How does an organisation

actually go about

introducing an open

architecture? Doesn’t this

type of change place too

much pressure on most

organisations to interrupt

their current processes,

potentially delaying existing

programmes?

Introducing interoperability

and open architecture (IOA) is

a major culture change and can

be a strain on the business

relationship for many

organisations. If an

organisation has been

entrenched in a sole source,

closed system for years, the

transformation to an IOA

approach can sometimes

threaten both industry and

government roles,

responsibilities and

revenue/funding streams, and

“their need to exist!”.

As with most business

arrangements, a contract or

agreement is used to define

roles and responsibilities of a

project effort and to keep a

communications drumbeat

ongoing. If the user (or

government customer) chooses

to change the existing business

model to something affording

competition or a new vendor,

business relationships can

suffer leading to potential

delivery delays, degradation in

service quality or cost

increases.

The degree to which

organisations react to the

anxiety of change can many

times be correlated to the

method of how the enterprise

will change from closed

systems to IOA. We have seen

many cases where the change

was initiated to help a system

survive in a downsizing budget.

Programs have been motivated

to make the change because

open systems architecture has

proven to yield more capability

and provide a solution to

obsolescence. Yet, If not

handled well, this could clearly

cause disruptions in delivery of

a system, service, or capability

to the warfighter.

If organisations feel they

need to make the transition

from closed systems to open

architecture, getting some

advice from those who have

already done it is certainly

something the DAU

recommends. Getting a subject

matter expert to walk you

through the pitfalls, maybe

even consulting with an

industry partner as you go

forward, will help you find the

approaches that are more

palatable to stakeholders. Some

may look at this type of change

as a Draconian process and

reactions can be negative if it is

not approached properly.

Forums like the

Interoperable Open

Architecture summit are good

opportunities to network with

these people. I’m always

amazed at how willing high-

ranking officers and civilians

are to help others by sharing

their success and advice.

I N D U S T R Y

D E F E N C E I Q M A R C H 2 0 1 5 M A R C H 2 0 1 5 D E F E N C E I Q

“I’m always amazed at how willing high-ranking officers are to

help and advise others”

IMPLEMENTING OPEN ARCHITECTURE AND AVOIDING THE PITFALLS

Ahead of Interoperable Open Architecture 2015, Defence IQ is joined by Professor David Miskimens, Project Management and Mission Assistance, Defense Acquisition University, a DoD training establishment tasked with acquisition certification and leadership training, and mission assistance to acquisition organisations. He tells us why the process must start at the discussion table…

Our representative from

Object Management Group

stated that he felt that

culture was the single

greatest obstacle to making

open architecture the norm.

Would you agree with that

assessment?

I absolutely agree. Imagine if

your organisation was destined

to lose a contract because of a

business model change. Think

of the employee behavior and

how their world would be

upset. Losing a job because of

a lack of competency in a

changing world, or simply

because the demand has

changed, goes against many of

the values illustrated in

Maslow’s “A Theory of

Human Motivation” which

described various human

needs.

It doesn’t really matter

whether the change is driven

by affordability, completion or

technology. The change may

come in many forms. It may

be the government or prime

that determines the need to

develop another qualified

source to bring innovation and

competition. Another method

may be driven by technology

refresh (upgrading for

obsolescence) or technology

insertion (upgrading for

increased capability).

However, there are some

approaches that can help

soften the blow of the change,

or even be viewed as an

opportunity.

Leadership openness with

business intent and

transparency can contribute

greatly to mitigate the stress

generated by a large scale and

sweeping change to long

existing contracts, agreements,

and relationships. Fairness and

opportunity to participate in

the new initiative arrangement

can help to reinvigoration

interest from industry to adapt

to the change, particularly if

the government leadership

wants to include several

providers in a business

enterprise plan.

Our OSD leadership (Hon.

Frank Kendall, Under

Secretary of Defense for

AT&L) is rolling out the Better

Buying Power (BBP)

implementation of best

practices, which is up to

version 3.0. Within this, one of

the initiatives is to increase the

use of open architecture to

support affordability. So now

all of us in the DoD has a new

expectation that if we are not

yet using OA, we need to look

at what it will take to get there

That’s an external pressure

that will scramble a lot of

programme managers into

action to meet with other PMs

and figure out a way to

introduce the concept.

Costs are not always a brick

wall, as our submarine model

demonstrated. Back in the 90s,

the R&D budget was going

down at the same time as the

acoustic superiority of our

submarines was narrowing

when compared to those of

our adversaries. The

community came together and

worked out a way to gain that

ground back in spite of the

monetary shortfall through the

implementation of OA.

Can you offer us an overview

of any recent case study of a

current programme that has

successfully applied an open

architecture approach? What

was the key to this result?

There are a few case studies

taught at Defense Acquisition

University in the executive 400

level courses. However,

because open systems can take

on a wide variety of

definitions, the cases currently

being taught deal mostly with

increased use of COTS

electronic systems and

platform intellectual property

implications of armored

fighting vehicles and jet engine

sub-assemblies. DAU is

working on a future System

Engineer course and may

include a case study on the

Virginia Class Submarine

architecture.

However, it is hard to open

any Defence periodical and not

find an article about a weapons

systems and information

systems having success

applying open systems

architecture to lend a more

affordable acquisition model

that is sustainable with an

efficient modernisation

program.

The US Navy has

experienced nearly two decades

of changing from large

integrate closed systems

acquisition and development

models. The submarine sonar

and combat systems team

introduced the first Acoustic

Rapid Commercial Off-the

Shelf (COTS) Insertion

(ARCI) installation on

submarines in the late 90s and

early 2000s. This courageous

transformation allowed

upgrades from legacy sonar

systems and significantly

expanded processing capability

for existing sensors. This same

model is being applied to the

AEGIS ship systems and other

Navy aircraft, weapons, and

support systems.

