Standardization

Air Force Cyber Warfare Training

An Effects-Based Metrics Framework

Standardizing Air Force Base Networks 

around the Globe

Technology
Contents April/June 2007

1 Director’s Forum

3 Air Force Strategic Sourcing Initiative Delivers

Far-Reaching Standardization

9 Air Force Cyber Warfare Training

14 DMSMS Working Group Reaches Out to Programs

18 An Effects-Based Metrics Framework

Measuring Progress toward a Net-Centric DoD

25 Standardizing Air Force Base Networks

around the Globe

30 A One-Stop Shop for Communications

CIPS Standardizes Management of Communication Requirements

across the Air Force

36 Keynote Address at the 2007 Defense Standardization

Symposium

40 2006 Defense Standardization Program Awards

Departments

46 Events 48 People

Gregory E. Saunders

Director, Defense Standardization Program Office

Timothy P. Koczanski

Editor, Defense Standardization Program Journal

Defense Standardization Program Office

8725 John J. Kingman Road

Stop 6233

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221

703-767-6870

Fax 703-767-6876

dsp.dla.mil

The Defense Standardization Program Journal

(ISSN 0897-0245) is published four times a

year by the Defense Standardization Program

Office (DSPO). Opinions represented here are

those of the authors and may not represent official policy of the U.S. Department of Defense.

Letters, articles, news items, photographs, and

other submissions for the DSP Journal are welcomed and encouraged. Send all materials to

Editor, DSP Journal, J-307, Defense Standardization Program Office, 8725 John J. Kingman

Road, Stop 6233, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.

DSPO is not responsible for unsolicited materials. Materials can be submitted digitally by the

following means:

e-mail to DSP-Editor@dla.mil

floppy disk (Windows format) to DSP Journal

at the above address.

DSPO reserves the right to modify or reject any

submission as deemed appropriate.

For a subscription to the DSP Journal, go to dsp.dla.mil/newsletters/subscribe.asp

14

9
dsp.dla.mil 1

Director’s Forum

Advances in technology, like any change,

offer both great challenges and great

opportunities. One only has to look around

to see the enormous impact that technological advances have had on all of our lives.

Technological discovery, development, and application make our daily lives better, if not always

less complicated.The list is nearly endless. Here

are a few examples:

❚ The Internet has fundamentally changed

how we search for, exchange, and verify

information.

❚ iPod—based on technologies for micro-hard

drives, liquid crystal displays, lithium-ion 

batteries, Fast Fourier Transforms for signal

processing, and so on, many pioneered and

funded by DoD—has dramatically changed

the way we carry music with us everywhere

we go.

❚ Cell phones and PDAs with multiple additional functions have become ubiquitous.

❚ Flat-screen displays, helped along by DoD

funding for weapon system displays, have

found their way onto desktops and laptops

and into living rooms as flat-screen televisions.

❚ Personal GPS receivers help us find our way.

❚ Automobiles have become safer, more comfortable, and more efficient due to incorporation of many different technological

advances.

In the Department of Defense, technologies developed and brought from the laboratory to practical use over the course of many years have given

us superiority in numerous critical defensive and

offensive capabilities. Stealth technology; information collection, analysis, exchange, and use;

net-centric warfare capabilities; unmanned vehicles; precision guided munitions; and advanced

personnel protection are just a few of the ways

that technological development has led to battlefield superiority.

But taking technology from someone’s wild

idea or dream to practical application is no trivial

issue. Selecting which ideas to pursue or which

Gregory E. Saunders

Director, Defense Standardization Program Office

TECHNOLOGY—TURNING

A WILD IDEA INTO A

PRACTICAL APPLICATION
2 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

solutions on which to standardize is as difficult as

picking winners in a horse race. In the battle between VHS and Beta, some portions of DoD decided to standardize on U-Matic.There was a

good argument that it was a superior format, but

in the end, it never gained market acceptance.

To fully appreciate the technological advances

we make, it is instructive to look behind the curtain and see how technologies are brought from a

wild idea to fielded, force-changing technological

capability.Though not the only way that it happens, one disciplined approach to track technological progress is through the use of Technological Readiness Levels (TRLs).As outlined in

Defense Acquisition Guidebook, the step-by-step

TRL process, which is intended to assist managers with making smart decisions that will 

ultimately benefit DoD, is as follows:

❚ Step 1—observation and reporting of basic principles. Scientific research begins and is translated into an implied research and development

phase that may describe basic properties.

❚ Step 2—formulation of technology concept and

application.Application is still speculative and

no proof is offered to support basic assumptions.

❚ Step 3—critical function and proof of concept.

Typically, this includes physical validation to

analyze predictions.

❚ Step 4—component and breadboard validation in

the laboratory. Components are integrated to

establish that pieces will work together, at

least in the laboratory.

❚ Step 5—component validation in relevant environment. Basic components are integrated

with reasonably realistic supporting elements

so that the technology can be tested in a

simulated environment.

❚ Step 6—model or prototype demonstration in a

relevant environment.The model is tested in its

relevant environment.

❚ Step 7—system prototype demonstration in an

operational environment.The system prototype

is demonstrated in an actual operational

environment.

❚ Step 8—actual system completion and “flight

qualification” through test and demonstration.At

the end of system development, the technology is proven to work in its final form and

under perceived conditions.This typically

includes developmental test and evaluation of

the system in its intended weapon system to

determine if it meets design specifications.

❚ Step 9—use of the actual system in successful

mission operations.The technology is applied

in its final form and under mission conditions.

Bringing technology to fruition is a long and

complex process.As B.F. Skinner said,“the real

problem is not whether machines think but

whether men do.”Technology can’t be applied to

real problems unless men and women figure out

how to use it effectively.This issue of Defense

Standardization Program Journal illustrates a few examples of the practical application of technology

to real problems and issues faced in the Department of Defense.
dsp.dla.mil 3

By Deborah Sackman

Air Force Strategic 

Sourcing Initiative Delivers 

Far-Reaching Standardization
4 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

T

The Air Force’s Information Technology Commodity Council (ITCC)

Desktop/Laptop (DT/LT) strategic sourcing initiative enables the Air Force to

reap the benefits of quarterly enterprise-wide buys—managed PC hardware and

software standardization, including improved network security, improved warranty

support, and streamlined application development activities.The monetary savings

have been a major benefit as well. In just 3 years, the ITCC DT/LT initiative has

delivered more than $85 million in cost avoidance associated with the purchase of

more than 308,000 PCs.This substantial cost avoidance remains within each major

command (MAJCOM) to be used to support other mission-critical needs.

The DT/LT initiative makes a valuable contribution to Air Force operations by

carefully monitoring results and applying a continuous improvement approach to

the program. Part of the effort involves shifting the perception of the user community from viewing PCs as personal computing devices to a mindset that views computers as a means to enable critical enterprise network capabilities for the Air Force.

Successful standardization programs create ripple effects that extend benefits well

beyond their core area of focus.The Air Force’s standardization efforts increase organizational productivity, value, and flexibility by reducing otherwise cumbersome

processes and allowing personnel to more effectively perform their mission and

day-to-day operations.

Establishing a Framework for Improved Processes 

and Purchasing Management

The Air Force established the ITCC in July 2003 to leverage its buying power, improve capability, increase standardization, and reduce the overall cost of IT ownership. The organization develops and oversees IT commodity buying, contracting,

and life-cycle management strategies. By using strategic sourcing to enable the Air

Force to define a standard computing platform and simplify enterprise life-cycle

support for mainstream PCs, the ITCC DT/LT initiative significantly lowers the

overall cost of PC ownership and operation, enables the Air Force IT infrastructure

to better support network-centric operations, and develops an expanding base of

satisfied users.

To establish a consistent approach to PC purchases, the ITCC developed and implemented a Quarterly Enterprise Buy (QEB) program, a sourcing strategy that

applies standardized business processes to PC purchases.Approved by the Air Force

Chief of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer and the Deputy

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, the ITCC DT/LT commodity

strategy leverages Air Force enterprise purchasing volume and standardizes the

hardware and software configurations of mainstream PCs.
dsp.dla.mil 5

Semiannually, the ITCC reviews Air Force buying standards and works closely

with seven strategic suppliers to develop an 18-month technical road map for the

buying standards.The road map helps the ITCC determine the appropriate time to

change the buying standards. PCs meeting these standards are meant to support

mission activities for the targeted life cycle of the hardware (at least 3 years for laptops and 4 years for desktops). Formal changes to Air Force buying standards are

coordinated through the ITCC and approved by the Air Force Architecture Integrated Process Team.

The QEB has had a significant impact on strategic PC suppliers to the Air Force

in terms of price competition for orders, reducing the current price of a mainstream desktop computer to less than $500.To date, the percentage of systems delivered through the QEB is 46 percent from Hewlett-Packard, 41 percent from

Dell, 7 percent from IBM/Lenovo, and 6 percent from Gateway.

Standardizing Hardware, Software, and Life-Cycle Management

The QEB program initially established mainstream buying standards for enterprise

PC hardware configurations and used the quarterly purchase process to promote

and help enforce the purchase of new mainstream computers. By first establishing

standard hardware configurations, the ITCC could then address the issue of standardized Air Force software configurations.

