Data Aggregation Reference Architecture (DARA) Maturity Self-Assessment The maturity model is expressed in terms of seven (8) functional areas for data correlation: Business, Data, Structural Metadata, Discovery, Access Control, Change Data Management, Transport/Infrastructure, and Scalability with characteristics established for each level of interoperability (ad hoc, repeatable, enhanced, managed, and optimized) for each interoperability requirement. For each functional area, determine the maturity level of your mission architecture by moving across each row and matching your current state. During this step you should also note the characteristics of each requirement where the requirement/element maturity is less than your desired level (Ex., your interoperability level is at 'repeatable'; you need to be at 'managed'). Note that mission-specific architectures will have different goals for each element maturity level based on the operational needs or organizational policy of the mission architecture. Information Sharing Environment ISE _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8142d9 Office of the Director of National Intelligence Performer Kshemendra Paul Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment Performer System Owners Design & Implementation System owners throughout government would benefit from using DARA to design and implement system changes to enable greater interoperability. The DARA includes a Maturity Matrix (Appendix B), which assesses an organization’s system maturity from Ad Hoc to Optimized across seven functional areas. DARA Version 1.0 has an initial Maturity Level target of Level 3. The target maturity level that will be achieved, with complete DARA implementation, is Level 5. The entire Data Aggregation Maturity Matrix is published now so that organizations may plan farther in advance for system lifecycle enhancements, and for building flexible and extensible systems, that enable progression to higher maturity levels. As organizations invest in system enhancements, cost effectiveness and return on investment may be measured in terms of system performance, mission capability, and greater national security. PerformerBeneficiary Government Organizations DARA Implementation As organizations continue these changes, leading to DARA implementation in larger numbers of organizations, greater interoperability occurs across the whole of government. As organizations and the community progress through maturity levels described in the DARA maturity matrix, they adopt community standards that lead to still greater interoperability. Over time, a higher degree of interoperability is achieved and organizations may quickly share information about correlated data and raw data with substantially less time required for system planning, development, and implementation than what would occur on a system by system basis once participating organizations have attained Level 5. The result is interoperability to share information at mission speed. Earlier maturity levels provide less external interoperability, but provide more consistent expectations around a known framework and shared lexicon for interoperability. PerformerBeneficiary To provide a data aggregation reference architecture and maturity assessment model. _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83amission Interoperability The need for greater interoperability is clear. National Interests To protect national interests, intelligence and law enforcement agencies must be able to collect, accurately aggregate, and share real-time analytical information about people, places, and events in a manner that also protects privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. Analytical Information National Security The President’s National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding (NSISS) recognizes this as a priority national security issue, and speaks directly to this challenge. Data Aggregation The Data Aggregation Reference Architecture (DARA) is in direct response to NSISS Priority Objective 10, "Develop a reference architecture to support a consistent approach to data discovery and entity resolution and data correlation across disparate datasets," The DARA provides a reference architecture that can enable rapid information sharing, particularly for correlated data, but also for raw data, by providing a framework for interoperability between systems, applications and organizations. Information Sharing Business _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8goal1 1 We define Business Domain maturity according to the completeness of business process documentation, the ability to model business processes, use of open standards to document business processes, and the understanding and documentation of relationships between organizational, enterprise, community, and whole of government business processes. BUSINESS DOMAIN DEFINED BY THEMES: * Documentation – to what extent are business processes defined and documented? * Modeling – to what extent does business process documentation enable modeling, particularly of information sharing and interoperability, allowing estimates on the impact of gaining or losing data sources? * Relationships – how well understood are business process relationships within an organization, between an organization and its larger enterprise, with the community, and with the rest of government? * Standards – did the organization document business processes using standards, and are the standards proprietary or open? * This row comingles system maturity and organizational maturity as, in this case, system maturity will depend on organizational maturity, for example, system requirements are derived from, among other things, organization business processes following a reference model to document business functions as described in the Federal Enterprise Architecture. * Documentation is the major factor for this row, particularly the extent to which it is defined and represents relationships and dependencies outside of the organization. * Configuration management is a critical component to maintaining business process documentation, and should also be considered when assessing maturity. CURRENT CAPABILITIES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8obj1-1 1.1 Please rank the system on the … maturity scale with consideration to organizational maturity. If your system does not cleanly fall into any one category, please select portions of the above to briefly describe the state of your organization’s business process documentation and the extent to which system requirements are derived from them. In either case, please provide detail to support your assessment. 