Interagency interoperability oversight group
Download
1 / 25

Interagency Interoperability Oversight Group - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 94 Views
  • Uploaded on

Interagency Interoperability Oversight Group . April 13, 2011 Interior Operations Center 3400 West Corridor Main Interior Building Washington, DC 8:00 – 12:30. Jim Douglas IIOG Chair Kolleen Shelley IIOG Program Manager . Agenda. Strategic Objectives/Priorities

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Interagency Interoperability Oversight Group ' - daw


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Interagency interoperability oversight group

Interagency Interoperability Oversight Group

April 13, 2011

Interior Operations Center

3400 West Corridor

Main Interior Building

Washington, DC

8:00 – 12:30

Jim Douglas

IIOG Chair

Kolleen Shelley

IIOG Program Manager


Agenda
Agenda

Strategic Objectives/Priorities

High Priority Project Activities

Role and Function of the IIOG

Next Meeting


A brief recap
A Brief Recap

  • 2005-2006: Executive Telecommunications Inter-agency Management Council

    • Proposed partnership of USDA, DOI, DHS, and States, lead by USDA/DOI CIOs

    • Several preliminary meetings

    • Final draft charter

    • Membership of:

      • USDA: 12 agencies

      • DOI: 9 agencies

      • DHS: 3 agencies

      • States: 50

  • August 2007: Boise Sojourn

    • CIOs and staff at NIFC and visit to large fire incident base

    • Greater understand of user needs/requirements (especially fire)

    • Realization of lack of governance structure to link users and providers


  • 2008: follow up meetings and discussions

    • September: Interagency Communications Summit

  • January 2009: IIOG charter signed

    • Decision to self charter

    • Program manager

    • Agenda of high priority projects and activities

  • August 2009: Field Trip to Central Oregon – law enforcement and fire business

  • August 2010: Field Trip to MN/WI – law enforcement and state partnership issues


Goals role function of the iiog
Goals, Role & Function of the IIOG

  • Goals

    • Integrated, seamless network services and access for all accredited users

    • Integrated, seamless reliable land mobile radio services and coverage that allow communication to meet program business requirements

    • Cooperative, combined well maintained radio facilities jointly operated and maintained by benefitting agencies

    • Use of proven technologies that allow communication among the land managing agencies and with federal and non-federal partners

    • Integrated maintenance and management of network and land mobile radio networks and equipment

    • Best practices for planning, investment, budgeting, and management of network and land mobile radio capabilities


  • Membership: DOI/USDA CIOs, agency CIOs, USDA/DOI “mission” executives (fire/LE) = 11

  • Roles:

    • sponsors projects that promote its vision, using the resources of its members. Projects are designed to demonstrate feasibility; implementation of enterprise or program solutions based on the results of projects is the responsibility of agencies and programs

    • provides a forum for the resolution of policy and program differences that impede its vision and goals, and to coordinate the development and implementation of policies and programs that enable the vision and goals.


What s worked with the iiog
What’s Worked with the IIOG

  • Forum for identifying user requirements

  • Forum for communication between Departments

  • Positive message to users that leadership cares

  • Completed projects: thin client demonstration for fire; aviation radio toning, credentials MOU

  • Initiated projects: access/authentication, Central Oregon demonstration

  • Program Manager


What hasn t worked
What Hasn’t Worked

  • Uneven participation by principals

  • Lack of follow through on commitments – funding, staffing

  • Overly ambitious agenda

  • Failure to use the structure – independent and uncoordinated agency activities


Changing environment
Changing Environment

  • DOI IT Transformation – changes roles and functions of CIOs

  • DOI Radio Transformation – enterprise approach with opportunities for USDA and other partnerships

  • HSPD-12 requirements and opportunities

  • Universal broadband availability and other technologies


Strategic priorities
Strategic Priorities

  • Interconnectivity of systems

    • “one computer” on desks

    • Recognition of credentials

  • Sharing of radio/wireless infrastructure & services

  • Leveraging new technologies


High priority project activities
High Priority Project Activities

  • Interconnectivity

    • Access Authentication & Accepting Federal Credentials

    • Credentials MOU Implementation

    • Logical Access for Non-Federal Personnel

  • Radio/Wireless Communication

    • Combined service/infrastructure/program management

    • Digital Migration strategy

    • ROIP

    • Use of Broadband



Interconnectivity
Interconnectivity

  • Requires integrated, multi-agency effort

  • Leverage Access/Authentication work

  • ACTION: create integrated work group to coordinate and standardize efforts


Radio wireless communication
Radio/Wireless Communication

  • DOI Radio Transformation project as vehicle

  • Partner with USDA/FS on strategy and implementation

  • Seek additional partners (DHS, others)

  • ACTIONS:

    • Project governance and implementation shared between DOI & USDA

    • Central Oregon alternative selection and implementation


Dispatch improvement
Dispatch Improvement

  • Charter signed by heads of USFS, BLM, NPS, FWS, BIA

  • Two pilot optimization projects underway: SW and California – leading to “toolbox” for broader use

  • Draft strategic plan

  • Application investments: fire reporting (in progress); computer-aided dispatch (concept)

  • Interim program coordinator

  • ACTION: (1) monitor pilots; (2) develop integrated governance structure to guide future


Discussion
Discussion

  • Are these the major issues?

  • What’s missing?

  • What’s needed to accomplish?

  • NOTE: IIOG organization/function discussion to follow…..


How do we proceed
How Do We Proceed?

  • Issues:

    • Purpose, functions, roles

    • Membership and structure

    • Matching demand and supply (desires and resources)

    • Equitable contributions


Options
Options

  • Status Quo

  • Status Quo Streamlined

  • Formal Charter and Structure

  • Disband


Status quo
Status Quo

  • Pros

    • Current charter, commitments, members

  • Cons

    • Uncertain commitments, resource problems, unwieldy


Status quo streamlined
Status Quo - Streamlined

  • Summary

    • Membership limited to Dept. CIOs, mission exec’s = 5 (DOI mission = 1; FS mission =2); chaired by one of the 5

    • PM and approach remain same

  • Pros

    • Smaller, more focused group

  • Cons

    • Uncertain commitments, resource problems


Formal charter structure
Formal Charter & Structure

  • Summary

    • Secretarial Charter

    • Executive Steering Committee of 5 (see “Streamlined)

    • Senior Working Group of managers representing the ESC members

    • Program Manager

    • Formal agency resource commitments


  • Pros

    • Greater status/recognition

    • Smaller, more focused leadership group

    • Reliance on senior managers to ensure project success

    • Resource commitments

  • Cons

    • Signature requirements

    • Resource commitments


Disband
Disband

  • Summary

    • Use informal and ad hoc coordination mechanisms within Departments and between Departments

  • Pros

    • Agency-specific and informal governance is sufficient

  • Cons

    • Lack of ability to coordinate effectively; slows progress

    • Signal to field/users of lack of commitment



Next steps
Next Steps

  • Follow-up from this meeting

  • Next meetings

  • 2011 Field Visit?


ad