Defense Acquisition Reform Task Force Sub-Panel: Acquisition Workforce

1
Building C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic
Environment
2
MISSION

• Explore innovative ways to improve DoD 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
• Builing C4ISR Capabilities in a Dynamic
  Environment
• Design and Development Risk Management
• Lifecycle Accountability
• Formulate Problem Statement
• Identify Impediments, Constraints and
  Opportunities
• Provide Recommendations for Incremental
  Improvements
• Queue up issues for QDR
• Identify venue for follow-up

4
Members

• Al Grasso MITRE 703-883-6138 ag_at_mitre.org
• Alex Levis GMU 703-993-1619 aleis_at_gmu.edu
• Stuart Starr MITRE 703-883-5494 starr_at_mitre.org
• Rich Ivanetich IDA 703-845-6600 rivan_at_ida.org
• Iris Kameny RAND 703-393-0411 kameny_at_rand.org
• Jude Franklin Litton PRC 703-559-1990
  franklin_jude_at_prc.com
• Bill Sieg USD(ATL)IO 703-413-3143 siegb_at_mail.e
  tas.com
• John Mitchell JBC 757-686-7045 mitchell_at_jbc.js.m
  il
• Edwin B. Stear IDA 703-845-6676 estear_at_ida.com

5
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

6
Nature of the Problem

• 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 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

7
Acquiring Systems-of-Systems -- Strawman Major
Issues (1 of 3)

• Evolutionary Acquisition
• Barriers to implementation e.g.,
• Reaction of Congress
• Concerns of TE 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?

8
Where Are We Now?
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
9
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

10
Scope of InteroperabilityABCS Exemplar
ASAS Interop. Adv.Quickfix-army-U AMS-army-00 ARL
-army-U ATCAE-army-97 CTS/CTAPS-army-97 DAI-army-9
7 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 TEAMM
ATE-army-97 TES-army-97 THMT-army-97 TrafficJam-ar
my-97 Trailblazer-army-97 TRRIP-army-U UAV
GCS-army-97 UAV MPCS-army-97 CARS/TRIGS-joint-97 I
AC-joint-97 JMCIS-joint-97 JStarsCGS-joint-97 NIPS
-joint-97 TBMCS-joint-U TCAC-joint-97 PASS-K-allie
d-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-j
oint-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 C
TAPS/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-j
oint-96 JTAV-joint-97 LOGSA-joint-96 MCS-joint-96
PERSCOM-joint-96 RAMS-joint-96 REQVAL-joint-96 SAM
AS-joint-96 TAV-joint-96
IMETS Interop. FAST-Joint- JSTARS
CGS-joint- MITT-Joint-
MCS Interop. LFCS-army-97 CTAPS-joint-97 JMCIS-joi
nt-98 JStarsGCS-joint-98 TCO-joint-98 AUSTACCS-all
ied-98 HEROS-allied-96 LFCCIS-allied-97 QIFS-allie
d-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-a
rmy-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- JSTAR
S 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 U
LLS/S4-army-98
11
(No Transcript)
12
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)?

13
Selected References

• Annette Krygiel, Behind the Wizards 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

14
Problem Statement(s)

• Systems are not interoperable and they should be
  to act as a system-of-systems
• Rapid insertion of evolving technology
• Co-evolution of DOTLMP, requirements, capability,
  technology, value and cost
• Incentive rewards in acquisition (risk mgmt
  deferred to other group)
• Achieving effective (function/joint/coalition,
  secure, interoperable, evolveable, scaleable,...)
  affordable C4ISR systems to accommodate
• Diverse uncertain threats
• New and evolving ops concepts
• Inability to fully specify reqmts upfront
• Rapidly advancing technology

15
Problem Decomposed

• Achieving effective (function/joint/coalition,
  secure, robust, interoperable, evolveable,
  scaleable,...) affordable C4ISR systems to
  accommodate
• Diverse uncertain threats
• New and evolving ops concepts
• Inability to fully specify reqmts upfront
• Rapidly advancing technology
• Acquisition process oriented toward weapons
  systems vice software/IT systems
• Right Industry/Govt partnership
• Dealing with Legacy as the least common
  denominator- legacy system migration
• Architecture Framework contains no process
  description - needs implementation guidance
• No process to evaluate and review architectures
  - no sign off - how does it fit in acquisition
  process

16
Light Bulbs

• Robust systems (hardware, software and people)
• Software error recovery
• Robust testing - scale of test (LRIP too limited)
  Alpha and beta testing
• Redundancy - divers solutions -h/w, s/w, people
• Contingencies -h/w, s/w, people
• Consumers Union for COTS
• Red teaming
• Architecture Framework in 5000 series
• ASD C3I should explicitly examine how to execute
  spiral development within the relook of the
  Architecture Framework
• Need champion
• Support coalition interoperability experimentation

17
Light Bulbs

• Support establishment of a joint rapid
  acquisition program element - leverage success of
  current WRAP

18
Synthesis

• 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)

19
Preliminary Recommendations

• Provide for joint funding resources to support
  joint/coalition activities - not a service take
  away
• Fail fast - too tough
• Implement CIO role as Bully Pulpit
• Zero base interoperability organizations
• Extend CTSF model for joint use - collective
  environment/training
• Establish a joint rapid acquisition PE
• Develop and disseminate Best Practices for
  Experimentation

20
Preliminary Recommendations

• Rationalize cross service operational visions
• ASD C3I should explicitly relook the Architecture
  Framework within a spiral development environment
• C3I, AT 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
• Re-examine the Architecture Framework to ensure
  the inclusion of necessary view to include
  security and robustness/error recovery

21
Way Forward
22
Backup Material
23
Solution Mechanisms

• Experimentation
• Architectures
• Policy
• Organization

24
Problem/Solution Matrix
25
Todays Timeline

• 900 - 915 Reformulate Problem Statement
• 915 - 1000 Lessons Learned/Roadblocks/Constraint
  s
• 1000 - 1045 Light Bulbs
• 1045 - 1130 Synthesis
• 1130 - 1145 Revisit Problem Statement
• 1145 - 1200 Way Forward