The ITCC determined that establishing a standard desktop configuration would

provide numerous security, operational, and cost benefits. Doing so would require

the entire Air Force to use a limited number of versions of Microsoft software, the

predominant desktop operating system. This was a driving factor behind the Air

Force establishing a single enterprise license agreement with Microsoft, which not

only provided the licensing capability to establish a standard desktop configuration,

but also led to a cost avoidance of more than $100 million through FY10.It also ensured that the Air Force could require QEB vendors to ship Air Force-purchased

computers with the standard desktop software configuration, thereby improving the

security posture of the network. Finally, it facilitated the Air Force’s move to a single

Designated Approval Authority for certifying and validating a commercial off-theshelf product only one time for use throughout the entire Air Force network.

Establishment of the Microsoft enterprise license enabled the next step: a software

configuration standard for cross-platform connectivity and security, thus enabling

the Air Force to reengineer its processes and reducing the time to deploy software

security patches from weeks to hours.The Air Force will take the next step in 2007

when it will move to a “comply and connect” network security environment. Ma-
6 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

chines that attempt to connect to the network will first be analyzed. Machines that

do not meet the minimum requirements will be quarantined and afforded the opportunity to become compliant before connecting to the network.

Before establishing an enterprise Microsoft license, various Air Force individuals

and organizations used many different operating system versions with varying licensing rights, which adversely affected their ability to upgrade to newer versions.

With the Microsoft enterprise license initiative in place, the Air Force now has a

streamlined process for acquiring and implementing PCs with a common software

baseline, as well as a greatly improved foundation for application test and evaluation

procedures.

A standardized master software image provides a baseline software image for

computer shipments, simplifies network management, and reduces complexities

and unknown variables for help desk and support personnel. As a result, the Air

Force now possesses a baseline Microsoft software image that can be distributed to

hardware vendors for each QEB.This same software image is also being installed

on PCs in current use around the Air Force. Bases can now develop installation

packages for specific applications—thus reducing the time, effort, complexity, and

amount of work required to support the products added to the standard desktop—

because personnel already know the specific baseline for all computers.

Building upon these accomplishments, the DT/LT initiative is also addressing lifecycle standards by developing and implementing standard vendor-provided asset

tagging and is currently assessing options for PC disposition. Planned 2007 efforts

include providing advanced enterprise configuration management that addresses

rapid security patching, mandated minimum operating hardware standard configuration requirements, and enhanced compliance and connectivity capabilities.

Focusing on Processes and Strategy to Implement Standards

The ITCC DT/LT initiative developed and implemented a buying strategy, a contract strategy, the QEB process, and a life-cycle support strategy.The initiative has

significantly improved return on investment and reduced the total life-cycle cost of

PC ownership by focusing on managed mainstream configurations that support

the vast majority of users.

Although some software requirements may not be compatible with a minimum

configuration, the process helps identify these gaps so they can be addressed in a

more predictable manner in future purchases. All standards apply not only to the

QEB purchases, but also to urgent requests between QEBs. Even urgent requests,
dsp.dla.mil 7

however, require waivers from MAJCOM/functional chief information officers

and must be purchased through AFWay, the Air Force IT e-procurement site.

The ITCC QEB strategy establishes relationships with strategic suppliers while

still enabling competition at the per-order level.The blanket purchase agreements

are for 5-year terms that have annual reviews and options.The agreements enable

the Air Force to establish relationships with strategic suppliers, conduct order-level

competitions, and effectively manage the resulting purchases.Agreements are negotiated with seven enterprise suppliers, which include four large and one small business original equipment manufacturers and two small business resellers.

The Air Force is able to centralize the ordering process and choose the best value

among competing suppliers by using the QEB process. The QEB realizes vastly

improved cost avoidance over contracts that might otherwise be negotiated at the

command level or in single-purchase transactions because the competition is at the

level of the entire Air Force.The ITCC also uses a cyclical process to update minimum operating and purchase configurations to provide advantages unavailable to

organizations and individuals making standalone purchases.

Employing a Continuous Improvement Approach to Enable Expanded Benefits

The ITCC continuously evaluates the current market and revises its purchasing

strategy according to current conditions. The continuous improvement approach

used by the ITCC enables it to devise and implement a strategy that takes advantage of evolving market developments and lessons learned.

Like all programs that strive to implement new business processes, the ITCC

knows the value of maintaining senior leadership sponsorship at Air Force Headquarters and the MAJCOMs. Stakeholder representatives to the ITCC include 

all MAJCOMs as well as key functional and special-interest representatives. The

MAJCOM ITCC members have been essential to the success of the ITCC.

By building upon early successes and focusing on incremental 

results, the program has consistently achieved its yearly objectives

by delivering greater value to Air Force operations and improved

customer satisfaction.
8 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

The ITCC has also ensured that communication initiatives deliver the information that the user community needs to understand the benefits of the program. By

building upon early successes and focusing on incremental results, the program has

consistently achieved its yearly objectives by delivering greater value to Air Force

operations and improved customer satisfaction.

The ITCC and QEB are best-practice examples of how reengineered processes

can be used to influence purchasing behavior and motivate personnel to adopt new

business processes. By enabling the Air Force to realize the benefits of predictable

pricing with increasing technology capabilities and controlled evolution of standards, the ITCC and QEB have increased the ability of the Air Force to more efficiently carry out its mission.

For more information on the Air Force ITCC DT/LT program, please see the

ITCC QEB website: https://www.gunter.af.mil/acquisitions/kai/kaih/qeb/.

About the Author

Deborah Sackman, an IT business initiative consultant from General Dynamics Information

Technology Corporation, serves on the staff of the U.S. Air Force Office of Warfighting

Integration and Chief Information Officer, Enterprise Services Division. Ms. Sackman’s experience ranges from life-cycle application development on small to large enterprise projects,

to establishment and management of help desk operations, to technology assessment and

insertion, to IT and business strategic planning and execution.t
dsp.dla.mil 9

By Aaron McBride

Air Force Cyber Warfare

Training
I

10 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

Imagine you’ve recently been assigned to an integrated network operations and security center as an Air Force network defender.You’re reviewing various statistics on the “health” of the network on your enterprise

monitoring software, including firewall activity and the gateway servers.All

of a sudden you receive an alert that an unauthorized account has been

granted administration-level access to the domain controller server.Within

10 minutes, your office is flooded with calls from help desk crews

throughout the major commands (MAJCOMs) because thousands of user

accounts have been permanently locked.Then you discover that one of the

base firewalls is down. Shortly thereafter, the second one fails, leaving your

base network isolated from the Air Force network and the rest of the

world. The infrastructure technician reports the base gateway server is

down.The entire crew is tense. MAJCOM representatives and your crew

commander are demanding answers.What’s going on and what do you do?

Luckily, the training instructor calls out for a PAUSEX (pause exercise)

and the automated network attack immediately stops.You’re grateful that it

wasn’t real. This scenario is only one of many that the Simulator Based

Training and Exercise Program (SIMTEX) provides to Air Force cyber

warriors.

SIMTEX Simulator Range at Scott Air 

Force Base
dsp.dla.mil 11

Since the early 1900s, aircraft simulators have been used to train pilots,

helping to develop their skills and prepare them for using aerial weapons

systems. Modern aircraft simulators provide flight crews a realistic training

environment similar to what they would experience during actual combat

operations.Airborne weapons-platform simulators support a wide range of

activities, from individual flight training to entire squadrons operating together. Just like aircrew simulators, the SIMTEX simulator provides a riskfree environment that allows crews to train and exercise at the individual,

unit, or multi-organizational level.

Lessons learned from the Vietnam War taught us that combat operations

are not the correct venues for training personnel. During Vietnam, in an

effort to improve poor kill ratios, the Air Force activated Exercise Red Flag

to provide pilots the necessary instruction and practice to increase their

combat skills. Similarly, in 2002, the Air Force Information Warfare Center

(now the Air Force Information Operations Center), in concert with the

Air Force Communications Agency (AFCA), developed and conducted

the first Air Force network defense exercise, Black Demon—referred to as

BD 2002.This exercise provided participating Air Force network defenders their first 10 cyber warfare combat “sorties” and prepared them for network crew positions.

Four MAJCOMs participated in BD 2002.The Air Force did not have a

simulator then, so each MAJCOM built one from whatever equipment

Network Crews during Black Demon Exercise 

(at the Scott Air Force Base SIMTEX node)
12 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

they could spare. The resulting simulators were dissimilar, which resulted in

nonstandard scenarios and contrasting exercise results. The primary lesson

learned from BD 2002 was that the Air Force needed a single network simulator

to normalize training and enhance network defense tactics, techniques, and procedures.The great success of the annual training exercise led to implementation

of SIMTEX simulators, mimicking the current three-tiered Air Force network

architecture, and expansion to participation from all services in Joint Exercise

Bulwark Defender.

Since the simulator is separated from the operational network, network mission operations are not affected by SIMTEX exercises.This separation also allows for simulating risky activity. AFCA deployed equipment that provides a

standard simulator at each training location and can be used in a variety of training venues. One feature of the simulator is its ability to provide automated attack scenarios that can be rebaselined in 10 minutes or less. Adding to the

simulator’s realism is the unique feature of the intra-network of simulators and a

functional SIMTEX “Internet,” complete with domain name system resolution

and simulated real-world websites like CNN and Google.

