International Partnership of Collaborative Operations

1
International Partnership of Collaborative
Operations

• 21 June 2004

2
International Partnership for Collaborative
Operations (IPCO)
IPCO Goal Enable and enhance coalition
interoperability among multi-national and
non-government organizations operating in
response to crisis and disaster management
situations.

• IPCO Objectives
• International development and evaluation
  environment
• Examine multi-national coalition interoperability
  issues
• Technology impacts on multi-national operations
  doctrine
• Technical policies affecting operations
• Operational procedures
• Prototyping potential solutions
• Pilot implementations, exercise support, and
  demonstrations
• Semi-autonomous partnership of industry,
  government, and academia

3
Major Benefit of IPCO to Government Participants

• An outsourcing mechanism intended to result in
• Commercially viable, standards-based,
  off-the-shelf software
• Products responding to the needs of
• Defense
• Intelligence
• Emergency management
• Homeland Security

4
Participant Roles

• Governments
• Strategic and Operational guidance
• IPCO Secretariat oversight
• Facilities, hardware, operating systems (i.e.,
  IPCO infrastructure)
• Interface requirements and operational concepts
  via OMG C4I Domain Task Force (DTF)
• IT Industry
• Enterprises producing or integrating distributed
  computing products and services
• Product development through prototypes
• Product demonstration and beta-testing
• Encouraged to leave applications in the IPCO
  environment when productized
• Academic Research Organizations
• RD expertise and labor
• Examples of research organizations include SINTEF
  of Norway, DERA and RUSI of the UK, FRS of
  France, SWP of Germany, and U.S.-CREST of the USA

5
IPCO Environment

• Loosely Coupled network of servers and
  workstations owned, maintained, and operated by
  the participating governments
• World-wide in scope
• Communicating over the internet or internet-like
  networks
• Distributed object processing based using
  middleware such as CORBA, .NET, RMI, and Web
  Services (SOAP, XML RPC, etc.)

Notional IPCO network based on nations that
participated in the feasibility study
6
IPCO Concept of Operations
IPCO is an outsourcing mechanism intended to
result in commercially viable, standards-based,
off-the-shelf software products responding to
defense, intelligence, emergency and crisis
management communities needs.
7
Project Initiation

• Projects must include at least two organizations
  located in different nations
• Project proposals submitted to the Project Review
  Board (PRB)
• Problem statement
• Approach
• Expected results
• Organizations participating
• Estimated cost
• When financial assistance is being requested
• Schedule
• IPCO resources required
• PRB
• Recommends acceptance, deferment, rejection, or
  conditional acceptance
• Conditional acceptance applies to projects where
  a participant requires financial assistance
• Project review semi-annually to assess progress
• Director for Participant Liaisons
  identifies/encourages potential partnerships
  across national boundaries

8
OMG Management Structure including the IPCO
Environment Secretariat
9
IPCO Management Structure
Initial Staff
10
IPCO Environment Financial Approach

• Governments pay flat fee per year to subscribe
• 0.25M US per year
• Requires a minimum of three nations participating

Economic analysis performed by the MITRE
Economic Decision Analysis Center in Spring 2000
and should be updated
11
Financial Assistance Fund

• Provides funding assistance to small companies,
  academia, and research organizations with
  demonstrated need
• Subscription fees minus operating expenses
• Two tiered
• Nationally earmarked one year from date of
  payment by nation
• General account thereafter
• Assistance to organizations in nations that have
  used all funds in national account
• Assistance to organizations in nations that do
  not subscribe

12
Indirect Costs of Participation to Governments

• Personnel
• Board of Trustees member
• Project Review Board member
• Must have time available to review proposals
  between meetings
• Volunteered Staff
• Laboratory staff supporting IPCO
• Should come from current laboratory staff , so no
  additional cost need be incurred
• Infrastructure
• Cost of facility
• Cost of laboratory equipment and software
• Cost of connectivity to the Internet
• All expected to exist already, so minimal
  additional cost expected
• Travel
• Board of Trustees member to board meetings and
  OMG meetings
• Project Review Board member to PRB meetings and
  OMG meetings
• Other
• Volunteered Staff at IPCO headquarters and to
  required meetings

13
Relationship to OMG

• Benefits to IPCO initiative from OMG
• Builds upon OMG staff and structure
• Draws from OMG experience in consortium
  operations
• Benefits from OMG status and reputation
• Benefits to OMG from IPCO
• Source of validated specifications
• Source of requirements
• Potential recruiting mechanism

14
Why OMG?

• Formed to address issues of interoperability
• Well established global presence
• Founded in 1989
• Over 800 current members world-wide, including
  OSD, DISA, and NSA
• Over 600 members are software vendors
• Has Publicly Available Specification (PAS)
  agreement with ISO ITU allowing balloting of
  submissions from OMG
• Credibility
• Model Driven Architecture (MDA) Approach
• OMG Technologies that are available in COTS
  products include
• Unified Modeling Language (UML)
• XML Metadata Interchange (XMI)
• Meta-Object Facility (MOF)
• Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA)
• ISO/IEC 14750 - Interface Definition Language
  (IDL)
• Internet Interoperable Object Protocol (IIOP)
• ISO/IEC DIS 13235 - ODP Trading Function
• Independence
• Technically
• Politically