The Army relies heavily on

open architectures, open

standards and open source

software as an emerging

strategy for buying and

modernizing its ground based

robotics systems. The service

is employing a strategy that

emphasizes open architectures

and defined interfaces between

individual subsystems to keep

costs down and maximize

flexibility.

The Army has also been

working on the Unmanned

Ground Vehicle

Interoperability Profile (IOP),

a collection of hardware and

software standards to define

how subsystems communicate

with one another. The

hardware specifications for the

“Across all of these cases, a fundamental

benefit has arisen:

modernisation and upgrade has become

much less painful”

The US Navy’s submarine capability was saved by open

architecture in the 90s

D E F E N C E I Q M A R C H 2 0 1 5 M A R C H 2 0 1 5 D E F E N C E I Q

I N D U S T R Y

“It doesn’t really matter whether the change is driven by affordability, completion or technology”

I N D U S T R Y

The Distributed Common Ground Systems (DCGS) is

currently in transition

“Timeframes and costs

became more predictable

and contained by

the second and third

run”

“My focus is on the ‘people’ part of the equation, on the relationships, and on the business arrangements”

learned. Therefore timeframes

and costs became more

predictable and more

contained. That’s why

partnering and benchmarking

through symposiums with

people who have done it is

essential.

What are your hopes for the

conference dialogue? Do

you have any particular

question to which you would

like to hear an answer or

anything you need

clarification on?

I would like to hear cases

where industry has been

motivated to excel in providing

open systems architecture

methods to military systems

acquisition.

I’ll be there to divulge how

we managed to achieve it. In

those early days, we effectively

got private industry and

government in the labs

together, and we then had a

series of conferences, we

closed the doors, we took our

badges off, and we all tried to

figure out how to accomplish

our goal – whether we were

contractor, lab, military or

civilian. That took leadership.

From that basis, Admirals and

CEOs understood how to

support their people and build

on the common focus.

While my presentation will

cover the gamut – from the

little cell phones and single-

board computers to the big

mainframe and IT systems –

my focus is on the ‘people’ part

of the equation, on the

relationships, and on the

business arrangements that all

need to be considered to help

those involved avoid problems

during their implementation.

components will meet the

plug-and-play interface

specification for industry to

allow competition.

The Army continues to stay

current in meeting evolving

needs with the Common

Avionics Architecture System

(CAAS). This system is based

on an innovative modular open

system approach that uses

open industry standards to

reduce the costs of technology

insertions and capability

upgrades.

The US Air Force (USAF)

is shifting acquisition efforts to

get away from closed-system

proprietary designs for

complex systems on military

aircraft to reduce development

time, cut costs, and enable

technology refresh and

technology insertion.

The USAF has used the U-

2 spy plane to provide a

platform to host an open

systems architecture. This

effort integrated multiple Air

Force Open Mission Systems

(OMS) payloads using the

Skunk Works Enterprise Open

Systems Architecture (E-OSA).

The result enables the ability to

rapidly modernize the

architecture of the aircraft's

mission systems.

This service has also developed

the Sensor Open Systems

Architecture (SOSA), involving

high-data-rate and high-

performance multi-intelligence

ISR sensor pods. The SOSA

initiative is an architecture

adaptable for modernization

flexibility to maximize

platform performance and

system affordability.

They are also planning to

transition its Distributed

Common Ground System

(DCGS) to a non-proprietary

capability to keep pace with

changing threats and advances

in technology.

Across all of these cases, a

fundamental benefit has arisen:

modernization and upgrade

has become much less painful.

As an example again, all 70 of

those submarines in the U.S.

fleet can be upgraded with the

latest and greatest software in

just a couple of years because

it is the same principle as

updating the software on your

home computer every few

years for a marginal price. The

use of COTS servers, switches,

processors, all operating

through the same interface in a

plug-and-play format reduces

maintenance budgets

significantly while still

increasing the capability.

On that note, the U.S. Navy

has been working with the

Royal Australian Navy in

installing the ARCI capability

on their submarines, and with

the UK Astute programme.

Just a few weeks ago I had the

opportunity to sit in on a

programme review for the

nuclear deterrent submarines,

on which the US is working

hand-in-hand with the British

on the modular designs,

incorporating many common

processes and keeping total

costs to a minimum.

The programmes first

implemented fifteen years ago

experienced some schedule

and cost overruns, but by the

second or third time of doing

it, they had a much better

resolution on their estimates

and a playbook of lessons

AEGIS Open Architecture will see greater commonality

across the fleet

D E F E N C E I Q M A R C H 2 0 1 5 M A R C H 2 0 1 5 D E F E N C E I Q

I N D U S T R Y I N D U S T R Y

• Share expertise, explore the major programmes and consider the future with the leading experts from the military and industry communities that are currently defeating the challenges of open architecture

• Understand the impact that Integrated Open Architectures can have on budgets, technology delivery and revolutionising combat effectiveness

• Gain insight from civilian experts working on the development of open architectures for unmanned ground systems, armoured vehicles, permanent and expeditionary bases, weapons systems, aerospace technology and the civilian automobile industry

• Benefit from cutting-edge insights into the development and implementation of Integrated Open Architectures into defence procurement processes

• Engage in a secure and collaborative environment and transform your knowledge and your skill-set whilst establishing valuable contacts from this domain

W W W . I O A E V E N T . C O M

+44 (0)20 7368 9737 enquire@defenceiq.com

IOA 2015 takes place in London, April 29-May 1