Framework For Collaborative Interaction and Progress Made Since Industry Day 2008

1. Rear Admiral Christian Canova, French Navy Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff Future Capabilities, Research and Technology Acting Concept Development & Experimentation Framework For Collaborative InteractionandProgress Made Since Industry Day 2008 1 Mon General, Generals, Admirals, Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I am RADM Christian Canova and for the last two years I have served as the Deputy Assistant Chief of staff for Future Capabilities Research and Technology at Supreme Allied Command Transformation HQ in Norfolk, Va. My subdivision is being the center of gravity for the Command�s engagement with industry. � Mr. Soligan, underlined in his brief ACT�s role in capability requirement identification and prioritization with the goal to compress the delivery time and improve interoperability. � We recognized in previous ACT Industry Days that Industry could have a role in NATO Capability Development, mostly addressing solutions to NATO requirements. Therefore last year, we introduced the Framework for Collaborative Interaction (FFCI) between ACT & Industry with the objective to strengthen our relationship and work together on capability solutions. � I will be glad to report now the progress made both on the Framework For Collaborative Interaction initiative and the topics of the three panels discussion from last year industry day. Mon General, Generals, Admirals, Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I am RADM Christian Canova and for the last two years I have served as the Deputy Assistant Chief of staff for Future Capabilities Research and Technology at Supreme Allied Command Transformation HQ in Norfolk, Va. My subdivision is being the center of gravity for the Command�s engagement with industry. � Mr. Soligan, underlined in his brief ACT�s role in capability requirement identification and prioritization with the goal to compress the delivery time and improve interoperability. � We recognized in previous ACT Industry Days that Industry could have a role in NATO Capability Development, mostly addressing solutions to NATO requirements. Therefore last year, we introduced the Framework for Collaborative Interaction (FFCI) between ACT & Industry with the objective to strengthen our relationship and work together on capability solutions. � I will be glad to report now the progress made both on the Framework For Collaborative Interaction initiative and the topics of the three panels discussion from last year industry day.

2. A Framework For Collaborative Interaction (FFCI) between ACT & Industry FFCI is an overall suite of liaison mechanisms, existing and new, with procedures and advice how to use them. FFCI Introduced at Industry Day 2008 and built on best practices from National similar arrangements. FFCI aims to increase opportunities between ACT & Industry for partnering more effectively : in order to compress the time it takes to deliver capability improvements to the operational commanders, and to improve interoperability between Allies and partners on capabilities before they are fielded in operations. FFCI is a set of liaison mechanisms between ACT, industry and academia, to enable possible levels of collaborative works on capability development which we have defined as working together for mutual benefit and without direct financial compensation. � I should add that some of the FFCI mechanisms are not controlled by ACT, for example when using Nato Industry Advisory Group (NIAG). For such instances we do respect the terms and conditions that are already available. � The FFCI initiative is new to ACT and NATO while many nations have similar arrangements or business models with their national industry listed in NIAG Study on Interoperability SG 137 presented by Mr. Picavet in the previous panel. � Basically, the objective of involving industry early in ACT led capability development projects, is to compress the time it takes to deliver capabilities to the operational commanders and to improve interoperability between Allies and partners before they are fielded in operations, using a range of possible mechanisms according to the level of collaboration.FFCI is a set of liaison mechanisms between ACT, industry and academia, to enable possible levels of collaborative works on capability development which we have defined as working together for mutual benefit and without direct financial compensation. � I should add that some of the FFCI mechanisms are not controlled by ACT, for example when using Nato Industry Advisory Group (NIAG). For such instances we do respect the terms and conditions that are already available. � The FFCI initiative is new to ACT and NATO while many nations have similar arrangements or business models with their national industry listed in NIAG Study on Interoperability SG 137 presented by Mr. Picavet in the previous panel. � Basically, the objective of involving industry early in ACT led capability development projects, is to compress the time it takes to deliver capabilities to the operational commanders and to improve interoperability between Allies and partners before they are fielded in operations, using a range of possible mechanisms according to the level of collaboration.

