United States Joint Forces Command Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E)

1. United States Joint Forces Command Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E) Interagency and Multinational Information Sharing Architecture and Solutions (IMISAS) Culture Gaps Review 8-9 December 2010 Mr. Dick McCrillis, CTR TASC Corporation IMISAS Project Facilitator Joint Concept Development & Experimentation USJFCOM, J9

2. IMISAS Culture • 08 November • Prioritize Requirements • Review Gaps • Validate • Prioritize • 09 November • Identify Solutions & Best Practices • Prioritize

3. Requirements (1 of 5) 1) Combatant Commands (COCOMs) require a validated unclassified information sharing (UIS) Operating Concept. 2) COCOMs require Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) to implement the UIS Operating Concept. 3) COCOMs require a uniform interpretation of policies. 4) COCOMs require policies which balance enclave security concerns with UIS policy intent. 5) COCOMs require standing UIS protocols and procedures for engagement with UIS enduring partners. 6) COCOMs require standing UIS protocol and procedure templates to support rapid integration with non-enduring and ad hoc mission partners. 7) COCOMs require a guidebook for cultural engagement with enduring UIS partners, particularly nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and international organizations (IOs).

4. Requirements (2 of 5) • 8) COCOMs require continuing enhancement of UIS information and collaboration tools while a unifying technical solution is implemented. • 9) COCOMs require a web based Unclassified Information Sharing Capability (UISC) that accommodates multimedia information sharing and collaboration among the spectrum of potential mission partners to include both real and virtual members. • 10) COCOMs require a collaborative portal which is available via the internet. • 11) COCOMs require a UIS portal which is centrally funded and provisioned to ensure uninterrupted service across all DoD enclaves. • 12) COCOMs require a UISC that supports both enduring and ad hoc communities. • 13) COCOMs require a UISC unconstrained by geographical location. • 14) COCOMs require a UISC that is rapidly scalable without losing information sharing and collaboration functionalities.

5. Requirements (3 of 5) 15) COCOMs require an automated cross-domain capability from existing Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRnet) and the Nonsecure Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRnet) to the UIS portal to enable agile information sharing and collaboration. 16) COCOMs require a UIS portal capability that integrates/federates synchronous, asynchronous, and multi mode services, including language translation, display fusion, social media integration and collaboration services. 17) COCOMs require a UIS portal emphasizing open source software, enterprise business practices, and modularity which permits integration and federation of rapidly emerging social networks and IO/NGO enclave systems. 18) COCOMs require a UISC with sufficient interoperability at link, transport, network, and application layer.

6. Requirements (4 of 5) 19) COCOMs require a UISC that enables mobile terminal device users through synchronization services, geographic information system (GIS) integration, sufficient application support for minimal portal collaboration, and a connection interface facilitating low cost bulk provision of devices. 20) COCOMs require a UISC that accommodates through physical or procedural mechanisms, information exchange with non-IP networks such as high frequency (HF) packet or other data signaling protocols, radio voice nets, telephonic information, or face-to-face networks. 21) COCOMs require a Knowledge Management/Information Management (KM/IM) UIS portal structure that reduces learning/training requirements for intended users. 22) COCOMs require clear and simplified lines of authority for managing information sharing risk and adjudicating competing DoD guidance for information release.

7. Requirements (5 of 5) 23) COCOMs require procedural enablers to make UIS training more efficient and effective, accelerate user access to information, and empower KM/IM (i.e., document retention policy, metadata policy, library structure, document content and labeling standards, file and folder naming conventions, user friendliness, disaster recovery plan, prime source designation, access and control rules for information, help desk provisioning, action tracking, and version control).

8. Culture Gaps (1 of 12) • Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) used by non-traditional partners is inconsistently integrated into currently available UIS portals, impeding potential sources of field data and detracting from situational awareness. 

9. Culture Gaps (2 of 12) • In order to maintain their charter requirements of impartiality and neutrality, PVO and NGO organizational cultures seek to avoid the appearance of alignment with defense organizations, a constraint which inhibits information sharing between those organizations and the COCOM or other military headquarters.

10. Culture Gaps (3 of 12) • Information sharing with some PVOs and NGOs is impeded by fears of reprisal from local actors; COCOMs need engagement strategies, policies, and procedures ensuring transparent 2-way communications to assist in mitigation of PVO and NGO concerns.

11. Culture Gaps (4 of 12) • Many potential partner organizations are unfamiliar with Department of Defense requirements for information assurance and information security, leading to frustration, misunderstandings, lost time and effort. COCOMs need open and accessible venues to inform the community of interest about information sharing policies and procedures.

12. Culture Gaps (5 of 12) • Information sharing participants need common understanding of fellow participants’ information requirements and contributions as they enhance the development of an “information ecosystem”.

13. Culture Gaps (6 of 12) • Policies for unclassified information sharing are inconsistently applied due to ambiguities in interpretation (e.g. SBU, CUI), concerns about changing policies, fears of censure, or the releasing authority’s lack of confidence in “need to know” for the HA / DR responders. Policy review is needed to balance information sharing requirements and legitimate operations security.

14. Culture Gaps (7 of 12) • To reduce training and retraining requirements among mission partners, COCOMs need a standard unclassified information sharing capability that is intuitive to new and returning users. Intuitive programming and design will reduce training costs and time requirements.

15. Culture Gaps (8 of 12) • Because the range of any potential community of interest is unbounded, COCOMs need processes and procedures to streamline inclusion of partners to existing systems and networks when responding to HA / DR operations.

16. Culture Gaps (9 of 12) • COCOMs have incomplete awareness of the capabilities and limitations of other U.S. agencies.  HA / DR mission analysis is required to identify civilian agency roles, responsibilities, authorities and information exchange requirements, and to better utilize embedded civilian agency representatives and LNOs.

17. Culture Gaps (10 of 12) • Diverse military cultures and operational constraints between COCOMs necessitate work on both classified and unclassified government networks, as well as unclassified domains accessed via civilian internet service providers. Manual cross domain transfer mechanisms currently in place are cumbersome and inefficient, adversely affecting operations.

18. Culture Gaps (11 of 12) • Current unclassified information sharing (UIS) web tool suites give the appearance of demanding intrusive personal data requirements for access, and overly complex log-on requirements for every visit. Thisfact potentially discourages new or non-traditional users from participation. COCOMs need an information-sharing web tool that limitsdemands for intrusive personal data in order to join a particular forum.

19. Culture Gaps (12 of 12) • The current UIS concept needs to both consider and include the Nontraditional Community of Interest (NTCI) participants’ operational processes in order to mitigate their and the COCOM’s perception of info sharing obstacles.