15
Object Management Group (OMG)

• OMG is amenable to helping DoD acquire COTS
  products that meet its functional requirements.
• OMG is structured to provide the fast turnaround
  required to remain technologically current.
• OMG has 12 years experience in affecting product
  development and product quality.
• OMG currently has focus groups for C4I,
  Logistics, Finance, Healthcare, Transportation,
  and numerous other functional areas.
• OMG has existing partnerships with other
  standards bodies.
• HL7 (health), SEMI (manufacturing), ASC X12
  (electronic commerce), IASC (finance), TINA-C
  (telecom), and others
• Sponsored Interoperability Summit to begin
  coordination among standards bodies
• Standards are defined using UML and XML and will
  work with any distributed paradigm.

16
OMG Process Example
HRWhiz V2.0
Vetting Process
NATO
Consolidated Requirements
Synergized Design
COTS Product with Integrated NATO Requirements
- Standards Development
OMG Process - Honest Broker Role
New Way
Individual System Requirements
Old Way

• NATO Unique
• Little or no ROI

17
Sample Projects (1 of 2)

• Computer Supported Cooperative Work Tools and
  Components to enable collaboration at
• Same time/same place group decision support,
  meeting facilitation
• Same time/different places audio/video
  conferencing, shared whiteboards, shared
  applications
• Different times/same place team rooms, shared
  memory, information sharing, coordination tools
• Different times/different places e-mail,
  discussion/bulletin boards, group authoring,
  workflow
• Components for Shared Operational Picture
  Exchange Services (SOPES)
• Evaluate doctrine, policies, procedures, and
  technical solutions to the problem of attaining a
  SOPES capability
• Investigate issues relating to differences in
  operational environments due to cultural,
  language, etc. differences
• OMG C4I DTF is currently standardizing the
  Information Exchange Mechanism (IEM), Information
  Exchange Data Model (IEDM), and Policy Management
  Services (PMS) with more to follow

18
Sample Projects (2 of 2)

• Common Information Assurance Tools and Components
• Coalition C4I security policy and procedure must
  reflect the concept of multiple security
  accreditation domains, each domain having its own
  internal policies and procedures
• Develop policies, procedures, and information
  technical solutions needed to support information
  assurance in the constantly evolving coalition
  environment
• Key components are Negotiated Access and
  Releasability Management
• Negotiated Access will allow for the granting of
  accesses based upon roles within recognized
  organizations, not upon pre-authentication of
  individuals (something that is virtually
  impossible in the MOOTW)
• Releasability Management will allow owners of
  information (not system administrators) to define
  who (in terms of organization and role) may have
  access to what information, the circumstances
  under which that access may be granted, and the
  circumstances under which that access may not be
  granted

19
Analysis

• Governments have some risk if there is
• Not enough participation by government owned labs
• Not enough participation by industry
• Other classes of participants have virtually no
  risk
• Potential ROI is extremely high in all cases
• Many countries waiting to see what the USA will
  do before they commit
• Finland has filed letter of intent to join when 2
  other countries do the same
• Focus will be the Information Technology for
  Crisis Management project
• Chaired by Martii Ahtisaari, international
  mediator and former President of Finland
• Lack of understanding of the intent of the IPCO
  Environment on the part of some countries

20
The Last Slide

• For more information on OMG
• Object Management Group, Inc. Ph 1 781-444 0404
• 250 First Ave. Suite 201 Fax [phone]
• Needham, MA 02494 Email info_at_omg.org
• For more information on IPCO
• Sheldon C. Shel Sutton Day Ph 1 703-883-6677
• MITRE Corporation Cell 1 703-869-667
• 7515 Colshire Drive Home Ph 1 703-281-2852
• MS G810 Fax [phone]
• McLean, VA 22102 Home Fax [phone]
• Email shel_at_mitre.org
• shel_at_shel.com

21
Backup SlidesThe Department of Defense
Goalsand the Need to Outsource Standards

• 21 June 2004

22
From JV2020

• The joint force of 2020 must be prepared to
  win across the full range of military
  operations in any part of the world, to operate
  with multinational forces, and to coordinate
  military operations, as necessary, with
  government agencies and international
  organizations.
• The full range of operations includesthose
  ambiguous situations residing between peace and
  war, such as peacekeeping and peace enforcement
  operations, as well as noncombat humanitarian
  relief operations and support to domestic
  authorities.
• advances in information capabilities are
  proceeding so rapidly that there is a risk of
  outstripping our ability to capture ideas,
  formulate operational concepts, and develop the
  capacity to assess results.
• Decision superiority does not automatically
  result from information superiority.
  Organizational and doctrinal adaptation, relevant
  training and experience, and the proper command
  and control mechanisms and tools are equally
  necessary.