1.1.1 Capability Maturity 5-Level Scale _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI1-1-1 Level 1 - Ad Hoc: Little or no business process definition, including documentation or modeling with no relationships between system requirements and organizational business functions Level 2 - Repeatable: Business processes, including information flow, are defined with documentation within the organization, enabling simple modeling, with consistent configuration management principles applied, and providing a foundation for system requirements Level 3 - Enhanced: Business processes, including information flow, are defined with documentation that illustrates relationships to and dependencies on enterprise processes; formalized business process definitions can be understood by external partners leading to understanding of the impact of system requirements changes on the organization, or vice versa Level 4 - Managed: Business processes, including information flow, are defined using open standards (e.g., UML) that enable inter-agency and community interoperability, and are understood by external partners with the ability to model the mission impact, throughout the community, from changes to system requirements Level 5 - Optimized: Business processes, including information flow, are defined using open standards (e.g., UML) that enable interoperability across the whole of government with documented understanding of information providers, consumers, and associated relationships and dependencies with documented understanding of system requirements as they affect information providers, consumers, and associated relationships and dependencies To be reported LESSONS LEARNED _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8obj1-2 1.2 Please describe, at a high level, some challenges faced in developing your system to this stage of maturity in this functional area 1.2.1 Lessons Learned _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI1-2-1 Describe lessons learned FUTURE INITIATIVES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj1-3 1.3 If there are any current or planned system developments or organizational documentation efforts that would lead to the system achieving higher maturity levels, please describe. Include timelines or milestones as available. 1.3.1 Initiatives _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI1-3-1 Describe future initiatives Data _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8goal2 2 We define Data functionality by the level of correlation, complexity of the resulting records, richness of annotations, and how automated the data management. We define correlation as calculated, entity-based consolidation of records. DATA DEFINED BY THEMES: * Correlation – How correlated is the data? * Trust – What does the user know about the data’s source? * Granularity – How fine-grained are the processing notes? * Automation – How much manual tagging is required for correlation to occur? * Correlation is the major factor for this row. * This row does not apply to Raw data stores. * As with change management, proper sourcing details should be implemented early in maturation. CURRENT CAPABILITIES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj2-1 2.1 Please rank the system on the above maturity scale. If your system does not cleanly fall into any one category, please select portions of the above to briefly describe the state of your system's data. In either case, please provide detail to support your assessment. 2.1.1 Capability Maturity 5-Level Scale _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI2-1-1 Level 1 - Ad Hoc: Raw data with little or no sourcing Level 2 - Repeatable: Entity records with system-level data tags generated with some manual intervention Level 3 - Enhanced: Enriched records with record/key-level data tags generated with some manual intervention Level 4 - Managed: Partially correlated entity maps with data tags generated with little manual intervention Level 5 - Optimized: Fully correlated maps with granular data tags generated automatically with only manual approval To be reported LESSONS LEARNED _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj2-2 2.2 Please describe, at a high level, some challenges faced in developing your system to this stage of maturity in this functional area. 2.2.1 Lessons Learned _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI2-2-1 Describe lessons learned FUTURE INITIATIVES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj2-3 2.3 If there are any current or planned development efforts on the system towards higher maturity levels, please describe. Include timelines or milestones as available. 2.3.1 Initiatives _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI2-3-1 Describe future initiatives Structural Metadata _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8goal3 3 Structural Metadata considers the flexibility of data’s structure. In assessing this functional area, we consider the interoperability of the data formatting standards used and the level of automation with which those standards are implemented and enforced. While metadata functionality is leveraged by many other functional areas (access controls, for instance), the goal of development in the Structural Metadata area is to provide the data scaffolding necessary to support the other functional areas that may leverage it. In making this assessment, please avoid considering factors that depend on the richness of the metadata, but are apart from the structural components of the metadata. STRUCTURAL METADATA DEFINED BY THEMES: * Interoperability – How standardized is the structural format? * Automation – How much manual work is required to format the data? * Granularity – At what level can data be “tagged”? * Interoperability is the key factor. * Granularity should be high starting early in the maturation process. * Automation should mostly follow hand-in-hand with interoperability. Automation may speed up ahead as maturity progresses. CURRENT CAPABILITIES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj3-1 3.1 Please rank the system on the above maturity scale. If your system does not cleanly fall into any one category, please select portions of the above to briefly describe the state of your system's data. In either case, please provide detail to support your assessment. 