes

ownership. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology,

71(7), 102. doi:10.1007/s00265-017-2330-4

Hughes, L., & Long, A. (2015). Reconceptualizing the link

between energy and security.

Brookings. Retrieved

from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2015/

09/08/reconceptualizing-the-link-between-energy-and-

security/

IEA. (2019). International Energy Agengy - The Future of

Hydrogen. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/reports

/the-future-of-hydrogen

IRENA. (2018a). Global Energy Transformation: A

Roadmap to 2050. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable

Energy Agency.

IRENA. (2018b). Opportunities to accelerate national

energy transitions through advanced deployment of

renewables - A report from the International

Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) to the G20 Energy

Transitions Working Group (ETWG). Abu Dhabi:

International Renewable Energy Agency.

ISO/IEC. (2019). Annex B: GERAM. In ISO/IS

15704:2000/Amd1:2005: Industrial automation

An Evolution-based Approach towards Next-Gen Defence HQ and Energy Strategy Integration

697

systems - Requirements for enterprise-referencing

architectures and methodologies.

Leal-Arcas, R., Lesniewska, F., & Proedrou, F. (2018).

Prosumers as New Energy Actors, Cham.

Maier, M. W. (1998). Architecting Principles for System of

Systems. Systems Engineering Australia Newsletter,

1(4), 267-284.

Marchant, G. (2011). Chapter 2. In G. Marchant, B.

Allenby, & J. Herkert (Eds.), The Growing Gap

Between Emerging technologies and Legal-Ethical

Oversight: The Pacing Problem (pp. 19-32): Springer.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organisations.

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Narayana Das, J. (2017). Fuel Cell Technologies for

Defence Applications. In K. Raghavan & P. Ghosh

(Eds.), Energy Engineering. Singapore: Springer.

Niklasson L. et al. (2008). Extending the scope of situation

analysis. Paper presented at the 11

International

Conference on Information Fusion, Cologne.

Noran, O. (2019). An Adaptive Architecture for Long Term

Energy Programme Management. E3S Web Conf., 111,

06033. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/

201911106033

Noran, O., & Bernus, P. (2018). Improving Digital Decision

Making Through Situational Awareness. In B.

Andersson, B. Johansson, S. Carlsson, C. Barry, M.

Lang, H. Linger, & C. Schneider (Eds.), Information

Systems Development: Designing Digitalization

(ISD2018 Proceedings). Lund. Sweden.

Noran, O., & Zdravković, M. (2014). Interoperability as a

Property: Enabling an Agile Disaster Management

Approach. Paper presented at the 4th International

Conference on Information Society and Technology

(ICIST 2014), Kopaonik, Serbia.

Osinga, F. (2006). Science, strategy and war: The strategic

theory of John Boyd. London, UK: Routledge.

Parthemore, C., & Rogers, W. (2010). Sustaining Security:

How Natural Resources Influence National Security.

Retrieved http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep06384

Pointon, K. D., & Lakeman, B. (2007). Prospects for

Hydrogen as a Military Fuel. In J. W. Sheffield & Ç.

Sheffield (Eds.), Assessment of Hydrogen Energy for

Sustainable Development. NATO Science for Peace and

Security Series C: Environmental Security. Springer.

Safarzyńska, K., Frenken, K., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M.

(2012). Evolutionary theorizing and modeling of

sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 41(6), 1011-

1024. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.014

Samaras, C., Nuttall, W. J., & Bazilian, M. (2019). Energy

and the military: Convergence of security, economic,

and environmental decision-making. Energy Strategy

Reviews, 26, 100409. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.

2019.100409

Staffell, I., Scamman, D., Velazquez Abad, A., Balcombe,

P., Dodds, P. E., Ekins, P., Ward, K. R. (2019). The role

of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system.

Energy & Environmental Science, 12(2), 463-491.

doi:10.1039/C8EE01157E

Steen, M. (2016). 12 - Building a hydrogen infrastructure

in the EU. In M. Ball, A. Basile, & T. N. Veziroğlu

(Eds.), Compendium of Hydrogen Energy (pp. 267-

292). Oxford: Woodhead Publishing.

Umbach, F. (2012). The intersection of climate protection

policies and energy security. Journal of Transatlantic

Studies, 10(4), 374-387.

Vassiliou, M. S., Alberts, D. S., & Agre, J. R. (2015). C2

Re-envisioned: The Future of the Enterprise. New

York: CRC Press.

WEF. (2017). Game Changers in the Energy System

Emerging Themes Reshaping the Energy Landscape -

REF 050117: World Economic Forum.

WEF. (2018). Fostering Effective Energy Transition A

Fact-Based Framework to Support Decision-Making -

REF 201218: World Economic Forum.

Weiss, O., Pareschi, G., Georges, G., & Boulouchos, K.

(2021). The Swiss energy transition: Policies to address

the Energy Trilemma. Energy Policy, 148, 1-17.

Yue, Y., Kalloniatis, A. C., & Kohn, E. (2016). A concept

for 5

Generation operational level military

headquarters. Paper presented at the 21st International

Command and Control Research and Technology

Symposium: C2 in a Complex Connected Battlespace,

London, UK.

Zdravković, M., Trajanović, M., & Panetto, H. (2014).

Enabling Interoperability as a Property of Ubiquitous

Systems: Towards the Theory of Interoperability-of-

Everything. Paper presented at the 4th International

Conference on Information Society and Technology

(ICIST 2014), Kopaonik, Serbia.

ICEIS 2021 - 23rd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

698