A process for DoDAF based systems architecting

Architecture frameworks continue to evolve. The Unified Profile for the Department of Defense (DoD) Architecture Framework (DoDAF) and the UK's Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF) (UPDM) provides a standard means of representing DoDAF, MODAF, and NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) conformant architectures using the Unified Modeling Language (UML), and Systems Modeling Language (SysML). Since the UPDM V2.0 publication, further information has emerged such as the June 2011 NATO study entitled: “Development of The AMN (Afghanistan Mission Network) Architecture In 2010 – Lessons Learned,” by Torsten Graeber of the NATO C3 Agency. This report identified the following in section 4.1‐ARCHITECTURE FRAMEWORKS, sub‐section 4.1.2 Observations (Need for a Unified Architecture Framework) and stated that:• differences in DoDAF, MODAF, and NAF make it difficult to match the metamodel one to one.• some of the concepts in the frameworks have the same name but different definitions, i.e. different semantics.• difficult to cross‐walk the concepts between the different frameworks leads to miscommunication between architects using different frameworks.Based on the above, the NATO Architecture Capability Team (Architecture CaT) meeting on Sept. 10‐11, 2012 committed to move to a single world‐wide Architecture Framework. Consequently, a new architecture framework profile supporting a unified framework is needed. It is intended that this framework bring the different architecture frameworks together. The UPDM V3.0 domain metamodel shall be derived from MODEM (the MODAF metamodel) and the DoDAF 2.0 metamodel (DM2), both of which are based upon the International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification Foundation [IDEAS]. This paper will document the rationale behind the UPDM 3.0 as well as its new name of the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF).

The method of architecture is an effective way to analyze the requirements of weapons and equipment. DODAF (U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework) is a standard specification issued by the U.S. Department of Defense in 2004 to guide the generation of military equipment requirements. DODAF has been widely recognized as the standard of weapon equipment requirement description. This paper introduces the concepts of DODAF, analyze DoDAF function, structure and problems of DoDAF, and discusses the basic process of weapon loading requirement analysis based on DODAF method, providing a new scientific method for the analysis and research of weapons and equipment requirements.

The Department of Defense (DoD) manages capabilities through the Joint Interoperability and Capability Development System (JCIDS) process. As part of this process, sponsors develop a series of DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) products to assist analysts understand the proposed capability and how it fits into the broader network of DoD legacy systems and systems under development. However, the Joint Staff, responsible for executing the JCIDS process, often analyzes these architectures in isolation without considering the broader network of systems. DoD leadership, the Government Accountability Organization, and others have noted the lack of the DoD's ability to manage the broader portfolio of capabilities in various reports and papers. Several efforts have proposed merging DoDAF architecture into a larger meta-architecture based on individual system architectures. This paper specifically targets the Systems View 3 (SV-3), System-to-system matrix, as an opportunity to merge multiple DoDAF architecture views into a network of system and understand the potential benefits associated with analyzing a broader perspective. The goal of merging multiple SV-3s is to better understand the interoperability of a system within the network of DoD systems as network metrics may provide insights into the relative interoperability of a DoD system. Currently, the DoD's definition of interoperability focuses on the system or capability's ability to enter and operate within the DoD Information Network (DoDIN); however, this view limits the definition of interoperability as it focuses solely on information flows and not resource flows or physical connections that should be present in a SV-3. The paper demonstrates the importance of including all forms of connections between systems in a network by comparing network metrics associated with the different types of connections. Without a complete set of DoDAF architectures for each system within the DoD and based on the potential classification of these products, the paper collates data that should be included in an SV-3 from open source, unclassified references to build the overall network of DoD systems. From these sources, a network of over 300 systems with almost 1000 connections emerges based on the documented information, resource, and physical connections between these legacy and planned DoD systems. With this network, the paper explores the quantification of individual system's interoperability through the application of nodal and network metrics from social network analysis (SNA). A SNA perspective on a network of systems provides additional insights beyond traditional network analysis because of the emphasis on the importance of nodes, systems, in the network as well as the relationship, connections, between the nodes. Finally, the paper proposes future work to explore the quantification of additional attributes of systems as well as a method for further validating the findings.

With the deterioration of battlefield environment, joint combat will become an important mode of operation in the future. In this paper, the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) is studied, the architecture framework design ideas and specific architecture design steps of DoDAF are given, the architecture views involved are described. This paper presents a DoDAF-based modeling method for air-sea joint combat system architecture, which can better describe the operational tasks, information relations among constituent nodes and sub-systems of the complex integrated air-sea joint operation system. This method is often used in the early development stage of complex systems, and enhances consistency understanding between application personnel and system designers and developers.

The United States Air Force (USAF) is implementing an integrated net-centric system of systems for airborne operations in support of the global war on terror (GWOT). The GWOT demands that a successful architecture framework transforms and delivers net-centric assets to the war-fighter in a timely manner. A critical component of this implementation is the transformation of legacy strategic air platforms into net-centric air power assets operating within a system of systems. The System Architectural (SA) framework, and the Department of Defense Architectural Framework (DoDAF) are ways of managing complexity and organizing information within a system of systems network. This paper will explore and compare these architectural frameworks; show examples used in a system of systems network; and illustrate how the DoDAF can successfully define the transformation of a legacy weapon system into a net-centric asset.

This paper describes a research effort to develop the requirements for a micro-UAV defense system using the Department of Defense Architectural Framework (DoDAF). The goal is to define the system requirements for a security system against a single intruder UAV. The analysis begins with the definition of a potential scenario that is based on an analysis of relevant performance characteristics of commercially available micro UAS. The statement of need finalizes the first step of the requirements process. Based on this the Stakeholder and the system requirements are developed using the DoDAF.

