United States Joint Forces Command Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E)

1

UNCLASSIFIED – Approved for Public Release


United States Joint Forces CommandJoint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E)

Interagency and Multinational Information Sharing Architecture and Solutions (IMISAS)

Baseline Assessment Report Overview7 December 2010

Mr. Stephen Sullivan, CTRCapstone Corporation

IMISAS Project Lead AnalystJoint Concept Development & Experimentation

USJFCOM, J9

2



Agenda• Overview• Research• Gaps• Validation and Potential Solutions• Next Steps

3




4



IMISAS ConceptNational / Inter-agency

Multi-national

NGO / Private

Combatant Commands

Shared Environment • Text Chat• File Transfer • Email

User Defined Information Sharing




UN / Inter-governmental


Policies

Proc

esse

sProceduresCulture

Firewalls

Web Servers

Gateways Email

Ser

vers

Produce Info

Publish InfoCollec

t Inf

o

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/photos/noc_hires.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hofstra.edu/images/lib_sc_911_photo22.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hofstra.edu/Libraries/WestCampus/SpecialCollections/sc_lisi_911.cfm&usg=__MICU-fa6GtU8E3Bw1ddidt0LYAc=&h=545&w=718&sz=52&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=dk77lZ5DfBdujM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=140&prev=/images?q=PICTURE+OF+THE+WORLD+CARE+WORKERS&um=1&hl=en&sa=X

5



What is a Baseline Assessment?• A deliberate process / product to understand the

problem and propose solutions o Identifies required capabilitieso Identifies capability gaps (current/planned ability vs.

required)o Proposes solutions

• Prerequisite for experimentation

6



Problem StatementFY 11 Warfighter Challenge #1: USEUCOM and USAFRICOM require the capability to share essential information with Interagency partners, Coalition and Alliance partners, or emerging partner nations' in bi-lateral or multinational efforts. The capability gap is the result of:

1) restrictive network access and information sharing policies;

2) restrictive and cumbersome accreditation procedures for coalition networks and systems;

3) lack of a coherent / unified strategy for a whole of government (to include foreign government) approach to an information sharing / collaborative environment; and

4) resourcing to support that environment and its associated network enterprise services.

Problem Statement:COCOMs lack a coherent framework / capability to share information and collaborate across multiple domains with a broad range of mission partners (government / interagency, multi-national, multi-lateral & private sector) due primarily to restrictive policies, conflicting authorities, ad hoc / non-existent procedures, business rules and non-interoperable networks and systems.

7



Discovery

1. Gather USEUCOM & USAFRICOM UIS Requirements2. Review current UIS platforms in use : (APAN, HarmonieWeb, InRelief.org, CimicWeb)3. Collect data produced by other UIS requirements gathering efforts4. Explore cross domain aspects5. Examine best attributes of the current platforms and develop recommendations for enhancements to UIS capabilities

Timeline Engagement Activities

1. Community of Interest conference calls 2. Interviews, conferences, meetings3. USEUCOM / USAFRICOM Site Visit4. Gap and Solution Conference

Gaps & Solutions Conference

Sept 17

Dec 30

Dec7

Nov 24

Dec9

Nov 15

Nov 19

USEUCOM USAFRICOM

Site Visit

Draft BAR

Final BAReport

Discovery

Community Engagement

Requirements Assessment

Gaps / Analysis

Potential Solutions

8



Where we are in the BA Process

Objective 1

Objective 3

Objective 2

Project Performance-Based Work Statement (PBWS)

Statement of the Military Problem

Outcome 1 Outcome 2

Objective 1

Objective 3

Objective 2

Phase 4: Identify Potential Solutions• ID Existing / “Potential Solutions”• Prioritize Solutions / Solution Sets• Re-assess Gap Risk

Phase 2: Focusthe Assessment• Literature Review /Source Review Spreadsheet• Capabilities Crosswalk• CLAs and Metric Development• Conceptual Model

Synthesis and Report• BA Recommendations• Input to POA&M

ProjectPOA&M

• CD&E Recommendations

Phase 3: Identify the Gaps• Gap Identification • Assessment• Gap Prioritization

Phase 1: Frame the Assessment

• Purpose, Background, Context (JCAs)• Draft Methodology and Timeline• Draft Constraints, Limitations and Assumptions (CLAs) and Study Issues

1

= Assessment Review

2 3

4

#

Conference

9




10



Systems / Tools Overview

Snapshot of Discovery

• Web portalso APAN v4.0 with proposed enhancementso HarmonieWebo InRelief

• Cross Domaino CDCIE (SIPRNET / NIPRNET / Public Domains)

• Networkso Afghan Mission Network (AMN)

• CWID Technologies• Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Flickr)• Geographic Information System (GIS) tools• Cloud Computing