3. FFCI Main Principles Transparency. Fair treatment and positive partnering. Fairness and openness. �Costs lie where they fall�. ACT recognizes that, in order to work directly with industry, we will have to ensure that essential standards are adhered to. Therefore, we have identified four main FFCI principles : � Transparency: FFCI procedures will be openly advertised to industry. ACT will also keep Nations and other actors informed of the nature and the content of the NATO information shared with industry. � Fair treatment and positive partnering: ACT will seek to provide large and small companies - on both sides of the Atlantic - the same opportunities to collaborate with. The responsibility to protecting industry�s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) also falls under this standard. � Fairness and openness for potential follow-on competition: Most of the collaborative projects between ACT & Industry must be done in the pre-procurement phase of capability development. ACT will ensure that future competition will not be biased - and that no company will be disadvantaged in terms of knowledge. � We believe these three principles hold challenges that must not be underestimated but we are committed to make it work. The fourth principle has received less support � not surprisingly when it is about costs. � Costs lie where they fall: Industry needs to pay for its own costs of participating, or have a sponsor such as a Nation or a group of Nations. In this respect ACT funding will be limited to requirements for appropriate FFCI-related contributions required for NATO entities (such as NC3A) participating in a specific FFCI activity. �� It is not my intention to describe now detailed mechanisms and level of collaboration we identified. They are described in the FFCI booklet you�ve got in the welcome package and I will comment tomorrow during the working sessions. I will rather give you an update of the FFCI initiative � what kind of progress have we made so far? (Next slide) ACT recognizes that, in order to work directly with industry, we will have to ensure that essential standards are adhered to. Therefore, we have identified four main FFCI principles : � Transparency: FFCI procedures will be openly advertised to industry. ACT will also keep Nations and other actors informed of the nature and the content of the NATO information shared with industry. � Fair treatment and positive partnering: ACT will seek to provide large and small companies - on both sides of the Atlantic - the same opportunities to collaborate with. The responsibility to protecting industry�s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) also falls under this standard. � Fairness and openness for potential follow-on competition: Most of the collaborative projects between ACT & Industry must be done in the pre-procurement phase of capability development. ACT will ensure that future competition will not be biased - and that no company will be disadvantaged in terms of knowledge. � We believe these three principles hold challenges that must not be underestimated but we are committed to make it work. The fourth principle has received less support � not surprisingly when it is about costs. � Costs lie where they fall: Industry needs to pay for its own costs of participating, or have a sponsor such as a Nation or a group of Nations. In this respect ACT funding will be limited to requirements for appropriate FFCI-related contributions required for NATO entities (such as NC3A) participating in a specific FFCI activity. �� It is not my intention to describe now detailed mechanisms and level of collaboration we identified. They are described in the FFCI booklet you�ve got in the welcome package and I will comment tomorrow during the working sessions. I will rather give you an update of the FFCI initiative � what kind of progress have we made so far? (Next slide)

