Integrated C4ISR

Government and military leaders can overcome challenges of C4ISR stovepiped systems by adopting an
Enterprise Integration approach that goes beyond traditional integration to create truly interoperable and
secure C4ISR networks and systems.

by
Greg Wenzel
wenzel_greg@bah.com
Steve Soules
soules_steve@bah.com
Trey Obering
obering_trey@bah.com
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
The Challenge: C4ISR’s Changing Nature............................................................................................................................................... 2
A New Perspective: Achieving Integrated C4ISR..................................................................................................................................... 3
Our Approach: Enterprise Integration to Build Integrated C4ISR
by Combining Engineering, Operational, and Acquisition Expertise........................................................................................................ 5
Booz Allen: Your Essential Partner in Integrated C4ISR.......................................................................................................................... 6
Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Integrated C4ISR
Executive Summary
The US military’s Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(C4ISR) systems, while the best in the world, are
nevertheless operating well below their potential
capabilities. Stovepiped systems make it difficult—and
sometimes impossible—to collect, analyze, and disseminate
critical threat and operations information, or obtain
a complete, single view of the battlefield. Too often,
commanders must log into multiple systems, each with
separate displays, while warfighters in the field struggle to
operate a variety of radio systems and communications
protocols. Many C4ISR applications and systems lack the
interoperability, user friendliness, and technical capabilities
that are readily available in commercial technologies
(and that warfighters use regularly in their private lives)
because current acquisition processes cannot keep pace
with technological change. Adding to these challenges are
fast-rising cybersecurity threats that can exploit vulnerable
integration points and other weaknesses in systems that
have been integrated after they have been developed
and deployed.
Defense leaders recognize these issues but find themselves
hampered by acquisition processes that inadvertently
perpetuate the problems. US Department of Defense (DoD)
acquisition programs typically develop C4ISR systems as
separate, stand-alone systems that are integrated after
delivery. Efforts to coordinate integration of systems during
development may meet with resistance from program
officials whose charter provides no funding, scheduled
time, or requirement for integration activities. Similarly,
acquisition processes do not lend themselves to the
effective insertion of new technologies that arise during
systems development and production. New systems, which
can take years to acquire, are often obsolete by the time
they reach warfighters. Although proprietary systems
acquired from large original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) can be upgraded with new technologies and
integrated with other systems after fielding, such efforts
can become complex and costly. They do not achieve the
seamless interoperability, ease of use, and security
required for modern warfighting missions.
Warfighters and the organizations that support them
need “integrated C4ISR,” in which the individual
pieces are designed as part of an enterprise system
from the start. Integrated C4ISR is distinguished by these
major features:
• Government-owned, open architectures and
standardized interfaces
• Agile, incremental delivery of modular systems with
integrated capabilities
• Collective forums that bring together operators,
acquisition professionals, and engineers to support agile
development of solutions that are tailored to operational
and technical requirements
• Designed-in cybersecurity to infuse solutions with
organic, unified, and multilayered defense
• Enterprise-oriented culture
Acquiring integrated C4ISR requires a sensible approach,
one we call Enterprise Integration. Enterprise Integration
brings together three major disciplines and their
communities: engineering; operations; and acquisition.
Programs will need enhanced capabilities in all three
areas to build integrated C4ISR on a foundation of open
architectures, agile development, modular construction,
and common hardware, software, data, and infrastructure.
Although Enterprise Integration requires news skills
and expertise, it does not require a wholesale reform of
acquisition rules or processes. In fact, it is consistent with
the thinking of top DoD and military leaders and is being
successfully implemented in a number of C4ISR programs.
The required adjustments in acquisition and programmatic
policies, processes, and leadership are levers that are
already available to mission-critical programs such as
C4ISR. Current acquisition approaches worked well when
each C4ISR system was designed primarily to meet a
focused, stand-alone mission requirement, while Enterprise
Integration expands upon existing approaches to develop
and field C4ISR systems that work together holistically.
When created through a structured Enterprise Integration
effort, integrated C4ISR systems have numerous benefits.
