Track 3 – Well Formed Requirements NCOIC / SPAWAR Working Group Session San Diego Plenary

1. Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium Track 3 – Well Formed RequirementsNCOIC / SPAWAR Working Group SessionSan Diego Plenary Thursday November 30, 2006 (Day 4) Steve Russell, NCOIC Customer Requirements Team Chair Steve Ditlinger, NCOIC FORCEnet Project Team Leader Mills Davis and Conor Shankey Paul Shaw and Dave Roberts, SPAWAR

2. Agenda • Customer Requirements Team: Charter, Vision, Updates – Steve Russell • NCOIC FORCEnet Project Team Introduction – Steve Ditlinger • The New Challenge of Intrinsic Interoperability – Steve Russell • Well Formed Requirement / Well Specified Building Block – Steve Russell • Becoming Network Centric to Build Network Centric – Steve Russell • Semantic Wiki Technology Introduction – Mills Davis & Conor Shankey • Virtual Knowledge Repository / Technical Exchange Clearinghouse (VKR/TXC) Overview – Paul Shaw and Dave Roberts (SPAWAR) • Technical Discussion of VKR and Semantic Wiki Integration • Way Forward Planning

3. Objectives • Explain Customer Requirements Team - Encourage Participation • Present Intrinsic Interoperability Complexity and Way Forward • Explain Well Formed Requirement/Well Specified Building Block • Assess Potential Applications and Tools Needed • Assess potential for applying the 4 C’s as Steps to NCO • Identify Enablers, Obstacles, Gaps, and Way Forward • Assess Semantic Wiki Potential for Understanding NCO Landscape • Understand SPAWAR VKR / TXC • Integrating Software, Ontology, Data in NCOIC Semantic Wiki Pilot Project • Plans for SPAWAR and NCOIC to Collaborate on Requirements

4. Customer Requirements TeamIntroduction

5. CR Team Goals • Knowledgebase for companies and customers to assess the many activities and organizations contributing to NCO progress • Engineering Communities of Interest for bottoms up consensus & conformance • Link requirements to Building Blocks and PFCs (patterns) to enable engineers and customers to make informed make vs. buy decisions • Flatten the link from users of NCO systems to engineers that build them • Provide environment where companies have a shared and equal understanding of customer requirements and compete on execution This not only serves the NCOIC’s needs, but also develops experience with discovery and data sharing techniques that are essential for the network centric systems of the future. “To build net-centric, you must first become net-centric”.

6. Conformance Conformance Consensus Consensus Convergence Convergence Collaboration Collaboration CR Team Vision CUSTOMERS INDUSTRY Well Formed Require-ment

7. Conformance Conformance Consensus Consensus Convergence Convergence Collaboration Collaboration CR Team Vision CUSTOMERS INDUSTRY Well Specified Building Block

8. Charter and Key Activities • Charter • Rigorous analysis of pertinent government agency architectures, capability needs, and mandated open standards to identifycommonalities, synergies, conflicts, gaps and potential areas for improvement. Collection and tracking of key stakeholders and initiatives to identify areas of NCOIC focus. • Key Activities • Evaluate initiatives such as the GIG, NCOW RM, NCES, FORCEnet, C2 Constellation, LANDWARnet, JBMC2, DCGS, NATO NEC, and NECC. • Identify customer and other stakeholder communities of interest (COI) • Build Knowledgebase of stakeholders, initiatives, architectures, standards, and requirements using DoD Data Sharing concepts • Analyze mission threads for gaps and improvement opportunities • Align NCOIC technical efforts with Customer and member initiatives • Increase member understanding of the Customer missions and needs

9. What is Driving SOA or NCO? Reuse, Flexibility, and … Intrinsic Interoperability

10. Drivers Business DoD & MODs • Global Asymmetric War • Rapid Tech Insertion • Reliance on COTS • NCO / NCW • Joint / Coalition Ops • Globalization • Time to Market • Rapid Obsolescence • Customer Focus • E-Commerce / E-Business • Mergers / Acquisitions IT Vendors • Customers’ Needs (see upper left) • Decline of Monolithic Systems • Shift from Products to Services • Cooperation and Standards Rapid Response to Changing Conditions Drives Need for Flexible, Agile, Compose-able Organizations and Systems

11. DoD / Commercial IT Parallels DoD is Building NCO by Adopting Concepts/Technologies Maturing in Commercial IT

12. Interoperability Model Political Objectives Organizational Interoperability Harmonized Strategy/Doctrines Aligned Operations Aligned Procedures Knowledge/Awareness Layers of Coalition Interoperability Technical Interoperability Information Interoperability Data/Object Model Interoperability Protocol Interoperability Physical Interoperability

13. C4ISR Applications Info Display & User I/F Viewer Layer C2 ISR Mission Planning Execution Automation / Decision Aides Targeting Fusion Services Advanced User Interaction Services Layer Transformation & Processing Sensor Services Interoperability Packs Repository Layer Data Storage Operating System & Platform Backbone Common Services Networks Joint (NCES) Interop Pack Army (SOSCOE) Interop Pack Air Force (C2ERA) Interop Pack Navy (FORCEnet) Interop Pack Marine (MAGTFOC) Interop Pack NGA GeoScout JVM Operating System Platform (ISRIS Server) Networks ( internal and external ) Service Oriented ArchitecturesEverybody’s Got (At Least) One! DCGS - DIB IC CIO/CIISO ICSIS Air Force Enterprise Services (C2ERA) Army SOSCOE DISA NCES …. and more each day

14. Gartner Hype Cyclefor Emerging Technologies Failure to Meet Expectations Competing Products and Positioning Industry Absorbs and Accepts SOA or NCO Today Visibility Media Buzz Pros Continue to Experiment and Apply Despite Lack of Media Coverage Product or Concept Launch Peak of Inflated Expectations Technology Trigger Trough of Disillusionment Slope of Enlightenment Plateau of Productivity Maturity

15. Gartner Hype Cyclefor Emerging Technologies Divergence Failure to Meet Expectations Competing Products and Positioning Industry Absorbs and Accepts SOA or NCO Today Visibility Media Buzz Pros Continue to Experiment and Apply Despite Lack of Media Coverage Product or Concept Launch Peak of Inflated Expectations Technology Trigger Trough of Disillusionment Slope of Enlightenment Plateau of Productivity Maturity

16. Gartner Hype Cyclefor Emerging Technologies Convergence Failure to Meet Expectations Competing Products and Positioning Industry Absorbs and Accepts SOA or NCO Today Visibility Media Buzz Pros Continue to Experiment and Apply Despite Lack of Media Coverage Product or Concept Launch Peak of Inflated Expectations Technology Trigger Trough of Disillusionment Slope of Enlightenment Plateau of Productivity Maturity

17. Gartner Hype Cyclefor Emerging Technologies Consensus Failure to Meet Expectations Competing Products and Positioning Industry Absorbs and Accepts SOA Today Visibility Media Buzz Pros Continue to Experiment and Apply Despite Lack of Media Coverage Product or Concept Launch Peak of Inflated Expectations Technology Trigger Trough of Disillusionment Slope of Enlightenment Plateau of Productivity Maturity

18. Gartner Hype Cyclefor Emerging Technologies Conformance Failure to Meet Expectations Competing Products and Positioning Industry Absorbs and Accepts SOA Today Visibility Media Buzz Pros Continue to Experiment and Apply Despite Lack of Media Coverage Product or Concept Launch Peak of Inflated Expectations Technology Trigger Trough of Disillusionment Slope of Enlightenment Plateau of Productivity Maturity

19. Gartner Hype Cyclefor Emerging Technologies Convergence Divergence Consensus Conformance Competing Products and Positioning Failure to Meet Expectations Industry Absorbs and Accepts Visibility Media Buzz Pros Continue to Experiment and Apply Product or Concept Launch Peak of Inflated Expectations Technology Trigger Trough of Disillusionment Slope of Enlightenment Plateau of Productivity Maturity

20. DoD Net Centric Ecosystem GIG / Network • Programs focus on Capabilities (JCIDS) • Capabilities cut across system and Community of Interests (COI) boundaries • Systems support multiple COIs and Capabilities via services • Services are valued on how well they support multiple & new capabilities • Programs are valued on how well they create capabilities from multiple services and how flexible the capabilities are System 2 System 3 System 1 System 2 System 3 System 1 System 2 System 3 System 1 Program X

21. NCO - Alternative FuturesThe Potential For Convergence Governance Governance Sharing of services is central to the SOA approach. Sharing of information and collaboration, convergence, consensus, and conformance is key to shared governance. Many SOAs Associated withService & Agency Programs Provide Islands Of Net-Centric Operations A minimum number of SOAs exist based on near term needs Of specific Programs of Record Increasing Convergence Is A Long Run objective Community of Interest Perspective Recessive Dominant Net-Centric Operations Is Repudiated and Client Server Architectures areRe-adopted Wholesale NCES Program of Record Provides Enterprise Level Services For All DOD and IC users Recessive Dominant Enterprise Integration Perspective

22. Shared Situational Awareness Robustly Networked Force Self Synchronization Information Sharing The New Value Chain • A Robustly Networked Force[Customer and Industry] Improves Information Sharing • Information Sharing And Collaboration Enhances the Quality of Information and Shared Situational Awareness of each Customer and Industry company • Shared Situational Awareness Enables Collaboration and Self Synchronization and Enhances Sustainability[product life] and Speed of Command[Time to Market] • These in Turn Dramatically Increase Mission Effectiveness[Profitability] Commander’s Intent Quality of Information Mission Effectiveness New Processes Common Operational Picture Information Domain Cognitive + Social Domains Physical Domain Collaboration * From the OSD/OFT NCO Short Course

23. Well Formed Requirement…Well Specified Building Block

24. Conformance Conformance Consensus Consensus Convergence Convergence Collaboration Collaboration CR Team Vision CUSTOMERS INDUSTRY Well Formed Require-ment

25. Dimensions of a Requirement • Function • what is to be done • Usually text description today, but could be a video, simulation, animation, etc. • Granularity can be from a capability to a service • Constraints –what tolerances must be met • Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) • Measures of Performance (MOP) • Measures of Net-Centricity (MON) – new and analyzed in NCOIC SCOPE model • Measures of Satisfaction (MOS) – new to DoD • Size, Weight, And Power (SWAP) • Costs and Schedules • Risk Tolerance (TRL - Technology Readiness Level) • Miscellaneous (a.k.a. the “ilities” • Operational Context • Physical Environment

26. From Requirements to Solution • Function and Operational Context are usually well understood and unchangeable [*without doctrine or CONOPs rework] • Solution usually requires trade-offs among the multiple constraint dimensions • For example trading reduced durability for lighter weight • Some constraints are more inflexible than others or have tighter range of values in different Operational Contexts • Reliability (MTBF) for space-based radio transmitter on a missile launch early detection satellite much higher and less negotiable than for a tower-based radio transmitter for the Voice of America • Selected solution is often the alternative that: • performs the function… • in the operational context… • and “best fits” the customer and contractor “agreed upon” blend of constraints resulting from trade-offs determined during architecture or system design

27. Policy vs. Contractual vs. SLA • For a given Function In a given Operational Context: • Some requirement dimensions will be best specified as contractual obligations such as acceptance criteria or incentive fee items • One time measurement against specification • Some requirement dimensions will be best specified as Service Level Agreements (SLAs) • Continuous measurement against specification • Some requirement dimensions will be consensus globally, some nationally, some military vs. commercial, and some within COI

28. 24 158 29 31 242 Requirement Score Well Formed Requirement - KIVIAT CHART Measures of Satisfaction (MOSs) Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) • Improvements • Feedback • Training • Usage • Acceptance • Addressing • 11.2 Million Messages/day • Mobility • Accept/Deliver Data in 8 Legacy Formats Measures of Net-Centricity (MONs) O • Concurrently accept CMF reports via S&N RF, Networks, and Telephony O O O O • Quality of Service O O O O • User, Regional, COCOM set priorities • Discovery & Registration T O O • 500 Simultaneous User Profiles O T • Management O Measures of Performance (MOPs) T T O O T • End-to-End Response Time T T • Information Assurance T T T T Risk T T O O T T T T Transportability Technology Readiness Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 O T T T O O Agility Miscellaneous (a.k.a. – ilities) Size T T T O T O T T Weight Flexibility • From AF SAB Report on SoSE for Air Force Capability Development: • Configurability • Re-configurability • Evolve-ability • Emerge-ability • Subscribe-ability • Others: • Controllability • Manageability O O T T T T T SWAP T T Testability Power O O T O O Maintainability Others (e.g. buoyancy, aerodynamics, etc. O O O Durability Space, Undersea, Airborne, etc. Physical Environment O O Reliability Deployment Schedule Targets Compatibility Development Cost Target Service Life Scale-ability Support Cost MOEs and MOPs in this example are from an Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS) Sources Sought RFI from USAF ESC published March 20, 2006 and are provided strictly as an example. Cost & Schedule

29. Dimensions of a Well Formed Requirement (And conversely a Well Formed Building Block) (Function granularity can vary from a Mission Capability to a Service) State of the Possible Envelope Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs)[See KIVIAT Chart] Function Misc. (i.e. –ilities)[See KIVIAT Chart] Alternative A4 Lifecycle Cost & Service Life Measures of Performance (MOPs)[See KIVIAT Chart] Alternative A3 Size, Weight, & Power (SWAP) & Physical Environment Alternative D1 Outside State of the Possible. R&D needed Alternative B3 Emerging Technology Insertion Alternative B2 Information Assurance Alternative A2 Technical Readiness Level (TRL) 9 I 8 I 7 I 6 I 5 I 4 I 3 I 2 I 1 Alternative B4 Alternative B1 Alternative A1 Development Cost & Deployment Schedule FOT&E, IOC, FOC Measures of Net-centricity (MONs) [See KIVIAT Chart] Italics = Translates to SLA or SOA contract parameters Others = Translates to SOW or SOO contract parameters