Q&A: Lieutenant General Jeffrey A. Sorenson

NETWORK STRATEGIST:
Improving the Infrastructure for the Expeditionary Army



 Interview with
Lieutenant General Jeffrey A. Sorenson

by Harrison Donnelly, MIT Editor
 

Prior to his current position as the Department of the Army CIO/ G6, Lieutenant General Jeffrey A. Sorenson was the deputy for acquisition and systems management to the assistant secretary of the Army (acquisition, logistics and technology).

Upon his graduation from the U.S. Military Academy, Sorenson was commissioned as a second lieutenant in field artillery, serving in tactical units at III Corps Artillery and in Germany. Following his transfer into the Military Intelligence Corps, he served as the division artillery intelligence officer and completed several assignments at the division staff and operational level.

Sorenson has more than 20 years of acquisition experience as a certified Army material acquisition manager. His acquisition assignments include: director, program control (Joint Tactical Fusion Program Office); course director for the Executive Program Managers Course (Defense Systems Management College); director, science and technology integration (Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Development); product manager for Ground Based Common Sensor-Light TEAMMATE TRACKWOLF programs; project manager for night vision/reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition; director, Acquisition Directorate (Office of the Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications and Computers); senior military assistant for the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics; and program executive officer for tactical missiles.

In addition to a Bachelor of Science degree from West Point, Sorenson earned an M.B.A. 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 in recent months on the topic of “transforming the force to an expeditionary Army at war.” Can you elaborate on your vision of this, and explain the role of the Army CIO/ G6 in achieving it?

A: The Army is going through a lot of consolidation—global rebasing, BRAC moves and so on. In the not-too-distant future, you will find that 80 percent of Army forces will be CONUS-based, as opposed to overseasbased. While the network infrastructure to support operations in areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan is adequate, we have to improve much of the infrastructure in the U.S. to ensure our expeditionary capabilities.

In addition, the demands for situational awareness—whether the technology, the amount of information, the intel requirements and so on—have placed enormous demands on the network, to the point that we have to figure out a better way of providing that network service to our soldiers. It would be like what a Verizon or AT&T has done in terms of building out the network infrastructure to support their customers. We have to do something very similar, leveraging what the commercial world has, but also making sure it satisfies defense requirements.

Q. You’ve been in the CIO job, on an acting and permanent basis for nearly a year. What have you learned so far?

A: Initially, I talked to a lot of mentors, people who had been in the job before, to get a feel for what is going on here. It helped me identify my strategic imperatives and focuses—about five of them.

The first priority is the Network Service Center [NSC], which is our ability to enable the network to be available. I use the term “aorta”— always on, real-time access. It’s just like the lifeblood of an individual. To be there when the soldiers require it, just as today with a cell phone, when you go from place to place, you don’t care whether it’s T-Mobile, Verizon or some other source that provides you cell phone service. All you know is that as soon as you flip open that phone, you’re going to get that service. In the same context, we want to make sure that the Army formations get that same capability. But they get it as a formation rather than as an individual, which is more challenging.

The first element of the Network Service Centers is to further improve our transport capability as we field fixed regional hub nodes globally deployed in areas similar to where the Defense Information Systems Agency’s Teleport sites are located. The second piece of the NSC is Area Processing Centers [APC], which we are establishing here in CONUS, and have already established in the European and Pacific theaters. APCs enable us to provide better services in terms of data and applications, as well as reduce the number of points of presence on the network. Today, if you look at the CONUS landscape, we have more than 400 locations where you access the network. We’re going to try to consolidate that number into about five or six Area Processing Centers, which will be the entry into the network, Internet or whatever the case may be. The consolidation will improve our security, enable quicker software updates, and at some point reduce some of the total cost of ownership of providing network services.

The third NSC element is the Theater Network Operation Security Centers, where we’re improving their capability to secure the network. These three legs form what we are calling the Network Service Centers. That gets back to the always on, real-time access, security, data and applications, and the transport. That’s priority one.

