Seeking Common Ground
PANEL EXPLORES INDUSTRY ROLE IN BRINGING A NET-CENTRIC PERSPECTIVE TO DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATED ISR SYSTEM.
Editor’s Note: For the first time in three years, Joint Forces Command this spring held a conference on the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS). A key intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) system that brings together geospatial information and data from a range of sensors and other sources, DCGS currently exists as separate versions maintained by the services. But efforts are underway to achieve greater integration and coordination between the systems, for example through development of the DCGS Integration Backbone (DIB).
Following are edited excerpts from a conference panel discussion entitled, “Industry Perspective on DCGS.”
Integrating DCGS is a tough thing, when you look at applications, services and capabilities all together. You have to have a strong system integration team to get through that.
As we move toward net-centric operations, we’re blurring the line about where C2 starts and ISR stops, and vice versa. With network-centric operations, you’ll have more up-to-date information, with red and blue icons on a common operational picture. It will also assist in the area of operationalizing intelligence. One challenge is how, in a strict budget environment, do you make upgrades that are required for currently field systems that are at war in theater, to keep their operational relevance, while at the same time bringing on new systems to have a capability for the future. That’s tough.
How does information get to the warfighter? If you look at three different scenarios, one is a commander going out on an operation next week. They have many people to support, and they want as much data as they can get. They have the time to look at it and plan the action. A second scenario is a squad that is planning for an operation tomorrow. They have a smaller team, a more focused environment, and a constrained time frame. Third, there is a squad currently on an operation, looking for an update. They need information now. All of those areas require intelligence, but they’re different in terms of time, information and the form of information.
Another issue is how industry and program offices and government labs continue to work on accessing the best technology out there. How do you bring that solution to bear, and quickly implement it in an open architecture, so it’s cost effective and efficient? Can you also take that solution and present it as a cross-domain solution across the different services and agencies?
We can’t forget that the function we’re trying to perform with DCGS is still very much a combination of art and science. Technology is helpful, but the bottom line of what we’re trying to do is to empower command decisions. Ultimately, there is a commander who has to make decisions employing these resources, and that decision needs to be informed by the best intelligence we can give. The whole function of DCGS is to help the commander perform the command function.
What DCGS is doing is replacing the shoebox and three by five cards that I began the intelligence business with. But the underlying function hasn’t changed. The whole purpose is to enable command. We are trying to bring a tremendous amount of raw data available to the commander, and through the technology to bring that to the analyst. DCGS allows the information to be pulled together in a way that helps the analyst inform the commander. We have to provide the best intelligence possible, and DCGS will make that possible.
Secondly, there is the impact of the network. The fact is that when you’re conducting common operations, you have to have some level of assured information— not necessarily assured communications, although you’d like to have that—but it has to be assured information. You can’t approach it from the theoretical background of a textbook SOA, but from the reality of where we have to operate.
We’re really trying to encourage collaboration by making available the entire information and the source of the information. In addition, you have to have a structure that is data-agnostic. I would challenge anyone to tell me what particular data source or pieces of information you will need to make decisions tomorrow. The structure you put together has to be data-agnostic in order to pull together new sources of information. We’ve only begun to touch the new sources of information that are going to be required, especially for activities such as homeland security.
From an industry perspective, there are a lot of things that could be done better. While we’ve made a lot of progress in working an industry government team, we’re not all there. In many situations, things are well integrated, with contractors bringing what we’re best equipped to bring. But there are other situations that are still adversarial, and that need to be changed. Working toward building a good government- industry team is something we need to continue focusing on.
Secondly, there is a tremendous amount of technology in industry, but we don’t do a good job as we could bring together our high-end technologists to exchange ideas. We’re getting things out into the field, but we have a ways to go on mining technological possibilities from industry. Another thing we need to work on is the process around accreditation. I’ve worked in a number of agencies and businesses, and there are several different standards out there. We need to put some policy focus on getting some of these processes aligned, because we’re doing a lot of spinning our wheels.
When you look at the standard business models being used today to solve problems such as large-scale integration, they’re oriented toward a one-size-fits-all approach. But that’s not what we’re dealing with here.
There are many sources of capabilities in government and industry that are capable of providing value-added services for DCGS. There are also a lot of sources for professional engineering services and program management skills needed for those programs. But the technologies and services produced are not always equal or the same level of competency and value. It’s in the government’s best interest to look at how it can leverage those skills. When we talk about engineering services and program management skills, how does the government leverage those skills to the best possible degree?
The government is going to continue playing a huge role in DCGS, coordinating with other government agencies and addressing policy. Our companies can deliver capabilities in 30 days, and it takes 18 months to get them deployed. Obviously, there are issues there that need to be looked at.
When you look at certain aspects of the development of net-centric systems, I believe there should be a single entity that is providing certain capabilities, because of the interrelationships between those capabilities. An industry integrator role in this new business model doesn’t necessarily have to have responsibility for building those services. But the focal point needs to be responsible for the integration of those features. There needs to be a clear understanding of what’s being brought to the table.
We as industry have a responsibility to work with government to provide a business model that will provide customers with what they need, are executable and encourage industry cooperation.
Sometimes I can’t remember what life was like before the Internet, and I wonder if that’s what DCGS will be in a few years. People will say, “I can’t remember what it was like before DCGS.” It’s amazing the kinds of things you can do with the Internet, and that’s the exact same technology we need to deliver to troops in the field. DCGS is giving us the capability to discover, find and ensure things in ways that we’ve never been able to do in the past. This is probably one of the key enablers for winning the war on terror—to be able to share, collaborate and pull things together.
I’d like to contrast a healthy Internet business model with a healthy DoD model. Right now, in the Internet model, the contractor assumes all risk. Their main goal in life is to create a positive user experience—that’s the only thing that keeps you coming back. They generate in excess of 70 percent profit, and will invest about 40 percent of that money to develop a new system, at their own risk. If you’re lucky, they will have 24 hour service. In addition, all the systems are very proprietary.
With a typical DoD contractor, by contrast, there is limited to no risk. We try to create a positive user experience, even if some may not agree. We make about 8 percent to 10 percent profit, and invest less than 5 percent of what we make on new products and services. We are available on a 24-hour, seven-day basis, and will go anywhere you want to get the job done—and yes, we’ve figured out how to build proprietary systems.
What we want to do is take advantage of the good parts of each model, in order to create better products. What’s going to happen is that more of the risks and investments will be shifted to the contractor. Contractors are going to have to be able to invest 10 percent to 15 percent on new products, which will represent about half their profits. So in order for them to be able to invest 15 percent, that’s going to have to be half of their profit, which will be tough for them to do. So the government will have to play an active role to help certain contractors get to the level of investment needed to generate new products.
Another question is how to provide the best of breed. I don’t think you decide best of breed. You stick all of the products on a CD and ship them to users, who decide which products and providers to use. Then you pay contractors based on performance. ♦