Enterprise Integration will enable rapid insertion of new
technologies while stimulating innovation and expanding
the industrial base. It will help government and military
1
 organizations build and deploy C4ISR systems that can
share and analyze large stores of sensor and intelligence
data, quickly and easily, using secure, interoperable
networks and communications. Acquisition costs will be
lower due to greater efficiencies in technology insertion,
component reuse, and system integration. Overall, adopting
an Enterprise Integration approach will help develop and
field integrated C4ISR systems that improve situational
awareness and decision making to give warfighters
unmatched superiority over current and future threats.

The Challenge: C4ISR’s Changing Nature

Until recently, many C4ISR systems were designed
to meet specific mission requirements. Traditional
acquisition processes were well suited to develop such
systems, which were not primarily designed to share
information or interoperate seamlessly with systems
outside of their mission space. As opportunities and
requirements for collaboration grew, these systems were
expanded and modified after they were fielded, typically by
the OEMs that built them using proprietary technology.
This approach of using proprietary systems provided a
very high degree of efficiency in achieving the original
objective. However, because each C4ISR system was
developed in relative isolation, each had a unique
infrastructure, operating system software, software
services (e.g., security, reporting), data, and custom
mission-specific software. Moreover, as these systems
were fielded and became more integrated into the
operations of the military, expectations and demands on
the systems grew significantly. The next logical step was
to pursue options to integrate after-the-fact. Unfortunately,
as efforts have been undertaken to better connect the
individual systems, the challenges inherent in using
proprietary systems came very clearly to the forefront.
Consequently, this approach to building and then
integrating systems has proved to be inadequate for
creating C4ISR that meets today’s warfighting
requirements. At the heart of the issue is the failure to
take advantage of a concept known as the network effect.
Under this concept, the value of a network to its users
becomes significant after a certain size—known as critical
mass—has been achieved. At the critical mass point, the
value obtained from the service delivered by the network
is greater than or equal to the price paid for the service.
In other words, as an IT-based weapons system, C4ISR
is at its most effective when it is integrated. A unique
characteristic of the military’s C4ISR system is that the
component parts of the network are present—they are
just not configured in a way that capitalizes on the full
network value of the components.
“We have systems that can show us volumes of data on
fires, logistics, or friendly and enemy force locations, yet
we don’t have one system that brings the entire picture
together. We have constantly evolving software, but some
tools require too many clicks or permission levels for
warfighters to actually find their best features. We have
great communications systems inside combat and tactical
vehicles, but they each come with their own monitors
and other hardware, creating a challenge for operators
in tight quarters,” said Army Maj. Gen. Daniel Hughes,
Army Program Executive Office for Command, Control,
Communications-Tactical (PEO C3T), in describing
the challenge.1
This siloed approach impedes mission performance
in other ways as well. For example, the increasing
sophistication of current cyber threats requires that
C4ISR systems be protected with the highest levels of
security; however, the creation of digital interfaces to
integrate independent OEM systems can often introduce
vulnerabilities that weaken cybersecurity. Another problem
is that the insertion of new technologies into proprietary
systems can be complex and difficult, especially after the
systems are fielded. Consequently, the C4ISR systems
used by warfighters often lack the latest technological
capabilities, including those that may be commercially
available. The development of C4ISR systems in relative
isolation also increases costs due to the duplicate
investment to develop the same technology component,
service, and/or application in multiple systems—often in
closed, proprietary (or industry-owned) architectures.
1 Rosenberg,
 Barry, “Command Conversation: BG Daniel Hughes, Army PEO C3T,” C4ISR &
Networks, October 3, 2013.

2
Clearly, the traditional approach to C4ISR integration
does not meet today’s mission challenges. Integrating
independent, proprietary systems in a one-off fashion
after they are fielded hampers interoperability, inhibits
technology insertion, diminishes security, and drives up
costs with inefficiencies.
