UNCLASSIFIED
Coalition Interoperability
Opportunities for
Improvement
CAPT Keith Archbold
Program Manager Experimentation
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command
10AUG11
Advancing information technology capabilities to the warfighter
UNCLASSIFIED
1
Quiz #1- GRE Refresher
• How is the inverse of the discharge rate for a
NiCad battery, related to “measureable”
operational gains resulting from improved
interoperability?
Charge
State
Charge
State
0r
0r
Capability
Capability
t
NiCad
t
Lead Acid
Coalition Interoperability
• Problem: Interoperability shortcomings result in mission
failure and loss of life
• Interoperability needs to be linked w/ Agile Development
or “Extreme Programming”, and accomplished on the
order of weeks, not months and years
– “Google puts out a new version of G-mail to over 1.6 Billion
users every two weeks” (counter threats and CIP)
– Many structured experimentation/test/interoperability venues
fail to deliver the volume or quality of results to shrink the gap
– The POM Cycle doesn’t solve current interoperability
problems- but that is generally our target
US and Coalition Participation
DHS Battle Lab,
Herndon, VA
CFBL Net
ESC,
Hanscom AFB
CRC, Shirley’s
Bay, Ottawa,
Canada
USJFCOM
JSIC, Suffolk,
VA
NATO
Bydgoszcz,
Poland
USNORTHCOM,
Peterson AFB
JFHQ,
New Zealand **
SPAWAR,
San Diego
CTSF,
Ft. Hood, TX
** Observer
4/8/2015 8:36 PM
DSTL, United
Kingdom **
DSTO Fern Hill,
Australia **
4
HS/HD Vignettes
Arctic Sighting
Vessel of Interest
Fishing Vessel Spill
Flooding
Canadian
Communication
Blackout
Influenza Outbreak
Tunnel
Explosion
- Wildfires
- Truck Bomb
- RDD Attack
- Chemical Attack
- Suspicious Ship
- VOI Missing Ship
- Nuclear Threat
- USCG Boarding
Daily
Commander
Updates
Cyber Attacks
Montreal Mass
Transit Incident
- Spill of National Significance
- Search and Rescue
Wildfires
- RDD
- Flooding
- NCR Evacuation
- Chemical Attack
- Bridge Attack
- Nuclear Plant Incident
- NCR Power Outage
- RDD Attack
- Water Supply
Threat
Hurricane/
Tropical
Storm
POTUS Visits
- VOI Missing Ship
- Missile Attack
U N C L A S S I F I E D // F O R O F F I C I A L U S E O N L Y
Environmental Realities:
Capability Providers Feedback
 “My technology is just a component in a System of
Systems, that is part of a larger System of Systems- I
may have to rethink by business model”
 “Made some great connections, but don’t expect any
hard dollar benefits for at least a year due to the DOD
contracting process- lagging indicator of success”
 “My technology can increase computing speed by 800X
and reduce overall power usage and hardware
investment by 50%, but it is a disruptive technology
that is not easily integrated into the existing marketresellers are not interested in my product since it cuts
into their margins”
 “Having a footprint in Afghanistan and a secure and
proven capability required by the warfighter will
translate into immediate additional systems sales”
Advancing information technology capabilities to the warfighter
UNCLASSIFIED
6
Coalition Interoperability Indicators
for 10 AUG 2011
81
859
24
Coalition Interoperability Indicators
for 10 AUG 2011
Answer: Bottom Line- if capability providers do not reconcile themselves
with these numbers, they risk becoming irrelevant.
81
Number of months takes the
Pentagon to make a new
computer system operational after
it is first funded
859
Project budget cuts to DoD- original
projected cuts were ~$453B
24
Number of months it took to develop the iPhone
We need to develop affordable systems – and keep them current
Fast refresh and specialization yield more capable systems
E.g., >10x more processing power and storage
Current Limitations:
William Lynn, Deputy SecDef:
“It takes the Pentagon 81 months to
make a new computer system
operational after it is first funded.” By
contrast, he noted, “the iPhone was
developed in 24 months.”
