U.S. Department of Defense: Are Robertson\'s Ten

U.S. Department of Defense: Are Robertson's Ten Principles Easier or Harder to Apply in the Context of Research?

The objective of this work in writing is to examine the fact that perspective commands many powerful forces in U.S.. Department Defense however, functional meaning can be obscure. To the analyst, the underlying principles of net-centric computing and intelligent distributed environment promise a great deal. The focus of this work is to examine that which cognitively describes as people-centric concerns which constitute the day-to-day preoccupations of IT managers and to bring net-centric considerations to the people-centric considerations and finally to answer whether Robertson's 10 principles are easier or harder to apply in the context of a network?

Introduction

According to James Robertson, improving information management practices "is a key focus for many organizations, across both the public and private sectors." (2005) Driving this is a "range of factors, including a need to improve the efficiency of business processes, the demands of compliance regulations, and the desire to deliver new services." (Robertson, 2005) Information has meant, many times that new technology solutions be deployed and these projects are all too often characterized by a "poor track record of success" with the majority of organization still experiencing a struggle in delivering "an integrated information management environment." (Robertson, 2005) It is not easy to implement effective information management with all the needed integration of systems in addition to needs of business that must be met combined with organizational and cultural issues, which are of a complex nature.

I. Robertson's Ten Principles

The ten principles stated by Robertson for competent information management include those as follows:

1) Recognize and manage complexity;

2) Focus on adoption;

3) Deliver tangible and visible benefits;

4) Prioritize according to business needs;

5) Take a journey of a thousand steps;

6) Provide strong leadership;

7) Mitigate risks;

8) Communicate extensively;

9) Aim to deliver a seamless user experience; and

10) Choose the first project carefully. (Robertson, 2005)

II. Information Management

Information management consists of such as web content management, document management, records management, digital asset management, learning management systems, learning content management systems, collaboration, enterprises search, as well as others. Information management can be then understood to include such as people, process, technology and content. (Robertson, 2005) Common information management problems are stated by Robertson to be inclusive of the following:

1) Large number of disparate information management systems.

2) Little integration or coordination between information systems.

3) Range of legacy systems requiring upgrading or replacement.

4) Direct competition between information management systems.

5) No clear strategic direction for the overall technology environment.

6) Limited and patchy adoption of existing information systems by staff.

7) Poor quality of information, including lack of consistency, duplication, and out-of-date information.

8) Little recognition and support of information management by senior management.

9) Limited resources for deploying, managing or improving information systems.

10) Lack of enterprise-wide definitions for information types and values (no corporate-wide taxonomy).

11) Large number of diverse business needs and issues to be addressed.

12) Lack of clarity around broader organizational strategies and directions.

13) Difficulties in changing working practices and processes of staff.

14) Internal politics affecting the ability to coordinate activities enterprise-wide. (Robertson, 2005)

III. Net-Centric vs. People-Centric

The work of Wallace (2004-2005) entitled Network-Enabled Battle Command" reports the fact that it does not matter "how sophisticated the technology may become in providing a seemingly improved picture of the battlefield, the true 'centre' of effective command and control (C2) remains the commander. Moreover, no matter how technologically advanced we might be, significant gaps in the information landscape of a dynamic battlefield will always exist. Both chance and unanticipated actions by enemy combatants are in play and are all but invisible to the 'network-centric' database. The timely judgment by seasoned commanders taking calculated risks in the face of uncertainty is a fixture of the modern battlefield and will be so on the postmodern as well." (Wallace, 2004-2005) Certainly, the people-centric network could fill in some of these gaps. Consider for example the people-centric sensing system described as "wireless platforms now "in the hands of the masses." This type of technology with the accompanying "proper architectural support" will result in the ability to "leverage wireless sensor networks to address urban-scale problems or provide global information access (such as public-sensing applications)." (Campbell, et al., 2008) Simultaneously it is reported that people either as individuals or in groups "can apply these new sensing networks to applications with a more personal focus." (Campbell, et al., 2008) The people-centric sensing system is such that "humans, rather than trees or machines, become the focal point of sensing and the visualization of sensor-based information is for the benefit of common citizens and their friends, rather than domain scientists or plant engineers. Additionally, the users' aggregate mobility both enables sensing coverage of large public spaces over time and lets individuals, as sensing device custodians, collect targeted information about their daily patterns and interactions. The sensing coverage of spaces, events, and human interactions is opportunistic in a people-centric system because the system architecture has no point of control over the human mobility patterns and actions that facilitate this coverage. Although this lack of control can translate into gaps in sensing coverage, the alternative of a world-wide web of static sensors is clearly untenable in terms of monetary cost, scalability, or management." (Campbell, et al., 2008)