International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
UJTL Ontology Effort TMCM Nelson And Marti Hall. Overview Vision for the UJTL and METLs Scenario Mapping Findings Proposed POA&M outline.
Advertisements

Human Views for MODAF Dr Anne Bruseberg Systems Engineering & Assessment Ltd, UK on behalf of the Human Factors Integration Defence Technology Centre.
S&I Framework Provider Directories Initiative esMD Work Group October 19, 2011.
Introduction to the State-Level Mitigation 20/20 TM Software for Management of State-Level Hazard Mitigation Planning and Programming A software program.
Introduction and Overview “the grid” – a proposed distributed computing infrastructure for advanced science and engineering. Purpose: grid concept is motivated.
Integration of Applications MIS3502: Application Integration and Evaluation Paul Weinberg Adapted from material by Arnold Kurtz, David.
1 Introduction to System Engineering G. Nacouzi ME 155B.
Defence R&D Canada R et D pour la défense Canada UNCLASSIFIED – APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Challenges for a Distributed Collaborative Environment Functioning.
WHAT IS CQI? Contact the CQI Committee: (360)
Basic Concepts The Unified Modeling Language (UML) SYSC System Analysis and Design.
Chapter 6– Artifacts of the process
EDS Incident Command System Tabletop Exercise [Exercise Location] [Exercise Date] [Insert Logo Here]
 To explain the importance of software configuration management (CM)  To describe key CM activities namely CM planning, change management, version management.
Organizing Your Information
NATO Unclassified Mr. Henrik DAM Chairman SWGI 10/12/2015 NATO Unclassified.

Data Segmentation for Privacy November 16 th, 2011.
Improving your Audit Process Through Technology Christopher McDonald Director of Field Loss Prevention, Babies R’ Us Inc.
TDRp Implementation Challenges David Vance, Executive Director Peggy Parskey, Assistant Director October 23, 2014.
JNTC Joint Management Office
EGEE-II INFSO-RI Enabling Grids for E-sciencE NA3 procedures.
Program Design Chapter 5 6 th Edition Raymond A. Noe Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
Taking IDEAS Forward in the MOD
Discussion Topics for Exploring OMG UPDM Way-ahead
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
Program Design Chapter 5
IDEAS Model for Coalition Architecture Interoperability
Business process management (BPM)
“New” things Discussed in London
Briefing to DoDAF 2.0 Development Team TBD 2007
IDEAS Data Exchange Format (RDFS)
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
Business process management (BPM)
Understanding and Utilizing the ISP Analysis Process
CV-1: Vision The overall vision for transformational endeavors, which provides a strategic context for the capabilities described and a high-level scope.
Conceptual Model of Integrated Planning
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
Briefing to DoDAF 2.0 Development Team TBD 2007
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
XML Based Interoperability Components
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
The Two Most Common Types of Contemporary Planning Techniques
CAPT RUSTY STILES Deputy Fleet Surgeon U.S. Fleet Forces Command
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
Reviewing RIPE Accountability
Architecture Data Exchange Experiments Military Utility Demonstration
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
Architecture Data Exchange Experiments Military Utility Demonstration
Unit# 5: Internet and Worldwide Web
Coordinate Operations Standard
IDEAS Core Model Concept
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS)
“New” things Discussed in London
“New” things Discussed in London
, editor October 8, 2011 DRAFT-D
Engineering Quality Software
CORE Name: CORE® Description:
Hands-On: FSA Assessments For Foreign Schools
Global Grid Forum (GGF) Orientation
The Two Most Common Types of Contemporary Planning Techniques
Schedule Management Plan
Time Scheduling and Project management
CSE591: Data Mining by H. Liu
“New” things Discussed in London
Presentation transcript:

International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS) Architecture Data Exchange Experiments Military Utility Demonstration Coalition Operations Planning Collaboration Doctrine and Procedures Interoperability Medical Example

Why Are We Here? To update JFCOM on current initiatives of the multi-national “IDEAS” Group To solicit suggestions and inputs To solicit inputs on areas of concern to JFCOM for future initiative planning

