In the coming weeks, Discovery Machine will be releasing the newest version of our behavior console for Bohemia Interactive’s Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2) simulation environment. We’ve taken our experience from behavior modeling for the US Navy, and developed an easy to use toolset for creating non-player character (NPC) behaviors within VBS2 training simulations. VBS2 already provides an extremely powerful toolkit for developing highly realistic training simulations for military ground forces. Their mission editor allows a scenario designer to quickly drag-and-drop content into a virtual world, rapidly constructing an new training environment containing enemy combatants, civilians, friendly forces, vehicles, and buildings from a large library of pre-developed content. Additionally, for particular tasks, such as walking around the scenario on pre-defined routes, VBS2′s toolset offers a number of easy to use mechanisms for defining character behavior. But what if you want to start developing behaviors for characters that don’t fit into the set of predefined options that come with VBS2? Bohemia Interactive has provided an ability to develop new behaviors through a robust scripting interface, enabling users to develop totally customized behaviors to create a wide variety of training scenarios. However, this powerful capability comes with a number of caveats; in order to utilize these capabilities, a user needs to be familiar with how to write scripts in VBS2′s proprietary scripting language. This means that in order to extend VBS2′s capabilities beyond what are offered directly through its mission editor, a user needs to have some significant programming capabilities. In addition, as these scripts become more complex, debugging issues that inevitably arise and result in unexpected behavior within a training scenario becomes more and more difficult. Discovery Machine’s VBS2 behavior console and engine attempt to address these issues, offering an easy-to-use, visual programming solution for developing new behaviors within the simulation environment. Our behavior console provides a high-level, visual interface which sits on top of VBS2′s scripting language. This leverages our behavior modeling approach, developed and tested through a number of projects for organizations such as DARPA, NAVAIR, and ONR, to enable VBS2 users of various skill levels to more easily develop and customize training scenarios. By wrapping useful chunks of process logic into building blocks we call Basic Level Actions (or BLA’s), we’re able to provide users with no programming experience at all the ability to create new, customized behaviors for characters within their training sim. For more advanced users, our console also provides the ability to fully leverage the power of our Task-Method-Knowledge (TMK) language to create arbitrary behaviors capable of performing any task which would normally require complex scripting to complete. These new behaviors can even be published as new BLA’s, and provided to non-programming users to extend the library of building blocks available to them. Even for users who are already well versed in complex VBS2 scripting, our console and engine offer significant advantages over traditional scripting solutions. At runtime, our behavior models are rendered visually, displaying the behavior hierarchies for all characters in the environment. This allows the scenario developer to easily identify and inspect decisions made by characters, in real-time, as they are made. This dramatically eases the development process of complex behaviors, because you can quickly glance at a character’s  behavior model and see what decisions they’ve made to get into their current situation, but you can delve into why they made those choices. Not only does this run-time visualization of character behaviors offer tremendously powerful debugging capabilities for scenario developers, but it even offers insight to users who would normally be unable to understand the scripting representation of character behaviors. Discovery Machine behavior hierarchies are represented using human-readable names and descriptions for the various tasks that make up the models. We have had experience suggesting that users with absolutely no programming experience at all are able to view and understand these behavior models to the extent that they can offer specific suggestions as to how they might be improved to result in more appropriate character behavior, or in many cases, simply make the changes themselves without assistance or supervision. Our team at Discovery Machine is excited to offer this new capability to the VBS2 community, and hope that it will enable users to find even more new uses for Bohemia Interactive’s already impressive suite of simulation capabilities.

