Search results

This report presents observations from an ongoing research project that is tasked with assessing and improving Department of Defense (DoD) and Navy policy for command, control, communications, and intelligence and for weapon programs. This report examines a new information exchange standard, Universal Core (UCore), its relationship to DoD data strategy and policy, its implementation options, and related technical issues that should be resolved prior to the widespread adoption of this powerful new interoperability mechanism. Universal Core (UCore) 2.0 is a DoD and intelligence community information exchange framework that may be able to significantly improve interoperability between Department of Defense (DoD) information systems. UCore can support a broad range of data models with its data wrapping and extensibility capabilities. Before the Navy and DoD accelerate adoption of UCore, however, several issues must be addressed, including bandwidth, implementation option guidance, and implementation costs. The authors identify unanswered questions in each of these areas. To date, UCore pilot projects and related testing have not produced sufficient data on UCore bandwidth demands and cost implications, two factors that are very important to program managers. Furthermore, current DoD policy does not provide clear policy direction on UCore. To realize UCore's benefits, the Navy and DoD should continue to develop the UCore data exchange framework; encourage program experimentation with UCore; and capture detailed performance and cost data from future UCore pilot efforts to ensure that bandwidth, implementation, and cost issues are addressed

The roles and responsibilities of defense acquisition officers and Department of Defense (DoD) chief information officers are governed by U.S. laws and specified in more detail by a growing and complex body of DoD policy. The authors identify policy governing the design, acquisition, and integration of information technology (IT) and national security systems (NSS) that could lead to potential conflicts among these executives when they exercise their duties in the defense acquisition system. They examine the sources of these conflicts, and find that conflicts in the DoD acquisition process have occurred in the areas of setting IT standards and developing an IT architecture. Recent changes in DoD policy have reduced the potential for conflict in IT architecture development; however, the potential for conflict remains in the DoD standard-setting process. The authors recommend changes to DoD policy that can resolve these conflicts. --From publisher description