defence iq project management and mission assistance, defense acquisition university … · 2017....
TRANSCRIPT
How does an organisation
actually go about
introducing an open
architecture? Doesn’t this
type of change place too
much pressure on most
organisations to interrupt
their current processes,
potentially delaying existing
programmes?
Introducing interoperability
and open architecture (IOA) is
a major culture change and can
be a strain on the business
relationship for many
organisations. If an
organisation has been
entrenched in a sole source,
closed system for years, the
transformation to an IOA
approach can sometimes
threaten both industry and
government roles,
responsibilities and
revenue/funding streams, and
“their need to exist!”.
As with most business
arrangements, a contract or
agreement is used to define
roles and responsibilities of a
project effort and to keep a
communications drumbeat
ongoing. If the user (or
government customer) chooses
to change the existing business
model to something affording
competition or a new vendor,
business relationships can
suffer leading to potential
delivery delays, degradation in
service quality or cost
increases.
The degree to which
organisations react to the
anxiety of change can many
times be correlated to the
method of how the enterprise
will change from closed
systems to IOA. We have seen
many cases where the change
was initiated to help a system
survive in a downsizing budget.
Programs have been motivated
to make the change because
open systems architecture has
proven to yield more capability
and provide a solution to
obsolescence. Yet, If not
handled well, this could clearly
cause disruptions in delivery of
a system, service, or capability
to the warfighter.
If organisations feel they
need to make the transition
from closed systems to open
architecture, getting some
advice from those who have
already done it is certainly
something the DAU
recommends. Getting a subject
matter expert to walk you
through the pitfalls, maybe
even consulting with an
industry partner as you go
forward, will help you find the
approaches that are more
palatable to stakeholders. Some
may look at this type of change
as a Draconian process and
reactions can be negative if it is
not approached properly.
Forums like the
Interoperable Open
Architecture summit are good
opportunities to network with
these people. I’m always
amazed at how willing high-
ranking officers and civilians
are to help others by sharing
their success and advice.
I N D U S T R Y
D E F E N C E I Q M A R C H 2 0 1 5 M A R C H 2 0 1 5 D E F E N C E I Q
“I’m always amazed at how willing high-ranking officers are to
help and advise others”
IMPLEMENTING OPEN ARCHITECTURE AND AVOIDING THE PITFALLS
Ahead of Interoperable Open Architecture 2015, Defence IQ is joined by Professor David Miskimens, Project Management and Mission Assistance, Defense Acquisition University, a DoD training establishment tasked with acquisition certification and leadership training, and mission assistance to acquisition organisations. He tells us why the process must start at the discussion table…
Our representative from
Object Management Group
stated that he felt that
culture was the single
greatest obstacle to making
open architecture the norm.
Would you agree with that
assessment?
I absolutely agree. Imagine if
your organisation was destined
to lose a contract because of a
business model change. Think
of the employee behavior and
how their world would be
upset. Losing a job because of
a lack of competency in a
changing world, or simply
because the demand has
changed, goes against many of
the values illustrated in
Maslow’s “A Theory of
Human Motivation” which
described various human
needs.
It doesn’t really matter
whether the change is driven
by affordability, completion or
technology. The change may
come in many forms. It may
be the government or prime
that determines the need to
develop another qualified
source to bring innovation and
competition. Another method
may be driven by technology
refresh (upgrading for
obsolescence) or technology
insertion (upgrading for
increased capability).
However, there are some
approaches that can help
soften the blow of the change,
or even be viewed as an
opportunity.
Leadership openness with
business intent and
transparency can contribute
greatly to mitigate the stress
generated by a large scale and
sweeping change to long
existing contracts, agreements,
and relationships. Fairness and
opportunity to participate in
the new initiative arrangement
can help to reinvigoration
interest from industry to adapt
to the change, particularly if
the government leadership
wants to include several
providers in a business
enterprise plan.
Our OSD leadership (Hon.
Frank Kendall, Under
Secretary of Defense for
AT&L) is rolling out the Better
Buying Power (BBP)
implementation of best
practices, which is up to
version 3.0. Within this, one of
the initiatives is to increase the
use of open architecture to
support affordability. So now
all of us in the DoD has a new
expectation that if we are not
yet using OA, we need to look
at what it will take to get there
That’s an external pressure
that will scramble a lot of
programme managers into
action to meet with other PMs
and figure out a way to
introduce the concept.
Costs are not always a brick
wall, as our submarine model
demonstrated. Back in the 90s,
the R&D budget was going
down at the same time as the
acoustic superiority of our
submarines was narrowing
when compared to those of
our adversaries. The
community came together and
worked out a way to gain that
ground back in spite of the
monetary shortfall through the
implementation of OA.
Can you offer us an overview
of any recent case study of a
current programme that has
successfully applied an open
architecture approach? What
was the key to this result?
There are a few case studies
taught at Defense Acquisition
University in the executive 400
level courses. However,
because open systems can take
on a wide variety of
definitions, the cases currently
being taught deal mostly with
increased use of COTS
electronic systems and
platform intellectual property
implications of armored
fighting vehicles and jet engine
sub-assemblies. DAU is
working on a future System
Engineer course and may
include a case study on the
Virginia Class Submarine
architecture.
However, it is hard to open
any Defence periodical and not
find an article about a weapons
systems and information
systems having success
applying open systems
architecture to lend a more
affordable acquisition model
that is sustainable with an
efficient modernisation
program.
The US Navy has
experienced nearly two decades
of changing from large
integrate closed systems
acquisition and development
models. The submarine sonar
and combat systems team
introduced the first Acoustic
Rapid Commercial Off-the
Shelf (COTS) Insertion
(ARCI) installation on
submarines in the late 90s and
early 2000s. This courageous
transformation allowed
upgrades from legacy sonar
systems and significantly
expanded processing capability
for existing sensors. This same
model is being applied to the
AEGIS ship systems and other
Navy aircraft, weapons, and
support systems.
