continuing the march - deloitte · 2021. 1. 10. · joe mariani is a lead market insights analyst...

Continuing the marchThe past, present, and future of the IoT in the military

Joe Mariani is a lead Market Insights analyst with Deloitte Services LP focusing on technologies and trends that cut across industries.

Brian Williams is a senior consultant in Deloitte LLP’s Federal Technology practice with experi-ence in integrating and assessing complex IT architectures, data integration and analytics, and IT financial management.

Brett Loubert is a technology strategy and architecture principal for Deloitte LLP who works with CIOs and senior leadership within the federal government to develop and refine executable IT strat-egies to solve their most complex technical problems.

About the authors

Deloitte’s Internet of Things practice enables organizations to identify where the IoT can potentially create value in their industry and develop strategies to capture that value, utilizing IoT for operational benefit.

To learn more about Deloitte’s IoT practice, visit http://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/tech-nology-media-and-telecommunications/topics/the-internet-of-things.html.

Read more of our research and thought leadership on the IoT at http://dupress.com/collection/internet-of-things.

On the road to information

THE turbulent seas of the North Atlantic in 1941 are a surprising place to find

an explanation for the military’s need of the Internet of Things. But in that pitched battle between Allied merchant ships and German U-boats, information was the key to victory. Codebreaking and aircraft from escort carri-ers were the sensors, feeding information into centralized command centers, where decision makers on both sides routed submarine “wolf packs” or re-routed convoys of merchantmen. Victory went to those groups that could gener-ate and analyze more information in a timely manner and, then, adjust not just their tactical posture but their logistical supply lines, intel-ligence groups, and support facilities.

Then and now, it is hard to overstate the importance of information to military com-manders everywhere. While the rest of the world was waking up to the Internet in 1996, the US military, for example, was already outlining plans for “information superiority.”1 The military concept of decision cycles places information flow at the heart of all activities from logistics to intelligence; in some cases, information’s importance and impact is so great that it is classified in the same category as artillery—as a deadly long-range weapon.2 With information so central to all activities, the military is naturally hungry for technology

or tools that improve communication, routing, or processing of information.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is one such technology. Whether called the Internet of Everything, machine-to-machine, or ubiqui-tous or embedded or ambient computing, the IoT is fundamentally about connecting dispa-rate objects into larger networks.

While the military has been a driver in connected and machine-to-machine commu-nications such as radio frequency identifica-tion, more commonly known as RFID, it has been slow to adopt true IoT applications that knit these communications into interoperable, automated cycles. Communications remain within their given channels, not easily shared or aggregated.

The challenge is that defense leaders wish-ing to take advantage of the IoT face a com-plex technological and regulatory landscape that threatens to mire their efforts in endless choices and challenges. This article aims to help leaders navigate complex IoT decisions by pointing out which applications may be better suited for their goals related to cost efficiency and/or warfighter effectiveness. In each case, we will use Deloitte’s Information Value Loop as an analytical framework to identify the key investments necessary to realize the IoT’s potential benefits.

Continuing the march

2

THE INFORMATION VALUE LOOP The suite of technologies that enables the Internet of Things promises to turn most any object into a source of information about that object. This creates both a new way to differentiate products and services and a new source of value that can be managed in its own right.

Realizing the IoT’s full potential motivates a framework that captures the series and sequence of activities by which organizations create value from information: the Information Value Loop.

For information to complete the loop and create value, it passes through the loop’s stages, each enabled by specific technologies. An act is monitored by a sensor that creates information, that information passes through a network so that it can be communicated, and standards—be they technical, legal, regulatory, or social—allow that information to be aggregated across time and space. Augmented intelligence is a generic term meant to capture all manner of analytical support, collectively used to analyze information. The loop is completed via augmented behavior technologies that either enable automated autonomous action or shape human decisions in a manner leading to improved action.

TECHNOLOGIESSTAGES VALUE DRIVERS

AGGREGATE

ANALYZE

COMMUNICATE

ACT

CREATE

Network

Standards

Sensors

Augmented intelligence

Augmented behavior

R I S K

T I M E

Scale FrequencyScope

Security Reliability Accuracy

TimelinessLatency

M A G N I T U D E

The past, present, and future of the IoT in the Military

3

Shedding light on the road: The Information Value Loop

MILITARY leaders, as with those atop any organization, use structure in order to

understand the choices before them. The value loop (see sidebar) is exactly one such struc-ture, providing the context to sort through all of the noise and determine where to apply the next investment dollar to bring value to the organization.