"We can't continue down a path where we have
proprietary hardware and software that causes us to
spend a lot of money in post-production just to try
to maintain connectivity and interoperability between
proprietary systems," said Lt. Gen. Michael Williamson,
principal military deputy to the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. "It's
just unaffordable."2
Clearly, the traditional approach to
C4ISR integration does not meet today's
mission challenges.
A New Perspective: Achieving
Integrated C4ISR
We propose creating integrated C4ISR, in which each
new system is conceived from the beginning with an
eye toward its interdependent role in the larger C4ISR
ecosystem, and existing systems are reengineered
in the same context. Integrated C4ISR systems are
designed, developed, and built with the understanding
that they will interoperate with a wide range of mutually
supporting C4ISR systems. Integration is organic, not
an afterthought. Equally important, this organic method
streamlines system development, facilitates insertion of
emerging technologies throughout a system’s lifecycle,
strengthens security, and increases operator involvement
to ensure systems meet operational requirements.
Integrated C4ISR achieves these goals through five
essential features:
• Government-owned, open architectures and
standardized interfaces. Government and military
organizations will shift away from proprietary, closed,
vendor-owned C4ISR systems to an enterprise
architecture that is standards-based, open, and
government-owned to ensure system interoperability
and data integration. The government will develop
enterprise blueprints with detailed designs for
intersystem interfaces and specifications for a
modular, open, government-owned architecture.
In addition, as part of their procurement packages,
2 J ared Serbu, “For DoD, open architectures turn from a nice idea to a budget imperative,”
Federal News Radio, November 5, 2014.
vendors will be required to deliver individual
systems that integrate seamlessly into the overall
enterprise environment.
In integrated C4ISR, the government will own the
architecture, the system, and the data, thus
reducing vendor lock-in and helping eliminate
inefficiencies. In addition, the government will create
modular architecture with open, interoperable, and
well-defined interfaces to plug in new technologies
when they become available, fostering innovation and
reuse across the enterprise. The government will
gain access to the most innovative companies,
which will vie to “appify” cutting-edge C4ISR
capabilities that can plug and play within the existing,
standardized infrastructure.
This approach corresponds with the views of many
senior military leaders. "It is essential, in my view,
that the government take the most important technical
standards and authorities and pull them back and
control them," said Vice Adm. David Dunaway,
Commander, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), in
an interview advocating that the Navy end the practice
of outsourcing responsibility for the integration of
complex systems.3 Rather than integrating individual
stovepiped systems, the Navy should engineer systems
in an integrated fashion from the beginning, he said.4
“Then, industry can plug into a common standard, and
that goes to things like open architecture, modularity,
plug-and-play,” he said. “We've all talked about these
things for a long time, and it might have been a bridge
too far in the past. But the technology is here today.
In NAVAIR, we've integrated more than 20 [electro-
optical/infrared] sensors in the past 10 years in a
point-to-point, proprietary fashion. That's just crazy.
It's money that's just lost to the system. It should be
an open architecture with a minor integration effort for
every new sensor."
Integrated C4ISR systems are designed,
developed, and built with the understanding
that they will interoperate with a wide range
of mutually supporting C4ISR systems.
• Agile, incremental delivery of modular systems with
integrated capabilities. Government and military
organizations will shift away from the big-bang
acquisition approach in which large, monolithic
3 J ared Serbu, “Navy looks to overhaul acquisition processes for aviation systems,”
Federal News Radio, April 10, 2014.
4 Ibid.
3
 systems are delivered all at once, often after years of
development, by a single vendor team comprised of
a primary contractor and a handful of subcontractors.
Instead, they will acquire smaller, modular systems
with common interface specifications delivered
incrementally by the full industry base and inject new
innovations into the integrated C4ISR solution as
soon as they are invented. This will yield an agile,
evolutionary capability that expands the competitive
industrial supply base to bring new innovations quickly
into the networked environment.
