“. . . we must haveinteroperability
at the data level.”-- U.S. Department of Navy
http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/00_jul/data_interoperability.html

The Data Is Key!
Jerry Smith
DISA Interoperability Directorate
presentation to

CALS/EC International Symposium
January 2001
Tokyo

OUTLINE• Criticality of Interoperability• Difficult Challenges• Technology Advances• Past Approaches• Recent Initiatives• Lessons To Be Learned• SummaryJerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

2

RIGHT DATA ….
RIGHT PERSON ….
RIGHT TIME!
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

3

Information Sharing for the
Virtual Enterprise
End States

Requires
■
■

■
■

■
■

Seamless
Architecture &Systems
Integration
Responsive
Information
Collection,
Processing &Dissemination
Offensive &Defensive
Information
WarfareSensor Engagement
Grid
Grid
Network
Centric

Information Grid

Others...

Enabling
Concept
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

Information Superiority

Commonoperational
pictureCollaborativeplanning
systems
Networked
sensors
EnhancedC2 systems
Precisebattlespaceknowledge

4

Global Information Grid (GIG)
Comm
Svr

KG

KG
KG

Data
Svr

App
Svr

ClientClientIntel
Intel Reachback

App
Svr

ClientISSE

SensorClientComm
Svr

JTF Deployed

Data
Svr

App
Svr

ClientClient

C2 Reachback

KG

KG

Data
Svr

KG

LOG Reachback

App
Svr

FW

App
Svr

PERSONNEL Reachback

App
Svr

C2G

SECRET/REL

Data
Svr

Data
Svr

SBU/RELNIPRNET (SBU)
ShooterInternet
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

5

Joint Operations Also RequireInteroperability for Multi-National Forces
U.S. Military
ForcesSensors

NATO Military
ForcesOther Allied
ForcesDB
GCCS Cmd
Center

DB

Tank

Helo

Ship

Aircraft

MissileBattle Group• Multi-national Joint interoperability depends upon theability to share data. Realistic assessment includes anevaluation of the effectiveness of IT standards used
The Defense Department’s top adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff [LTG Kellogg,
J6] on information technology issues says the federal law that entitles the military
services to equip their own forces should be revised to ensure that the services buy
systems capable of sharing data.
data
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 20026

Lack of Interoperability
Tactical Ballistic Missile Defense Example• “When you look at the situation from the level of
information [data in context], rather than from thelevel of data, there are other problems,” e.g.:– Difficult to correlate, or fuse, data from the current
systems, meaning that different sensors often provide
overlapping coverage at varying levels of accuracy.
– Duplicate and sometimes conflicting data can cause
confusion and misinterpretation.
– Different systems performing only limited data
management, mean that information can beinconsistent, incorrect, or simply lost.
Source: Carmen Corsetti quoted in “Roving Sands,” at http://www.mitre.org/pubs/showcase/roving_sands.html
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

7

Data Exchanges Remain Primitive• Operations:
Air tasking orders transported via “floppy disk” shore to ship in
Gulf War. Faulty target identification resulting in destruction ofcivilian facilities• Logistics:
Conexes containing a meals rather than other supporting
material• Medical:
Systems unable to track location and condition of injured
personnel during evacuation operations• Acquisition:
Unable to share product data throughout the product life cycle

Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

8

WHY STEP?

Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

9

PLCS
A joint industry, government
inititative to develop international
information standards for through-life
product support
An international project designed to
produce working data models anddraft standards in three years
PLCS utilizes ISO 10303 STEP - theSTandard for the Exchange of Productmodel data

Solving
Solving Problems
Problems
What version/configuration is it?
The maintenance information is
outdated, inaccurate and unavailable
when it is needed the most…
I need to reduce my inventory andspares costs
How do I get accurate in-service
feedback?

