This Implementation Plan surveys the current status of our community's use of information systems, and proposes an implementation plan for our Cyberstrategy. Beginning with a Situation Assessment of the current state of information systems and our community's present implementation, it outlines a program for upgrading existing capabilities, and maintaining our community on a path of continuous improvement. Additional background on trends and developments in information systems generally is contained in the CyberStrategy Background paper.
Realization of the potential of new information systems primarily requires focusing organizational activities, as outlined in our CyberStrategy. The key ingredient is an appropriate strategic concept of operations. Without this concept, new information systems will have minimal impact on our work. The most important technical innovations are largely in the realm of new software, which is relatively inexpensive to purchase. But much of this new software will not run efficiently on many of the older computers that populate our community. While our primary focus is advancing our research and advocacy agenda, we recognize the potential of new information systems to support these efforts, and we need the right tools, software and hardware, to do the job.
The national peace and security community continues to treat computers like typewriters, which are retained in service until they are entirely beyond repair. The result is an information infrastructure that is several generations behind the current state of the art, and in too many instances incapable of fully taking advantage of emerging computer networking opportunities. Over the past year, some organizations have initiated far-reaching recapitalization of their information infrastructure, but many remain hobbled by obsolescent legacy systems.
Our initial survey of the national peace and security community in 1994 indicated that only about half of these organizations had even rudimentary on-line capabilities such as E-mail, while the remainder had no external network connectivity whatsoever. Most organizations reported little experience with using E-mail, and difficulties in fully exploiting its capabilities. Over the past year our community has begun to migrate toward cyberspace. By the summer of 1995 essentially every organization in the community was E-mail addressable. Although some organizations are moving to state-of-the-art Internet implementations such as World Wide Web, most remain challenged effectively using E-mail.
Our community continues to treat online connectivity like a FAX machine, with a single E-mail address per organization which is checked for messages once or twice each day. The full potential of new information systems can only be realized when it is treated like a telephone, with each individual having direct E-mail, Usenet and World Wide Web connectivity at their desk.
The innovation process to realize the opportunities outlined in our CyberStrategy will proceed in three stages:
Although a central focus of this Plan is articulation of a migration strategy for the nineteen organizations participating in the Military Spending Working Group [MSWG], the plan also discusses the status of approximately a dozen other organizations concerned with peace and security issues. This plan serves as the framework under which the MSWG organizations propose collaborative funding and implementation of new information systems. Additional proposals may be developed to include other organizations as well.
A - Situation Assessment
1 - Peace and Security Work-Stations
Unfortunately, the national Peace and Security Community remains computationally challenged. A survey of the participants in the Military Spending Working Group, as well as other organizations [which are italicized] demonstrates the distance that must be traveled to fully empower our community with these new tools. Our assessment of other organization's work-stations, LANs and WANs is highly fragmentary.
The metals metaphor provides a schematic framework for assessing the current situation. The reality is of course more complicated, with most organizations having implementations that are alloys of various metals. A detailed breakdown of work-station, local-area network and wide-area network implementations for each organization is included at the conclusion of this document. While allocating each organization an implementation tier is imprecise, these groupings generally show where each group stands today, and the level of effort the community needs to reach more robust implementations.
A few of the most seriously net-lagged members of our community have barely progressed beyond the Stone Age of electric typewriters. Most are precariously straddling Tin and Bronze, while a few others have reached Silver, and are starting to make the transition to Electrum.
While the metals metaphor is a useful first approximation, it should not obscure the profound heterogeneity of our community's implementations. For instance, Peace Action currently has the most sophisticated Local Area Network of any of our organizations, although many of the computer work-stations on the LAN are increasingly antiquated. In contrast, the Federation of American Scientists is moving toward an all-Pentium work-station implementation, though these computers are linked by only a rudimentary LAN. Other such contrasting examples could be provided.
Lead - Only 286-DOS or Apple IIe machines with no internal or external communications capabilities (no modems) and manual-feed fax machines.
