Advertisement

Information Quality: The Nexus of Actionable Intelligence

  • Marco Antonio SolanoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Information Fusion and Data Science book series (IFDS)

Abstract

Information quality (IQ) plays a critical role in the ability of a high-level information fusion (HLIF) system of systems (SoS) to achieve actionable intelligence (AI). Whereas the need for information quality management in traditional information systems has been understood for some time, and its issues are fairly well mitigated, the challenges pertaining to the relatively new field of high-level information fusion remain significant. Principal and unique among these challenges are the multitude of issues which arise from the inherent complexity in high-level information fusion system of systems and which permeate throughout the various interdependent phases of its life cycle. Actively managing information quality in HLIF is essential in ensuring that they do not adversely impact decision-making and the ability to determine the best course of action (COA). Accordingly, in an effort to advance this critical facet of high-level information fusion, this chapter proposes an end-to-end framework that enables (a) the development of an information quality meta-model (IQMM), (b) the characterization of information quality elements, (c) the assessment of impacts of information quality elements and their corresponding mitigation, and (d) the integration of these aforementioned objectives within the HILF processes and life cycle.

Keywords

Information quality Quality meta-model Decision support Actionable intelligence Information fusion Quality framework 

References

  1. 1.
    J.F. Allen, Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals, in Readings in Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems (Elsevier, 1990), pp. 361–372Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Bisdikian et al., Building principles for a quality of information specification for sensor information, in Information FUSION, 2009. FUSION'09. 12th International Conference on, IEEE, 2009Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Blasch, S. Plano, DFIG Level 5 (User Refinement) issues supporting situational assessment reasoning. in Information Fusion, 2005 7th International Conference on, 2005, p. 1Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Blasch, P. Valin, E. Bosse, Measures of effectiveness for high-level fusion, in Information FUSION (FUSION), 2010 13th Conference on, IEEE, 2010Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.P. Blasch et al., User information fusion decision making analysis with the C-OODA model, in Information FUSION (FUSION), 2011 Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on, IEEE, 2011Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I. Caballero et al., IQM3: Information quality management maturity model. J. UCS 14(22), 3658–3685 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.C. Costa et al., Towards unbiased evaluation of uncertainty reasoning: The URREF ontology, in Information FUSION (FUSION), 2012 15th International Conference on, IEEE, 2012Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. de Villiers et al., Evaluation metrics for the practical application of URREF ontology: An illustration on data criteria, in Information Fusion (Fusion), 2017 20th International Conference on, IEEE, 2017Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DoD, MIL-STD 2525B: Common War-Fighting Symbology, 2005Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. DoD, DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.0 (DoDAF V2. 0) (Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.L. Donoho, High-dimensional data analysis: the curses and blessings of dimensionality, Manuscript, 2000Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.W. Enderle et al., Joint architecture standard (JAS) reliable data delivery protocol (RDDP) specification (Sandia National Laboratories, 2011) seas.upenn.eduGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Group, T.O., TOGAF Version 9.1. 2011: Van Haren PublishingGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Grunwald, Introducing the minimum description length principle, 2005 https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0406077
  15. 15.
    P. Grunwald, A tutorial introduction to the minimum description length principle. Arxiv preprint math.ST/0406077, 2004Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D.L. Hall, E. Waltz, Multisensor Data Fusion, Handbook Multisensor Data Fusion: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Chapter 21. (CRC. 2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Johnston, Analytic culture in the US intelligence community: an ethnographic study (Csentral Intelligence Agency. Center For Study Of Intelligence Washington, DC, 2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. Khaleghi et al., Multisensor data fusion: A review of the state-of-the-art. Information Fusion 14(1), 28–44 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Klein, Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions, in IJCAI-2001 Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, USA, 2001Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D.S. Lee, M. Heller, M. Napier, Joint Architecture Standard-Quick Start Guide, (Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, 2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Llinas et al., Revisiting the JDL data fusion model II. Seventh International Conference on Information Fusion, 2004, pp. 1218–1230Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Llinas, D.L. Hall, An introduction to multisensor data fusion. Proc. IEEE 85(1), 6–23 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    V. Masayna, Koronios A., Gao J., A framework for the development of the business case for the introduction of data quality program linked to corporate KPIs & governance, in Cooperation and Promotion of Information Resources in Science and Technology, 2009. COINFO’09, 4th International Conference on, IEEE, 2009Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    N.F. Noy, Semantic integration: A survey of ontology-based approaches. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 33(4), 65–70 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Pickett, T. Oates, The Cruncher: Automatic Concept Formation Using Minimum Description Length. Abstraction, Reformulation And Approximation: 6th International Symposium, SARA 2005, Airth Castle, Scotland, UK, 26–29 July 2005: PRO, 2005Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Roedler, C. Jones, Technical measurement guide, in International Council on Systems Engineering and Practical Software and Systems Measurement, 2005Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G.J. Roedler, C. Jones, Technical measurement. A collaborative project of PSM, INCOSE, and industry (Army Armament Research Development and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, 2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Rogova, E. Bosse, Information quality effects on information fusion (DRDC Valcartier, Tech Rept, 2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Rogova, et al. Context-based information quality for sequential decision making, in Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA), 2013 IEEE international multi-disciplinary conference on, 2013, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    G.L. Rogova, E. Bosse, Information quality in information fusion, in Information FUSION (FUSION), 2010 13th Conference on, 2010 IEEEGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    G.L. Rogova, V. Nimier, Reliability in information fusion: literature survey, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Fusion, 2004Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    S. Ross, Application of System and Integration Readiness Levels to Department of Defense Research and Development (Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering Washington, DC, 2016)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    K.S. Ryu, J.S. Park, J.H. Park, A data quality management maturity model. ETRI J. 28(2), 191–204 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    M.A. Solano, S. Ekwaro-osire, M.M. Tanik, High-level fusion for intelligence applications using recombinant cognition synthesis. Inf. Fusion 13, 79–98 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. Spitzer, E. Kappes, D. Böker, Enhanced intelligence through optimized TCPED concepts for airborne ISR, in Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) Systems and Applications IX (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2012)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    C.P. Team, CMMI® for Development, Version 1.3, Improving processes for developing better products and services. No. CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033 (Software Engineering Institute, 2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. Thibault, Commented APP-6A-Military Symbols for Land Based Systems (Defence R&D Canada, 2005)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    A. Tyukov et al., A concept of web-based energy data quality assurance and control system, in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-Based Applications & Services, 2012, ACMGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. Verleysen, Learning High-Dimensional Data, in Limitations and Future Trends in Neural Computation, 2003Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    E. Waltz, D.L. Hall, Requirements derivation for data fusion systems, Chapter 15, in Handbook of Multisensor Data Fusion, 2001Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    E. Waltz, J. Llinas, Multisensor Data Fusion (Artech House Boston, 1990)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    E.L. Waltz, Information understanding: integrating data fusion and data mining processes. in Circuits and Systems, 1998. ISCAS'98. Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Symposium on, 1998, pp. 6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Raytheon IIS (Intelligence, Information and Services)DullesUSA

Personalised recommendations