This approach aligns with current Pentagon efforts to
spur innovation and speed technology insertion. For
example, DoD’s Better Buying Power 3.0 initiative
expresses a “growing concern that the United States’
technological superiority over potential adversaries
is being threatened today in a way that we have not
seen for decades.”5 Among its recommendations,
Better Buying Power 3.0 advocates that acquisition
programs emphasize technology insertion and refresh
in program planning, increase the use of prototyping
and experimentation, and use modular, open systems
architecture to stimulate innovation.6
Some of the key concepts in Better Buying Power 3.0,
such as “technology insertion” and “refresh,” are not
new but “need to be emphasized,” said Frank Kendall,
US Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, who is leading the effort.7 “We have
pushed for modular, open systems for a long time,”
he said. “We've had mixed success with that. I think
a lot of it has to do with successful management of
intellectual property and managing design interfaces.”
• Collective forums that bring together operators,
acquisition professionals, and engineers to support
agile development of solutions tailored to operational
and technical requirements. For example, a strong
government laboratory system is essential to
implementing agile development that can continuously
incorporate emerging technologies and capabilities into
integrated C4ISR systems. Vibrant labs will have the
resources to bring together engineers and operators
to test new and refined technologies through agile
development. Wargames, tabletop exercises, hack-
a-thons, and other similar activities can also ensure
that the operators’ perspective informs systems
development. In an environment of open architectures,
interfaces, and infrastructures, stakeholders from
the engineering realm can bring in their solutions to
evaluate how well they interoperate with existing C4ISR
platforms, assess how well they meet the real-world
5K  endall, Honorable Frank, Better Buying Power 3.0: Interim Release,
September 19, 2014, p. 2.
6 Ibid., p. 6.
7 Erwin, Sandra L., “Better Buying Power 3.0: New Pentagon Procurement Rules Seek to
4 Create a Culture of Innovation,” National Defense, September 19, 2014.
operational needs of warfighters, and determine the
best options for maintaining quality standards while
rapidly fielding the capabilities.
“There are a lot of technologies that are moving more
quickly in the commercial world than they are in the
military-unique technology world. We want to be able
to capitalize on them as much as we can,” Kendall
said.8 In fact, one of the major goals of Better Buying
Power 3.0 is to improve the return on investment in
DoD labs, which process about $30 billion in spending
each year.9 Labs that can provide a robust forum for
engineers and operators to develop and test new
technologies in agile development could help deliver
the innovation needed to maintain US warfighters’
technological advantage.
• Designed-in cybersecurity to infuse solutions with
organic, unified, and multilayered defense. The
cybersecurity approach used for independent C4ISR
systems is necessary but not sufficient, as the military
moves toward an integrated system. Protecting an
expansive network calls for the incorporation of
different techniques and technologies compared to
a stand-alone system. Early engagement of security
issues in the design process, along with control over
security standards and interfaces, will enable system
developers to make cybersecurity an organic feature
of each integrated system. Similarly, because systems
will be designed to interoperate through interfaces
with common (and secure) standards, they will not be
linked by insecure—and often jerry-rigged—interfaces
created when independent systems are integrated
after fielding.
• Enterprise-oriented culture. The connectedness,
interdependency, and adaptability of integrated C4ISR
will be reflected in the enterprise approach adopted
by leaders and their people. In an enterprise-oriented
culture, stakeholders do not think of their roles simply
from a functional perspective (i.e., as a technologist,
an operator, an acquisition professional), but instead
from an enterprise perspective that moves them from
a siloed view of the issues to coordinated decision
making. An enterprise approach calls for much greater
stakeholder collaboration—horizontally across the
joint services (US Army, Air Force, and Navy/Marine
Corps) and vertically across strategic, operational, and
tactical levels—to prioritize requirements and ensure
that cross-organizational mission needs are met.
Ultimately, an “integrated” mindset will permeate in
the enterprise.
8 Ibid.
9 Kendall, Honorable Frank, Better Buying Power 3.0: Interim Release,
September 19, 2014, p. 5.