Through Life Business Model
OperateSupportEngineering

State

D
e
s
i
g
n

Organisation

Anomaly
Task
Requirements
Identification
Configuration
State
Applicability
Documentation

Consistent
Linking &Referencing

Configuration
Management

Produce
Management
ManagementInformation
Information

Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

Resource
Management

Configuration
Management

Core Concepts &Referencing

Configuration

Product
ID

Significantly improve productavailability through improved
support capability
Improve the cost, quality andaccessibility of Product Life Cycle
Support information
Accelerate technical developmentof the ISO standards
Encourage early implementationby commercial vendors

TargetTarget Areas
Areas

SupportEffectivity

Goals
Goals

Manage change throughout the
product life cycle, with theprovision of tracking of serial
numbers where applicable

SupportEngineering

Provide and sustain the
support infrastructure

Resource
Inventory
Management

Buy, store, pack, move, issueand dispose of physical products

Maintenance
And Feedback

Maintain, test, diagnose,
calibrate, repair, and modify
physical product, including
schedules, resources andfeedback

Maintenance
And Feedback

10

Product Data Example
PROBLEM: product data sources are
not integrated vertically or horizontally
Personal
Filespecs

Engineering
Drawings
JEDMICS-- 4 Tech
Order
CAD
Databases
VendorCatalogs

Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

How
toShare?

Test
Specs
T&E
Reports

Manufacturing
Process
Descriptions

11

Information Explosion
DATA TSUNAMI!
By 2000 AD●●

Information doubles 1time every 3 years
Data will double > 20
times in only 6 years

DA
TA

Thus, in 6 years

Data 125,000 >Information!

e.g., "Documents" now
include digitized
Text
Photographs
Graphics
Audio
INFORMATION
Color
Animation
Next 6 Years Video
SOURCE: George Gilder, "Life After Television"
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

Interoperability Problems• Portability and dependability is required
across heterogeneous environments.
• In spite of all the technological advances,data exchanges remain primitive.
• Significance of the data itself isevidenced by operational problems
and lack of interoperability.
• There has been too little focus on data
meaning within context!
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

13

CALS/EC• CALS Origins• CALS Vision: Implement a Logistics VirtualEnterprise• Name Evolution:• Computer Aided Logistics Support• Continuous Acquisition and Logistics Support• CALS/EC• “Commerce At Light Speed!”• CALS/EC in U.S. DoD Today
Some organizational changes but still
pursuing the original CALS goals and objectives
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

14

CALS
Improving DoD Acquisition and Life Cycle Processes
CALS Vision
CALS Leads the Transition to Integrated Digital Operations Utilizing Value
Added Technical and Business Information to Increase Productivity

CALS Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Implement Integrated Data Environments
Integrate Configuration & Data Management Practices
Foster Global Competitiveness
Develop ISO Standards as Enablers
Implement a Virtual Logistics Enterprise
Reduce O&S Costs
Support Paper Free Contracting

Shared Information: Foundationfor 21st Century Productivity✦ Integrated Data Environments:– Collaboration– Enterprise Connectivity✦ Productivity Gains Realized through:– Shared Information Access– Improved Processes– Common Infrastructure
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

Much Progress … BUT• Computing• Communications• Systems, Software & Data
Engineering• Standards

Exchanging the Meaning of
Data Within Context is
Still a Major Challenge!
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

16

Data in Context• CONTEXT really matters . . . not justcommunications links• Critical portion among combat systems anddata links that involve tracking and deliveryof ordnance. . .
• Sharing accurate and timely data is atechnical objective, programmatic focus,
and most importantly it is an operational
requirement (warfighter position).
Source: National Defense Industrial Association, Naval Interoperability Workshop, Summary Presentation,
May 30 & 31, 2001 at http://www.ndia.org/committees/syseng/pdf/NIOMay01SumPres.pdf
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 200217

Meaningful Data Is Key• “Data plays a huge role in the interoperability
equation.”• “Further investigation of data integrity, data
reference table synchronization and data
standardization is needed to resolveinteroperability issues.”• “Data management and data standardization
should be key areas for near term
investigation.”
Source: Worldwide DoD CIO Conference, circa 2000
http://www.c3i.osd.mil/doc/dodcio-2000conf/New%20Pages/RTFinal_Interoperability.htm
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

18

Data Interoperability Challenge

Expect Heterogeneity!
• No Single Standard can be defined!
• Various Defense communities will adopt
multiple “standards:”– Government (message, database, symbology),
Commercial, International, de facto/legacy etc.