Tin - Text-only (no Graphic User Interface) 286 DOS or Macintosh machines with limited internal and external communications capabilities (slow modems), E-mail connectivity for the organization as a single entity, and manual-feed fax machines.
Copper - At least one 386 Windows (or Mac II equivalent) work-station and some multiple-addressee fax capabilities, though primarily older machines.
Bronze - Primarily older 486 or Quadra level computers connected to the Internet dedicated to external gateway communications E-mail, World Wide Web, Usenet, etc).
Silver - Primarily newer 486 or Quadra level computers, with at least one connected to to the Internet dedicated to external gateway communications E-mail, World Wide Web, Usenet, etc). WinFax Pro for faxcasting. Discrete domains registered ( *@groupname.org) for full World Wide Web homepage implementation.
Electrum - Primarily Pentium or Power PC level boxes with direct-to-desktop E-mail [individually addressed] and direct Internet [Usenet and World Wide Web] access. In-house Web-Mastering for content control, along with E-mail LISTSERV and/or Usenet membership and outreach implementation.
What is particularly striking about this rough outline is that in many cases it is precisely those organizations which could benefit most from new information systems that are the most seriously challenged -- entities with substantial grass-roots or outreach orientation [such as Campaign for New Priorities, Common Agenda, and the National Commission for Economic Conversion & Disarmament] or with a significant community coordination role [such as CTB Clearinghouse and Military Production Network].
These implementation tiers represent both current levels of capability, and objectives for community-wide implementation. When implemented community wide, each implementation tier will provide each organization in the community with a common, coordinated capability to communicate with each other, with their constituents and target audiences, and with the entire outside internetted world. More advanced implementations will serve as community "Pathfinders" to develop practical experience to guide late adapters.
2 - Peace and Security Local Area Networks
Although our community started networking in earnest in the last few years, many organizations remain unconnected, and many others currently have obsolescent systems. The problems facing organizations wanting to network are twofold; first, organizations are not sure which networking option will meet their needs and, second, networks can sometimes be daunting to install and administer for non-technical staff.
In the light of these barriers, ISWG has taken the lead in identifying networking models and providing a forum in which networking techniques and pitfalls can be discussed. Best practice regarding networking have also been identified. Our findings so far:
B - Pathfinder Implementations
Implementing this strategy will require initial Pathfinder implementations, to identify best practice and concretely demonstrate the utility of selected applications to the community. As desirable applications are identified, these will be implemented community-wide, based on clear cost/benefit priorities, organizational needs, and available resources. These implementation will all take into consideration the substantial IGC/Peacenet legacy implementation.
The Council for a Livable World and the Federation of American Scientists CyberStrategy Project are the principle pathfinders for our community. However, other organizations also serve as pathfinders for particular implementations -- the Campaign for New Priorities, for instance, has taken the lead on wide-area faxcasting. And the Center for Defense Information currently has a major implementation upgrade in progress. Specific application Pathfinder demonstrations conducted to date include faxcasting (through WinFax Pro), e-mail (through Eudora and Pegasus), and World Wide Web and Usenet (through Netscape). Currently planned Pathfinder demonstrations include optical character recognition to convert hard-copy documents into editable texts (through Caere Omnipage), Local Area Networks (Novell NetWare), as well as various groupware implementations.
FAS is implementing a web-matrix of webpages for other organizations and Working Groups in our community. The general conception is to construct a hyper-matrix in which each organization has hyperlinks to all the Working Groups in which it participates, and each Working Group has hyperlinks to participating organizations. This organization/Working-Group matrix provides a powerful metaphor to display our community and its wares. At present essentially this entire matrix is currently hosted in the fas.org domain, but FAS invites other organizations to rehost their homepages and initiate active WebMastering of their own content. In the meantime, FAS hopes to jumpstart this process by HTML-authoring selected contents for certain organizations, and providing other support services to facilitate migration from this legacy implementation.
