United States Joint Forces Command Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E)

1. United States Joint Forces Command Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E) Interagency and Multinational Information Sharing Architecture and Solutions (IMISAS) Baseline Assessment Report Overview 7 December 2010 Mr. Stephen Sullivan, CTR Capstone Corporation IMISAS Project Lead Analyst Joint Concept Development & Experimentation USJFCOM, J9

2. Agenda • Overview • Research • Gaps • Validation and Potential Solutions • Next Steps

3. Agenda • Overview • Research • Gaps • Validation and Potential Solutions • Next Steps

4. IMISAS Concept User Defined Information Sharing Multi-national National / Inter-agency Combatant Commands User Defined Information Sharing User Defined Information Sharing User Defined Information Sharing Policies Firewalls Web Servers • Shared • Environment • Text Chat • File Transfer • Email Publish Info Collect Info Processes UN / Inter-governmental NGO / Private Procedures Produce Info User Defined Information Sharing Email Servers Gateways Culture

5. What is a Baseline Assessment? • A deliberate process / product to understand the problem and propose solutions • Identifies required capabilities • Identifies capability gaps (current/planned ability vs. required) • Proposes solutions • Prerequisite for experimentation

6. Problem Statement • FY 11 Warfighter Challenge #1: • USEUCOM and USAFRICOM require the capability to share essential information with Interagency partners, Coalition and Alliance partners, or emerging partner nations' in bi-lateral or multinational efforts. The capability gap is the result of: • restrictive network access and information sharing policies; • restrictive and cumbersome accreditation procedures for coalition networks and systems; • lack of a coherent / unified strategy for a whole of government (to include foreign government) approach to an information sharing / collaborative environment; and • resourcing to support that environment and its associated network enterprise services. • Problem Statement: • COCOMs lack a coherent framework / capability to share information and collaborate across multiple domains with a broad range of mission partners (government / interagency, multi-national, multi-lateral & private sector) due primarily to restrictive policies, conflicting authorities, ad hoc / non-existent procedures, business rules and non-interoperable networks and systems.

7. Timeline Engagement Activities Community of Interest conference calls Interviews, conferences, meetings USEUCOM / USAFRICOM Site Visit Gap and Solution Conference Community Engagement Potential Solutions Gaps / Analysis Assessment Requirements Discovery Discovery 1. Gather USEUCOM & USAFRICOM UIS Requirements 2. Review current UIS platforms in use : (APAN, HarmonieWeb, InRelief.org, CimicWeb) 3. Collect data produced by other UIS requirements gathering efforts 4. Explore cross domain aspects 5. Examine best attributes of the current platforms and develop recommendations for enhancements to UIS capabilities Nov 15 Nov 19 Nov 24 Dec 7 Dec 9 Sept 17 Dec 30 USEUCOM USAFRICOM Site Visit Gaps & Solutions Conference Final BA Report Draft BAR

8. Project Performance-Based Work Statement (PBWS) Statement of the Military Problem Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Objective 1 Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 3 Where we are in the BA Process • Phase 1: Frame the • Assessment • Purpose, Background, Context (JCAs) • Draft Methodology and Timeline • Draft Constraints, Limitations and • Assumptions (CLAs) and Study Issues 1 Conference • Phase 3: Identify • the Gaps • Gap Identification • Assessment • Gap Prioritization • Phase 2: Focus • the Assessment • Literature Review /Source • Review Spreadsheet • Capabilities Crosswalk • CLAs and Metric Development • Conceptual Model • Phase 4: Identify • Potential Solutions • ID Existing / “Potential Solutions” • Prioritize Solutions / Solution Sets • Re-assess Gap Risk 2 3 4 • Synthesis and Report • BA Recommendations • Input to POA&M • Project • POA&M • CD&E Recommendations = Assessment Review #

9. Agenda • Overview • Research • Gaps • Validation and Potential Solutions • Next Steps

10. Systems / Tools Overview • Web portals • APAN v4.0 with proposed enhancements • HarmonieWeb • InRelief • Cross Domain • CDCIE (SIPRNET / NIPRNET / Public Domains) • Networks • Afghan Mission Network (AMN) • CWID Technologies • Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Flickr) • Geographic Information System (GIS) tools • Cloud Computing Snapshot of Discovery

11. Documents (1 of 4) • Over 300 documents reviewed • 100 + assessed in depth • Literature selections are posted on Conference Portals • Listing • Multinational and other Mission Partners (MNMP) C2 Information Sharing Capability Definition Package (CDP) (USJFCOM) • DoD Information Sharing Implementation Plan (ISIP) (ASD-NII / CIO) • Interagency Shared Situational Awareness (IA SSA) Project (Final Report) (USJFCOM) • Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Capabilities for Support of Stabilization and Reconstruction, Disaster Relief, and Humanitarian and Civic Assistance Operations (ASD-NII / CIO)