• Implementation will vary across systems
even within communities
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

19

PAST INITIATIVES
Data Standardization Mandates
DoD 5000.2-R “It is DoD policy to develop software systems based on...

use of standard data. Additional guidance is contained in DoDD 8320.1”
DoDD 8000.1 “It is DoD policy that ...
standard DoD data definitions shallbe used for all ISs, to include theinterfaces between weapon systems
and the ISs”

Joint Technical Architecture“The mandated standards for DoD
data definitions are DoD
8320.1-M-1and the DDDS”

DoDD 8320.1
DoD Data
Administration

Data Administration: “The
responsibility for the definition,organization, supervision andprotection of data within anenterprise.”

Data Element
Life Cycle
Developmental

Candidate

DoD 8320.1- M - 1
Data Standardization
Procedures

Modified
Approved
Disapproved

Defense Data Dictionary System (DDDS)

Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

Archived“...applies to data elements andvalues that are unique to theoperation of equipment andsoftware that are an integral partof a weapons system and related
test equipment”“Levy burden and cost of
conversion to nonstandard data,
regardless of the origin of therequirement for the information on
the Component using
nonstandard data”

Responsibilities:• Functional Areas– USD (A)– USD (C3I)– ...
• Components– Army– Navy– Air Force– Defense Agencies

20

PAST INITIATIVESStandard Data Elements
1,678

C3
Intelligence
Information Mgmt

317
737

Logistics

2,235

External Standards

1,335

DDR&E

2,589

Personnel & Readiness

1018

Health Affairs

769

Finance449

Procurement

652

Installations

230

Environmental Security

684

Other

628

Total

13,321

Personnel &Readiness
1018
7.3%

Logistics
2,235
17.8%

Environmental
Security
684Intelligence
5.1%
317
2.4%
Information
Management
737
5.7%

Procurement652
4.8%
Finance449
2.6%
Health Affairs
769
5.3%

C3
1,678
13%

DDR&E
2,589
18.7%

External
Installations Standards
230
1,335
1.7%
10.3%

A/O 9 March 1999

Implemented in AISs: 6,937
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

Other
628
4.7%

What’s Broken?
• Multiple standardization efforts- Data Standards- Symbology Standards- Terminology Management Standards- Message Standards- De Facto Standards- Commercial Standards

Result: Multiple terms, definitions and structures evolving in different
CM cycles (and wasted resources)• Weak Metadata support– Poor visibility and distribution of “in situ” data assets– Hard to link existing GOTS & COTS data resources– No consistent way to show which systems use what data

• Slow change mechanisms
Too much PROCESS -- not enough PRODUCT!
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 200222

Some Current DoD
Approaches to Data Issues• Data Engineering (COE SHADE –shared data elements) & Initiatives• Market-driven Data Management• XML Repository• PDML Project• Semantic Mediation• DAML (DARPA Agent Markup
Language)• PLCS Project
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

23

Shared Data Engineering(SHADE)• Data services infrastructure
Addresses data issues
for the DII COE that promotes
necessary to achieve system
information
Data Engineering (COE SHADE)– Sharing– Interoperability•– Software reuse. . . in a secure, reliable, global
environment

interoperability and data
sharing goals within DOD• The infrastructure is
implemented as a set of– Shared schema– Services– Tools– Operating procedures. . .supporting COE-based mission
applications.
UNCLASSIFIED
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

18

24

Market-Driven Data Management

Objective• Strategy for Data Resource“Accreditation” that Allows Network
Components to be Independently
Upgraded without Requiring
Complete “System” re-baselining
and re-accreditation– Add/Remove Data Sources or Services– Add/Remove Communications Paths– Update Infrastructure Components– Add/Remove Applications

New
Comms
Path

New Warfighter
Applications¾Define “Publish and Subscribe”
Architecture for Data Resources
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

New Data Source

Upgraded
Infrastructure(COTS & GOTS)

25

Market-Driven Data Management

New Info Systems Paradigm¾ Publish and Subscribe Challenges– How, where and what do data resources publish?
– How do users find resources and subscribe?
– How is data product or service delivery achieved?