 At a practical level, acquisition officials will need to
consider the need to create a Program Executive Office
(PEO), or similar leadership governance function,
to ensure that C4ISR programs adhere to common
standards and interfaces, and help programs maintain
an enterprise perspective. As an example, the Naval
Air Systems Command has established the Integrated
Warfighting Capability (IWC) Enterprise Team to help
carry out the Navy’s Integration and Interoperability
Charter. The IWC goal is to “ensure the technical
aspects of warfighting capability work together across
platforms, weapons, networks, and sensors from the
initial planning stages until delivery to the fleet.”10 The
IWC Enterprise Team serves as an “integration agent”
and promotes an enterprise perspective by developing
and enforcing mission-level technical standards
to support integrated solutions that interoperate
seamlessly and meet operational requirements.
The effort includes Rapid Response initiatives
that address urgent capability gaps and speed
improvements to the fleet using spiral upgrades.
The Navy expects the IWC initiative to reduce costs,
increase efficiencies, and help combatant commanders
accomplish their missions.
In addition to creating a PEO or similar enterprise
sponsor to oversee Enterprise Integration efforts,
government and military organizations should
also consider establishing reward structures to
encourage adherence to common standards,
resource sharing, and an enterprise perspective
among program managers.
These five characteristics are mutually reinforcing. For
example, open architectures and interfaces are needed to
support agile development. A robust lab system will also
support agile development. An enterprise-oriented culture
is needed to sustain these areas, but, at the same time,
the establishment of open architectures and innovative
labs will help build the desired culture. Successes in one
area will fuel successes in the others, thus providing
momentum to help organizations build integrated C4ISR.
Our Approach: Enterprise Integration to Build
Integrated C4ISR by Combining Engineering,
Operational, and Acquisition Expertise
Government and military organizations can develop and
field integrated C4ISR through an Enterprise Integration
approach that manages the acquisition of C4ISR systems.
Enterprise Integration creates integrated C4ISR by
incorporating each of its five major features into the
10 Navy Aviation Enterprise, Naval Aviation Vision 2014-2025, p. 3.
acquisition process. Although this will introduce changes
into the traditional big-bang acquisition approach,
Enterprise Integration does not require major reform
of acquisition regulations or laws. Precedent for this
approach can be found in other DoD programs, such as
missile defense. When government and military leaders
have had urgent need to deploy systems rapidly to
support warfighters in the field or apply agile development
to incorporate new technologies in developing systems,
acquisition rules have allowed them to do so. As
previously noted, many Pentagon leaders are advocating
government-owned, open architectures, modular designs,
and related innovations.
Some programs have already adopted many of the
essential features of Enterprise Integration. To cite
one example, the Army’s Distributed Common Ground
System-Army (DCGS-A) Standard Cloud program operates
in an open architecture environment with inter-system
interfaces. As a result, DCGS-A integrates 13 different US
Army ISR programs into one virtual, interoperable system.
Vendors develop systems for “plug and play” within the
broader DCGS-A infrastructure, and they use the Army’s
System Integration Labs for vendors to test their systems
to ensure interoperability before fielding. In addition, the
labs enable operators to test and shape new technologies
to enhance their usability and mission capabilities. As a
result, the Army has improved integration, strengthened
its analytic capabilities, and streamlined the process
of getting intelligence and analysis to commanders and
warfighters, while also reducing the overall costs to
support DCGS-A.
Enterprise Integration introduces an expanded role
for acquisition organizations. To manage Enterprise
Integration effectively, government organizations will
need to significantly enhance and link capabilities in
three primary disciplines:
• Engineering. Engineering and technical skills are
needed to ensure that standards, interfaces,
and infrastructure are well architected to enable
interoperability among systems, as well as to allow
emerging technologies to plug into developing and
existing systems.
• Operations—Strategic and Tactical. Technologists
need to understand how warfighters will actually
use their solutions. Operational knowledge and
experience is required when developing new systems
and upgrading existing systems to ensure that
C4ISR solutions are user friendly and tailored to
battlefield realities.
5
 • Acquisition Policies and Processes. In-depth
knowledge of acquisition policies and processes
is needed to coordinate C4ISR acquisitions among
numerous stakeholders in the program and operator
communities, while also ensuring compliance by all
parties with common standards, sharing of common
components, etc. Such knowledge will also be
important to guide programs through agile and
rapid development, and to make sure the programs
adhere to the myriad rules and regulations governing
DoD acquisitions.