A lot of managers don’t realize it, but one of their responsibilities is to be an educator.  The problem is that not all managers are born teachers.  For those who want to be good teachers, here’s a five-step method for developing those necessary teaching skills. The five basic steps to good teaching/training are:  1. Tell; 2. Show; 3. Try;  4. Observe; and 5. Praise or Redirect. Knowing and following these five steps won’t make everyone a great teacher, but using them ensures that the learner will be able to accomplish what he or she is taught. The first step, "Tell," is critical.  It seems so obvious, but people sometimes fail to explain to those they supervise just exactly what it is they wish them to accomplish.  A manager must tell a person specifically what it is he or she is to achieve. In business I see people running around with nothing but a perception of what they’re supposed to be doing.  When someone does something wrong, the manager definitely uses the "tell" step, as in "telling someone off."  People get reprimanded for not doing what they didn’t know they were supposed to do in the first place.  If this seems confusing, just think about the poor employee’s advanced state of confusion! All good performance begins with clear goals.  These goals should include a statement which defines what it is a person is to accomplish.  If people know what is expected of them, it’s much easier to teach them, as well as to ensure that they know when their goals have been reached. The second step in managerial teaching is to "Show," which is also the second part of goal setting.  Here, a manager sets standards.  It’s one thing to tell people what you want, but another to provide them with a clear picture or model of what or how to perform the task. With this second step of "Show," managers need to have a series of stages or steps to get people to deliver good performance.  You can’t manage what you can’t measure.  Hence, it is helpful to have stages that demonstrate and document when someone is achieving his or her goal.  These stages can be measured in terms of dollar value of sales per quarter, the number of sales calls made weekly, or the number of pages typed in a given day. If these steps are laid out in advance, a manager and the employee have specific criteria to use should things go wrong.  If the manager says, "Charlie, you didn’t make enough sales calls today," with no pre-determination of how many "enough" is, Charlie has no standard by which to be judged whether he or she is successful. The third step is "Try."  This is the step in which you give the ball to the employee and let him or her run with it.  A wise manager will be careful not to let the trainee try to achieve too much initially.  Frequently, you’ll find that beginners are naively enthusiastic.  In their excitement, they will take on more than they can handle.  This sets them up for an inevitable crash when things start to go wrong in the learning process and the learner becomes disillusioned with his or her progress. The fourth step is to "Observe" performance.  It’s necessary to observe beginners very closely throughout the very early stages of development. Some might wonder whether this kind of observation makes people feel they are being micromanaged. The answer to this question is "no"—if the employee knows that you’re observing for the purpose of helping him or her win.  If people really know you’re out to help and not to harm them, they’ll welcome your observation.  In fact, what beginners really don’t like is a manager who gives them a new and unfamiliar assignment and then disappears. Observing is one of the biggest problems in training.  Here’s what frequently happens:  The leader or manager, who is supposed to be supervising and directing, adopts a delegating style of management. The learner is set adrift to fend for himself or herself without supervision.  The manager will be looking over the learner’s shoulder and will react only when something goes wrong.  You can imagine the outcome.  The manager lets rip and the poor learner, who has had no positive direction, falls apart. With this type of training technique, all the manager achieves is to teach people how to avoid punishment, which is an unproductive skill. The last step in the process involves "Praising or Redirection." There are two parts of this last step, since there are two potential outcomes to the efforts of any beginner, and each needs special treatment. The key to praising is progress.  It isn’t necessary for a job to be absolutely perfect.  The goal of a manager-teacher is ultimately to transfer the praising process from the manager to the learner. As employees get better and more adept at performing tasks, they should be able to pat themselves on the back for a job well done. The object is to create mature, self-reliant achievers. Redirect is what a manager does when things go wrong.  Remember, never punish a beginner.  A good manager-trainer will redirect the learner and have him or her try the task again.  If a person has trouble successfully performing a job, he or she should be redirected to try and try again.  If success is still not achieved, then it’s necessary to go back to goal setting. The odds are that with proper training, the beginner will achieve success, assuming his or her trainer follows these five steps.

