Q&A: Lieutenant General Jeffrey A. Sorenson

Written by Harrison Donnelly

In addition to a Bachelor of Science from West Point, Sorenson earned an MBA from Northwestern University, majoring in finance, accounting and decision sciences. He is also a registered certified public accountant in the state of Illinois. His awards and decorations include being named the Army’s Project Manager of the Year in 1998.

Sorenson was interviewed by MIT Editor Harrison Donnelly.

Q: You have spoken frequently about the need to transform Land- WarNet into an enterprise capability. In what ways is it not one today, and what needs to change to make it so?

A: When I started in my current job as the CIO/G-6, there were a lot of different C4 programs that were being discussed, but I didn’t understand how they all related. I said we needed to get back to describing how these C4 programs support the warfighter, because if they didn’t support the warfighter, they were interesting, but maybe not necessary. The “soldier’s story”—a vignette that speaks to the network our soldiers and units currently use as they deploy into an AOR [area of operation]—emanated from that request. Today, when soldiers move from their post, camp or station for training exercises, to a power projection platform [where they get ready to deploy in theater], to deployment in theater, their communications capability is characterized by a network that requires constant changes along the way. E-mail addresses and phone numbers must be changed, as do where they store their data changes and how they obtain connectivity changes as well. Thus, what we have is a network that does not support expeditionary operations, and in fact sometimes hinders their ability to be connected through all the phases of a joint operation.

The soldier’s story is about redefining the network to make it seem like the Verizon commercial that shows lots of people standing behind the network to ensure it is working. I also refer to our future plan as the BlackBerry story—the point being that when you can pull out your BlackBerry anywhere in the country or overseas, you can communicate without having to change your e-mail address, cell phone number or anything else. You always have connectivity. That’s what our soldiers don’t have today, because the network we use today requires constant changes in addressing, storage and connectivity functions.

Q: What is the Army Global Network Enterprise Construct, and why is it needed?

A: The vision of the Global Network Enterprise Construct [GNEC] is similar to Google, where you have access to data anywhere, anytime by anybody. Or you could look at it as a network that connects the right people at the right place and right time. We’re trying to make this network an “always on” network, and in doing that we’ve described the GNEC strategy as a global deployment of the network provided by five regional network service centers [NSCs] that support each one of the combatant commanders. Each one of the NSCs are responsible for ensuring that the Army portion of the network is fully capable, as well as interfaces into the joint network. These five NSCs provide a connect capability, the forward staging of data and applications, and network security, all within a network operations structure that is consistent and standardized throughout the globe. Thus, we want a plug-and-play concept, so that if you can connect to the network service center at your post, camp or station, such as Fort Hood, and you deploy into theater or anywhere else, the way you connect, get your data and access your applications will be the same when you connect to another network service center wherever you go.

Q: What is your strategy for implementing the GNEC, and what issues and challenges do you think will require the greatest attention as you do so?

A: Initially, we spent a lot of time with senior leaders such as the Army chief of staff, vice chief of staff, commanding general of TRADOC, and others, describing the war fighting capabilities of GNEC. Once they understood the war fighting capabilities, they concurred with the concept of GNEC, and the question was how soon we could deliver the capability. “How about next year?” asked one of the senior leaders. My response was “not exactly,” as I detailed the transformational changes required to deliver GNEC. However, we’ve been working on accelerating the fielding of this capability, and have developed a strategy for delivering initial operational capabilities of the NSCs over the next three years. We will establish the first NSC in Europe in FY09, followed by NSCs in CONUS and Southwest Asia in FY10, and then an NSC in the Pacific in FY11. That’s the overall strategy for setting up the NSCs as an initial operational capability in the regional areas. At the same time, however, we’re continuing to implement enterprise upgrades, such as enterprise e-mail, to include standardizing and reducing the number of e-mail help desks throughout the Army. So we are working to provide enterprise capability improvement at the same time that we are establishing and deploying regional NSCs.

Q: What role will the NSCs play in the system? How will they interact with other entities in creating an “always on” network?

A: The basic element of the NSC concept is to enhance our ability to connect, specifically in this case linking the Army soldiers who are in an area of operation, but also any land components such as the Marines, with our joint service components. In fact, today we provide connect services to Marines operating in Southwest Asia for their intra-theater communications as well as their reach back to CONUS through our regionally based fixed regional hub. So the connect piece of the NSC will have the ability to connect everyone from anywhere from the Global Information Grid, incorporating into and connecting through the DISA Teleport sites, all the way down to soldiers deployed at the tactical edge through the use of WIN-T or the Marines’ Secure Wide Area Network [S/WAN].

