Lack of interoperability is one of the most critical problems facing the Warfighter. DoD must implement standard data elements in order to solve interoperability problems. Standard data elements in software intensive systems provide the coordinated means to describe and exchange data, improve communication, minimize the requirement for data translation software and devices, and eliminate redundant data across the battlefield and functional areas.

The DoD has been successful in creating standard data elements, but success in implementing those data element standards is less than notable. This less than notable performance is due to both a timid approach in implementing standards and barriers that program and software managers face in using DoD standard data elements.

Operation Data Storm is proposed as an initiative that aggressively focuses on implementing data element standards to win the interoperability war. Barriers that program and software managers must overcome range from resource availability to commercially-available-off-the-shelf (COTS) use.

The first barrier impeding data standards use is the availability of adequate resources. The adequacy of resources for policy and creation is sufficient, but the adequacy of resources for implementation is insufficient.

What appears to be missing is a well-formed data administration structure that supports the implementation of data element standards during software development. A Systems Data Administrator should be appointed to support the software developer in the acquisition of data element standards and resolves conflicts that arise in trying to use standards.

The second barrier that program and software managers face are the cultural attitudes that negatively impact decisions to use standard data elements. Such syndromes as "not invented here," "it's just too hard," and "what's in it for me?" hinder data standards use.

Although many of these cultural barriers can be mitigated through advanced data administration planning as a part of program planning, additional efforts should be taken to overcome attitudes that impact negatively in using data element standards. These efforts include appropriate education and training, special incentives, and reallocating resources from creating standards to implementing standards.

The Migration Barrier

A third barrier in implementing data element standards is the existence of legacy data in current mission critical information systems that are likely to survive for some time. It may actually be too costly, impractical, or impossible to migrate all legacy data to standards. In these cases, the engineering change proposal system can be used to ensure consideration and use of data element standards. As part of evaluating a change proposal, the Systems Data Administrator completes a thorough data analysis. This includes identifying all legacy data elements that are directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed change, mapping those elements to candidate data element standards, assessing the impact of migrating to standards, and providing a recommendation.

A fourth barrier in implementing data element standards is the notion that building interfaces is all that is needed. In some cases, building standard interfaces may be the most expedient way in which to map to data element standards for interoperability. However, there is a significant cost in doing so. The costs of maintaining interfaces grow exponentially with the increase in the number of information interchanges. In fact, one study revealed that 80% of annual software costs are interface maintenance costs.

The Commercially-Available-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Software Barrier

A fifth barrier is the policy of the Federal Government to rely on the use of commercial items (including COTS software) to satisfy information technology needs. One way to handle the issue of commercially designed data elements in COTS software is through a strategy of interface management. The Department of Defense's Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs issued a memorandum that provides some insight into such a strategy.

More specifically, the language required in a solicitation or contract provides further insight on how to deal with commercially designed data elements.

For more than a year, DoD has been engineering data standards into reusable reference data sets that can be used in software applications. This initiative is called SHADE. SHADE is a strategy that identifies how to share data resources at the application level. It brings together the disciplines of data administration and database administration to identify data requirements and implement database design in a manner that promotes interoperability. To this end, SHADE engineers have transformed the data specified in the DoD Data Architecture (data model and repository) into database components that can be used in DoD systems. SHADE is only the tip of the iceberg!!! Current results in data standards use appear to be sporadic, at best, and do not deal with most of the implementation barriers. If DoD is to win the interoperability war, more aggressive steps need to be taken to deal with the barriers to implementing standard data elements. In addition, a return on investment for implementing data standards needs to be demonstrated and this return can only be confirmed after implementation of standard data elements.

Operation Data Storm is proposed as an initiative that would focus more aggressively on implementation. It would cover a six-to-eight month period where selected software intensive systems, that are in various stages of the acquisition cycle, intensively focus on using data standards. Resources for this initiative can be reallocated from the resources currently used to create data standards. An intensively focused effort can provide lessons learned on overcoming barriers that would benefit policy makers and provide an example for future software developers in using standard data elements. Lastly, any additional standards that are needed during this implementation effort can be created during software development. This will promote a process of creating standards when they are actually needed for a just-in-time inventory of standards.