When the SIMTEX simulator is not being used for AFCA-sponsored training

events or an Air Force or Joint exercise, it is made available for crew training and

MAJCOM standardization and evaluation programs. Part of the SIMTEX training package is a train-the-trainer component for MAJCOMs to conduct justin-time training or to evaluate their personnel. The SIMTEX simulator is

designed to be flexible, allowing multiple training and exercise formats that inAir Combat Command

Air Education and Training Command

Air Force Information Operations Center

Air Force Materiel Command

Air Force Network Operations Center (National Center 

for Documentation, Network Outward Dialing,

Network Security Division)

Air Force Reserve Command

Permanent Node Locations

Air Force Space Command

Air Force Special Operations Command

Air Mobility Command

Air National Guard

Pacific Air Forces

Recruit Training Squadron, Keesler Air Force Base

United States Air Forces in Europe

Vermont Air National Guard
dsp.dla.mil 13

clude training individuals on specific tasks; training crews on tactics, techniques,

and procedures; and training multiple organizations at the various network tiers.

Additional locations can also be remotely connected into the SIMTEX network

with little cost or effort. (Figure 1 shows simulator locations.)

AFCA has partnered with the formal Air Force education and training schoolhouses, providing the laboratory environment to reinforce lesson objectives

using current network threats, vulnerabilities, and mitigation tactics. SIMTEX

simulators support operations training for Air Force enlisted communications

personnel charged with piloting our Air Force networks, and they support advanced networking courses for other Air Force personnel. The simulators also

support the Blended Advanced Distributed Learning Network developed by the

Vermont Air National Guard, which provides instructor-led online classes and

network warfare courses at the 39th Information Operations Squadron.

As the Air Force continues to extend its global reach and global power into cyberspace, SIMTEX will continue to provide trained combat-ready forces to

conduct cyber operations.

About the Author

2nd Lt. Aaron McBride is the lead simulation training and exercise officer at the Air

Force Communications Agency, Scott Air Force Base, IL. In this position since March

2006, he has participated in Air Force Exercise Black Demon 2006 and two MAJCOM

SIMTEX exercises. He provides state-of-the-art network operations and computer network defense training to MAJCOM Network Operations and Security Center and base

Network Control Center crews Air Force-wide.t

FIGURE 1. SIMTEX Simulator Locations
By Jim Jenkins

DMSMS Working Group 

Reaches Out to Programs

14 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007
E

dsp.dla.mil 15

Engineers and logisticians at the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) are

working together—through NAVAIR’s Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and

Material Shortages (DMSMS) Working Group (WG)—for the common good.

Now, stovepipes are crumbling, and swim lanes are being crossed.

The NAVAIR DMSMS WG, led by the Aging Aircraft Enterprise Division and

the Design Interface and Maintenance Planning Division, was established to serve as

an enabler for program teams in developing a synergism for mitigating the effects of

DMSMS.This is accomplished by filtering down Department of Defense (DoD),

Department of the Navy (DoN), and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for

Logistics (DASN-L) policy; defining processes for coordinating DMSMS mitigation

strategies with technology road maps; providing training opportunities; and identifying barriers. It also serves as a forum for NAVAIR DMSMS socialization.

The NAVAIR DMSMS WG’s goal is to establish a standardized NAVAIR “best

practices” process to help all programs develop a “best method” in addressing

DMSMS matters.To achieve that goal, the WG brought together personnel from

virtually every NAVAIR program office to share information and experiences in

relation to DMSMS. By sharing information such as the challenges facing the various programs, their successes, barriers, and most important, lessons learned, the

WG is establishing a synergy among the programs in an effort to make DMSMS

problem solving a more efficient process for all NAVAIR.

“The Aging Aircraft Enterprise Division has been a leader in the Department of

Navy’s efforts in implementing Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition policies and guidance in mitigating the risk of

DMSMS,” said Capt. Joe Spruill, Chief of Staff for DASN-L.“Their efforts in providing direct support to NAVAIR program offices to proactively manage DMSMS,

as well as providing DMSMS awareness and mitigation training have undoubtedly

resulted in significant cost avoidance throughout NAVAIR as well as the entire

Navy Department.”

Representatives from 90 percent of NAVAIR’s programs are meeting on the 

second Thursday of every month at Wyle Laboratories, Inc. in California, MD, to

discuss DMSMS matters and share information.

A big issue,and one of the first to be tackled for the respective programs, was how

to incorporate Program Objectives Memorandum (POM) planning processes for

their DMSMS matters.The February WG meeting included a “POM Planning for

DMSMS” presentation from Ezell “T” Westbrook, Aging Aircraft Non-Program

Related Engineering financial management support, who explained the Air Sys-
16 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

tems Support Requirements Determination process. Each program is required to

include DMSMS money in the POM, separately from their other POM efforts.

The FY10 POM is the first opportunity for the programs to report their complete

DMSMS funding requirements. In attendance was John McKendrew, Air System

Support Team Lead, who provided inputs for the presentation and was there to answer any questions.

Previous meetings have included briefings from Naval Sea Systems Command officials concerning the Obsolescence Management Information System,the DASN-L

staff, the Tomahawk Weapons Control program, and various companies demonstrating tools that help with obsolescence management.

“I think Navy in general and NAVAIR in particular are poised to achieve great

results in pursuit of efforts to mitigate the impact of DMSMS because they have

policy, strategy, implementation and oversight in alignment,” said John Becker,

Chairman, DoD DMSMS WG.“The only thing left for Navy to do is the hard part

of getting programs to change their ways.That takes a dedication to the oversight

process that is well established and showing more positive results with every week.”

NAVAIR’s DMSMS WG has proven successful since it was implemented. Since

September, the NAVAIR community has been provided more than 2,000 manhours of DMSMS training through the following instructor-led Defense Acquisition University courses: DMSMS Fundamentals, DMSMS for Executives, Defense

Logistics Agency Essentials, and DMSMS Case Studies. These courses are very

much in demand, according to Howard Pinnell,Aging Aircraft DMSMS technical

analyst.Working Group members will soon be able to take the DMSMS for the

Technical Professional and Logistician courses, as well.

In addition to those courses, more than 40 NAVAIR DMSMS WG members

have been trained in using the Logistics Planning and Requirements System

(LOGPARS) DMSMS Plan Generator tool, which is said to be as simple as the

popular TurboTax program to fill out and complete. The LOGPARS DMSMS

Plan Generator tool helps members draft their program DMSMS Management

Plan that, if filled out correctly, fulfills all of the DASN-L requirements.

Not only has the WG succeeded in breaking down barriers within NAVAIR, but the Aging

Aircraft DMSMS team is helping the Marine Corps establish an infantry-related WG of

their own and is collaborating with the Air Force...
dsp.dla.mil 17

Along those same lines, the newly created NAVAIR DMSMS reference book is

considered by many in the NAVAIR community as the bible for WG participants.

It teaches, in a step-by-step process, how to create and manage DMSMS programs,

plans, and metrics. The reference book is a compilation of DoD and DoN

DMSMS directives, policies, procedures, guidebooks, and resources.

“This material provides the DMSMS program manager with a desktop reference

to quickly pinpoint key documents required in managing DMSMS issues and concerns,” said Robin Brown,Aging Aircraft DMSMS management analyst.

Cross-communicating is perhaps the biggest benefit the NAVAIR DMSMS WG

has to offer. No program should “go it alone,” since many of the piece parts and

some of the larger components and systems used in Navy aircraft are common to

one another. If one program has already researched a DMSMS issue, another program does not have to repeat the same research to solve its issue.

Belinda Rhoten, of NAVAIR’s Air Combat Electronics program office, noted that

the DMSMS WG has been helpful with respect to facilitating networking and

meeting other teams that are working obsolescence.“It has been a benefit for us to

meet with other people and make points of contact.”

It is about working together for the common good and sharing knowledge. Not

only has the WG succeeded in breaking down barriers within NAVAIR, but the

Aging Aircraft DMSMS team is helping the Marine Corps establish an infantryrelated WG of their own and is collaborating with the Air Force, sharing all obsolescence case data to piggyback on each service’s successes.

“The biggest benefit to the WG is for programs to identify their barriers and frustrations in dealing with DMSMS,” said Ric Loeslein,Aging Aircraft DMSMS team

lead.“As a WG, we are able to learn from each other in addressing and eliminating

these issues. We all understand that mitigating DMSMS requires teamwork between logistics and engineering disciplines.”

About the Author

Jim Jenkins, a member of the Aging Aircraft Enterprise team, has worked in public affairs

at the Naval Air Systems Command Patuxent River for the past 12 years. For 10 of those

years, he was senior writer, then editor, of the NAS Patuxent River base newspaper, Tester.

Before spending the last year supporting NAVAIR’s Aging Aircraft Enterprise team,

Mr. Jenkins performed public affairs work for NAVAIR’s various research, development, test,

and evaluation organizations.t
18 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

An Effects-Based 

Metrics Framework

Measuring Progress toward 

a Net-Centric DoD

By Mary Ann Malloy
dsp.dla.mil 19

N

Net-centric data-sharing implementation guidance for DoD, issued in 2006, cites

numerous intended uses for metrics.1 Stakeholders throughout DoD are being asked

to report to higher echelons about their respective organizations’ progress in evolving toward net-centric data sharing and operations, as well as other enterprise goals.

DoD decision makers will regularly gather and analyze data to answer questions

about service quality and user satisfaction, capability delivery and performance, return on investment, prioritization, and other matters yet to be determined.

