UNCLASSIFIED

1. Department of Defense Stability Operations Community of Interest: Unclas Info Sharing in StabOps, Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Operations (Irregular Warfare) Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration OASD(NII) and the DoD Chief Information Officer Mr Bill Barlow Deputy Director, Integrated Information Communications Technologies (ICT) Support (IIS) Directorate26 August 2009 1 UNCLASSIFIED

2. Agenda • Introductions • Where we are going • Where you can help • Conclusion 2

3. Discussion Points Outreach and Education – we need your feedback Influence Department Programmatics Info Sharing Policy Working Group Stability Operations Community of Interest Limited Objective Experiments and Concept Demonstrations Enterprise solution efforts Program Reviews (PR 11) to resource Department priorities COCOM Integrated Priority Lists (IPLs) How are the IPL items addressed in training focused on info sharing? How are you measuring success now? What do you want influenced within the Beltway? 3

5. IIS Priorities Provide ICT support for Irregular Warfare and Stability Ops Policy Ensure ICT language is included in DoD Directives and Instructions (e.g. permits ICT and bandwidth sharing with external partners) Oversight of unclassified information sharing technology demonstrations IW/StabOps unclas portal architectural study Working group to define “when, where, with whom” details on IW/Stability Operations and HADR info sharing Developing StabOps Community of Interest Inter-Agency Reconstruction and Stabilization (NSPD-44) Support DoD representative to the S/CRS Knowledge Management Collaboration Office, DoS Humanitarian Information Unit (HIU), and USAID Office of Civilian Response Support other interagency planning committees and working groups responsible for interagency processes: operations, log/comms, and Training, Education, Exercises and Experiments (TE-3) 5

6. IIS Priorities Geographic COCOM and Service ICT support issues: Advocate Unclassified Information sharing requirements in PPBES Improve US Navy hospital ship communications shortfalls Improve COCOM awareness of Sec 401, Title 10 provisions Provide oversight for Afghan Civ-Mil ICT sector Enable Theater Security Cooperation and Building Partnership Capacity (TSC and BP) – Regional International Outreach (RIO); Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation (TISC), etc Outreach within the Dept and to UN, NGOs, IOs and Industry on Civ-Mil info sharing Encourage NGO participation in COCOM/Service interagency events Start dialogue/exchange with industry on engagement for security cooperation and capacity building PR-11 Non-classified information sharing for IW and BPC

7. The Stability Operations Community of Interest (COI) – Summary The vision for the COI is a seamless, understood method for sharing information during Irregular Warfare; Stability Operations, Humanitarian Relief and Disaster Response missions with ALL supporting and supported mission partners in an ad hoc, dynamic environment. With this concept in mind, the DoD Chief Information Officer directed conduct of a Pilot Test between selected DoD and interagency volunteers that intends to integrate each external mission partners' existing approach to mission support by tagging data in a net centric manner in accordance with DoD Directive 8320.02 Data Sharing in a Net-Centric Department of Defense; April 23, 2007. This Break Out discussion is intended to provide an update of the COI and other similar efforts in progress; and finally collect your opinions and suggestions that can further enhance the discoverability of data in Department of Defense support operations.

8. OSD Stability Operations Community of Interest Formed 1 Oct 2008- COI WG agreed on nature of the problem, info sharing priorities, pilot program concept HADR Pilot – “proof of concept” – templated assessments Initial focus on Food, Water, Shelter Seeking to add ROADINT, Imagery via laptop, cellphone SMS capabilities Developing an information sharing vocabulary and exchange data model Federated portals for unclassified info sharing w/ agreed vocabulary that maps to JC3IEDM for disambiguation to .MIL C2 systems (i.e., Army ABCS) Pilot completed by 1 Oct 2009 followed by report and recommendations to ASD(NII) on way ahead Transition will migrate ownership to operational community from “communicators” and from HADR to broader STAB OPS problem POC: Gerry Christman, (703) 602-0549, gerard.christman.ctr@osd.mil and Sean McCarthy, (702) 601-2438 sean.mccarthy.ctr@osd.mil

9. PR 11 – Program Review for FY 11 Looks at new funding requirements against planned FY 11 expenditures Requesting $84M for FY 11-15 Stakeholders: OSD ( Net Centric Capability Portfolio Manager (CPM); Command and Control CPM; Building Partnership CPM All COCOMs, Services Intended outcomes Seek DoD enterprise level solution for non-clas info sharing Provides DoD entry point for external agencies to coordinate and collaborate on an unclassified level. PR-11 Non-classified information sharing for IW and BPC

10. Department of Defense Non Classified Information Sharing Goal Enterprise Level Service Current COCOM Systems Time JCTDs/Demos Experiments DoD Funded COCOM and Service Funded Today: Disparate Regional Solutions: Does Not Meet Existing Policy No Data Discovery Funding Inefficiencies Difficult to Access by Ad Hoc User Does not meet BP or TSC Reqmts Stab Ops; HA/DR; HCA; IW Future: Department Wide Unclas Info Sharing Core Platform: Whole of Government Approach Managed Outside NIPR Un-Anticipated Users Satisfy Theater Security Cooperation Stab Ops; HA/DR; HCA; IW; Interagency Dynamic Data Discovery May Need to Update Data Policy