Priority two is cyber-operations—making sure that we are postured to support STRATCOM and others in satisfying the needs for computer network defense, computer network attack and computer network exploitation. Our role here in the CIO/G-6 is fundamentally around the defense part, making sure that we are defending the network. The attack and exploitation are done by other organizations within the Army, but we are focused on the defense of the network—building out that capability and providing more soldiers, of which we have a little more than 1,000 today deployed globally. We also have to upgrade not only the technology, but the number of personnel defending the network. The third priority is the establishment of a “data czar”—the ability to ensure that our data is consistent, accessible, transparent and available, whether at the enterprise level or the tactical level. As it is now, our tactical systems—the maneuver, intel or fires pieces—were all built over time under the Army Battle Command System umbrella. They were all built as functional capabilities, but they were stovepiped capabilities. However, in trying to formulate what we need today on the battlefield, we need a complete, holistic enterprise-type solution. The software architecture for the Future Combat System [FCS] is basically being built like that. We also have to build out enterprise capabilities for the logistics systems, intel systems and all the support systems that feed in.

We’re going back and looking at how our data schemas for the enterprise and the tactical systems are set up, and at the data structures to ensure that we only enter data once. It needs to be distributed throughout all the systems, as opposed to putting it into one database here, then copying it over there, all of which can potentially lead to corrupted databases.

The fourth priority is looking at the organization itself, to figure out whether we are postured for the future, with respect to what we have in terms of organizational responsibilities, number of personnel, and how as the CIO/G-6 we measure ourselves against the CIOs within the government and corporate America. We are looking at best business practices so we might model ourselves to do some things differently.

The last priority that I’m focused on is funding. Obviously, everything happens with dollars, and so we’re spending a lot of time as we put together our particular requirements for the future, whether the 2010-2015 POM [Program Objective Memorandum] or the current fiscal year 2009 budget—what are our needs, and how do we make sure that our requirements are getting fully funded in the budget?

Q. You come to the CIO/G-6 position from the acquisition world, rather than Signal/IT, as was true of your predecessors. How has your acquisition experience affected your approach to this job?

A: I did come from acquisition, but prior to that I spent some time as a military intelligence/signals intelligence officer. I also worked on systems like ASAS [All Source Analysis System] when I was in the acquisition domain. I think that the fundamental skill set or core competency that I bring is programmatics, from the standpoint of evaluating how we are going to build out this network. Establishing a network design with respect to architecture, scheduling, technology components and so on requires program management skills to make it happen, as any CIO in the rest of DoD or the public domain will tell you. It’s all about how you support the customer, how you support the user, and how you match up with what the business is all about. I bring some of that skill set here as we manage and build up the Network Service Centers, as we plan how we’re going to improve cyber-operations and how we’re going to affect data. We must develop schedules, budgets and plans to make these things happen.

Q. Based on your recent trip to Iraq, how would you rate the performance of Army IT/communications systems in the field?

A: Par excellence. You cannot walk away from what you see in Iraq and Afghanistan without being inspired by what our Signal soldiers and civilians are doing. Case in point, we spent some time with the task force in Afghanistan. When you talk to the S-6 for the brigade, and the soldiers who are supporting them, they were essentially trained on a capability set to support a user base that is dramatically different from what they’re using in the field. Today they’re all using satellite phones, new application systems, and other new capabilities that they received after they deployed. Yet, they have figured out how to bring them into the organization, integrate into the network, get people trained and sustain those pieces of equipment. Just to see what our soldiers are doing is absolutely phenomenal.

To see some of the network operations centers, where they’re actually monitoring the network and deploying capabilities, is something to behold. If you go back and look at the transport capability on September 12, 2001, the data pipe feeding that AOR had about 50 megabits of capability. Now, the pipe feeding those soldiers is almost 6 gigabits. There’s been a massive improvement in terms of what situational awareness capabilities are being provided by the new systems, infrastructure and support. Every commander we saw, whether corps, division or task force, couldn’t say enough about what the Signal soldiers were doing for them to enable them to do what they needed to do in the warfight.

