Brad Stubbs 19 Nov 02 DISA/TIS/TS3

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
AIM CPM/LOM Tom Bonnano N74 21 August 2014.
Advertisements

Chief, Washington Operations Joint Interoperability Test Command Agile Test & Evaluation – A Workforce Evolution.
© 2009 The MITRE Corporation. All rights Reserved. Evolutionary Strategies for the Development of a SOA-Enabled USMC Enterprise Mohamed Hussein, Ph.D.
Systems Engineering in a System of Systems Context
May 17, Capabilities Description of a Rapid Prototyping Capability for Earth-Sun System Sciences RPC Project Team Mississippi State University.
© 2006 Carnegie Mellon University Establishing a Network Centric Capability: Implications for Acquisition and Engineering Dennis Smith Complex System Symposium.
Reference Architecture for Enterprise Integration CIMOSA GRAI/GIM PERA Dima Nazzal.
The Software Product Life Cycle. Views of the Software Product Life Cycle  Management  Software engineering  Engineering design  Architectural design.
Architecture Description Markup Language (ADML) What does it mean? Why should a tools vendor care?
Enterprise Architecture
NDIA SE Division Meeting February 13, Developmental Test and Evaluation Committee Beth Wilson, Raytheon Steve Scukanec, Northrop Grumman Industry.
Chapter 2 The process Process, Methods, and Tools
THE PROTOTYPING MODEL The prototyping model begins with requirements gathering. Developer and customer meet and define the overall objectives for the software.
UNCLASSIFIED Joint and Coalition Warfighting Mr. John Vinett March 2012 Technical Baseline Capability.
Why is BCL Needed? BCL addresses long-standing challenges that have impacted the delivery of business capabilities The DepSecDef directed increasing the.
High Level Architecture Overview and Rules Thanks to: Dr. Judith Dahmann, and others from: Defense Modeling and Simulation Office phone: (703)
Sheri Ginett, IIDA, NCIDQ, Interior Architects Carol Fadden, Duke Energy September 9, 2015 OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE PROGRESSIVE + STRATEGIC WORKPLACE.
XMSF and Command & Control - GIG, XBML/C4I Testbed, XDV, XMSF Profiles Dr. Andreas Tolk Old Dominion University (ODU) - Virginia Modeling Analysis and.
Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Data Management, and Data Standardization Efforts at the U.S. Department of Education May 2006 Joe Rose, Chief Architect.
+ Chapter 9: Management of Business Intelligence © Sabherwal & Becerra-Fernandez.
D Appendix D.11. Toward Net-Centric Acquisition Oversight A Proposal for an Acquisition Community of Interest (COI) MID 905 Streamlined Acquisition.
EPA Geospatial Segment United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Information Enterprise Architecture Program Segment Architecture.
Michael Campe U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command NDIA TID Technical Information Division Symposium Royal Sonesta Hotel, New Orleans, LA August 2003.
Defense Information Systems Agency A Combat Support Agency E3 Engineering Division 13 December 2011 Defense Information Systems Agency A Combat Support.
Advances in Decision Modeling: The DMSO Vector Lt Col Eileen A. Bjorkman Chief, Concepts Application Division Zach Furness C4I Program Manager 31 July.
Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework Extensible 3D Graphics (X3D) Don Brutzman MOVES Institute, Naval Postgraduate School Andreas Tolk VMASC, Old.
Independent Expert Program Review (IEPR) February 2006.
Arlington, VA March 31, 2004 Presentation for the Advisory Committee for Business & Operations Effective Practices Research Overview For Merit Review This.
Enterprise Engineering Directorate (EE)
JNTC Joint Management Office
+ Informatics 122 Software Design II Lecture 13 Emily Navarro Duplication of course material for any commercial purpose without the explicit written permission.
1 SAIC XMSF Update XMSF Workshop & MOVES Open House 4-5 August 2003 Katherine L. Morse, Ph.D., David L. Drake, Ryan.
UNCLASSIFIED 1 United States Joint Forces Command Joint Warfighting Center United States Joint Forces Command Joint Warfighting Center LTC John Janiszewski.
1 Acquisition Automation – Challenges and Pitfalls Breakout Session # E11 Name: Jim Hargrove and Allen Edgar Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 Time: 2:30 pm-3:45.
1 The XMSF Profile Overlay to the FEDEP Dr. Katherine L. Morse, SAIC Mr. Robert Lutz, JHU APL
Mgt Project Portfolio Management and the PMO Module 8 - Fundamentals of the Program Management Office Dr. Alan C. Maltz Howe School of Technology.
Requirements of an ITS/Simulation Interoperability Standard (I/SIS)
Discussion Topics for Exploring OMG UPDM Way-ahead
CLE Introduction to Agile Software Acquisition
Megacities: Rebuilding A Roadmap for Sustained Collaboration, Learning, and Training Kevin M. Felix COL(R), US Army.
Unified Architecture Framework NATO Architecture CaT Introduction
Coalition Battle Management Language Industry Task Team Proposal
Architectures in Support of Capability Development
PMRIPT Portal Team.
Workshop for ACT – IAC, EA-SIG Mr. David McDaniel (ctr) 20 July 2012
“SG-Systems” (Smart Grid – Operational Applications Integration) “Boot Camp” Overview Brent Hodges, Chair, SG-Systems Greg Robinson, Co-Chair, SG-Systems.
Agenda All-Monday 15 Sep 0800 Welcome - Opening remarks
IBM Start Now Host Integration Solutions
Enterprise Architecture EA Principles Revisions CIO Council Update
The Extensible Tool-chain for Evaluation of Architectural Models
13 November 2018.
XMSF and Command & Control - GIG, XBML/C4I Testbed, XDV, XMSF Profiles
DoD Automatic Test Systems (ATS) Strategies
18 November 2018.
Bush/Rumsfeld Defense Priorities/Objectives A Mandate For Change
Defense Logistics: Integrated and Efficient
Architecture Data Exchange Experiments Military Utility Demonstration
Software engineering -1
General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems
Architecture Data Exchange Experiments Military Utility Demonstration
Stumpf and Teague Object-Oriented Systems Analysis and Design with UML
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
United Nations Statistics Division
Stumpf and Teague Object-Oriented Systems Analysis and Design with UML
Independent Expert Program Review (IEPR)
Steering Committee Brief to the DoD M&S Conference 2008
CORE Name: CORE® Description:
Agenda Purpose for Project Goals & Objectives Project Process & Status Common Themes Outcomes & Deliverables Next steps.
Perspectives on Transforming DT and OT Industry-Government Roundtable
Open Systems and Open Architecture – the benefits case
Presentation transcript:

