Perspectives on Interoperability

1
Perspectives on Interoperability

• Hans Polzer
• April 2005

2
Interoperability Definitions/Overview

• Joint Publication 1-02 definition (2) for
  interoperability defines C4 interoperability as
  the condition achieved among communications-electr
  onics systems or items of communications-electroni
  cs equipment when information or services can be
  exchanged directly and satisfactorily between
  them and/or their users.
• NATO AAP-6 Definition for interoperability is
  the ability of systems, units or forces to
  provide service to and accept services from other
  systems, units or forces and to use the services
  so exchanged to enable them to operate
  effectively together

Perspectives on interoperability are diverse and
context-specific A key factor is the degree of
autonomy among the interacting systems Systems
providing services to each other is a common theme
3
Common Approaches to System of Systems
Interoperability
Commonality-Based
Interaction-Based
DNS
GIG
UPC code
Top-Down (Architecture)
NCOW-RM
Enterprise Architectures
Virtual Enterprises Supply Chains COIs
ebXML
NCES
GCCS
BML
WSDL, UDDI
DII COE
LISI
J2EE .NET CORBA
IERs
POSIX
SOAP XML
Bottom-Up (Execution Environment)
JTA
SQL
Ada
Java
IP v6
COM
Actual SoS Implementations are Usually Some
Mixture of These Approaches
4
System(s) of Systems Definition

• System of Systems (SOS) Definitions are also
  diverse
• No authoritative definition that spans all
  customer/system types
• CJCSI 3170 glossary includes definitions for
  Family of Systems (FoS) and System of Systems
  (SoS)
• An FoS has less system interdependence than an
  SoS
• Boundaries between Systems and Systems of Systems
  are soft
• Key cues in definitions of interoperability
• Definitions dont focus on commonality across
  force elements
• Notion of services offered to each other by
  semi-autonomous force elements
• Coupling between force elements is dynamic and ad
  hoc

• A System of Systems is one comprised of systems
  whose internal structure and exposed service set
  is not driven exclusively by the purpose of the
  larger system, or by each other
• Otherwise its just a big, complex system with
  subsystems

5
SOS Interoperability Challenges

• Most programs do not have enterprise scope
• New found capability orientation in customer
  acquisitions
• No real operational examples as yet
• Systems are often part of multiple capabilities
  and systems of systems
• Systems often need to interact with multiple
  enterprises on the GIG and beyond
• Systems comprising a SOS are often on widely
  varying timelines and technology bases
• Diverse system ownership likely
• Security considerations create obstacles to
  information flow among systems of systems
• Operational contexts for systems are typically
  not manifest in their offered interfaces

6
Systems, Capabilities, Operations, Programs,
Enterprises (SCOPE)

• An enterprise has scope in operational, time,
  resource and other domains
• So does a capability, which may involve multiple
  enterprises
• Most enterprises have multiple capabilities and
  use them to varying degrees to achieve enterprise
  goals
• An operation is a kind of enterprise, usually
  with more limited time span and goals
• But some operations dwarf many traditional
  enterprises e.g., Iraqi Freedom, WW2
• A program is a mini-enterprise/operation focused
  on building a system that provides some
  capability for a larger/customer enterprise
• A program may be responsible for developing
  multiple systems needed for a capability (e.g.,
  an LSI program)
• More often a capability is implemented through
  multiple systems under heterogeneous sponsorship
  Horizontal Integration (HI)

System(s) of Systems Engineering encompasses both
single program capability engineering (LSI) and
multi-program/system interoperability
7
Relating Enterprise, Mission Capabilities,
Operations, Programs and System of Systems
Enterprise
Intergalactic Radiator by Capt Yurchak For
scope illustration only
Current Navy Warfare Sponsors
AW N78
SUW N76
USW N77
EXW N75
Tactical C2 MCP
Budgets allocated vertically
ISR MCP
Navigation MCP
ASW N74
Individual Program/System
Missile Defense MCP
Time-Critical Strike MCP
Operations
Systems of systems aligned to these capabilities
Illustrates Complex Dependencies in Capability
Acquisition
8
Growing Importance of Interoperability

• Network Centric warfighting concepts push systems
  towards greater interaction
• Advent of the GIG increasingly makes systems
  accessible to one another
• Growing experience with coalition operations
  drives coalition interoperability
• Commercial adoption of the Internet increases
  customer sense of the possible
• Customer initiatives in joint battle management
  and capability-oriented acquisition create KPPs
  for our programs

9
Customer Initiatives in Interoperability

• CJSCI/M 3170.01 Joint Capability Integration and
  Development System (JCIDS)
• CJCSI 6212.01C Interoperability and
  Supportability of Information Technology and
  National Security Systems
• DOD Architecture Framework (DODAF)
• Provides a process and representation framework
  for developing and sharing architectures
• Global Information Grid (GIG)
• Provides pervasive network connectivity to DoD
  Systems
• GIG Network Centric Enterprise Services (NCES)
• Provides Core Enterprise Services to DoD Systems
  beyond 06
• Facilitates Community of Interest (COI) shared
  services
• Horizontal Fusion Initiative
• OSD Initiative to foster horizontal integration
  across programs