With respect to services, in terms of data and applications, I’ll go back to what I mentioned earlier about enterprise e-mail. We are currently working with DISA to develop an enterprise e-mail solution for all of DoD. The Army is going to be the first user of this enterprise capability, because of our need to synchronize the transfer of e-mail services with our movement of units under BRAC. Fort Monmouth, N.J., is going to close and the personnel are going to move to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. So, as they move, we’re working to put some of those users into the enterprise e-mail capability, along with users from Army Materiel Command as they move to Huntsville, Ala., and other units that are associated with BRAC moves. Thus, we have some immediate needs now to accommodate and synchronize the transfer of e-mail services with our BRAC moves, as does TRANSCOM, which is the other first user of this enterprise e-mail capability within the joint community.

With respect to security, we are working with DISA to leverage some of their network operation tools, specifically those that enhance the ability to see what systems are sitting on our network. Our goal is to achieve a machine-to-machine view of the network, so we can see what systems are functioning on our network. Part two is to achieve a better control of the systems on the network. In all these cases, we’re working in partnership with DISA on a consistent basis. We are also spending a lot of time talking to the Marines, with respect to the network capabilities we can provide so they can take advantage of them as they deploy with us and integrate into our formations. We’re also working with the Navy and Air Force to define links into their global network capabilities.

Q: What did you learn from the operational validation [OPVAL] of NSC conducted this spring?

A: The operational validation was a success—in part, just because we did it. We took a brigade from Fort Bragg, and had them execute what I described earlier as the soldier’s story. However, unlike today’s soldier story, this brigade used the network capabilities of the NSC we set up at Fort Bragg, so they could draw their data and services and have their e-mail and their war fighting applications prior to their deployment. Once they deployed into theater, in this case into an exercise being conducted by the 7th Army in Europe, they virtually moved their organization into the theater of operations, functioning essentially as they did at Fort Bragg. They didn’t have to change e-mail or phone numbers, and they could get their data and applications from the network in Europe just as they did at Fort Bragg. They didn’t have to pack stuff up and move it; rather, they could draw their needed data and services from the network, as opposed to carrying the network with them in server boxes and their own organic capability. They were able to function and demonstrate how the NSC capability would work. In CONUS they were connected to the network via the NSC, and once they deployed to Europe they were able to draw their war fighting capabilities from the NSC in Europe, so the regional concept was demonstrated.

Did everything go perfectly? Absolutely not. We had some technical issues in terms of the resource forest for the e-mail and firewall management. There were many operational objectives we were trying to achieve, such as the seamless deployment and transport of unit network services via the NSC. And we had some training objectives, such as working with the 7th Signal Command, which recently was flagged at Fort Gordon, to standardize training for proper configuration of unit equipment connectivity to the NSC.

There were many lessons learned, and there are more to follow. We’re hoping to host a meeting at Fort Bragg this summer to bring industry in for some day-long discussions of what we learned, what went right and what went wrong, and also expose them to some of the systems our soldiers use when they are deployed to give them an understanding of what is required to meet end-to-end connectivity. We’ll also take them around Fort Bragg and show them what the NSCs are supposed to look like.

We are now writing the doctrine and tactics, techniques and procedures for how NSCs should function in preparation for another exercise next year. We had a whole host of people at the OPVAL—such as observer controllers from FORSCOM, and Army Test and Evaluation Command and the Signal Center—to monitor what was taking place, in order to help write the doctrine for the operation of NSCs.

Q: You have also emphasized the importance of talking to soldiers in the field. What procedures do you have to ensure that the warfighter perspective is included in your plans, and what ideas and changes have you made as a result of field input?

A: We want to make sure that what we’re building now is something that supports the warfighter, and that the providers of this capability— our signalers—understand and support what we are asking industry to build for us. We developed a draft request for proposal for GNEC and put it on a wiki and asked everyone for their comments. It was a change of culture, as many people asked if we were serious about wanting their comments, and we said, “absolutely, yes.” I also spend time each year visiting with each of the combatant commands and the four sub-commands within 9th Army Signal Command—the 311th in the Pacific, 7th newly formed at Fort Gordon, 5th Signal Command in Europe, and 335th deployed in Southwest Asia. I not only visit those commands, but also spend time in Iraq and Afghanistan seeing signal soldiers and units that have embedded signal soldiers in their brigade formations. I want to get a feel for how the equipment is functioning, what their training needs are, and any other particular needs they may have identified during their deployment. I provide all the feedback to the Signal Center, NETCOM/9thSC [A], PEO C3T and others, to refine or modify some of the training courses down at the Signal Center, redefine our NSC doctrine, or identify equipment shortfalls. All the feedback gets fed into our system to improve what we’re doing to support our warfighters.

