STRATEGY FOR AN ARMY CENTER FOR NETWORK SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND EXPERIMENTATION

Committee on Strategies for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation

Board on Army Science and Technology

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation STRATEGY FOR AN ARMY CENTER FOR NETWORK SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND EXPERIMENTATION Committee on Strategies for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation Board on Army Science and Technology Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. W911NF-06-C0066 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-10696-2 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-10696-6 Limited copies of this report are available from the Board on Army Science and Technology, National Research Council, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room 940, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 334-3118. Additional copies are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055, (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area), Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2007 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIES FOR NETWORK SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND EXPERIMENTATION VERNE L. (LARRY) LYNN, Chair, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (retired) RAJ K. AGGARWAL, Rockwell Collins Corporation A. MICHAEL ANDREWS II, L-3 Communications RICHARD L. DUNN, Consultant, Edgewater, Maryland GERALD HARRIS, Global Business Network JASON F. PROVIDAKES, MITRE Corporation ZITA M. SIMUTIS, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (retired) W. DAVID SINCOSKIE, Telcordia Technologies, Inc. RONALD L. SMITH, University of Nevada School of Medicine Staff ROBERT J. LOVE, Study Director HARRISON T. PANNELLA, Senior Program Officer NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Program Associate ALEXANDER R. REPACE, Senior Program Assistant SARAH E. PELLEGRIN, Senior Program Assistant

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MALCOLM R. O’NEILL, Chair, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Vienna, Virginia ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Vice Chair, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge RAJ K. AGGARWAL, Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Iowa SETH BONDER, The Bonder Group, Ann Arbor, Michigan JAMES CARAFANO, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. ROBERT L. CATTOI, Rockwell International Corporation (retired), Dallas, Texas DARRELL W. COLLIER, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (retired), Leander, Texas ROBERT R. EVERETT, MITRE Corporation (retired), New Seabury, Massachusetts PATRICIA K. FALCONE, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California WILLIAM R. GRAHAM, National Security Research, Inc. (retired), Arlington, Virginia PETER F. GREEN, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor CARL GUERRERI, Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc., Herndon, Virginia M. FREDERICK HAWTHORNE, University of Missouri, Columbia MARY JANE IRWIN, Pennsylvania State University, University Park CLARENCE W. KITCHENS, Science Applications International Corporation, Vienna, Virginia LARRY LEHOWICZ, Quantum Research International, Arlington, Virginia JOHN W. LYONS, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland EDWARD K. REEDY, Georgia Tech Research Institute (retired), Atlanta DENNIS J. REIMER, DFI International, Washington, D.C. W. DAVID SINCOSKIE, Telcordia Technologies, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey JUDITH L. SWAIN, University of California, San Diego WILLIAM R. SWARTOUT, Institute for Creative Technologies, Marina del Rey, California EDWIN L. THOMAS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge ELLEN D. WILLIAMS, University of Maryland, College Park Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate DONNA L. RANDALL, Administrative Coordinator DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation Preface The 2005 NRC report Network Science developed a working definition for network science as “the study of network representations of physical, biological, and social phenomena leading to predictive models of these phenomena” (NRC, 2005, p. 2). In this light, network science can be seen as a cornerstone for future military operations and the conduct of network-centric warfare. The present report, Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation, builds on the Network Science report by evaluating a possible framework for the Army to conduct research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) in areas of network science important to the future. The study was conducted in an environment in which changes were well underway to relocate and alter significantly the network science, technology, and experimentation (NSTE) resources of the Army and in which there exist diverse views on effective ways to organize and conduct science and technology (S&T) within a military construct. The overall challenge for the Army is to organize its S&T resources so as to advance NSTE on a broad front while maintaining those relationships and activities that have proven productive. The statement of task for the study was as follows: The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology) (ASAALT) has requested the NRC BAST to conduct a study to define advanced operating models and architectures for future Army laboratories and centers. The NRC will examine several representative centers, and address the following issues: Consult with the ASAALT Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Technical Assessment Board to obtain data on organizational goals, functions that support