Need to be more nimble to keep up
with technology evolution
JIOWC brief We have sufficient innovation and
technology, we lack the transition
nimbleness
Stovepipe systems – Change a
requirement, need a new design
• Exploit commercial
development process (not
just COTS technology)
• Think and act like a smart
phone developer…
Development Time (months) for Representative Systems
PRS-13
(GPS)
PRS-9
(UGS)
PSQ-20
(NVS)
11.n 2x2
11.n 3x3
11.n 1x1
46
48
96
18
25
15
2.5x
1.5x
But in these intervals technology matures:
4.5x
5x
24x
UNCLASSIFIED
DISTRIBUTION A - Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited
2x
9
Rapid Integration Test
Evaluation Process
Shared Asset
Libraries & Repositories
TODAY
Tester
• Siloed development environments
• Expensive and time consuming start-up
• Limited exposure, sharing, or re-use
• Duplication of effort
• Develop by STR model
Developer
Developer
Shared Test & Development
Tools/Services/Environments
Certifier
User
RITE
• Cross-program sharing: enterprise software
repository and services
• Early and continuous integration
• Agile approach to development life cycle
• Extensible platform to support delivery of
partner capabilities
Infrastructure is in place and operational
10
RITE - New IT Acquisition Cycle
Alignment: Better, But Not There Yet
IOT&E
Nat’l Defense
Authorization
Act 2010
RITE Life
Cycle
(SSA)
Independent
Iterative review &
Test
retrospective
Iterative
Design &
Procure
Selected
Work Items/
Drops
(~30 days) Daily
Working
System
Approve
Maintain
Work
Iterative Process to achieve Continuous Integration
11
Why Don’t We Just Use Android Based Smart
Phones for Warfighting Applications?
• Which is harder?
Integration
Readiness
Level
*Governance
Readiness
Level
Technology
Readiness
Level
* This is tough and often overlooked!
RITE Software Maturation Model
New or Migrating software
Materiel
Development
Decision
ICD
Drop
1
Milestone
A
Drop
2
Drop
3
Drop Capability Cut-off
4
Milestone
Build Decision
TRL 1
TRL 2
TRL 3
TRL 4
TRL 5
TRL 6
TRL 7
TRL 8
Basic
Principles
Observed
and
Reported
Technology
application
formulated
Analytical
Proof of
Concept
Component
Validation in
Lab
Environment
Component
Validation in
Relevant
Environment
Component
Prototype
Demonstrated in
Relevant
Environment
System
Prototype
Demonstrated
in Operational
Environment
System
Completed
through Test
and Demo
TRL 1
TRL 2
TRL 3
TRL 4
TRL 5
TRL 6
TRL 7
TRL 8
CDD
(Milestone
B)
TRL 9
Candidate
CRR Software
Applications
Target
Readiness
Gap
POR Production Ready
Candidate Software Gap Convergence
Transition
POR
PRL 1
PRL 2
PRL 3
PRL 4
PRL 5
PRL 6
PRL 7
PRL 8
PRL 9
Production Readiness Levels (PRL)
13
The General Context
•
Business & Military Operations Involve
–
–
–
–
•
Many diverse stakeholders with differing cultures and
responsibilities
High degree of heterogeneity and redundancy in
organizations, processes, and systems
Large number of autonomous or stove-piped systems
Inconsistent data/information models and data bases
Business & Military Operations Need
–
–
–
–
Cross-domain interoperation
Ability to respond to unexpected events in timely and
effective manner
Decision support systems closely related to mission
objectives
Affordable “IT renovations” that provide improved and
new capabilities in the short-term
© HW Sorenson
Some Observations and Assertions
• We often fail, not because we fail to solve the problem we
face, but because we fail to face the right problem.
• There are three common ways to define the wrong
problem and its resulting solution
– As a deviation from the “norm”
– As a result of inadequate resources
– Or in terms of an existing solution
• Interoperability requires the return to basics
• Separate problem from solution
– Context is important
– Context-free solutions can lead to repeating successes but, also,
the failures of the past
– Avoid the endless search for more detail while drowning in the
proliferation of useless information (iterate)
© HW Sorenson
Critical Components: Roadmap
• Define the “outcome spaces”
– What are desired “capabilities” (NOT specific requirements)?
