1. Introduction
Interoperability is at simple “a measure of the degree to which various organisations or individuals can operate together to achieve a common goal.” Let’s explore this from general system viewpoint:- There are two or more entities A and B functioning purposefully
- There is an environment E where both entities are executing their functions
- There is a common goal G that both entities aspire to achieve
- If the common aspiration to achieve G is strong enough there are two ways to cooperate:
1.The entities in A and B may coordinate their separate effort to create an effect in attaining the G, i.e., a hierarchical hub that ensures the synchronisation of independent efforts as depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1: a simple need for interoperability
2. The entities A and B may choose to channel their combined effort through the shared delivery chain in achieving the common G, i.e., shared value chain as in Figure 2.
Applying the above with military systems thinking viewpoint, the definition for interoperability looks like the one in Figure 3:
- There are two or more value chains GENERATE, SUPPLY and UTILISE consuming resources from SOCIETY to create an effect on ADVERSARY that is considered valuable to GOVERNANCE (Compiling Clausewitz triangle model with value chain).
- The value chains take place in an ENVIRONMENT that effects the open systems, which adjust their functions to adapt to environmental changes or co-evolve with the environment E.
- The military system of systems value chain prefers the following definition to interoperability: “The ability of systems, units, or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units, or forces, and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together. ”
Figure 3: a military system of systems need for interoperability
For this work, the interoperability is defined as the ability of systems to provide services to and accept services from other systems and use the exchanged value to gain higher goals effectively. In this context, the system is considered as a socio-technical structure with defined functions and processes to purposeful action. A system can be a military unit that has been given a mission to accomplish.
There is need to retrofit the components of the military system of systems to improve their ability to interoperate when they are not integrated. Parts of the system of systems can be designed from the beginning and generated together creating a fully integrated entity.
Whether the interoperability or integration, the intention is to exchange the services over the system boundaries. In the socio-technical system , this requires interoperability at least at three levels of the boundary structure as illustrated in Figure 4:
- People are competent (i.e., possess understanding, skills and right attitude), share language, are culturally understanding and socially open to cooperate
- The processes of the cooperating units can exchange transactions both at logical and physical level (i.e., they can exchange information and goods among themselves)
Figure 4: levels of interoperability in the boundary of two units
- The technical means of exchange services and information are compatible enough to support the transactions over the organizational boundaries. Focusing only to information and communications technological boundaries, the interoperability may be defined as “the ability of distinct systems to share semantically compatible information and to process and manage that information in semantically compatible ways, to enable their users to perform desired tasks.”
There is also categorisation according to the levels of military hierarchy , which can be used in defining the interoperability :
- Strategic level seeks to harmonise worldviews, strategies, doctrines, force structures and efforts within coalitions and alliances. “Interoperability is an element of coalition willingness to work together over the long term to achieve and maintain shared interests against common threats.”
- Operational level seeks to minimise inefficiencies between multinational command and control, force elements, and ways to prepare, project and sustain the forces in theatre.
- Tactical level seeks alignment in engagement and protection. “The benefits of interoperability at the tactical level derive from the fungibility or interchangeability of force elements and units.”
- Technical level seeks integration at service and data exchange and compatibility by means of transport and communications. “Technical level interoperability reflects the interfaces between organisations and systems. Benefits of interoperability come primarily from their impacts at the operational and tactical levels regarding enhancing fungibility and flexibility.”
2. Why military seek interoperability?
Military enterprise seeks interoperability for three main reasons:
- To achieve better efficiency within the force means that command coordination between separate units is not providing sufficient performance, but the units need to synchronise their efforts directly.
- To achieve better efficiency in multinational coalition or cooperation means that political level requires shared contribution, which directs the military to create multinational units at the operational level.
- To achieve better efficiency within national defence means that the homeland defence requires closer cooperation and integration between different governmental agencies.
The above three interoperability drivers are studied in the following sections.
