MISSION Explore innovative ways to improve DoD C4ISR system design and acquisition processes so that we can better transform advances in information technology into operational capabilities.
Context and Expectations • The workshop has been divided into three panels • Building C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic Environment • Design and Development Risk Management • Transition • Each panel has been directed to • Formulate Problem Statement • Identify Impediments, Constraints and Opportunities • Provide Recommendations for Incremental Improvements • Identify venue for follow-up
Nature of the Problem (1 or 3) • 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 and combined 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
Nature of the Problem (2 of 3) • The C4ISR acquisition problem is characterized by several “curses of dimensionality” • Systems -- There are an extraordinary number of systems that must work together effectively, even in the limited case of a single Service (see next vugraph)
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
Nature of the Problem (3 of 3) • The C4ISR acquisition problem is characterized by several “curses of dimensionality” • Systems -- There are an extraordinary number of systems that must work together effectively, even in the limited case of a single Service • Organizations -- There are many organizations that have been created to deal with the key issue of interoperability (see next vugraph)
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
Basic Objective Achieving effective,* affordable C4ISR systems to accommodate: Diverse uncertain threats New and evolving ops concepts Our Inability to fully specify requirements up-front Rapidly advancing technology *Effective = necessary functionality, interoperable (w/i services, joint, coalition), secure, adaptable, scalable, evolvable ...
Selected Process Issues • There is a need to enhance rapid insertion of evolving technology to ensure that fielded systems are not obsolete • Steps are required to co-evolve DOTLMP, requirements, capability, technology (while being sensitive to the issues of value and cost) • The current acquisition process is oriented toward weapons systems vice software/IT systems • Efforts must be made to implement the right Industry/Government partnership • We tend to deal with legacy systems as the least common denominator -- we need to learn how to migrate legacy systems • The Architecture Framework contains no process description -- we need implementation guidance • There is no process to evaluate and review architectures (e.g., no sign off process) -- how does it fit in the acquisition process? • Need a support environment that makes it easier to build an interoperable system than a non-interoperable one
Additional Selected Issues • Systems are not interoperable and they must be to act as an effective, robust system-of-systems • Current incentives/rewards in acquisition are inadequate to promote prudent risk-taking
Provocative Thoughts (“Light Bulbs”) (1 of 2) • Several steps must be taken to ensure that systems (hardware, software, people) are robust • Software error recovery • Robust testing - - scale of test (Note: Numbers of LRIP systems are too limited to support); alpha and beta testing • Redundancy - diverse solutions -- h/w, s/w, people • Contingency planning -- h/w, s/w, people • “Consumers Union/Underwriters Laboratory for COTS • Red teaming
Provocative Thoughts (“Light Bulbs”) (2 of 2) • Revise the Architecture Framework to reflect changes in the 5000 series • ASD C3I should explicitly examine how to execute spiral/helical development within the reassessment of the Architecture Framework • Need a champion • Support coalition interoperability experimentation • Support establishment of a joint rapid acquisition program element -- leverage success of current Warfighters Rapid Acquisition Program (WRAP)
Provocative Thoughts (“Light Bulbs”) (2 of 3) • Provide a rich and usable toolset for building interoperable systems (late addition by Jeremy Kaplan) • GCCS COE • Distributed Joint Test Bed • JTA compliancy listed • Boilerplate language for acquiring interoperable systems • Mechanisms for receiving joint warfighter feedback
A Framework for FormulatingRecommendations Culture Organizations People Vision/ Policy Resources Tools/ Experiments Processes Products 3
Preliminary Recommendations (1 of 2) • Cultural Change • Implement CIO role as “Bully Pulpit” • Organizational Change • Zero base interoperability organizations • Vision/Policy • Rationalize cross-Service operational visions • 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 • Processes • ASD C3I should explicitly re-examine the Architecture Framework within a spiral/helical development environment
Preliminary Recommendations (2 of 2) • Processes (Concluded) • Re-assess the Architecture Framework to ensure the inclusion of necessary view to include security and robustness/error recovery • Resources • Provide for “joint funding” resources to support joint/coalition activities - not a service take away • Establish a joint rapid acquisition PE • Tools/Experimentation (& People) • Extend CTSF model for joint use - collective environment/training • Develop and disseminate Best Practices for Experimentation • Products • Additional views of the Architecture are needed (e.g., security, error recovery)
Way Forward • To transform the preliminary recommendations into final recommendations, the panel will • Amplify, reassess the recommendations • Sort the recommendations (e.g., near-term vs longer term) • “Vet” them with members of the acquisition community • For those recommendations that are of interest, the panel will work with the OSD(C3I) staff to help in their implementation
Candidate Recommendations • 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)
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?
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
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
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
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)?
Solution Mechanisms • Experimentation • Architectures • Policy • Organization
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
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