Military-oriented readers can recognize the foundation of the value loop as a decision cycle, with stages that echo “observe-orient-decide-act.” What is unique to the loop is its ability to simplify IoT decision making. The value loop is able to bring order to the menag-erie of IoT technologies by showing how each

fits into larger processes and supports deci-sion making. But with the proliferation of IoT applications—each one promising to change the world—simply having a taxonomy of tech-nology is not enough to help decision mak-ers. Rather, the value drivers help to illustrate how the flow of information creates value. By understanding differences across these drivers between competing IoT applications, a defense leader is on the road to being able to determine what is right for his organization, what is trans-formative, and what is merely hype.

The first step is to determine exactly what the organization needs to accomplish. In the age of sequestration and the global war on terror, the overarching theme commonly seen in defense budgets is “seeking a balanced force.”3 The United States needs a flexible force with more combat power than ever to counter diverse threats from Syria to the South China Sea, but also one that is cost-effective and effi-cient in its use of resources. To meet the chal-lenge, commanders naturally seek options that will either reduce costs, freeing up time and assets for core mission activities, or directly improve those activities themselves. We can categorize IoT applications according to the same logic: those that aim to improve cost efficiency, those that aim to improve warfighter effectiveness, and rare cases that aim for both.

Cost efficiency

Investigating IoT applications beginswith how your organization definesvalue from the IoT.

Warfighter effectiveness

Both


4

WHILE some aspects of the military are decidedly unique, other functions

closely mirror their civilian counterparts. In these areas, such as asset tracking and facilities management, leaders can simply import exist-ing civilian technologies to gain the advantages of new IoT applications.

Cost reductions through asset tracking: Many individuals with even loose military associations have experienced the tedium of filling out handwritten receipts. And all too many leaders know the more intense pain of long hours spent inventorying equipment by hand, reading off the serial number of each piece in turn. More than a mere inconvenience, these dated asset-management practices compromise the US Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) overall supply-chain effectiveness. A recent survey of DoD supply logistics manag-ers identified ineffective data management as the primary risk to their supply chains.4 This lack of information directly results in equip-ment shortages on the one hand and waste of excess equipment on the other.

The DoD recognizes these inefficiencies and has long worked to improve them. As far back as 2005, the Defense Logistics Agency argued for the military’s adoption of RFID as a standard for supply-chain tracking.5 The potential benefits seemed obvious: better

awareness of equipment location and status; faster, more accurate deliveries of needed sup-plies; and, of course, less manpower wasted on dreaded inventories.

However, even as an early adopter, the DoD has struggled to win widespread acceptance for RFID. Largely this is because the department has had difficulty demonstrating the return on investment for the subordinate command-ers who bear the time and cost burden of implementing RFID.6 Without a clear picture of how they will benefit, leaders are reluctant to invest scarce resources in these technolo-gies—an important point for IoT applications in general.

In terms of the value loop, this lack of investment stifles the loop where it begins, at the create phase. Without putting sensors on objects and connecting them, data are not created, and no information flows around the loop. Although the initial costs may seem daunting, mid-size defense organizations such

Keeping pace: Using civilian successes to achieve cost-reduction goals

Cost efficiency



Both


5

as the Robotic Systems Joint Project Office have been able to implement asset-tracking systems for as little as $400,000.7 Similar applications in the civilian sector have been able to recoup their investment within the first year.8 By applying location sensors to move-able patient monitors, seven hospitals across the nation were able to more efficiently use the monitors. One hospital saved more than $500,000 a year in the cost of buying or renting new monitors. More importantly, when inte-grating sensors into a larger tracking system, hospitals were better able to map the flow of patients, resulting in maximized bed use and annual revenue increases in the millions of dollars.9

Cost reductions through facilities man-agement: Civilian IoT successes in utilities and facilities management also can provide a useful roadmap for the military, in an area with immense potential for value capture. The DoD holds the largest US portfolio of facilities and is the nation’s largest single energy user.10 In FY 2016, the department will spend more than $10 billion to maintain and repair those facilities.11 In an era of tight budgets, facilities maintenance and utilities are often easy targets: The Marine Corps alone was forced to cut $7 million from its utilities budget for 2016.12 Since turning off the lights on the troops is not a viable solution, improving energy efficiency can be key.

