p4ip4i p4i for coalition c4i and sustainment an initiative of the object management group (omg) 12...
TRANSCRIPT
P4I P4I P4I P4I
P4I for Coalition C4IP4I for Coalition C4Iand Sustainmentand Sustainment
An Initiative of the Object Management Group (OMG)An Initiative of the Object Management Group (OMG)
P4I for Coalition C4IP4I for Coalition C4Iand Sustainmentand Sustainment
An Initiative of the Object Management Group (OMG)An Initiative of the Object Management Group (OMG)
12 November 1999
P4I P4I P4I P4I
“…“…the integration between US and foreign militaries together demonstrate the integration between US and foreign militaries together demonstrate our commitments, strengthen our military capabilities, and enhance the our commitments, strengthen our military capabilities, and enhance the organization of coalitions and multinational operations to deter or defeat organization of coalitions and multinational operations to deter or defeat aggression.” aggression.”
-- Joint Vision 2010-- Joint Vision 2010
““Implementing Implementing Joint Vision 2010Joint Vision 2010 requires developing the doctrine, requires developing the doctrine, education, training, organization, and materiel to support truly integrated education, training, organization, and materiel to support truly integrated joint operations. Achieving this new level of proficiency also requires joint operations. Achieving this new level of proficiency also requires improving our methods for integrating our forces and capabilities with improving our methods for integrating our forces and capabilities with those of our allies and coalition partners.” those of our allies and coalition partners.”
-- Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review-- Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review
“…“…building and maintaining effective coalitions also present significant building and maintaining effective coalitions also present significant challenges, from policy coordination at the strategic level to challenges, from policy coordination at the strategic level to interoperability among diverse military forces at the tactical level.” interoperability among diverse military forces at the tactical level.”
-- Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review-- Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review
P4I P4I P4I P4I
Purpose of the P4I EnvironmentPurpose of the P4I EnvironmentPurpose of the P4I EnvironmentPurpose of the P4I Environment
Initiative to define an international virtual C4I environment to examine coalition interoperability issues Doctrine studies and analysis Technical policy development and evaluation Procedure definition and evaluation Prototyping Pilot Implementations and demonstrations
An OMG sponsored and supported organization Includes coalition interoperability for sustainment
activities Interoperability with appropriate interoperability
characteristics and acceptable Quality of Service (QoS)
P4I P4I P4I P4I
Realizing the Potential of C4I: Realizing the Potential of C4I: Fundamental ChallengesFundamental Challenges**Realizing the Potential of C4I: Realizing the Potential of C4I: Fundamental ChallengesFundamental Challenges**
C4I Interoperability – “Operational and technical interoperability commensurate with the role of C4I in support of multi-unit, joint, and combined missions.”
C4I System Security – “C4I systems that remain operationally secure and available for U. S. forces in the face of attacks by adversaries.”
DoD Process and Culture – “A DOD culture and management system that fully reflects the importance of C4I in future military operations and the pace at which the underlying technologies evolve.”
* Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Academy of Sciences, May 1999
P4I P4I P4I P4I
VisionVisionVisionVision
Partnership of industry, government, and academia Loosely coupled network of servers and workstations World-wide scope communicating over the internet or
internet-like network(s) CORBA based Software architecture based on the C4I Reference
Architecture being developed by the OMG C4I DSIG Environment for development, prototyping, testing,
and demonstrating policies, procedures, and products Environment for examining doctrinal issues related to
Information Technology (IT) in the C4I and Sustainment environments
P4I P4I P4I P4I
P4I Environment Management P4I Environment Management StructureStructureP4I Environment Management P4I Environment Management StructureStructure
Boards
GovernmentSite Staff(s)
P4I EnvironmentSecretariat
Coordination Only
AdministrativeStaff
Board of Trustees
Director-General
Director forAdministration
Director forTechnology
Director forParticipant Liasons
AdministrativeAssistant(Clerical)
AdministrativeStaff
AdministrativeStaff
AdministrativeAssistant
(Financial) AdministrativeStaff
AdministrativeStaff
Liason Staff
AdministrativeStaff
AdministrativeStaff
GovernmentSite Staff(s)
AdministrativeStaff
AdministrativeStaff
AdministrativeStaff
Project ReviewBoard
Specialists
LEGEND
P4I Secretariat"Volunteered"
Staff
P4I SecretariatFull-Time Staff
P4I P4I P4I P4I
OMG Management Structure OMG Management Structure including the P4I Environment including the P4I Environment SecretariatSecretariat
OMG Management Structure OMG Management Structure including the P4I Environment including the P4I Environment SecretariatSecretariat Legend
Director-General
Director forAdministration
Director forParticipant
Liasons
AdministrativeAssistant(Clerical)
AdministrativeAssistant
(Financial)
President & COOWilliam Hoffman
Vice PresidentMarketing
Cheryl Rocheleau
Vice President andTechnical Director
Andrew Watson
Vice PresidentBusiness
Developmen tMark Lowenstein
Manager ofAdministrative
ServicesCindy McComiskey
Chairman & CEORichard Soley
Director forTechnology
Director ofTechnology Transfer
John Siegel
Senior Director ofStandards
Wayne Haughey
Director of LiaisonsHenry Lowe
Day-to-Day ReportingRelationship
Administrative Relationship
OMG StaffP4I
SecretariatStaff
P4I P4I P4I P4I
Participant ResponsibilitiesParticipant ResponsibilitiesParticipant ResponsibilitiesParticipant Responsibilities
Participating governments Provide strategic (Board of Trustees) and operational (Project
Review Board) guidance Provide P4I Secretariat oversight Provide facilities, hardware, operating systems, communications
infrastructure, etc. Requirements and concepts
IT Industry participants ORB vendors will provide retail and beta-test versions of ORBs
and services Enterprises that produce CORBA-based application products will