Q: What are your key priorities and initiatives for cybersecurity?

A: From my perspective, when we talk about cybersecurity, I’m mostly focused on computer network operations and computer network defense, those Title 10 functions the CIO/G-6 is responsible for providing on behalf of the secretary of the Army and the Army chief of staff. In that context, we have been working with the other staff elements to get better organized on how we provide support for cybersecurity. Today we have established within the G-3 an organization known as the Army Cyber Task Force. I took a general officer on my staff who was working on cyber-integration, and placed him within the G-3 staff section to effectively coordinate the various aspects of cyber from the headquarters perspective. Today, the task force has operational issues within G-3 channels, intelligence issues with the G-2, CIO/G-6 information assurance requirements, and computer network attack [CNA] and computer network exploitation [CNE] coordination with strategic organizations.

The integrated group now supports the G-3, G-2, CIO/G-6, and in some cases the G-8 from a resourcing standpoint, to determine how the headquarters should provide oversight responsibilities of cyber issues. They are also tasked with determining the future organizational structure of Army support to the U.S. Cyber Command.

At the same time, we’re working with Fort Gordon to assess from a training and doctrine perspective our future needs for a cyberforce. We are synchronizing our efforts with the intelligence community to ensure our training, personnel and organization are optimized to provide Army forces for the new U.S. Cyber Command. We’ve already begun to make some changes in our warrant officer MOS structure, establishing a couple of new MOSs to look at information assurance and cybersecurity demands in support of combatant commanders. Clearly, the computer network defense and computer network operations are still core responsibilities of the Signal Regiment.

Q: Where does your data strategy stand today?

A: It’s slow, but we’re making progress. We have formed a tremendous organization to get after this task, and they are achieving some success. We have solidified support among all the different elements within the Army that are working data issues. On the CIO/G-6 staff we have a “data czar,” who works within our architecture group to define the policies and procedures for how the data strategy ought to be implemented. We also are leveraging a group from CECOM known as the Data Center of Excellence, with about 60 people who are improving our delivery of data services as well as providing technical support for data strategies. At the same time, we must provide some guidance regarding standardization of the data framework. We have a group of folks with previous experience modifying Navy logistics data policies that we have integrated into the Army to assist us with the standardization of the data framework. Finally, we have another group working on data maturity, with a nationally recognized data maturity expert from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is assisting with our data analyses. We’ve combined these various groups into a single organization under the direction of our data czar, and they are now working on a number of use cases to improve how data is accessible, available and standardized within the department.

The first use case is something we’ve been doing for the Army vice chief of staff on suicide prevention. We’re trying to work with data from a number of different sources—G-1, the Surgeon General, and Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine [CHPPM]—to make data accessible to all organizations. Each of the staff elements has different databases, and no one is able to see all the data or look at it the same way. This is similar to 9/11, where the FBI, CIA and other organizations couldn’t share the data in their respective databases nor could everyone look at the data the same way. So we’re working now with all these staff organizations to expose their respective databases so that everyone can see each other’s data and eliminate the need for independent databases.

We’ve established the suicide prevention use case among a number of other use cases to get at improving our data strategy, including an effort we have at the headquarters to provide better data visibility for the Army secretary and chief regarding unit status, readiness and so forth. At the same time, we’re working with Forces Command in Atlanta and TRADOC, trying to standardize use and make their organizational databases visible and accessible to those who require the data. We’re not there yet, but through some of these use cases we can demonstrate what our data czar group can do. Over time, we’re going to get away from everyone with their own Excel spreadsheets and separate databases, and get to the point where data is accessible and available to those who need to use it

Q: What are you working on in the area of Army IT governance?

A: The governance piece is all about ensuring that we operate effectively the same way, and that we operate in a way everyone understands what the configuration should be. We’ve redesigned our governance structure to set up two boards, in a manner similar to DoD. We have an Engineering Review Board, which looks at the technical aspects of our network, and an Operations Review Board, which looks at how we support the warfighter and what we need to do differently to effect those changes. Part of governance is also trying to standardize our procurement policies. We have recently spent some time emphasizing the four tenets of GNEC: operationalize the network, improve the security of the network, find efficiencies and effectiveness to afford the network, and make it joint.

When you look at those four aspects, the one that clearly is the linchpin is efficiency and effectiveness. We’re working with the program manager for CHESS [Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software and Solutions] to standardize some of our procurement procedures, because we’ve found that in many cases people go out and buy IT when they want to, but the system they procured does not have the right standard or configuration. Part of this governance activity is to standardize procurement policies and processes, so that not only do we get the right configuration onto the network, we also save money by buying our systems with enterprise purchases. ♦

Back to Top