When reprimanding, what you do is often not as important as what you don’t do.  Since no one really enjoys a reprimand, it’s easy for people to be put on the defensive when receiving criticism.  I suggest remembering these "don’ts" when you must reprimand an individual.  If you don’t observe these points, you may find that people become less concerned with listening to you and more concerned with fighting you off. 1.  Don’t attack someone personally.  Never begin a reprimand with a statement such as, "Listen Fred, you idiot, …"  Address the problem at hand.  Be specific about what was done incorrectly.  It is never okay to insult a person just because you are upset. 2.  Don’t store up reprimands.  By this I mean don’t wait "for a good time" to deliver one or more reprimands.  The best time to give a reprimand is immediately after the incorrect behavior or action has occurred.  If you wait a week or so to discuss the problem with the individual, and then throw in some other problems you have observed in the past months, your impact on that person’s behavior will not be very effective.  Accumulated griefs and problems will only make you feel bad.  When you do finally "dump" on the person, there will be so much to digest, and the error so far removed from the actual event, you’ll just end up blowing off a lot of steam, which will have little or no impact or effect on behavior. 3.  Don’t threaten people.  Such threats will either immobilize them with fear or cause considerable resentment.  Stick to the point.  Point out the error or incorrect behavior.  Then reaffirm them by telling them they’re okay—but their actions need to be modified. 4.  Don’t reprimand people in public.  Public fireworks, such as chewing out an employee in front of a customer, is a technique used only by bullies.  It’s thoughtless, damaging, and embarrassing for everyone.  If you have occasion to reprimand a person, do it privately. Before you give a reprimand—think!  If someone has done something wrong you must ask yourself, "Should he or she have known better?" If the answer is "No" then the person is obviously still unfamiliar with his or her assigned responsibilities or task.  In this case, Do Not Reprimand.  Never reprimand a beginner—be it an experienced employee working in a new position or your own child learning to tie his shoelaces.  It will only cause confusion or outright discouragement.  In this instance, your role as a manager is to help, or redirect, the person who is having a problem. However, if a person should have known better, then you must ask yourself, "Did they make the mistake deliberately, or might it have been because they lacked confidence?"  If the problem revolves around confidence, Do Not Reprimand. You need to determine the reason for the problem causing this lack of confidence.  It could be that there is a new situation which is unsettling to an experienced worker.  For example, perhaps a long-time sales clerk makes many errors on the new cash register.  If so, the reason is probably a lack of confidence with the buttons or the new routine required when ringing up sales.  In such a situation, a supportive managerial style is required.  No one needs to reprimand this clerk. Rather, the clerk needs some training and some practice on the new register, coupled with support from an understanding boss.  Reprimands have no place in this example. Remember to only reprimand deliberate, regressive performance or behavior.

Did you ever look back on something you did think, "that was stupid, why didn’t I notice that?" or miss a scheduled event and wonder, "how could I have overlooked that"?  Well, don’t be too hard on yourself, you’re not alone.  Things that look obvious are only obvious within the context of your current awareness.  In addition, ‘obvious’ events can be missed due to a psychological effect called inattentional blindness.  Chabris and Simons describe this concept in their book "The Invisible Gorilla."  In their well known experiment,  "Gorillas in our Midst",  they show that about half of the people tested fail to notice an actor in a gorilla suit walk through a group of other actors who are passing basketballs back and forth.  It seems they are too focused counting the number of basketball passes and totally don’t notice the gorilla.  More importantly, after they are told of the gorilla and see the event again, they are shocked that they could ever miss seeing the gorilla.  This shock illustrates the illusion of attention. At Discovery Machine, one of our product lines involves developing behavior models for use in military training simulations.   We strive to make the behaviors as realistic as possible or capable of passing the Turing test.  Typically, automated intelligent behaviors would not make mistakes like missing the gorilla.  They would see everything and of course, the computer would not make a mistake. However, Discovery Machine behaviors are designed to include a model of situation awareness which forms the entity’s view of the world.  This fundamental architecture allows us to set limits on the cognitive abilities of the AI behaviors.  The goal is not to make them perform flawless, but to model human cognitive abilities.  One simple way to model inattentional blindness is to prioritize the objects that an entity is aware of and apply a weight to effect what impact those objects would have on decisions that the entity is making.  This would provide some ability for training simulations that could benefit from this capability.  There are certainly other ways to model inattentional blindness as well.  The main point here is that our behavior models have a solid foundation for making enhancements such as inattentional blindness.

