1 Advancing information technology capabilities to the warfighter Coalition Interoperability U N C L A S S I F I E D Opportunities for Improvement CAPT Keith Archbold Program Manager Experimentation Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command 10AUG11

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? NiCadLead Acid tt Charge State 0r Capability Charge State 0r Capability

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

4/19/2015 1:24 AM4 USNORTHCOM, Peterson AFB CTSF, Ft. Hood, TX SPAWAR, San Diego ESC, Hanscom AFB DSTO Fern Hill, Australia ** CRC, Shirley’s Bay, Ottawa, Canada JFHQ, New Zealand ** DSTL, United Kingdom ** US and Coalition Participation USJFCOM JSIC, Suffolk, VA ** Observer CFBL Net NATO Bydgoszcz, Poland DHS Battle Lab, Herndon, VA

HS/HD Vignettes - VOI Missing Ship - Missile Attack Flooding - Wildfires - Truck Bomb -RDD Attack -Chemical Attack -Suspicious Ship -VOI Missing Ship - Nuclear Threat - USCG Boarding Daily Commander Updates Wildfires - Spill of National Significance - Search and Rescue Hurricane/ Tropical Storm -RDD Attack -Water Supply Threat Canadian Communication Blackout Arctic Sighting Vessel of Interest Fishing Vessel Spill Tunnel Explosion Influenza Outbreak - NCR Evacuation - Chemical Attack - Bridge Attack - Nuclear Plant Incident - NCR Power Outage Cyber Attacks Montreal Mass Transit Incident POTUS Visits - RDD - Flooding

6 Advancing information technology capabilities to the warfighter U N C L A S S I F I E D 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 market- resellers 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”

Coalition Interoperability Indicators for 10 AUG

Coalition Interoperability Indicators for 10 AUG Answer: Bottom Line- if capability providers do not reconcile themselves with these numbers, they risk becoming irrelevant. Number of months takes the Pentagon to make a new computer system operational after it is first funded Number of months it took to develop the iPhone Project budget cuts to DoD- original projected cuts were ~$453B

We need to develop affordable systems – and keep them current 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 Fast refresh and specialization yield more capable systems E.g., >10x more processing power and storage Development Time (months) for Representative Systems PRS-13 (GPS) PRS-9 (UGS) PSQ-20 (NVS) 11.n 2x211.n 3x311.n 1x But in these intervals technology matures: 4.5x5x24x2x2.5x1.5x UNCLASSIFIED DISTRIBUTION A - Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited Exploit commercial development process (not just COTS technology) Think and act like a smart phone developer… 9

Rapid Integration Test Evaluation Process 10 Developer Tester User Certifier Shared Test & Development Tools/Services/Environments Shared Asset Libraries & Repositories Developer 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 TODAY Siloed development environments Expensive and time consuming start-up Limited exposure, sharing, or re-use Duplication of effort Develop by STR model Infrastructure is in place and operational

RITE - New IT Acquisition Cycle Alignment: Better, But Not There Yet 11 Nat’l Defense Authorization Act 2010 RITE Life Cycle (SSA) Design & Procure Maintain Approve IOT&E Iterative Process to achieve Continuous Integration Selected Work Items/ Iterative Drops (~30 days) Daily Work Iterative review & retrospective Working System Independent Test

Why Don’t We Just Use Android Based Smart Phones for Warfighting Applications? Which is harder? *Governance Readiness Level Technology Readiness Level Integration Readiness Level * This is tough and often overlooked!