13. Documents (2 of 4) • Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Development and Relief Settings (CARE USA) • Unclassified Information Sharing Capability (UISC) Concept of Operations (Joint Staff) • Agile Coalition Environment (ACE) Capability Gap Analysis (Report) (Referentia, Mr. Tim Williams) • Interagency National Security Professional Education, Administration, and Development System Act of 2010 (INSPEAD System Act of 2010) (Congress) • Controlled Unclassified Information (POTUS) • Joint Distributed Operations (JDO) Limited Objective Experiment (LOE) – Human Factors Analysis (HFA) (USJFCOM) • A Guide to Strengthened Civil-Military Cooperation in the Combatant Commands Area of Responsibility (USJFCOM) • Agile Coalition Environment (ACE) Freedom within a Framework (SPAWAR) • HARMONIEWeb: A Collaboration Portal for US Joint Forces Command that Supports Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (MicroLink)

14. Documents (3 of 4) • A Snapshot of Emerging U.S. Government Civilian Capabilities to Support Foreign Reconstruction and Stabilization Contingencies (IDA) • Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise – Enabling Mission Powered Partnerships (OUSD-I) • DoD Enterprise Services Designation, Collaboration, Content Discovery, and Content Delivery (ASD-NII / CIO) • Humanitarian and Civic Assistance (HCA) Activities (OUSD-P) • Irregular Warfare (DoD) • Implementing Procedures for the Humanitarian and Civic Assistance (OUSD-P) • Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation (TISC) Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) (Brief) (DISA) • Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation (TISC) Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (White Paper) (TISC JCTD Integrated Management Team) • Humanitarian and Civic Assistance (HCA) Program (DSCA) • UnityNet: A Globally Deployable Sensor for 'White' Information (DIA) • Joint Medical Executive Skills Development Program (DoD)

15. Documents (4 of 4) • DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) (ASD-NII/CIO) • Joint Warfighting Collaboration Required Capabilities - Synchronous (Joint Staff) • Joint Warfighting Collaboration Required Capabilities – Asynchronous/Portal (Joint Staff) • Civilian – Military Cooperation Policy (paper) (USAID) • Interagency Shared Situational Awareness (IA SSA) Guide (USJFCOM) • Stability Operations (OUSD-P)

16. Site Visit (1 of 4) Takeaways • Culture • DoD organizational culture creates unintended barriers to information sharing and collaboration resulting in misunderstandings, lack of trust and ultimately missed opportunities to save lives • Within DoD • Across the “Whole of Government” • International Community • Predominantly non-military operations (HA/DR) often present cultural challenges for the DoD • Shift toward a push rather than pull information mentality with partners • A mindset and behaviors that focus on what DoD can provide rather than what we need • Organizational culture paradigm shift toward encouraging trust

17. Site Visit (1 of 4) Takeaways • Culture • Lack of understanding of organizational culture differences between the DoD and Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs) / Private Volunteer Organizations (PVOs) complicates information sharing and collaboration • Charters • Neutrality • Independence • DoD information assurance structures and information security policies and procedures are often not communicated clearly to potential mission partner organizations • Misunderstandings, frustration, and lost time and effort • Missed opportunities to save lives

18. Site Visit (2 of 4) Takeaways • Policies and Procedures • Both Combatant Commanders identified a need for: • Strategy /policy to effectively integrate social media information • Improved processes and procedures to streamline inclusion of partners into existing systems and networks • Standardized Knowledge Management (KM) and business rules for DoD communications support to Department of State (DoS) and “ Whole of Government” during operations • A model which enables information sharing – consider “creator as releaser" for UNCLASSIFIED information • Combatant Commanders experience: • Frustration with Common Access Cards (CAC) – a need for streamlined, intuitive and less burdensome procedures • Ambiguities in interpretation of unclassified information sharing policies contributing to lost opportunities to engage partners

19. Site Visit (3 of 4) Takeaways • Policies and Procedures (Continued) • HA / DR mission analysis is required to: • Identify interagency roles, responsibilities, authorities and information exchange requirements • Utilize embedded interagency representatives and Liaison Officers (LNOs) more effectively to build better awareness of partner capabilities and limitations • DoD needs to define the education, training, and qualification requirements for services to interact more successfully as part of a “Whole of Government” approach to sharing information in HA / DR operations