3.1.1 Capability Maturity 5-Level Scale _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI3-1-1 Level 1 - Ad Hoc: Basic data structures with inconsistent formatting Level 2 - Repeatable: Consistent XML-based format with some automated structuring and manual record-level tagging Level 3 - Enhanced: Consistent agency-adopted format with mostly automated structuring and manual record-level tagging Level 4 - Managed: Semi-automatically tagged at the attribute-level(e.g., automatic tagging with manual approval) with community-adopted metadata format Level 5 - Optimized: Data tagged at the attribute-level with open metadata standards To be reported LESSONS LEARNED _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj3-2 3.2 Please describe, at a high level, some challenges faced in developing your system to this stage of maturity in this functional area. 3.2.1 Lessons Learned _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI3-2-1 Describe lessons learned FUTURE INITIATIVES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj3-3 3.3 If there are any current or planned development efforts on the system towards higher maturity levels, please describe. Include timelines or milestones as available. 3.3.1 Initiatives _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI3-3-1 Describe future initiatives Discovery _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8goal4 4 Discovery functionality concerns the search capabilities of a system, including the granularity of search parameters and search results, the breadth of data sources a system is able to search, and any automated features for predictive/prescriptive search available for discovery in the system. DISCOVERY DEFINED BY THEMES: * GranularityP – How fine-grained are search parameters? * GranularityR – How fine-grained are search results? * Interoperability – How wide is the net cast by a search? * Automation – How much predictive guidance in search does the system provide? * Granularity in results will likely stay lower than granularity in parameters; neither will start low, and results won’t end high, due to minimal requirements of search functionality and a need for a broad net on search results. * Granularity for discovery purposes is likely comprehensive: Any system that can handle low granularity for either parameters or results can likely handle all higher levels for parameters or results, respectively. * Types and levels of predictive guidance will vary from mission need to mission need; wording of the final table should avoid being overly specific. Automation does not need to be high for Discovery. * Because data aggregation is a priority, interoperability should be prioritized over granularity. CURRENT CAPABILITIES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj4-1 4.1 Please rank the system on the above maturity scale. If your system does not cleanly fall into any one category, please select portions of the above to briefly describe the state of your system's data. In either case, please provide detail to support your assessment. 4.1.1 Capability Maturity 5-Level Scale _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI4-1-1 Level 1 - Ad Hoc: Basic dataset-wide search with ranked results Level 2 - Repeatable: Basic system-wide search with ranked results Level 3 - Enhanced: Basic search with ranked results, configurable to federate from any system using a specific agency-adopted service contract Level 4 - Managed: Advanced search with some predictive guidance and Entity Map results, configurable to federate from any system using a community-adopted service contract Level 5 - Optimized: Advanced search with predictive and prescriptive guidance and attribute-highlighted Entity Map results, configurable to federate from systems using an open standard To be reported LESSONS LEARNED _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj4-2 4.2 Please describe, at a high level, some challenges faced in developing your system to this stage of maturity in this functional area. 4.2.1 Lessons Learned _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI4-2-1 Describe lessons learned FUTURE INITIATIVES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj4-3 4.3 If there are any current or planned development efforts on the system towards higher maturity levels, please describe. Include timelines or milestones as available. 4.3.1 Initiatives _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI4-3-1 Describe future intiatives Access Control _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8goal5 5 Access control functionality concerns all matters of security policy, which should also reflect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties concerns, within a system. This functional area concerns the capability of a system to granularly and interoperable expose subsets of data depending on data’s access rules, data tags and users’ attributes. In the table’s wording, both data tags (or caveats) and user attributes qualify as "access rules"; in assessing the maturity of the system, only the granularity and flexibility with which access rules can be assigned to data should be considered until the Optimized column. To qualify as Optimized, a system should be equally flexible with the degree to which access categories can be assigned to individuals. ACCESS CONTROL DEFINED BY THEMES: * Granularity – How fine-grain are access controls? * InteroperabilityD – How standardized are the access control caveats on the data? * InteroperabilityP – How standardized are the access control credentials on the person? * Automation – How much manual intervention is necessary to associate security levels? Are they automatically inherited and assumed (erring on the side of over restriction) when possible? CURRENT CAPABILITIES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj5-1 5.1 Please rank the system on the above maturity scale. If your system does not cleanly fall into any one category, please select portions of the above to briefly describe the state of your system's data. In either case, please provide detail to support your assessment. 