• Context: Global Information Grid (GIG)– Massively Networked Environment– Many complex interconnections– Numerous, frequently changing data resources– Dynamic network architectures (e.g., crisis-specific)

Flexible and Responsive Management is Crucial!
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

26

Market-Driven Data Management

GIG Electronic Marketplace
Consumers shall . . . easily discover, retrieve, and manage. . . information based upon its characteristics asadvertised by producers . . . Accordingly:• Info producers shall advertise information availability
and accessibility using DoD standard meta-data, data
schema, and producer profiling mechanisms.
• Info awareness, access and delivery shall be facilitated .
. . common mechanisms such as producer profiles andsource registries.
• Authoritative info repositories shall be established, andorganizations shall be identified and authorized to create,compile, distribute, and dispose of data and metadata inthese repositories . . .
DoD CIO G&PM No. 7-8170-082400 Global Information Grid (GIG) Information Management (IM)
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 200227

Market-Driven Data Management

Build-Time Marketplace Rules
Data Component Registration• Consult Emporium before creating new components andreuse existing data where practical• Indicate planned use of components by formallysubscribing to them
• Register additional components or recommended mods

Communities of Interest (COIs) Formation• Created “as required” when someone will agree to manage• Requirements for new COIs staffed with:– Existing COI Managers– Senior Service/Agency engineers– Flag Level Review Board

Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

28

Market-Driven Data Management

Run-Time Data Market Players• Data Producers– “Advertise” their data products and services and convey
access information• Data Consumers– Use cataloged metadata to drive precision search andretrieval tools• Operational Data Managers– Adjust network content in response to user demand asreflected in Run-Time Market transactions• Defense Acquisition Sponsors– Use market metrics for acquisition oversight (e.g.,reflecting true Program value thru specific data service
usage data etc.)
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

29

XML
COI Namespace Management• A Namespace is a technical mechanism that allows
various, overlapping XML collections to be taggedwith distinguishing labels.
• For DoD XML administrative purposes, Namespaces
constitute a collection of data constructs that share acommon context within a Community of Interest(COI).
– These collections are managed by team leaders called“Namespace Managers” supported by “Namespace
Working Groups.”– The Configuration Review and Control Board (CRCB),
established by DISA for the ASD/C3I, will charter
Namespaces and designate managers for them.
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

30

Data Exchange Problem and XML• XML by itself cannot resolve data engineering andapplication interoperability problems.
– The data problems that exist will continue to exist and could become worse!
• A serious problem lies in the semantics of the schemas.
– schemas are developed independently and are notsemantically consistent with one another, therefore
data cannot be consistently exchanged orinterpreted “between schemas”.
– XML encourages the ad hoc development DTD’s,
thereby exacerbating the problem.
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 200231

Intelligent Use of XML• XML is a great new technology
breakthrough -- but not a silver bullet -it will not solve all existing data
problems.
• The only problem that XML contributes
a solution to is the physical syntax of
exchanged data, i.e., marked-up ASCII
text.
– it contributes in that it is a globally
standard approach for the exchange
format of data between systems.

XML Tower of Babel•The DoD data problem is still there - it is a:•human problem - interpersonal communication•schema problem - systems integration•Exchanging data successfully is not the same thing as
application interoperability.
•Successful employment of XML-like technologies requires
Business Process Re-Engineering as a Foundation
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

32

XML Repository
Governance
DISA Engineering
Staff

Namespace
Managers’
Forum

Supports

Operates,
Maintains

Participate in

Governs

Hosts

NamespaceNamespaceNamespace
Managers&&
Managers
Managers
&
WGs
WGs
WGs

DISA XML Registry
Registry Ops Staff
Controls/Displays on Web

DATATWG
SSD-MDSUB PANEL

Participates inConsults & Submits
to/Downloads fromXML Registry

Participates in

DOD Developer• Management arrangements to accomplish registration and to
perform the Clearinghouse function.
• Organizations and processes provide developers with astraightforward means to• Comply with the registration requirement• Acquire detailed XML technical information• Have a voice in formulating DoD XML directions
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

33

John Zachman on Managing Change in the“Knowledge-based” Information Age• The key to accommodatingchange in the knowledge-based,
Information Age enterprise lies in– The "engineering" discipline for building
and managing the enterprise models– The cultural discipline to employ themodels [in an architecture framework] inthe operation of the enterprise.

