NHQC3S, Principal Technical Coordinator THE ROLE OF ARCHITECTURES IN THE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS LIFE-CYCLE Mr Dick Whittingham NHQC3S, Principal Technical Coordinator NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED BRIEFING OUTLINE Comprehensive Political Guidance: NC3B action - C3 Planning Directive Defence Planning Life Cycle C3 Capability Development Architectures Key Points . NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

COMPREHENSIVE POLITICAL GUIDANCE Agreed by Council at end 05: Provides a framework and political direction for NATO's continuing transformation, setting out, for the next 10 to 15 years, the priorities for all Alliance capability issues, planning disciplines and intelligence. Key points as shown on slide Management mechanism also tasked NC3B, and other committees and bodies responsible for planning disciplines to provide a report to the Council by May advising the impact of the CPG. NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

COMPREHENSIVE POLITICAL GUIDANCE Agreed by Council at end 05: Provides a framework and political direction for NATO's continuing transformation, setting out, for the next 10 to 15 years, the priorities for all Alliance capability issues, planning disciplines and intelligence. Supported by a Management Mechanism agreed by Council Feb 06 gave the Executive Working Group: A role to oversee the implementation of the CPG The task to explore means to harmonise the processes of the NATO committees and bodies responsible for the relevant planning disciplines Key points as shown on slide Management mechanism also tasked NC3B, and other committees and bodies responsible for planning disciplines to provide a report to the Council by May advising the impact of the CPG. NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED CPG NC3B ACTION In response to Management Mechanism tasking, the NC3B intend to develop, inter alia, a C3 Planning Directive (CPD), for NAC agreement by end 06. The CPD will document, throughout the C3 planning life-cycle, the roles and functions of NATO and National C3 staffs and bodies and their relationships with other planning disciplines to efficiently support the delivery and use of required C3 capabilities. It will be developed in association with the Strategic Commands and the senior committees responsible for the other planning disciplines. One of the aspects highlighted by the NC3B in its report to Council is the intent to develop a CPD for NAC agreement by end 06. Text above Two key words here: Life-cycle Other planning disciplines NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED CPG NC3B ACTION In response to Management Mechanism tasking, the NC3B intend to develop, inter alia, a C3 Planning Directive (CPD), for NAC agreement by end 06. The CPD will document, throughout the C3 planning life-cycle, the roles and functions of NATO and National C3 staffs and bodies and their relationships with other planning disciplines to efficiently support the delivery and use of required C3 capabilities. It will be developed in association with the Strategic Commands and the senior committees responsible for the other planning disciplines. Let me take these 2 aspects in reverse order. What do we mean by planning disciplines? NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

OTHER PLANNING DISCIPLINES Force – Defence Review Committee Resources – Senior Resource Board Armaments – Conference of National Armaments Directors Logistics – Senior NATO Logisticians Conference Nuclear – Nuclear Planning Staff Group Civil Emergency - Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee Air Defence – NATO Air Defence Committee Standardisation – NATO Committee for Standardization Intelligence - NATO HQ Intelligence Steering Committee Partnership - Political-Military Steering Committee on PfP In addition to C3 which is the responsibility of the Nc3B, we have: First 6, plus C3 are the classic ‘planning disciplines’ as defined in defence policy The second group all have specialist responsibilities and hence for the purposes of the CPG have been accorded the status of planning disciplines The military committee is in a special category of its own: it is not a planning discipline per se, but since it is responsible to all the senior decision making bodies (the NAC , the defence Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group) for military matters, it has tight linkage to all the planning disciplines Operational planning is the front end, real world activity, with political aspects as controlled by PCG and COEC and the military aspects under the MC and the Strategic Commands (which, together with the IMS form the NATO Military Authorities (NMA) Military - Military Committee with NATO Command Structure Operational – Policy Co-ordination Group & Council Operations and Exercises Committee NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

OTHER PLANNING DISCIPLINES Force – Defence Review Committee Resources – Senior Resource Board Armaments – Conference of National Armaments Directors Logistics – Senior NATO Logisticians Conference Nuclear – Nuclear Planning Group Civil Emergency - Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee Air Defence – NATO Air Defence Committee Standardisation – NATO Committee for Standardization Intelligence - NATO HQ Intelligence Steering Committee Partnership - Political-Military Steering Committee on PfP Key points as shown on slide Military - Military Committee with NATO Command Structure Operational – Policy Co-ordination Group & Council Operations and Exercises Committee NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

