«DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD SUMMER STUDY TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE FOR THE BATTLEFIELD DTlC OCTOBER 1994 S ELECTE APR I 0 1995' G i 95-01137 I ...»
"* Charging the USD(A&T) with this responsibility would augment, build-on, and strengthen his current acquisition authorities, and he would likely assign a deputy to cover the C41 area. This would greatly overlap with many current ASD (C31) functions.
"* Creating a new element in the Joint Staff would strengthen the linkage between warfighters and the C4I acquisition process, but it adds to the complexity of the Joint Staff, and assigns new overlapping areas of responsibility across Joint Staff functions.
The Joint Staff currently has neither the technical expertise nor the capacity to handle this task without major augmentation. Also, the Joint Staff has a legal ceiling in its size and would require offsetting cuts to other already overworked staff sections or a change in the law.
"* Assigning CINC USACOM, who has broad roles and missions in support of all the other CINCs - including joint training responsibilities for all CONUS units - would greatly strengthen the linkage between warfighters and C41 acquisition process, but this may not meet the needs of all the CINCs, many of whom have battlefield information requirements unique to their areas of responsibility. Also, currently, CINC USACOM does not have a staff which is technically capable of performing all of the needed functions. Further, a Unified Command is not in position to exercise functional and programmatic oversight over all supporting CIM, C41 systems embedded in weapons C-5 systems, or embedded C41 systems in development. To give a CINC such responsibilities could seriously divert his main warfighting focus.
"Assigningthese responsibilities as a new or expanded function to a Defense Agency (DISA is an obvious choice) has the advantage of placing the responsibility where there is likely to be a critical mass of technical expertise able to address all of the technical and engineering functions needed. However, no single agency is likely to possess the necessary warfighting operational expertise to exercise competent authority over all the functional architectures. Also, in DISA's case, because some organizations may perceive a potential conflict of interest between the oversight aspects of this assignment and the fact that DISA currently manages some DoD communications programs directly, it would be important to spell out in detail the respective responsibilities and authorities.
" Charging a Joint Staff Agency/Center (e.g. Joint Warfighting Center) with these responsibilities would enhance the role of the Joint Staff and the CINCs in the acquisition process, but here again, the technical capabilities and relationships of such an organization must be developed almost from scratch.
9 Appointing a SECDEF/DEPSECDEF-Chaired Council or Committee to discharge these responsibilities is relatively easy to implement. The right structure and membership could recognize and incorporate the relevant operational and technical expertise, and existing statutory and delegated authorities of DoD executives. Committees, of course, are unwieldy management structures, but when assigned oversight of line organizations, they can provide the necessary "checks and balances" and can select relative priorities and preferred approaches for current issues.
2.3 Recommended Structural Concept For Improving Our Warfighter Information Infrastructure And Processes After consideration of the above alternatives and their variants, the Management Panel chose a variant of the DEPSECDEF-Chaired Council approach. In April of this year the DEPSECDEF created an Enterprise Integration Board and Council to achieve the goals of Corporate Information Management. These include an enterprise integration approach to the accelerated implementation of migration of our legacy information systems and establishment of data standards and process improvements. This structure provides a forum to address interoperability and cross-functional issues. Although the charters of the Board and Council do not currently include warfighter C4I systems, the memberships on the Board and Council are appropriate for dealing with these systems.
Therefore, as shown in Figure C-1, the Management Panel and the Task Force recommend that the DEPSECDEF augment this Enterprise Integration Board/Council structure to coordinate the integration of warfighter requirements and the technical architecture framework for warfighter information systems just as it does for functional component systems.
This requires a change to the charter of the Board and Council.
Second, we recommend that the DEPSECDEF clarify that the Board's responsibility and authority include oversight and conflict resolution of interfaces, standards, interoperability, and cross-functional issues that are associated with information systems which must operate in a joint environment. Individual system design, system architecture and development are not a part of this charter so long as the individual system is compliant with standards and interoperability and interface specifications.
Third, the Panel recommends that the JROC include in its expanded processes the infusion of its validated joint warfighting requirements into the DoD-wide information architecture process. A Warfighter Information Requirements Architecture Framework, based on a yetto-be-developed "Functional Architecture Framework for Information Management" (FAFIM) compatible with the TAFIM, should be developed and formalized. This FAFIM architecture should take into account who needs to talk with whom, in what formats, with what data, how quickly, under what circumstances, with which data bases, which legacy systems to migrate earlier, which to retire sooner, what standards are operative, how to assure reachback to older technologies, etc., all from a warfighter's perspective. This Warfighter Information Requirements Framework should be used to develop the warfighter systems' technical requirements which will, in turn provide integrated and joint requirements to systems developers.
Fourth, the Battlefield Information Task Force, recommended in the Task Force Study Report and discussed in more detail in the Warfighters Panel Appendix, should be tasked with C-7 dynamically identifying cost effective and timely actions for improving the reconfiguration, evolution, acquisition, test and fielding of warfighter information systems using the mechanisms described earlier. The BITF should provide ongoing input to the development of warfighter information requirements, architectures, and systems, and when necessary, support the Enterprise Integration Council in its oversight and conflict resolution roles.