2.1. Efficiency within the force
In seeking the understanding of the military enterprise inner interoperability requirements, one may use Beer’s Viable System Model in Figure 5. A simple enterprise is composed of one or many operational units (L and A) that provide their effect in their specific areas of operation (AOO L and AOO A). These functional units are commanded by the Command element (JC), which balances the use of resources between current and future operations. Militaries have kept for example Land Force separate from Air Force as they are operating differently in their specific areas of operation. Both Services have been commanded by Joint Command that delegates mission command to Service level but may guide more closely the development of future capabilities (or another way around as in U.S. Armed Forces).
Figure 5: Traditional Armed Forces described with Viable System Model
As the units specialise and coordination becomes too detailed and slow, there is a tendency to create value chains through units that are supporting each other in the quest for achieving the same goal set by the Joint Command as in Figure 6. For example, Joint Logistics (JL) is supporting both Services Land and Air in the same Area of Operation (JA). The value chain arrangement required direct interoperability between the supporter and supported as the exchange of services becomes more detailed and higher paced for the Command to be able to coordinate.
Figure 6: Armed Forces organised as value chain
The Ross et al. developed model for enterprise business architecture as pictured in Figure 7, explains the movement from diversification towards coordination and further to unification. Armed Forces tend to build their new capabilities in diversified units, but once they meet a joint adversary, they prefer the unified order of battle since the Joint Command coordination is too slow and lacks the necessary details. In unified joint force, the interoperability becomes a force enabler. All specialised force components share the same situational awareness of current and planned operations, can synchronise their manoeuvring, engagement, and protection between themselves and exchange their dedicated services to achieve the common goal.
Figure 7: Business Architecture model for military affairs
2.2. Efficiency in coalition or cooperative
The political level has recently required a multinational contribution in military operations (except Russian operations in Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria). In multinational, combined operations either the force units are coordinated in detail under one command, or they are a part of force group that has one host nation providing joint Command and Control as in Figure 8.
Figure 8: A case for multinational interoperability
The 1991 coalition against Iraq was a typical U.S. led operation where all units were under the U.S. control, but only the most compatible coalition units could participate the main operations.
The Ackoff (1972) model for purposeful systems provides a framework to understand types of multinational relationships as pictured in Figure 8. A coalition is formed when nations ends are compatible, but their means may not be interoperable. The cooperation is possible when both ends and means are compatible as presented in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Types of multinational relationships by Ackoff
The more cost-effective and performing the allied military force, the more compatible their means of waging war needs to be. There may even be aiming to unify all troops like the Warsaw Pact was manoeuvring with multinational units, which were mainly using aligned tactics and standard technology. NATO is currently seeking for similar kind of status among their 26 members and several partners. Their mission statement is that” Interoperability allows forces, units or systems to operate together. It requires them to share common doctrine and procedures, each others’ infrastructure and bases, and to be able to communicate with each other. It reduces duplication in an Alliance of 26 members, allows pooling of resources, and even produces synergies among members.”
2.3. Efficiency within national defence
There are two dimensions in interoperability concerning national defence: cooperation between governmental agencies in homeland defence and Armed Forces integration with the society itself.The USA woke up in 911 realising that their homeland is not the sanctuary they were assuming. At the same time, it appeared that the US government organisations were not cooperating in their homeland. Thus, the Department of Homeland Security was established 2002 to coordinate the functions of about 22 different federal departments and agencies. With establishing this cabinet agency, the USA stepped from diversification to coordination on the business architecture map in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Ross et al. quadrant for business architecture models
Other nations like Finland had exercised the homeland defence since the II WW and were more towards unification as they were sharing weapons, vehicles, C2 systems, etc.
The other dimension of national defence is the military need to be integrated into the society that is providing it. There are two primary functions of Force generation and supply that cannot be done separated from the society as illustrated in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Interoperability between military and the society it provides
The force generation requires draftees or conscripts. The armament needs to be acquired. The logistics need a feed of supplies, services, and consumables to sustain the forces both in generation and utilisation.