The metrics must be comparable, consistent, and replicable from one assessor to the

next to poise them for objective, integrated interpretation across DoD. DoD should

“practice what it preaches” and bring net-centric principles to bear on the task of

developing appropriate metrics for measuring progress toward agreed-upon organizational goals, including the net-centric vision.

A standardized approach to metrics will enable cross-organizational progress comparisons as well as integrated rollup, a consolidated, instantaneous snapshot of

progress toward meeting goals based on reports drawn from key contributors, or

even across the entire DoD enterprise.This article describes how to construct such

metrics in the context of an overarching framework that ensures their relevance and

meaningfulness to DoD decision makers. It also argues that developing metrics services under the purview of an institutional community of interest (COI) is an implementation approach consistent with prevailing DoD net-centric thinking.

An Effects-Based World View

Frequently, metrics are defined in a relatively ad hoc manner to respond to a particular decision maker’s “pet rock.” Or, a glut of data may be collected because it is easy

or expedient to do so. In other words, not a great deal of thought may go into

choosing or committing resources to metrics in relation to how useful (or not) their

readouts turn out to be.

A framework for metrics that will be strategic, efficient, and practicable in a wide

variety of contexts across DoD can be modeled after the net-centric warfare assessment approach embedded in effects-based operations (EBOs).The framework is built

around a few key concepts, depicted graphically in Figure 1.

The EBO world view reflects a change in the way DoD thinks about operational

environments and how to plan and conduct operations. DoD now recognizes an environment that is a rich complex of interrelated cause-effect relationships; therefore

goals and actions are defined and executed holistically in many different aspects of the

environment, including traditional military behaviors and physical states.
20 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

Typically, start states describe undesirable conditions in the current, or “as-is” environment. By contrast, end states are the projection of the commander’s intent and

describe desired conditions in the future “to-be” environment upon successfully

completing the operation. Metrics measure changes along a continuum described by

pairing start states and end states.2

An Effects-Based Metrics Framework

The idea for a more generalized effects-based metrics framework begins by extending the principles of EBO to the general problem of defining relevant and meaningful metrics in the context of any environment, not just a tactical one.A fundamental

premise of this adaptation is that any collection of agreed-upon goals can be used as

an analog to the projection of the commander’s intent into the to-be environment.

These goals form the basis of the desired end states for the enterprise. Start states, actions, and metrics are developed consistent with the EBO approach; the only real

difference is that the environment being assessed does not need to be a tactical one.

To confirm the reasonableness of the proposed adaptation, let’s walk through a

nontactical example that applies the effects-based metrics concept to the challenge

of assessing DoD’s progress toward realizing the net-centric vision.

A Simple Metrics Use Case

The DoD Net-Centric Data Strategy (NCDS) establishes a small number of now

well-known tenets for the data management aspects of net-centric transformation.3

These high-level goals call for DoD to make its information resources accessible, visible, understandable, trusted, interoperable, and responsive. Let’s choose just one of

the many possible threads and weave it into the framework.

FIGURE 1. Notional Framework for Effects-Based Metrics

Start states describe

as-is environment

End states describe

to-be environment

Metrics measure relative progress

from start states to end states as

“actions” affect the environment
dsp.dla.mil 21

The “visibility” tenet states that DoD information assets must be discoverable by

authorized users.The first few elements of the framework are relatively intuitive:

❚ Start state. Only some DoD information assets are discoverable by authorized

users.

❚ End state. All DoD information assets are discoverable by authorized users.

❚ Actions to achieve this goal.

● Producers must inventory their assets.

● Producers must prioritize the assets they will expose (or make visible) to

authorized users.

● Producers must expose their assets in high- to low-priority order.

DoD must establish what it means for an asset to be “exposed” and “discoverable.”

It also must establish a consistent prioritization scheme for its assets to execute these

actions.The following is a notional rating system:

❚ High—expose within 6 months

❚ Medium—expose within 12 months

❚ Low—expose within 18 months

❚ No—asset not slated for exposure (for example, it has no relevance outside the

producer community).

This rating system ensures that results for asset discovery are comparable across all

producers who report their progress to the DoD enterprise. Stakeholders may be

free to use their own internal processes to decide which of their assets have which

priority and where and how to expose them.Alternatively, DoD may establish some

core criteria and directive procedures for choosing which assets to make visible,

how, where, and when.Additional constraints like these help ensure that actions are

executed consistently by all the stakeholders.

Next, relevant metrics are incorporated into the framework to scrutinize progress

from start states to end states.This can be done from any of a number of different

stakeholder viewpoints. In this example, producers may want to answer the question:

What percentage of my high-priority assets have been exposed as of today? Or the

DoD Chief Information Officer may wish to answer the question:What is the average percentage of all high-priority assets exposed across the enterprise?

The elements of the framework provide the context—a shared understanding of

the key concepts and definitions relevant to asset visibility—that gives these questions meaning. Simple, quantitative metrics and a small amount of data collected

from the stakeholders (for example, total number of assets and number of high-
DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

priority assets) support answering the questions listed above, as well as many others

about DoD’s progress toward achieving asset visibility.

Now, for the Net-Centric Part

In the use case, we looked at one possible thread associated with one NCDS goal

and just a few possible metrics derived from actions to pursue that goal. Obviously,

many of the NCDS goals are interrelated. For example, the goals of visibility (exposure) and accessibility are linked. Actions taken by producers to expose their assets

will also affect accessibility. These holistic net-centric linkages are implicitly built

into the effects-based metrics framework.

Another net-centric characteristic of the effects-based framework is how easily it

may be extended to incorporate additional metrics to measure progress in any other

aspect of the environment deemed relevant by decision makers.The metrics—all defined within the same contextual framework—provide an objective basis for making

rational resource decisions, especially when corrective actions are needed to accelerate progress in lagging areas of the complex environment.

Rationale for the Framework

At this point, we’ve talked about EBO foundations and the principles of effectsbased assessment.We showed how to adapt this approach to the problem of building

a generalized effects-based metrics framework for assessing any environment with

respect to goals. We also walked through one small piece of constructing such a

framework to assess a nontactical environment interesting to stakeholders in the netcentric DoD.

The framework approach ties metrics to enterprise goals.This is an important observation! Just because a metric is easy to collect or seems interesting to an individual is insufficient rationale for committing enterprise resources to collecting and

analyzing it. More important,a metric must support insights that are meaningful and

relevant to those who interpret them. The metrics framework ensures that this is

possible by deriving all metrics from organizational goals in a context of agreedupon concepts.This ensures that the pedigree of each metric traces back to the organizational goal it measures.

Individual components within the enterprise of course are free to collect additional metrics outside the context of the framework for their own purposes, if they

so desire, but they should provide their own resources to do so. For efficiency and

economic reasons, only metrics that are tied into the framework merit the commit22
dsp.dla.mil 23

ment of scarce enterprise resources.The framework helps decision makers discriminate between metrics meaningful to the enterprise versus those motivated by individual, parochial concerns.

Evolution of Metrics

This assessment approach, rooted as it is in EBO, accommodates the potential for

negative progress. Metrics help correct for this effect by providing decision makers

with visibility into other areas of the observed environment that may be interacting

in an unanticipated, undesirable way with ongoing actions.This helps identify opportunities where pursuing new, alternative courses of action can correct for negative impacts.

Similarly, as the observed environment changes, some of the end states will be successfully accomplished, so associated actions are no longer required. The metrics

originally inserted for monitoring changes in those states are no longer needed either, so they can be deprecated (retired) from the framework. Other new, unanticipated relevant conditions may come to light in the changing environment, so new

states,actions,and metrics must be added.

The cycle of expressing start and end states, planning appropriate actions to effect

change, and linking in new metrics to measure the impacts of those actions is repeated continuously. In this way, the framework and the metrics defined within it are

inherently adaptive to the ever-changing observed environment.

Maturing the Metrics Framework Concept

Obviously, the applicability of an effects-based metrics approach is not restricted to

measuring progress toward the net-centric vision.This article used the net-centric

environment as a nontactical use case because its goals are widely understood

throughout DoD.A similar effects-based metrics framework is under review by COI

stakeholders as the basis for developing their plan to fulfill metrics collection, integration, and reporting obligations to the DoD enterprise.

Stakeholders must give some thought to an appropriate, standard approach for creating meaningful metrics visualizations (dashboards, meters, stoplight charts). Many decision makers want to see metrics condensed onto a single 81⁄2-by-11-inch sheet of

paper for at-a-glance review. For example, Figure 2 shows a notional COI outreach

meter that was developed to help service leads monitor whether they are appropriately engaging with the COIs relevant to their mission areas. These offerings must

also support drill-downs to reveal supporting details that underlie the visualizations.
24 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

Putting It All Together

DoD’s overall net-centric transformation advocates implementing solutions in accordance with web-based service approaches (build once, use many).To implement

the infrastructure for the metrics framework, DoD should collect potentially

reusable metrics for posting to a shared space such as the DoD Metadata Registry

(see metadata.dod.mil). DoD should commit resources to the development of metrics services built on these reusable parts.This approach makes economic sense, because it mitigates competing, duplicative solutions. It also helps ensure that metrics

can be applied in an agile, adaptive fashion to a wide variety of assessment problems.

Consistent with net-centric thinking, these metrics services should intelligently pull

report data from relevant contributors rather than relying on manual data pushes

from the stakeholders.