Brad Stubbs 19 Nov 02 DISA/TIS/TS3 Status Briefing, Objective 2, ASD(C3I) Information Superiority Modeling and Simulation Master Plan Brad Stubbs 19 Nov 02 DISA/TIS/TS3 Unclassified

Agenda Today’s Discussion Related DISA/TIS Activities Information Superiority M&S Master Plan: Objective 2 - C4ISR/M&S Interoperability Related DISA/TIS Activities PM for the J-6 NETWARS Provide communications data for JWARS Research on impact of communications on combat outcome Network modeling for GIG-BE and DISN Instrumentation of Combatant Command networks for operations and exercises Modeling of impact of Joint applications on networks and other applications

ASD(C3I) Tasking to DISA Serve as lead organization to address IS M&S MP Objective 2 (Improve the Integration of Models and Simulations with Real C4ISR Systems) Determine the severity of C4ISR systems and M&S compatibility problems; establish cost-effectiveness boundaries Establish, in combination with Service efforts, long term common goals for the integration of M&S and C4ISR systems; prioritize initiatives required to meet these goals Recommend mechanisms for supporting the use of M&S within the DII COE to satisfy operational & training requirements Develop a set of "needs" for Joint C4ISR decision-support tools and a set of initiatives to address these needs Increase interoperability and seek to optimize Service development activities through Joint solutions

Approach Met with Service M&S offices (AMSO, AFAMS, NAVMSMO), DMSO, JFCOM and selected service program representatives Solicited input on new initiatives or existing efforts which should receive greater emphasis Identified relevant ongoing activities and key proponents Established overall framework but focused on topics that can be addressed over the near term Developed series of strawman documents and circulated them for comment among interested parties (ongoing) Consolidate inputs and develop an draft investment plan to submit to ASD(C3I)

Some Recent Efforts Service Activities DOD Activities Others Army Simulation to C4I (SIMCI) program Naval Training Meta-FOM and Embedded Simulation Infrastructure Program Air Force Joint Synthetic Battlespace DOD Activities DMSO efforts on C4I-Simulation integration DII/COE M&S Technical Working Group Others SISO SG on C4ISR/Sim Technical Reference Model NATO Generic Hub Data Model eXtensible Modeling & Simulation Framework (XMSF)

What Impedes Progress? Historic divisions between traditional “M&S” and “operational support” software development communities Custom solutions don’t generalize or endure Current Service efforts and programs are not focused on Joint operational solutions Lack of funding to develop Joint C4ISR/ Simulation architecture, standards, and development roadmap

Proposed Initiatives Standardize mechanisms for exchanging data between C4ISR systems and M&S domain Add M&S related APIs and services into DII/COE Standardize capability to import comm network performance data into M&S domain Apply existing and emerging technologies to allow rapid integration of simulations and C4ISR systems Establish a system engineering process to monitor and coordinate efforts