An IoT application already proven in the civilian world may offer promise for the military’s energy-efficiency goals. In the civilian world, the IoT has enabled central-ized building-management systems to target costs by monitoring and coordinating utili-ties and building functions. For example, the Central Bucks School District in Pennsylvania has saved $15 million in energy costs in five years by implementing an IoT-enabled facili-ties management system.13 These systems go beyond simply dimming lights or heating only occupied rooms—they include continuous monitoring, which identifies hard-to-detect

inefficiencies. One application at Western Kentucky University found unexpectedly high energy usage in off-peak hours via leaks in the air-handling system, causing major waste and expense.14

As with asset tracking, the bottleneck in the Information Value Loop of facilities manage-ment starts with create: Useful data are sim-ply not being created. With existing, proven technology, defense leaders can more easily act to see desired savings. A pilot study imple-menting IoT solutions at Great Lakes Naval Station combined real-world weather data, energy consumption, comfort thresholds, and data collected from buildings into a machine-learning algorithm designed to reduce energy consumption. The study found reductions in energy usage of 20 to 30 percent, suggesting that, if implemented across the DoD, annual savings of $500 million could be possible.15

Challenges to adoption: Why has the military struggled to implement cost-reducing IoT applications that for-profit companies have used to great effect? The challenge in implementation is not a matter of techno-logical lag—the devices and capabilities are already in use in the private sector and have demonstrated effectiveness in specific military installations. Rather, slow IoT adoption can be explained by analyzing the fundamental structural and cultural differences between the private sector and the military.

Military leaders, in contrast to their civilian counterparts, are rarely able to keep any sav-ings they realize from implementing facilities or utilities efficiencies—they may even be penalized. The difficulties in moving funds between different appropriations means that a commander who saves $1 million in energy costs is likely unable to use that same $1 mil-lion to buy more equipment or hold more training exercises.16 Instead, the money may be “lost,” with commanders often suffering a reduction in the next year’s budget as a reward for their thrift.


6

The possibility of misaligned incentives suggests a need for a centralized manage-ment approach: one organization that is able to design, test, and implement energy-saving measures, then mandates the successful efforts across one of the five US military services or even across the Joint Force. If that organization also managed the facilities or utilities budget as a whole, it would be able to realize and allo-cate the savings created by energy efficiency,

aligning incentives. With the creation of orga-nizations such as the Air Force’s Installation and Mission Support Center, all the services seem to be on the path toward centralized management. Such organizations are well positioned to capitalize on demonstrated civil-ian success in IoT facilities management and begin to reach the cost-reduction goals of the modern military.


7

Taking the next step in battlespace awareness

WHERE civilian IoT applications could deliver efficiency and cost reductions

in supply-chain tracking and facilities manage-ment, the unique demands of warfighter sup-port require military-specific IoT applications.

Consider Julius Caesar commanding the famed Tenth Legion at the battle of Sabis in 57 BC. Briefly surprised by the Gauls, Caesar rode to the front lines, observed his forces, and shouted orders to “each Centurion by name.”17 For centuries, that was the model of command and communications: Battlefield commanders “pulled” information about friendly and enemy situations from the dust of the melee and then “pushed” commands and orders down to the tactical units. For Caesar, with all of his forces easily seen and within shouting distance, this push-pull model was fairly straightforward, but the expansion of modern battlefields has introduced new challenges.

Today the pull is often accomplished by data fusion, trying to give a commander the widest, most diverse picture of the battlefield. The push is the challenge of operational com-munications: how to disseminate orders to and among tactical units. The military has already implemented many of the foundational com-ponents of IoT in both pull and push; however, data often remain disconnected—separate value loops with separate flows of information. Continued development in network technol-ogy and data standards promises to create a

tactical IoT that can unify the push and the pull, remaking battlespace awareness into a truly modern process—one that Caesar would not recognize.

“Pull” data fusion: Informed decision making is predicated on having comprehensive knowledge of the battlefield: reports from a range of locations, taken over a span of time that paint an accurate picture of the situation. For Caesar, this was as simple as looking across the field of clashing warriors. But battlefields, and the sophistication of the battles fought on them, have grown. The information a com-mander needs to make effective decisions has expanded exponentially, meaning that commanders often bring together volumes of diverse data to understand their battlespace. In terms of Deloitte’s IoT framework, they focus on aggregate.

