RESEARCH PAPER
Evolution of military information management: The transformation of military organisation often neglects the culture and maturity of its information management
1
Aalto University, Finland
2
RMIT University, Australia
Online publication date: 2016-09-23
Publication date: 2016-09-30
Security and Defence Quarterly 2016;12(3):46-73
KEYWORDS
Information ScienceInformation ManagementEnterprise ArchitectureMilitary TransformationC4ISREnterprise Resource Management
ABSTRACT
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has made major advances in linking physical
dimension through information to cognitive dimension as described by John Perry et al. (2004) in
their model for Information Superiority. The information technology linkage between the physical
and cognitive dimensions has created new ways of effect both for the red and blue force.
The paper focuses on the information dimension and searches for better models to describe the structure of blue force information, especially from the Enterprise Architecture (EA) approach. Enterprise Architecture has been developed to better communicate the complex structures of military capabilities. Major EA frameworks (TOGAF, DODAF) recognise the layer of information between business and technology, but in practice, the focus turns more to the technology as has happened in several Command, Control, Communications, Computing, Information, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) and Enterprise Resource Management (ERM) programmes. The paper develops a tool for architects to use in measuring the maturity of information management in the current military organisation and in defining the possible paths of evolution in information management available for the military.
The outcome of this paper is a roadmap picturing the evolution of military information management. Enterprise Architects may use the roadmap in analysing and developing both C4ISR and ERM capabilities in military organisations. The primary research question for this paper is: What may cause so many failures in defining Enterprise Architecture at information management level and then in implementing C4ISR and ERM tools?
The paper first defines six stages for management of unstructured information from various former studies and information architecture models (Cook, 1996). The basic stages of evolution of unstructured information are defined as print, file, page, social media content, semantic content, and intelligent content.
These six stages and a generic military structure are processed through an evolutionary model derived from evolutionary theory for technical development described by Joel Mokyr (1998). The Mokyr model helps to recognise the paths of evolution, the forces that may influence the development and the ways that have been taken in achieving goals.
The outcome is a roadmap that describes the evolution of past and possible future for military information management and explains different drivers and constraints on roads. The roadmap is aligned with other similar roadmap tools Enterprise Architects are using. The roadmap is further tested against experiences gained from several C4ISR and ERM focused military transformations. The overall research approach follows the hypothetico- deductive model (Brody, 1993) and the roadmap part applies the theory of evolution in sociotechnical systems (Bertalanffy, 1969).
Military organisations have followed the general evolutionary path (print – file – page – social media content – semantic – intelligent content) in developing their management of unstructured information. The general path includes two definite leaps that require more effort: 1) from files to pages, and 2) from unstructured content to more structured content. There have also been more discrete shortcuts together with downgrades defined by cultural and doctrinal powers of the force.
Meanwhile, it is possible to accelerate evolution by taking shortcuts. A consistent effort to change technology, processes, and people at the same time is needed when, for example, taking force from publish-pull pages to semantic information management. It might be easier to start with structured information and then, gradually, include unstructured information.
Strong forces may also pull back already achieved development if the change has not been made to stick properly. Losing the thin trust for shared information management early in implementation may prevent individuals from sharing for a long time. Not providing the expected level of availability of the service for the knowledge base may lose the confidence of process owners.
Since information is essential for cognitive level sense making, decision making, and learning, Enterprise Architects should include information maturity in their roadmaps of technical and business process development. The roadmap for military information management is to help analysis of the current situation and provide possible paths towards future stages aligned through business, information, and technical layers.
The research in this paper only covers the approach of evolution. The systems and business strategy approached are studied in other papers. This article does not illustrate the integrated roadmap of business, information, and technology, which can be found in further papers by the writers. The research is based mainly on qualitative data in proving the roadmap. There is room for further assurance when the information sharing cultures of the military are enabling it.