Providing building blocks for metrics definition, collection, integration, and visualization as enterprise services will help ensure that metrics can be used in consistent,

meaningful ways to support decision making in the net-centric DoD.The proposed

effects-based metrics framework provides a unifying, underlying basis for developing

such services for broad, cross-enterprise use. An appropriate venue for developing

such solutions is a joint, institutional metrics COI, in which the vocabulary, concepts, information exchange objects, and services relevant to metrics can be vetted,

agreed upon, disseminated, and maintained for enterprise-wide use.

1

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration/DoD Chief Information Officer, Guidance for Implementing Net-Centric Data Sharing, DoD 8320.02-G,April 2006.

2

For more about EBO, see the Joint Warfighter Center’s Joint Doctrine Series.These pamphlets

can be downloaded from the Joint Electronic Library at www.dtic.doctrine/jwfc_pam.htm.

3

DoD Chief Information Officer, DoD Net-Centric Data Strategy, March 2003.

About the Author

Dr. Mary Ann Malloy is a lead information systems engineer for The MITRE Corporation. She

is an internationally recognized expert in tactical messaging standards and information interoperability. Her research interests include XML technologies, business process/rules management and software reliability. Dr. Malloy supports net-centric interoperability initiatives for

the Defense Information Systems Agency and U.S. Joint Forces Command. She chairs the

Tidewater Research Council, a MITRE organization established to engage MITRE with local

industry and academia in collaborative research. She has published more than 30 technical

papers, most recently, XML in the Wild Blue Yonder and Effects-Based Operational Metrics

for the Decision-Making Warfighter.

t

FIGURE 2. Notional Visualization for a COI Outreach Metric

Appropriate 

engagement

No relevant COIs

Appropriate 

engagement

Few relevant COIs

Appropriate 

engagement

Many relevant COIs

Appropriate 

engagement

Most relevant COIs

Appropriate 

engagement

All relevant COIs

May 2006 Desired State

Summary
dsp.dla.mil 25

By Jason Fields and Brennon Thomas

Standardizing Air Force Base

Networks around the Globe
DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

T

The effort required to standardize and optimize one computer network is challenging enough, but imagine doing it for more than 100 Air Force base and Major

Command (MAJCOM) communications networks. Scope EDGE (Enterprise Design, Guidance and Evaluation), born out of Scope Network in July 2004, is fully

engaged to standardize the Air Force network enterprise. Its core mission includes

network compliance assessments, network optimization evaluations, rapid-response

network crisis teams, and Air Force network enterprise health feedback. Based at

Scott Air Force Base, IL, under the Air Force Communications Agency, it regularly

deploys its people to every Air Force base and MAJCOM network operations center worldwide.

Scope EDGE operates using four- to six-person teams consisting of communications officers, government personnel, and contractors. Before an onsite visit to a

base, the team performs a network compliance assessment remotely from Scott.

During the remote assessment, Scope EDGE uses Air Force instructions and technical orders to rate the base’s compliance. After completing the assessment, the

Scope EDGE team travels to the base to conduct a network optimization, in which

they assess the health of a base network and train base personnel on proper 

network operations. This two-tiered approach provides local commanders and

MAJCOM leadership the detailed analysis to ensure that their networks are secure

and ready to support the mission.

26

Small scope EDGE teams of four to six personnel cover a broad array

of functional specialities
dsp.dla.mil 27

Due to the dynamic nature of the Air Force Global Information Gateway 

(AF-GIG), every Air Force base network operations center receives a Scope EDGE

compliance assessment and optimization evaluation every 2 years.This busy schedule equates to approximately 60 trips each year. Scope EDGE also has a working

relationship with the network operations and security centers at each MAJCOM

and visits them up to twice a year to assist them with remote management of their

bases. In addition to lending technical expertise, the Scope EDGE cadre take the

opportunity to share best practices and trends with the various network operations

centers, as well as with the network engineers residing at Scott.This important role

has led to more efficient use of resources, rewriting of conflicting guidance, and increased standardization throughout the AF-GIG.

A Scope EDGE team chief explained the impact that the optimization portion of

a trip has on the bases:

When a base has had a chronic issue or problem they cannot resolve, Scope

EDGE offers an extra set of eyes to assist in diagnosing the problem and inching the network one step closer to optimization. Our benefit to the bases has

been demonstrated over and over by Scope EDGE personnel and is echoed

by commanders’ comments and support.

Team members’ technical specialties are varied and include infrastructure, operating systems and applications, information assurance, and network management. In

the ever-changing world of information technology (IT), networking best practices

A deployed Scope EDGE team of military, civilian, and contractor

personnel takes a break from analyzing an Air Force network
28 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

can change rapidly. Many team members maintain certifications from Microsoft,

Cisco, and other vendors who keep them abreast of new information and trends in

the IT field.This diverse skill set allows for significant analysis of the Air Force network and a wide variety of inputs that are beneficial to network operators, communications squadron leadership, and MAJCOM network authorities.

Scope EDGE sends personnel not only to every permanent Air Force base, but to

deployed sites as well. In a deployed environment where mission requirements

change rapidly, personnel rotations are high, and equipment reaches the end its life

cycle, it is a more daunting task to standardize and optimize our warfighting networks. Using the same goals of network improvement and network operator training, Scope EDGE personnel visit various deployed locations every year. Recently,

they found themselves in Qatar, Iraq,Afghanistan, and Kyrgyzstan.A Scope EDGE

U.S. Central Command Air Forces (CENTAF) team chief described the process at

deployed locations this way:

We work with the CENTAF network operations center to ensure that our

deployments are of the greatest benefit to the deployed locations. Each team

visits multiple locations over approximately six weeks and brings the local

commander a way to solve network issues that warfighters may not have had

time to address.We also provide the network operations center with insight

into the issues and trends at all the Air Force deployed locations.

Compliance assessments and optimization evaluations are designed to improve

base networks and, in turn,Air Force enterprise health, but they also serve another

purpose.These trips allow team members to compile a high-level view of the operating networks and to hone their troubleshooting and network restoration skills.

These top-of-the-line skills are often synergized to form Scope EDGE rapid response network crisis teams. Responding to a call for help from the 81st CommuResponding to a call for help from the 81st Communications Squadron,

at Keesler Air Force Base, MS, after Hurricane Katrina, Scope EDGE

immediately formed and deployed two teams to sustain the network

and facilitate the timely flow of humanitarian relief.
dsp.dla.mil 29

nications Squadron, at Keesler Air Force Base, MS, after Hurricane Katrina, Scope

EDGE immediately formed and deployed two teams to sustain the network and

facilitate the timely flow of humanitarian relief. Putting both military and contractor network professionals at the site to support an infrastructure in trouble was all

in a day’s work for Scope EDGE.Another example highlighting the rapid response

capability came recently during a trip to Korea.While on the ground at Osan Air

Base, a Scope EDGE team was asked to look at a network servicing both U.S. and

Republic of Korea forces. Applying their knowledge of Air Force networks, the

team was able to provide standardization and optimization recommendations in

less than a day.The Scope EDGE NORTEL contractor who was on the team remarked:

Our constant view into Air Force networks allows us to quickly troubleshoot

and narrow the scope of networking issues. Even when handed a network we

are unfamiliar with, our training and tools let us help the customer fix what is

broken.

Now in its second 2-year cycle, Scope EDGE has shown resilience through Air

Force networking transformations.Their relentless pursuit of network compliance

and optimization guarantees one thing for the Air Force: a standardized IT infrastructure that enables the Air Force to fly and fight in cyberspace.

About the Authors

Capt. Jason Fields has served over the past 18 months, in several positions, as Scope EDGE

MAJCOM lead for the Air Force Reserve Command, Air Combat Command, and Pacific Air

Forces. Formerly assigned to the 5th Combat Communications Group, Capt. Fields has been

involved in network training, standardization, and optimization, both in garrison and in a

deployed environment.

Brennon Thomas is the deputy team chief for the Air Combat Command team. His functional specialty is infrastructure, which includes collecting remote data, inspecting routers

and switches, and analyzing networks for proper configurations and compliance.t
30 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

By Dwayne Gipson

A One-Stop Shop

for Communications

CIPS Standardizes Management of Communication

Requirements across the Air Force
E

Electronic government is the initiative that has moved many Air Force IT applications to web-based platforms. Because of this initiative, many systems have been upgraded or completely redesigned to operate as interactive web-based tools. This is

evident in the Air Force’s communications arena.The web provides for quicker and

more nimble communications for tracking information technology (IT) requirements and expenditures across the Air Force while, to some degree, leaving the user

unable to take full advantage of the products offered.

The Clinger-Cohen Act provides guidelines for establishing policies for tracking

IT requirements and expenditures.This has grown over the years into the need for a

system capable of tracking both requirements and funds, while at the same time, providing a standardized toolset for input and management of data. Historically, IT requirements have been satisfied by numerous organizations identifying their needs

and working independently to develop stove-piped solutions.Typically, the products

developed in this manner do not provide an appropriate solution for all parties concerned.This is where CIPS—the Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Infrastructure Planning

System—comes into play.