So the bottom line deals with a need for proof. Unless DoD can demonstrate a business case for using data standards and show how data standards actually improve information exchanges and interoperability, software development efforts will continue to avoid using data element standards.

Note: This is an abridgment of a longer paper which is available via polydysm@ndu.edu.

Dr. Robert E. Neilson, in his book Collaborative Technologies and Organizational Learning, focused on the central research question:

"How is organizational learning advanced by transferring intellectual materials via collaborative technologies?"

Critically analyzing the content analysis indicates: (a) the transfer of intellectual materials is central to the process of organizational learning, (b) collaborative technologies are increasing used as the transfer mechanism, and, (c) a multiplicity of theoretical bases underlie discussions organizational learning. Above is a graphic that depicts the major theoretical bases.

The following hypotheses were tested using three separate groups who employed the three Lotus Notes implementation approaches discussed above.

The results of the case study research are indicated in parentheses following each hypothesis.

1. Groups that employ an a priori business reason strategy to exchange intellectual material will have greater success than those who employ other strategies. (Confirmed)
2. Respondents who have had prior training in collaborative technologies will contribute more intellectual materials to databases than those who have little or no training. (No Confirmation)
3. Respondents who have significant experience with information technology applications will have greater ease in using collaborative technologies than those who have little or no experience. (No Confirmation)
4. Peer pressure will be seen as a motivating factor for respondents to use collaborative technologies. (No Confirmation)
5. Respondents will predict a higher level of satisfaction with collaborative technologies if they feel that other participants have equally contributed intellectual materials to databases. (Confirmed)
6. Respondents who have contributed heavily to Notes databases learn more than those respondents who contribute little. (Partially Confirmed)
7. Respondents who have had prior negative first-hand experiences with collaborative technologies will continue to have negative reactions to collaborative technologies regardless of: (1) training received and (2) peer pressure. (Confirmed)
8. Respondents who have added intellectual materials to Lotus Notes databases will predict future learners will benefit more from the database than those respondents who contributed little or no materials. (No Confirmation)

1. Discussion of organizational learning does not rest on one theoretical base. Although single and double loop learning acts as a theoretical cornerstone in much of the organizational learning literature, this research found little support for single and double loop learning as a theoretical basis. Other theoretical bases have explanatory value and deserve additional exploration for possible theory construction.

Specifically, qualitative evidence exists to support: (1) need-pull theory as a basis for a business reason approach to implement collaborative technologies and (2) reciprocity and coordination theory as bases for predicting overall satisfaction with Lotus Notes. Lastly, researchers ought to consider rejecting notions of singularity in theoretical grounding and embrace the notion of a multiplicity of theoretical groundings as a basis for further inquiry and understanding.

2. Regarding implications for practice, the "Top Eight Practice Prescriptions" are offered to those who are considering implementing Lotus Notes as a means to transfer of intellectual materials within organizations.

Metaphors may prove useful in furthering understanding about organizational learning. The following scenario blends the contextual findings of the study of the case study with the theory bases by creating a mental map or picture of organizational learning.

Lotus Notes is equivalent to an "organizational commons" where organizational members can choose to "dance", learn to dance, or sit by the "dance floor" and observe.

An empty organizational Lotus Notes "dance floor" is not much fun to watch. Organizational "lead dancer" must demonstrate that it is fun to "dance" and show others that "organizational dancing" has multiple and organizational benefits (need-pull theory).

Making that initial move onto the "Notes dance floor" is difficult at first. It may take time before participants feel comfortable with the routines (optimal control theory, expectancy theory). It is up to the organizational lead "Notes dancers" and accompanying dancers to ensure that novice dancers have the confidence to engage in "organizational line dancing" so that they can develop and eventually share a dance with a partner (experience curve theory). Once proficient, " Notes dancers" may want t learn additional dances and dance steps (expectancy theory, single loop learning). They may even want to teach their newly found "organizational dance" skills to others (reciprocity theory).