These three skill sets are not entirely new or absent from
the current programs, but Enterprise Integration demands
a much higher level of expertise and cooperation than
most acquisition efforts currently possess. Consequently,
government and military organizations will likely need to
supplement their own capabilities with industry expertise.

Reaping the Benefits of Enterprise Integration system-of-systems interfaces. In addition, Enterprise

The Enterprise Integration approach will deliver on C4ISR’s
full potential by addressing current challenges with the
systems and laying the foundation for integrated C4ISR.
It will help break down silos among systems to enable
rapid communications and sharing of large amounts
of data in real time. In turn, this will enhance the
military’s ability to exploit big data analytics to improve
the processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED)
in the wake of the explosion of ISR data. Collaboration
among intelligence teams and warfighting units will also
be strengthened. The ultimate payoff will be enhanced
situational awareness and decision making.
Enterprise Integration will also facilitate the rapid insertion
of new technologies throughout the lifecycles of C4ISR
systems. The establishment of open, common standards
and interfaces will allow vendors to plug-and-play new
technologies within a common operating infrastructure.
The standardized infrastructure will also facilitate agile
development for incorporating new technologies into
developing systems. A robust lab system will bring
operators and engineers together to ensure that solutions
meet warfighters’ requirements. And the reliance on
common standards and interfaces will simplify the
operating environment to make C4ISR systems easier to
use, particularly in battlefield conditions.
Two other important benefits will also accrue. Enterprise
Integration will strengthen cybersecurity because
interoperability and security will be designed into systems
from the beginning. This will preclude the need for the
complex integration of systems after they are developed
and fielded, which can introduce vulnerabilities into the
Integration will reduce acquisition costs. The common
operating architecture will enable reuse and sharing of
common components among C4ISR systems, and the
plug-and-play environment will streamline acquisition and
give warfighters wider access to commercial technologies.
The expanding industrial base will spur even greater
competition and innovation among vendors to lower costs,
while increasing mission capabilities.
Ultimately, the open architectures and standard interfaces
within the military services will serve as building blocks
for standard interfaces among the services, thus
supporting interoperable, joint warfighting. “In standards
compliance, the use of military and industry standards—
versus proprietary interfaces—is mandatory for digital
interoperability,” said Marsha Mullins, a systems engineer
in the Joint Fires Division of the Joint Staff J-6 Deputy
Directorate for C5 Integration.11 Mullins’ observation
underscores the need for government and military leaders
to abandon their hands-off approach that places the
responsibility on OEMs to integrate proprietary systems
after fielding and, instead, assume responsibility for
establishing the standards and interfaces for integrated
C4ISR systems.
Booz Allen: Your Essential Partner in
Integrated C4ISR
Booz Allen is uniquely positioned to bring the skill sets
together that will enable Enterprise Integration. Our single
profit and loss (P&L) center allows for rapid and seamless
integration of diverse skill sets and, as a result, we

11 M
 ullins, Marsha, “Joint Force Digital Interoperability Remains Elusive,” Signal,
October 1, 2014.

6
operate with an enterprise mindset. In addition, we have
an organizational structure that allows us to collaborate
on technical innovation, operations expertise, and
acquisition acumen for integrated C4ISR. Other benefits:
• Booz Allen has been a leader in innovative C4ISR
for decades. Booz Allen has a long history of working
in the C4ISR arena—our projects have focused on
innovative improvements to technical systems and
operational enhancements. We have always taken a
holistic view of C4ISR challenges, and have brought
our engineering-focused consulting skills to bear on
the most complex and challenging issues our clients
have faced.
• The addition of Booz Allen Hamilton Engineering
Services is turbo-charging our already powerful C4ISR
capabilities. Recognizing the increasingly critical role
that C4ISR systems will play in military operations,
we have been steadily expanding our supporting
capabilities. With the acquisition of Booz Allen
Engineering Services in 2012, we expanded an already
solid engineering base to include many specialized
capabilities crucial to an integrated approach to C4ISR.
