Net Centricity Net Centricity A full contact Social Sport A full - - PDF document
The Essence of Net Centricity and The Essence of Net Centricity and Implications for C4I Services Interoperability Implications for C4I Services Interoperability Hans W. Polzer Hans W. Polzer Lockheed Martin Lockheed Martin May 21, 2008 May
1
The Essence of Net Centricity and The Essence of Net Centricity and Implications for C4I Services Interoperability Implications for C4I Services Interoperability
Hans W. Polzer Hans W. Polzer Lockheed Martin Lockheed Martin
May 21, 2008 May 21, 2008
Page 2
2
Page 3
It’ ’s about s about diverse diverse people, institutions, and people, institutions, and systems coming together to achieve some systems coming together to achieve some limited goal better than they can themselves limited goal better than they can themselves
Enabled by the network
Very little “ “Command Command” ” and and “ “Control Control” ”
A lot of Collaboration and Cooperation
It’ ’s about sharing information and services across s about sharing information and services across traditional system and enterprise boundaries traditional system and enterprise boundaries
It’ ’s about dynamic interactions, not static system s about dynamic interactions, not static system architectures architectures No single, integrated, enterprise or architecture – like the Internet!
Page 4
Pervasive Connectivity
GIG, NNEC, Intranets, Internet, Data Links, Sensor Networks
Service Oriented Architectures
Enable interoperation across different hardware/software execution environments execution environments
Net Centric Systems and Organizations
Adds the notion of dynamic scope and crossing system and enterprise/COI/Domain boundaries via the Net enterprise/COI/Domain boundaries via the Net
Collaborative Culture and Incentives (“ “Co Co-
”); ); Learning Organizations Learning Organizations
Enables services to be exchanged over the Net
But requires a compelling business case for doing so
Fosters Social/Collaborative Computing, KM
Silicon Valley vs vs Route 128 Business Model Route 128 Business Model
Joint, Coalition perspective -
not just Service or Domain
3
Page 5
Programs focus on
Capabilities cut across system and community of interest (COI) boundaries Systems support multiple COIs and capabilities via services Services are valued based
multiple & new capabilities - Agility Programs are valued based
and provide services via the network – Net-centricity
The Net The Net-
Centric Services Model
System 2 System 3 System 1 System 2 System 3 System 1 System 2 System 3 System 1
Capability X Capability Y
Page 6
Implications for C4I System Interoperability Implications for C4I System Interoperability
Diverse systems represent different contexts, purposes, and scope decisions by different purposes, and scope decisions by different institutional sponsors institutional sponsors
The net-
centric revolution exposes these different decisions to each other different decisions to each other
The surprising thing should be how much commonality there actually is commonality there actually is
Non-
standard data representation should be viewed as the norm as the norm
Common data standards reflect broad institutional frame of reference and scope overlaps frame of reference and scope overlaps – – not not universality universality (e.g., GPS/WGC (e.g., GPS/WGC-
84 coordinate system vs vs Zip Codes or Zip Codes or SPLCs SPLCs) )
Commonality only makes sense in the context of differences
4
Page 7
Operational Context: The attributes which characterize an entity : The attributes which characterize an entity’ ’s s purpose & state, within some ecology scope purpose & state, within some ecology scope
Perspective: a particular system : a particular system’ ’s or individual s or individual’ ’s version/view of s version/view of some context/entity for its purposes some context/entity for its purposes
Frame of reference: The representational convention used to : The representational convention used to describe some entity along one or more attribute dimensions, describe some entity along one or more attribute dimensions, including context attributes including context attributes
Scope: the portion of possible real world and conceptual entity : the portion of possible real world and conceptual entity space a given system, context, perspective, or frame of referenc space a given system, context, perspective, or frame of reference e includes includes
State: The value of context and other variable attributes for an : The value of context and other variable attributes for an entity that are important for some purpose at some entity that are important for some purpose at some time(frame time(frame) in ) in some some frame(s frame(s) of reference ) of reference
Page 8
Bring systems into unexpected/unplanned contact contact
E.g., Katrina, Afghanistan, 9/11, corporate mergers, exercises, plan exercises, plan vs vs actual, composite simulations, etc. actual, composite simulations, etc.
Root cause of most interoperability “ “problems problems” ”
Others are either errors or due to resource limitations limitations
Usually violate context and scope assumptions
These are rarely explicitly represented in system data
Are more pervasive than designers realize
Net-Centricity Makes Context Shifting Events an Everyday Occurrence
5
Page 9
Thought Experiment 1 Thought Experiment 1 – – “ “Saving Private Ryan Saving Private Ryan” ”
Personnel Management System By Skill? By Individual By Service?
?
