C2IEDM PreBriefing Plan

1
05F-SIW-117 Battle Command Simulation Data
Model Decision Presented to Simulation
Interoperability Workshop Orlando, Florida 21
September 2005
2
Overview

• the Message (We Need a Standard)
• the Method (Campaign Plan to Decision)
• the Mechanics (Implementation Strategy)
• the afterMath (Interim Results)

3
Common Language for MS in BC Operations,
Training, Testing Analysis
Effective BC
Shared tactical picture
Automated information exchange
FCS Commander
Commander
Local implementation
Trainer
Common Interface
MS
System Database
System Database
Staff officer
Collaboration
Common understanding
4
Automated Systems Problem without Common Data
Identify an Enemy Target
Three Ways to Describe the Same Target
Enemy Tank
Each Data Model Describes the Tank, But None
Describe It the Same Way The Computer Cannot
Distinguish Among the Three Entries
5
C2IEDM Decision Brief Bottom Line

• Interoperability demands a Common Language
• Data Nightmare. Lack of a common language creates
  automated systems interoperability nightmare
• SoS Capabilities fail. System of Systems (SoS)
  capabilities hinge on central language (data
  model)
• MS Support is Costly. MS interoperability is
  challenging for testing, training and as embedded
  applications
• Nothing comes close to the C2IEDM
• Well Designed. Nothing even comes close to the
  over 1000 pages of descriptions, rigor of design
  or years of effort.
• Widely Adopted. The C2IEDM is the most reliable,
  documented and widely adopted data model within
  the Army, at the Joint level and among the US and
  its allies.

6
Overview

• the Message (We Need a Standard)
• the Method (Campaign Plan to Decision)
• the Mechanics (Implementation Strategy)
• the afterMath (Interim Results)

7
Background

• SIMCI OIPT is Chartered by DUSA-OR and Army
  CIO/G6 to make Recommendations to Senior Army
  Leadership on how to Improve Interoperability
• SIMCI Has been studying Data Modeling / Object
  Modeling implications on interoperability for
  about 4 years 18 months ago began AMSEC
  Recommendation preparation.

• Data Modeling is Core to Interoperability it is
  not technically challenging, just a lot of hard
  work and coordination across very broad
  communities

C2IEDM Data Modeling Central to Army SoS
Capabilities
8
C2IEDM Recommendation Campaign Plan
Mr. Hollis
AMSEC 11 July 2005
8 Jul 05
LTG Lovelace
LTG Yakovac
11 Jul 05
8 Jul 05
LTG Melcher
5 Jul 05
Ms. Lynch
11 Feb 05
HQDA G3/5/7
HQDA CIO/G6
HQDA G8
ASA(ALT)
9
SIMCI C2IEDM AMSEC Recommendation Relationships
to the WMA C2IEDM Proposal

• The SIMCI Recommendation only affects MS if the
  WMA adopts the C2IEDM

10
WMA MS C2IEDM Proposal Path Status
Mr. Hollis
LTG Lovelace
AMSEC 11 July 2005
BC 3 Star GOSC Paper GOSC
8 Jul 05
LTG Yakovac
LTG Lovelace
8 Jul 05
LTG Boutelle
LTG Melcher
07 Jul 05 Pre-brief
05 May 05
5 Jul 05
LTC Eixenberger
CAC 22 Jun 05
CIO/G6
G-8
ASA (ALT)
RIWG
02 Mar 05 17 Jun 05
BC CoC
TRADOC CAC
SIMCI
TPIO BC
TPIO LVC
12 Apr 05
HQDA G3/5/7
02 Dec 04
11
Experiences along the way

• Data Inextricably Ties MS to Battle Command
• SIMCI Catalyzed the Issue for HQDA by Carrying
  the Water
• Coordinating Fires on Informed Decision Makers
  Critical to Success

12
Overview

• the Message (We Need a Standard)
• the Method (Campaign Plan to Decision)
• the Mechanics (Implementation Strategy)
• the afterMath (Interim Results)

13
Challenges to Success

• Failure to Address Implementation Planning
• Data Issues at the System of Systems Level
• Synchronization of BC Capability Blocks, Army
  Software Blocking (SWB), and FCS Spirals
• How Much Does This Cost?

