Skip to main content

Software Requirements Complexity Analysis to Support the “ADVISORY NETWORK IN TO THE NATION FORCES BUILD-UP”

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of 6th International Conference in Software Engineering for Defence Applications (SEDA 2018)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 925))

Abstract

In the modern strategic scenarios, military operations are more and more complex, in particular when compliance with the so called “soft power” (DIME – Diplomatic, Information, Military and Economic) is required. Because of this, military doctrine and, in particular, the support at the Command and Control are obliged to a continuous evolution, trying to match the military requirements with the operation’s reality.

Inside the complexity of the modern scenarios, the operations to support a failed/failing states must be quoted, where the military commanders are in charge to support and sustain, frequently, the full range of a national domains mostly “civilian”. The most exhaustive example of that is the Operations Resolute Support (RS) in Afghanistan, where the RS Commander is responsible to support not only the Defense and Interior Affairs Ministry and Minister, but also the Finance, Public Health and others Departments, together with the highest state’s institutions represented by the National Security Authority and the Republic’s Presidency.

In this context, current Military Command and Control Systems are unable to correlate and analyze the daily activity performed by thousand of Alliance’s Advisors. NATO, with the support of the US Defense Digital Service developed an Agile Project, delivering a first response tool in 14 weeks. This was possible also because of the former experience developed in the LC2Evo Italian Army C4I demonstrator.

Taking into account the relevance of security assistance in the modern scenarios, it’s important to implement and further develop the above mentioned experience at national level, in order to be prepared to support the national contingents in the future operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Terrorism, WMD, cyber security insecurity, socio-economic problems, transnational organized crime, ethnic tensions, fragile and failed states, environmental destruction, climate change, competition over resources, etc.

  2. 2.

    The 2010 Strategic Concept ‘Active Engagement, Modern Defence’ is an official document that outlines NATO’s enduring purpose and nature and its fundamental security task, describing NATO’s values and strategic objectives for the next decade.

  3. 3.

    Art. 5 of the Washington Treaty states “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations , will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security”.

  4. 4.

    Partnership, Mutual consultation and transparency, equality and decision-making autonomy and respect for the interest of Members of EU and NATO are among the shared values and principles described in the 2002’s EU-NATO Declaration.

  5. 5.

    Despite the creation of mutual assistance clause (art. 42 (7) of TEU), NATO remains responsible for collective defence of its members. In no case these provisions will undermine NATO defensive role in the international security sphere (art. 42 (2) of TEU).

  6. 6.

    Op. Cit. [1].

  7. 7.

    Only the NATO-EU Agreement on Security of Information and the EU-NATO Declaration of 2002 are available to the public.

  8. 8.

    Is also important to stress that calling an agreement “ a declaration” often indicates the parties intent to don’t be vinculated to that text.

  9. 9.

    Following the strict sense of the article 24 of TEU “The Council, acting unanimously, may authorize the Presidency, assisted by the Commission as appropriate, to open negotiations to that effect. Such agreements shall be concluded by the Council acting unanimously on a recommendation from the Presidency”.

  10. 10.

    NATO has included the reference to the procedures for release, monitoring, return and recall of NATO assets and capabilities, as previously eluded.

  11. 11.

    More specifically: “Sufficient numbers of well-qualified personnel are available across the civilian ESDP priority areas and for mission support, to enable the EU to establish a coherent civilian presence on the ground where crisis situations require it to do so; ESDP capabilities such as planning and conduct capabilities, equipment, procedures, training and concepts are developed and strengthened according to need. One of the results will be that missions have adequate equipment and logistics and other enabling capabilities, including for effective procurement procedures; The EU is able to use all its available means, including civilian and military ESDP, European Community instruments and synergies with the third pillar, to respond coherently to the whole spectrum of crisis management tasks; The development of civilian capabilities is given increased political visibility at EU as well as at Member States’ level; The EU strengthens its co-ordination and co-operation with external actors as appropriate”.

References

  1. Italian Defence General Staff (2008) JIC 007 Asimmetria e Dissimmetria dei conflitti

    Google Scholar 

  2. Treaty of European Defence Community (1952)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_the_European_Defence_Community. Accessed 24 Oct 2018

  4. European Defence Community, Treaty of EDC, Art. 2

    Google Scholar 

  5. European Defence Community, Treaty of EDC, Art. 1

    Google Scholar 

  6. NATO, The North Atlantic Treaty (1949)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Yost D (2010) NATO’s evolving purposes and the next strategic concept. Int Aff 86(2):489–522

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Reichard M (2006) The EU-NATO relationship: a legal and political perspective. Ashgate, pp 273–276

    Google Scholar 

  9. Reichard M (2008) The European union and crisis management - policy and legal aspects. Blockmans, pp 233–253

    Google Scholar 

  10. Koukratos P (2013) The international responsibility of the European union. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  11. Messina A, Modigliani P, Chang S How agile development can transform defense IT acquisition. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference in software engineering for defence applications, 978-3-319-27894-0, 339732_1_EN

    Google Scholar 

  12. Messina A, Cotugno F (2014) Adapting SCRUM to the Italian army: methods and (open) tools. The 10th international conference on open source systems San Jose, Costa Rica, 6–9 May 2014

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ventrelli C, Trenta D, Dettori D, Sanzari V, Salomoni S ITA army agile software implementation of the LC2EVO army infrastructure strategic management tool. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference in software engineering for defence applications, 978-3-319-27894-0, 339732_1_EN

    Google Scholar 

  14. Messina A, Ciancarini P, Ruggiero M, Russo D (2016) A new agile paradigm for mission-critical software development. CrossTalk 29(6):25–30

    Google Scholar 

  15. di Bella E, Fronza I, Phaphoom N, Sillitti A, Succi G, Vlasenko J (2013) Pair programming and software defects–a large, industrial case study. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 39(7):930–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Galantini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Galantini, L., Messina, A., Ruggiero, M. (2020). Software Requirements Complexity Analysis to Support the “ADVISORY NETWORK IN TO THE NATION FORCES BUILD-UP”. In: Ciancarini, P., Mazzara, M., Messina, A., Sillitti, A., Succi, G. (eds) Proceedings of 6th International Conference in Software Engineering for Defence Applications. SEDA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 925. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14687-0_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics