IDEAS-OCD-V0.3
DRAFT
INTERNATIONAL DEFENCE ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SPECIFICATION
(IDEAS)
Operational Concept Document (OCD)
Version / Description of Change / Author / Date0.1 / Original Draft Structure / D. Wilson / 13-Feb-07
0.2 / Revised Draft: - response to feedback / IDEAS WG / 14 Aug-07
0.3 / Revised Draft: - response to feedback / M. Hagenbo +
M. Wong / 22 Apr-08
DRAFT
IDEAS-OCD-V0.2
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Capability identification 1
1.2 Document Purpose and Intended Audience 2
1.3 Justification for Acquisition 2
2. definition and reference document 7
2.1 Integrated Dictionary – Glossary of Terms (CV-2) 7
2.2 Referenced Documents 7
3. solution independent capability needs 8
3.2 Mission Overview 8
3.3 Operational Policies and Constraints 8
3.4 Personnel Interfaces to System 9
3.5 Operational Scenarios 10
3.6 Consolidated Operational Needs 11
3.7 Internal System Needs, Constraints and Objectives 12
4. Existing coalition Planning system 13
4.1 Overview 13
4.2 Existing System Operational Capability Comparison 13
4.3 Existing System Capability Comparison 13
4.4 Existing System Planned or Active Upgrades 13
4.5 Existing System Internal Scenarios 13
5. system Solution Description 14
5.2 System Description 14
5.3 IDEAS System Boundaries 15
5.4 System Interfaces 17
5.5 System Personnel 17
5.6 IDEAS System Architecture 19
5.7 System Functionality and Performance 19
5.8 Support System Needs 19
5.9 System Constraints 20
5.10 System Evolution & Technology Forecast 20
5.11 System Solution Scenarios 21
DRAFT
ii
IDEAS-OCD-V0.3
DRAFT
1. Capability identification
1.1.1 Fighting in regional conflicts as part of a Coalition force presents a real challenge for Task Force commanders and coalition partner deployed forces. At the same time, this ability to appear in coalition is a normal state today for western democracies. Coalition commanders must thus be able to integrate diverse multinational assets e.g., command, control, communications, computer and intelligence assets (C4I) in the field and often in the middle of a crisis.
1.1.2 Because of the ad hoc nature of coalitions, in many cases neither the Combined Task Force Commander nor their coalition partners cannot anticipate the availability of forces, the appropriateness of organisational structures for the combined task force or the internetworking requirements. Neither can today´s Commander anticipate having adequate information about the coalition resources available since means and methods in many cases are lacking for a rich information sharing.
1.1.3 The purpose of the IDEAS capability is to support combined military planners in developing campaign plans by providing relevant information in support of force planning for coalition operations over existing Coalition networks.
1.1.4 The IDEAS capability is a key capability for each nation’s Defence Enterprise Architecture effort enabling a way to deal with semantic heterogeneity aimed at support the exchange of architecture data between coalition partner’s national architecture data repositories and/or registries with the overarching purpose to support coalition planning in a model driven way using different architecture frameworks as a foundation.
1.1.5 The Defence Enterprise Architecture Approach is somehow different from what in the private sector is generally referred to as Enterprise Architecture (EA). Traditionally, EA is about aligning Business processes and people with supporting Information Technology (IT). This is definitely true also in a defense context, but Defence EA also is aimed to some other, more important, aims:
1.1.6 An ability to handle complexity through abstractions of the real world enabling a stakeholder to select only the information of interest to him/her and suppress the rest that only introduce unnecessary complexity.
1.1.7 To support both national and coalition planning by capturing and presenting information about the defense enterprise in a way that can be understood by all national and coalition stakeholders involved.
1.1.8 To improve force planning capability through:
· Reduced timescale for mission planning
· Enhanced data
· Interoperability
· Reusability
· Understandability
· Visibility
· Shareability
1.1.9 A critical enabler to realize the vision of Networking Enabled Capabilities (NEC), Network Centric Warfare (NCW), Network Based Defense (NBD), Effects Based Approach to Operations (EBAO) and other initiatives aiming towards increased information capabilities enabling decision superiority relative to the adversary and also adaptive and agile modular force elements supporting flexibility for the operational commander.