Q. How do you plan to use your office’s 500-Day Plan, and are similar plans for shorter time periods useful as well?

A: One of the big responsibilities is making sure that we have the right amount of funds to do what we need to do for the long haul. The long haul in this case would be the POM 2010-2015. In building that out, we laid out a campaign plan, by which we began to describe to NETCOM, which is a direct reporting unit to us, what we thought the network needs were, and to the Signal Center, what the new training requirements might be. They internally have begun to nest their own plans into our campaign plan. We drew up a Campaign Plan, which will tell you what we think we will need in 2015. We’re just like Microsoft or anybody else in laying out a plan of where we need to be in the future.

Then we’ve broken that down into 500-day plans that we execute. We evaluate that 500-day plan every 100 days, so that every quarter we take a picture of exactly where we stand in completing that 500-day plan, which is nested within the overall Campaign Plan. Why do we do this? Technology changes.

Think back a couple of years ago. What was YouTube? What was MySpace? It wasn’t even a blip on the screen, yet today it is the way everybody communicates and collaborates. The technology changes so rapidly that every 100 days we do a “sanity check”—are we vectored the right way? Do we make some changes? Do we need to make some adjustments? It’s a way, getting back to the program management discussion, of trying to evaluate every 100 days how we are doing and where we are. What did we say we were going to do, what did we do, what didn’t we do, and what are we going to do in the next 100 days—that’s what we look at during each review.

Q. What are some of your priorities in the area of cyber-warfare and computer network defense?

A: As I said, we have about 1,000 soldiers deployed today defending the network. We have laid out within our 500-day plan additional levels of protection among all aspects of the network, whether it’s intrusion detection systems, improvements in information assurance, or cross-domain solutions. A number of programs make sure we improve our ability to secure the network, as well as improve training for soldiers and civilians who do this on a daily basis.

As part of the overall process of improving our ability to conduct cyberoperations, we are planning to grow more forces in network defense. We’ve also put in motion a number of improvements in technology to enhance our ability to monitor the network to ensure that we’re not being compromised. It’s a continual evolution—every year we’ve got a game plan to do a better job of securing the network.

Q. What are your current plans for the Army’s knowledge management capability?

A: You can see in Iraq and Afghanistan that we are fighting a very sophisticated enemy who continually changes how he fights, and we have to react to that. In years past, we would go back to our Training and Doctrine Command, which would define a new way of functioning and warfighting. The result would be new doctrine and the different pamphlets on how to fight. But now, things are changing so rapidly that we don’t have time to take a step back and write the documentation. What we are doing today is putting a knowledge management capability into theater, hosting it at Fort Leavenworth and elsewhere. Knowledge management has the ability to monitor the changes, figure out what our changes in tactics, techniques and procedures should be, and ensure that everybody gets to see the same information. If there is a change in the tactics, not only are the forward forces receiving that information, but the changes are also being sent back to those who are about to deploy, as well as those in the training schools. It’s a continual evolution of knowledge and improvement.

We’ve now brought the learning curve to the left, so that you’re more rapidly adapting to changes over time. The sharing of information is beginning to pay a lot of dividends. The Stryker brigades were the first to set in motion the ability to exchange how their combat systems were working from one brigade to another, so they can do a better job of using the systems. We’ve now set up a collaboration system for knowledge management for the heavy brigade combat teams, infantry brigade combat teams, fires brigades and others. All of these knowledge management capabilities continue to proliferate throughout the Army, so that there is sharing of data and information. These knowledge management systems, which are based on the experiences, data and insights from everyone who participates, are becoming the foundation for all our new doctrine and the way we fight.

Q. What goals would you like to see established in the planning process for the Army in the period 2010-2015?

A: The Program Objective Memorandum for 2010-2015 is the document that defines Army-wide how the budget is going to be allocated for planning purposes for the future. My goal is to make sure that we get the Network Service Centers fully funded, to make sure that we can bring that capability here as quickly as we can, because of the need to support an Army that’s going to be essentially CONUS-based. The second thing is to ensure that we build out the additional infrastructure at our posts, camps and stations to facilitate better network connectivity. Another goal is the training that’s going to be required for information assurance and the cyber-security piece of that. One more thing is the migration of Army Knowledge Online to Defense Knowledge Online. We are now taking what has been a very capable system for the Army and expanding it to include all of DoD, as well as the services and the other agencies.