4. FFCI � Progress made since ID08 Developed with support from NATO Industrial Advisory Group (NIAG) and NATO Command, Control and Consultancy Agency (NC3A). Socialization FFCI in NIAG, CNAD & Military Committee. Nations� views (NADREPs) provided via Assistant Secretary General Defense Investments (ASG/DI). Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) noted the FFCI initiative, and offers NIAG�s assistance in its the development and implementation (September 2009). Following the welcoming comments among last year�s industry day participants that the FFCI initiative was worthwhile, ACT was encouraged to develop it further. We did that with a steady support from Nato Industry Advisory Group (NIAG) and NC3A. � It took us a year to socialize this initiative of collaboration between ACT & Industry starting with the Nations, at the Military Committee and the National Armament Directors Representatives, then NATO Research & Technology Organization which works also on solutions in capability development and National Industry Representatives at the NIAG. � We sought Nations� views via the CNAD because of the technical nature of the FFCI and the role that CNAD has already in engaging with industry. I am very pleased to announce you that FFCI got some recognition by the National Armament Director Representatives last month and that the continued assistance from NIAG is offered. � We couldn�t have succeeded in getting National�s support without Peter Flory�s Defense Armament staff and Raffaelle Esposito, Chairman of the NIAG. � We have indeed received useful inputs from Nations, Industry (through NIAG) and NATO Bodies since last year Industry Day and I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributed along the route. We have carefully noted all your comments and will pay close attention to them as we go along with the FFCI implementation. � We have now a tool for collaboration, let�s use it. How we envisage collaboration projects to start up? Which capability shortfall should we pick to implement FFCI? (next slide)Following the welcoming comments among last year�s industry day participants that the FFCI initiative was worthwhile, ACT was encouraged to develop it further. We did that with a steady support from Nato Industry Advisory Group (NIAG) and NC3A. � It took us a year to socialize this initiative of collaboration between ACT & Industry starting with the Nations, at the Military Committee and the National Armament Directors Representatives, then NATO Research & Technology Organization which works also on solutions in capability development and National Industry Representatives at the NIAG. � We sought Nations� views via the CNAD because of the technical nature of the FFCI and the role that CNAD has already in engaging with industry. I am very pleased to announce you that FFCI got some recognition by the National Armament Director Representatives last month and that the continued assistance from NIAG is offered. � We couldn�t have succeeded in getting National�s support without Peter Flory�s Defense Armament staff and Raffaelle Esposito, Chairman of the NIAG. � We have indeed received useful inputs from Nations, Industry (through NIAG) and NATO Bodies since last year Industry Day and I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributed along the route. We have carefully noted all your comments and will pay close attention to them as we go along with the FFCI implementation. � We have now a tool for collaboration, let�s use it. How we envisage collaboration projects to start up? Which capability shortfall should we pick to implement FFCI? (next slide)

5. Industry Day 2008 - Panel Review Maritime Protection Protection of maritime assets in coastal waters, ships and infrastructure, including ports, harbors, and oil rigs. Cyber Defense Industry perspectives on �Challenges in Providing Cooperative Cyber Defense Capabilities to NATO Forces�. Joint intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance Initiate concrete actions to support ISAF/JISR requirement Assess usefulness of Distributed Networked Battlelab (DNBL) in support of a JISR capability development. 5 Last year, some of you may remember that we set up three panels to provide common understanding of the challenges, requirements and constraints posed by three shortfall areas in NATO capabilities: � First, on Maritime Protection domain. The mission of the panel was to recommend a way ahead to engage developers, producers and user in Maritime Protection Capability Development. Second, on Cyber Defense. The objective was to propose concrete actions to counter cyber attack, identify limits, constraints and stakeholders then investigate better use of NATO, nations and Industry capabilities, and Third, to evaluate the benefit of using a distribute network battle laboratories for the development of a Joint Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance capability for NATO and recommend a way ahead to reinforce ACT-Industry relationship in the domain of BattlelabsLast year, some of you may remember that we set up three panels to provide common understanding of the challenges, requirements and constraints posed by three shortfall areas in NATO capabilities: � First, on Maritime Protection domain. The mission of the panel was to recommend a way ahead to engage developers, producers and user in Maritime Protection Capability Development. Second, on Cyber Defense. The objective was to propose concrete actions to counter cyber attack, identify limits, constraints and stakeholders then investigate better use of NATO, nations and Industry capabilities, and Third, to evaluate the benefit of using a distribute network battle laboratories for the development of a Joint Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance capability for NATO and recommend a way ahead to reinforce ACT-Industry relationship in the domain of Battlelabs

6. Industry Day 2008 - Progress made Maritime Protection Panel - Maritime Security Operations (MSO) is # 23/50 on the Priority Shortfall Area (PSA) list. NURC to feed CNAD (through NNAG), the NIAG and RTO panels with new tech-ops concepts, and to carry out experimentations with underwater vehicles, special forces and marine mammals in 2009. Cyber Defense Panel - Computer Network Defense is # 7/50 on the Priority Shortfall Area (PSA) list. ACT-Industry interaction to be continued through NNEC Industrial Consortium (NCOIC) in 2009. Joint Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance Panel -JISR is # 1, 9 & 27/50 in Priority Shortfall Area (PSA) Delivering immediate operational benefit to ISAF Leverages ongoing ISR capability efforts (support MAJIIC project)