Those two things—resource impacts and the ebb of data— should instantly make us consider that we have to think about the process in those kinds of terms, not the terms we’re used to, such as having time to figure things out and always having the budget with which to execute those things in a linear path. One of the things that we are starting to touch on is the different kinds of processes, and how we anticipate capabilities that we need to build out against. That’s a different cost model and business model than how we traditionally look at problems. Our people are executing incredibly. Every day, I hear that NGA has really stepped up and is really meeting the warfighter’s demands. Right now, we’re delivering capability that they need. What people may not appreciate is that we’re doing that because we anticipated this more than a year ago. Then, we were working toward what was going to be needed today. As I sit and look at what we’ll need next, I’m looking out past what we’re delivering today. I’m anticipating the next wave of what we’re going to need downrange. Q: Previously, you served as agency lead for implementing the NGA goal of achieving “online, on-demand” services. To start, can you give readers an overview of your role and accomplishments there? A: That was a great opportunity as well, because there wasn’t a lot of definition about what that meant. The thing I got to do, along with a team of people, was to define a new service model and methodology at the front end. It was the three-tiered model that said if I am going to have an online service, I need to be fully empowered, with a self-service capability that allows all users to discover, visualize and access content and capabilities. We also need to have an assisted-service methodology that lets us customize products and analysis based on some specific user needs, when users weren’t able to satisfy themselves with the capabilities. Then we will still have an extension of the full-service model, because there will always be an element out there that needs a person full time integrating into the footprint until a mission was complete. We also worked hard to make sure everyone knew the difference between content management services and how to build the framework out in a different way. We touched on some of the early definitions for what cloud could do for the agency. I was really proud of the strategic initiatives. I was on some of the working groups early on, where we defined the strategic initiatives that have been incorporated in the agency and are fundamentally changing the way the agency does its business on a daily basis. Q: How would you define the overall strategy and timetable for achieving that goal? A: Right now, we’re reorganizing to unify our information technologies, under the new T Directorate in the agency, which is being led by Dave Bottom and Dave Burns. It’s a shift to unify the technology aspects of the framework. When you talk about online, ondemand services, there are a couple of pieces in addition to the business model I articulated. There is the separation of an online geospatial service unit, which is being stood up within the agency and led initially by Barry Barlow. There was also the unifying of the information technology, because we had a couple of different groups within the agency doing that. With both of those efforts, 18 | GIF 10.4
put together with an underpinning that we focused on virtualization of hardware and frameworks, we manage our content as a service, which leads us toward looking at new ways of how we design, build, buy and operate our information technology. That’s a huge step forward. The agency is right at the front edge of doing that. We’ve already started the reorganization of the T Directorate. There’s a time horizon associated with that, with periods of reflection built into the schedule to enable us to go back and look at whether we need to make an adjustment, not knowing precisely what the answer is at the outset. For a guy like me, it’s refreshing to hear at the outset that we might not know everything. We’re going to learn as we go, and get it right, and it’s going to fundamentally shift the way we do business. Q: What do you see as the key challenges or obstacles, in terms of technology and policy, to implementing this vision? On the other hand, what trends are working in its favor? A: I would say that most of our issues are not going to be the technology hurdles. It will be culture based, and about policy being able to keep pace with technology. It’s also having the right mindset, which I would say depends on whether we’re going to be risk averse, or measured in the risks that we take. If you go back and consider the original briefing that Director Long gave at the GEOINT 2010 Symposium, as well as what was articulated last year, we continue to strive toward reaching that vision. There is a shift in culture and how we approach problems mentally, in that we’re going to accept risk, and we’re not going to presuppose the answers or that we know everything upfront. To the extent we can understand our assumptions and what we’re doing, we’re going to do that. Technology will change rapidly around us, so we’ve got to keep pace. That means we have to know when we’re taking a smart, measured risk or when we’re taking a dumb risk, and know that difference and make sure we’re protecting ourselves and the nation. That fits into what I said earlier, because when you’re going to anticipate needs, you are really anticipating what people will need a year from now, not having a requirements discussion about what they need today. If I talk to someone about what they need today, if it’s not something I can pull off the shelf, but will need six months or a year to build, there’s no way I’m going to satisfy their needs. They need it today—not a year or more from now. If I deliver it a year and a half later, they’re going to say that was what I needed back then—now give me what I need today, which is different. Q: During your remarks at the GEOINT 2011 Symposium last fall, you referred to the need to shift the agency’s long-standing business model to an activity-based approach. Why, given the success of the existing model in meeting many users’ needs? A: There are two pieces to the answer to that. The activitiesbased approach fundamentally helps change the way we do analysis. We’re continually striving toward meeting all the milestones and achieving the goals to get us to the vision, but in order to do that you have to make sure that you focus on the problem in a different way. The activities-based model gives us a different way of looking at intelligence problems. Instead of just looking into stovepipes of target sets or places, pulling relationships in and www.GIF-kmi.com