– Capabilities need to be defined carefully BUT should not be a
“point solution” as produced by a requirements-driven
process
• Develop a “continuous interaction space”
– Identify all stakeholders who are to be involved in the
development of a specific capability
• Include all legacy and new systems which contribute to the capability
• Stakeholders define measures that enable “judgments”
to be made about the utility of a solution approach
• Choose utile solutions and discontinue less than satisfactory solutions
• There must be “sensitivity” to possibly destructive behaviors
introduced by “unsuccessful varieties”
*Special thanks to UCSD Architecture Based Enterprise Systems Engineering Master’s Program and
Professor Harold W. Sorenson for this slide and others in this presentation.
© HW Sorenson
Avoid destructive emergent behaviors, but
embrace emergence
Quiz #2: Sensitivity to destructive behaviors? What can be learned?
© HW Sorenson
I'm sure this guy still wonders why he got fired that day
Emergence Among Disparate Technologies and Organizations:
Ad Hoc Alliance Created a Full Motion Video Downlink capability in a Satellite
and Comm’s Denied Environment CWID 2010 (unrehearsed “free play” portion)
SOF Coast:
Small Business
founded by former
Navy Seal
Specializing in
Low cost, portable,
Aerostats
US Army
San Diego Harbor Police
Emergency Operations Vehicle and
Navy Region Southwest
18
Why Does It Take So Long Today?
• Development is driven by fundamental tension between
needs of the enterprise and of the local user
– Internet, W3C, and IT enable solution for different “virtualization”
views (i.e., structure)
•
•
•
•
Trust virtualization and information governance
Storage virtualization (SANs)
Data virtualization (metadata repositories)
Information virtualization (semantic grid)
• “Data”, “information”, and “knowledge” are the
medium of exchange* (i.e., function)
© HW Sorenson
Tight (old) versus Loose (new) Coupling
(Reference: Kaye)
Tight Coupling
Loose Coupling
Interaction
Synchronous
Asynchronous
Messaging Style
RPC
Document
Message Paths
Hard Coded
Routed
Technology Mix
Homogeneous
Heterogeneous
Data Types
Dependent
Independent
Syntactic Definition
By Convention
Published Schema
Bindings
Fixed and Early
Delayed
Semantic
Adaptation
Software Objective
By Re-coding
Via Transformation
Efficiency
Broad Applicability
Consequences
Anticipated
Unexpected
© HW Sorenson
Create effective interfaces for legacy systems
Quiz #3 Effective Interfaces between COI’s?
“Gee, guys... that seems like an awful lot of protective
gear for such a small chlorine gas leak..."
© HW Sorenson
Making the Enterprise Interoperate
Making the Enterprise Interoperate
Use
Cases 1
Operational/Mission
Focused
Community of Interest 1
ip
ip
ip
ipip
ip
.
.
.
Community of Interest n
ip
ip
Domain k
ipip
Community of Interest 3
Domain 3
Domain 2
Domain 1
ip
ipip
Community of Interest 2
ip
Use
Cases 2
Use
Cases 3
Use
Cases m
...
ip -Interoperability Point /
stakeholders
Organization/Systems
Focused
© HW Sorenson
If you isolate the end user, the S/N ratio of your COI and Use cases is almost inaudible
U.S. CWID 2011 Objectives: COI’s,
Use Cases, Domains?
Objective 1: Enhance Coalition, Joint and Service Integration and Interoperability in
order to facilitate C4ISR transport /distribution and improve air/missile defense
Objective 2: Enhance Whole of Government Integration and Interoperability in order
to improve cyber-operations and support sustainable, secure mission partner
collaboration
Objective 3: Enhance Coalition Tactical Edge command and control;
communications systems; and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Capabilities in order to provide secure, deployable, modular, wireless
communications in support of distributed small unit operations
Objective 4: Improve Cross Domain Capabilities for both Conventional and Irregular
Warfare Operations in order to provide multi-level web services, identification and
authentication capabilities, and bi-directional Common Intelligence
Picture/Common Operational Picture/Common Tactical Picture
correlation/reporting capabilities within a federated multinational information
sharing environment
FBO Announcement and CWID Website @ www.cwid.js.mil
Advancing information technology capabilities to the warfighter
UNCLASSIFIED
23
CIAV Working Group: COI’s, Use
Cases, Domains? Better!