Current Interoperability Initiative What are we trying to do? Demonstrate the military utility of flexible and interoperable exchange of architecture data. What aspects of interoperability is this experiment series focused on? Doctrinal and procedural interoperability. Interoperability between a diverse and ever evolving set of automated architecture design tools. What challenges are we addressing ? Providing precise and unambiguous representation and exchange of coalition doctrine and procedures utilizing the precision and discipline that the DoDAF and MODAF architecture standards and products require. Enabling clear and unambiguous visualization of the differences in multi-national doctrine and procedures. Enabling near real-time collaboration and analysis of associated interoperability problems in a multi-national, geographically dispersed environment.

Current Interoperability Initiative (Cont.) What is the current scope (Experiment 08)? Exchange and collaborative analysis of Process data flow (OV-5) and Event Trace/Sequences (OV-6c) data. Demonstrate candidate visualization tools and techniques. Evaluate the precision of the data exchange. What are the current enabling technologies? Evolving technologies in Internet exchange techniques and ontology's allowing increased precision in data interoperability (i.e. XML, XSI, WXSD, RDF/OWL, etc.). Precise data models representing the architectural data. Emerging improvements in visualization and business intelligence tools. How does such an exchange help a coalition ops planner? Brings out unknowns ahead of time, e.g.: Activities expected to be performed that aren’t Reporting expected, but doesn’t occur Event responses or triggers expected that don’t occur Timeline expectations differences between national procedures Enables the identification of automation opportunities and process improvements.

Process comparison requires complex analysis CONDITIONS? IE-03 IE-04 IE-05 IE-06 SEQUENCES? RESOURCES? Process A IE-01 IE-02 IE-08 Activity 3 Activity 5 TIMING? EVENTS? Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4 IE-07 TRIGGERS? IE-09 CONDITIONS? IE-06 IE-07 IE-03 IE-04 IE-05 SEQUENCES? RESOURCES? Process B IE-01 IE-02 Activity 3 IE-08 IE-09 EVENTS? TIMING? Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4 TRIGGERS?

Current Experiment Direction Compare and contrast coalition processes Nations agreed on a Military Casualty Management example scenario. Who are the players? (AU, CA, UK, US) Other examples-Need JFCOM input Candidate NATO Operational Processes of concern. Known doctrine/process differences (Identify country Process differences causing potential interoperability problems)

Military Utility (Current Example) Medical Casualty Management Purpose To demonstrate potential military operational utility of enabling interoperable exchange of Doctrine and Procedural data utilizing precise DoDAF/MoDAF architecture data. Approach Contrast “as-is” processes with with potential “to-be” methods Show relevance to procedures, tools, methods, etc., that coalition planners would actually use Objective To seek out automation opportunities and document how the Coalition Ops Planning scenario are done today: Identify manual, time consuming processes? (paper, email, faxes, phone calls, meetings, …) Enable discovery of issues in the field (on-the-job interoperability) Make specific to the current example. Needs work

Military Utility (Current Example) Medical Casualty Management Expected Results Risks Make specific to the current example. Needs work

“As Is” Casualty Management Scenario – Manual Execution Paper, email, faxes, phone calls, meetings, etc.

Enabling technologies & tools considered in the experiment Visualization Environment Decision Environment Enabling technologies & tools considered in the experiment Relational DB Query Environment SQL Query OWL/RDFS DB Data Mining Environment RDFS Database IDEAS Data Exchange Format (RDFS)

EXPERIMENT ’08 Process Comparison Approach Provide rigorous representation of the process data flow and sequencing (OV-5 and OV-6c) precise data representations. Identify Alternative Visualization and Analysis Techniques Provide Candidate Visualization Techniques (Enable Analysis of Doctrine and Process Differences) Precise Data Model (Enable Unambiguous Data Exchange)