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation the goals, activities that support the functions, and the disciplines required to support the activities and the critical mass required for each discipline for the network science, technologies, and experimentation center (NSTEC). Examine the various business models, managerial architectures and manpower needs both current and future for NSTEC, to include the assessment and potential utility of best practices in successful multi-disciplinary research consortiums. Identify deficiencies in the Army infrastructure for conducting state-of-the-art S&T for network-centric warfare (NCW), and recommend how these should be improved. Consider the establishment of a world-class user facility with state-of-the-art equipment within the NSTEC to engage the broad community (both civilian and military) doing R&D in networks, both human-engineered and biologically evolved, and situational awareness technologies and systems to further the Transformational goals of NCW. Include the delineation of the core competencies and a detailed manpower analysis (relevant disciplines, critical mass in each area, etc.) for such an organization. Recommend relocations within existing legal authority to better manage the various assets and resources and to create an improved synergy among them to achieve the goals of NCW. Explore existing legal authorities, which will enable the Army to best exploit partnerships, alternative funding and sharing of resources with industry through various relationships. I would like to thank the committee for its hard work in interviewing numerous experts, assessing the pertinent issues, and developing recommendations to address these concerns. The committee in turn is grateful to the many Army personnel engaged in NSTE for the useful information they provided. We also greatly appreciate the support and assistance of the National Research Council staff, which ably assisted the committee in its fact-finding activities and in the production of this report. Lastly, this study was conducted under the auspices of the NRC Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST). The BAST was established in 1982 as a unit of the National Research Council at the request of the United States Army and brings broad military, industrial, and academic scientific, engineering, and management expertise to bear on technical challenges of importance to senior Army leaders. The Board is not a study committee; rather, it discusses potential study topics, develops and frames study tasks, ensures project planning, suggests potential experts to serve as committee members or reviewers, and convenes meetings to examine strategic issues for the sponsor, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). Although the Board members are listed on page vi of this report, they were not, with the exception of any Board members nominated and appointed to serve

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation as formal members of the study committee, asked to endorse the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they review final drafts of the report before its release. Larry Lynn, Chair Committee on Strategies for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Frank Doyle, University of California, Santa Barbara, Charles B. Duke, Xerox Innovation Group (retired), Paul J. Kern, The Cohen Group, Larry G. Lehowicz, Quantum Research International, Richard M. Murray, California Institute of Technology, Steven L. Schooner, George Washington University Law School, George T. Singley, Science Applications International Corporation, and Steven G. Wax, SRI International. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., University of Maryland, College Park. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation Contents     SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   10      Background,   10      Statement of Task and Study Objectives,   12      Major Assumptions and Constraints,   12      Network Science,   13      Report Organization,   14 2   WHAT NETWORK SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND EXPERIMENTATION IS NEEDED BY THE ARMY?   16      Scope of Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation,   16      Communications and Information Networks,   18      Human Performance in Networks, Adversary Understanding, and Other Network Areas,   19      Priorities,   23      NSTE S&T Investment Strategy,   24      Proposed Mission Statement,   25      Chapter Summary,   25 3   NETWORK SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND EXPERIMENTATION ACROSS THE ARMY TODAY   28      NSTE Organizations,   28      Information and Communications,   29      Human Performance in Networks,   35