OTHER PLANNING DISCIPLINES Force – Defence Review Committee Resources – Senior Resource Board Armaments – Conference of National Armaments Directors Logistics – Senior NATO Logisticians Conference Nuclear – Nuclear Planning Group Civil Emergency - Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee Air Defence – NATO Air Defence Committee Standardisation – NATO Committee for Standardization Intelligence - NATO HQ Intelligence Steering Committee Partnership - Political-Military Steering Committee on PfP Key points as shown on slide Military - Military Committee with NATO Command Structure Operational – Policy Co-ordination Group & Council Operations and Exercises Committee NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

DEFENCE PLANNING LIFE CYCLE M L O D T CAPABILITY DEFENCE PLANNING LIFE CYCLE POLITICAL EWG DRC NATIONAL ACT COLLABORATIVE CNAD OPERATIONS ACO PCG COEC C2 CONSULTATION CONTINGENCY CONCEPT DEFINITION REALISATION USAGE NATO FUNDED SRB EXERCISE ACO MILITARY NMA MC ACO ACT LL ACT Phases of the life cycle Force – Defence Review Committee Resources – Senior Resource Board Armaments – Conference of National Armaments Directors Logistics – Senior NATO Logisticians Conference Nuclear – Nuclear Planning Staff Group Civil Emergency - Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee Air Defence – NATO Air Defence Committee Standardisation – NATO Committee for Standardization Intelligence - NATO HQ Intelligence Steering Committee Partnership - Political-Military Steering Committee on PfP Operational – Policy Co-ordination Group & Council Operations and Exercises Committee Generic: diagram: Each of the ‘user’ planning disciplines controls its own activities/programmes through the life cycle Nations control the activity: both individually and collectively via committees Broad areas and key committees, let us now look at the process activities associated with moving through the life cycle LIFE CYCLE NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