The Army relies heavily on
open architectures, open
standards and open source
software as an emerging
strategy for buying and
modernizing its ground based
robotics systems. The service
is employing a strategy that
emphasizes open architectures
and defined interfaces between
individual subsystems to keep
costs down and maximize
flexibility.
The Army has also been
working on the Unmanned
Ground Vehicle
Interoperability Profile (IOP),
a collection of hardware and
software standards to define
how subsystems communicate
with one another. The
hardware specifications for the
“Across all of these cases, a fundamental
benefit has arisen:
modernisation and upgrade has become
much less painful”
The US Navy’s submarine capability was saved by open
architecture in the 90s
D E F E N C E I Q M A R C H 2 0 1 5 M A R C H 2 0 1 5 D E F E N C E I Q
I N D U S T R Y
“It doesn’t really matter whether the change is driven by affordability, completion or technology”
I N D U S T R Y
The Distributed Common Ground Systems (DCGS) is
currently in transition
“Timeframes and costs
became more predictable
and contained by
the second and third
run”
“My focus is on the ‘people’ part of the equation, on the relationships, and on the business arrangements”
learned. Therefore timeframes
and costs became more
predictable and more
contained. That’s why
partnering and benchmarking
through symposiums with
people who have done it is
essential.
What are your hopes for the
conference dialogue? Do
you have any particular
question to which you would
like to hear an answer or
anything you need
clarification on?
I would like to hear cases
where industry has been
motivated to excel in providing
open systems architecture
methods to military systems
acquisition.
I’ll be there to divulge how
we managed to achieve it. In
those early days, we effectively
got private industry and
government in the labs
together, and we then had a
series of conferences, we
closed the doors, we took our
badges off, and we all tried to
figure out how to accomplish
our goal – whether we were
contractor, lab, military or
civilian. That took leadership.
From that basis, Admirals and
CEOs understood how to
support their people and build
on the common focus.
While my presentation will
cover the gamut – from the
little cell phones and single-
board computers to the big
mainframe and IT systems –
my focus is on the ‘people’ part
of the equation, on the
relationships, and on the
business arrangements that all
need to be considered to help
those involved avoid problems
during their implementation.
components will meet the
plug-and-play interface
specification for industry to
allow competition.
The Army continues to stay
current in meeting evolving
needs with the Common
Avionics Architecture System
(CAAS). This system is based
on an innovative modular open
system approach that uses
open industry standards to
reduce the costs of technology
insertions and capability
upgrades.
The US Air Force (USAF)
is shifting acquisition efforts to
get away from closed-system
proprietary designs for
complex systems on military
aircraft to reduce development
time, cut costs, and enable
technology refresh and
technology insertion.
The USAF has used the U-
2 spy plane to provide a
platform to host an open
systems architecture. This
effort integrated multiple Air
Force Open Mission Systems
(OMS) payloads using the
Skunk Works Enterprise Open
Systems Architecture (E-OSA).
The result enables the ability to
rapidly modernize the
architecture of the aircraft's
mission systems.
This service has also developed
the Sensor Open Systems
Architecture (SOSA), involving
high-data-rate and high-
performance multi-intelligence
ISR sensor pods. The SOSA
initiative is an architecture
adaptable for modernization
flexibility to maximize
platform performance and
system affordability.
They are also planning to
transition its Distributed
Common Ground System
(DCGS) to a non-proprietary
capability to keep pace with
changing threats and advances
in technology.
Across all of these cases, a
fundamental benefit has arisen:
modernization and upgrade
has become much less painful.
As an example again, all 70 of
those submarines in the U.S.
fleet can be upgraded with the
latest and greatest software in
just a couple of years because
it is the same principle as
updating the software on your
home computer every few
years for a marginal price. The
use of COTS servers, switches,
processors, all operating
through the same interface in a
plug-and-play format reduces
maintenance budgets
significantly while still
increasing the capability.
On that note, the U.S. Navy
has been working with the
Royal Australian Navy in
installing the ARCI capability
on their submarines, and with
the UK Astute programme.
Just a few weeks ago I had the
opportunity to sit in on a
programme review for the
nuclear deterrent submarines,
on which the US is working
hand-in-hand with the British
on the modular designs,
incorporating many common
processes and keeping total
costs to a minimum.
The programmes first
implemented fifteen years ago
experienced some schedule
and cost overruns, but by the
second or third time of doing
it, they had a much better
resolution on their estimates
and a playbook of lessons
AEGIS Open Architecture will see greater commonality
across the fleet
D E F E N C E I Q M A R C H 2 0 1 5 M A R C H 2 0 1 5 D E F E N C E I Q
I N D U S T R Y I N D U S T R Y
• Share expertise, explore the major programmes and consider the future with the leading experts from the military and industry communities that are currently defeating the challenges of open architecture
• Understand the impact that Integrated Open Architectures can have on budgets, technology delivery and revolutionising combat effectiveness
• Gain insight from civilian experts working on the development of open architectures for unmanned ground systems, armoured vehicles, permanent and expeditionary bases, weapons systems, aerospace technology and the civilian automobile industry
• Benefit from cutting-edge insights into the development and implementation of Integrated Open Architectures into defence procurement processes
• Engage in a secure and collaborative environment and transform your knowledge and your skill-set whilst establishing valuable contacts from this domain
W W W . I O A E V E N T . C O M
+44 (0)20 7368 9737 [email protected]
IOA 2015 takes place in London, April 29-May 1