1

Live, Virtual, Constructive Architecture Roadmap: The Quest for Interoperability, Standards, and

ReuseGary W Allen, PhDProject Manager

JTIEC&

Amy Henninger, PhDAssociate Director

M&SCO

NDIA - 12th Annual SE Conference

2

Presentation Agenda

• Introduction• Where are we?• How did we get here?• Where are we going?• How are we getting

there?• Why are we doing this?• Conclusion

3

Where are we?

•LVCAR Study Completed SEP 2008

•Provided:•Recommendations•Rationale•Business Models

•Phase II:•LVCAR Implementation•Two year effort•Take advantage quick starts•Involve the entire M&S community•Provide exit strategy

4

How did we get here?

Growing Demand ForLVC Interoperability

Technical & Joint Operations

Broad Proliferation of Tools, Standards, Gateways

Repositories, etc

Numerous, ParallelArchitectures

(HLA, DIS, CTIA, TENA)

5

How did we get here?• Live, Virtual, Constructive Architecture Roadmap (LVCAR) Study• Purpose: “Develop a future vision and supporting strategy for

achieving significant interoperability improvements in LVC simulation environments.”

• Focus: Three dimensions of simulation interoperability– Technical Architecture– Business Models– Standards Evolution and Management Process

• Precepts That Guide Implementation– Do no harm– Interoperability is not free– Start with small steps – Provide central management

• Result: A set of recommendations that guide HLT S-C-2

6

Maintain the Status Quo (“Do Nothing”) (Strategy 1)

Strategy #2 will constitute much of the

initial phase in executing option #3

Enhance Interoperability of

Mixed-Architecture Events

(Strategy 2)

All switch to a single, newly-

developed architecture

Select One of the Existing Architectures

(Strategy 4)

Develop A New Architecture (Strategy 5)

All switch to a designated architecture

Strategy #2 is a viable branch (exit path) from

Strategy #3, if warranted

(Ultimate goal is a single architecture - could also

be a smaller set of interoperable architecture

implementations)

CurrentStatus

Encourage and Facilitate Architecture Convergence

(Strategy 3)

Creation of a logical

architecture(architecture

of architectures)

Singlearchitecture

implementationemerges from

existing set

How did we get here?

7

Where are we going?

TASK ACTIVITY 1 Arch-Independent Object 2 Common Capabilities (Reuse) 3 Architecture Convergence 4 Bridges & Gateways 5 Management & Standards

Focus: Pursue recommendations identified in the Live, Virtual, Constructive Architecture Roadmap (LVCAR) report sponsored by the OSD Modeling & Simulation Steering Committee (M&SSC)

MSSC10 MY1 MYDecision Support Data1

Manageme

ntActivi

ties

MSSCRRI dependent

RRI dependentBalance the marketplace3

TATN/A1 MY RRI – Balance the marketplace1

MSSCTBDTBD Identify LVC Keystone1Business

Activities

MSSCN/A1 MYDevelop evolutionary growth path for LVC standards1

MSSCN/A1 MYRRI - Increase sphere of influence in SISO1

MSSC20 MY2 MYCoordinate activities and fund participation in commercial standards development groups2

MSSC10 MY,$2M

1 MY,$200K

Engage SISO and the broader LVC community1

MSSCN/A50K –150K

Make IEEE standards more accessible to LVC community.2Stand

ards Activi

ties

RET5.2 - 21.7 MY5.2 MYSpecify a resource or capability to facilitate

pre-integration systems readiness2

RET4.25 - 17 MY4.25 MYProduce common gateways and bridges1

RETRRI dependent

RRI dependentConvergence implementation3

RET.8 - 3.7 MY.8 MYConvergence plan3

TATN/A7 MYRRI – Convergence feasibility determination and design1

RET3.8 – 15.8 MY3.8 MYProduce and/or enable reusable development

tools2

MSSC and RET7.7 MY1.8 MY

Analyze, plan and implement improvements to the processes and infrastructure supporting M&S asset reuse

2

RET1.7 - 7.7 MY1.7 MYCreate common, reusable federation agreement template1

RET2.1 - 9.6 MY2.1 MYDescribe and document a common, architecture-independent systems engineering process