C4ISR Infrastructure Planning System

CIPS provides a centralized database that allows real-time management of data 

related to the terrestrial communications infrastructure and related investment and

sustainment requirements.This ensures that integrated, interoperable communications

and data are available in support of the Air Force, Major Command (MAJCOM), and

base missions. Figure 1 depicts the concept.

dsp.dla.mil 31

FIGURE 1. CIPS Operational View

Warfighter Operations

C4ISR Infrastructure

Planning System (CIPS)

Operations

AF-Level Planners

POM Process

PEMS Other Programs

(e.g., CITS)

Other Systems

(e.g., ACES, ABIDES) External Link 

to Mapping

38 EIG/Base/MAJCOM

Comm. Planners ($)

and Installers

Other DoD or 

Federal Entities
32 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

The release of CIPS 3.0 satisfies the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act, while

providing a redesigned and upgraded platform capable of satisfying customer requirements from the base level to the Air Staff level. It is now the standard within the

Air Force for initiating and tracking requirements and for obtaining funding justification for long-range IT plans at Air Force sites around the globe.

CIPS 3.0 standardizes many IT business processes that have evolved over the years.

CIPS has merged and refined these processes into one system that provides a repository of data that can be accessed by multiple levels of users and fosters real-time collaboration.

For the most part,Air Force IT requirements planning and implementation tracking

systems are unique to MAJCOMs, specific locations, and communities of interest.

Some exist at the Air Force level, but were designed around the needs of the financial

community. MAJCOMs must provide similar reports to the Air Staff and financial

councils, and no uniform approach exists across MAJCOMs to assist with ensuring

that information is accurate, up to date, and consistent. Further, MAJCOMs and the

Air Force as a whole are disadvantaged when competing with other programs and

initiatives because of a lack of ability to justify IT requirements via a tie to mission

and capabilities. Consequently, funds are lost, and the C4ISR infrastructure becomes

older and less reliable, negatively affecting the warfighter.

The business processes built into CIPS, which are shown in Figure 2, will provide a

consistent method within a web-based, data-centric environment to help ensure that

the right communications requirements information gets to the right people at the

right time.The system will encompass all levels of the communications planning and

financial processing, and will enable a standard process across bases, MAJCOMs, and

the financial offices beyond the Air Staff.

CIPS supports the Air Force Transformation initiative, which is defined as a process

by which the military achieves and maintains an advantage through changes in operational concepts, organization, and technologies that significantly improve its

warfighting capabilities or ability to meet the demands of a changing security environment.

CIPS allows for a system-of-systems view that will combine, relate, and integrate

existing and future systems to eliminate duplicative efforts—in accordance with Air

Force Instruction 33-108,“Compatibility, Interoperability, and Integration of Command, Control, Communications, and Computer (C4) Systems”—by providing as-is

and to-be IT infrastructure views across the Air Force. These infrastructure views

and IT data, known as C4I Blueprint data, are developed by planning engineers and
dsp.dla.mil 33

stored within CIPS for each Air Force location.This solidifies efforts for CIPS to be

the “one-stop shop” for communications.

CIPS supports funding drills and requirements justification, and can be used to

house and manage transformation efforts associated with Air Force Network Operations (AFNETOPS). This provides a combination of information, technology, and

processes designed to enhance agile combat support and contribute to AFNETOPS

implementation and sustainment by providing situational awareness for both garrison and deployed mission elements.

CIPS is designed to allow users a secure method to visualize their infrastructure in

an intuitive, integrated, web-enabled manner that reduces time required to establish

situational awareness and thereby helps achieve decision superiority.

CIPS tools are process-oriented, enabling all users in the C4ISR planning process

to collaborate seamlessly. CIPS exploits commercially available software and associated technologies to deliver a comprehensive, integrated capability for the Air Force

to attain, maintain, and sustain one global information infrastructure supporting requirements ranging from the base level to the Air Staff level. Based on requirements

generated through the Infostructure Technology Reference Model, the ConstellaDefine Requirement

● Determine solution

● Determine cost

● Integrate and prioritize

● Place on work plan (fund Y/N?)

● Complete other funding processes

Document installed 

infrastructure (as-is)

● Assess as-is

● Identify shortfalls

● Consider new missions

● Obtain certificate 

to implement

● Take other path

FIGURE 2. C4ISR Requirement Life Cycle
34 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

tionNet Architecture, and AFNETOPS, CIPS serves as a tool for communications

planning at all levels of the Air Force directly supporting Air Force C4ISR missionessential tasks across the community. Organizations responsible for support of those

tasks are, therefore, the customers—users—of CIPS.

Communications Readiness Report Tool

With the release of CIPS 3.0 came the integrated Communications Readiness Report (CRR) tool. CRR provides a critical assessment of the as-is and to-be capability of the base IT systems to meet present and future requirements based on existing

and proposed funding commitments. CRR also provides the ability to assess IT

condition based on various funding scenarios. CRR had its inception as an Excel

spreadsheet with one version of the spreadsheet tool for each MAJCOM.This was

needed in order to meet the needs of all the Air Force MAJCOMs. It has since been

redesigned and standardized across the Air Force to provide this capability in one

place with one tool that allows for all users to have a standard database.The CRR

uses CIPS C4I Blueprint data such as the Air Force infrastructure assessment analysis

and transition strategy data (communications requirements line items), which include program element codes and related costs.The end result is that the user will be

able to see the expected impact of the projected funding on the communications infrastructure, as shown in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3. Projecting the Impact of Available Funding
dsp.dla.mil 35

Future Growth of CIPS

CIPS has been designed for growth that will provide for many tools to be added in

future releases. As an example, the CIPS Visualization Component (CVC), which

will be an additional feature, will allow GeoBase data to be stored and assessable

within CIPS. CVC will provide the capability for the IT community (engineers,

maintainers, operators, and leaders) to see a graphical depiction of base Air Force IT

infrastructures to global positioning system accuracy and with aerial perspective to

improve their situational awareness and decision-making processes. All of the Air

Force GeoBase communications mission data set will be standardized into one system—something that has never been done before.

In the world of communications, providing modular and standard tools is paramount. CIPS is a system that was designed with the future in mind. As future releases to CIPS occurs, exciting new modular tools will be added that will provide

users with new and updated processes.

About the Author

Dwayne Gipson is a lead IT systems engineer at Tinker Air Force Base, OK. He has been

employed there since 1994 as an electronics engineer and has held numerous positions

ranging from project engineer to his current position.t
36 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

Thank you Jim [Hall,ADUSD (Logistics Plans and Studies) and Defense Standardization Executive] for the introduction and for inviting me here today.

Standards are an important and often unappreciated aspect of everyday life.We

have standards for everything from electrical outlets to the emissions from our cars

to athletics.Without standards, life would be pretty chaotic. I bring up sports because the most exciting discussion about standards, lately, has happened over the last

two days—who did and did not make the field of 64 in the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament on Selection Sunday.

The Selection Committee uses a basic group of standards to judge all 336 NCAA

Division I Men’s Basketball teams to measure who is worthy to play in the Tournament.The first and undisputed

standard is if you are the winner

of your conference championship, you receive an automatic

bid to the Big Dance.This narrows the field down by 30.

To fill the remaining 34 slots,

the selection committee looks at

record, strength of schedule, the

Ratings Percentage Index, and a

team’s overall performance in recent games.While their measures

are based on data, the committee

is often subjective and inconsistent in their application. For

some teams, the RPI is more imKeynote Address for 2007 Defense

Standardization Symposium

The following is the keynote address presented by the Honorable Kenneth J.

Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), at

the Defense Standardization Program Conference held on March 13, 2007.

Kenneth J. Krieg

Under Secretary of Defense

(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)
dsp.dla.mil 37

portant than their record, or their strength of schedule is more important than overall performance in recent games. I must admit, this year I can’t complain,

my two favorite basketball teams are in—Davidson

and The Ohio State University. But, you have to

wonder why was Drexel, one of the better mid major

teams in the country, left out? You can’t tell me compared to Stanford they were the lesser team. Drexel’s

RPI was higher, strength of schedule higher, record

higher, but does beating UCLA at home towards the

end of the season really make Stanford the better

team? Let’s not even expand this discussion to include

Air Force and Florida State.

Now, I highlight this because it is a great example of

how effective and ineffective application of standards

can impact an organization. Let’s face it with the playin game being hours away, I know that 80 percent of

you probably are thinking or will think at some point

in time today about who to pick in your brackets. If

you need some help, Davidson is a sleeper, sorry Terps

fans, and the Buckeyes are legit.

The debate will continue until the end of time on

whether Drexel was robbed of their shot at the title

or not.Without a universal application of standards,

we will never know the answer, and year after year

this debate will continue.This may make sports interesting, think about the impact to the economy of removing this ineffective standard structure. How many

sportswriters would be out of a job, not to mention

countless bar tabs not accumulated for lack of debate.

However, while it is great for sports, it is not good

practice for most organizations, especially for the Department of Defense.

At the Department, universal standards affect our

readiness, interoperability, and most importantly, they

affect the capabilities of our warfighter.Without standards, we jeopardize the mission and ultimately the

lives of our men and women who wear the uniform.

It is our duty in the AT&L community to provide

our warriors with the BEST systems and support in

the world.We cannot do that if we do not adequately

apply standards across the enterprise for programs,

systems and support.

Standardization enables the business strategies the

Department has set for a more flexible, sustainable,

and interoperable force that are necessary to succeed

in a wide range of missions, including conventional

and unconventional warfare and activities far short of

warfare. Standards provide the framework for achieving Service and allied interoperability, for reducing

our logistics footprint, for testing and documenting

advances in science and technology, and for supporting the U.S. industrial base.

