P4I P4I P4I P4I

P4I for Coalition C4IP4I for Coalition C4Iand Sustainmentand Sustainment

An Initiative of the Object Management Group (OMG)An Initiative of the Object Management Group (OMG)

P4I for Coalition C4IP4I for Coalition C4Iand Sustainmentand Sustainment

An Initiative of the Object Management Group (OMG)An Initiative of the Object Management Group (OMG)

12 November 1999

P4I P4I P4I P4I

“…“…the integration between US and foreign militaries together demonstrate the integration between US and foreign militaries together demonstrate our commitments, strengthen our military capabilities, and enhance the our commitments, strengthen our military capabilities, and enhance the organization of coalitions and multinational operations to deter or defeat organization of coalitions and multinational operations to deter or defeat aggression.” aggression.”

-- Joint Vision 2010-- Joint Vision 2010

““Implementing Implementing Joint Vision 2010Joint Vision 2010 requires developing the doctrine, requires developing the doctrine, education, training, organization, and materiel to support truly integrated education, training, organization, and materiel to support truly integrated joint operations. Achieving this new level of proficiency also requires joint operations. Achieving this new level of proficiency also requires improving our methods for integrating our forces and capabilities with improving our methods for integrating our forces and capabilities with those of our allies and coalition partners.” those of our allies and coalition partners.”

-- Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review-- Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review

“…“…building and maintaining effective coalitions also present significant building and maintaining effective coalitions also present significant challenges, from policy coordination at the strategic level to challenges, from policy coordination at the strategic level to interoperability among diverse military forces at the tactical level.” interoperability among diverse military forces at the tactical level.”

-- Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review-- Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review

P4I P4I P4I P4I

Purpose of the P4I EnvironmentPurpose of the P4I EnvironmentPurpose of the P4I EnvironmentPurpose of the P4I Environment

Initiative to define an international virtual C4I environment to examine coalition interoperability issues Doctrine studies and analysis Technical policy development and evaluation Procedure definition and evaluation Prototyping Pilot Implementations and demonstrations

An OMG sponsored and supported organization Includes coalition interoperability for sustainment

activities Interoperability with appropriate interoperability

characteristics and acceptable Quality of Service (QoS)

P4I P4I P4I P4I

Realizing the Potential of C4I: Realizing the Potential of C4I: Fundamental ChallengesFundamental Challenges**Realizing the Potential of C4I: Realizing the Potential of C4I: Fundamental ChallengesFundamental Challenges**

C4I Interoperability – “Operational and technical interoperability commensurate with the role of C4I in support of multi-unit, joint, and combined missions.”

C4I System Security – “C4I systems that remain operationally secure and available for U. S. forces in the face of attacks by adversaries.”

DoD Process and Culture – “A DOD culture and management system that fully reflects the importance of C4I in future military operations and the pace at which the underlying technologies evolve.”

* Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Academy of Sciences, May 1999

P4I P4I P4I P4I

VisionVisionVisionVision

Partnership of industry, government, and academia Loosely coupled network of servers and workstations World-wide scope communicating over the internet or

internet-like network(s) CORBA based Software architecture based on the C4I Reference

Architecture being developed by the OMG C4I DSIG Environment for development, prototyping, testing,

and demonstrating policies, procedures, and products Environment for examining doctrinal issues related to

Information Technology (IT) in the C4I and Sustainment environments

P4I P4I P4I P4I

P4I Environment Management P4I Environment Management StructureStructureP4I Environment Management P4I Environment Management StructureStructure

Boards

GovernmentSite Staff(s)

P4I EnvironmentSecretariat

Coordination Only

AdministrativeStaff

Board of Trustees

Director-General

Director forAdministration

Director forTechnology

Director forParticipant Liasons

AdministrativeAssistant(Clerical)

AdministrativeStaff

AdministrativeStaff

AdministrativeAssistant

(Financial) AdministrativeStaff

AdministrativeStaff

Liason Staff

AdministrativeStaff

AdministrativeStaff

GovernmentSite Staff(s)

AdministrativeStaff

AdministrativeStaff

AdministrativeStaff

Project ReviewBoard

Specialists

LEGEND

P4I Secretariat"Volunteered"

Staff

P4I SecretariatFull-Time Staff

P4I P4I P4I P4I

OMG Management Structure OMG Management Structure including the P4I Environment including the P4I Environment SecretariatSecretariat

OMG Management Structure OMG Management Structure including the P4I Environment including the P4I Environment SecretariatSecretariat Legend

Director-General

Director forAdministration

Director forParticipant

Liasons

AdministrativeAssistant(Clerical)

AdministrativeAssistant

(Financial)

President & COOWilliam Hoffman

Vice PresidentMarketing

Cheryl Rocheleau

Vice President andTechnical Director

Andrew Watson

Vice PresidentBusiness

Developmen tMark Lowenstein

Manager ofAdministrative

ServicesCindy McComiskey

Chairman & CEORichard Soley

Director forTechnology

Director ofTechnology Transfer

John Siegel

Senior Director ofStandards

Wayne Haughey

Director of LiaisonsHenry Lowe

Day-to-Day ReportingRelationship

Administrative Relationship

OMG StaffP4I

SecretariatStaff

P4I P4I P4I P4I

Participant ResponsibilitiesParticipant ResponsibilitiesParticipant ResponsibilitiesParticipant Responsibilities

Participating governments Provide strategic (Board of Trustees) and operational (Project