Standardized mechanisms for exchanging data Fundamental to integration of M&S and C4ISR systems Issue being actively addressed by several groups (SISO, Army SIMCI, DII/COE M&S TWG, DMSO) Multiple “point solutions” have been demonstrated; emerging technology (XML and OMG efforts) supports a more general approach

Standardized mechanisms for exchanging data Description: Using the Army JCDB, Navy Training Meta-FOM, NATO Generic Hub and ongoing efforts within the services, derive a preliminary set of XML elements representing this data. Develop a tool to transform these XML elements into appropriate input data for selected simulations. Refine the data elements and expand the set of supported simulations. Schedule – TBD (Years 1-2 focus on data elements. Years 3-5 focus on support of simulations and refinement of data elements.) Resource Profile Y1 $1.0M Y2 $1.0M Y3 $1.5M Y4 $1.5M Y5 $1.5M

DII/COE M&S APIs and Services Many basic capabilities seem to be already available (mapping, terrain data and analysis, data filtering, etc.) Significant preliminary work already accomplished by DII/COE M&S TWG Ongoing work by NRL has developed an initial set of reusable capabilities for decision support applications

DII/COE M&S APIs and Services Description: Implement subset of capabilities identified by DII/COE M&S TWG into DII/COE and use to support development of enhanced “COPs” and operational support tools Schedule - TBD (Key capabilities include”virtual clock”, generalized geographically based 3-D visualization capability, use of multiple “labeled” (e.g. real or simulated) data sources, and abstraction of communications channels) Resource Profile Y1 $0.7M Y2 $1.0M Y3 $1.2M Y4 $1.3M Y5 $1.5M

Import of Communications Network Data into M&S Domain Communications system performance a key operational consideration Many course of action analysis tools require communications system performance data as an input Leverages DISA expertise and ongoing efforts Addresses a need within multiple M&S areas

Import of Communications Network Data into M&S Domain Description: Define, in coordination with JNMS and DISA Remote View programs, a common representation for network configuration & performance data to be used in simulations. Develop tools that can use real world measured data as well as predict end-to-end communications performance parameters under variations in traffic and topology. Schedule - TBD (Years 1-2 focus on data definition, implementation and time-interval presentation. Years 3-5 focus on development of performance prediction.) Resource Profile Y1 $2.0M Y2 $2.2M Y3 $2.2M Y4 $2.3M Y5 $2.4M

Technologies for Integration of Simulations and C4ISR Systems Increasing need to interconnect real systems and simulation environments Strong desire to increase flexibility while reducing integration effort Emerging technologies (XML, UML, Web technologies, OMG efforts) support reuse and incremental development

Technologies for Integration of Simulations and C4ISR Systems Description: Develop, with J9 lead, a UML based description of selected C4ISR systems and supporting simulations so that experiments to evaluate different DOTMLPF capabilities can be rapidly composed. Define an XML based standard for data exchange and develop automated tool for identifying data transformations and, as a long term goal, instancing appropriate software. Schedule - TBD (Years 1-2 would focus on overall architecture and ~2 systems and simulations, Years 3-5 would take on 3-4 systems and simulations annually) Resource Profile Y1 $2.5M Y2 $3.0M Y3 $3.0M Y4 $3.5M Y5 $3.5M

System Engineering Process Absent a structured system engineering process, M&S integration with operational C4ISR systems will remain a incomplete set of custom solutions Large degree of potential synergy with efforts under IS M&S MP Objective 4 (M&S Support to Acquisition) Ongoing Service efforts promising but not coordinated

System Engineering Process Description: Designate a lead agency to monitor and coordinate activities within DoD elements, and conduct a multi-year effort to evolve standards and develop common use components Schedule – TBD (Year 1 - identify relevant efforts within DoD, Industry and Academia emphasizing existing tools and standards. Years 2-5 – develop and refine overall architecture and common descriptive data; identify opportunities for cooperation/joint efforts Resource Profile Y1 $0.6M Y2 $0.75M Y3 $1.0M Y4 $1.0M Y5 $1.0M

Proposed Funding Profile Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Total Standardized Data Exchange $1.0M $1.5M $6.5M DII/COE M&S APIs $0.7M $1.2M $1.3M $5.7M Import of Comm Performance Data $2.0M $2.2M $2.3M $11.0M Technologies for C4ISR/Sim Integration $2.5M $3.0M $3.5M $15.5M System Engineering Process $0.6M $4.3M $6.8M $7.9M $8.9M $9.6M $9.8M $42.5M

Summary Significant level of activity within community but it largely lacks a Joint perspective Several near-term improvements are possible and supported by current technology Need to develop more general vice “one of a kind” integration solutions Oversight and coordination needed to achieve Joint capabilities Implementation as part Net Centric Enterprise Services (NCES) key to longer term efforts