You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Government
Special ops troops using flawed intel software
2015-03-27
[Military Times] WASHINGTON -- Special operations troops heading to war zones are asking for commercial intelligence analysis software they say will help their missions. But their requests are languishing, and they are being ordered to use a flawed, in-house system preferred by the Pentagon, according to government records and interviews.

Over the last four months, six Army special operations units about to be deployed into Afghanistan, Iraq and other hostile environments have requested intelligence software made by Palantir, a Silicon Valley company that has synthesized data for the CIA, the Navy SEALs and the country's largest banks, among other government and private entities.

But just two of the requests have been approved, in both cases by the Army after members of Congress intervened with senior military leaders. Four other requests made through U.S. Army Special Operations Command in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Tampa, Florida-based Special Operations Command have not been granted. The Army says its policy is to grant all requests for Palantir, while special operations officials say they are working through the requests on a case-by-case basis.

Email messages and other military records obtained by The Associated Press show that Army and special operations command officials have been pressing troops to use an in-house system built and maintained by traditional defense contractors. The Distributed Common Ground System, or DCGS, has consistently failed independent tests and earned the ire of soldiers in the field for its poor performance.

"You literally have these old tired (bureaucrats) stopping the war fighter from getting what they know works," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, a combat veteran and armed services committee member who wants to cut off funding for DCGS. "This is mind-boggling."

Special operations units have used Palantir since 2009 to store and analyze intelligence on information ranging from cultural trends to roadside bomb data, but has always been seen by top Pentagon officials as an interim solution until their in-house system is fielded. Those who have used the system say DCGS has yet to deliver on its promise of seamlessly integrating intelligence.

Pentagon officials say DCGS, despite its flaws, has broader capabilities than Palantir, and that in some cases it complements Palantir.

Intelligence officers say they use Palantir to analyze and map a variety of intelligence from hundreds of databases. Palantir costs millions, compared to the billions the military has been pouring into DCGS.

Special operations officials, in a statement to AP, said Palantir had been "extremely successful" in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are working to expand access to Palantir for units deployed in the fight against the Islamic State group. But records and interviews show a history of internal pressure against making and approving such requests.
Posted by:Besoeker

#14  Just another marketing article by proprietary software vender Palantir. Move along. Nothing to see here but crony capitalism.
Posted by: rammer   2015-03-27 22:29  

#13  Awwww Knuckles what a waste of a great nic.
Posted by: Shipman   2015-03-27 16:46  

#12  There seems to have been a pissing contest among competitors awhile back. Palantir's 3rd blackeye. Palantir is a left leaning organization judging from what they are about at their website "What we are about." At some point they will come in conflict with politics.
Posted by: JohnQC   2015-03-27 15:24  

#11  BP, that's certainly part of it, especially among "public" servants. However, even with the best intentions the same problem arises.

Much of the conflict is between the end-user community and the back room bean counters. The latter only want to analyse the data according to the complex methods they are currently pushing.

Unfortunately the end users are the ones that need short term specific information not aggregate over time roll ups. EG thinks point of sales, that needs single customer information; previous purchases, address and names and numbers; but the back office boys want all the individual sales rolled up and analysed according to their categorizations, timings, etc. so they require the sales clerk to enter reams of stuff that is immaterial to the clerk.

So, the person doing the data entry pays scant attention to the immaterial and may even appropriate certain fields for their own use rather than what was intended, think category fields getting filled with some kind of personally coded information.

The end result can be a real charlie foxtrot all around. Usually the programmer gets the blame :-)

Posted by: AlanC   2015-03-27 14:26  

#10  Newc. Bright idea. Let's have every soldier choose his own rifle requiring its own specific ammo and spare parts. Bright, really bright.
Posted by: JFM   2015-03-27 13:18  

#9  "The key question is "What do you want this system to do best?" There are always trade-offs that have to be made."

Bureaucrats want systems to "CMA"* it rarely matters whether they work. Most bureaucrats are against systems that work because it uncovers their ass.



*Cover My Ass
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2015-03-27 13:12  

#8  Its like that danged pile of junk Sheridan "tank(?)" the Mobility command at Aberdeen foisted off on the Army, it was worthless until all of the bells and whistles were taken off and thrown away. Then it became almost okay as opposed to Gawdawful....

Remember the Sheridan? I still wake up in cold sweat thinking about that death trap on treads
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2015-03-27 12:06  

#7  "Every time I click on .embassy threats. an animated gif of Hillary! pops up."
Posted by: swksvolFF   2015-03-27 11:18  

#6  An obvious opportunity for Palantir to take a month or so and duplicate the basic parts of DCGS. Put that on offer, integrated with their own software. Then, start selling upgrades and plugins to the DOD until they reach full functionality. Then, get bought by Google.
Posted by: KBK   2015-03-27 10:17  

#5  So true, AlanC.

Everybody wants their own version of blinking lights and omg!!!ponies!!!.
Posted by: Mullah Richard   2015-03-27 08:54  

#4  As a systems analyst for 30+ years, and one with experience with the military's view of IS, I can say with not a single caveat that the major problem they are having here is common across all systems integration projects.

The key question is "What do you want this system to do best?" There are always trade-offs that have to be made.

Everyone with a voice in the decision invariably has a different opinion. Unfortunately the most critical functions where the rubber meets the road are NOT critical to the managers and suits that make the call.

Users will quickly bastardize the system to meet their needs as best they can to try and mitigate the mediocre systems pushed on them.

I've heard similar complaints about aircraft design.

The old aphorism "Jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind often in such projects.
Posted by: AlanC   2015-03-27 07:14  

#3  AnB tutorial.
Posted by: Besoeker   2015-03-27 01:50  

#2  Ask one of these 'Pentagon officials' how well DCGS plays with Analyst Notebook (AnB), one of the most commonly used, and user/soldier friendly link analysis tools in the inventory.
Posted by: Besoeker   2015-03-27 01:23  

#1  Like we said time and again, scrap the shit that does not serve you in the field, and the Line chose their weapons, CAS, equipment.
Screw Congress kickbacks.
Posted by: newc   2015-03-27 00:55  

00:00