Our CyberStrategy stresses continuous improvement, with some organizations serving as "Pathfinders" for the rest of the community, learning to fully utilize more advanced implementations so as to be able to provide guidance to the community at large for subsequent adaptation. Such demonstration projects have been a key component of our Working Group collaboration thus far, and will be essential to retaining comparative advantage in the future.
Maintaining Pathfinder implementations will require an annual investment of approximately $200,000 for at least the initial two years that will be required to migrate the community to the Gold implementation tier and set us on the path of continuous improvement.
C - Cybernaut and Enterprise Migration Strategies
Our CyberStrategy initially focuses on implementing service tiers in which each organization has at least one capable computer hooked up for the Cybernaut, before expanding the numbers of such computers within organizations for Enterprise wide implementation. Putting at least one machine in each organization is a key level to reach since then each organization has the ability to see for itself what these new information systems offer. Then they will likely put more effort into beefing up their computer capabilities on their own.
We must avoid dumping capable equipment in organizations without integrating them into the thinking and work of staffers. Only when people are aware of the power of modern information equipment, when they see the productivity and capability enhancements they can enjoy, and when they are assisted and supported in exploring and learning those capabilities will the investment have been worthwhile.
Because of the diversity of implementations in our community, we have the opportunity to terrace the funding of CyberStrategy implementation. With small levels of initial funding, will begin with the most computationally challenged organizations, bringing them to minimal levels of functionality. As the benefits of CyberStrategy are realized, along with additional funding, more robust implementations will be pursued, at both the Cybernaut [at least one seat per organization] and Enterprise [every seat in every organization] levels.
"Equity" issues will need to be addressed, particularly as we seek support for community-wide minimum level implementations. Some groups have already invested substantial resources in fairly high-level implementations, while others are struggling to reach rudimentary levels. Also, different numbers of computers are required to bring organizations of quite different sizes up to the same tier.
The implementation terraces are listed in general order of priority. Incremental funding of later terraces would be implemented through "level-filling" of each organization. The two most expensive "Enterprise-Wide" Electrum and Gold implementations would provide each organization with an equal number of work-stations, until each seat at every organization was filled. That is, just as the Electrum/Cybernaut terrace provided each organization with a single Electrum work-station, the initial round of Electrum/Enterprise would provide each organization with a second such workstation, the third round with a third, and so on [smaller organization would, obviously, be "level-filled" before larger organizations].
These notional costs for elements of different tiers do not include additional personnel, training, support, and coordination costs, which will be needed to fully reach new tiers. These are covered in the Pathfinder and Training sections of this implementation strategy.
D - Training
Training and skills development are an integral part of our strategy. Proper computer training enhances personal productivity, decreases user frustration and allows users to further develop their skills rather than having to "reinvent the wheel" each time new hardware or software packages are introduced. It can be done in a formal classroom setting at a training center, through sessions within the organization or through private instruction. Whatever its form, training is the key to leveraging new technologies.
While most users and organizations agree that they would greatly benefit from training, survey results show that currently only 16% of our organizations receive some kind of formal external training. Nearly half of our organizations (46%) have never had internal or external training. The major barriers to training are the cost of instruction, the time and lack of knowledge.
In order to ensure a smooth transition for organizations implementing CyberStrategy, we propose a full training program on such topics as broadcast faxing, the effective use of e-mail, World Wide Web page authoring and the use of collaborative software. This program would go beyond the rudimentary training associated with installation that would be provided with each upgrade. The Information Systems Working Group has taken the lead on this by already providing limited peer training sessions on these topics to chief information officers from thirteen organizations. A contact list of people using various hardware and software packages has also been created to begin a community-wide peer technical support network. Additional funding would allow us to provide training to users within each organization and expand a peer support network. Only in this way can we ensure that new technologies will be comprehensible to end users and integrated into daily operations.
The Implementation Plan represents a migration strategy for the national peace and security community. Portions of this plan are already being executed at individual organizations, and it may be anticipated that over the next several years additional organizations will implement other parts of this plan. Some organizations are seeking direct support for such implementations, and others are recognizing the extent to which these upgrades are essential to the success of ongoing and future projects.