It’s important for you in the Defense Standardization Program to understand that a number of the

goals that our senior leadership group and myself

have put together for the AT&L support the priority

of standardization. I will not go through all seven of

them with you today, but I encourage you to go to

the AT&L website and read them. Each of you plays

an important role in the success of our organization

meeting the need of the joint warfighter.Through the

Implementation Plan you can see the roles that various organizations and you play in meeting these

goals. But I do want to touch on several of them.

One of our goals is Strategic and Tactical Acquisition Excellence. Here, we distinguish between “Big

A”—what we decide to buy at the strategic level—

and “little a”—how we develop, test, produce and sustain individual weapon systems at the tactical level. It
38 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

is critical to the warfighter that the systems we acquire work reliably with the intended results in all

environments and operational situations.To achieve

this, it is essential that we have standards in place to

validate how well our equipment performs.

It is extremely important that we take standard parts

into consideration early in the acquisition process for

a program. Not only will it improve life-cycle costs,

but it will also make our system easier to sustain over

the long term.As Jim noted, for example, the Navy’s

Seawolf submarine was anything but standard. Over

105,000 parts were used in its construction, many of

which were unique, expensive, and logistically difficult to support. By contrast, the Virginia Class submarine at time of the contract award has just under

15,000 parts, most of which were standard. Standards

not only reduce costs during construction but

throughout the entire life cycle of a program.The

Navy estimates that there will be a cost avoidance of

$789 million over the life of the program.

Standardization can also be a tremendous force multiplier and the results are that the overall efficiency of

combined forces will be greater than the sum of individual components.This is why in 2005, the Joint

Chiefs of Staff revised their Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System instruction and manual to require consideration of U.S.-ratified

international standardization agreements when developing joint capabilities documentation.

For example, our most recent aircraft development

effort, the Joint Strike Fighter, is using standardization

to achieve affordability and interoperability.Though

the Joint Strike Fighter will come in three variants,

there will be 70 to 80 percent commonality among its

subsystems, equipments, materials, fabrication

processes, and assembly tooling. In addition, the Joint

Strike Fighter will rely on a wide variety of existing

standards to control costs and enhance interoperability.

The Joint Strike Fighter program, however, is not

just a user of standards, but an innovator of standards.

Last year, the Joint Strike Fighter Weapons Integration

Team along with the Defense Standardization Program received an Outstanding Achievement Award

for their development of a Joint Service Store Certification Guide that significantly reduced unique

weapon requirements and standardized on such things

as common bomb and fuzing systems.This team’s

standardization efforts will result in a cost avoidance

of nearly $1.2 billion over the life of the program.

By effectively using standards, we are also achieving

another goal for AT&L: Cost-Effective Joint Logistics

Support for the Warfighter.We are moving from logistics as necessary toward “supply chain as offense,”

which intimately ties our logisticians to the warfighter. End-to-end supply chains must be built on

customer success, based on common data—and common data is only possible if you have common standards—enabled by transparent business systems.

Done well, this system will increase performance,

improve productivity, and reduce wait times, inventory and total cost to the enterprise. By reducing our

logistics footprint, we will be able to support our systems, equipment and the warfighter more efficiently.

We are building on our partnership with industry,

and we are leveraging their best practices as we apply

standards.The use of private sector standards is an area

where the Department has historically been strong

with the adoption of over 9,000 such standards to

date. It is also an area where the Department has
dsp.dla.mil 39

shown leadership in those technologies vital to the

defense mission.An example of this is the Department’s involvement in the development of private

sector standards for unmanned systems.

We are making significant progress instituting standards for the Department, but many challenges remain.The biggest challenge is not in the development

of standards but their use. For the warfighter to receive maximum benefit from standardization, we cannot apply standards here and not there.They must be

mandatory across the enterprise.

We are trying to integrate standardization considerations and trade-offs in the beginning of acquisition

processes.We are placing a greater emphasis on standards during program reviews.Those are two parts of

change underway.

The Materiel Readiness Senior Steering Group is

also supporting standards and emphasizing their use

for parts management in every program.

We need to work horizontally across traditional

boundaries if we are to establish common standards

for the Department.Without standards, military operations could not be successful. Future missions will

require us, I believe, to place a greater emphasis on

standards. I look forward to working with you closely

to ensure we are meeting our warfighters needs.We

have the opportunity and the ability to institute effective standards for the Department, and we must.This

is admittedly difficult in a culture that focuses on optimizing the specific platform rather than the overall

supply chain.

But today we are here not only to discuss standards

and their unquestionable importance to the Department and our missions, we are also here to recognize

and celebrate the individuals in this room who have

made an enormous impact on achieving our standards goals.

I would like thank all of you for your efforts.Without you, the Department would not be as successful

as we are today.You are an integral part of our overall

missions.Your work directly impacts our warfighter,

and their success is a result of your work.You should

be proud of everything that you do to help us achieve

our mission. I am very proud of you; this is not easy

work. I want to thank you for your hard work and

dedication.

I appreciate your attention today. I would be happy

to take any questions now.
40 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

n March 13, 2007, Mr. Kenneth Krieg, the Under Secretary of

Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Mr. James Hall, the

Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics Plans and Studies),

and Mr. Gregory Saunders, Director, Defense Standardization Program

Office, presented six awards for outstanding performance in implementing

the Defense Standardization Program.Two individuals and four teams were

honored.Their standardization efforts have made singular improvements in

technical performance, greatly enhanced safety for DoD personnel, and

avoided billions of dollars in costs.

2006 Awards Defense Standardization Program

O
dsp.dla.mil 41

2006 DISTINGUISHED ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNER

The 2006 Distinguished Achievement Award, which includes an engraved crystal Pentagon and a

$5,000 check, went to Mr. James Colson. As co-chair of a government-industry committee,

Mr. Colson led the effort to gain agreement on and finalize a Government Electronics and

Information Association standard, GEIA 927, that melds the data concepts of diverse functional

areas into one related entity.The standard merges the data concepts of DoD’s Standard for the

Exchange of Product Model Data and various logistics data standards.Through Mr. Colson’s

efforts, programs can develop an integrated digital environment that employs formal methods and

automation to support the full range of data manipulation and communication required by complex system life-cycle activities. Use of GEIA 927 will allow programs to achieve an unprecedented

degree of interoperability among information technology and database systems for complex engineer-to-order systems, products, and processes over their life cycle. Success will result in a lean,

more affordable operating mode for all stakeholders in the design, development, manufacture,

fielding, and support of modern complex systems.

Pictured above are Mr. Greg Saunders, DSPO Director, and Mr. Kenneth Krieg, Under Secretary of

Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), presenting the award check to Mr. James Colson,

leader of the government-industry committee that finalized a new standard, GEIA 927.
42 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNERS

An Army team led the effort to update the Joint Ballistics Memorandum of Understanding

(JBMOU), the de facto international standard for development of 155mm howitzers and 

ammunition.The payoff for the United States, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, and France is to

improve operational effectiveness by having the ability to exchange ammunition during combat.The ballistic properties—internal pressures, muzzle velocity, range, and accuracy—of

JBMOU-compliant ammunition will be the same when fired from any JBMOU-compliant

cannon.This level of interoperability is a powerful force multiplier. Furthermore, interchangeability allows partner nations to transport, store, handle, and distribute common ammunitions,

improving readiness and reducing the logistics footprint throughout the supply chain.

Team members: Mr. Russell Fiscella, Mr. Ralph Favale, Mr. James Rutkowski,

Mr. James Bendick, and Mr. Douglas Brown

Pictured above are, left to right, Mr. Jim Knowles (hidden); Mr. Kenneth Krieg; Mr. Russell Fiscella, Award Winner; Mr. Ralph Favale,

Award Winner; Mr. James Rutkowski, Award Winner; Mr. James Bendick, Award Winner; Mr. Douglas Brown, Award Winner; 

Mr. Ron Davis, Army Standardization Executive; and Mr. Jim Hall, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics Plans 

and Studies).
dsp.dla.mil 43

An Army team undertook the challenge of developing the Common Army Air Defense

Interrogator—a state-of-the-art system to differentiate between friendly and enemy aerial 

platforms—that satisfies commonality requirements and is backward compatible with existing

systems.The team worked closely with the various air defense program managers, reviewed

equipment specifications and integrated logistics support maintenance strategies, and prepared

the equipment specification and procurement documentation.They also participated in the

development of a tri-service specification and a NATO standardization agreement to ensure

interoperability with NATO and coalition partners. Implementing the new system will avoid

an estimated $31 million in costs.

Team members: Mr. Steve Haught, Mr. Billie Thomas, Mr. Dave Seliga,

Ms. Cecilia Black, and Mr. Ed Seamans

Pictured above are, left to right, Mr. Kenneth Krieg; Mr. Ed Seamans, Award Winner; Ms. Cecilia Black, Award Winner; Mr. Dave

Seliga, Award Winner; Mr. Billie Thomas, Award Winner; Mr. Steve Haught, Award Winner; Mr. Ron Davis; and Mr. Jim Knowles,

Interim Army Deputy Standardization Officer.

ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNERS
44 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNERS

A Navy team launched an initiative to standardize and modernize the inventory of generalpurpose electronic test equipment. Now, instead of maintaining 312 different models of oscilloscopes and digital multimeters, the Navy has just 34 models across both families.These

standardization efforts will save the fleet $6.1 million in reduced maintenance costs.The overall

savings from the reduction of the logistics tail and the decrease in calibration intervals from

once a year to once every 3 years is projected to save $45.3 million across the Future Years

Defense Program.