The importance of data in modern war-fare poses two distinct challenges for a com-mander: handling the sheer volume of data produced, and integrating numerous types of data into one coherent battlespace picture.

Cost efficiency



Both


8

Storing and (quickly) retrieving large volumes of data is not a uniquely military task—other areas of government have made substantial progress on this challenge. With an estimated 220 exabytes of data worldwide to be stored in 2015, a civilian-world solution has been to move data to the cloud.18 Defense and intelligence leaders have followed suit: The CIA and Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) have leaned on civilian expertise, working with commercial companies to bring the cloud and software to secure government networks.19 Thus, the infrastructure for dealing with the data volume of tactical IoT applica-tions is, potentially, already in place.

Diversity of data, on the other hand, poses unique challenges to cloud implementation in the military and complicates private-sector comparisons. Drones are a particularly illustra-tive example: The Department of Defense has fielded at least 13 different types of unmanned aerial systems, each with an array of sen-sors producing multiple types of data.20 This doesn’t begin to address the issue of compat-ibility—just one of those data types, video, can come in more than 20 different file formats, with even more choices of encoding and frame rates.21 (YouTube—a civilian site that hosts only videos—can support just nine file formats.22) Indeed, military data-fusion applications incorporate not only videos but still imag-ery, signals intelligence, human intelligence, ground sensors, battlefield reports, map data, and a host of other data sources.

As the value loop shows, aggregating these disparate types of data necessitates a common set of data standards. With multiple agencies, commands, and military services involved in the production, transmission, and con-sumption of all of these data types, creating a common set of standards will likely require a senior-leadership mandate designating an executive agent such as DISA to adjudicate what the standards should be.

“Push” operational communications: As with data fusion, the military has a long history of working with connected communication

in operational communication. Where the distributed communication of smartphones has driven civilian IoT development, every soldier since the 1940s has carried a radio.23 Where real-time traffic-monitoring apps began revolutionizing our daily commutes in 2009, Blue Force Tracker has been an everyday part of ground combat for the better part of two decades.24 Despite communication technol-ogy’s importance to the fabric of military culture and communication, however, it has not evolved into true IoT functionality, with data that are open and discoverable between systems. Information bottlenecks are frequent within operational and intelligence networks. The typical Brigade Combat Team communi-cations network in 2013 featured 5,000 discrete nodes communicating over more than 18 distinct network types.25 Where data do cross between these networks, they often do so via an arduous manual process.

The dream of true IoT capability in opera-tional communications is not new. As far back as the 1993 launch of the Army’s now-defunct Land Warrior program, the military has tried to integrate frontline forces’ sensors, weapons systems, and communications. Until recently, the technology simply did not exist to make these systems work as desired: They could not connect to other systems such as Blue Force Tracker, nor did the communications systems have enough power to transmit the volume of information created.26 To put this in terms of the Information Value Loop, there was a bottleneck at the communicate stage.

Where “pull” was limited by the process challenge of breaking down multiple, siloed data standards (i.e., failures in aggregation and the standards that support them), IoT usage in operational communications is constrained by the technical limitations in mobile communi-cations networks’ bandwidth and robustness. While a consumer’s 4G LTE smartphone will routinely post download speeds in the range of 8 to 9 Mbps, the military’s commercial satel-lite network used for mobile network access posts a top speed of less than 0.5 Mbps.27 These


9

speeds are more than enough if soldiers need only voice communication or to send short text-only messages, but current military com-munications systems cannot provide a soldier in the field with the bandwidth that a true IoT application would require—and certainly not wirelessly.

While the military can, to a certain extent, ride the wave of civilian mobile telecom-munication such as 4G LTE, those advances will likely need to be paired with advanced, military-specific communications architec-tures. After all, the average consumer does not need a network of rugged, encrypted, frequency-hopping, multiband radios. For the military, though, research in this area is beginning to bear fruit. For a number of years, DARPA has been experimenting with “mobile ad hoc networks,” designed to form a self-cre-ating and self-healing mesh of communication nodes, with setup time measured in minutes instead of days. DARPA envisions networks of more than 1,000 nodes providing individual soldiers with streaming video from drones and other sensors, radio communications to higher headquarters, and advanced situational awareness of other soldiers’ location and status.28 Some of the products of such research are already reaching the battlefield: The Army has begun testing prototypes of its Integrated Sensor Architecture, which allows for dynamic discovery of sensors.29 Using this architecture, for example, a soldier walking through an area could quickly locate a sensor hidden in the ground and read off data about whether any enemy vehicles had passed through the area over the past 24 hours.