In addition to directly supported initiatives, the nineteen organizations which comprise the Military Spending Working are jointly developing collaborative funding proposals to support community-wide upgrades. It is contemplated that a single request for support would be prepared on behalf of these organizations, and that support would be passed through to each organization in the form of information systems implementation and support. The precise modality by which such "pass-through" funding would be arranged and disbursed is presently under development, and will be resolved in a manner consistent with the intentions of support sources.
One option may consist of establishing a separate corporate entity [ie, CyberStrategy Consortium] with Officers and a Board [consisting of representatives of participating organizations]. This recipient and administrative entity would be established under the auspices of and existing entity which would be the legal recipient of record for tax purposes.
The Information Systems Working Group was initiated in early 1995 as a result of the activities of the Military Spending Working Group [MSWG]. Since then, its activities have expanded to include a number of additional organizations which do not participate in MSWG. Although the specific implementation initiatives outlined here are limited to MSWG participants, in principle the range of participating organizations can be expanded, contingent on organizational interest and the interest of potential supporters. We have identified at least fourteen other organizations which are potential candidates, and others are likely to be identified in the future. However, at present, our appreciation of the status of work-stations, LANs and WANs at these organizations is highly fragmentary. In addition, these organization have for the most part not been approached about participation in the ISWG process.
Stations |
|||||||||
| 15 Sept 95 | Tin | Copper | Silver | Electrum | Gold | Electrum | Electrum | ||
| Groups | PC / Mac |
286 Mac |
386 Mac II |
486 Quadra |
P5 PPC |
P6 | Mac | Cybernaut Upgrade | Enterprise Upgrade |
| MSWG 19 of 19 |
171 | 34 | 47 | 79 | 14 | 0 | 24 | $18,000 $75,000 | $337,500 |
| CNP | 4 | 4 | $ 4,500 | $13,500 | |||||
| CDI | 30 | 5 | 25 | $ 4,500 | $22,500 | ||||
| CLWEF | 16 | 0 | 6 | 8 | 2 | $ 4,500 | $27,000 | ||
| DBP | 8 | 2 | 5 | 1 | $ 4,500 | $31,500 | |||
| FAS | 11 / 1 | 2 | 1 / 1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | $13,500 | ||
| FCNL | 16 | 7 | 4 | 5 | $ 4,500 | $49,500 | |||
| ICTA | 4 | 3 | 1 | $ 4,500 | $ 4,500 | ||||
| IDDS | -/ 7 | -/ 2 | -/ 4 | -/ 1 | 7 | $ 4,500 | $ 9,000 | ||
| LAWS | 4 | 2 | 2 | $ 4,500 | $ 9,000 | ||||
| NCECD | -/ 5 | -/ 3 | -/ 2 | 5 | $ 4,500 | $18,000 | |||
| NPP | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | $ 4,500 | $13,500 | |||
| NSNS | 12 | 1 | 10 | $ 4,500 | $ 4,500 | ||||
| PA | 10 / 2 | 7 | 2 / 1 | 1 / 1 | 2 | $ 4,500 | $45,000 | ||
| PSR | 21 / 1 | 2 | 4 | 15 | -/ 1 | 1 | $ 4,500 | $27,000 | |
| PDA | 2 | 1 | 1 | $ 4,500 | $ 4,500 | ||||