The paper focuses on the information dimension and searches for better models to describe the structure of blue force information, especially from the Enterprise Architecture (EA) approach. Enterprise Architecture has been developed to better communicate the complex structures of military capabilities. Major EA frameworks (TOGAF, DODAF) recognise the layer of information between business and technology, but in practice, the focus turns more to the technology as has happened in several Command, Control, Communications, Computing, Information, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) and Enterprise Resource Management (ERM) programmes. The paper develops a tool for architects to use in measuring the maturity of information management in the current military organisation and in defining the possible paths of evolution in information management available for the military.
The outcome of this paper is a roadmap picturing the evolution of military information management. Enterprise Architects may use the roadmap in analysing and developing both C4ISR and ERM capabilities in military organisations. The primary research question for this paper is: What may cause so many failures in defining Enterprise Architecture at information management level and then in implementing C4ISR and ERM tools?
The paper first defines six stages for management of unstructured information from various former studies and information architecture models (Cook, 1996). The basic stages of evolution of unstructured information are defined as print, file, page, social media content, semantic content, and intelligent content.
These six stages and a generic military structure are processed through an evolutionary model derived from evolutionary theory for technical development described by Joel Mokyr (1998). The Mokyr model helps to recognise the paths of evolution, the forces that may influence the development and the ways that have been taken in achieving goals.
The outcome is a roadmap that describes the evolution of past and possible future for military information management and explains different drivers and constraints on roads. The roadmap is aligned with other similar roadmap tools Enterprise Architects are using. The roadmap is further tested against experiences gained from several C4ISR and ERM focused military transformations. The overall research approach follows the hypothetico- deductive model (Brody, 1993) and the roadmap part applies the theory of evolution in sociotechnical systems (Bertalanffy, 1969).
Military organisations have followed the general evolutionary path (print – file – page – social media content – semantic – intelligent content) in developing their management of unstructured information. The general path includes two definite leaps that require more effort: 1) from files to pages, and 2) from unstructured content to more structured content. There have also been more discrete shortcuts together with downgrades defined by cultural and doctrinal powers of the force.
Meanwhile, it is possible to accelerate evolution by taking shortcuts. A consistent effort to change technology, processes, and people at the same time is needed when, for example, taking force from publish-pull pages to semantic information management. It might be easier to start with structured information and then, gradually, include unstructured information.
Strong forces may also pull back already achieved development if the change has not been made to stick properly. Losing the thin trust for shared information management early in implementation may prevent individuals from sharing for a long time. Not providing the expected level of availability of the service for the knowledge base may lose the confidence of process owners.
Since information is essential for cognitive level sense making, decision making, and learning, Enterprise Architects should include information maturity in their roadmaps of technical and business process development. The roadmap for military information management is to help analysis of the current situation and provide possible paths towards future stages aligned through business, information, and technical layers.
The research in this paper only covers the approach of evolution. The systems and business strategy approached are studied in other papers. This article does not illustrate the integrated roadmap of business, information, and technology, which can be found in further papers by the writers. The research is based mainly on qualitative data in proving the roadmap. There is room for further assurance when the information sharing cultures of the military are enabling it.
REFERENCES (89)
1.
Perry, Walter and Signori, David and Boon, John (2004): Exploring Information Superiority. A Methodology for Measuring the Quality of Information and Its Impact on Shared Awareness. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica CA.
2.
McChrystal, Stanley, et. al. (2015): Team of teams. New rules of engagement for a complex world. Penguin Random House. New York. ISBN 978-1-59184-748-9 Pp. 118-124.
3.
NIT (2013): NATO unveils Afghan Mission Network Operations Center at Kabul airport. Retrieved from http://northiowatoday.com/2013...- network-operations-center-at-kabul-airport/.
4.
Mattis, James (2013): 19 Unforgettable quotes from retiring General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com...- maddog-mattiss-best-quotes-2013-1?IR=T&r=US&IR=T#in-this-age-i-dont-care-how- tactically-or-operationally-brilliant-you-are-if-you-cannot-create-harmonyeven-vicious- harmonyon-the-battlefield-based-on-trust-across-service-lines-across-coalition-and- national-lines-and-across-civilianmilitary-lines-you-need-to-go-home-because-your- leadership-is-obsolete-we-have-got-to-have-officers-who-can-create-harmony-across-all- those-lines-13.