10
Interoperability Assessment Approaches

• Levels of Information System Interoperability
  (LISI)
• Inspeqtor assessment tool (questionnaire)
• JITC Compliance Testing
• Net Ready KPP
• Partially based on LISI and Inspeqtor tool
• NATO Industrial Advisory Group (NIAG) Study Group
  76 Report on Interoperability
• Enhanced by Lockheed Martin to mesh better with
  DODAF architecture views
• Many other approaches, mostly level based and
  IT technology-oriented or program-centric

11
LISI Reference Model
12
LISI Level Examples
13
NIAG SG-76 Interoperability Assessment

• Study Chartered by NATO NG-5
• Focused on Naval C2 Interoperability, but also
  supporting joint warfighting scenario
• Scope expanded to consider non-NATO forces as
  well
• LISI proved to be incomplete in addressing this
  scenario
• Focused on IT and not operational warfighting
  domains
• Developed LISI-like levels for operational and
  system/technical DODAF architecture views
• Lockheed Martin contributed work done on Rainbow
  Initiative
• Focused on relating interoperability dimensions
  to operational effectiveness
• Study report (Dec 03) includes a broad range of
  interoperability related reference material
• Approach subsequently enhanced to better align it
  with DODAF Views

14
Revised LM Interoperability Assessment Model

• Align better with DODAF views
• LISI PAID mapping to DODAF views not obvious
• Focus on interaction between the three primary
  views
• Recognize that systems are often part of multiple
  OVs
• Net-Ready Subdimensions and Levels for
  interaction of System view elements using
  Technical view elements
• Operational Architecture independent
• Functional Capability Subdimensions for
  interaction of systems to achieve Operational
  view capabilities
• Technical Architecture independent
• Technical Feasibility Subdimensions and Levels
  for achievability of Operational view
  capabilities given Technical view elements
• System Architecture independent

15
DODAF Views and Capability Assessment Criteria
UJTLs
Capability Scope Levels
Technical Feasibility Levels
Operational View
Can capability be achieved with current stds
technologies? Are new standards needed? Is the
information obtainable, Accurate, timely?
Identifies Participant Relationships and
Information Needs
Which Systems interact? About what? How much? And
why? To what effect?
Battlespace Representation and Naming standards
Data models, process algorithms
Data element standards, Protocols, environments
Technology readiness levels
Net-Ready Levels
Technical Views
Systems View
Prescribes Standards and Conventions
Relates Capabilities/Characteristics to
Operational Requirements
How do systems interact? What standards are used?
What do systems say to each other? How is this
information represented?
16
Net Ready Dimensions and Levels

• These measure System attributes that may support
  multiple capabilities on the Net
• Leverages emerging DoD/JCIDS notion of Net Ready
  KPP
• The net in Net Ready generally means the GIG,
  but by extension, can reach into subsidiary
  networks and data links, inside and outside DoD
• Can be viewed as an extension of JTA compliance
  measures for existing systems
• This is a starter set of dimensions
• More likely to be discovered/added, including
  sub-dimensions
• Common number of levels shown for illustration
  purposes
• Levels shown as dimensions to avoid maturity
  model paradigm
• Goldilocks model is generally more appropriate

Measure Overall Degree to Which a Systems Makes
its Services Net Accessible
17
Net Ready Dimensions and Levels
Tighter Coupling / Less Net-Readiness
Looser Coupling / More Net-Readiness
Level
Category
Information Granularity Complex obj ATO, Oplan Record Level Mission, EDI Data Element Standards ASCII Text, URLs
System Arch Binding Specific vend. Architecture Industry open architecture Netwrk based Interface only Any IP net
Information Assurance Link encrypt - SSL Single signon support DoD-Wide PKI support MSL, cross- domain spprt
Service Discovery Service specs pub at design Service specs pub run-time OWL spec for Services Comparative service select
Service Evolvability Version spec in interface Multi-version support Service specs extensible Ops context aware interf
Tech Arch Life Cycle Some current tech interfs All current tech interfs Some emrgng tech interfs All emergng tech interfs
18
Functional Capability Dimensions

• Assess the overall level of functional
  capability provided by a set of systems
• Two major categories
• Capability Scope Measures/Levels
• Capability-Specific Measures/Levels
• Capability Scope assesses the operational extent
  and pervasiveness of a capability
• Capability-Specific measures are based on MOEs
  and DOTMLPF considerations