A good way to explain how an individual’s motivation fluctuates is to look at Abraham Maslow’s theory of the "hierarchy of needs."  Maslow argued that we are all motivated by a variety of needs.  He claimed these various needs could be seen on a hierarchy, moving from basic, low-level needs to higher level needs. The most basic needs are physiological, including food, water and air.  These are the basic ingredients that sustain.  Once people have these basic needs, they are concerned about safety and security.  They don’t want to get hurt in their environment, and they want a job—not only this week, but next week as well. After people feel safe and secure, they want to belong.  They want to be a part of the group.  Feeling "in" is the key.  When these social needs are satisfied, most people then want to be important.  They want to stand apart from the crowd.  They have needs for esteem and recognition. The highest level of need according to Maslow, is self actualization.  This is a maximizing concept.  The person is doing what he or she is really capable of doing.  To me, the ultimate in self-actualization is when a person is confused about the difference between work and play. Some people have the belief that once they reach the upper levels of fulfillment, they will always stay there.  That’s not true.  A person can be self-actualizing in a job one day and then because of economic hard times be laid off.  The next day, the most important thing to that person could be job security. It’s very important to know what is motivating a person at a given moment in time.  It is important to realize that circumstance might change, and with it, those things that motivate a person. Give someone a job, and the next day that individual might need to feel "in" on things and want to be involved in the decision-making process.  People are ready to participate and get involved in decision making as long as they feel safe and secure.  Threaten their job security and see what happens when you ask for suggestions to increase productivity.  People usually will do one of two things:  Either they will clam up, or they will try to determine who has the most power in the room and who could hurt them the most. Then they will tell that person exactly what that person wants to hear.  In other words, they play it safe. This phenomenon works in the opposite direction, too.  In the past, a person might have responded well to a salary increase.  But that is not motivational anymore.  The person now wants more responsibility.  In other words, as conditions and times change, so do those things which motivate. You might say, "This sounds confusing.  It’s too complex.  I can’t figure out what people want all the time."  The answer to this apparent dilemma is to ask questions, listen, and observe.  Assume nothing—then you won’t be surprised. Just remember—while organizations have goals that need to be accomplished, people within the organization have needs that must be satisfied, too.  The successful manager will try to fulfill those needs that provide motivational satisfaction while people work to achieve the organization’s goals.  In other words, a win-win situation should be created for the individual and the organization.

We had an interesting meeting with a government customer this week where we showed our voice recognition/generation as the interface with our intelligent entities in a simulation.  It was interesting to hear the discussion, "That is great, that is how it is done in the field." Soldiers and sailors don’t type into a panel "May I have permission to this or that."  They say over the radio "Permission to do X". It is a very efficient human to human interface.  It is also a very efficient AI to and from human interface. Businesswire, way back in 2005, noted the commonly used Dragon Software could convert 160 words per minute to text.  160 words per minute was their recognition rate and it has improved dramatically over the last 6 years.  The Typing Institute of America rates a "Master" typist at a little over 75 words per minute. Sure there are people who say they can do over a 100 words per minute.  How accurately?  How fast are you?  I have been typing for decades and yes I still look at the keyboard.  I have used Dragon’s software from Nuance and it works very well. I have seen our team use other packages. We have voice recognition in our cars, cell phones, and tablets. So that is why I see this technology as a next wave. But what happens when you combine this with Artificial Intelligence?  Great things. You can talk to a virtual entity or device and it can talk back to you. It is amazing to see and at Discovery Machine we are doing it today as a little AI company.  Hopefully soon as a big AI company.   You have seen AI concepts like Multi-Strategy Reasoning work with IBM’s Watson AI implementation.  Here at Discovery Machine, when we combine approaches like that with voice it will blow you away. If you are interested and want to see a demo, send me an email at jmcassey@discoverymachine.com   By the way this blog is 357 words long.  It took me a while to type, the "a" sticks on my keyboard and I have to fix the mistakes that causes.