Without the ubiquitous cellular signal upon which we rely in our daily lives, these military IoT networks operate over tactical radios. The next generation of high-bandwidth radios that could make these integrated networks a reality are already under development. Air

Force Special Operations Command recently released a contract solicitation describing requirements for a tactical radio that sounds more like a futuristic smartphone than a tradi-tional single-channel VHF radio. The Special Operations Forces Multi-Function Radio must be able to form a 100-node self-healing mesh network and automatically connect within five seconds. With a minimum 5 Mbps data rate, it is about as fast as the 4G LTE smartphone in your pocket, while meeting military durability and encryption requirements.30

Unified battlespace awareness: With these advances in communications architecture and devices, a true tactical IoT will be nearly here. The high data rates and flexible communica-tions architectures now reaching operating forces do not simply improve upon existing communications—they have the potential to change how soldiers in the field shoot, move, and communicate. Individual applications already allow a soldier to view streaming video from unmanned aerial vehicles overhead, see nearby soldiers’ ammunition status, text mes-sage a “call for fire” to supporting artillery, and even allow headquarters to look through a rifle scope. The current challenge is integrating all of those applications.

Indeed, all of this is about more than simply giving every soldier a smartphone—it is about, for the first time, unifying the push and the pull of command-and-control. Where now commanders pull data from the front lines and push orders down, a tactical IoT would allow for organic flow of information up and down the chain and around the value loop, with both the commander in the tactical operations cen-ter and the soldier on point enjoying increased situational awareness. The tactical military IoT is the next step in command-and-control—and the first step toward a new approach radically different than Caesar shouting to his centurions.


10

WE have already seen how repurposed civilian IoT applications can help the

military cut costs, and where military-specific IoT applications in battlespace awareness can increase warfighter effectiveness, but there is one area where a revolution is pending with the potential to do both: autonomic logistics.

Like the IoT, autonomic logistics goes by many names: predictive, proactive, prognostic, or condition-based maintenance. But in each case, the concept revolves around the ability to use real-time data about usage and system performance to predict failures. Also like the IoT, this concept is not new, dating back to DARPA-sponsored research in the 1970s, but has come into its own only with the inexpen-sive computing, sensor, and communication technology of the past decade.31

Meet ALIS: The most advanced example is the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS, pronounced “Alice”) of the F-35 joint strike fighter. ALIS uses sensors embedded throughout the aircraft to detect performance, compare to parameters, use sophisticated analytics to predict maintenance needs, and then communicate with maintenance staff so that the right parts are ready when needed. This represents a quantum leap over standard maintenance practice, in which a maintainer’s only guide is checklists based on how many hours an airframe has flown.

Statistical experiments have demonstrated improvements in both cost and aircraft avail-ability over these standard maintenance meth-ods.32 These improvements occur at every link of the maintenance supply chain: Ordering the right parts at the right time means a simpler logistical train; less unnecessary maintenance means fewer maintenance personnel and lower costs; and with fewer aircraft grounded for maintenance, more are available for flight, increasing potential combat sorties. According to William Scheuren, the former head of the DARPA program that eventually brought forth the F-35, the goal of autonomic logistics is to reduce the complexity of the logistical train by 50 percent, reduce the number of maintenance personnel by 20 to 40 percent, and increase the number of combat sorties by 25 percent.33

While logistics is everywhere, like bat-tlespace awareness, ALIS is a uniquely mili-tary application. Civilian manufacturers, for example, can use networked sensors to moni-tor the performance of engines mounted on

A great leap in logistics

Cost efficiency



Both


11

commercial airliners and to suggest mainte-nance to ground crews, but no system moni-tors all aspects of a vehicle, from engine to avionics, or integrates all aspects of the supply chain, from the aircraft itself to maintainers to parts depots.34 This project’s scope and scale are such that the military is breaking new ground and, naturally, uncovering new chal-lenges along the way.