11. New DoD Instruction – Information and Communications Technology Focused • DoDI 8220.02 ICT Capabilities for Support of Stabilization and Reconstruction, Disaster Relief, and HCA Operations, April 2009 • Implements policy for providing ICT capabilities and associated unclassified data and voice services in support of stabilization and reconstruction, disaster relief, and humanitarian and civic assistance • Provides guidance for support of stabilization, security, transition, and reconstruction operations • Provides guidance on the provisioning of military ICT and associated data and voice services, spectrum allocation, and DoD funding support according to DoDD 3000.05 and in support of DoD functions specified in the NSPD 44

12. Interagency Information Sharing Issue identified at WJTSC 09-01 Stakeholders: OSD (P) Partnership Strategy and Stability Operations OSD (Personnel & Readiness) USD (I) OASD (Networks and Information Integration) JS J7 Intended outcomes Modify policy that may be an impediment to information sharing Conduct outreach and education of existing policy that may not be leveraged due to a lack of situational awareness Codify guidance that offers solutions as to what can be shared, by whom and under what circumstances OSD Information Sharing Working Group:Interagency Information Sharing Policy

13. Joint Forces Command LOE focused on seamless information sharing among military and non-military actors in order to support accurate situational awareness and timely decision-making. Stakeholders: OSD (NII), DoS HIU, DoS Ops, DHS NOC, NGB, NORTHCOM, PACOM, SOUTHCOM, EUCOM (w/ AFRICOM), USACE, VA EOC (w/ Virtual AL), VANG, VA Fusion Center, USS Harry S. Truman Intended Outcomes: Improved ability to share operational information in a distributed environment to Support accurate situational awareness and timely decision making. Identify necessary improvements in technologies, processes, organizational structures, and policy changes Interagency Shared Situational Awareness (SSA) Limited Objective Experiment (LOE)

14. Environment Organizations that DO NOT expose their data sources outside the firewall Organizations thatPublish outside the firewall Publish Services HSIN VEIC Legend: Services that expose data sources For this experiment, alocation was provided forthese organizations to Publish outside the firewall Hosted on APAN or HarmonieWeb Facilitates Development of user defined, Focused Views

15. IA SSA – OV Producers of operating views International State National Local COCOMs Change in Culture GEO Spatial Information File Sharing Chat Communication Building Partnerships A Continuous Process Policies Standards Processes & Procedures Virtual Exchange Information Center User defined, quality Views Trust International State Inter-Agencies COCOMs Local National

16. Initial Findings • IA Standards / Policies • Need to share information is limited by an agency’s desire to protect information • Staffing the IA MOU / IAEE for the IA SSA LOE was problematic and demonstrated a need to establish the proper staffing level for approval, which varied by organization • Federated search of distributed exposed data sources is desired • Single-site log on, eliminate the need for multiple user names and passwords • Exposed data access highlights a need for IA, organizational trust, and cultural barriers to be addressed • Organizations often dictate a ‘withhold information first, share by exception’ culture • Access to common exposed data is more important than common tools, new tools, or common pictures • More important to use common data standards which allow a wide range of disparate tools to ingest and display information (need to remain ‘tool agnostic’) • A convergence of technology, policy, and organizational requirements will support a truly federated information sharing environment • Technology is not the limiting factor in information sharing • Common lexicon needed for DoD and Interagency partners to work together

17. Initial Findings (con’t) • ‘VEIC-type’ federated environment • Information display issues seemed to show that human factors need to be taken into account as technology is developed for ease in use and understanding of what a user sees • Automated refresh function needed • Free-form search required (experiment used ‘filter’) • Steep learning curve for posting links and accessing information • Frustration (per survey data) declined over trials (assuming it’s due to participants growing more familiar with the system) • File sharing was consistently viewed to have provided the most useful information when compared to GIS and text chat (over all trials) • Participants generally reported that they provided better information than they received—this is common, particularly in a distributed setting • Text chat • Considered a point-to-point means of communication throughout the experiment • Nearly as many simultaneous conversations as participants • It appeared that participants primarily used ‘private chat’ vice ‘scenario chat’ rooms • E-mail was more common and familiar to most participants—those used to using chat used it more, others perhaps underutilized it

18. Initial Recommendations • IA efforts be more fully integrated in future technology and policy development • Review IA issues and update policies in light of the latest efforts to share information as the rule and withhold information by exception • Continue development of federated search capabilities, including single-site log on and access to exposed data sources • Agencies facilitate the establishment of trusted partnerships between response organizations before an event requires collaboration • This will reduce time to train on tools and portal capabilities and familiarize agencies with other partners (thus building trust) • Experimentation and exercise venues should be used to facilitate these partnerships

19. Institutional Obstacles Concluding Discussion • Ineffective communication leads to: • Social and political instability • Failed country programs • Wasted resources • Cost overruns • Info Sharing lessons are re-learned during each response: • Unable to “connect and collaborate” • Limited ability to communicate directly on the Internet • Independent organizations represent disparate guidance, resources, protocols, and philosophies • Sharing of common situational information, assessments, and plans across extended partnership network is limited – exchanges are “ad hoc” 19