20. Site Visit (4 of 4) Takeaways • Technical • Different network focus between European and African Commands • USEUCOM primarily works on SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Net) • USAFRICOM works on NIPRNET (Nonsecure Internet Protocol Router Net) • Large variance in communication capabilities and capacity across Africa • Wireless infrastructure consistently robust in Europe, but less mature in Africa • Geospatial situational awareness and User-Defined Operational Picture (UDOP) are essential for operational response • Multilingual chat is important in both theatres • Technical and procedural incompatibilities impede accessibility and transfer of information between DoS and Combatant Commanders

21. Agenda • Overview • Research • Gaps • Validation and Potential Solutions • Next Steps

22. Identify the Gaps Purpose: Identify and prioritize current (or future) force deficiencies • Identify shortfalls in capability, capacity or authority • Identify gap between the “as-is” or “current state of art and practice” to requirements needed to mitigate/solve the problem • Develop and implement process for grouping and selection of gaps • Establish a methodology and appropriate venues for prioritizing gaps • Are Gaps: • A Joint issue? • Observable/ measurable in an experiment? • Addressable within time/ resources of project? 4 Determine if the Joint Force has a capability gap Determine the required capability Are the gaps in Capability, Capacity, and/or Authority? 1 2 3 Not a project experiment candidate N Your input is the is the key to success Y 5 7 Gap Validation Conference Y Determine if gaps are being fully addressed by ongoing or planned efforts LEGEND Gap Analysis 6 N Solution Analysis List of experiment-able gaps Input to Conference

23. GAPS (1 of 3) • Culture • HA / DR - partner first strategy and policies • Cross domain from the non-DoD perspective • Fixing intrusive personal data requirements – portals • Information push priority / mentality / behaviors • Intuitive user interfaces – regional / partner perspective • Streamlined partner inclusion procedures • Paradigm shift – understanding and acceptance of non-DoD roles, responsibilities and authorities • Inclusion of non-traditional media and sources – social networks • Understanding / addressing “Disadvantaged User” needs

24. GAPS (2 of 3) • Policy and Procedures • “Whole of Government” approach • Enabling engagement with non-traditional and ad hoc partners • Enabling the “Disadvantaged User” • Balancing Information sharing / security requirements • Knowledge management and business rules • Integration of social media • Training and education

25. GAPS (3 of 3) • Technical • Cross domain guard technologies • Disadvantaged user • Geo-Spatial Information/UDOP/Situational Awareness  • Identity management • Language translation

26. Agenda • Overview • Research • Gaps • Validation and Potential Solutions • Next Steps

27. Identify Potential Solutions Purpose: Propose solutions to mitigate the Warfighter problem • Identify gap mitigating strategies • Assess sufficiency and effectiveness of incremental improvements • Identify potential change agent(s)/organization(s) LEGEND 12 11 List of experiment solutions Solution Validation Gap Analysis Solution Analysis Not a project experiment candidate Y N 10 Gap Validation Conference 7 • Too much cost or time • Too little impact 8 6 • Are Solutions: • Joint Solutions? • Observable in an experiment? • Addressable within time and resource of project? List of experiment-able gaps Identify potential gap solutions Post Conference Assess the time, cost, and impact involved with potential solutions. 9 Adequate cost, time, and impact

28. Gap Validation and Potential Solutions • Conference • Prioritize requirements • Vet, prioritize and rank gaps • Identify potential solutions

29. Data Collection • Requirements • Prioritize • Gaps • Vet, prioritize, rank • Solutions • Identify, rank Requirements Participant Information Instructions Priority/ Remarks Gaps Solutions

30. Agenda • Overview • Research • Gaps • Validation and Potential Solutions • Next Steps

31. Next StepsPost Conference • Review the list of validated and prioritized gaps and potential solutions – the output of this conference • Refine potential solutions • Assess the feasibility and risks associated with potential solutions • Capture findings and recommendations in the Baseline Assessment Report • Provide input to the Initial Planning Conference (IPC) and Workshops Continued engagement, the BAR is just a first step

32. Stephen Sullivan (Analysis Lead) Capstone Corporation stephen.sullivan@cc.capstonecorp.com Jimmie Pelton (Analysis) Capstone Corporation jimmie.pelton@capstonecorp.com Ken Swenson (Technical Lead) Northrop Grumman ken.swenson@ngc.com Stan Howard (Technical) * TCX stanley.howard@tbe.com Contact Info Tom Stites (Operations Lead) ARINC • lstites@arinc.com • Len LeValla (Culture) • TASC • leonard.lavella@tasc.com • Dick McCrillis (Culture)* • TASC • richard.mccrillis@tasc.com • Paul Danks (Policy and Procedures)* KCG • paul.danks@kcg-inc.net Conference Facilitators *

33. Questions?