Team members: Mr. Ed Chergoski, Mr. Steven Makieil,

and Ms. Donna Morse-Eaves

Pictured above are, left to right, Mr. Kenneth Krieg; Mr. Steven Makieil, Award Winner; Ms. Donna Morse-Eaves, Award Winner;

CAPT Neil Stubbits, Commanding Officer, Indian Head Division; Mr. Arthur Stanton, Supervisor, Program Management Division,

NSWC Indian Head; Mr. Jerry LaCamera, Technical Operations Manager, Indian Head Division; Mr. Jeff Allan, Navy Deputy

Standardization Officer; Mr. Nick Kunesh, Navy Standardization Executive; and Mr. Jim Hall.

Pictured above are, left to right, Mr. Kenneth Krieg; Dr. Jon Klauenberg, Award Winner; Col Thurmon Deloney, Chief, Air Force

Engineering Policy and Guidance; Mr. John Heliotis, Air Force Departmental Standardization Officer; Mr. Gerry Friesthler, Director,

Engineering Directorate, Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright Patterson AFB; and Mr. Jim Hall.
dsp.dla.mil 45

ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNERS

Dr. B. Jon Klauenberg initiated and successfully gained Defense Standardization Program

approval for establishing a new standardization area, Radiofrequency Exposure to Personnel

Safety. His diligent efforts and international team leadership resulted in two major revisions of

NATO standardization agreement (STANAG) 2345 consistent with non-government standardization activities while incorporating military-unique concepts and applications. His efforts

ensured that radiofrequency standards would not have adverse impacts on DoD operations due

to overly restrictive limits.As a result of his efforts, Dr. Klauenberg was appointed custodian of

STANAG 2345, ensuring continued DoD leadership in this vital area of standardization.

An Air Force team worked to standardize the data interface between aircraft and weapons to

enable the rapid deployment of precision-guided munitions.Through this program, weapons

can be integrated without changing the aircraft Operational Flight Program. Development of a

universal interface between aircraft and weapons transforms the armament integration process

from a program-centric approach to a capabilities-based process. It also accelerates the fielding

of new state-of-the-art weapons by 1 to 3 years and reduces weapon integration costs by up to

40 percent.

Team members: Ms. Nadine Thomas, Ms. Elizabeth Jones, Mr. Oren Edwards,

Mr. Lee Kashka, and Ms. Kristina Paige

Pictured above are, left to right, Ms. Elizabeth Jones, Award Winner; Mr. Mike Williams; Mr. Lee Kashka, Award Winner; Mr. Oren

Edwards, Award Winner; Mr. Kenneth Krieg; Ms. Katherine Hodges; Ms. Kristina Paige, Award Winner; Ms. Nadine Thomas, Award

Winner; Mr. Jerry Duke; Col Thurmon Deloney; Mr. John Heliotis; and Mr. Gerry Friesthler.
46 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

Events Upcoming Events and Information

August 20–21, 2007,

San Francisco, CA

56th Annual SES Conference/

12th International IFAN Conference

The Standards Engineering Society

will hold its 2007 annual conference in

conjunction with the 12th international conference of the International

Federation of Standards Users. Join us

for an informative and lively conference featuring representatives from

around the world to discuss global

standards issues. For more information,

go to www.ses-standards.org or e-mail

admin@ses-standards.org.

World Standards Day Paper 

Competition 

Standards play a vital role in the world,

so the theme for the World Standards

Day 2007 paper competition is “Standards and the Global Village.” In our

diverse world, global consensus is difficult to reach despite the move to globalization of trade and culture. But for

many decades, standards have led to international consensus on critical issues,

including consumer information and

protection, product and service quality

and safety, environmental regulation,

health care, security, Internet protocols,

and fair trade. This theme recognizes

the global consensus-building capacity

of standards-developing organizations.

July 10–12, 2007, Chantilly, VA

Course on Standardization within

NATO (U.S.-Based Track)

On July 10–12, 2007, the International

Cooperation Office, Defense Standardization Program Office, and North

Atlantic Treaty Organization Standardization Agency will host the first

course in the United States on Standardization within NATO.This course

is designed to present an overview of

domestic and international standardization practices within the United

States as they relate to interoperability

with allies and partners. Thus, the

course is intended for military, DoD

civilian, and federal government personnel who have little knowledge of

international standardization or

knowledge in distinct areas but have

never taken the Standardization within

NATO course. Non-DoD federal government employees and defense contractors who are involved in NATO

standardization and interoperability activities are also eligible for this course

depending on space availability.

Seats are limited, and going fast. If

you’re interested in attending this

course, please contact Latasha Beckman

at latasha.beckman@dla.mil.
dsp.dla.mil 47

Upcoming Events and Information Events

The competition invites papers that

show, using specific examples, ways

that standards-developing organizations have encouraged and created

global consensus for the economic and

social benefit of the global village.The

Standards Engineering Society (SES)

and World Standards Day Planning

Committee will award cash prizes for

the three best papers submitted. The

first-place winner will receive $2,500

and a plaque, and the second- and

third-place winners will receive $1,000

and $500, respectively, along with a

certificate.In addition, the winning papers will be published in SES’s journal,

Standards Engineering, and the paper

winning first place will also appear as a

special article in ANSI Reporter, a publication of the American National

Standards Institute.

Contest papers, along with an official

entry form, should be sent to the SES

Executive Director,13340 SW 96th Avenue, Miami, FL 33176.To be eligible,

the papers must be received by midnight,August 31, 2007. For more information, go to www.ses-standards.org

and click 2007 WSD Paper Competition. Winners will be announced and

given their awards at the U.S. Celebration of World Standards Day, held this

year on October 18 at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade

Center in Washington, DC.

October 18, 2007, Washington, DC

U.S. Celebration of World Standards

Day 2007 

On October 18, 2007, leaders in business, industry, academia, and government will gather in Washington, DC,

to join with consumer representatives

and experts in science and technology

for a celebration of the relationship between standards and the well-being of

citizens in every corner of the world.

From air quality to children’s toys and

from alternative sources of energy to security and privacy on the Internet, standards and conformity assessment

programs have helped bolster social

progress and stimulate worldwide economic development. To acknowledge

the significance of standards in society

and on the economy, the theme of the

U.S. Celebration of World Standards

Day 2007 is “Standards and the Global

Village.”The 2007 observance of World

Standards Day will be held on Thursday,

October 18, 2007, at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade

Center in Washington, DC. The event

will include a reception, exhibits, dinner, and presentation of the Ronald H.

Brown Standards Leadership Award.

The administrating organization for this

year’s event is the American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. For more information, please go to www.wsd-us.org.
48 DSP JOURNAL April/June 2007

Welcome

Robert Heber returned to the DoD Standardization Program in March 2007 as

the team chief of the Microelectronics Team at the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC). He is responsible for developing, revising, and managing standardization documents on hybrid microelectronics, the test standard MIL-STD-883, and

Standard Microcircuit Drawings.This team was formerly led by Raymond Monnin,

who retired in December 2006. Mr. Heber was the team chief of the DSCC’s Interconnection Team from September 1996 to February 2003. For the last 4 years, he

has been a team chief in the Maritime Group at DSCC.Welcome back.

Award

John (Jack) Cole, an IT specialist in the Army Research Laboratory’s Center for

Intrusion Monitoring and Protection, has been selected as the 2006 recipient of the

IEEE Computer Society Hans Karlsson Award.The award recognizes “outstanding

skills and dedication to diplomacy, team facilitation and joint achievement, in the

development or promotion of standards in the computer industry where individual

aspirations, corporate competition, and organizational rivalry could otherwise be

counter to the benefit of society.” The award was presented in Los Angeles on

Wednesday, May 16,at the IEEE Computer Society President’s Award Banquet.

Farewell

In March 2007, Richard Taylor left the Document Standardization Unit at

DSCC for a job in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in Cincinnati, OH. Mr.Taylor was the chief of the Interconnection Team at DSCC and was

responsible for preparing specifications for standardization documents on electrical

connectors, wire and cable, and hydraulic hoses and fittings.We wish him well in his

new job assignment.

Passing

John M. (Jack) Kerr, 83, a native Washingtonian, died of a stroke on April 1, 2007,

at his summer home in King George,VA. Mr. Kerr, who also lived in Fairfax, attended the University of Virginia before serving during World War II as an Army

military policeman in Europe. He spent 35 years as an engineer with the Department of the Navy before retiring in 1984. Many in the Defense Standardization

Program will remember Mr. Kerr as a developer of defense specifications and standards for connectors, printed wiring boards, and other electrical components.

People People in the Standardization Community
Upcoming Issues—

Call for Contributors

We are always seeking articles that relate to our

themes or other standardization topics. We invite

anyone involved in standardization—government

employees, military personnel, industry leaders,

members of academia, and others—to submit proposed articles for use in the DSP Journal. Please let

us know if you would like to contribute.

Following are our themes for upcoming issues:

If you have ideas for articles or want more information, contact Tim Koczanski, Editor, DSP Journal,

J-307, Defense Standardization Program Office,

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6233, Fort

Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 or e-mail DSP-Editor@

dla.mil.

Our office reserves the right to modify or reject

any submission as deemed appropriate.We will be

glad to send out our editorial guidelines and work

with any author to get his or her material shaped

into an article.

Issue Theme

July–September 2007 DHS Standardization

October–December 2007 Parts Management