19
Capability Scope Dimensions
Broader Scope
Narrower Scope
Level
Category
Overall Scope Single Unit Single Service or Agency DoD-Wide World-Wide
Enterprise Breadth Single Functnal Domain/Service Multi-Domain, Multi-Service Multi-Dept, NGO, Industry Coalition
Enterprise Depth Single Level Two Levels Three Echelons Four or More Echelons
Unity of SoS Ownership Single DoD Acquis. Exec Multiple DoD Acquis. Exec DoD US Syst. Owners Multi-National Syst. Owners
Semantic Congruence Single Domain Vocabulary Multi-Domain Vocabulary Single Language Multiple Languages
Acquisition Congruence All Systems on Same Timeline Timeline within 2 years Timeline within 5 years Timelines gt5 years apart
Information Domain Sensor/Factual Model-based (Cognitive) Multi-model Social Reality (Collaborative)
Operational Context Single Ops Context Multiple Ops Contexts Future/Past Integration Hypothetical Entities
20
One Possible Enterprise Breadth Hypercube
Army Operating Concepts
ServiceConcepts
Marine Corps Strat21
Naval Operating Concept
Air Force CONOPS
Joint Functional Concepts
Enabling Concepts
Joint Operating Concepts
21
Capability Information Domains
Encyclopedic Information, Public Info Models,
And Open Source Data
Strategy Development and Execution Intention,
Desired Effect
Purpose, Situational Understanding
People, Objectives, Perceptions,
Intentions, Assessments
Oplan Development and Execution
Purpose, Situational Awareness
Battlespace Information Models (S)
Battlespace Information Models (O)
Doctrine, OPCONS, Effects, Process
Battlespace Information Models (T)
Sense-making
Data From Deployed/Tasked Data Collection Assets
World Model Building Activities
Phenomenology Sensing the Real World
22
Capability Information Types
Objective reality potentially detectable through
phenomenology
Reality
Capability Managed Data
Data collected through military assets and sensors
Sensor/Factual
Representation of reality in systems contributing
to a capability (eg, COP)
Battlespace Model
Subjective warfighter reality based on
objectives, assessment, effects...
Operational Context
Less Structured Information
Subjective reality and data outside military or
capability control (eg, CNN)
Social Reality
Linking the Three Capability Managed information
Types to Each Other Is a Key Objective of
Capability Engineering and Horizontal Integration
23
Net Enabling the Social and Cognitive Domains
Through the Information Domain
Social Domain Cultural Awareness
Cognitive Domain Cognitive Advantage Process
Advantage
Conveyed Commanders Intent
Plan, Organize, Deploy, Employ and Sustain Cycle
Compressed Operations
Shared Awareness
Network Centric Operations
Physical Domain Force Advantage Position
Advantage
Information Domain Information Advantage
Precision Force
Speed and Access
24
Sample Capability-Specific Scope Dimensions
More Capability
Less Capability
Level
Example Category
Time to Target Engagement 1 Hour 30 Minutes 10 Minutes 1 Minute
Stryker Bde Deploy Time 30 Days 7 Days 72 Hours 24 Hours
Total Lift Capacity Single aircraft type Multiple aircraft types Multiple lift types All lift types
Target Detection Single sensor Multiple sensor Multiple sensor types All source
ISR Management Single Platform Multiple Platforms Multiple platform types All platform types
Power Grid Denial Single Substation Single Plant 30 Power Capacity 100 Power Capacity
25
Technical Feasibility Dimensions

• Represent physical and resource contraints on
  realizing an operational capability among systems
  using specific technical standards and
  technologies
• Inherent network latency
• Bandwidth availability/cost
• Run-time computing power requirements
• Development complexity/cost/risk
• Focus is on technical/economic feasibility of
  connecting systems with each other

26
Technical Feasibility Dimensions
Larger Risk
Smaller Risk
Level
Category
Inter-System Time Binding to Achieve Capability Days Minutes Seconds Milliseconds
GIG/NCES Resources Needed Negligible GIG-BE Capacity GIG FOC Capacity Beyond GIG FOC Capacity
Run-Time Computing Resources Needed lt1 of existing system resources 1-10 10-50 gt50 of existing system resources
Interface Development Complexity lt1 of system size 1-10 10-50 gt50 of system size
Technology Readiness Level for System Connections TRL Levels 8-9 TRL Levels 6-7 TRL Levels 4-5 TRL Levels 1-3
27
Relating Interoperability Dimensions to
Operational Effectiveness

• Operational value of tight coupling along a
  specific dimension offset by fragility in the
  face of change and coordination scope
• Desired operational capabilities impact different
  interoperability dimensions
• Suggest different tradeoffs/balance points
• High performance requirements suggest greater
  coupling and commonality
• Broad, diverse force structures and mission types
  suggest less coupling and more run-time discovery

28
Sample Mapping to Operational Measures
Joint Amphibious Forced Entry Operation
29
Key Points

• Systems contributing to capabilities are
  imprecise, incomplete representations of
  objective reality
• Different systems have different representations
  of the battlespace
• Some of these differences are inherent in the
  role of the systems
• Likewise, such systems are generally weak in
  representing operational context or linking to
  social reality
• Advent of net centric and collaborative C2 will
  drive improvements
• Sensor data is only a partial representation of
  reality
• Needs to be fused with battlespace model and
  operational context information
• Operational Context information is diverse and
  relatively unstructured
• Includes people to people interaction and
  subjective assessments
• Capability implementation needs to consider all
  of these information types flowing between
  systems

Changing the scope of a capability increases the
impact of each point