Force Development Context Force Application Context Own Force Awareness System By Platform By Area? By Unit? Item Level Event, Operational Domain Need individual with specific attributes in an area Context Shifting Event
Interaction among systems, institutions is constrained by different perspectives, scope and frames of reference
Page 10
Thought Experiment 2 Thought Experiment 2 – – Tsunami Relief Tsunami Relief
Global Level Event – Many Domains Multi-national Disaster Relief Military Force Awareness Civil Force Awareness Disaster Relief Force Awareness System of Systems NGO Force Awareness Commercial Force Awareness Military Force Awareness Civil Force Awareness Country A Context Country B Context Transnational Context Country C Context Granularity? Scope? Force Representation? Aggregation? Reporting Frequency? Context Shifting Event
6
Page 11
Example Specific Data Representation Example Specific Data Representation Issues in Thought Experiments Issues in Thought Experiments
Thought Experiment 1:
Individual soldiers identities? SSN? Name? Service#?
Soldier to platform mapping, platform to unit mapping
Unit identities in both contexts (Name, UIC, TF ID)
Unit location representation (mailing address, geoloc geoloc) )
Military Service scope, Skill representation
Thought Experiment 2:
Granularity of force representation, national scope
Force identification, capability representation
Location representation by granularity level
Composite unit representation (task forces)
Page 12
Expect diversity in operational environments
A single data model inherently constrains C4I scope
Naming/identity management services are key
Accommodate diverse users and systems as data sources and consumers sources and consumers
Represent context and scope explicitly in C4I service descriptions/interfaces service descriptions/interfaces
Implicit context/scope assumptions are the main
The NCOIC SCOPE model helps expose them
C4I occurs in all operational domains and across all types of enterprises across all types of enterprises
C4I needs to view itself more as a context modality of systems and enterprises of different scope rather than an end in itself
7
Page 13
Hans Polzer
703 251 7303
For NCOIC SCOPE Model:
Page 14
There are very few “ “near near-
universal” ” data data representations (e.g., location, time) representations (e.g., location, time)
Even these have many variants and context dependencies dependencies
Assume a geo-
centric context and ISO/WGC frame
Most non-
phenomenology data has a system
scope scope
Track ID, Mission number, Tail number, PID, etc.
Unit ID, personal ID, skill codes, facilities, features
Identities are particularly key in this regard
8
Page 15
The same entity may have different identities in different contexts and perspectives in different contexts and perspectives
Even if the identities are the same, other values may be different for different contexts values may be different for different contexts
E.g., location, weaponry, fuel level, etc.
Identities have different degrees of specificity in different contexts and may represent in different contexts and may represent different levels of aggregation different levels of aggregation
Identities and other important entity attributes have value ranges constrained by the scope have value ranges constrained by the scope assumptions of the sponsoring institutions assumptions of the sponsoring institutions
Explicit representation of context, scope, and frame of reference needed
Page 16
Operational View Technical View Systems View
Identifies Participant Relationships and Information Needs Relates Capabilities/Characteristics to Operational Requirements Prescribes Standards and Conventions
Net Centric Profiles and the SCOPE Model
UJTLs
Net-Ready Dimensions Capability Scope Dimensions Technical Feasibility Dimensions
How do systems interact? What standards are used? What do systems say to each other? How is this information represented? Which Systems interact? About what? How much? And why? To what effect? Data models, Process algorithms Battlespace Representation and Naming standards Data element standards, Protocols, Environments Can capability be achieved with current stds & technologies? Are new standards needed? Is the information
Accurate, timely? Technology readiness levels
Broad Narrow High Low Open Closed
9
Page 17
More than networks, SOA and NR-
KPP
It’ ’s about working with s about working with “ “others
” via the pervasive net via the pervasive net
Anticipate and prepare for scope and context changes changes
Monitor the environment continuously
Leverage and share what’ ’s available s available
Across program/system boundaries
Across capability & domain boundaries
Across enterprise & national boundaries
But prepare to deal with failure/threats
Mostly a political/business/social model issue
Governance within within investment/ownership domains investment/ownership domains
Incentive models and risk management between/across between/across investment/ownership domains investment/ownership domains
Page 18
Asymmetric relationship between service provider and consumer consumer
Service provider/spec is known to all via a service registry
Service consumers can be anyone authorized on the GIG
Provider does not know specific service consumers needs
No overt mechanism exists for consumers making their needs known to potential providers, or for motivating them to known to potential providers, or for motivating them to address consumer needs address consumer needs
“Rice Bowl Rice Bowl” ” barriers barriers
Provider must pay for resources needed to deliver services to the GIG the GIG
Provider gets no compensation if service usage increases
Provider has little incentive to improve service capabilities and d scope scope
Consumer has little incentive to use services efficiently
Consumer has no way to compensate provider for service usage usage
Little motivation to share services among programs