11



Documents (1 of 4)

• Over 300 documents reviewed• 100 + assessed in depth• Literature selections are posted on Conference Portals

Listing•Multinational and other Mission Partners (MNMP) C2 Information Sharing Capability Definition Package (CDP) (USJFCOM)

•DoD Information Sharing Implementation Plan (ISIP) (ASD-NII / CIO)• Interagency Shared Situational Awareness (IA SSA) Project (Final Report) (USJFCOM)

• Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Capabilities for Support of Stabilization and Reconstruction, Disaster Relief, and Humanitarian and Civic Assistance Operations (ASD-NII / CIO)

12



13



• Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Development and Relief Settings (CARE USA)

• Unclassified Information Sharing Capability (UISC) Concept of Operations (Joint Staff)

• Agile Coalition Environment (ACE) Capability Gap Analysis (Report) (Referentia, Mr. Tim Williams)

• Interagency National Security Professional Education, Administration, and Development System Act of 2010 (INSPEAD System Act of 2010) (Congress)

• Controlled Unclassified Information (POTUS)• Joint Distributed Operations (JDO) Limited Objective Experiment (LOE) –

Human Factors Analysis (HFA) (USJFCOM)• A Guide to Strengthened Civil-Military Cooperation in the Combatant

Commands Area of Responsibility (USJFCOM)• Agile Coalition Environment (ACE) Freedom within a Framework (SPAWAR)• HARMONIEWeb: A Collaboration Portal for US Joint Forces Command that

Supports Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (MicroLink)

Documents (2 of 4)

14



• A Snapshot of Emerging U.S. Government Civilian Capabilities to Support Foreign Reconstruction and Stabilization Contingencies (IDA)

• Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise – Enabling Mission Powered Partnerships (OUSD-I)

• DoD Enterprise Services Designation, Collaboration, Content Discovery, and Content Delivery (ASD-NII / CIO)

• Humanitarian and Civic Assistance (HCA) Activities (OUSD-P)• Irregular Warfare (DoD)• Implementing Procedures for the Humanitarian and Civic Assistance (OUSD-P)• Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation (TISC) Joint Capability

Technology Demonstration (JCTD) (Brief) (DISA)• Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation (TISC) Joint Capability

Technology Demonstration (White Paper) (TISC JCTD Integrated Management Team)

• Humanitarian and Civic Assistance (HCA) Program (DSCA)• UnityNet: A Globally Deployable Sensor for 'White' Information (DIA)• Joint Medical Executive Skills Development Program (DoD)

Documents (3 of 4)

15



Documents (4 of 4)

• DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) (ASD-NII/CIO)

• Joint Warfighting Collaboration Required Capabilities - Synchronous (Joint Staff)

• Joint Warfighting Collaboration Required Capabilities – Asynchronous/Portal (Joint Staff)

• Civilian – Military Cooperation Policy (paper) (USAID)• Interagency Shared Situational Awareness (IA SSA) Guide (USJFCOM)• Stability Operations (OUSD-P)

16



Site Visit (1 of 4)Takeaways

Culture• DoD organizational culture creates unintended barriers to

information sharing and collaboration resulting in misunderstandings, lack of trust and ultimately missed opportunities to save lives

• Within DoD • Across the “Whole of Government”• International Community

• Predominantly non-military operations (HA/DR) often present cultural challenges for the DoD

• Shift toward a push rather than pull information mentality with partners

• A mindset and behaviors that focus on what DoD can provide rather than what we need

• Organizational culture paradigm shift toward encouraging trust

17




Culture• Lack of understanding of organizational culture differences between

the DoD and Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs) / Private Volunteer Organizations (PVOs) complicates information sharing and collaborationo Charterso Neutralityo Independence

• DoD information assurance structures and information security policies and procedures are often not communicated clearly to potential mission partner organizationso Misunderstandings, frustration, and lost time and efforto Missed opportunities to save lives

18




Policies and Procedures• Both Combatant Commanders identified a need for:

o Strategy /policy to effectively integrate social media informationo Improved processes and procedures to streamline inclusion of

partners into existing systems and networks o Standardized Knowledge Management (KM) and business rules

for DoD communications support to Department of State (DoS) and “ Whole of Government” during operations

o A model which enables information sharing – consider “creator as releaser" for UNCLASSIFIED information

• Combatant Commanders experience:o Frustration with Common Access Cards (CAC) – a need for

streamlined, intuitive and less burdensome procedureso Ambiguities in interpretation of unclassified information sharing

policies contributing to lost opportunities to engage partnerso

19



Policies and Procedures (Continued)• HA / DR mission analysis is required to:

o Identify interagency roles, responsibilities, authorities and information exchange requirements

o Utilize embedded interagency representatives and Liaison Officers (LNOs) more effectively to build better awareness of partner capabilities and limitations