1

RET5 - 20 MY5 MYCommon components of architecture-independent object models1Archit

ecture Activities

Coordinated by

Bounds of 10-year

Investment

Initial Investment

Investments

MSSC10 MY1 MYDecision Support Data1

Manageme

ntActivi

ties

MSSCRRI dependent

RRI dependentBalance the marketplace3

TATN/A1 MY RRI – Balance the marketplace1

MSSCTBDTBD Identify LVC Keystone1Business

Activities

MSSCN/A1 MYDevelop evolutionary growth path for LVC standards1

MSSCN/A1 MYRRI - Increase sphere of influence in SISO1

MSSC20 MY2 MYCoordinate activities and fund participation in commercial standards development groups2

MSSC10 MY,$2M

1 MY,$200K

Engage SISO and the broader LVC community1

MSSCN/A50K –150K

Make IEEE standards more accessible to LVC community.2Stand

ards Activi

ties

RET5.2 - 21.7 MY5.2 MYSpecify a resource or capability to facilitate

pre-integration systems readiness2

RET4.25 - 17 MY4.25 MYProduce common gateways and bridges1

RETRRI dependent

RRI dependentConvergence implementation3

RET.8 - 3.7 MY.8 MYConvergence plan3

TATN/A7 MYRRI – Convergence feasibility determination and design1

RET3.8 – 15.8 MY3.8 MYProduce and/or enable reusable development

tools2

MSSC and RET7.7 MY1.8 MY

Analyze, plan and implement improvements to the processes and infrastructure supporting M&S asset reuse

2

RET1.7 - 7.7 MY1.7 MYCreate common, reusable federation agreement template1

RET2.1 - 9.6 MY2.1 MYDescribe and document a common, architecture-independent systems engineering process

1

RET5 - 20 MY5 MYCommon components of architecture-independent object models1Archit

ecture Activities

Coordinated by

Bounds of 10-year

Investment

Initial Investment

Investments

8

Where are we going?

• Approach– Reduce LVC architecture divergence and tool proliferation

– Identify organizational and structural (e.g. use of standards) options to better manage LVC architecture interoperability

– Create reference models to focus data and service reuse efforts

– Explore emerging technology issues related to future LVC architecture performance and requirements

9

Where are we going?

• Desired Results– Standardized bridges and gateways to link architectures

– Convergence of LVC architecture activities and reuse libraries

– Commonality in federation templates, object models, engineering processes

– Initiatives to pursue translational architectures

10

How are we getting there?

M&S

COMMUNITY

LVCAR

IMPLIMENTATION

(FY09 Phase 1)

M&S

SC

LVCARStudy

IdentifiesAreas

ofInvestment

(FY10 Phase 2)

IMPLIMENT

LVCAR

MANAGINGTHE LVC

ENVIRONMENT

CONVERGETHE LCV

ARCH

COMMONLVC

CAPABILITIES

COMMON LVCGATEWAYS &

BRIDGES

ARCH INDOBJECTMODEL

Net-Centric•SOA•Sim Interface

(FY11 Phase 3)

LVCARCORE

ARCHITECTURE

Tool BoxArch Ind Data FormatsLibrary/DepositoryDev ToolsLVC Capabilities

STD GatewaysSTD Bridges

M&S

COMMUNITY

LVCARExit

Strategy

(FY12 )

•BusinessModels

•Policies•Standards•Utilities

11

Why are we doing this?

12

Why are we doing this?

HLA

TENA

CTIA

DIS

VirtualInteroperability

13

Summary

• JTIEC and M&S CO have established a productive and collaborative working relationship

• Currently S-C-2 HLT has no major performance, schedule or cost issues

• S-C-2 Project Manager focus is to carry forward the recommendations from the defining LVC Architecture Roadmap study to the ultimate benefit of the readiness of our warfighters.

14

Discussion

Gary w Allen, PhDS-C-2 HLT Project Manager

Joint Training Integration and Evaluation Center (JTIEC)gary.allen@us.army.mil

(O) 407-208-5607(C) 407-601-9838

LVC