14
Proposed Mechanics (Strategy)

• C2IEDM governance
• C2IEDM over time (versioning)
• C2IEDM in echelon (scope of influence)
• Forms of the C2IEDM
• Strategy for Implementation Cost Avoidance
• Impact on Current versus Future systems

15
C2IEDM Recommendation Data Models Governance
ARMY/JOINT C2IEDM BASELINE
V6.1
V7
V8
Reference IE Data Model
SoS Increment X (SWB or FCS Spiral)
SoS Increment X1 (SWB or FCS Spiral)
Logical IE Data Model SoS C2IEDM Baseline
System A
MS
Internal Data Model
Physical IE Data Base System C2IEDM Baseline
?
IE Data Model
16
C2IEDM Strategy Implementation Army Roles

• Policy HQDA
• G-3 Operational Prioritization
• G-8 Programming
• ASA(ALT) Material Development (SA)
• CIO/G6 Army Information Systems management (TA)
• Acquisition
• TRADOC (TPIOs) Scope the solution (OA)
• PEOs, PMs Implement the solution
• Horizontal Technology Integration
• SIMulation to C4I Interoperability (SIMCI)
• WMA Integrated Working Group (Concept/Design
  Integration)
• Software Blocking (Materiel Integration)
• Communities of Interest (COIs)

17
Data Model Forms

• Reference (Conceptual) Data Model
• Used to hold the abstract design and cross
  organization agreements on technical and semantic
  content
• Highly normalized
• Should not contain Entity Attributes (C2IEDM
  does!)
• Logical Data Model
• Scoped to the problem space
• Contains detail pertinent to the problem space
• Normalized
• Includes entity Attributes
• Physical Data Model
• Selects implementation technology (Relational,
  OO, FlatFile, etc)
• Denormalized
• Fully attributed specific to the adaptation of
  the problem space to the system solution

18
C2IEDM use for Current and Future Systems

• Current Systems C2IEDM guides integration
  through engineered information exchange data
• Implement only data elements supporting
  integration of SoS capabilities
• Phased SWB approach based on prioritized
  capabilities
• Implement C2IEDM in PASS
• Future Systems
• Implement C2IEDM as a physical model for C2
  portions of future systems internal core data
  models
• Continue C2IEDMs use as an SoS information
  exchange data model

SWB 1
SWB 2
SWB 3
SWB 4
19
Overview

• the Message (We Need a Standard)
• the Method (Campaign Plan to Decision)
• the Mechanics (Implementation Strategy)
• the afterMath (Interim Results)

20
Decisions Made on 11 July 2005

• AMSEC agreed to write policy which mandates the
  use of the C2IEDM as a standard for the
  information exchange between MS systems and
  C2IEDM Battle Command systems
• HQDA DCS-G3 verbally agreed to implement the
  C2IEDM as the common language for the WMA.

21
Current Status

• HQDA CIO/G-6 has endorsed the C2IEDM as
  technically sufficient for a reference data model
  standard for WMA
• TRADOC Combined Arms Center (CAC) Commander has
  endorsed the C2IEDM as operationally sound data
  model to implement current and future doctrine
• HQDA G-8 has concurred on C2IEDM as Data Model
  Standard
• HQDA G-3/5/7 is staffing a draft memorandum
  stating the use of the C2IEDM for the WMA and
  directing implementation planning among the HQDA
  staff
• Data Architecture Working Sub-Group of the Battle
  Command Integrated Working Group (BC IWG) is
  developing recommendations on
• Standards Requirements definition
• Implementation strategy
• Information Exchange Standard Specification

22
What Does this Mean to Me?

• Decision and implementation strategy have not yet
  been codified.
• AND
• The Army doesnt have a budget to implement the
  C2IEDM outright, across the board.
• AND
• Proposed strategy is for BC Systems to implement
  C2IEDM as part of a time-phased implementation
  (SWB).
• THEREFORE
• MS systems implement C2IEDM (as required) to
  communicate with C2IEDM compliant BC systems.
• STAY TUNED

23
Acknowledgements

• SIMCI OIPT
• In general, all of SIMCI including heavy
  participation from PEO STRI and PEO C3T, but many
  other organizations.
• In specific, Mr. Chris Black, Mr. Frank Carr, Dr.
  Michael Hieb, Dr. Stan Levine and mr. Bill
  Sudnikovich
• HQDA staff
• ASA(ALT) Ms. Vivienne Holt, Mr. Hozie
  Pennington, Mr. John Gillis
• G-3/5/7 Ms. Celeste Kennamer, Mr. George
  Ohanian, LTC Mike Eixenberger, Mr. Gary Tobin,
  Ms. Leslie Winters
• CIO/G-6 LTC Ken Evensen, Mr. Jim Blalock, Mr.
  John Shipp
• G-8 COL George Prohoda, Ms. Beth Lynch
• TPIO BC
• Mr. Dick Brown, Mr. Bob Hartel