| PDD | 3 | 2 | 1 | $ 4,500 | $ 9,000 | ||||
| 20/20 | 1 / 7 | 1 / 5 | -/ 1 | -/ 1 | 7 | $ 4,500 | $27,000 | ||
| WAND | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | $ 4,500 | $ 9,000 | |||
LAN |
||||||
| 15 Sept 95 | ||||||
| Group | Networked stations |
Peer-to-Peer | Client-Server | Ethernet | Interim Upgrade |
Objective Upgrade |
| MSWG 19 of 19 |
18 | 10 | 8 | 9 | $10,800 | $73,000 |
| CNP | All | Novell [ver?] | $800 | $6,000 | ||
| CDI | All | Novell 4.10 | Yes | |||
| CLWEF | All | Windows 3.11 | Novell 3.12 | Yes | ||
| DBP | None | $1,600 | $7,500 | |||
| FAS | Some | Windows 3.11 | Yes | $1,600 | $8,500 | |
| FCNL | All | Novell 3.12 | Yes | |||
| ICTA | All | Novell 3.12 | Yes | |||
| IDDS | All | AppleTalk 2 | $1,400 | $7,500 | ||
| LAWS | Most | ? ? ? | $800 | $6,000 | ||
| NCECD | All | AppleTalk 2 | $1,000 | $6,000 | ||
| NPP | Some | Peer | $800 | $6,000 | ||
| NSNS | Most | Novell 3.12 | Yes | |||
| PA | All | Novell 4.1 | Yes | |||
| PSR | All | Novell 3.12 | Yes | |||
| PDA | 2 | ? ? ? [old] | $400 | $6,000 | ||
| PDD | All | Windows 3.11 | $600 | $6,000 | ||
| 20/20 | All | AppleTalk 2 | $1,600 | $7,500 | ||
| WAND | All | Peer | Yes | $6,000 |
WAN |
||||||||||||
| 15 Sept 95 | Brass | Copper | Bronze | Silver | Electrum | Electrum | Electrum | |||||
| Group | Outsource FAXcast |
In-house FAXcast |
Group |
Group WWW |
Desktop |
Desktop WWW |
Website Host |
Upgrade Cost | ||||
| MSWG 19 of 19 |
5 | 12 | 19 | 11 | 4 | 3 | 5 | $5,000 | ||||
| CNP | EPRS | IGC | FAS | $ 500 | ||||||||
| CDI | Winfax | IGC | CDI | CDI | CDI | |||||||
| IGC | CLWEF | WinFax | IGC | IGC | Clarknet | Clarknet | CLWEF | |||||
| DBP | Talyfax | yes | Compuserve | FAS | $ 500 | |||||||
| FAS | USNwire | WinFax | IGC | IGC | Clarknet | Clarknet | FAS | |||||
| FCNL | Mediatel | yes | IGC | FAS | $ 500 | |||||||
| ICTA | Winfax | Netcom | Netcom | Netcom | Netcom | FAS | ||||||
| IDDS | yes | World.std | World.std | $ 500 | ||||||||
| LAWS | Compuserve | Compuserve | $ 500 | |||||||||
| NCECD | FaxSTF | IGC | IGC | FAS | $ 500 | |||||||
| NPP | Crocker.com | $ 500 | ||||||||||
| NSNS | yes | AOL | AOL | FAS | ||||||||
| PA | USNwire | IGC | FAS | $ 500 | ||||||||
| PSR | yes | IGC | IGC | SUNY.edu | ||||||||
| PDA | IGC | FAS | $ 500 | |||||||||
| PDD | yes | Clarknet | Clarknet | FAS | ||||||||
| 20/20 | Wash.web | Wash.web | 20/20 | |||||||||
| WAND | WinFax | Clarknet | Clarknet | FAS | ||||||||
Stations |
|||||||||
| incomplete | Tin | Copper | Silver | Electrum | Gold | Electrum | Electrum | ||
| Groups | PC / Mac |
286 Mac |
386 Mac II |
486 Quadra |
P5 PPC |
P6 | Mac | Cybernaut Upgrade | Enterprise Upgrade |
| Others 0 of 18 |
$ | $ | |||||||
| ACA | |||||||||
| ADA | |||||||||
| AFSC | |||||||||
| BASIC | 9 | 1 | 3 | 3 | $21,000 | ||||
| BAS | |||||||||
| CTB | |||||||||
| FCG | |||||||||
| HNC | |||||||||
| IEER | |||||||||
| ISIS | |||||||||
| LOGA | |||||||||
| MCC | |||||||||
| MPN | |||||||||
| MCC | |||||||||
| NETWORK | |||||||||
| UCC | |||||||||
| UCS | |||||||||
| WSP | $ 3,500 |
LAN |
||||||