This chapter focuses on developing system functions from previously defined system capabilities and activities, and how these functions lead to requirements for the system specification. Using the example of a satellite ground system, we demonstrate how the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) system view (SV) aids in defining the requirements necessary for functions such as command and telemetry operations. We also highlight the similarities between the SV and SysML Activity views, showing how these can be useful in transitioning from DoDAF to SysML as part of the overall program/project progression from architecture to system design.

DOD architecture framework (DODAF) can describe not only operation activities in military field, but also composition of system in non-military field. By studying DODAF, description and analysis methods of it are abstracted in this paper, and information system architecture framework is proposed from view of non-military. In this framework, fourteen products that describe information system architecture are defined, and eight products in them are described emphatically through the Unified Modeling Language. Finally, association and map relationships among products are analyzed and suggestions about building sequence of products are proposed.

One of the ways to capture enterprise knowledge is Enterprise Architecture (EA). EA allows indentifying the majority of software "to-be" requirements for information systems (IS) engineering. However, the transition between enterprise architecture model and IT resource design still lacks a clear approach and tools for implementing it in practice. The paper presents an approach for the enterprise knowledge based software requirements elicitation. The suggested approach is based on the Unified profile for Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF) and Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF), System Modeling Language (SysML) requirements model, and a Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR) standard as a formal background for elicited software requirements. A real world example is presented to validate the suitability of the approach.http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.itc.40.3.626

Organizational lifecycle (OLC) management encompasses the creation, modification, and exchange of information throughout all phases of production. Although this effort has historically relied on project management (PM), the incorporation of technical personnel promises to increase the accuracy and reliability of the required tasks and deliverables. As organizations rapidly scale their digital footprint, an opportunity to enhance cross-disciplinary communication and collaboration is presented. Leveraging an enterprise architecture (EA) is a relatively new technique that provides a framework across domains including, but not limited to, operations, personnel, resources, and security. In respect to personnel, capturing all relevant information in an accessible repository assists PM with resource allocation based on factors such as the competencies, roles, and responsibilities of individual team members. This paper will evaluate implementation of the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) for a small company as a real-world case study assessing the potential benefits. The UAF builds on the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) with the intent to include additional domains and viewpoints. In parallel with current trends, the UAF is amenable to model-based systems engineering (MBSE) which supports traceability and re-usability throughout the solution architecture lifecycle phases. Transferring document-based procedures into a virtual environment is not expected to demonstrate significant value. However, the traceability between entities enabled by MBSE will provide insights regarding the human aspect of the OLC so that operational decisions consider the entire organization and downstream effects. Leveraging the UAF to define the internal structure and processes of an organization while acknowledging personnel, the individual needs of employees, and their distinct capabilities demonstrates a progressive approach to human resource management (HRM) by integrating these facets into the holistic architecture.

Properly aligned business and Information Technology (IT) can provide competitive edge to an organization. In order to align business with IT, IT should fully support business operations. Enterprise Architecture (EA) can be used to support business and IT alignment. To help design such systems using EA, Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAF) may be used. There are frameworks to support EA, such as Zachman Framework, the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF), and The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF). They help to design, evaluate, and build the right architecture and reduce the costs of planning, designing, and implementing [8]. ArchiMate is an open and independent architecture modeling language that complements EAF for modeling and visualizing EA. Regardless of chosen EAF, conversion processes from requirements to EA using ArchiMate are not well-defined to the best of our knowledge. Goal-oriented approach is a requirement analysis technique that supports early requirements analysis, which can be used to define a process for bridging EA requirements to ArchiMate. Therefore,we propose guidelines using goal-oriented approach and then apply them to the interoperability of prescriptions in a healthcare system.KeywordsBusiness ProcessBusiness ServiceEnterprise ArchitectureBusiness ObjectBusiness FunctionThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

At present, the configuration of combat system-of-systems (SoS) equipment is highly complex, and the dynamic changes in the states of individual equipment during operations are difficult to predict. Traditional SoS effectiveness evaluation methods are not capable to keep up with these challenges. This study focuses on the OODA (Observation, Orientation, Decision, and Action) operational process, covering different stages such as reconnaissance, intelligence, planning and attacking. First, based on the DoDAF (Department of Defense Architecture Framework), a SoS architecture model is constructed to qualitatively describe the SoS's operational process from multiple perspectives. Second, the ADC (Availability-Dependability-Capability) model is used to calculate the effectiveness of individual equipment. Third, in combination with the Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique (GERT), quantitative calculations are performed to analyze the SoS 's effectiveness. Finally, the contribution of equipment to SoS effectiveness is calculated, as well as the impact of different network architecture in the kill chain on the SoS 's effectiveness, providing guidance for SoS optimization.

In the intelligent war, building a brain that can understand, think and cooperate with human is one of the development directions of the future command information system. The design concept of command information system architecture for human-computer fusion is proposed, which is the transfer of human intelligence to computer intelligence. The system composition of the core elements such as the game confrontation deduction environment is designed innovatively. The operational mechanisms before and during the war are elaborated. The command information system architecture reference model of human-computer fusion is formed. Finally, the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) is used to verify the top-level guidance of architecture design to the construction of human-computer fusion system through the typical application case of future operation.

Modeling Resilience in System of Systems Architecture

Chapter 3 - Meeting Industry Standards