1. Provide common user services and platform services through consolidation of infrastructure and existing software licenses.
2. Provide two private clouds: an unclassified DoD cloud and a classified DoD cloud.
3. Improve end-user device access by migrating end-user applications to the cloud and migrating end-users to a Virtual Desktop Interface (VDI) environment.

1. Develop methods, when using commercial cloud service providers, which protect data in transit and at rest, authenticate users, and apply appropriate access controls.
2. Provide virtual container technologies supporting secure unclassified operating environments on a wider variety of approved end-user devices.
   

1. Move to a commercial-government hybrid cloud computing environment with DoD retaining the identity provider role.
2. Improve service interoperability across core, intermediate and tactical edge environments.
   

By now everyone has probably read about the recent $45 million sole source award that the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) recently made to the Alliance Technology Group for Large Data Object Storage (LDOS).  The Justification and Approval (J&A) notice for the award states that ATG will provide DISA with a scalable storage solution the development of an intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) cloud.  The resources ATG will provide can store hundreds of billions of objects for ISR uses across DoD networks, including “Wide-Area Motion Imagery (WAMI), Standard and High-Definition (HD) Full-Motion Video (FMV), HyperSpectral, Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging (LIDAR), Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data formats.”  The breadth of data objects to be stored is interesting, as is the fact that DISA is building an ISR cloud, but to me the real importance of this notice lies in what it says about the challenges the DoD faces in trying to handle big data.  Many of these challenges are themes that have appeared in FIA’s blog posts and reports for the last year.

The Strain of Big Data

In a moment of candor, DISA admits in the notice that it “cannot provide the Storage Cloud in its Defense Enterprise Computing Centers (DECCs) due to the physical size of the necessary hardware” required.  Similarly, DISA states that “it does not have the funding … to purchase the required hardware or storage facility.”  DISA also admits in the notice that the new ISR cloud requires increased bandwidth that the agency cannot provide: “Alliance Technology Group is the only contractor with the ability to provide the ISR Cloud Solution with bandwidth at a secure and accessible location.”

Here is the crux of the challenge in three short sentences.  DISA lacks the physical space it needs for a large investment in hardware, it lacks the money to buy the hardware, and it lacks the bandwidth capacity required for ISR data analysis.  In this blog post from October 2012, I made the case that big data is a game changer in the federal IT market, not because of the technologies that will be used to exploit it, but because it acknowledges that the exponentially growing demands of data management have outstripped the limited resources agencies have to handle it.

Visualize if you will all of the data that the DoD accumulates as a large sea.  The level of the water is rising.  Then picture the resources the DoD has to handle that data as a system of dikes used to hold back the sea.  Occasionally the dikes are opened to relieve the pressure.  Nevertheless, the sea level beyond continues to grow.  This is the big data challenge facing the DoD and other federal agencies and the timing could not be worse.  The challenge is rising at precisely the moment when the fiscal resources required are not available.  The challenge of big data is not an “efficiency” problem, it is an overwhelming volume, variety, and complexity problem that requires smart governance and, more importantly, increased investment in infrastructure (commercial or government), analytical capabilities, and trained personnel.

Turning to the Cloud

Having recognized the challenge, DISA is doing the only thing that it can – it is turning to commercial cloud providers to provide the capacity it requires.  In this case the capacity is storage and bandwidth.  The J&A makes clear that DISA anticipates the LDOS ISR Cloud will exceed 1 Exabyte within one year and may exceed 3-4 Exabytes in three to four years.  DISA is being optimistic here.  Neither the DoD nor the Intelligence Community have any intention of limiting the amount of data taken in.  Go to any DoD event on big data and you will hear speakers say that they want to keep every bit and byte because they never know what will be important in the future.

Takeaways

All of this means the following.  Vendors need to offer secure cloud storage solutions, big data analytics (preferably as a cloud service), and related cloud service solutions that meet the DoD’s security requirements.   A recent memo issued by Navy CIO Terry Halvorsen makes this latter point explicitly.  This J&A award to Alliance Technology Group is the tip of the iceberg.  There is a tsunami of contract dollars building to address the DoD’s big data needs.  These contract dollars will flow into modernized and optimized infrastructure – like the new DISN Optical Backbone that DISA intends to build – as well as new database software called out in the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), new processing capacity, new storage capacity, and the personnel services required to make all of this go.  The only thing holding back the big data spending tsunami is the fiscal crisis.  This is causing procurement to dribble out in small awards here and there.  However, even with imposed fiscal restraint the path ahead is clear.  The DoD and all federal agencies eventually will be forced by necessity to contract out the big data services they require to cloud providers.  The call has gone out in this DISA J&A.  Can you hear it?

Agencies across government are struggling these days to leverage rapidly evolving new technologies and approaches like advanced data analytics and cloud computing. Introducing these technologies and approaches into an IT enterprise that is not ready for them can be disruptive. This much is known. Less well understood is the fact that even planning for big data and cloud investments can be disruptive because of the requirements development needed.