DEFENCE PLANNING LIFE CYCLE - ACTIVITY CONCEPT DEFINITION REALISATION USAGE CDP CMF CP NATO FUND NATIONALLY FUND COLLABORATIVELY FUND OPERATIONAL AGREE USAGE NEEDED CAPABILITIES AGREED REQUIREMENTS FORCE DEPLOY CONFIGURE AGREE DELTA ARMAMENTS PROVE Still generic, not C3 specific: Build flow 1,2,3 realisation block: all start from common understanding of first 3 Usage involves products from all 3 areas Process names Capabilities Development Process Capability Management Framework - ACT under development CP, Resource Planning process - SRB/IC Force Planning process - DRC/ACT Armaments Planning process - CNAD Generic life cycle – applies to all specialist disciplines (logistics, nuclear, intelligence) and C3 NB C3 Charter: NC3B responsible for ensuring, in association with other planning areas, delivery of C3 capability Focus on C3 area, and begin to see why architectures play such a critical role in ensuring cohesions between the activities highlighted above, across the life cycle. MODIFY REMOVE LIFE CYCLE NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS – C3 ASPECTS REALISATION DEFINITION CONCEPT Analysis of Strategic Environment Identify capability needs Derive requirements Conduct gap analysis and fulfillment Identify possible solutions ( CDE , R & T ) Conduct implementation 1 2 3 4 5 6 OVERARCHING ARCHITECTURE This is the 6 step capability development process as taken from the CMF. The C3 Planning Directive will identify where the NC3O needs to inter-react at all the stages of the process. The OA is the key architectural enabler during the first 3 or 4 stages: drawing from the political and military ‘business requirements’ of NATO and translating them into a cohesive whole of architectural elements (in accordance with the NAF v3) for utilisation by the steps of the process and to form the basis for more detailed architectural modelling. Steps 4 and 5 and the decisions necessary to inform step 6 for implementation will require more detailed description of the NATO and National Networking and Information Infrastructure (NII) required by NATO to match NNEC needs. ACT (supported by the NHQC3S and the NC3A) are therefore seeing the need for ERAs to define the elements of the NII and the associated enterprise services. We are mainly focussing here today on the NII aspects since they are most central to the NC3B’s activities, but the construct here is equally applicable to the broader C3/C4ISR/JISR community: the OA needs to progressively encompass e.g. the Air Command and Control System, Allied Ground Surveillance, and Theatre Missile Defence and the architectures for these areas have, and will continue to need, their own (enterprise) RAs. The strength of the construct is that they will all be drawn from the same common requirement and analysis background and will be able to draw upon and influence and develop, the OA. ACT and NC3A will explain in more detail in subsequent presentations, but for the purposes of the process please note that both the OA and the ERAs draw from and provide input to the CMF, and those linkages need to be defined and recognised by all parties. That is part of the role of the CPD. ENTERPRISE REFERENCE ARCHITECTURES CAPABILITY VIEWS NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS – C3 ASPECTS REALISATION DEFINITION CONCEPT OA ERAs 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 RP 3 PROJECT CP PROCESS 1 CRD PROGRAMME + SERVICE VIEWS SUPPLEMENTED BY SYSTEM SPECIFIC RA AND TAs SERVICE VIEWS + INTERFACES FORCE PLANNING FORCE PROPOSALS GOALS NATIONAL CAPABILITY New CP process: step 1 Capabilities Requirement Definition supported by appropriate OA and ERA programme and service view elements. Steps 2 (Resource Proposal) and Step 3 (TBCE, project approval and implementation) may require, additional [system specific] RA and Target Architectures where the OA and ERA is not adequate. In this case, the System Specific elements are added to the Repository and form part of the expanding architecture data set. The essence of the construct from NAF v3 being that we re-use and share the architectural elements, focussing the description specifically on the parts that you need and adding new information only when essential. Force Planning: here we do not need to define the content of the National system merely the operational context and the services to be handled/provided by the National system and the interfaces that it needs to be compatible with NATO and other National systems. i.e. the minimal architectural sub-set that defines how the pieces fit together in the jigsaw. We have not attempted this before, which explains why we are so often challenged at present. The challenges get worse as we move to a more universally networked environment and hence the reason why our construct must provide the solution in this area. Armaments planning activities are driven by the Long Term Capability Requirements identified by the Strategic Commands. These define the highest priority requirements which require R&D activity to bring them to fruition. LTCRs in the C3 area should be supported by OA compatible statements such that as collaborative planning proceeds their characteristics can be expressed in architectural terms so identifying how the capabilities relate to the whole and facilitating entry into the Force Planning and or CP process as appropriate. ARMAMENTS PLANNING LTCR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION VIA FP AND/OR CP NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS – C3 ASPECTS REALISATION DEFINITION CONCEPT OA ERAs 1 2 3 4 5 6 RP PROJECT CP PROCESS CRD FORCE PLANNING FORCE PROPOSALS GOALS NATIONAL CAPABILITY ARMAMENTS PLANNING LTCR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION VIA FP AND/OR CP SS RA/TAs USAGE CJSOR - CIS OPERATIONAL VIEW J6 PLANNING – ACO/JFCs TEST AND VALIDATION TECHNICAL VIEW The value of architectures does not end once the capability is fielded: on the contrary the advantages of have a structured description of the capability and its relationship to other elements now comes into its own. It becomes particularly important in the deployable (expeditionary) area which is now so much the focus of NATO’s activity. The Combined Joint Statement of Requirement is the quantified structure of forces required by ACO to match a specific deployment scenario. For CIS (and for C4ISR etc systems) the operational view from the OA and ERAs provides and ideal start point for the deployment specific solution to assist J6 planners in ACO/JFCs and NCSA in their task of defining the required system and technical characteristics. These can then, in turn, be used to drive the interoperability test and validation activities essential to make the deployment work. The structured definitions (including, for example spectrum views from the OA) and the fact that all the information can be continuously fed back into the common architectural repository, assists controlled spiral development and avoids nugatory activity. It also provides a firm basis for a consistent lessons learned process We have made good use of this architectural approach in the ‘usage’ area during our recent work on NRF interoperability issues. However, we have only just begun to scratch the surface and I believe we will can significant advantage as we move this are forward in future. SPIRAL DEVELOPMENT LESSONS LEARNED NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES PROCESS – C3 ASPECTS REALISATION DEFINITION CONCEPT OA ERAs 1 2 3 4 5 6 RP PROJECT CP PROCESS CRD FORCE PLANNING FORCE PROPOSALS GOALS NATIONAL CAPABILITY ARMAMENTS PLANNING LTCR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION VIA FP AND/OR CP SS RA/TAs USAGE CJSOR - CIS J6 PLANNING – ACO/JFCs TEST AND VALIDATION SPIRAL DEVELOPMENT LESSONS LEARNED So, that is the life cycle: before I summarise some key points let me just address some control and management issues first for the C3 planning process in general and then for architectures in particular. ACT has prime responsibility in the first 3 areas of our life cycle and they obviously need some fairly complex tools control and manage the activities. Mark Voss will talk about capability area Plans and Capability Area Improvement Programmes and their relationship to the process and top architectures Management mechanisms CAP associated with Transformational Objective Areas IS/NNEC CAIPs Item 7 CAPABILITY AREA PLANS CAPABILITY AREA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED

NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED KEY POINTS The NC3B will develop this year a C3 Planning Directive to define the process for the delivery and use of required C3 capabilities and the relationships between the C3 community and the other planning disciplines Architectures are an essential element of a cohesive C3 planning process and have an important part to play throughout the life-cycle The C3 planning process identifies the types and nature of the architectures that are required To be effective, architectures must be developed and maintained as a cohesive whole (in accordance with the NAF v3 and the NMM) Key success factor: all Stakeholders must support and subscribe . NATO/EAPC UNCLASSIFIED