Organizational "Notes dancers" are permitted to cut across all "organizational neighborhoods" and dance with whomever they like, even with other organizational "Notes dancers" outside the "neighborhood" (coordination theory).

They may even learn a few new organizational routines that may help them in their respective organizational "dance routines" (double loop learning) if they can gain the spotlight from those "show-off" dancers who do not want other to join in. Once a nucleus of "organizational Notes dancers" has reached an overall degree of proficiency (single loop learning), they can move to the next "stage" and transform into a new and exotic "organizational dance troop" (double loop learning).

The research findings debunk some of the marketing hype associated with collaborative technologies that are springing to life like "electronic mushrooms." Additionally, it provides a research basis to underpin its recommendations for practice.

Believe it or not it's less than a year to January 1, 2000! As we approach this dreaded date, many organizations are changing their focus from awareness and assessment to ensuring business continuity in the event of Y2K failures. This theme was certainly evident during a recent executive "virtual roundtable" session sponsored by Gartner Group.

This session involved the use of state-of-the-art interactive videoconferencing technology by PictureTel that allowed two-way communication between the presenter and the executives. Six cities were linked to Baltimore where the program was broadcast. In a Caliber Technology classroom, executives with work stations in front of them watched the live presentation on a big screen monitor and reviewed the presenter's slide presentation on their computer monitor as he went along. Executives could key in questions to the speaker, who in turn, responded in real-time. Cameras mounted on the monitors were turned on when responding to querying executives.

Lou Marcoccio, Gartner Group's research director on Y2K Strategic Services, provided the following potpourri of information:

• The Federal Government has made tremendous strides during the last 12 months. Eight-five percent of Federal agencies are at Gartner Group's Level 3 (defined as begun detailed work, established work plans, resources assigned and 20% of mission -critical systems remediated, and contingency planning has been initiated). State governments have also made progress but their focus has been on the IT aspect and not the other areas affected by the Y2K bug. Local governments are lagging significantly behind. Only 17 cities and 33 towns have a Y2K project or program. There are significant problems regarding the data interfaces among the various levels of government.
• It is impossible to have a zero probability of a mission-critical failure particularly because of the data interfaces. There exists an inverse relationship between cost and failure probability. Because of the high expense, the best-of-class organizations are targeting a 0.6 probability of failure. Each organization needs to decide on this probability (that is, define the acceptable level of risk) in order to establish the level of expenditures for testing and other activities.
• As part of a contingency plan, organizations need to establish a SWAT team to be available during the millennium rollover. In addition, hotline support needs to be available and vendors should be on call. Possible contingency actions include outsourcing, creating a work-around, replacing with an updated solution, modifying an existing solution and having a manual solution.
• Organizations are sharply increasing their Y2k expenditures. In 1997, 5% of IT budgets are being spent on Y2K, in 1998, about 25% and in 1999, it is expected to be about 40%. Of course, the number one spending priority is for Y2K. Often, it is at the expense of in-house training and administration funding.
• There has been a dramatic shift in the ownership of the Y2K effort from the IT department to individual business units.
• Organizations, particularly large ones, are performing much of its remediation work in-house instead of outsourcing.
• The United States and Canada are about 40% ahead of all other governments. High global risks exist outside of these countries. Significant interruptions to imports and exports are anticipated.
• Gartner Group is as not as pessimistic as those individuals who are predicting a recession. However, they indicate that the Y2K situation will likely contribute to separate global recession events anticipated at the time (e.g., Russian loans due).
• Only about 8% of IT system failures will occur in the year 2000. Embedded system failures will not be as bad as the broadcast media presents it but it will spike during the beginning of 2000.
• Reduce litigation risks by obtaining legal advice, retaining documentation including why Y2K decisions were made, reviewing agreements, contracts and warrantees, and preparing your legal staff for crisis management.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Office 97 is no doubt the most popular office suite used today. Early this year, Microsoft will start shipping Office 2000 and, during the next few months, computer users will be subjected to a lot of hype encouraging everyone to run out and get this upgrade as soon as possible.

This article looks at the new features of Office and lets you decide whether it is truly worthwhile for your needs.