Fifth, the Panel recommends that the director, DISA, review the DISA TAFIM and related data administration and functional initiatives currently underway and ensure that they are brought to a satisfactory state of maturity, one which can guide an iterative process that produces better interface standards and interoperability requirements. The TAFIM, and associated data element administration program initiatives are intended to establish a technical architectural framework of interoperability guidelines, interface specifications, and standards such as data element definitions. The TAFIM represents a preliminary, first-generation technical architectural framework within which individual systems possessing the attributes of interoperability and interconnectivity can be developed.
We believe these changes to the existing EIB/EIC management structure will allow the DoD to implement a dynamic process which will result in much improved interoperability of our warfighter C4I systems, and better exploitation of the leverage that those systems potentially provide our combat forces.
C-8 Figure C-2 above summarizes the specific actions which the DEPSECDEF must direct in order to accomplish the structural process improvements described above. Briefly, the Enterprise Integration Council must be assigned the added responsibility to provide oversight and conflict resolution for our warfighter information systems. The warfighter must make a broader, more comprehensive and timely input to this entire process. The Panel proposes that the BlTF be used to provide dynamic recommendations for improvements and the JROC and Joint Staff play an expanded role in the infusion of their requirements. The Panel endorses the activities already underway in DISA to achieve a dynamic architectural framework for our joint warfighter information systems.
The Panel believes these changes can be implemented almost immediately and that the expense will be limited to the opportunity costs of rationalizing the evolution of a system of interoperable information systems.
As Figure C-3 shows, the Management Panel was careful to ensure that this management structure recognizes the existing responsibilities of the offices and agencies involved in the development, procurement and operation of warfighter C4I systems.
First, the warfighter chain of command - from the National Command Authorities (President and SECDEF) through the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff to the CINCs and their Joint Task Force Commanders - retains their authorities and resporsibilities associated with operating warfighter C41 systems. The JROC, the Joint Staff, and the CINC staffs retain their C-9 advisory and staff responsibilities to articulate operational requirements for the use of those systems.
Second, we recognize the unique authorities and responsibilities of the Services, agencies and functional components to define technical requirements for, and develop and acquire warfighter C4I systems in response to these requirements.
Third, we recognize the responsibilities and authorities of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3I in the area of oversight of interoperability standards and interface issues associated with the joint operations of those warfighter C4I systems which are required to operate in joint and combined circumstances.
Each of these responsibilities and authorities, some of them statutory, are preserved in our recommendations, and it is not the intent of this recommendation to reallocate responsibilities or authorities in any way. Thus, there is an architecture for requirements which is clearly the domain of the warfighter. The responsibility for architectural issues associated with joint warfighter information system interoperability, standards, interoperable software and interfaces resides with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for C31. Acquisition responsibility for these systems resides with the Services, agencies and functional components, with oversight provided by the OSD acquisition community.
The Management Panel believes that the individuals and agencies with these statutory authorities must come together under the forum of the Enterprise Integration Council, subject to the review and direction of the Enterprise Integration Board and chaired by the DEPSECDEF, for the purposes of joint oversight, priority setting, and conflict resolution of issues associated with warfighter information systems.
3.0 IMPROVING OUR ACQUISITION PROCESSES FOR WARFIGHTER IN
3.1 The Conte For An Improved Information Systems-Acquisition Process Variability is a fundamental characteristic of future conflicts - there is no longer a "typical" scenario. There are great uncertainties relating to threat, geography, rules of engagement, allies and coalition partners, joint forces involved, etc. C4I must respond rapidly and surely to controlling political factors. In addition to the changing nature of the conflict, rapid changes in commercial information systems technology (and off-the-shelf exponential capability increases) dictate that the proper approach to an architectural process is one that inherently accommodates change.
Battlefield C41, like our forces, should be:
- Rapidly configurable and reconfigurable;
- Able to respond quickly, securely, and reliably (inside the enemy decision cycle); and
- Quickly and visibly expandable (a primary deterrent to enemy escalation).
These attributes can be achieved for information systems if there is an underlying technical architecture framework which promotes interoperability among C4I systems and if it is C-10 accompanied by a functional or operational information architecture framework. Compliance with these information architecture frameworks should allow individual C41 systems to exchange, manage and exploit information-throughout the battlefield environment.
Confusion persists over the term "architecture" and the development thereof. Various organizations create architectures based on their interpretation of what an "architecture" is.
Furthermore, the concepts of both "functional" and "technical" architectures are confused, and co-mingled. This leads to the danger that some of the benefits which might be derived from an effective information architecture could be lost, some compromised, and some of shorter duration than they otherwise would. These risks will remain until a more cohesive and coherent statement of objectives and strategy for information architecture concepts is announced and accepted. The management approach recommended in the previous section should facilitate this process.
A related problem derives from the notion that, regardless of size or complexity, there is a stable and specific end state for a system. Consequently, if substantial effort is required to reach the end state in the current DoD environment, the time required to develop a system may very well make that end state obsolete by the time it is achieved. In many cases, by the time the planned end state is achieved, it no longer supports the desired functionality.
Improved systems and capabilities for the warfighter can be achieved using a process of incremental improvements while following a high level and generalized architectural framework. This approach provides improved capabilities to the warfighter at a pace consistent with both changes in environment, and with the way funds are released. At any time, the system of systems is able to support combat operations and perform well at its current level of functionality. Capitalization practices in industry provide a good example: information systems tend to be replaced in small increments while following a management-supported strategic plan, rather than by wholesale replacement.
Some Guiding Principles For The Architecture Process3.2