Building C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic Environment

1. Building C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic Environment

2. MISSION Explore innovative ways to improve DoD system design and acquisition processes so that we can better transform advances in information technology into operational capabilities.

3. Context and Expectations • The workshop has been divided into three panels • Builing C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic Environment • Design and Development Risk Management • Lifecycle Accountability • Formulate Problem Statement • Identify Impediments, Constraints and Opportunities • Provide Recommendations for Incremental Improvements • Queue up issues for QDR • Identify venue for follow-up

4. Members Al Grasso MITRE 703-883-6138 ag@mitre.org Alex Levis GMU 703-993-1619 aleis@gmu.edu Stuart Starr MITRE 703-883-5494 starr@mitre.org Rich Ivanetich IDA 703-845-6600 rivan@ida.org Iris Kameny RAND 703-393-0411 kameny@rand.org Jude Franklin Litton PRC 703-559-1990 franklin_jude@prc.com Bill Sieg USD(AT&L)IO 703-413-3143 siegb@mail.etas.com John Mitchell JBC 757-686-7045 mitchell@jbc.js.mil Edwin B. Stear IDA 703-845-6676 estear@ida.com

5. Proposed Concept of Operations • Identify candidate major issues (building on a strawman set) • Discuss and rank order the major issues • For a selected set of high priority major issues, formulate preliminary • Findings • Recommendations • Formulate a process for follow-on activities; e.g., • Identify relevant references • Clarify the nature of the problem • Identify additional organizations to be represented on the team • Identify organizations to visit • Establish a schedule for future meetings

6. Nature of the Problem • There are several factors that contribute to the “dynamic environment” in which future C3I systems-of-systems will be acquired • Threat • The New World Disorder is characterized by • Extreme uncertainty about future adversaries, areas of operation • The need to coordinate, interoperate with different organizations (e.g., NGOs, law enforcement agencies) • Concepts of operations • There is a much greater emphasis being placed on joint operations • Politically, it is important to conduct operations in the context of ad hoc coalitions of the willing • Commercial information technology • DoD use is increasing • This technology is characterized by an 18 month time scale

7. Acquiring Systems-of-Systems -- Strawman Major Issues (1 of 3) • Evolutionary Acquisition • Barriers to implementation; e.g., • Reaction of Congress • Concerns of T&E Community • Existing DoD policy, guidance • Tools to support implementation • CTSF experience (US Army) • Steps to facilitate assimilation of commercial products (with their 18 month characteristic time cycle) • Requirements-Acquisition-Operations Relationship • What is the appropriate relationship between the two processes? • How does one formally capture the requirements insights that emerge during an evolutionary acquisition?

8. Where Are We Now? Field Field Field CECOM (DIL) Industry MAJCOMS Labs ESC (CUBE) Hurlburt (TIC) Academia Ad hoc Ad hoc Joint Ops Field JBC/JED/USACOM Ft. Hood CTSF Force-Level Service Integration System Fielding SPAWAR C4ISR-SIE Sea Based BL Technical Integration- Development DARPA

9. Acquiring Systems-of-Systems -- Strawman Major Issues (2 of 3) • Confederations of Allied/Coalition Systems-of-Systems • What steps can be taken to ensure that US and allied/coalition acquisitions are • Interoperable? • Mutually reinforcing? • Architectures • To what extent can families of architectures (e.g., operational, system, technical) help us acquire systems-of-systems more effectively and efficiently? • What is the state-of-the-art in architecture development and application? • Simulation Based Acquisition • Applicability to C3I acquisitions? • Availability of supporting tools, data, knowledge