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation      Adversary Understanding,   36      Efforts in Other Network Areas,   36      Chapter Summary,   37 4   INFRASTRUCTURE RESOURCES NECESSARY FOR ARMY NETWORK SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND EXPERIMENTATION   38      Infrastructure Framework,   39      Development of Theory and Associated Technologies,   40      Human Performance in Networks,   41      Integration of New Technologies,   42      Experimentation,   43      Organizational Elements of an NSTEC,   47      Army Contributions,   47      Academic (University) Contributions,   47      Industry Contributions,   48      Scope and Structure,   48      Centralized Versus Distributed Facilities,   49      Chapter Summary,   50 5   GOALS, MODELS, AND ALTERNATIVES FOR AN NSTEC   51      Organizational Goals,   51      Attracting and Retaining Human Talent,   52      Partnering with Industry and Academia,   53      Meeting Special Military Needs,   53      Operating Models for NSTEC Governance,   55      Structure,   55      Special Authorities,   56      Governance and Business Attributes,   61      Command Relationships and Leadership,   64      Alternatives,   65      Recommended Strategy,   65      Chapter Summary,   67     REFERENCES   69     APPENDIXES          A  Committee Meetings   73      B  Biographical Sketches of Committee Members   77

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation Tables, Figures, and Box TABLES S-1   Network Areas and Priorities,   7 2-1   Areas of Network Research of Interest to the Army,   17 2-2   Examples of Biological and Social (Non-physical) Networks,   20 2-3   Network Areas and Priorities,   24 3-1   Current Locations of Army NSTE,   31 4-1   Elements of NSTEC Infrastructure,   46 5-1   Comparative Analysis Adapted from RAND E-Delphi Exercise,   63 FIGURES S-1   Recommended NSTEC organization,   5 2-1   Typical communications and information network topology,   22 3-1   Current Army organizations engaged in NSTE,   30 5-1   Recommended NSTEC organization,   67 BOX 5-1   Key Attributes of an Army Science, Technology, and Experimentation Center,   56

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation Acronyms and Abbreviations AMSAA Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity APG Aberdeen Proving Ground API application program interface ARCIC Army Capabilities Integration Center ARI Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences ARL Army Research Laboratory ARO Army Research Office ASA (ALT) Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) BAST Board on Army Science and Technology BRAC base realignment and closure C2 command and control C2D Command and Control Directorate C3 command, control, and communications C3OTM command, control, and communications on-the-move C4ISR command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance CERDEC Communications-Electronics Research, Development, and Engineering Center CIO Chief Information Officer CISD Computational and Information Sciences Directorate COIN counterinsurgency COTS commercial off-the-shelf

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation CRADA cooperative research and development agreement CTA collaborative technology alliance CTSF central technical support facility DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DHS Department of Homeland Security DISN Defense Information Systems Network DOD Department of Defense ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center FAR federal acquisition regulation FCS Future Combat Systems FFRDC federally funded research and development center FGC federal government corporation GIG Global Information Grid GIG-BE global information grid-bandwidth expansion GOCO government-owned, contractor operated GWOT global war on terrorism HLD high-level design HRED Human Research and Engineering Directorate I2WD Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate INFOSEC information security INSCOM U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command IP Internet Protocol IPA Intergovernmental Personnel Act ISR intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance IT information technology ITA international technology alliance LAN local area network LCMC life cycle management center M&S modeling and simulation MANET mobile ad hoc networks MLS multi-level security NACA National Advisory Commission on Aeronautics NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCO network-centric operations

OCR for page R1
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation NCW network-centric warfare NDIA National Defense Industrial Association NISITA International Technology Alliance in Network and Information Sciences NRC National Research Council NRL Naval Research Laboratory NSA National Security Agency NSC Natick Soldier Center NSIF network science integration facility NSPS national security personnel system NSTE network science, technology, and experimentation NSTEC network science, technology, and experimentation center NVESD Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate OMB Office of Management and Budget OSI open system interconnection PEO program executive officer PM program manager QoS quality of service R&D research and development RDEC research, development, and engineering center RDECOM U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command RDT&E research, development, test, and evaluation S&T science and technology S&TCD Space and Terrestrial Communications Directorate SCI sensitive compartmented information SCIF sensitive compartmented information facility SEDD Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate TRAC TRADOC Analysis Center TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command UARC university-affiliated research center UAV unmanned aerial vehicle UGS unattended ground sensor USAF U.S. Air Force USN U.S. Navy