Keeping an open mind: why the approach to open standards needs to change

The benefits of utilising open standards within the battlespace have long been discussed and advocated by the defence industry as a whole. Defence clearly recognises that taking an open standards approach to the technology it harnesses can unlock a myriad of possibilities for mission success, not least in the drive to achieve multi-domain integration.

There is, however, a consistent issue that continues to hold Defence back from realising the true value of open standards: the approach remains disjointed. While the concept of open standards enabling openness' is widely accepted, the execution of this in reality is still incredibly siloed. Within the UK, for example, new standards are constantly being developed by Defence organisations, but in most cases are still only being shared with preferred partners and suppliers. If only certain people have access to a standard, this is not indicative of being truly open.

It's a similar story in the US, where overlapping technical domains are developing standards with differing definitions and varying degrees of openness. As a result, they are left with multiple competing standards, leading to many Defence organisations adopting standards that aren't really open and no more interoperable in a multi-domain environment.

The problem with the current approach to open standards The irony of this partial openness' is that one of the fundamental ideas behind open standards is to avoid vendor lock-in. Providing access to only specific partners and suppliers still constitutes vendor lock-in, going against the very principle. Open standards should realistically enable any number of industry suppliers to contribute, ensuring Defence gains the best possible solution to a challenge.

Continually investing in competing standards, creating multiple pockets of standards where there isn't a compelling need, is counterproductive. After all, a hundred one-off open standards are really no different to sticking with a stovepiped, proprietary solution. This isn't always a deliberate decision, and is often due to a lack of internal communication resulting in duplicated effort. It's highly likely, for example, that three different forces could be using three different standards to achieve the same ends when the ultimate goal being sought is actually multi-domain integration. This fragmented approach only emphasises that while the defence industry is attempting to converge by utilising open standards, in some areas we are still diverging. Defence now needs to actively reduce the volume of competing standards currently available and consolidate these down wherever possible.

All of this said, in some areas Defence is becoming more open; industry working groups are now available to contribute to, and there is often the opportunity to go through open standards bodies such as The Open Group for support. The fact remains, however, that a formalised approach to open standards has not yet been defined, which may be why the true benefits of utilising them are not being realised.

What is keeping Defence from truly embracing open standards? Most often, the primary reason why a truly open approach is not taken is solely down to cost. There is often additional expense and time when transitioning existing product lines to modular architectures with open interfaces, however what's important to remember is that this investment will also result in more agile, future-ready solutions that are evergreen . This means enabling capability that will always be up-to-date, ready to defeat emerging threats. You don't need to buy brand-new kit each time legacy systems reach end of life or they break, you can simply add any new capability in and swap out the old. This results in significantly reduced through-life cost and minimises the need to return parts to the supplier for repairs or upgrades.

LINK:	https://www.l3harris.com/newsroom/editorial/2022/06/keeping-open-mind-...
	See more stories from harris

Most recent headlines