10. Scope of Interoperability:ABCS Exemplar Legend: example: JMCIS-joint-98 System Interface Level: ALLIED ARMY JOINT Implementation Year (U= Unscheduled) ASAS Interop. Adv.Quickfix-army-U AMS-army-00 ARL-army-U ATCAE-army-97 CTS/CTAPS-army-97 DAI-army-97 Enhan.Trackwolf-army-U EPDS-army-97 ETRAC-army-U ETUT-army-97 GBCS-army-U Guardrail-army-97 IEWCS-army-U IPF-army-97 MIES-army-97 MITT-army-97 NGIC-army-U NPIC-army-U NSA-army-97 SSP/S-army-97 TEAMMATE-army-97 TES-army-97 THMT-army-97 TrafficJam-army-97 Trailblazer-army-97 TRRIP-army-U UAV GCS-army-97 UAV MPCS-army-97 CARS/TRIGS-joint-97 IAC-joint-97 JMCIS-joint-97 JStarsCGS-joint-97 NIPS-joint-97 TBMCS-joint-U TCAC-joint-97 PASS-K-allied-U RAPIDE-allied-97 FAAD C2 Interop. LLAPI-allied-95 GBS Radar-army-94 HIMAD-army-94 LSDIS Radar-army-97 TIBS-army-U AWACS-joint-93 Hawkeye-joint-93 GCCS-A Interop. AIBS-army-96 FAISA-army-97 TARSTAT-army-97-98 AMSAA-joint-96 APC-joint-96 ASAS-joint-97 ATCOM-joint-96 AWDS-joint-97 CASCOM-joint-96 CTAPS/TBMCS-joint-97 DAMO-ODR-joint-96 DES-joint-96 DLA/ICIS-joint-96 GCCS/GSORTS-joint-98 GCCS/GSRDI-joint-98 GCCS/JOPES-joint-98 IOC-joint-96 ISC-P-joint-96 JTAV-joint-97 LOGSA-joint-96 MCS-joint-96 PERSCOM-joint-96 RAMS-joint-96 REQVAL-joint-96 SAMAS-joint-96 TAV-joint-96 IMETS Interop. FAST-Joint- JSTARS CGS-joint- MITT-Joint- MCS Interop. LFCS-army-97 CTAPS-joint-97 JMCIS-joint-98 JStarsGCS-joint-98 TCO-joint-98 AUSTACCS-allied-98 HEROS-allied-96 LFCCIS-allied-97 QIFS-allied-98 SIACCON-allied-98 SICF-allied-96 GCCS-A DTSS AFATDS Interop. ATHS-army-97 BCS-army-97 FDS-army-97 Firefinder--army-97 FIST DMD-army-97 FOCC-army-97 FOS-army-98 IDM-army-99 IFSAS-army-97 LtacFire-army-97 MBC-army-97 MDS-army-97 MFCS-army-99 MMS-army-97 UAV/TS/00-army-U AFATDS-joint-99 (MC) CTAPS/TBMCS-joint-98 IFSAS-joint-97 (MC) JStars/GCS-joint-97 TacFire-01-joint-U (MC) ADLER-allied-98 ATLAS-allied-98 BATES-allied-98 MCS FAAD C2 IMETS ASAS CSSCS AFATDS FBCB2 IMETS Interop. GPS-army- MMS-army- UAV-army- JSTARS CGS-joint- FBCBS Interop. BCIS-army-U KIOWA-army-U LVRS-army-U M1A2 SEP-army-U M2A2-army-U MICAD-U NBCRS-army-U Paladin-AFCS PLGR-army-97 LandWarrior-army-U CSSCS Interop. GCCS/A-army-99 SAMS/2-army-97 SARSS/1-army-97 SARSS/2A/D-army-98 SIDPERS/2.75-army-97 SIDPERS-3-army-98 SPBS/R-army-97 TAMMIS-army-98 ULLS/S4-army-98

11. Preliminary Analysis of Joint C4ISR Interoperability & Integration Processes 7/15/98 I & I Planning & Assessment Constructs and Prescriptions Assessment & Validation Process Systems Status Acquisition Life Cycle Policy Joint Architectures Elements of the Interoperability & Integration Assurance Equation Development Procurement O versight Imple-mentation Criteria & Standards Di r e c t i v e s IntegratedMaturity Models & Metrics Enabling Capabilities & Implementation Options System Profiles & Performance Measures Evolutionary Improve- ments System Requirements DoD-Wide Systems Interop Repository Method Tools Process Joint Assess-ments Prototyping & Experi- mentation Certifi- cation OP SYS TECH Procedures Applications Infrastructure Data MNSs ORDs IERs Processes Other Consortia -JROC/JWCA -MCEB IIP -CMS/ISB/ISS -JIIB -DoDIIS Mgmt Board -CIO “Councils” Organizations -Joint Staff -OSD -DISA -CINCs -MILDEPs -Defense Agencies -DSC -JBC/Federated Labs -JEXP -JITC -JNTF -JITF -Intelink Mgmt Office Initiatives -C4ISR Architecture Framework -DoDD/DoDI 4630 -JTA -JIER -LISI -DII COE -SHADE -DoDIIS SIMO -JWIDs/ACTDs

12. Acquiring Systems-of-Systems -- Strawman Major Issues (3 of 3) • Education & Training • How can we educate and train Program Managers on the processes that must be performed to acquire systems-of-systems? • How can we educate and train the operators who will man the systems-of-systems (particularly as CONOPS evolve to respond to the evolving system-of-systems)?