24
BACKUPS
25
C2IEDM Decision Brief Facts

• International/Coalition
• NATO Standard. The C2IEDM is an extendable NATO
  standard (STANAG 5523) with 12 years of modeling
  work.
• Multiple Nations adopt C2IEDM Outright. The
  C2IEDM is the national model of Canada, Denmark,
  Italy, Portugal, Netherlands, Spain.
• US is a NATO C2IEDM Proponent. US has ratified
  C2IEDM in STANAG 5523 and (HQDA CIO/G6) has
  supported the C2IEDM since its inception.
• In the US DoD
• Being adopted in the DoD and Joint community as
  the GFMIEDM
• Being proposed as the core for the FCS BC Data
  Model
• Organizations Across Army Agree on C2IEDM.
  Twenty three (23) participating SIMCI
  organizations reviewed and ratified a C2IEDM
  recommendation for presentation to the AMSEC for
  policy decision.
• TRADOC CAC Commander endorses C2IEDM as
  doctrinally sound
• Net-Centric Operations
• Global Force Management (GFM) extends C2IEDM as
  GFMIEDM
• GIG Data Models. Regardless of the GIG services
  used, the information producing and consuming
  systems data models must be reconciled to
  automate data exchanges.

26
C2IEDM Decision Brief Courses of Action
27
Coalition, Joint and Army C2IEDM for Current and
Future Forces
Miles- tones
Future Force Design
Establish C2IEDM
SWB4 SoS Exchange
CM
C2IEDM
JIM C2IEDM Governance and CCB via NATO MIP Program
Army CM
Army C2IEDM Governance and CCB
BASELINE
C2IEDM
Future Force
JC2
FCS
C2IEDM CORE
C2IEDM CORE
C2IEDM CORE
Block SoS Activity
Capability Development
SWB B4
Current Force
SoS, FCS JC2 Complementary Systems phase in
C2IEDM for Prioritized Capabilities
SWB B5
SWB B6
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2004
Time
TODAY
28
How would the Army Extend its Service
Implementation?

• PMs get current C2IEDM copy from Army CCB
• PMs extend their copy of the C2IEDM
• PMs submit extensions back to the Army CCB
• Army CCB raises extensions to the WMA COI
• WMA COI ratifies extension as core to Army
  implementation
• Army submits requested change to the Joint and
  NATO organizations
• Army continues to use own extensions internally.
• If approved, Army extensions become part of NATO
  core

29
SIMCI OIPT ROUNDTABLE
as of 01 MAR 05
Co-Chairmen
PEO-C3T REO
LTC Buck Surdu
Mr. Dick Koval
COL George Stone
COL Lance Carroll
Mr. Thomas Kelso
Mr. Chandu Sheth
CERDEC
SIMCI OIPT
LTC Ken Evensen
Ms. Monica Farah-Stapleton
Mr. Hugh Dempsey
LTC Mike Courtney
Mr. Joe During
Council of Architects
Secretariat
TBD
Mr. Bob Halle
Mr. Matt Arnold
Mr. Steve Chizmar
Mr. Paul Howe
Mr. Chris Black
Mr. Ted Bryson Project Coordinator
Dr. Michael Hieb
Dr. Stan Levine
Mr. Ray Mullins Program Analyst
Mr. Ron Sprinkle
Mr. Bill Sudnikovich
TEMO
ACR
RDA
ALL
30
SIMCI SoS Interoperability Accomplishment/Efforts
House Chart Blocks Focus Over Time
AAR - DCM/DCARS
ACSIS
ROAD
Shared Solutions
C3 Driver
Task Orgs UOB DAT
Instructions Builder-BML
CMP Reuse SIM
Comms Effects Server
CTSF Consortium
Common Data
Comms Effects Data Model
Standard ORG ID
Data Model Alignment
C4I Reference Object Model
Common Standards
BML
DII COE Sim Segments
IAIC for Sims
TA Alignment (C2IEDM)
2525B Graphics
Scenario Gen
SA Alignment SCA
Architecture
OA Alignment TSoSA
Integrated DII COE Arch
OA/SA Trng Representation
ABCS SSEI Sim Spt
SoS Acquisition
Requirements Synch
SIM/STIM Technical Exchanges
Software Blocking Representation
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2005
SIMCI has been working behind the scenes on SoS
interoperability for years
31
Building ABCS 6.4
1 -N
32
C2IEDM Core and Extensions
Other US COI Extensions
C2 COI Extension
NATO/MIP CORE
33
MIP Organization Members / Systems

• FULL MEMBERS
• CA LFC2IS
• DA DACCIS
• FR SICF, SIR
• GE HEROS-2/1
• IT SIACCON
• NL ISIS
• NO NORTaC/NORCCIS
• SP SIMACET
• TU TKKBS
• UK ATacCS/ComBAT
• US MCS

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS AS JCCS, BCSS AU PHOENIX BE S
ICBEL CZ GF-TCCS FI TBD GR HARCCIS HU HAVIR LH
TBD PL SZAFRAN PO SICCE
RO TBD SI TBD SW IS MARK SLB
AFNORTH ACT BiSC AIS