5.
Alberts, David & Hayes, Richard (2003): Power to the edge. Command... Control... in the information age. CCRP Publications. ISBN 1-893723-13-5.
6.
DeMarco, Tom; Lister, Timothy (2003): Waltzing with bears. Managing risk on software projects. Dorset House Publishing Co, New York. ISBN 978-0-932633-60-6.
7.
Mattila, Juha (2014): Lessons from developing Army Command, Control and Information System for Finnish Land Force during 2007 – 2009. Retrieved from http://c4isys.blogspot. sg/2014/03/lessons-from-developing-army-command.html.
8.
UK MOD (2011): MOD information strategy 2011. Better informed, better defence. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/..._ data/file/27388/mod_information_strat2011.pdf.
9.
Open Group: The Open Group Architecture Framework, TOGAF 9.1. Retrieved from https://www.opengroup.org/toga....
10.
MOD UK (2012): The MOD Architecture Framework. Retrieved from https://www. gov.uk/guidance/mod-architecture-framework.
11.
CIO US DOD (2014): DOD Architecture Framework 2.02. Retrieved from http:// dodcio.defense.gov/Library/DoD-Architecture-Framework/.
12.
NATO (2016): NATO Architecture Framework 4.0 draft. Retrieved from http:// nafdocs.org/introduction/.
14.
Cook, Melissa, A. (1996): Building Enterprise Information Architectures, Reengineering information systems. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, ISBN 0-13-440256-1. Pp.1-40.
15.
Mokyr, Joel (1998): Science, technology, and knowledge: What historians can learn from an evolutionary approach? Presented to the Conference on The Evolution of Science, Santa Fe, May 16, 1998.
16.
Andriani, Pierpaolo and Carigani, Giuseppe (2012): Exaptation, innovation, and modular system. Presented to the School of Management, Cranfield University, November 9, 2012.
17.
UK MOD Joint Doctrine Note 2/13: Information superiority. Retrieved from https://www. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239342/20130813_ JDN_2_13_Info_Super.pdf.
18.
Mattila (2014): Lessons from developing Army Command, Control and Information System for the Finnish Land Force 2007 – 2009. Extracted 5. Nov 2016 from http://c4isys. blogspot.sg/2014/03/lessons-from-developing-army-command.html.
19.
DeMars: Dansk Forsvars Management- og Ressourcestryringssystem. Retrieved from https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
20.
Thorpe, Richard; Jones, Oswald; Macpherson, Allan, and Holt, Robin (2008): The evolution of business knowledge in smaller firms. An article in Evolution of business knowledge, Edited by Harry Scarbrough. Oxford University Press. Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19- 922960-4. Pp. 23-49.
21.
Schmidt, Eric and Cohen, Jared (2013): The new digital age, Reshaping the future of people, nations and business. John Murray, London. ISBN 978-1-84854-621-9 Pp. 32-81.
22.
Whitworth, Brian and Ahmad, Adnan (2010): The evolution of computing. In the encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. 2 nd Edition. Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.interaction-design...- human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/socio-technical-system-design.
23.
The All Partners Access Network (APAN) is the Unclassified Information Sharing Service (UISS) for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).
24.
The Non-secure Internet Protocol (IP) Router Network (NIPRNET), but prevalently referred to as the “’Non-classified’ IP Router Network,” is used to exchange sensitive but unclassified information between “internal” users as well as providing users access to the Internet. It was replaced by “Sensitive but Unclassified IP Data.”
25.
The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) is “a system of interconnected computer networks used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information (up to and including information classified SECRET) by packet switching over the TCP/IP protocols in a ‘completely secure’ environment”.
26.
Primary Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) network in Afghanistan for all ISAF forces and operations. Consists of the ISAF SECRET network as the core with connections to national extensions from numerous Tactical Connection Nodes.
27.
Federation Mission Network which is to be used for national application for both Allies and Partners, internally in NATO for operations, exercises, training etc., with Partners for operations, exercises, training etc. FMN as a capability is going to be delivered in conceptual form to NATO at the end of 2013 and in 2014 tested at different exercises to be operational in 2015.