demonstrate and beta-test products These organizations will be encouraged to leave applications
in the P4I Environment when productized Academic organizations will provide R&D expertise and labor “Think tanks” are much like academic organizations
P4I P4I P4I P4I
Operational ConceptOperational ConceptOperational ConceptOperational Concept
Projects submitted to the Project Review Board (PRB) Problem statement Approach Expected results Organizations participating Estimated cost Schedule P4I Environment resources required
PRB recommends acceptance, deferment, rejection, or conditional acceptance
Director for Liaison Relations identifies/encourages potential partnerships across national boundaries
Twice annual reviews of each project
P4I P4I P4I P4I
P4I Environment Financial ApproachP4I Environment Financial ApproachP4I Environment Financial ApproachP4I Environment Financial Approach
Governments pay flat fee per year to “subscribe” Estimated to be $1M to $1.5M US per year
Projects that do not require financial assistance pay fee based on validated cost estimate Estimated to be 5% of estimated project cost
Financial Assistance Fund Government fees + project fees - operating expenses Two tier
Nationally earmarked – one year General
Actual fees to be determined by the feasibility study team
P4I P4I P4I P4I
Plans and Milestones *Plans and Milestones *Plans and Milestones *Plans and Milestones *
1 October 1999 – 31 March 2000 Feasibility study
Chaired by Andrew Watson (OMG) Co-Chair to be appointed by OMG Recommend 12 members (3 each from Western Pacific, Americas, and
Europe plus 3 at-large to be selected by OMG) Two Go/No-go decision points Four meetings at sites TBD
1 Europe, 1 East Coast US/Canada, 1 West Coast US/Canada, 1 Western Pacific
Norway has volunteered to host a meeting 1 April 2000 – 30 September 2000
Start-up period May OMG Coalition Day event in Oslo is ideal for kickoff
Hire permanent staff Recruit initial participants Select initial projects
1 October 1000 – 31 March 2001 Initial operations (“shakedown cruise”)
P4I P4I P4I P4I
Sample Projects (1 of 2)Sample Projects (1 of 2)Sample Projects (1 of 2)Sample Projects (1 of 2)
Computer Supported Cooperative Work Tools and Components to enable collaboration at: Same time/same place: group decision support, meeting
facilitation
Same time/different places: audio/video conferencing, shared whiteboards, shared applications
Different times/same place: team rooms, shared memory, information sharing, coordination tools
Different times/different places: e-mail, discussion/bulletin boards, group authoring, workflow
Components for Common Visualization of the Operational Space (CVOS) Recommend doctrine, policies, procedures, and technical
solutions to the problem of attaining a CVOS capability Investigate issues relating to differences in operational
environments due to cultural, language, etc. differences
P4I P4I P4I P4I
Sample Projects (2 of 2)Sample Projects (2 of 2)Sample Projects (2 of 2)Sample Projects (2 of 2)
Common Information Assurance Tools and Components Coalition C4I security policy and procedure must reflect the
concept of multiple security accreditation domains, each domain having its own internal policies and procedures
Develop policies, procedures, and information technical solutions needed to support information assurance in the constantly evolving coalition environment
P4I P4I P4I P4I
Benefits (1 of 2)Benefits (1 of 2)Benefits (1 of 2)Benefits (1 of 2)
Governments An environment wherein coalition policies and procedures can
be developed and tested Encourages shared projects between corporate entities in
multiple countries, resulting in products built to common definitions of interfaces and functionality
Better, less expensive, more readily available, interoperable, reusable, standards-based COTS products
ORB vendors Exercising of their products in an extremely demanding
environment Lessons learned in the performance of the various projects
will enable ORB vendors to improve their product offerings
P4I P4I P4I P4I
Benefits (2 of 2)Benefits (2 of 2)Benefits (2 of 2)Benefits (2 of 2)
Large application vendors Opportunity to develop tools, components, and applications
that will be well exercised and, except in very rare cases, be easily translated in products for the civilian marketplace as well.
Opportunity to take advantage of the break through ideas that are often found in small companies and academia that often do not have the resources to support their development
Small companies and academia Opportunities to find funding resources that will enable them
to develop new approaches to old problems An environment for the solution of real-world problems that is
receptive to innovation and innovative concepts
P4I P4I P4I P4I
ObservationsObservationsObservationsObservations
Extends the philosophy behind Global Information Grid (GIG) to the international community
No equivalent activities currently exist, but there are a few somewhat similar activities Limited in scope and tend to be US and UK dominated
Smaller and non-native-English speaking countries tend to feel like second class citizens with little or no real influence
Most are classified or “closed” activities Sponsorship by an industry-based consortium is unique Focus on standardization and productization of
developed standards is unique Financial assistance approach is unique Encourages software industry in participating nations Relatively low cost encourages participation by smaller
countries
P4I P4I P4I P4I
Why?Why?Why?Why? Feasibility study is low cost and low risk Annual participation, even when sponsoring US
Government sponsorship of some projects is unlikely to cost more than a few million USD per year
Long-term potential for high payoff in terms of: Standardized specifications for APIs satisfying requirements
of the C4I and Sustainment communities that can also be implemented for civilian purposes
Reuse results in lower life-cycle costs Standardized APIS introduce efficiencies in development and
integration Standards based products that will interoperate in an
Internet-like environment that are available as shrink-wrapped products with civilian use as well as use within the C4I and Sustainment communities
Fosters competition based on quality of service (QoS) provided by products
Encourages niche market development by smaller companies Semantic and cultural differences can be minimized
Reduced potential for misunderstanding Common technical policies Common procedures