Issue
The United States must maintain its status as the preeminent military power in the world, which in the modern era necessarily includes cyberspace, to maintain its global hegemonic position. Cyberspace is a relatively new domain, but it is crucial to military preparedness that we retain our superiority there. Preparation in the medical field is essential for a well-prepared military. The military currently employs various systems, most of which use antiquated software and lack interoperability.
Background
With the rapid advancement of information technology, individuals are becoming increasingly reliant on cyberspace, which connects billions of users worldwide. It provides individuals with a lot of conveniences, but it also creates many opportunities for offenders to commit crimes using modern information technologies. Many security issues have arisen in cyberspace, including identity surveillance, identity theft, cyberspace terrorism, and virtual warfare. Civilian operating systems and programs, on the other hand, receive regular updates despite frequently having bugs that aren’t fully worked out. Due to the critical nature of military systems, updating to newer software can cause incompatibilities or, at worst, security flaws. As a result, the military must spend money on security updates for antiquated software (Hsu, 2018).
The case could be made, at least in principle, that security should take priority over upgrades, particularly if the currently installed software meets all of the organization’s requirements as time passes; however, the usefulness of these programs declines because their developers stop releasing security updates, and they can’t communicate with newer devices. The possibility of a seamless upgrade to a new system disappears once this occurs. For instance, Adobe announced in 2017 that it would no longer support flash after 2021, and the Air Force did not update all of its computer-based learning software, so military personnel cannot complete some training. Again using medicine as an example, providers currently must use two separate medical systems to store patient data and report on medical readiness, even though modern software can store incredible amounts of patient data easily retrievable into patient notes.
The current system, AHLTA, is so out of date. It does not understand the enter key as indicating the need for the end of the text and the start of a new sentence below. The same holds for outdated medications, which users cannot remove in the present setup. As a result, there has been some confusion, as service members’ records are not always accurate. A thorough examination of the medication history reveals that a given medication was either no longer prescribed or more than a considerable time ago. In addition, the longevity of these programs is being called into question, which increases their susceptibility to cyberattacks.
The framework eventually breaks down when patches are used instead of whole system access. The necessity of striking a balance between security and modernization makes the problem of updating software particularly challenging. Since computers are now a commonplace part of daily life, researchers could argue that this impacts all services somehow (Caton, 2019). The complexity and breadth of the problem make finding a solution a tall order. While it may seem like IT alone makes decisions about upgrades, the reality is that many different parties have a vested interest in seeing specific processes undergo faster modernization. They all need to be on board with and approve of this upgrade’s potential effects on their respective departments. Upgrading in a military setting presents challenges because of the unpredictability of the outcomes. In the real world, upgrading certain types can cause incompatibilities, lost network connectivity, and printing problems.
It creates a democratic interactional arena in which many people may speak their thoughts to large audiences previously restricted to journalists. Cyber events have increased in price, distracting, and, in most instances, political during the last decade, with a new corpus of theoretically based study growing in parallel (Trent, 2018). Many societies throughout the world rely on digital technologies to run continuously in order to provide essential services. This reliance has raised new security issues. In the military sphere, however, these subtleties can have potentially disastrous effects on mission-critical computers. As a result, IT leaders must collaborate with the central command to ensure that those in charge have a firm grasp of the computers and software used for mission-critical tasks. Leaders in the affected major commands must allow access to IT staff so that these systems can be worked on and tested. Remember that this doesn’t apply to computers at home or in offices; it also encompasses the computers used in military planes, RC planes, electronic health records, intelligence gathering systems, weapons systems, and nuclear weapons. Access to these systems on demand could call for new procedures or higher authorization levels. Leaders in these areas rely on IT to determine when to implement these upgrades. Still, I argue that stakeholders are aware of the flaws in the aging operating systems and should advocate more forcefully for better software.
Analysis
The fundamental architecture for running software is already in place, so work needs to be focused on updating this method. There are procedures to evaluate new software releases. Still, they don’t get started until after fixing any remaining bugs, and IT spends more time and money patching outdated software. It will be necessary to reallocate time and money to bring about this shift. Human resource management necessitates a specialized team embedded within the most critical operational commands (Meyer, 2020). It would be more beneficial if the major commands had IT within their domains, rather than having IT professionals work in the communications department and effectuate changes remotely in the background; this would allow these professionals to have a much clearer understanding of the software, making them better equipped to recommend updates when they become available. Since teams can’t just switch to the newest version of a piece of software as soon as it comes out, they’ll have to keep working on supporting and updating older systems until they can switch to the newest software.
The field would need more people if the team responsible for maintaining older software and the team accountable for beta testing and installation were to grow. It would also be necessary to have centralized teams whose sole focus is maintaining and improving the system with regular updates. These groups’ responsibility would be to analyze suggestions from the field and schedule updates accordingly. Some more integrated systems, like email or operating systems, may be updated before they’re ready for use by other major commands. In addition, a group would be established to collaborate directly with software developers so Air Force systems can begin testing with pre-release software versions. This would require consultation with the civilian sector due to the confidential nature of software development. Since the military is a significant customer base for many software developers, it’s not impossible that they could offer assistance. Similar new computer systems would need to be developed to test how these software revisions might influence preexisting technology.