Many people get high marks for being good speakers.  People have become presidential candidates due to their oratorical powers.  In business, executives who wish to increase their public visibility hire speech writers to give them something terrific to say.  We have long recognized the value of being a good speaker.  Just ask any Toastmaster. Now, how many people do you know who have received a prize or had their picture in the paper because they were a good listener?  Darned few, I’ll wager. And yet, it’s rare to find a really good listener. It’s too bad more people don’t take an active interest in listening, because much of listening involves getting feedback, a commodity which I consider to be a gift.  When people tell you something that is important and useful, it means they care enough about you to give honest, sincere, and accurate data, which you should have. Of course, your reaction to feedback, regardless of its content, will determine whether you will continue to get useful information from others.  After all, if someone knows you are likely to become upset about something they’re communicating, they’ll eventually stop giving you information. If people know you’ll reject them or their message when they are honest with you, you’ll be working in the dark without the necessary intelligence about yourself or your environment.  For a manager, this can be extremely dangerous.  Here are four ways you can become a better listener: First, always acknowledge with appreciation the person who gives you the feedback.  You may dislike the information, but it may be potentially useful data you need in order to be more effective. Remember to disassociate the message from the messenger. Second, don’t try to listen and think at the same time.  I know it sounds crazy—just listen to the information as it comes to you.  Disconnect your mental data processor and merely gather the data; process it at a later time.  Get as much information as possible, and ask questions that may expand or clarify the situation.  Keep pumping for details. The more information you have, the better. Third, don’t try to solve a problem while listening.  If you do this, your listening capabilities will greatly diminish, if not stop.  Process all the details and then decide how to use the data.  If you rush to react to news without having received all the information, it is possible that your actions will be faulty because the information is incomplete. Finally, if you are receiving some unpleasant information you don’t especially want to hear, don’t blow up.  Keep yourself under control.  As I stated earlier, if someone knows you’ll verbally abuse them when they give you unpleasant news, they’ll eventually stop giving you any news at all—good or bad. To review, the steps to effective listening are: 1. Thank the person for the information.  2. Gather as many details as possible.  3. Act only after you have all the facts.  4. When receiving negative feedback, maintain your composure.  And always remember one of my favorite sayings taught to me by a former colleague, Rick Tate:  Feedback is the breakfast of champions!

Yesterday Discovery Machine had the privilege of attending the Capitol Hill Modeling & Simulation Expo.  This event was designed to showcase current Modeling and Simulation efforts in the United States to various members of Congress.  This event highlighted the importance of the Modeling & Simulation industry to the government and reiterated how much it will be needed in our nation’s future.  Many prominent congressmen gave encouraging words to the community and were interested in what the industry as a whole was pursuing. At the expo, Discovery Machine showcased the latest enhancements to our simulated training solutions.  We demonstrated how, through the use of Discovery Machine’s software and methodology, it is possible to capture the expertise of the world’s top experts and actually use it to control characters in simulated training systems.  As part of our demonstration Discovery Machine showed how users could leverage expertise to create expert-level behaviors through the use of basic level actions.  Discovery Machine’s approaches were very well received. Discovery Machine was proud to be in attendance at such an event.   It was great to have a chance to interact with various members of congress and fellow Modeling and Simulation industry personnel.  I believe it is the way of the future and it is encouraging to see such a strong part of the government agrees.  Through the use of products like the Discovery Machine Knowledge Service Modeler it is possible to create effective training that maintains our current state of readiness to face threats and reduces our national expenditures.