23
From JV2020 (continued)

• The search for innovation must encompass the
  entire context of joint operations which means
  the Armed Forces must explore changes in
  doctrine, organization, training, materiel,
  leadership and education, personnel, and
  facilities as well as technology.
• Interoperability is the foundation of effective
  joint, multinational, and interagency
  operations.
• improvements will include the refinement of
  joint doctrine as well as further development of
  common technologies and processes.
• Information systems and equipment that enable a
  common relevant operational picture must work
  from shared networks that can be accessed by any
  appropriately cleared participant.
• Although technical interoperability is
  essential, it is not sufficient to ensure
  effective operations. There must be a suitable
  focus on procedural and organizational elements,
  and decision makers at all levels must understand
  each others capabilities and constraints.

24
From JV2020 (continued)

• The future joint force will have the embedded
  technologies and adaptive organizational
  structures that will allow trained and
  experienced people to develop compatible
  processes and procedures, engage in collaborative
  planning, and adapt as necessary to specific
  crisis situations. These features are not only
  vital to the joint force, but to multinational
  and interagency operations as well.
• Since our potential multinational partners will
  have varying levels of technology, a tailored
  approach to interoperability that accommodates a
  wide range of needs and capabilities is
  necessary.
• the sharing of information needed to maintain
  the tempo of integrated multinational operations
  also relies heavily on a shared understanding of
  operational procedures and compatible
  organizations.

25
From JV2020 (continued)

• The overall effectiveness of multinational
  operations is, therefore, dependent on
  interoperability between organizations,
  processes, and technologies.
• Expanding roles for multinational and
  interagency partners will require collaborative
  planning capabilities, technological
  compatibility/interoperability, and mechanisms
  for efficient information sharing.
• as new information technologies, systems, and
  procedures make the same detailed information
  available at all levels of the chain of command,
  leaders must understand the implications for
  decision-making processes, the training of
  decision makers at all levels, and organizational
  patterns and procedures.

26
Integrated, Collaborative Collection Management
Desired Operational Capability

• Develop, plan, and coordinate the integrated
  management of all intelligence collection in
  order to synchronize Intelligence, Surveillance
  and Reconnaissance (ISR) with the planning and
  operations cycle. This capability will integrate
  the separate intelligence collection disciplines
  (HUMINT, IMINT, SIGINT, MASINT, TECHINT, and Open
  Source) with planned and ongoing joint operations
  across the range of military operations.
• Integrated suite of enhanced multi-purpose,
  multi-capable sensors (human and technical).
  Virtual secure collaboration for tasking and
  analysis with multinational organizations,
  agencies, allies, NGO/PVO/IO, host nation and
  industry

27
Provide Comprehensive Battlespace Awareness to
Support the Full Range of Military Operations
Desired Operational Capability

• Provide the Commander a dominant awareness of
  the environment across the full range of military
  operations and operational environments,
  including Weapons of Mass Destruction, Counter
  Terrorism, Information Operations, Urban
  Operations, Military Operations Other than War
  (MOOTW), Targeting, Indications and Warning
  (IW), Space and Undersea Operations
• Provide timely, continuous, real time analyzed
  and fused information on all aspects of
  activities across the spectrum of military
  operations other than war (MOOTW) including
  shaping operations. Greater emphasis on
  non-military aspects of the battlespace, (i.e.,
  socioeconomic, cultural, political) and
  sensitivities to shifts in those non-military
  domains.

28
Ability to rapidly integrate forces arriving in a
joint multi-national operations area Desired
Operational Capability

• Capability to efficiently and effectively
  receive, stage, conduct onward movement, and
  integrate incoming forces into the theater force
  package (including multinational forces, PVOs,
  IOs, NGOs). This capability enables land, sea,
  air, and space forces to rapidly extract and
  relocate for subsequence reengagement elsewhere
  or redeployment.
• Integrate multi-national forces
• Integrate interagency players, e.g. Integrate
  PVO / NGO / IO

29
Need for Outsourcing Standards

• The Department of Defense (DoD) currently
  addresses functional requirements and procures
  COTS products as individual organizational units.
  This practice has led to
• Stovepiped technical infrastructures
• Significant costs for individually managed
  acquisitions
• Significant and ongoing maintenance costs
  incurred across NATO
• Affordable COTS products that work together are
  not readily available
• Traditional avenues through which DoD influences
  the development of commercial IT products are no
  longer available

30
Need for Outsourcing Standards (continued)

• Organizational, functional and technical
  infrastructure boundaries restrict DoDs ability
  to gather and satisfy requirements as an
  enterprise.
• DoD has traditionally failed at dictating
  software interoperability specifications to the
  vendors
• Other than acquisition, no formal way for COTS
  vendors to learn about DoD functional
  requirements.
• Discourages Commercial-Off-The-Shelf availability
• Encourages stovepipe solution
• DoDs specific needs will remain unaddressed if
  input is not provided.