• Build models, store models,manage (enforce) models andchange models [and use models inan architected knowledge
framework]... the only rational
Enterprise response to change inthe “Information Age“ [to gain
competitive advantage.]

Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

34

EIA Vendor Architectures
Process Automation
Enterprise Applications
Connector•Custom Appl.
Connector•Legacy Sys.

Connector

Analyzer

Connector•Packaged Appl.

PublishPublish && Subscribe
Subscribe
Connector•Databases

Connector

Communicator
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

Source: Pete Everitt35

1. Infrastructure
2. Formal data capture
from existing records
3. Interoperability of data
4. Data authentication
5. Security
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

36

Information Integration

Database
Level

Event
Level

DataMart/
Lacks Validation?????
of
DataWarehouse

LegacyandContext Management from
External Information
ERP VendorsSources EAI Vendors
Unified
View

Cross-System
Consistency
Source: Pete Everitt

Adapted from: Michael Stonebreaker - EAI Journal
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

37

Information Integration

Database
Level

DataMart/
DataWarehouse
ed
t
a
il d
Va

Event
Level

fo
n
I

ECI

ERP Vendors

EAI Vendors

Unified
View

Cross-System
Consistency
Source: Pete Everitt

Adapted from: Michael Stonebreaker - EAI Journal
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

38

PDML
Methodology
PDI Integration
Schema in
EXPRESS

Source Data
• Mil-Std 2549
• JEDMICS• TechOrder-4

label
label

class

drawing_
document

product_data_type

document_with_class

document_
type• PDM Sys

idrevision_id

kindidentifier

description
document

text

label
name

• PDM Enablers

file_namelabel
sourcerelating_document

digital_file

identifier

subject_element_value
related_document
text

name

• PDM Schema

associated_
programSeq#
1

Field NamePDI Specification

Mapping Specification

Part Material design enterprise type codegroup.name2Part/Matrial design enterprise identifier

identification_assignment.id{[group_assignment on organizationrole.name = ‘enterprise type code’][organization_assignment on productorganization_role.name = ‘designer’]}{[identification_assignment on organization,organization =>cage
identification_role.name = ‘com cage’, ‘gov cage’][organization_assignment on productorganization_role.name = ‘designer’]}

3
4
5
6

Part/Material Identifier
Material identification parameter list
Part/Material name
NSN

product.id
product.id
product.name
identification_assignment.id

7

Product tracking-basd source code (13TRK1)

8

Product-tracking base-identifiergroup.id9

Defining document identifier and type code10

can be substituted for/replaces part/material source, or
has company stock number assigned by[document.id][document_kind.name]organization.id

11

can be substituted for/replaces part/material identifier, oris company stock number of

product.id

12

can be substituted for/replaces part/material identification
parameter list

product.id

description

description

document_usage_
constraint
subject_element

document_
relationship
name
text

PDML
Transaction Sets
in EXPRESSPDML
Transaction Sets
in XMLXML DTDXML DTD<Product_ID>.......
<Product_ID>.......
<Product_ID><Product_ID><Product_Name>...
<Product_Name>...
.<Product_Name>..
. .<Product_Name>..
.
<NH_Product.ID>..
XML DTD<NH_Product.ID>..
..<NH_Product.ID>
XML DTD<Product_ID>.......
..<NH_Product.ID><Product_ID>.......
<Product_ID><Product_ID><Product_Name>...
<Product_Name>...
...<Product_Name>. .<Product_Name>...
<NH_Product.ID>..
<NH_Product.ID>..
..<NH_Product.ID>
XML DTD..<NH_Product.ID>
XML DTD<Product_ID>.......
<Product_ID>.......
<Product_ID><Product_ID><Product_Name>...
<Product_Name>...
...<Product_Name>. .<Product_Name>...
<NH_Product.ID>..
<NH_Product.ID>..
..<NH_Product.ID>..<NH_Product.ID>