 Purpose: The Coalition Interoperability Assurance &
Validation Working Group (CIAV WG) is responsible
for assuring and validating services, systems and
business processes supporting the Afghanistan
Mission Network (AMN) mission threads in support of
Coalition Operations
 The CIAV WG coordinates AV events per IJC/National
direction and provides results/recommendations on
mission and service interoperability improvement
across AMN
Advancing information technology capabilities to the warfighter
UNCLASSIFIED
24
Don’t be restricted by the
practices of the past
Quiz #4 Good or Bad Practice?
And to think... those wimps at the power company use
straps and cleats to get up this high!"
© HW Sorenson
Make small changes quickly
CWIX
Vs.
CWID
Quiz #5 Good or Bad? Practice or Implementation?
"Jack stands? Hah! Who needs 'em?"
© HW Sorenson
Be innovative and adaptive
Quiz #6 Effective Strategy? Necessity is the mother of invention..
© HW Sorenson
Involve
stakeholders
in assessing
the outcome
space
Quiz #7
Requirementsbased
vs. outcome space
Step 1: Remove shoes.
Step 2: Place metal ladder in water.
Step 3: Begin using power tools while standing barefoot on metal ladder in water.
© HW Sorenson
InReleif.org: Roadmap for Success
• HADR Capability Born out of CWID 2008
• In use today in Haiti and Japan disasters
• Tops down, bottoms up approach- “worked” at both
OSD and Experimentation/Demo Levels
• Open Source/Existing off-the-shelf technology
• Clear Total Cost of Ownership Advantage
• Its all about making the Enterprise Interoperate
• Concept of Emergence- Google, VSEE, SPOT
• Understand Architectures, Use Cases, and COI’s at
Multiple levels of Interaction
Conclusion: DARPA Best of Breed
Approach
• ADAPT promotes a new way of doing business
– Ecosystems – Non-traditional military contractors
working with traditional performers
– Reuse and refresh mentality
– Leverage everything possible
– Getting product in the field takes precedence
Accelerate development time
UNCLASSIFIED
DISTRIBUTION A - Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited
30
Quiz #1
• How is the inverse of the discharge rate for a
NiCad battery, related to “measureable”
operational gains resulting from improved
interoperability?
Charge
State
Charge
State
0r
0r
Capability
Capability
t
NiCad
t
Lead Acid
Answer
Q: Why is it that I can watch an NFL game on my iPhone anywhere in the world live;
but the typical Destroyer has communications bandwidth that is on par with a library in Ethiopia?
By the time we get here (3), it is a context free solution- or worse yet a “wrong”
solution- or worse yet irrelevant.
A= capability needed
2
Finish
3
Required
Charge
State or
Capability
Capability
Gap
1 Start
Future
t
now
Bottom Line: If we don’t anticipate and adjust to 81 & 859, we will cease to be
relevant- it is up to you. There are a lot of smart companies out there, will you be
the next Google in this space?
ADAPT (DARPA): A new business approach for military
development
1. Rapid refresh and obsolescence
Get products in the field, let technology catch up
•
Leverage commercial technology when prudent
2. Leverage reusable system core hardware and
software
•
•
Processing/communication/navigation
•
New approach to interoperable systems
•
Stop repeated development
Cost/
Schedule
Performance
Performance
Flexible interface for unique sensors
Sensors change but management core is common
to all
Today’s Military Sensor Core
vs. Smart Phone Core
Fabless product development model
3. Implement a reusable SW distribution model.
•
Commercial-style development ecosystem
•
A “head start” to development
4. Enable “technology participants” – App developers
and sensor physics providers
•
Schedule/
Cost
Reuse the common parts of a system
•
•
Commercial
Development
Drives
•
Military
Development
Drives
•
A path for technology integration from 3rd parties
Military
Commercial
6 PCB
1 PCB
2 radios, 5Mbps
max
3 radios, >100Mbps
30MIps + 8MB
16 bit processor
1000MIps + 16GB
64 bit processor
>$3500
<$500
UNCLASSIFIED
DISTRIBUTION A - Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited
33