Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- Building the Hybrid Cloud
- Connected Government: How to Build and Procure Network Services for the Future
- Continuing Diagnostics and Mitigation: Discussion of Progress and Next Steps
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal Tech Talk
- The Future of Government Data Centers
- The Future of IT: How CIOs Can Enable the Service-Oriented Enterprise
- The Intersection: Where Technology Meets Transformation
- Maximizing ROI Through Data Center Consolidation
- Mitigating Insider Threats in Virtual & Cloud Environments
- Modern Mission Critical Series
- Moving to the Cloud. What's the best approach for me
- Navigating Tough Choices in Government Cloud Computing
- The New Generation of Database
- Satellite Communications: Acquiring SATCOM in Tight Times
- Targeting Advanced Threats: Proven Methods from Detection through Remediation
- Transformative Technology: Desktop Virtualization in Government
- The Truth About IT Opex and Software Defined Networking
- Value of Health IT
- Air Traffic Management Transformation Report
- Cloud First Report
- General Dynamics IT Enterprise Center
- Gov Cloud Minute
- Government in Technology Series
- Homeland Security Cybersecurity Market Report
- National Cybersecurity Awareness Month
- Technology Insights
- The Cyber Security Report
- The Next Generation Cyber Security Experts
Shows & Panels
In fight over intelligence IT system, Army prioritizes access to data
Friday - 5/17/2013, 4:11pm EDT
The Army's intelligence and IT communities have spent the past several years building a family of systems designed to remedy past intelligence failures that were caused by an inability to share information between systems and agencies. That system is now up and running, but the Army is mounting an all-out campaign to defend it.
After having struggled through the earlier years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with intelligence-gathering systems that could not easily interoperate with each other, DoD's stance is essentially, "never again." The Army, the largest player at the moment in the battlefield-intelligence business, says common standards are an absolute must for any IT solution going forward. Proprietary or stovepiped systems are forbidden, even if that means the user experience might be less than optimal in the short term.
"Sometimes we have to explain that access to data and adherence to the intelligence community's standards may be more important than the thing that seems easier, but creates issues," said Lt. Gen. Mary Legere, the Army's deputy chief of staff for intelligence.
Legere and other top Army intelligence officials are spending a full week trying to detail that explanation to members of Congress in a series of walk-through demonstrations of the Army's Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS-A), the end-to-end collection of integrated IT systems it developed beginning in 2007 for intelligence collection, analysis, dissemination and tasking. On Thursday, leaders took a small group of reporters on the same tour in a rare opening of the gates of the service's Intelligence and Security Command headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Va.
Heated exchange on Capitol Hill
Army leaders freely acknowledge the no-compromise stance toward data standards creates a fundamental tension between the interoperability imperative and the need for systems that might be able to deliver user-friendly battlefield capability sooner.
One such system, a commercial data-analytics product called Palantir, is the poster child for that tension, which boiled over in a House Armed Services Committee hearing three weeks ago.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a former Marine who says he's heard from numerous soldiers who want to use Palantir and have been turned down, spent three minutes criticizing the Army for portions of DCGS-A that he said duplicated capabilities already available in commercial industry, then began to leave the room without waiting for a response from Army Secretary John McHugh or Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno.
"First of all, I object to this," Odierno replied angrily. "I am tired of somebody telling me I don't care about our soldiers. I'm tired of these anecdotal incidents."
"General, you have a very powerful personality, but that doesn't refute the facts that you have gaps in the capability in the system the Army's using right now," said Hunter, retaking his seat.
"We have more capability today in our intelligence than we've ever had," Odierno shouted over him. "A company commander today with DCGS-A has 20 times the capability that I had as a division commander in 2003. I want you to get briefed on DCGS-A."
Data instantly accessible to intelligence community
Hunter was scheduled to take part in the walk-through tour on Friday, the Army said. Assuming he's given the same talking points that Army leaders delivered to reporters the day before, he will be told that the system has met every one of its milestones to date and that the Army is aggressively pushing forward with a more user-friendly release of the system's software. It's called "Hunte," after a soldier who was killed in the early days of the Iraq war.
DCGS-A is the largest of a broader family of systems that have their own variants in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, but the Defense Department says the essential feature of all of them is that they enforce common data standards promulgated by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That means every bit of data the system collects, ingests or analyzes is potentially available instantaneously to any member of the intelligence community with the proper clearance, and isn't obstructed by the need to translate it into a format that another system can understand, or that a human being will have to manually type into another keyboard.
"The Army's never dictated these standards itself, but as the force that provides the global backbone for combatant commanders around the world, we really cannot afford the inefficiency of the one-off solutions," Legere told reporters. "We started changing that from 2005 to 2007 with great help from industry, who sacrificed profit and developed new models. But the hard migration handwriting is on the wall for anybody who might have that [proprietary] approach."