1 / 17

Col. Antonio Cervera Ortega 23 October 2014

NATO Standardization Office. LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCES, STRENGTHENING THE ALLIANCE. NATO Unclassified releasable to conference participants. Col. Antonio Cervera Ortega 23 October 2014. OVERVIEW. WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE ARE HOW WE WORK LESSONS IDENTIFI ED CONCLUSIONS.

vance-acosta
Télécharger la présentation

Col. Antonio Cervera Ortega 23 October 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NATO Standardization Office • LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCES, STRENGTHENING THE ALLIANCE NATO Unclassified releasable to conference participants Col. Antonio Cervera Ortega 23 October 2014

  2. OVERVIEW • WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE ARE • HOW WE WORK • LESSONS IDENTIFIED • CONCLUSIONS

  3. WHERE WE ARE ORGANIZATIONAL GOVERNANCE NAC SUBORDINATE COMMITTES MC Military Committee ADDITIONAL OFFICES IMS NSO INT DIV. OPS DIV. P&P DIV C & R.S. DIV L & R DIV

  4. SCs WHERE WE ARE DOMAIN GOVERNANCE NAC NSO NATO Standardization Organization CS Committee for Standardization CEPC Civil Emergency Planning Committee LC Logistics Committee ADC Air Defense Committee MC Military Committee CNAD Conference of National Armaments Directors C3B Consultation Command Control Board CSREPs Committee Stand. R eps Supports (Primary Focus) SMWG Stand. Management wg Reports NSSGNATO Standardization Staff Group

  5. NSO STRUCTURE Director NSO Front Office (MA/PA) Information & Knowledge Management Branch Policy & Coord Branch Joint Branch Army Branch Naval Branch Air Branch Supporting MCJSB MCMEDSB& Sub WGs / Panels Supporting MCLSB & Sub WGs / Panels Supporting MCMSB & Sub WGs / Panels Supporting MCASB & Sub WGs/ Panels Supporting MC TC Supporting CS/CSREPs/SMWG/NSSG OPERATIONAL MILITARY STANDARDIZATION

  6. HOW WE WORK STAND.OBJETIVE NDPP Top-Down Process Requirements Capabilities Interoperability Standardization STAND. TASK TASKING AUTHORITY STANAG STAND. PROPOSAL Bottom-Up Process LESSONS LEARNED OPERATIONS EXERCISES DAILY USE

  7. HIERARCHY OF STANDARDIZATION ELEMENTS MILITARY COMMITTEE MCJSB MCLSB MCASB MCMSB MCMedSB (TA) Standardization Board (DTA) Working Group 34 MC WGs Panel 88 WG Panels “can convene separately from Working Group meetings” Guidance Team Report (Large number of Custodial-, Expert- and Draft Teams)

  8. STANDARDIZATION CYCLE S.P. S.O. (Bottom-Up) (Top-Down) TASK VALIDATION RATIFICATION (Nations) (Nations) REVISION DEVELOPMENT (WG – Subject Matter Experts) (WG – Subject Matter Experts) IMPLEMENTATION RATIFICATION (Nations & SCs) (Nations) PROMULGATION (DNSO)

  9. TIMELINES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS From Standardization Proposal (SP) to Standardization Task “Validation” by SMEs 0.5 Months SP inquiry 3 Standardization Task (ST) drafting 0.5 1 ST approval by TA/DTA Standard Development at WG level (high: 9, medium 24:, low: 48) 9 - 48 From Final Draft (FD) to approved version for promulgation 0.5 “Sanity check” of FD by TA/DTA staff 0.5 FD to TA/DTA for approval for entering ratification 6(4) FD as Ratification Draft (RD) to TA/DTA for ratification with nationsand SCs ( 6 months for new STANAG (edition 1), 4 months for new edition ) 0.5 RD with FD to TA/DTA for approval for promulgation

  10. TIMELINES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS From Standardization Proposal (SP) to Standardization Task Standardization Proposal (SP) “Validation” by SMEs 0.5 Months SP inquiry 3 Standardization Task (ST) drafting 0.5 1 ST approval by TA/DTA Promulgation of STANAG / AP minimum 22 months Standard Development at WG level (high: 9, medium 24:, low: 48) 9 - 48 From Final Draft (FD) to approved version for promulgation 0.5 “Sanity check” of FD by TA/DTA staff 0.5 FD to TA/DTA for approval for entering ratification 6(4) FD as Ratification Draft (RD) to TA/DTA for ratification with nationsand SCs ( 6 months for new STANAG (edition 1), 4 months for new edition ) 0.5 RD with FD to TA/DTA for approval for promulgation

  11. NSO & INTEROPERABILITY NO CAPABILITY WITHOUT INTEROPERABILITY

  12. NDPP TASK FORCE • TASK FORCE ON INTEROPERABILITY ( FEBRUARY 2012) • ….ensure a holistic, consistent and coherent approach to interoperability….. • TWO KEY REPORTS • Report on Step 2+ • Report on Steps 3, 4 and 5 • FINAL REPORT TO DPPC • among other recommendations: • Include Interoperability Requirements into Targets • Create a link from the NATO Lessons Learned process to step 5 of the NDPP.

  13. TOP-DOWN APPROACH TO STANDARDIZATION NDPP STEP 5 Information from AAR and NATO Lessons Learned process Bi SCs SRA MC SRA NCR

  14. WHERE CAN WE IMPROVE? BOTTOM-UP APPROACH TO STANDARDIZATION Identification phase JALLC OPs Training CFI SCs Validation phase Stand. Doctrine Training Others Approval phase MC (TA/DTA) Correction phase NSO (Boards/ WGs)

  15. CONCLUSION • WE HAVE TO IMPROVE THE NATO STANDARDIZATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS BY: • INCLUDING INTEROPERABILITY/STANDADIZATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE TARGETS ADDRESSED TO NATIONS (NDPP/TOP-DOWN PROCESS) • DEVELOPING A MECHANISM TO FEED INTEROPERABILITY DEFICIENCIES INTO THE NSO (BOTTOM-UP PROCESS)

  16. CONCLUSION A LESSON IS NOT LEARNED UNTIL SOMETHING CHANGES…….. From the NATO Lessons Learned Handbook, 2011

  17. NATO Standardization Office QUESTIONS? Col. Antonio Cervera Ortega 23 October 2014

More Related