There would undoubtedly be a need for a financial plan to cover the cost of these improvements. The budget must reflect that more people and computers are needed to test the software. Fortunately, extra space and the associated cost wouldn’t be a significant consideration, as military IT specialists can perform many computer-related tasks virtually (Meyer, 2020). There would also be a need to reallocate funds for staff development and mission-critical computer replacements. To make this case, you’ll need to factor in the costs of maintaining an outdated system and indirect costs like lost productivity. Since computer operating systems are typically upgraded regularly, keeping some running an outdated version is also a waste of time and money.
In the end, updating software is a money-saving and efficiency-boosting measure. Commanders are understandably wary of how any update may impact their current operation (Caton, 2019). Commanders must be convinced to beta-test mission-critical equipment, so negotiations with them would be necessary. But I argue that once the updates have improved computer processes that allow tasks to be done more quickly, the commanders will welcome these changes when airmen can do their job more seamlessly with computers not getting sucked. For example, many of us have had to deal with software that required multiple logins, had patches that slowed down our computers instead of speeding them up, was incompatible with other programs, or gave us the dreaded “blue screen of death,” where specialists erased everything on the computer. The morale of the Air Force rises when they can complete their work more quickly and with fewer technical difficulties. Commanders won’t go unnoticed by these enhancements, which will win them over.
Implementation
To effect these modifications, new regulations are required. For instance, policies that cover responsible parties dealing with civilian software companies and the integration of IT into various significant commands. To roll out software testing, other procedures must address the availability of mission-critical equipment to IT. Metrics to assess the success of these rollouts must be accounted for in policymaking. The problem of software optimization is not exclusive to the Air Force or the Department of Defense; thus, even if these recommendations are implemented only for my organization, personnel in the IT field can apply the lessons learned to sister forces with similar problems. If the Air Force can implement and improve upon a plan, that plan can be used as a model by other federal agencies. The Air Force is currently lacking in this area of innovation. In my opinion, putting off updating to the most recent version of software leaves you more vulnerable to hacking and reduces productivity because of an out-of-date system (Caton, 2019).
After all of the preceding steps: conceptualization, programming, evaluation, planning, and budgeting, are complete, the next step is implementation. The IT commander would have the necessary technical expertise and authority to implement these changes. Also essential is support from other commanders, especially those in crucial positions. A project manager overseeing everything is crucial at the outset of any endeavor. The project manager is responsible for creating the deliverables. The project manager’s role also includes tracking, monitoring, and control to guarantee the final deliverable are up to par with the requirements. The project manager must also facilitate efficient teamwork, keep tabs on employee progress, and meet all deadlines. Locating key personnel in IT and the military’s top commands is another crucial step (Ilyashevich & Banis, 2019). These individuals will be responsible for reaching a consensus on the strategic actions necessary to implement the outlined changes.
After stakeholders have reached an agreement on the deliverables through negotiation, policies will need to be updated accordingly. The project manager’s final task would be to create a budget. After the budget has been completed and accepted, qualified individuals can create a detailed schedule for the project. While reminding the project manager that adjustments to the original project are likely, my role as project supervisor has me requesting updates and examining performance and quality control. The alterations may include cost, timeliness, or the need to improve the work. Authenticated personnel could make alterations at the whim of the stakeholders. Examining performance or intermediate results, a project manager may propose making adjustments.
In any situation, there must be a systematic approach to change, including regular assessments of its results. Distinct from the final stage of most projects, which is usually completion. Constant updates and enhancements to projects and programs are the problems here. The first round of feedback from everyone involved in the project ensures everyone is happy with where things are. Lessons learned include setting realistic expectations and keeping on top of policy updates. Likewise, it’s essential to constantly assess your team’s progress and reallocate personnel to where they’ll be most helpful. Making sure everyone involved is happy with the result is crucial.
References
Caton, J. L. (2019). Implications of service cyberspace component commands for Army cyberspace operations.
Hsu, J. (2018, June 4). Why the military can’t quit windows XP. Slate Magazine. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/why-the-military-cant-quit-windows-xp.html
Ilyashevich, M. V., & Banis, P. A. (2019, November). Application of Modern Technologies in Cyberspace and the International States Responsibility. In The International Scientific and Practical Forum “Industry. Science. Competence. Integration” (pp. 450-456). Springer, Cham.
Meyer, P. (2020). Norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. In The ethics of cybersecurity (pp. 347-360). Springer, Cham.
Trent, S. (2018). Cultivating technology innovation for cyberspace operations. The Cyber Defense Review, 3(3), 115-134.
write