1.1.10 A transition from the paradigm of document based specification of requirements to model based specification of requirements supported by quality assured, structured and coherent data in an interoperable way.
1.1.11 It’s estimated that a consequent use of architectures between coalition partners will reduce costs as well as the time necessary to put together deployable and interoperable coalition forces. Likewise richer information availability for decision makers directly will indirectly reduce the risks for the war fighter in theatre. Another positive effect of using architectures is that interoperability is achieved due to the structure and unambiguity provided by the architecture description. Another solid gain is the ability to create stakeholder tailored reports out from the architecture data repository and/or registry. This will give decision-makers an ability to compare different solutions, with the same interoperable reporting format, and suppress complexity by only reporting on the specific need of a stakeholder in a certain situation. Everything else can thus be suppressed while consistency is guaranteed by the repository solution.
1.2 Document Purpose and Intended Audience
1.2.1 OCD Purpose
1.2.1.1 The purpose of this OCD is to establish a foundation capability definition document for the IDEAS capability, and to provide the IDEAS Executive Group with an acquisition and systems engineering document. The major purposes of the OCD are to:
a. Describe the characteristics of the required IDEAS capability from an operational perspective to identify potential mission and support requirements;
b. Detail missions and scenarios associated with operations and support, to determine required performance objectives and associated costs;
c. To provide a reference for determining “fitness for purpose”.
1.2.2 OCD Audience
1.2.2.1 This OCD will be used to inform all IDEAS stakeholders from participating national defence departments involved with this capability development activity.
1.2.2.2 The primary stakeholders are those with a direct function in the management and development of the capability and those routinely engaged in the IDEAS project.
1.2.2.3 The extended stakeholders are those parties who have identified interests in the capability and who can be expected in some capacity, to be engaged in defining requirements for employment of the capability. Annex A list the Stakeholders.
1.3 Justification for Acquisition
1.3.1 Coalition Planning Shortfalls
1.3.1.1 Today planning for coalition operations is made from a document-oriented paradigm and within the command chain structure. Information is typically captured in different documents, that gradually becomes more developed and also the level of abstraction is reduced the lower down in the command chain the plan is transferred.
1.3.1.2 A major disadvantage with this paradigm is that it’s very slow due to the sequential planning process and the message transferring mechanism supported by message-handling systems like e-mail with attachments. Likewise, it is most certain that a message-handling system introduces flaws and inconsistencies, consciously and unconsciously, when it comes to the “ground truth” presented to the commander. As a matter of fact, we all have become so used to flaws and shortcomings that we hardly reflect on them anymore.
1.3.1.3 Typically a planning situation starts with development of a strategy at the strategic HQ level. The strategy is then taken care of at the next level, e.g., Operational Headquarters (OHQ) level, where opportunities and risks are being analyzed and the overarching force structure is decided. The next stop in the command chain is typically at Force Headquarters level (FHQ) where assigned missions and objectives are further analyzed and matched with available forces as a gap analysis. The result is typically one or more OPLANs that are sent to the next subordinate level, e.g., Battle Group Headquarters (BGHQ). At this level in the command chain another analysis is made where desired effects are analyzed and matched with available national units as a gap analysis. The result is typically a CONOPS where Tasks, Conditions, and Standards to be used are expressed in a sufficient level of detail.
1.3.2 Transformation Needs
1.3.2.1 The typical non-state opponent of today is not organized in a classic hierarchical way, but in a true net-centric way where the information sharing capabilities available today in commercial technology are heavily exploited. Military coalition forces must thus transform and improve the information management capabilities or face the fact that they are always at least one step behind the opponent, resulting in unnecessary loss of lives and equipment.
1.3.2.2 In a NEC/NCW environment the information chain truly needs to be decoupled from the command chain in order to be able to speed up the process of command and control. Instead of using old message handling systems within the command chain, today’s “Need to know” paradigm must be transformed to a completely new paradigm “Need to share + Authority to know”. The information resources needed for the coalition management should be available “on-line” for everyone with the right authority so that simultaneous planning on all levels can be performed based on the intent of the commander.