13. Selected References • Annette Krygiel, “Behind the Wizard’s Curtain”, NDU and DoD CCRP, July 1999 • Stuart Starr, “Modeling & Simulation to Support The Acquisition Process”, Chapter 9 of Military Modeling for Decision Making, MORS, 1997 • “Rapid Development”, Microsoft • “Institutionalizing the Good Idea: CTSF”, Grasso • “Spiral Development: Experience, Principles and Refinement,” Barry Boehm

14. Problem Statement(s) • Systems are not interoperable and they should be to act as a system-of-systems • Rapid insertion of evolving technology • Co-evolution of DOTLMP, requirements, capability, technology, value and cost • Incentive rewards in acquisition (risk mgmt deferred to other group) • Achieving effective (function/joint/coalition, secure, interoperable, evolveable, scaleable,...) affordable C4ISR systems to accommodate: • Diverse uncertain threats • New and evolving ops concepts • Inability to fully specify reqmts upfront • Rapidly advancing technology

15. Problem Decomposed • Achieving effective (function/joint/coalition, secure, robust, interoperable, evolveable, scaleable,...) affordable C4ISR systems to accommodate: • Diverse uncertain threats • New and evolving ops concepts • Inability to fully specify reqmts upfront • Rapidly advancing technology • Acquisition process oriented toward weapons systems vice software/IT systems • Right Industry/Govt partnership • Dealing with Legacy as the least common denominator- legacy system migration • Architecture Framework contains no process description - needs implementation guidance • No process to evaluate and review architectures - no sign off - how does it fit in acquisition process

16. Light Bulbs • Robust systems (hardware, software and people) • Software error recovery • Robust testing - scale of test (LRIP too limited) Alpha and beta testing • Redundancy - divers solutions -h/w, s/w, people • Contingencies -h/w, s/w, people • Consumers Union for COTS • Red teaming • Architecture Framework in 5000 series • ASD C3I should explicitly examine how to execute spiral development within the relook of the Architecture Framework • Need champion • Support coalition interoperability experimentation

17. Light Bulbs • Support establishment of a joint rapid acquisition program element - leverage success of current WRAP

18. Synthesis • Cultural - joint/coalition mindset, incentives, leadership/champions • Organization - champions, streamline interop orgs - zero base • People - collective training - ops and acquisition • Vision/Policy - rationalize cross-service visions • Processes - partnerships w/o borders, spiral/helical development, architectural views & framework - how to? Synchronization events, portfolio mgmt • Resources - joint rapid acquisition PE, incentives • Tools/Experiments - coalition (in test bed), purple CTSF, Experimentation Best Practice • Products - Architectural Views (e.g., security, error recovery)

19. Preliminary Recommendations • Provide for “joint funding” resources to support joint/coalition activities - not a service take away • Fail fast - too tough • Implement CIO role as “Bully Pulpit” • Zero base interoperability organizations • Extend CTSF model for joint use - collective environment/training • Establish a joint rapid acquisition PE • Develop and disseminate Best Practices for Experimentation

20. Preliminary Recommendations • Rationalize cross service operational visions • ASD C3I should explicitly relook the Architecture Framework within a spiral development environment • C3I, A&T develop and cosign a policy paper on spiral/helical development and its relationship to new 5000 directive - emphasis on co-evolution and experimentation across DOTLMSP • Re-examine the Architecture Framework to ensure the inclusion of necessary view to include security and robustness/error recovery

21. Way Forward

22. Backup Material

23. Solution Mechanisms • Experimentation • Architectures • Policy • Organization

24. Problem/Solution Matrix

25. Today’s Timeline • 9:00 - 9:15 Reformulate Problem Statement • 9:15 - 10:00 Lessons Learned/Roadblocks/Constraints • 10:00 - 10:45 Light Bulbs • 10:45 - 11:30 Synthesis • 11:30 - 11:45 Revisit Problem Statement • 11:45 - 12:00 Way Forward