• Integrated prowess: engineering + operational +
acquisition expertise. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) highlights the inherent tension between
capacity, capability, and modernization in developing
military systems today, particularly C4ISR. To manage
this tension, at an acceptable level of risk and
performance, means that technical engineering actions
associated with C4ISR need to be directly informed by
operational requirements and acquisition realities.
• Deep technical expertise. Today’s integrated approach
to C4ISR creates a multidimensional challenge, which
requires the highest level of technical expertise. We
offer highly qualified personnel who possess deep
experience with government and industry, and who are
providing the thought leadership and innovation that is
driving innovation in the C4ISR space.
Conclusion
Government and military leaders understand the mission
value of integrated C4ISR, but they are frustrated by
acquisition processes that often produce radios that
can’t communicate, data links that can’t share, analytics
tools that are ponderous to use, and systems whose
technologies are obsolete even before fielding. Although
OEMs can integrate and upgrade their proprietary systems
after they are deployed, the costs are high and the
capabilities still fall short of the seamless interoperability
required for today’s warfighting missions. Moreover,
the complex interfaces that are created to integrate
stovepiped systems can create vulnerabilities that
degrade security.
Government and military leaders can address these
weaknesses in C4ISR systems—and the weaknesses
in traditional acquisition processes—with an Enterprise
Integration approach that looks beyond organizational
boundaries to consider each system’s role within the
larger C4ISR ecosystem. Enterprise Integration is
built upon open architectures and common blueprints,
standards, and interfaces that are government-established
and government-owned. Interoperability is designed in
and standards are enforced across all C4ISR programs.
This approach allows vendors to plug innovative
solutions into the common infrastructure. It also enables
agile development, making new technologies easier
to incorporate into developing systems. Enterprise
Integration also provides numerous mechanisms for
bringing together operators and engineers to ensure
that the systems are user friendly and built to meet
operational needs. Security is strengthened because, like
interoperability, it is designed in rather than bolted on
after a system is built.
C4ISR is a weapons system that works best when
integrated before being deployed in the field. Enterprise
Integration builds integrated C4ISR in which interoperability,
technology insertion, operator insight, and security are
inherent characteristics of agile and efficient acquisition
processes. In taking on the responsibilities of an
Enterprise Integrator, acquisition organizations will need
to expand their capabilities in the areas of engineering,
operations, and acquisition—capabilities that can be
effectively supplemented by industry partners with
an enterprise perspective and expertise in these
critical areas.
Budget and force structure reductions loom on the
horizon, while threats continue to grow increasingly
sophisticated and dangerous. Integrated C4ISR is a force
multiplier that enhances mission capabilities and enables
warfighters to meet continuing requirements, despite
anticipated cuts. Integrated C4ISR significantly improves
situational awareness and decision making to give
warfighters a decisive battlefield advantage.
7
 About the Authors
Greg Wenzel is a Booz Allen Hamilton Executive Vice
President in the firm’s Strategic Innovation Group (SIG)
Digital initiative, which focuses on the Internet of Things
(IOT) delivering modular agile solutions that integrate
mission and systems development with the latest
technologies in social, mobile, and cloud computing. He is
focused on the consumer/interactive aspects of creating
new solutions for Digital Citizen (G2C), Warrior (C4ISR),
and Workforce (Health) clients. Wenzel has a proven track
record of applying emerging technologies and a deep
understanding in the DoD Command, Control, Intelligence,
Surveillance, Reconnaissance (C2/C4ISR) mission area, as
well as Enterprise Integration.
Steve Soules is a Booz Allen Hamilton Executive Vice
President in the firm’s C4ISR services team, which supports
USN and USMC organizations, and is the local general
manager for the firm’s western region offices. With more
than 30 years of experience in conducting operational
research and analysis in the US Navy, Joint Staff, and
OSD, Soules is a recognized leader in capability-based
assessments and architecture analysis. He and his
Contact Information:
Greg Wenzel Steve Soules
Executive Vice President Executive Vice President
wenzel_greg@bah.com soules_steve@bah.com
703-917-2739 619-542-4205
8
team provide operational, technical, programmatic, and
performance analysis of integrated architectures
and systems across the US Navy and Marine Corps.