Review Board) guidance Provide P4I Secretariat oversight Provide facilities, hardware, operating systems, communications

infrastructure, etc. Requirements and concepts

IT Industry participants ORB vendors will provide retail and beta-test versions of ORBs

and services Enterprises that produce CORBA-based application products will

demonstrate and beta-test products These organizations will be encouraged to leave applications

in the P4I Environment when productized Academic organizations will provide R&D expertise and labor “Think tanks” are much like academic organizations

P4I P4I P4I P4I

Operational ConceptOperational ConceptOperational ConceptOperational Concept

Projects submitted to the Project Review Board (PRB) Problem statement Approach Expected results Organizations participating Estimated cost Schedule P4I Environment resources required

PRB recommends acceptance, deferment, rejection, or conditional acceptance

Director for Liaison Relations identifies/encourages potential partnerships across national boundaries

Twice annual reviews of each project

P4I P4I P4I P4I

P4I Environment Financial ApproachP4I Environment Financial ApproachP4I Environment Financial ApproachP4I Environment Financial Approach

Governments pay flat fee per year to “subscribe” Estimated to be $1M to $1.5M US per year

Projects that do not require financial assistance pay fee based on validated cost estimate Estimated to be 5% of estimated project cost

Financial Assistance Fund Government fees + project fees - operating expenses Two tier

Nationally earmarked – one year General

Actual fees to be determined by the feasibility study team

P4I P4I P4I P4I

Plans and Milestones *Plans and Milestones *Plans and Milestones *Plans and Milestones *

1 October 1999 – 31 March 2000 Feasibility study

Chaired by Andrew Watson (OMG) Co-Chair to be appointed by OMG Recommend 12 members (3 each from Western Pacific, Americas, and

Europe plus 3 at-large to be selected by OMG) Two Go/No-go decision points Four meetings at sites TBD

1 Europe, 1 East Coast US/Canada, 1 West Coast US/Canada, 1 Western Pacific

Norway has volunteered to host a meeting 1 April 2000 – 30 September 2000

Start-up period May OMG Coalition Day event in Oslo is ideal for kickoff

Hire permanent staff Recruit initial participants Select initial projects

1 October 1000 – 31 March 2001 Initial operations (“shakedown cruise”)

P4I P4I P4I P4I

Sample Projects (1 of 2)Sample Projects (1 of 2)Sample Projects (1 of 2)Sample Projects (1 of 2)

Computer Supported Cooperative Work Tools and Components to enable collaboration at: Same time/same place: group decision support, meeting

facilitation

Same time/different places: audio/video conferencing, shared whiteboards, shared applications

Different times/same place: team rooms, shared memory, information sharing, coordination tools

Different times/different places: e-mail, discussion/bulletin boards, group authoring, workflow

Components for Common Visualization of the Operational Space (CVOS) Recommend doctrine, policies, procedures, and technical

solutions to the problem of attaining a CVOS capability Investigate issues relating to differences in operational

environments due to cultural, language, etc. differences

P4I P4I P4I P4I

Sample Projects (2 of 2)Sample Projects (2 of 2)Sample Projects (2 of 2)Sample Projects (2 of 2)

Common Information Assurance Tools and Components Coalition C4I security policy and procedure must reflect the

concept of multiple security accreditation domains, each domain having its own internal policies and procedures

Develop policies, procedures, and information technical solutions needed to support information assurance in the constantly evolving coalition environment

P4I P4I P4I P4I

Benefits (1 of 2)Benefits (1 of 2)Benefits (1 of 2)Benefits (1 of 2)

Governments An environment wherein coalition policies and procedures can

be developed and tested Encourages shared projects between corporate entities in

multiple countries, resulting in products built to common definitions of interfaces and functionality

Better, less expensive, more readily available, interoperable, reusable, standards-based COTS products

ORB vendors Exercising of their products in an extremely demanding

environment Lessons learned in the performance of the various projects

will enable ORB vendors to improve their product offerings

P4I P4I P4I P4I

Benefits (2 of 2)Benefits (2 of 2)Benefits (2 of 2)Benefits (2 of 2)

Large application vendors Opportunity to develop tools, components, and applications

that will be well exercised and, except in very rare cases, be easily translated in products for the civilian marketplace as well.

Opportunity to take advantage of the break through ideas that are often found in small companies and academia that often do not have the resources to support their development

Small companies and academia Opportunities to find funding resources that will enable them

to develop new approaches to old problems An environment for the solution of real-world problems that is

receptive to innovation and innovative concepts

P4I P4I P4I P4I

ObservationsObservationsObservationsObservations

Extends the philosophy behind Global Information Grid (GIG) to the international community

No equivalent activities currently exist, but there are a few somewhat similar activities Limited in scope and tend to be US and UK dominated

Smaller and non-native-English speaking countries tend to feel like second class citizens with little or no real influence

Most are classified or “closed” activities Sponsorship by an industry-based consortium is unique Focus on standardization and productization of

developed standards is unique Financial assistance approach is unique Encourages software industry in participating nations Relatively low cost encourages participation by smaller

countries

P4I P4I P4I P4I

Why?Why?Why?Why? Feasibility study is low cost and low risk Annual participation, even when sponsoring US

Government sponsorship of some projects is unlikely to cost more than a few million USD per year

Long-term potential for high payoff in terms of: Standardized specifications for APIs satisfying requirements

of the C4I and Sustainment communities that can also be implemented for civilian purposes

Reuse results in lower life-cycle costs Standardized APIS introduce efficiencies in development and

integration Standards based products that will interoperate in an

Internet-like environment that are available as shrink-wrapped products with civilian use as well as use within the C4I and Sustainment communities

Fosters competition based on quality of service (QoS) provided by products

Encourages niche market development by smaller companies Semantic and cultural differences can be minimized

Reduced potential for misunderstanding Common technical policies Common procedures