| incomplete | ||||||
| Group | Networked stations |
Peer-to-Peer | Client-Server | Ethernet | Interim Upgrade |
Objective Upgrade |
| Others 0 of 18 |
||||||
| ACA | ||||||
| ADA | ||||||
| AFSC | ||||||
| BASIC | none | |||||
| BAS | ||||||
| CTB | none | |||||
| FCG | ||||||
| FNPA | ||||||
| HNC | ||||||
| IEER | ||||||
| ISIS | ||||||
| LOGA | ||||||
| MCC | ||||||
| MPN | none | |||||
| NETWORK | ||||||
| UCC | ||||||
| UCS | yes | |||||
| WSP |
WAN |
||||||||
| incomplete | Brass | Copper | Bronze | Silver | Electrum | Electrum | Electrum | |
| Group | Outsource FAXcast |
In-house FAXcast |
Group |
Group WWW |
Desktop |
Desktop WWW |
Website Host |
Upgrade Cost |
| Others 0 of 18 |
||||||||
| ACA | $ | |||||||
| ADA | Winfax | $ | ||||||
| BASIC | Xpedite | IGC | IGC | $ | ||||
| BAS | $ | |||||||
| CTB | $ | |||||||
| FCG | yes | $ | ||||||
| FNPA | $ | |||||||
| HNC | yes | $ | ||||||
| IEER | $ | |||||||
| ISIS | $ | |||||||
| LOGA | $ | |||||||
| MCC | $ | |||||||
| MPN | yes | $ | ||||||
| NETWORK | $ | |||||||
| UCC | $ | |||||||
| UCS | $ | |||||||
| WSP | $ |
Points of Contact |
|||
| Organization | Chief Info Officer |
Other Contact | |
| ACA | Arms Control Association | Sarah Walkling | |
| BASIC | British American Security Information Center | Stephen Young | Nicole Hecker |
| BAS | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | Nancy Myers | |
| CNP | Campaign for New Priorities | Jon Lottman | |
| CDI | Center for Defense Information | Adam Luther | |
| Jolynn Brooks | |||
| CLWEF | Council for a Livable World | Michael Litz | |
| CTB | Comprehensive Test Ban Clearinghouse | Bruce Hal | |
| DBP | Defense Budget Project | Liesl Heeter | Jennifer Kole |
| FAS | Federation of American Scientists | Michael Panetta | John Pike |
| FCNL | Friend's Committee on National Legislation | Nancy Marlow | |
| FCG | Fund for Constitutional Government | Conrad Martin | |
| ICTA | International Center for Technology Assessment | ||
| IDDS | Institute for Defense & Disarmament Studies | George Sommaripa | |
| IGC/DC | Institute for Global Communications | Jillaine Smith | Philip Bogdonoff |
| LAWS/CNS | Lawyers Alliance for World Security | John Parachini | |
| MMP | Mainstream Media Project | Mark Sommer | |
| MPN | Military Production Network | ||
| NCECD | Nat. Comm. for Econ. Conversion & Disarmament | Jim Bridgman | |
| NPP | National Priorities Project | ||
| NSNS | National Security News Service | ||
| PA | Peace Action | Alan Andrade | |
| PSR | Physicians for Social Responsibility | Joe Maloney | Chris Hellman |
| PDA | Project on Defense Alternatives | Charles Knight | |
| PDD | Project on Demilitarization & Democracy | Charles Hunter | |
| POGO | Project on Government Oversight | Danielle Brian | |
| SC/NPT | Stimson Center | Joe Cirincione | |
| TRP | Taxpayer Research Project | Ralph De Gennaro | |
| 20/20 | 20/20 Vision | Joseph Marker | Lesley Merson |
| UCS | Union of Concerned Scientists | ||
| WAND | Women's Action for New Directions | Deborah Walden | |
| WSP | Women Strike for Peace |