Product Structure2549

product => material
identification_assignment on productidentification_role.name = ‘NSN’group_assignment on productgroup_role.name = ‘tracking base source code’{group.name = ‘D’,’drawing’,’C’,’configuration item’,’U’,’Specification’, ‘S’, ‘standard document’,‘P’, ‘product’, ‘M’, ‘material’}group_assignment on productgroup_role.name = ‘tracking base source code’
product_definition_with_associated_document.documents [i] ->document
or drawing_document{is the org that has orgnaization_assignment on the product that is
the related_product_definition in product_definition_relatioshipwhere the relationship.name = ‘substitute’{is the related_product_definition in
product_definition_relatioshipwhere the relationship.name = ‘substitute’{is the product => material andthe related_product_definition
in product_definition_relatioshipwhere the relationship.name = ‘substitute’

Analysis Tool
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

size

label

Mapping of Source Data to
Advanced Integration Modelgroup.nameviewerEtc.

Auto Tools
39Semantic Vs
Data Mediation
Data Mediation

Data Table

SourceSystemTargetSystemSemantic Mediation
label

Interoperability
Engine
label

class

drawing_

product_data_type

document

document_with_class

document_
type

id

revision_id

kindidentifier

description

text

document

label
name
label

file_namesourcerelating_document
digital_file

subject_element_value

identifier
related_document

document_usage_
text

name

viewerconstraint

size
description
subject_element

SourceSystemJerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

Semantic
Interpretation

document_
associated_

relationshipdescription

nameprogram
text

label

NeutralIntegration

Context
Transformation

TargetSystem40

Semantic Mediation Provides…
…a discipline for semantic knowledge capture
and integration from legacy sources¾Captures and relates
new knowledge toexisting knowledge¾Enables rapid
start-up¾Supports incremental
process improvement
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

¾Compliant withXML Schema as
recommended by
W3C¾Readilyinteroperates withother XML modeleddata¾Supports human andmachine interpretation
41

DAML
(DARPA Agent Markup Language)
The goal of the DAML
effort is to develop alanguage and tools tofacilitate the concept of
the semantic web.
– Create technologies that will enable software
agents to dynamically identify and understandinformation sources– Provide interoperability between the agents in asemantic manner

Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

42

What STEP is Not!
• An Enterprise Data Model– Would not be complete– Does not cover all necessary data

• A Standard for Databases– Does provide an interface (SDAI), and many
definitions and associated data
– BUT it is not possible nor appropriate tostandardize internal schemas• A Graphic Standard– Does include data to support graphics
Source: Eurostep, 1999
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

43

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED• CALS/EC• Technology• Standards• DoD Data Program• STEP
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

44

CALS/EC• Effective change comes from the individuals who must
implement the change. It cannot be imposed fromoutside them.
• Change must be User and Requirements Driven.
• It is a long, slow process – be prepared.
• Form an ‘Executive Team’ for senior management buyin, support and direct participation.
– They identify Process Owners who will assume responsibility fromend to end.
– They formulate meaningful and ambitious goals, identify processes,
decide difficult staffing and organizational issues, develop
performance measures, guide implementations.
– They maintain effective relationships, enlist involvement of all, andsolicit feedback .
Source: Dr Herve’ LeBoeuf, et al
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

45

CALS/EC• Need commercial buy-in – Tailored uniques
only exacerbate legacy problems.
• Acquisition and Procurement Implementation– Acquisition must support all logistics business processes• Management• Supply• Training• Transportation• Mandates from high don’t work without
associated funding and bottom-up buy-in andsupport.
Source: Dr Herve’ LeBoeuf, et al
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

46

Lessons to be Learned• Modernization Depends on
Legacy Data Availability• Leverage from Already Existing
Capabilities and Adapt fromThere
• Always Involve the User First• Life Cycle Documentation/
Management is Very Important
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