He is a co-author of the book, Using Architectures for
Research, Development, and Acquisition, and is a member
of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics
Association (AFCEA).
Trey Obering is a Booz Allen Hamilton Executive
Vice President and expert in acquisition and program
management. Obering works with aerospace clients in the
Air Force Materiel Command, Air Force Space Command,
and NASA markets. Prior to joining Booz Allen, he led a
comprehensive review of the National Reconnaissance
Office for the Director, National Intelligence, which provided
a new charter for that organization. He retired from the US
Air Force as a Lieutenant General with more than 35 years
of experience in space and defense systems development,
integration, and operations. Trey was the DoD Acquisition
Executive for the nation’s $10 billion per year missile
defense portfolio.
Trey Obering
Executive Vice President
obering_trey@bah.com
703-377-1595
About Booz Allen
Booz Allen Hamilton has been at the forefront of
strategy and technology consulting for 100 years.
Today, Booz Allen is a leading provider of management
consulting, technology, and engineering services to
the US government in defense, intelligence, and civil
markets, and to major corporations and not-for-profit
organizations. In the commercial sector, the firm
serves US clients primarily in financial services,
healthcare, and energy markets, and international
clients primarily in the Middle East.
Booz Allen helps clients achieve success today and
address future needs by applying functional expertise
spanning consulting, analytics, mission operations,
technology, systems development, cybersecurity,
engineering, and innovation to design, develop,
and implement solutions. The firm’s management
consulting heritage is the basis for its unique
To learn more about the firm and to download digital versions of this article and other Booz Allen Hamilton
publications, visit www.boozallen.com.
collaborative culture and operating model, enabling
Booz Allen to anticipate needs and opportunities,
rapidly deploy talent and resources, and deliver
enduring results. Booz Allen helps shape thinking and
prepare for future developments in areas of national
importance, including cybersecurity, homeland security,
healthcare, and information technology.
Booz Allen is headquartered in McLean, Virginia,
employs nearly 22,000 people, and had revenue
of $5.48 billion for the 12 months ended
March 31, 2014. Over the past decade, Booz Allen’s
high standing as a business and an employer has
been recognized by dozens of organizations and
publications, including Fortune, Working Mother,
Forbes, and G.I. Jobs. In 2014, Booz Allen celebrated
its 100th anniversary year. More information is
available at www.boozallen.com. (NYSE: BAH)
9
Principal Offices
Huntsville, Alabama Leavenworth, Kansas Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Montgomery, Alabama Radcliff, Kentucky Charleston, South Carolina
Sierra Vista, Arizona Aberdeen, Maryland Houston, Texas
Los Angeles, California Annapolis Junction, Maryland San Antonio, Texas
San Diego, California Lexington Park, Maryland Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
San Francisco, California Linthicum, Maryland Alexandria, Virginia
Colorado Springs, Colorado Rockville, Maryland Arlington, Virginia
Denver, Colorado Troy, Michigan Chantilly, Virginia
District of Columbia Kansas City, Missouri Charlottesville, Virginia
Pensacola, Florida Omaha, Nebraska Falls Church, Virginia
Sarasota, Florida Red Bank, New Jersey Herndon, Virginia
Tampa, Florida New York, New York McLean, Virginia
Atlanta, Georgia Rome, New York Norfolk, Virginia
Honolulu, Hawaii Fayetteville, North Carolina Stafford, Virginia
O’Fallon, Illinois Cleveland, Ohio Seattle, Washington
Indianapolis, Indiana Dayton, Ohio

The most complete, recent list of offices and their addresses and telephone numbers can be found on
www.boozallen.com

www.boozallen.com ©2015 Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

Use of the DoD imagery does not constitute or imply endorsement. BA15-001