5.1.1 Capability Maturity 5-Level Scale _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI5-1-1 Level 1 - Ad Hoc: None/Physical access controls only, or system-wide (“system high”) access control with access provisioned in advance of need. Level 2 - Repeatable: Collection level (communities, databases, or other system-defined groups of data) access control based on system-specific access categories (Roles, Groups, etc) with access provisioned in advance of need. Level 3 - Enhanced: Record/Map-level access based on agency-wide access categories with access being provisioned in advanced of need. Level 4 - Managed: Record/Map-level (or better) attribute-based access control based on system-specific attributes with access being provisioned in advance of need. Level 5 - Optimized: Record/Map-level (or better) attribute-based access based on community-wide attributes with access being provisioned on demand at the time of need. To be reported LESSONS LEARNED _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj5-2 5.2 Please describe, at a high level, some challenges faced in developing your system to this stage of maturity in this functional area. 5.2.1 Lessons Learned _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI5-2-1 Describe lessons learned FUTURE INITIATIVES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj5-3 5.3 If there are any current or planned development efforts on the system towards higher maturity levels, please describe. Include timelines or milestones as available. 5.3.1 Initiatives _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI5-3-1 Describe future initiatives Privacy, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8goal6 6 Privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties are critical to ensuring the long-term success of data aggregation and correlation system in a free and open society. These controls are even more important as Departments and Agencies bring together data from across multiple missions. ACCESS CONTROL DEFINED BY THEMES: * Legal Compliance – Do the System of Records Notice or Privacy Impact Assessment permit the sharing, access, use, and retention of the data? * Technical Controls – How are the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties protections and controls documented and enforced? * Transparency – How transparent is the program in its public-facing documentation? * Automation – Are refresh and redress automated? * Accountability – Are audit logs reviewed for policy compliance? CURRENT CAPABILITIES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj6-1 6.1 Please rank the system on the above maturity scale. If your system does not cleanly fall into any one category, please select portions of the above to briefly describe the state of your system's data. In either case, please provide detail to support your assessment. 6.1.1 Capability Maturity 5-Level Scale _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI6-1-1 Level 1 - Ad Hoc: No privacy, civil rights or civil liberties tags or policies incorporated into sharing or documented in an MOA or MOU. System of Records Notice or Privacy Impact Assessment do not address sharing. No or very limited compliance with NIST Special Publication 800-53 Appendix J Privacy Controls. Level 2 - Repeatable: System of Records Notice or Privacy Impact Assessment address sharing in terms of minimal compliance. MOAs or MOUs document access, use, and retention policies. Limited compliance with NIST Special Publication 800-53 Appendix J Privacy Controls. Level 3 - Enhanced: MOAs and MOUs provide detailed privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties protections. Technical controls provide basic privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. Audit logs are collected but not analyzed. Moderate compliance with NIST Special Publication 800-53 Appendix J Privacy Controls. Level 4 - Managed: Privacy Impact Assessment provides robust transparency into activities. Granular access controls and data tags enforce privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties policies. Audit logs are collected and analyzed for security concerns. Full compliance of - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Appendix J Privacy Controls. Level 5 - Optimized: Multi-front transparency initiative. Audit logs are collected and analyzed for policy compliance. Independent periodic program reviews to determine privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties compliance. To be reported LESSONS LEARNED _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj6-2 6.2 Please describe, at a high level, some challenges faced in developing your system to this stage of maturity in this functional area. 6.2.1 Lessons Learned _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI6-2-1 Describe lessons learned FUTURE INITIATIVES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj6-3 6.3 If there are any current or planned development efforts on the system towards higher maturity levels, please describe. Include timelines or milestones as available. 6.3.1 Initiatives _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI6-3-1 Describe future initiatives Change Data Management _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8goal7 7 Change Data Management concerns the ability of a system to receive and/or propagate data updates and deletions within the system of record from which they originate. CHANGE DATA MANAGEMENT DEFINED BY THEMES: * Granularity – What data units update independently? * Latency – How long may it take to reflect a change in source data * Trust – What does the user know about the age/source of the data? * Automation – How much manual intervention is required for an update to occur? * Granularity improves speed. The smaller the update piece, the faster the update piece is to process. * Automation improves granularity. Because small-scale updates require combing over many pieces of data to assess changes, the process requires higher levels of automation. * Detailed information on the trustworthiness of data (Trust) is important in the absence of sub-second updates, and reporting on the age/source of data should be easier to implement than fine-grain update capability. Therefore Trust escalation should occur early in the maturation process for Change Data Management. * Low-latency data transference is difficult on a number of levels, and not always necessary. As such, the maturity of a system will not be predicated on latency for levels 1-4. In order to be truly optimized (level 5), however, sub-second latency is important. CURRENT CAPABILITIES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj7-1 7.1 Please rank the system on the above maturity scale. If your system does not cleanly fall into any one category, please select portions of the above to briefly describe the state of your system’s data. In either case, please provide detail to support your assessment. 