Implementing System-of-Systems Governance

Abstract

The growth in new technologies, especially within the domain of information networking, has given rise to the desire to create tightly connected operational systems in order to improve task efficiency. This desire has become a driving force within both the private and public sectors. The DoD, for its part, has developed a strategy known as Net Centric Warfare (NCW), which envisions the translation of information superiority into combat power through the effective linking of knowledgeable entities within a given battlespace (Alberts, Garstka, & Stein, 2000). Individual assets are able to access information in real time, without having to navigate through disparate and disconnected information conduits, allowing them to more quickly assess and respond to situations. To facilitate the greater level of integration that NCW required, an innovative DoD acquisition strategy arose: system-of-systems (SoS) development. SoS views the constellation of military assets in an integrated and coherent way as a complete, interconnected system. The Defense Acquisition Guidebook (Defense Acquisition University, 2011) defines a an SoS as a set or arrangement of systems that results when independent and useful systems are integrated into a larger system that delivers unique capabilities (p. 1.4). These new capabilities can be derived from the integration of new systems, legacy systems, or a combination of both. Currently, however, the DoD's culture, practices, and management structure, are aligned with the acquisition of individual systems and not with the acquisition of integrated systems-of-systems. In general, DoD systems are designed, developed, procured, managed, reviewed, budgeted, and supported on an individual basis. Although this acquisition structure, developed over the past half century, has produced some of the most advanced weaponry in the world, it has significant drawbacks. For example, the historic development of single platforms (e.g., ships, aircraft, etc.) has placed a premium on performance producing the best weapon system attainable as opposed to considering the potentially complementing capabilities of other systems in the DoD arsenal or those under development.