1.3.2.3 The use of Enterprise Architecture, as a key enabler for interoperability and support for decision support regarding force utilization in all life cycle stages, is decided in one way or the other in all of the participating nations that constitute IDEAS. The ability to share and federate architecture data assets for coalition planning and decision support purposes is a critical capability not only within nations that has different architecture data storages that needs to be federated, but also between coalition nations that use different modelling paradigms and Architecture Frameworks. Thus the need for semantic interoperability needs to be addressed.
1.3.2.4 IDEAS defines semantic interoperability (SI) as: “the ability of two or more computerized systems to exchange information for a specific task and have the meaning of that information accurately and automatically interpreted by the receiving system, in light of the task to be performed.” The same definition is used in NATO RTO, IST-075/RTG-034 on semantic interoperability.
1.3.2.5 IDEAS had choosed to pioneer in the solution patterns that enable SI by using an ontological approach – the Business Objects Reference Ontology (BORO) Methodology – to solve semantic problems. The use of ontologies is currently the only known way to achieve semantic interoperability as defined above. In that sense, IDEAS are pioneers within the defence environment regarding a new and crucial competence area for defence. The ontological patterns and the IDEAS model that are currently developed within IDEAS can be re-used in other Communities of Interests (COIs), e.g. intelligence and C2, for enabling SI.
1.3.3 Rationale for IDEAS
1.3.3.1 This section will discuss how the IDEAS capability will overcome existing shortfalls in force planning for coalition operations by introducing a means to exchange relevant planning data on national defence capabilities over existing coalition networks.
1.3.3.2 John Zachman once said: ”You can’t manage what you can’t describe”. This is obviously true, since most decisions are based upon descriptions of the real world.
1.3.3.3 Currently, we experience the document-oriented paradigm in our everyday life within MOD or DoD. Documents are developed and signed, and unfortunately they often disappear in a flood of paper and ends up in a closet or cabinet, forgotten by everyone until they meet their final destiny in a trash bin or document shredder. The ability to re-use knowledge and build further work based on what someone else once did (and thus save time and resources), are limited.
1.3.3.4 The abbreviation IDEAS stands for “International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification for Exchange” and the words “Enterprise Architecture” is the core of the objectives for IDEAS. Some of the goals for Enterprise Architecture within defense are to support the joint warfighting capability by enabling rapid access to consistent and quality assured information about the enterprise for decisions at all levels.
1.3.3.5 By using an Architecture Framework that set the standards and rules how military enterprises shall be described in order to be understood by everyone, we can achieve what John Zachman, one of the pioneers within Enterprise Architecture, meant when he expressed ”You can’t manage what you can’t describe”.
1.3.3.6 Enterprise Architecture is a changeover from the current document-oriented paradigm to a new data centric paradigm where information about the Enterprise is captured in a model-driven way (and presented mainly as graphics instead of text) and stored in one or more architecture data repository (-ies). Thus, the repository (-ies) becomes a strategic information asset for an arbitrary enterprise.
1.3.3.7 The goal for IDEAS to create the exchange mechanism for exchange of architecture data between coalition partners US, UK, CA, and AU. NATO has also stated that the alliance will adopt the IDEAS model when it is finished. When developing the model, IDEAS takes into account the semantic heterogeneity that is a fact between the national frameworks DODAF, MODAF, DAF, and DNDAF. The method to deal with this semantic heterogeneity is using an ontological approach. Ontologies are similar to taxonomies[1] but use richer semantic relationships among terms and attributes, as well as strict rules about how to specify terms and relationships. Basically the use of ontologies is a method for solving semantic problems.
1.3.3.8 The capability developed by IDEAS will support faster and more accurate coalition planning and is a key enabler for the transformation from document-oriented planning to data-centric planning between coalition partners.
1.3.3.9 A strategic benefit for all nations participating in the IDEAS program is providing a means to enable national defense architecture data to be utilized in support of coalition operations. Unlocking these national defense architecture data resources and making them easily accessible to a coalition commander operating at a federated level, will also assist in raising the profile of Enterprise Architecture and support a shift in the emphasis of Defence architecting from building architectures to using architectures in support of Defence operations.
1.3.4 Policy Issues and Directives
1.3.4.1 This section describes the core policy issues and directives that exist or are required, to influence the future direction of the IDEAS capability.