Perspectives on Interoperability - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

perspectives on interoperability n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Perspectives on Interoperability PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Perspectives on Interoperability

play fullscreen
1 / 29
Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Perspectives on Interoperability

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  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-electronics systems or items of communications-electronics 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 don’t 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 it’s 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 ofSystems Enterprise “Intergalactic Radiator” by Capt Yurchak For scope illustration only Current Navy Warfare Sponsors EXW N75 SUW N76 USW N77 AW N78 Tactical C2 MCP Budgets allocated vertically ISR MCP Navigation MCP ASW N74 Individual Program/System Missile Defense MCP Time-CriticalStrike 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. High High High Low Low Low DODAF Views and Capability Assessment Criteria UJTLs Capability Scope Dimensions Technical Feasibility Dimensions 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 Net-Ready Dimensions Data models, process algorithms Data element standards, Protocols, environments Technology readiness levels Technical View Systems View Prescribes Standards and Conventions Relates Capabilities/Characteristics to Operational Requirements What do systems say to each other? How is this information represented? How do systems interact? What standards are used?

  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 Value Dimension

  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 Value Dimension

  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” World Model Building Activities Data From Deployed/Tasked Data Collection Assets 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 Commander’s 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 Value Example Dimensions

  25. Technical Feasibility Dimensions • Represent physical and resource constraints 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 Value Dimension

  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