• DoD needs to define the education, training, and qualification requirements for services to interact more successfully as part of a “Whole of Government” approach to sharing information in HA / DR operations


20




Technical• Different network focus between European and African Commands

o USEUCOM primarily works on SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Net)

o USAFRICOM works on NIPRNET (Nonsecure Internet Protocol Router Net)

• Large variance in communication capabilities and capacity across Africa

• Wireless infrastructure consistently robust in Europe, but less mature in Africa

• Geospatial situational awareness and User-Defined Operational Picture (UDOP) are essential for operational response

• Multilingual chat is important in both theatres• Technical and procedural incompatibilities impede accessibility and

transfer of information between DoS and Combatant Commanders

21




22



Identify the GapsPurpose: Identify and prioritize current (or future) force deficiencies• Identify shortfalls in capability, capacity or authority• Identify gap between the “as-is” or “current state of art and practice” to

requirements needed to mitigate/solve the problem• Develop and implement process for grouping and selection of gaps • Establish a methodology and appropriate venues for prioritizing gaps

Determine the required capability

Determine if the Joint Force has a capability gap

Are Gaps:- A Joint issue?- Observable/

measurable in an experiment?

- Addressable within time/ resources of project?

Determine if gaps are being fully addressed

by ongoing or planned efforts

Are the gaps in Capability, Capacity,

and/or Authority?

List of experiment-able gaps

Gap Analysis

Solution Analysis

LEGEND

1 2 34

5

6

7Gap

Validation Conference

N

N

Y

Y

Your input is the is

the key to success

Input to Conference

Not a project experiment candidate

23



GAPS (1 of 3)

Culture• HA / DR - partner first strategy and policies

• Cross domain from the non-DoD perspective

o Fixing intrusive personal data requirements – portals

o Information push priority / mentality / behaviors

o Intuitive user interfaces – regional / partner perspective

o Streamlined partner inclusion procedures

• Paradigm shift – understanding and acceptance of non-DoD roles, responsibilities and authorities

• Inclusion of non-traditional media and sources – social networks

• Understanding / addressing “Disadvantaged User” needs

24



GAPS (2 of 3)

Policy and Procedures• “Whole of Government” approach

• Enabling engagement with non-traditional and ad hoc partners

• Enabling the “Disadvantaged User”

• Balancing Information sharing / security requirements

• Knowledge management and business rules

• Integration of social media

• Training and education

25



GAPS (3 of 3)

Technical• Cross domain guard technologies• Disadvantaged user• Geo-Spatial Information/UDOP/Situational Awareness • Identity management• Language translation

26




27



Identify Potential SolutionsPurpose: Propose solutions to mitigate the Warfighter problem

• Identify gap mitigating strategies• Assess sufficiency and effectiveness of incremental improvements• Identify potential change agent(s)/organization(s)

Assess the time, cost, and impact involved

with potential solutions.

Are Solutions:- Joint Solutions?- Observable in an

experiment?- Addressable within time

and resource of project?

Not a project experiment candidate

Identify potential gap

solutions

• Too much cost

or time• Too little

impact

Adequate cost, time, and impact

List of experiment-able gaps

Gap Analysis Solution Analysis

LEGEND

6

7

9

10

11

Gap Validation

Conference8

Solution Validation

List of experiment solutions

12

NY

Post Conference

28



Gap Validation and Potential SolutionsConference

• Prioritize requirements

• Vet, prioritize and rank gaps

• Identify potential solutions

29



Data Collection

Participant InformationInstructionsPriority/ Remarks

Requirements

Gaps

Solutions

Requirements• Prioritize

Gaps• Vet, prioritize, rank

Solutions• Identify, rank

30




31



Next StepsPost Conference

• Review the list of validated and prioritized gaps and potential solutions – the output of this conference

• Refine potential solutions• Assess the feasibility and risks associated with

potential solutions• Capture findings and recommendations in the

Baseline Assessment Report• Provide input to the Initial Planning Conference

(IPC) and Workshops

Continued engagement, the BAR is just a first step

32



Contact InfoStephen Sullivan (Analysis Lead)Capstone [email protected]

Jimmie Pelton (Analysis)Capstone [email protected]

Ken Swenson (Technical Lead)Northrop [email protected]

Stan Howard (Technical) *[email protected]

Conference Facilitators *

Tom Stites (Operations Lead)[email protected]

Len LeValla (Culture)[email protected]

Dick McCrillis (Culture) *[email protected]

Paul Danks (Policy and Procedures) *[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]








33



Questions?

34



United States Joint Forces Command Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E)

Documents

Transcript of United States Joint Forces Command Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E)