47

ERP/ERP II• Existing functional and DoD Component structures drive stovepipe system solutions, impeding collaboration and a DoD-wide
focus.
• Effective use of ERP/COTS applications must drive processchange … else “paved cow paths”.
• Beware of hidden Proprietary land mines• Must overcome IT solution ‘traditions’, DoD unique needs, and“not invented here” syndrome.
• Change is contentious and painful.
• Must champion changes at highest levels of Component, Function
and DoD enterprise.
• Collaboration by all increases each individual chance of success• Take enterprise data out of the hands of the vendors and toolmakers and give it back to the enterprise
Source: Zach Goldstien, et al
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

48

XML Capabilities/Benefits/Limitations–
XML Limitations

XML is GREAT! BUT . . .
• It is not magic.
• By itself it will not resolve
all the data problems.
• Need to manage or else
XML Tower of Babelthe tower of Babel may fall!
• Exchanging data successfully is not thesame thing as applicationinteroperability!
SOLUTION: Reengineering Business Processes for proper use of models
and registered XML components (schemas, DTDs, TAGs) are required to49
achieve “intelligent use of XML.”
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

Intelligent Use of XML
Requires . . .
• Proper use and implementation• “Balanced approach” (not autocratic)• Avoid fragmentation• Consistent application• Coordination• Service and agency Buy-in and support• Need to model our data and business requirements,
then build XML components• Must have agreement between “sender” and“receiver”• Collaborative development• Vocabulary re-use• Education for intelligent use
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

50

DATA MANAGEMENTManagement Options - Contrasting Styles

SPECTRUM OF CONTROL

TIGHT

LOOSE
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

What Management Style
will best work?
Top-down, “Command”
versusMarket-Driven
Recommended Approach:Market Driven with Some Controls
51

STANDARDS• De jure vs Consortia• Organizations don’t actuallycompete: each has a role, scope,and purpose–Consortia best rapid for technology
development–Formal de jure process best forconsensus-building–but not vice versa!

• PLCS & SC4–Best of Both Worlds eg.
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

52

Information Resources• “One issue pushing defense
spending on information
technology is that warfighters now
see IT as another weapons system.”– Data is the “ammo” of IT -- So how can IT
applications function without its ammo?

• Information Is A Resource– Manage as a Critical Asset
Source: Michael Kush, EDS Corp, quoted in http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/14_13/federal/818-1.html

Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

53

STEP
• Document the form of the data in amanner independent of the transfer
syntax• Support multiple implementation
approaches• Support automation of implementation• Include rules which the data mustsatisfy• Support standard selections to meet
specific requirements
Source: Stefan Lindahl, Eurostep
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

54

STEP
• Collaborative and concurrent design anddevelopment leads to increased number ofchanges affecting a greater number of
product components, people and systems• Changes need to be controlled across manysystems, processes and geographic barriers• The change process must be harmonizedacross applications andf egineering domains
Source: Stefan Lindahl, Eurostep
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

55

SUMMARY
Data, Meaning, & Communication• Purpose of data
– convey information to humans or software– data that are not intended for delivery to humans is
ultimately intended to facilitate the delivery of
information to humans• Subtleties of human communication
faculties not applied to data
– Linguistics, philosophy, sociology all ignored– “Meaning” is what perceived data signifies to a
stakeholder• Need to recognize these problems
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

56

SUMMARY• True Interoperability is CRITICAL– Solving Data Issues Key to Success• Many Significant Advances– But Still have Data Problems• Need More Attention to Data Issues
How to Preserve and Exchange theMeaning of Data Within Context ?
Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

57

Information – not Military Might –Will Dominate Battlefields of 21st Century• Historically, the force that occupied the highground had the greatest advantage. ‘High
Ground’ now consists of information fromsatellites and aerial surveillance systems. -Secretary Cohen

KM is "obsoleting what you know before others obsolete it and profit
by creating the challenges and opportunities others haven't eventhought about“ -- Dr. Yogesh Malhotra, Inc. Technology

Jerry Smith Tokyo January 2002

58