28.
Bytheway, Andy (2014): Investing in information. The information management body of knowledge. Springer, London. ISBN 978-3-319-11908-3. Pp. 133-142. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11909-0.
31.
Brody, Thomas (1993): The philosophy behind physics. Edited by Luis de la Pena and Peter e. Hodgson. Sprinter-Verlag, Berlin. ISBN 3-540-55914-0 Pp.84-94.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-78978-6.
32.
Flood, Robert L. & Carson, Ewart R. (1993): Dealing with complexity: An introduction to the theory and application of systems science (2 nd Edition). Plenum Press, New York. ISBN 978-1441932273.
33.
Bastedo, Michael N. (2004): Open systems theory. The SAGE encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration. Retrieved from http://www-personal.umich. edu/~bastedo/papers/bastedo.opensystems.pdf.
34.
Bodenschatz, Eberhard (2009): Complex systems. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Retrieved from https://www.mpg.de/36885/cpt08....
35.
Trist, Eric & Bamforth, K. (1951): Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations, Vol 4, 1951 pp.3-38.
36.
David, Paul A. (1994): Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history’? Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organisations and institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 1994, Vol. 5, Issue 2, Pp. 205-220.
37.
Mokyr, Joel (2002): The gifts of Athena. Historical origins of the knowledge economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton. ISBN 0-691-12013-7. Pp. 284-297.
38.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) System Engineering Guide for System-of- Systems Engineering (Version 1, August 2008) defines four types of systems of systems, directed, acknowledged, collaborative, and virtual.
39.
Maier, M.W (1998). “Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems.” Systems Engineering. 1(4). Pp. 267-84.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6858(1998)1:4<267::AID-SYS3>3.0.CO;2-D.
40.
Mokyr, Joel (2002): The gifts of Athena. Historical origins of the knowledge economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton. ISBN 0-691-12013-7. Pp. 284.
41.
Mattila, Juha (2016): Using evolutionary theory in explaining system of systems development. Retrieved from http://c4isys.blogspot.sg/2016...- in-explaining.html.
42.
Cattani, Gino (2005): Preadaptation, Firm Heterogeneity, and Technological Performance. Article published in Organizational Science, Vol.16, No. 6, November- December 2005, pp. 563-580.
43.
Choo, Chun Wei (1998): The knowing organization. Oxford University Press, New York.
44.
Christensen, Clayton M. (2011): The Innovator’s Dilemma. HarperCollins, New York. doi:10.15358/9783800642816-15.
45.
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von (1968): General system theory. Revised edition. George Braziller, Inc. New York.
46.
Gunderson, Lance H.; Holling, C.S. (2002): Panarchy. Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington.
47.
Mukherji, Ananda (2002) “The evolution of information systems: their impact on organisations and structures”, Management Decision, Vol. 40, Issue: 5, pp.497 - 507.doi:10.1108/00251740210430498.
48.
The aggregate of individuals, organisations, or systems that collect, process, or disseminate information; also included is the information itself. See also information system. Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.
49.
Berman, Jules J. (2013): Principles of big data. Preparing, sharing, and analysing complex information. Morgan Kaufmann, Waltham. ISBN 978-0-12-404576-7.
50.
Hidalgo, Cesar (2015): Why information grows? The evolution of order, from atoms to economies. Allen Lane, London. ISBN 978-0-241-00355-8. Pp.165-171.
53.
On October 22, 2010, WikiLeaks released almost 400,000 logs from the Iraq War, spanning a period of 6 years from Jan 1st 2004 to Dec 31st 2009. Each log represents a ‘SIG ACT’ or Significant Action recorded from the field level during the war. WikiLeaks has made these classified logs available to the public on the Internet, and provided a summary of the logs including, among other data, sensitive details such as the location of operations, numbers of deaths and personnel involved in field operations. This represents the largest military data leak (or spillage) in history. See: http://www.titus.com/titus-blo... wikileaks-what-can-we-learn-about-protecting-and-sharing-information/#more-273.