A lot of people ask me for advice about partnerships.  Many will tell me about a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" that a friend or associate has shared with them and asked if they’d like to participate.  Often, the opportunity involves either investing a significant amount of time or money, or a dramatic shift into a new career path, or both. My advice to such individuals is simple.  First, I often ask them if it is something they really want to do; that is, do they truly enjoy this activity to the extent that they might even consider doing it without pay?  For someone to be successful at something, they first need to truly enjoy that activity—otherwise, they are likely not to have enough persistence during times of difficulty.  To me, enjoying what you are doing is an acid test in business as well as life.  If you are having fun, it’s more likely that you will confuse work with play and that you will be successful at that activity. Second, whenever considering getting into a partnership, you should always ask yourself the question: "Could either of us do this without the other person?"  (Have the other individual in the potential partnership ask the same question.)  If either of you answer "yes," or even "maybe," seriously reexamine the need for the partnership.             If you’re uncertain as to how necessary the other person is in a new venture at the very best of times—the beginning—you will certainly doubt and likely regret your mutual involvement down the line; perhaps sooner rather than later.  If there’s a good chance you could do the activity on your own, go for it!  Life is apt to be a lot simpler if you do. In a partnership, both individuals involved need to bring something to the party—and each person needs to recognize and value the other person’s contribution.  If the importance of each person’s role isn’t clearly recognized upfront, it most assuredly will be valued even less later.  In the event of failure, individuals often are quick to blame the other person for shortcomings.  In the event of success, most people are apt to feel the success was mainly a result of their own efforts. These reactions are human nature.  A clear initial understanding, agreement, and belief in what each person is contributing to the success of a joint venture will go a long way toward minimizing exaggerated perceptions and expectations of effort and worth at a later date. Third, a piece of common sense advice I truly believe regarding partnerships is that to be effective you need more than a 50-50 effort of both parties; you need 100-100 percent effort.  Both parties need to give the venture 100 percent.  Fifty percent effort is only half-hearted!  If you are no more excited about the opportunity at hand than to feel you are only responsible for 50 percent of the effort, the partnership is doomed from the start. I feel that 100 percent effort needs to be given 100 percent of the time by both parties in any partnership. Such an all-out commitment forces you to move ahead at full speed in making the venture a success.  It forces you to rely on yourself, not someone else, to make things happen.  It also affords you the ability to give the other person the benefit of the doubt when his or her effort, interest, or time spent seems to be less than ideal. I have found that it is many times more difficult to break up a partnership—especially if you want to do so on good terms—than it is to start one.  By following these simple rules of thumb, you might save yourself some unpleasantness (and possibly a friend) in the process!

This week Congressman Forbes asked for input, as he often does, on critical matters. His question: "Do you support the President’s call to increase taxes as a way to address our national debt?" As a woman owned small business we CANNOT afford to be taxed to support our national debt. Congressman Forbes thinks like a small business owner and knows that small companies like Discovery Machine are the economic engine that drives job growth and true prosperity. Thank you Congressman Forbes! (The actual email poll, from Congressman Forbes is included, below.) On May 16, 2011, the government officially reached the debt ceiling, or the level imposed by Congress on how much national debt the U.S. can carry. Despite reaching this threshold, stronger than expected tax revenues have extended the government’s borrowing authority through August 2, 2011. The Administration cannot raise the debt ceiling without permission from Congress and so for the past several months, congressional leaders and Administration officials have conducted negotiations to determine the size and scope of spending cuts necessary for Congress to agree to lift the debt ceiling.  Recently, the Associated Pressreported that the Administration is seeking to not only raise the debt ceiling, but also to raise taxes on small business owners and potentially low- and middle-income families. Instead of raising taxes on those who can least afford it and on those most likely to create jobs, I remain committed to a plan that includes serious and immediate cuts in spending, institutes permanent federal spending caps, and passes a requirement for Congress to balance the federal budget by spending no more than revenues allow. Question of the Week: Do you support the President’s call to increase taxes as a way to address our national debt? (  ) Yes (  ) No (  ) Other (share your thoughts on my blog here). (  ) I am unsure. Take the poll here.