One of those new challenges implies that incorporating IoT technology can be some-thing of a cautionary tale. The development of the F-35 has seen numerous cost and schedule overruns: Already the most expensive weapon system in history, the F-35’s sustainment costs are set to be nearly double those of the F-15C/D, F-16C/D, AV-8B, and F-18A-D com-bined.35 And a large part of that sustainment

AGGREGATE

ANALYZE

COMMUNICATE

ACT

CREATE

Cost efficiency

Where to look: Asset tracking and facilities management can directly import civilian IoT successesWhat to address: Consider centralized management to align incentives for upgrades

Where to look:Autonomic logisticsimproves weaponsystem availabilityand reduces cost

What to address:Struggle withcutting-edgeproblems suchas human-AIinteraction

Where to look: Unifying the intelligence, operations, and communication aspects of battlespace awarenessWhat to address: Continued improvement in bandwidth and reliability of tactical networks


Bo

th


12

bill is due to performance issues and cost over-runs within the ALIS program.

The complex integration of hardware and software found in ALIS has created a number of technical conflicts and glitches; in some cases, these faults have actually weakened the very metrics ALIS was designed to improve. In one documented case, ALIS incorrectly signaled that the landing gear of an aircraft had failed when in fact the fault was with a small component near the gear.36 This error forced maintainers to repeatedly inspect the landing gear, forcing the grounding of an otherwise healthy aircraft. In this case, the sensor worked properly in detecting a fault, but the analytical software failed in understanding its impor-tance. Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle hinted at the root of the problem in a recent interview: “[W]e need to have the ability to override the algorithms that are built into that system to determine whether an aircraft is safe to fly or not.”37

To put this in terms of our value loop, what Gen. Schmidle and the F-35 team are discov-ering is that as the analytics or augmented intelligence within an IoT application become more complex and independent, new, previ-ously unidentified issues emerge—specifically, the boundary between humans and augmented intelligence (AI) requires careful design. In the case of relatively simple augmented intel-ligence—fitness bands, for example—the human-AI boundary is relatively simple as well: It issues an alert that the user is free to

follow or ignore. But as AI grows in com-plexity, it cannot easily communicate all the parameters to a human user, forcing the system to take certain pre-programmed actions. However, if those pre-programmed actions are ill chosen or inflexible, they can lead to unin-tended negative consequences—such as the grounding of perfectly good aircrafts.

In this respect, the F-35 is on the IoT’s cut-ting edge. Previous Deloitte research concludes that even the most advanced AI applications available today still require a “human in the loop” in order to achieve promised levels of accuracy. How exactly to combine human judgment and AI computational power in the right way remains a question for each new AI application.38

Truly revolutionary military IoT applica-tions of the size and scope of ALIS will con-tinue to reveal challenges at the boundaries of our knowledge of cognitive and computer science. While the ultimate solutions to these issues likely lie in laboratory research, the mili-tary credo of “improvise, adapt, and overcome” will likely be the near-term fix. As the Marine Corps prepares to declare initial operational capability of its F-35 fleet, simple fixes such as a manual override will likely serve as an interim remedy until more robustly engineered software fixes are available. Complex problems with simple interim solutions will likely form the pattern for advanced IoT applications moving forward.


13

Plan your route: IoT conclusions for leaders

WITH strategy concepts such as “net cen-tric,” “information dominance,” and the

emergence of cyber as an entirely new domain of operations, information always has and will remain central to the military’s efficiency and effectiveness. Naturally, IoT technologies and architectures that are designed to move and process information more quickly and in distributed environments seem like natural fits for military applications. But the IoT can be a highly technical and complex landscape to navigate, and adapting applications for mili-tary purposes adds layers of requirements and specific uses. All of this can make it difficult for leaders to determine which IoT applications are right for their organizations and how best to implement them. Our analysis has shown a number of commonalities across different IoT applications that can help organizations move quickly toward technological transformation.

Like all planning, the first step is to decide what you need to achieve. In a world where every defense organization faces twin threats of budget cuts and dangerous enemies, the first choice is whether IoT applications should aim to achieve cost reductions, increase warfighter effectiveness, or both.

• Cost reductions can be relatively eas-ily achieved by leveraging the lessons of civilian-use cases where possible, in areas such as facilities management, utilities, and inventory tracking. Here, leaders can reach for proven civilian IoT applications without

worrying about technological development or tricky problems. Centralized facilities management may help align budget incen-tives and encourage adoption.