54.
Peltonen, Erkki and Honkasalo, Kari (2006): From punch card to information network. Original in Finnish: Reikäkortista tietoverkkoon. Puolustusvoimien tietotekniikkalaitoksen historiikki. Puolustusvoimien Tietotekniikkalaitos, Espoo.
65.
Lagus, Antti (2010): Architecture for communications in Defence Forces. Original in Finnish: Puolustusvoimien viestintaratkaisun arkkitehtuuri. Verkostopuolustus 2010, Spring. Puolustusvoimien Johtamisjärjestelmäkeskus, Jyvaskyla. ISSN-L1798-6672.
69.
Wisnowski, Denis (2011): Semantic technology in the DoD Business Mission Area. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?....
70.
Mattila, Juha (2010): Development of land forces C4I for the end state of 2016. Original in Finnish: Maavoimien johtamisjärjestelmän kehittäminen 2016 puolustusvoimia varten. Viestimies no 1/2010.
72.
Chang, Carl K. (2013): Situational Software Engineering. Key note presentation in WIC conference October 29, 2013. 79 Mattila, Juha (2016): Architect
73.
Mattila, Juha (2016): Architecture for Information Management Transformation; Part G of Introduction to ICT rationalization program of the Finnish Defence Forces from Enterprise Architecture viewpoints. Retrieved from http://c4isys.blogspot.sg/2016... architecture-for-information-management.html.
74.
James, Andrew, S (2013): Emerging technologies and military capability. S. Rajaratnam School of international Studies. Retrieved from https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-con... uploads/2014/07/PB131101_Emerging_Technologies_and_Military_Capability.pdf.
75.
O’Reilly, Tim (2005): What is web 2.0? See: http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/w... archive/what-is-web-20.html. (Accessed on September 14, 2016).
76.
Muth, Jorg (2011): Command culture. Officer education in the U.S. Army and the German Armed Forces 1901-1940, and the consequences for World War II. University of Texas Press, Denton. ISBN 978-1-57441-533-9. Pp. 181-200.
77.
Byrne, Barry (2016): IKON, a case study of a multi award winning knowledge management programme in a 9000+ organization. A keynote presentation in ECKM 2016,2 September, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
78.
Szeredi, Peter; Lukacsy, Gergely; Benko, Tamas (2014): The semantic web explained. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 52-73. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139194129.
80.
Guha, Ramanathan V. (2013): Light at the end of tunnel. Keynote in ISWC 2013, 21-25 October, Sydney, Australia. See: http://iswc2013.semanticweb.or...- ramanathan-v-guha.html.
81.
CJCSI 3340.02B (2013): Joint enterprise integration of warfighter intelligence. See: http://www.dtic.mil/cjcs_direc....
82.
Mattila, Juha (2012): Summary of the contract. Original in Finnish: Urakan päätössanat. Viestimies 4/2012.
85.
Farley, Robert (2010): Over the Horizon: WikiLeaks and the Information Battlefield. World Politics Review, October 27, 2010. See: http://www.worldpoliticsreview... articles/6842/over-the-horizon-wikileaks-and-the-information-battlefield.
86.
Reuters (2013): Iraq war logs in Bradley Manning case ‘hit us in the face’: US officer. August 01. See: http://www.ndtv.com/world-news...- hit-us-in-the-face-us-officer-530119.
87.
Harrison, Rachel (2013): TOGAF 9 foundation study guide. 3 rd edition. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel. ISBN 978-90-8753-741-8. Pp. 87-114.
88.
Mattila, Juha (2014): Lessons from developing Army Command, Control and Information System for Finnish Land Force during 2007 – 2009. Retrieved from http:// c4isys.blogspot.sg/2014/03/lessons-from-developing-army-command.html.
89.
INCOSE (2015): Systems engineering handbook. A guide for system life cycle processes and activities. 4 th edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York. ISBN 978-1-118-99940-0 Pp. 17-20.
| eISSN: | 2544-994X |
| ISSN: | 2300-8741 |
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
