Currently viewing the tag: "U.S. Government"

General James Cartwright as VJCS.

Having had the privilege to meet, hear speak, and ask questions of General James E. Cartwright (USMC, Ret.) when I found this video it was A Cyber Fellow’s treat!  The video is from the Global Security Forum 2012.  One of the panels addressed the big aspects of Fighting a Cyber War to include significant strategy and policy discussions in Defense and International Security, Technology and Cybersecurity.  Several years ago at an AFCEA IT conference while he was serving as Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, I asked a question relating to the significant slowness of technology to penetrate the U.S. Military for use by our Forces.  His retort, “it is a massive problem,” quite accurate from what I’ve learned about the issue since – he even offered me his shoes if I wanted to take his place (Navy LT (O3) to 4-Star (O10) would have been a significant jump).    The problem is quite massive and at the root of our Military’s desireInnovative, Highly TechnicalEntrepreneurial, yet Inspirational and an Effective Leaderthe perfect warfighter!

Since that day I’ve worked toward being able to fill those shoes…

[via CSIS]

About the video and forum:

The Global Security Forum 2012 is a forum on the top challenges facing U.S. and global security. The vulnerability of military, civilian, and commercial networks to cyber attack is forcing the U.S. government to revise its approach to cyberspace. While most attention is focused on preventing attacks, this panel will address how cyber could be used in an offensive capacity, including how to conceptualize command and control, targeting, damage assessment, proportionality, and deterrence in a cyber environment either alone or alongside kinetic operations.

Incoming search terms:

In the Chairman\s White Paper on Mission Command (2012) the joint force of the future will find themselves operating in a security environment that is _____

Download (PDF, 660KB)


I remember hearing Oracle’s President and Chief Financial Officer Safra Catz speak a few years ago at a conference I was able to attend.  If you’re not familiar with her she happens to be one of the highest, if not the highest, compensated women in the world.  Aside from that fact she works for the co-founder of Oracle Larry Ellison; it in itself not an easy task she noted.  What struck me immediately in her description of operations at Oracle was the “independent operations” that each geographically separated division of the company was doing.  Having arrived in 1999 at Oracle she noted that it was effectively divisional chaos; divisions doing similar non-coordinated things all over with little contribution toward building upon the large corporate strategy.  Larry had brought Safra on at Oracle to fix this massive problem.

As I listened I couldn’t help but feel that this issue having been recognized at Oracle in the early part of the last decade had not been faced or embraced within the U.S. Government.  I could only identify a few examples in our Military and even less withing the U.S. Navy.  But this was during the time when taxpayer money flowed at a much faster and less scrutinized rate than that of 2012.  With this context I’m ecstatic to see the release of the Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People by the U.S. Chief Information Officer (CIO).

Immediately in the introduction the US-CIO identifies the major issue the USG traditionally struggles with:

Early mobile adopters in government—like the early web adopters—are beginning to experiment in pursuit of innovation Some have created products that leverage the unique capabilities of mobile devices. Others have launched programs and strategies and brought personal devices into the workplace. Absent coordination, however, the work is being done in isolated, programmatic silos within agencies.

The Digital Strategy Objectives:

  • Enable the American people and an increasingly mobile workforce to access high-quality digital government information and services anywhere, anytime, on any device.
  • Ensure that as the government adjusts to this new digital world, we seize the opportunity to procure and manage devices, applications, and data in smart, secure and affordable ways.
  • Unlock the power of government data to spur innovation across our Nation and improve the quality of services for the American people.

The technologists have finally taken hold within the USG.  The Digital Strategy Principles are based on:

  • An “Information-Centric” approach—Moves us from managing “documents” to managing discrete pieces of open data and content17 which can be tagged, shared, secured, mashed up and presented in the way that is most useful for the consumer of that information.
  • A “Shared Platform” approach—Helps us work together, both within and across agencies, to reduce costs, streamline development, apply consistent standards, and ensure consistency in how we create and deliver information.
  • A “Customer-Centric” approach—Influences how we create, manage, and present data through websites, mobile applications, raw data sets, and other modes of delivery, and allows customers to shape, share and consume information, whenever and however they want it.
  • A platform of “Security and Privacy”—Ensures this innovation happens in a way that ensures the safe and secure delivery and use of digital services to protect information and privacy.

The remainder of the document puts forth the more detailed aspect of each of these objective and how the principles should be implemented.  It should open the eyes of the digital immigrants within the USG.  With any new strategy this will take time for the USG as a whole to migrate toward.  I simply wish that this would have received this amount of attention and backing when the USG could have avoided these extreme budget conditions.  Imagine if this would have been released in 2008; the USG would be in a lot better condition both in the realm of information and fiscal effectiveness.  The technology was there then… apparently we had our priorities a bit misaligned.

[via CIO.gov]

Incoming search terms:

content

Download (PDF, 25KB)

 

Rand Corporation LogoThe RAND Corporation has an excellent summary of the U.S. Government-Wide and Department of Defense (DoD) Definitions of Research and Development (R&D).  This helps show the differences between the full government’s view and the DoD specific labeling (6.1, 6.2, 6.3…).  This break down in the definitions of R&D is also referred to as the Government’s “Color of Money” which is simply the variant of Government dollars that a program or project can accept or a funding entity may be able to provide.  This is extremely important to understand when planning the Navy Budget.

To focus specifically on the DoD definitions for DoD Acquisition the definitions are:

  • Basic Research (6.1) – Systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and/or observable facts without specific applications toward processes or products in   mind.
  • Applied Research (6.2) – Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met.
  • Advanced Technology Development (6.3) – Includes all efforts that have moved into the development and integration of hardware for field experiments and tests.
  • Demonstration and Validation (6.4) – Includes all efforts necessary to evaluate integrated technologies in as realistic an operating environment as possible to assess the performance or cost reduction potential of advanced technology.
  • Engineering and Manufacturing Development (6.5) – Includes those projects in engineering and manufacturing development for Service use but which have not received approval for full rate production.
  • Research and Development Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) Management Support (6.6) – Includes R&D efforts directed toward support of installation or operations required for general R&D use. Included would be test ranges, military construction, maintenance support of laboratories, operations and maintenance of test aircraft and ships, and studies and analyses in support of R&D program.
  • Operational System Development (6.7) – Includes those development projects in support of development acquisition programs or upgrades still in engineering and manufacturing development, but which have received Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) or other approval for production, or for which production funds have been included in the DoD budget submission for the budget or subsequent fiscal year.
  • Developmental Test and Evaluation – Efforts associated with engineering or support activities to determine the acceptability of a system, subsystem, or component.
  • Operational Test and Evaluation – Efforts associated with engineering or support activities to determine the acceptability of a system, subsystem, or component.

[via RAND]

 

 

Incoming search terms:

DOD color of money, 6 1 6 2 6 3 research definition, color of money government, 6 1 funding definition, 6 1 research definition, Government-Wide and DODDefinitions of R&D, dod color of meny, definition of 6 1 6 2 6 3 r&d, dod definition of research and development, 6 1-6 3 funding, 6 1 basic research funding, when can 6 4 and 6 5 money be used in DoD acquisition program
Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.