EXERCISE ’09 Demonstrate Multi-National data exchange and collaborative analysis. Implement techniques in a diverse tool set Evaluate Precision of data exchange Demonstrate ability to identify manual, time consuming processes? (paper, email, faxes, phone calls, meetings, …) Demonstrate the ability to discover issues in the field (on-the-job interoperability) Needs work

Current Efforts and Progress to Date Mock-up AU-CA-UK-US casualty mgmt process comparison displays (underway): Highlight different processes, sequences, information flows, event triggers Possible side-by-side comparison analysis Post on IDEAS FTP site for review US review with Joint Forces Command Once OK, examine tools for potential process comparison functionality Needs work *truly different, names assumed aligned or mapped

Current Status Initial Process Representation and Comparison UK time for this process: 1hr, 50 min Casualties are received and sent to be processed and transported CA time for this process: 1hr, 30 min CA assigns AO; UK does not Two similar, but different processes for notifying Next of Kin…

Dynamic Comparison Scenario Model execution “Notifying Next of Kin” Casualties are received and sent to be processed and transported

Both UK and CA begin Process & Transport activities… UK P&T activity begins Casualties are received and sent to be processed and transported CA P&T activity begins

CA completes P&T activity and begins process of assigning AO while UK continues P&T process… Casualties are received and sent to be processed and transported CA completes P&T activity and begins process of assigning AO

UK Process completed in 1hr, 50 min UK process is completed in 1 hr., 50 minutes while CA continues AO Assignment process… UK Process completed in 1hr, 50 min CA process continues

Process Comparison Example UK NOK notification process completed in 1 hr., 50 minutes CA NOK notification process completed in 2 hrs., 30 minutes UK NOK notification process completed in 1 hr., 50 minutes CA NOK notification process completed in 2 hrs., 30 minutes Coalition average: 2 hrs., 10 min

Summary Needs work

Questions?

Backups

Comparing Processes In two or more distinct processes … Process A Activity 3 Activity 5 Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4 Process B Activity 3 Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4

Comparing Processes Similarities must be easy to identify … Process A Activity 3 Activity 5 Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4 Process B Activity 3 Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4

Comparing Processes As well as differences in those processes … Process A Activity 3 Activity 5 Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4 Process B Activity 3 Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4

Comparing Processes What about the information exchanged? Process A IE-03 IE-04 IE-05 IE-06 Process A IE-01 IE-02 IE-08 Activity 3 Activity 5 Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4 IE-07 IE-09 IE-06 IE-07 IE-03 IE-04 IE-05 Process B IE-01 IE-02 Activity 3 IE-08 IE-09 Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4

Comparing Processes Again, differences exist between the processes and must be identified… IE-03 IE-04 IE-05 IE-06 Process A IE-01 IE-02 IE-08 Activity 3 Activity 5 Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4 IE-07 IE-09 IE-06 IE-07 IE-03 IE-04 IE-05 Process B IE-01 IE-02 Activity 3 IE-08 IE-09 Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4

What about other considerations? CONDITIONS? IE-03 IE-04 IE-05 IE-06 SEQUENCES? RESOURCES? Process A IE-01 IE-02 IE-08 Activity 3 Activity 5 TIMING? EVENTS? Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4 IE-07 TRIGGERS? IE-09 CONDITIONS? IE-06 IE-07 IE-03 IE-04 IE-05 SEQUENCES? RESOURCES? Process B IE-01 IE-02 Activity 3 IE-08 IE-09 EVENTS? TIMING? Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4 TRIGGERS?

Available tools for comparisons? CONDITIONS? IE-03 IE-04 IE-05 IE-06 SEQUENCES? RESOURCES? Process A IE-01 IE-02 IE-08 Activity 3 Activity 5 TIMING? EVENTS? Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4 IE-07 TRIGGERS? IE-09 CONDITIONS? IE-06 IE-07 IE-03 IE-04 IE-05 SEQUENCES? RESOURCES? Process B IE-01 IE-02 Activity 3 IE-08 IE-09 EVENTS? TIMING? Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 6 Activity 4 TRIGGERS?

International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS) 10 Sep – 14 Sep 07 London, England