7.1.1 Capability Maturity 5-Level Scale _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI7-1-1 Level 1 - Ad Hoc: Manual replacement of all system data with no timestamps Level 2 - Repeatable: Automated replacement of system data with simple timestamps Level 3 - Enhanced: Automated replacement of changed record sets with history Level 4 - Managed: Automated, event-driven replacement of changed records with history Level 5 - Optimized: Automated, event-driven, sub second replacement of changed attributes with history To be reported LESSONS LEARNED _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj7-2 7.2 Please describe, at a high level, some challenges faced in developing your system to this stage of maturity in this functional area. 7.2.1 Lessons Learned _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI7-2-1 Describe lessons learned FUTURE INITIATIVES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj7-3 7.3 If there are any current or planned development efforts on the system towards higher maturity levels, please describe. Include timelines or milestones as available. 7.3.1 Initiatives _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI7-3-1 Describe future initiatives Transport/Infrastructure _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8goal8 8 Transport/infrastructure concerns the interoperability and automation of a system’s transport mechanisms. To a point, it also includes the physical connectivity of a system. TRANSPORT/INFRASTRUCTURE DEFINED BY THEMES: * Interoperability – Does the system present data in a standardized way? * Automation – Are pushes and pulls supported? * Automation should accelerate ahead of interoperability as maturity progresses. CURRENT CAPABILITIES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj8-1 8.1 Please rank the system on the above maturity scale. If your system does not cleanly fall into any one category, please select portions of the above to briefly describe the state of your system's data. In either case, please provide detail to support your assessment. 8.1.1 Capability Maturity _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI8-1-1 Level 1 - Ad Hoc: Physical/email transport Level 2 - Repeatable: System-specific service with mostly automated pushes and pulls Level 3 - Enhanced: Agency-wide service with entirely automated pushes and pulls Level 4 - Managed: Configurable to operate with any system using a community-adopted proprietary format with entirely automated pushes and pulls Level 5 - Optimized: Configurable to operate with any system using an open standard with entirely automated pushes and pulls To be reported LESSONS LEARNED _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj8-2 8.2 Please describe, at a high level, some challenges faced in developing your system to this stage of maturity in this functional area. 8.2.1 Lessons Learned _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI8-2-1 Describe lessons learned FUTURE INITIATIVES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj8-3 8.3 If there are any current or planned development efforts on the system towards higher maturity levels, please describe. Include timelines or milestones as available. 8.3.1 Initiatives _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI8-3-1 Describe future initiatives Scalability _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83ae8goal9 9 Scalability concerns the readiness of a system to handle increased data or user volume. SCALABILITY DEFINED BY THEMES: * This row may require a new theme addressing technological sophistication of data stores. * Automation – How robust is the automation of a system In the face of increased data and use? CURRENT CAPABILITIES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj9-1 9.1 Please rank the system on the above maturity scale. If your system does not cleanly fall into any one category, please select portions of the above to briefly describe the state of your system's data. In either case, please provide detail to support your assessment. 9.1.1 Capability Maturity _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI9-1-1 Level 1 - Ad Hoc: Scalability The system’s (largely manual) processes bottleneck even under normal volume Level 2 - Repeatable: The system has some manual processes, and has limited support for additional volume of data, data sources, or users Level 3 - Enhanced: The system is reasonably automated, but spikes in volumes and usage require extra monitoring; could add additional data sources if volume is mitigated Level 4 - Managed: The system is entirely automated, but there is reason to doubt the processes in place could handle a large spike in data/usage, or many new sources Level 5 - Optimized: Fully automated support for any conceivable data/usage volume and additional sources To be reported LESSONS LEARNED _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj9-2 9.2 Please describe, at a high level, some challenges faced in developing your system to this stage of maturity in this functional area. 9.2.1 _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI9-2-1 Describe lessons learned FUTURE INITIATIVES _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aeobj9-3 9.3 If there are any current or planned development efforts on the system towards higher maturity levels, please describe. Include timelines or milestones as available. 9.3.1 Initiatives _ad591cc6-a26f-11e4-af34-8c83aPI9-3-1 Describe future initiatives 2014-12-31 2015-01-22 http://www.ise.gov/sites/default/files/DARA_v1.pdf Owen Ambur Owen.Ambur@verizon.net