Take for example the efforts of the Defense Intelligence Community to bring stand up the Intelligence Community IT Enterprise (ICITE), a platform for sharing information across agency clouds and organizational boundaries. The challenges facing the IC in this area were the subject of a recent panel on Big Data Analytics hosted by the DC chapter of the Armed Forces Communications & Electronics Association (AFCEA). This panel brought together three speakers to offer insight into what is happening at their respective agencies, including Keith Barber, Director of the NSG Expeditionary Architecture Program Office at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Agustin “Gus” Taveras, Jr., CTO in the Directorate for IT Management at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and John Marshall, CTO in the Intelligence Directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The panel’s discussion swirled loosely around the challenges that the IC is facing when it comes to sharing data and employing new technologies. It is worth remembering that these agencies are out in front of adoption of big data tools and cloud computing, so their experience can prove valuable for understanding where other federal agencies are likely to encounter roadblocks. Mr. Barber began the discussion by noting that even the IC struggles to keep up with rapid technological evolution. Citing a recent article that appeared in the Harvard Business Review, Barber said that government must get a better handle on where the “big data economy” is headed so that it can leverage private sector developments. Most important in all of this is knowing simply where to start. As Barber sees it, the IC needs to begin asking the right questions to get the right answers; questions like which data sets do we go after, what tools do we need, and how do we best share data? Sharing the data is a key issue that Mr. Barber believes the IC will remain preoccupied with for years to come.

DIA CTO Gus Taveras agreed that data sharing is a critical piece of the evolving IC big data environment and he suggested the ICITE program is the answer. In general, ICITE is the IC’s version of “ruthless standardization” as it forces the Intel agencies to move to a common enterprise framework. Taveras noted ironically that Sequestration has helped accelerate the push toward ICITE. The biggest challenges Taveras sees are in the realms of procurement and requirements development. Here he referred back to the concept of asking the right questions. How do we pay industry for services, Taveras asked? Is a metering model the best or is there some other way to do it? As an aside, it was surreal to hear that even now, well into the adoption of cloud computing by the public sector, there is confusion about the best payment and contracting model.

Then there is the issue of requirements development. Taveras explained that as CTO the hardest thing about big data analytics is understanding what analysts and other customers need. Determining requirements is complicated by the fact that there is no “one tool fits all” solution available. In some cases, analysts may be happy with the capabilities the currently have, but they would like enhancements. This would be less expensive than buying an entirely new solution, but understanding how enhancements are acquired is a challenge. Underlying Mr. Taveras’ comments was a sense that analytics tools are evolving so rapidly that his personnel do not know what they can use.

Then there is the question of contracting. How does one contract for new capabilities when the requirements development process does not function effectively? How, indeed? This admission by Mr. Taveras raised the twin red flags of scope creep and shifting requirements that have plagued government contracts for decades. And if previous generations of contracted efforts faced these challenges imagine how much more daunting they could become as big data and cloud computing solutions grow in complexity and variety. Caveat venditor!

When looking at the number of teachers per state, states that employ the most teachers are not surprising. Texas, California, and New York lead the rankings, with Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania close behind. This makes logistical sense because, in that order, these states also have the highest populations. Does this mean that the more teachers per state, the more they will spend on education? An in-depth analysis of teachers to educational spending proves for the most part, yes.

The states with the highest number of teachers spent the most on educational procurement in 2011. There is also a strong 93 percent correlation when comparing the number of teachers to total education expenditures, which include teacher salaries as well as educational procurement. In 2011, states spent between 23 percent and 42 percent of their educational budget on teacher salaries, with the average state spending around 32 percent -- leaving 68 percent of the remaining budget for educational procurement. Interestingly, states that spent the most on teacher salaries – North Dakota, Arizona, and Nebraska – were not the highest grossing states.

So, what does this mean for vendors? Despite the old saying, in this case, it is okay to judge a book by its cover, or a state by its size. The states with the highest population are spending the most on educational procurement. California, New York, and Texas spent nearly double than what other states spent on educational procurement in 2011, and it’s looking like the pattern will continue in 2013. With opportunities such as a statewide education IT solution coming out of Texas, and e-discovery services and PBX systems coming out of New York, it would be wise for vendors to keep a close eye on these states.

Nevertheless, in no way should vendors avoid states with less educational funding. States still have the same needs as states with heftier budgets; it just might take a bit longer to launch procurement activities. Still, these states are and will continue procuring big projects, such as Rhode Island’s K-2 summative assessment system and North Dakota’s statewide longitudinal data system.

Vendors should use this information to target either teacher-related systems or classroom-related systems based on size. GovWin IQ subscribers can read further about these projects by clicking on the associated links.

Non-subscribers can gain access with a GovWin IQ free trial.