• Warfighter effectiveness is inherently a military-only problem and cannot rely on civilian IoT solutions; therefore, a certain amount of technological development is necessary to meet the military’s IoT needs. Although concepts of distributed com-munication are not new to the military, common data standards and increased bandwidth on all communications net-works are necessary to realize goals of a single, seamless tactical operating picture.

• Finally, it is possible to decrease costs and increase readiness at the same time; unfortunately, it poses such a challenge that it puts military leaders on the cutting edge of IoT research in areas such as human-AI interaction.

For the military as in any field or industry, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the IoT. The key is to take a reasoned approach to investigating IoT applications. Start from your mission need, whether cost reduction, warfighter effectiveness, or both, and look forward from there. Battlefield objectives have shifted in the centuries between Caesar and the Islamic State—there’s no reason not to use all available tools and technology to achieve those objectives.


14

Endnotes

1. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint vision 2010, July 1996.

2. According to Joint Pub 3-09, Joint fire sup-port, “conduct information operations” is a key fires task on a par with “conduct fire support” using artillery and airstrikes.

3. Office of the Undersecretary of De-fense (Comptroller), US Department of Defense fiscal year 2016 budget request overview, February 2015.

4. Government Business Council, A 360 degree view of defense logistics: A candid survey of defense logistics managers, December 2014.

5. Defense Logistics Agency, “Notice to suppli-ers,” www.landandmaritime.dla.mil/offices/packaging/rfid.asp, accessed March 27, 2015.

6. US Government Accountability Office, Report 09-150, “Lack of information may impede DoD’s ability to improve supply chain management,” January 2009.

7. Ibid.

8. Jon Poshywak, “Is RTLS a tipping-point technology?” Health Management Technology 33 (2012) 16–17.

9. Ibid.

10. Constantine Samaras, Abigail Haddad, Clifford A. Grammich, and Katharine Watkins Webb, Obtaining life-cycle cost-effective facilities in the Department of Defense. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND National Defense Research Institute, 2013.

11. Office of the Undersecretary of Defense, Comptroller, Operations and maintenance overview: Fiscal year 2016 budget estimates, February 2015 (total SRM request).

12. Ibid.

13. Johnson Controls, “Central Bucks school district case study,” www.johnsoncontrols.com/content/us/en/products/building_efficiency/case_studies2/building-management-systems/central-bucks.html, accessed March 27, 2015.

14. Johnson Controls, “University taps Panoptix platform to uncover hidden energy savings,” www.johnsoncontrols.com/content/dam/WWW/jci/be/case_studies/Western Kentucky University.pdf, accessed March 27, 2015.

15. Trevor Bailey et al., “Automated continuous commissioning of commercial build-ings” (Environmental Security Technol-ogy Certification Program Project SI-0929), Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, September 2011, http://btech.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/bailey-lbnl-5734e.pdf, accessed March 27, 2015.

16. According to section 130206 of the Defense financial management regulation, unless funds are to be used within the same orga-nization, for the same fiscal year, and for the same purpose, the retention of those funds requires congressional appropriation. Within a fiscal year, the dollar amount of the transfer will determine whether congres-sional action to reprogram is needed.

17. John Keegan, Intelligence in War: Knowl-edge of the Enemy from Napoleon to Al-Qaeda (New York: Knopf, 2003).

18. DG INFSO and the European Technol-ogy Platform on Smart Systems Integration, Internet of Things in 2020: A roadmap for the future. European Commission: Information Society and Media, September 2008, www.smart-systems-integration.org/public/documents/publications/Internet-of-Things_in_2020_EC-EPoSS_Workshop_Re-port_2008_v3.pdf, accessed March 27, 2015.

19. Frank Konkel, “The CIA is bringing Amazon’s marketplace to the intelligence commu-nity,” Defense One, February 10, 2015, www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/02/cia-bringing-amazons-marketplace-intelligence-community/105054/, accessed March 27, 2015.

20. US Department of Defense, Unmanned systems integrated roadmap FY2013–2038, www.defense.gov/pubs/DOD-USRM-2013.pdf, accessed March 27, 2015.


15

21. Rice University Library Guides, “Video formats: A guide to understanding video containers & codecs,” https://library.rice.edu/services/dmc/guides/video/VideoFor-matsGuide.pdf, accessed March 27, 2015.

22. “Supported YouTube file formats,” https://support.google.com/youtube/trouble-shooter/2888402, accessed March 27, 2015.

