Jim,
Good
discussion.
Couple of
items:
Please include me in your group to
help with the white paper. I can contribute the relationship between
what we're trying to do in the CDSI WG and the DoDAF / GiG / Interoperability
implications. I am one of the strange birds that actually see the
links because I have feet in both camps. I also see a parallel between
what this CoI and the original C4ISR working group out of INCOSE tried to do
early in the formation of the C4ISR Framework that then morphed into the DoDAF
Framework. I am going to go back in my notes and get some names from the
DoD side of some of the "embattled envisioners" that had this long range
quest.
I also might want to suggest that
we look at the Top Quadrant's "Solution Envisioning through Capability Cases"
for how to turn a "vision" into a successful project.
http://www.capabilitycases.org/
This is an excellent way to bring
some sense to a tough development project or a "vision" that needs to be
executed. It's the plan for the plan. As we discussed before,
somewhere and someplace there is an DoD executive that will have the
clairvoyance to see what we're trying to do here and put some backing into it.
We just need to be prepared for that time and keep pushing to find a
champion. Champion's imply budget and it will take some budget to do
what we need done. Once again, I will review my notes and see if I can
come up with how the C4ISR WG originally started.
Their vision was to have everybody
on the same sheet of music.
I copied this out of their final
report a number of years back:
In 1995, DoD chartered a C4ISR
Integration Task Force (ITF) comprised of the
major
Command, Service, and Agency stakeholders
to define and develop better means and
processes to ensure C4ISR capabilities
most effectively meet warfighter needs. The ITF
met that tasking by developing actionable
recommendations to improve the key DoD
processes (e.g., architectures,
requirements, resource allocation, acquisition) that
impact
the ability of C4ISR to support
warfighters and decision makers effectively.
On 18 October 1996, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence
(ASD[C3I]) and the Joint Staff, J6 chartered a
C4ISR
Architecture Working Group (AWG) to
refine and extend the architecture and
interoperability assessment
recommendations put forward by the C4ISR ITF:
" The ... IAP ...
developed very promising concepts and recommendations for
the
application of
architectures to support the improved integration of C4ISR
capabilities
within DoD. We
believe that most of the IAP recommendations warrant the
eventual
mandate of the Deputy
Secretary of Defense ... we think it is prudent to establish
a
process ... that is
intended to evolve, validate and mature ... the IAP's
recommendations
in a collaborative
environment prior to formal mandate."
-
Joint Staff (J6), PDASD(C3I) 18 October 1996
The reason I draw a parallel is
that they have come almost full circle. They started with a DoD
requirement to fill a void. They worked it through a COI to policy and
it has been accepted and adopted as a standard including the tool vendors.
I can go out a purchase a license for a program that will help me be
compliant and help with my integrated architectures. I think that is a
similar path for this project.
Frank