Achieving interoperability among systems is instrumental to enabling critical functions, such as timely information exchange during operations and efficiencies in acquisition, so it is important to understand what parties have authority to issue policy that governs the facets of interoperability. This report presents an approach and framework for determining what parties have authority to issue interoperability policy, the legal and policy origins and implementation paths of the authority, and the extent of the authority. The approach includes rigorous analysis by researchers to identify pertinent authorities in federal law supplemented by a means to facilitate discovery of roles and responsibilities in Department of Defense and Service-level policies. The approach results in a roles and responsibilities network that traces the paths of authority available to issue interoperability policy. The authors use as a case study the authority of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development, and Acquisition, Chief Systems Engineer to issue Navy interoperability policy related to mission area systems engineering (MASE) to demonstrate the use of the framework and methodology. They find that there are 13 different paths of authority that could be cited by four different parties to claim authority to influence interoperability policy related to MASE. The approach used in this report might be developed, along with complementary analytic techniques, to provide the government with the ability to create and maintain consistent and comprehensive bodies of policy that will ensure the effective and efficient operation of defense agencies.

Achieving interoperability among systems is instrumental to enabling critical functions, such as timely information exchange during operations and efficiencies in acquisition, so it is important to understand what parties have authority to issue policy that governs the facets of interoperability. This report presents an approach and framework for determining what parties have authority to issue interoperability policy, the legal and policy origins and implementation paths of the authority, and the extent of the authority. The approach includes rigorous analysis by researchers to identify pertinent authorities in federal law supplemented by a means to facilitate discovery of roles and responsibilities in Department of Defense and Service-level policies. The approach results in a roles and responsibilities network that traces the paths of authority available to issue interoperability policy. The authors use as a case study the authority of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development, and Acquisition, Chief Systems Engineer to issue Navy interoperability policy related to mission area systems engineering (MASE) to demonstrate the use of the framework and methodology. They find that there are 13 different paths of authority that could be cited by four different parties to claim authority to influence interoperability policy related to MASE. The approach used in this report might be developed, along with complementary analytic techniques, to provide the government with the ability to create and maintain consistent and comprehensive bodies of policy that will ensure the effective and efficient operation of defense agencies.

See report DOD does not have a well-defined process, including clear requirements, for certifying and authorizing telecommunications (telecom) switches. DOD's process is not fully documented, current, or complete. Additionally, the process lacks an effective enforcement mechanisms. As a result, DOD is increasing the risk that its certification and authorization process will be applied inconsistently and that the department's telecommunications will experience future interoperability problems. DOD attributed these weaknesses to the fact that the process is relatively new and still evolving. Further, DOD has not applied its telecom switch certification and authorization process consistently across vendors, and it has in some cases violated the department's interoperability policy. For example, while the Army required one vendor to remove its uncertified switch from one location, it allowed another vendor to install its uncertified switch at two locations, which violated the policy. However, in reviewing this and other examples of DOD's application of the interoperability certification and authorization process, GAO did not find that contracting laws and regulations had been violated.

This User’s Guide is intended to support the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, and quality evaluation of registries created to increase understanding of patient outcomes. For the purposes of this guide, a patient registry is an organized system that uses observational study methods to collect uniform data (clinical and other) to evaluate specified outcomes for a population defined by a particular disease, condition, or exposure, and that serves one or more predetermined scientific, clinical, or policy purposes. A registry database is a file (or files) derived from the registry. Although registries can serve many purposes, this guide focuses on registries created for one or more of the following purposes: to describe the natural history of disease, to determine clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of health care products and services, to measure or monitor safety and harm, and/or to measure quality of care. Registries are classified according to how their populations are defined. For example, product registries include patients who have been exposed to biopharmaceutical products or medical devices. Health services registries consist of patients who have had a common procedure, clinical encounter, or hospitalization. Disease or condition registries are defined by patients having the same diagnosis, such as cystic fibrosis or heart failure. The User’s Guide was created by researchers affiliated with AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program, particularly those who participated in AHRQ’s DEcIDE (Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions About Effectiveness) program. Chapters were subject to multiple internal and external independent reviews.

Rapid progress in information and communications technologies is dramatically enhancing the strategic role of information, positioning effective exploitation of these technology advances as a critical success factor in military affairs. These technology advances are drivers and enablers for the "nervous system" of the militaryâ€"its command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) systemsâ€"to more effectively use the "muscle" side of the military. Authored by a committee of experts drawn equally from the military and commercial sectors, Realizing the Potential of C4I identifies three major areas as fundamental challenges to the full Department of Defense (DOD) exploitation of C4I technologyâ€"information systems security, interoperability, and various aspects of DOD process and culture. The book details principles by which to assess DOD efforts in these areas over the long term and provides specific, more immediately actionable recommendations. Although DOD is the focus of this book, the principles and issues presented are also relevant to interoperability, architecture, and security challenges faced by government as a whole and by large, complex public and private enterprises across the economy.

IT policies are set in place to streamline the preparation and development of information communication technologies in a particular setting. IT Policy and Ethics: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications is a comprehensive collection of research on the features of modern organizations in order to advance the understanding of IT standards. This is an essential reference source for researchers, scholars, policymakers, and IT managers as well as organizations interested in carrying out research in IT policies.

This report looks at what motivations exist for interoperability and defines a reasonable framework from which to work if and when interoperability needs and investments meet strategic language in the United States.