23. The introduction of the Handie-Talkie SCR536 in 1940 provided the first handheld two-way voice communication for dismounted troops. In “Explore Motorola heritage: Handie-Talkie radio,” www.motorolasolutions.com/content/msi/en_us/about/company-overview/history/explore-motorola-heritage/handie-talkie-radio.html, accessed March 27, 2015.

24. The year 2009 marked the emergence of the Waze traffic app for smartphones, while military Blue Force Tracking had been in operational phases as early as the late 1990s. “Social Network paves the Waze,” TechCentral, March 16, 2012, www.techcentral.co.za/social-network-paves-the-waze/30348/; James L. Conatser and Vincent E. Grizio, Force XXI Battle Command and Below-Blue Force Tracking, Naval Postgraduate School, December 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a443273.pdf.

25. Rajesh Krishnan and Zhensheng Zhang, “Mobile ad-hoc networking (MANET) formu-lation considered harmful,” presented at Novel Methods for Information Sharing in Large-Scale Mobile Ad-hoc Networks, sponsored by DARPA, Arlington, VA, August 7–8, 2013.

26. Nile L. Clifton Jr. and Douglas W. Copeland, The Land Warrior soldier system: A case study for the acquisition of soldier systems, Naval Postgraduate School, 2008.

27. Comparing download speeds of BGAN using INMARSAT constellation to iPhone 5 and Samsung Galaxy S3 on 4G LTE network. See “Data speeds: iPhone 5 vs.

Samsung iPhone 4S,” www.cnet.com/news/data-speeds-iphone-5-vs-samsung-galaxy-s3-vs-iphone-4s/, accessed March 27, 2015.

28. “DARPA seeks clean slate for mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETS),” DARPA news release, April 30, 2013.

29. “Common operating environment: Sensors move the Army one step closer,” US Army CERDEC Press Release, January 7, 2015.

30. Air Force office of Small Business In-novation Research, Contract Solicitation AF151-037, “Special operations forces multi-function radio,” January 15, 2015.

31. Richard Salter, Predictive maintenance and logistics. RAND Corporation. Jun, 1985.

32. William Peter Koeneman, An analysis of sensor effectiveness to inform a predictive maintenance policy, Naval Postgraduate School, June 2009.

33. Anastosios Tsoutis, An analysis of the Joint Strike Fighter Autonomic Logistics System, Naval Postgraduate School, September 2006.

34. GE–Aviation’s OnPointSM diagnostics: 10 Years and 10,000 engines monitored. GE Aviation Press Release. July 17, 2006.

35. F-35 sustainment: Need for affordable strategy, greater attention to risks, and improved cost estimates. US Government Accountability Office Report 14-778, September 2014, www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-778, accessed March 27, 2015.

36. Ibid.

37. Brendan McGarry, “Let humans Over-ride F-35 ‘ALIS’: Bogdan,” DefenseTech, February 25, 2014, http://defensetech.org/2014/02/25/let-humans-override-f-35-alis-computer/, accessed March 27, 2015.

38. David Schatsky, Craig Muraskin, and Ragu Gurumurthy, “Cognitive technologies: The real opportunities for business,” Deloitte Review 16, January 26, 2015, http://dupress.com/articles/cognitive-technologies-business-applications/.


16


17

About Deloitte University Press Deloitte University Press publishes original articles, reports and periodicals that provide insights for businesses, the public sector and NGOs. Our goal is to draw upon research and experience from throughout our professional services organization, and that of coauthors in academia and business, to advance the conversation on a broad spectrum of topics of interest to executives and government leaders.

Deloitte University Press is an imprint of Deloitte Development LLC.

About this publication This publication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or their related entities (collectively the “Deloitte Network”) is, by means of this publication, rendering professional advice or services. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. No entity in the Deloitte Network shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this publication.

About Deloitte Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms.

Deloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. With a globally connected network of member firms in more than 150 countries and territories, Deloitte brings world-class capabilities and high-quality service to clients, delivering the insights they need to address their most complex business challenges. Deloitte’s more than 200,000 professionals are committed to becoming the standard of excellence.

© 2015. For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.

Follow @DU_Press

Sign up for Deloitte University Press updates at DUPress.com.

continuing the march - deloitte · 2021. 1. 10. · joe mariani is a lead market insights analyst...

Documents