Q. How feasible for the Army is the concept of “everything-over-IP”?

A: It’s not so much whether we can get there, but that we have to get there. Everything-over-IP is inevitable because of the number of sensors, systems and so forth that are required for the Army in the future to do our mission. We absolutely have to do that kind of transition.

Everything-over-IP is feasible in terms of time, although it’s not going to happen tomorrow. When you look at systems like FCS, you have internal diagnostics, robotics, unmanned systems and the sensors that are feeding the network, all of which are IP-based.

The ability for us to adjust our communications is a function of IP capabilities. In some cases when a unit operates in an urban area or mountainous terrain, they may not have connectivity, just like your cell phone sometimes loses connectivity when you pass between towers. During combat operations, units experience the same phenomenon, but eventually, the network recognizes them and re-establishes the communications over a different network path so they can communicate.

By converging the video, data and voice, we’re able to get a lot of synergy from our communication system, where in the past we didn’t have that. If you look at the amount of capability that we used to take to a tactical fight, it would consume a lot of transport with planes and ships. But today, we’re packaging these types of capabilities in racks that you can almost airlift in, because the video, voice and data are all coming over an IP structure.

We no longer need system A, B or C. We just need the ability to ensure that the information is put into data packets. The network is set up on an IP-based capability, so those data packets can traverse the network to get where they need to be.

Q. Software is one of the critical issues and challenges involved in developing Future Combat Systems. Do you have a role in ensuring that that aspect of the program is successful?

A: The program manager of FCS has the responsibility for ensuring that the software gets built out. From the standpoint of monitoring how many lines of code there are, or anything of that nature, we’re not involved directly. Our chief role is technical architecture, making sure that system applications and the network will be interoperable. At the same time, as theArmy puts this new capability on the network, we have a responsibility to make sure there are no software vulnerabilities when the FCS applications function on the network.

Q. You spoke recently of “kudos” for industry in supporting Army IT. Can you give us examples?

A: Go back and look at what some of the corporations have done to support the build-out of the Joint Network Node, now Warfighter Information Network-Tactical. They developed the system and engaged the soldiers in making some changes in that system, and continue to field improved capabilities.

There are countless other examples, including the deployment of a system called Command Post of the Future. It was a capability that came out of the lab, and looked very exciting and dynamic. However, deploying it into a tactical environment created a lot of issues that we had not been able to foresee. Contractors stepped in and said they would fix this, making the adjustments in the software to affect the ability of the system to be used over satellites.

Going to theater, you see the soldiers and the civilians, but you also see the contractors who support the systems. They are as determined to field capability and make sure it is working as the soldiers and civilians who operate those systems. You can go down the list, such as the Warlock systems that are there to counter IEDs. In each case, our contractors have been there to ensure the systems work and improve the system capabilities over time.

Q. The Army has been working with companies such as Microsoft to develop in advance IT products that meet Army needs. What are the benefits of this, and do you see any potential drawbacks?

A: The advantage of having discussions with Microsoft, Linux, Dell and all the corporate entities within the IT industry is that advances in IT services like information assurance or collaboration are predominately done on the commercial side.

We want to take advantage of what the commercial side spends on R&D, which in Microsoft’s case is something like $5 billion a year. Failure to take advantage of their advances in IT would not be smart. We work with companies and explain what our future needs are. When they’re trying to build out a certain application capability or software package, they might have to spend a few extra dollars or more time, but in the end, they will develop a better product and we will benefit as well.

In some cases, minor changes or adjustments are all that is needed. If the Army does buy something and tells industry it doesn’t quite do what we need, they’ll say, “If you could have told me that a few months ago, I could have added these 10 lines of code and you could have had it.”

One drawback in working with industry might be that you become wedded to a particular technology, and can’t break away. But, if there is a better system or capability out there, the Army always has the ability to make that switch. ♦