In general, the upgrade provides greater integration with the World Wide Web and among the Office 2000 applications, and introduces some new convenient and interesting features. You may be relieved that no new file formats will be introduced with Office 2000 with the exception of Access 2000 files. In other words, you typically do not have to convert Office 97 files to work with Office 2000 and vice versa.

Features to be included in all applications include:

• Collect and Copy - The present Clipboard can handle only one object (text or picture) at a time. You would copy (or cut) one object then paste it, then copy another object then paste it, and so on. The Office 2000 Clipboard will allow you to copy up to 12 different objects at the same time. As needed, you can paste objects into any application either individually or all at once.
• Macro Digital Signing - Macro viruses have been a major headache during the past years. To prevent this, digital signatures will be provided for macros so users can check the source of the macros.
• Improved HTML Conversions - In the past, when you converted any Office document to a web page, there were many discrepancies between the two (e.g., different line spacing, margins, and picture positions). By using Office 2000, Microsoft promises that the "fidelity" of the original document will be retained in the web page.
• Saving Files to a Web Server - The new "File Save" dialog box makes saving a document to a web server as simple as saving to your hard disk. The catch is that the web server must be Microsoft NT.
• Web Themes - You can now change the graphical background, bullets, fonts, and other design elements to one of over 30 design themes. This was originally offered in Front Page and now it can be found in other applications in Office 2000.
• Office Assistants Unboxed - Those animated characters that typically insult your intelligence are still in Office 2000. In this upgrade, they no longer reside in a box but they "float" outside any window. "Rocky," the dog, is one of the newer characters.

• Click and Type - If you wanted to type something on the right side of the screen (such as a return address), normally you would have to tab over then type. In Word 2000, you can simply click any spot and start typing at that spot.
• Table Enhancements - You can now better position a table on a page, wrap text around a table, and insert diagonal lines inside table cells.
• Visual Fonts - Have you ever wondered what the Algerian or Braggadocio font looks like? In Office 2000, you will see the font displayed as part of the dropdown list of font styles.
• Improved hyperlink dialog box - You can add fancy things such as "bubbles" or tool tips to hyperlinks.

• Triple Pane View - Instead of switching views, you can display the slide, outline and notes views all on a single screen.
• AutoFit Text - The font will automatically reduce in size as you add more lines to a filled text box.
• Native Tables - Instead of using an imported table object, PowerPoint 2000 offers a built-in table feature which is easier to work with.
• Graphical Bullets - You can select any JPEG graphic file and use it as the bullets in your presentation. You can even use animated GIF files.

• AutoFill Enhancements - Extended cells will capture the style properties of the base cells.
• Drag and Drop Tables from the Web - You can select a table from a web page and drag it into an Excel spreadsheet.
• Pivot Tables - You can "slice and dice" data much easier. Microsoft is encouraging users to have Excel serve as an OLAP front-end to a data warehouse.

• Data Access Pages - An Access database can be exported to a web page. You can maintain a live link between the database and the web page. In other words, you can view, edit, add and delete information in a host database within a browser window.
• New File Formats - Besides the standard "mdb" files based on the Microsoft Jet Engine, you can also work with MSDE files (associated with a scaled down SQL Server 7.0 database engine) and OLE DB files (besides relational files, these involve unstructured data such as e-mail, hierarchical data, and text files).
• AutoCompact - Access 2000 automatically compacts your database instead of having the user manually doing it. If you delete tables, your database can become fragmented and use disk space inefficiently. Compacting the database makes a copy of the database, rearranging how the database file is stored on disk.
• Drag and Drop to Excel - A table in Access can be selected and dragged to an Excel spreadsheet.

There are many other new features in Office 2000, but these are the ones that are likely to be relevant to most users. I'll let you decide whether this product is a giant leap in technology or a little hop.

There will be five versions: Standard (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and Outlook), Small Business (Standard version plus Publisher and Small Business Tools), Professional (Standard version plus Access), Premium (Professional version plus Front Page and PhotoDraw, a business graphics and photo editing package), and a developer's version with developers tool kits. For more information, visit:

Join the AMP Alumni Association!!!!