RITE Software Maturation Model 13 Candidate CRR Software Applications POR Target Readiness Gap TRL 3TRL 4TRL 5TRL 6TRL 7 PRL 1PRL 2PRL 3PRL 4PRL 5 TRL 8TRL 9 Candidate Software Gap Convergence Transition POR Production Ready TRL 2TRL 1 PRL 6PRL 7PRL 8PRL 9 Production Readiness Levels (PRL) TRL 5 Component Validation in Relevant Environment TRL 6 Component Prototype Demonstrated in Relevant Environment TRL 7 System Prototype Demonstrated in Operational Environment TRL 8 System Completed through Test and Demo ICD Materiel Development Decision Milestone A Milestone Build Decision CDD (Milestone B) New or Migrating software Drop 1 Drop 2 Drop 3 Drop 4 Capability Cut-off TRL 1 Basic Principles Observed and Reported TRL 2 Technology application formulated TRL 3 Analytical Proof of Concept TRL 4 Component Validation in Lab Environment

© HW Sorenson 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 Quiz #2: Sensitivity to destructive behaviors? What can be learned? I'm sure this guy still wonders why he got fired that day Avoid destructive emergent behaviors, but embrace emergence

18 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

© HW Sorenson 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 CouplingLoose Coupling InteractionSynchronousAsynchronous Messaging StyleRPCDocument Message PathsHard CodedRouted Technology MixHomogeneousHeterogeneous Data TypesDependentIndependent Syntactic DefinitionBy ConventionPublished Schema BindingsFixed and EarlyDelayed Semantic Adaptation By Re-codingVia Transformation Software ObjectiveEfficiencyBroad Applicability ConsequencesAnticipatedUnexpected

© HW Sorenson 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..." Create effective interfaces for legacy systems

© HW Sorenson Making the Enterprise Interoperate Domain k ip Domain 2 ip Domain 1 ip Making the Enterprise Interoperate Organization/Systems Focused... Domain 3 Operational/Mission Focused Community of Interest 3 Community of Interest 2... Community of Interest n ip Use Cases 2 ip Use Cases 3 ip Use Cases m ip -Interoperability Point / stakeholders Community of Interest 1 ip Use Cases 1 If you isolate the end user, the S/N ratio of your COI and Use cases is almost inaudible

23 Advancing information technology capabilities to the warfighter U N C L A S S I F I E D 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

24 Advancing information technology capabilities to the warfighter U N C L A S S I F I E D 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 CIAV Working Group: COI’s, Use Cases, Domains? Better!

© HW Sorenson Quiz #4 Good or Bad Practice? And to think... those wimps at the power company use straps and cleats to get up this high!" Don’t be restricted by the practices of the past

© HW Sorenson Quiz #5 Good or Bad? Practice or Implementation? "Jack stands? Hah! Who needs 'em?" Make small changes quickly CWIX Vs. CWID

© HW Sorenson Quiz #6 Effective Strategy? Necessity is the mother of invention.. Be innovative and adaptive

© HW Sorenson 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. Involve stakeholders in assessing the outcome space Quiz #7 Requirements- based vs. outcome space

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

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 Conclusion: DARPA Best of Breed Approach 30 UNCLASSIFIED DISTRIBUTION A - Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited

Quiz #1 How is the inverse of the discharge rate for a NiCad battery, related to “measureable” operational gains resulting from improved interoperability? NiCadLead Acid tt Charge State 0r Capability Charge State 0r Capability

Answer A= capability needed Capability Gap By the time we get here (3), it is a context free solution- or worse yet a “wrong” solution- or worse yet irrelevant. 1 Start 2 Finish 3 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? 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? nowFuturet Required Charge State or Capability

ADAPT (DARPA): A new business approach for military development Military Development Schedule/ Cost Performance Drives Cost/ Schedule Performance Drives Commercial Development Today’s Military Sensor Core vs. Smart Phone Core MilitaryCommercial 6 PCB1 PCB 2 radios, 5Mbps max 3 radios, >100Mbps 30MIps + 8MB 16 bit processor 1000MIps + 16GB 64 bit processor >$3500<$500 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 Reuse the common parts of a system Processing/communication/navigation New approach to interoperable systems Stop repeated development Flexible interface for unique sensors Sensors change but management core is common to all 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 A path for technology integration from 3 rd parties 33 UNCLASSIFIED DISTRIBUTION A - Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited