Building C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic Environment - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Building C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic Environment PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Building C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic Environment

play fullscreen
1 / 29
Building C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic Environment
Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Building C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic Environment

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Building C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic Environment

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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)

  6. 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

  7. 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)

  8. 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

  9. 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 ...

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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)

  14. 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

  15. A Framework for FormulatingRecommendations Culture Organizations People Vision/ Policy Resources Tools/ Experiments Processes Products 3

  16. 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

  17. 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)

  18. 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

  19. Backup Material

  20. 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)

  21. 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?

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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)?

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

  27. Problem/Solution Matrix

  28. 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

  29. 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