1. International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
DoD CIO
DoDAF Strategic Direction of Moving DoDAF towards an Unified Architecture Framework and Standard
Walt Okon
Senior Architect Engineer
Architecture & Interoperability Directorate
Office of the Secretary of Defense
20 August 2013
UNCLASSIFIED

2. Defense is our Mission Architecture; Then and Now
Unalienable Rights: Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness
Defense Architecture Framework 2

3. Interoperability Air Traffic Control
Defense is our Mission Then in 1969 and Now????
Interoperability
Air Traffic
Control

4. Federation – Managing the Seams
Architecture
Business
Warfighting
Intelligence
DCMO Develop
& Approve
JS Develop
& Approve
USD (I) Develop
& Approve
DoD CIO
Integrate
Provide
Components
Align
Information Enterprise Architecture
DoD CIO Develop & Approve
Department
Of The
Army EA
Navy
Air Force
COCOMS
DISA
DLA
NSA
NRO
NGA
DIA
Dept of Air Force
Tech Stds
DISR
Arch Guidance
DODAF
Reference
Models
OMB FEA
Laws, Regs, and Policy
Laws
Regs
Policy
Tools
DITPR
DARS
UNCLASSIFIED 4

7. Existing DoD CIO Governance
Color coding indicates related functions
CIO Executive Board
NLCC EB
CIO EB Secretariat
NLCC SSG
Spectrum Council
ASRG
JIE EXCOM
IASL
MILDEP CIO Council
GIG Waiver Panel
Identity Mgt Council
Interoperability Steering Group
IASRG
SATCOM
C2CIB
C2 DSSC
ESRG
Aligned /chartered under CIO Executive Board
UNCLASSIFIED 7

8. Elements of Quality Architecture

9. Elements of Quality Architecture
Single Architecture Framework
Policy, Direction, Guidance
Exchange
Architecture Tools
Certified Architects
Enabling efficient and effective acquisition of hardware, software and services used by DoD and Partners in mission performance.
Unified Architecture Framework 9

10. DoDAF V2.0 Viewpoints Fit-For Purpose
Renamed
New
New
New
Overarching aspects of architecture context that relate to all models
All Viewpoint
Articulate the data relationships and alignment structures in the architecture content
Data and Information Viewpoint
Articulate applicable Operational, Business, Technical, and Industry policy, standards, guidance, constraints, and forecasts
Standards Viewpoint
Systems Viewpoint
Articulate the legacy systems or independent systems, their composition, interconnectivity, and context providing for, or supporting, DoD functions
Services Viewpoint
Articulate the performers, activities, services, and their exchanges providing for, or supporting, DoD functions
Operational Viewpoint
Articulate operational scenarios, processes, activities & requirements
Capability Viewpoint
Articulate the capability requirement, delivery timing, and deployed capability
Describes the relationships between operational and capability requirements and the various projects being implemented; Details dependencies between capability management and the Defense Acquisition System process.
Project Viewpoint
New
In DODAF 2.0 we have described an expanded number of viewpoints (categories of models and views expressing differing aspects of a common architecture need) to include those shown on the slide. Some of the viewpoints were introduced in earlier versions of DoDAF, others, such as Project and Capability are new to DoDAF 2.0.
An architecture viewpoint can be displayed in a number of formats, such as dashboards, fusion, textual, composite, or graphs, which represents data and the architecture description which represents an architecture. In DoDAF 2.0, the ability is provided to create an architectural description which can be expressed in many of the same formats normally used for briefing, analysis, and decision-making.
The next few slides present a view of data from an architecture developed for the US Air Force at Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee. This is the Air Force Center for R&D, testing and Analysis of aircraft, engines, and other components. Both Charles and I are using these views today with the permission of the Air Force.
Architecture viewpoints are composed of data that has been organized to facilitate understanding. 10 10

11. Why and When: Historical Development of AF’s.
C4ISR
Architecture Framework v1.0
Architecture Framework v2.0
DoDAF
v1.0
MODAF
1996
1997
2003
2005
v1.5
2007
v1.1
NAF
Scope of UPDM 1.0
Approved Sept 2008
Meta-Model (M3)
expressed using
UML Notation
v1.2
2008
v3.1
V2.0
2009
Scope of UPDM 2.0
ETC June 2011
DNDAF
v1.8
UAF
v1.0
2015?
DoDAF
V2.02
2012

12. Data-Centric Paradigm
Prior versions of DoDAF emphasized ‘products’ (i.e., graphical representations or documents).
DoDAF V2.0 is the capture and analysis of data with its relationships:
Emphasizes on utilizing architectural data to support analysis and decision-making.
Greatly expands the types of graphical representations that can be used to support decision-making activities.
Supports innovative and flexible presentation of the architectural data in a meaningful, useful, and understandable manner.
As such, DoDAF 2.0 is a data-centric paradigm, as opposed to a “product-centric” paradigm.
Emphasizes the capture and analysis of data
Support for decision making and “information consumption” 12

13. DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) Purposes
Precise unambiguous definition of DoDAF terms and their inter-relationships
Architecture views (e.g., OV-2) are specified in DM2 terms in addition to their usual narrative text descriptions
Views are rendered from DM2 data
Views can be exchanged as DM2 XML
Defines precision semantics for architecture integration and analysis
Integrated and cross-walked
Analyzed, evaluated, and assessed quantitatively
The overall goals of the DM2 are to, 1) provide a basis for semantic precision in architectural descriptions to support heterogeneous architectural description integration and analysis in support of core process decision making, and 2) provide semantics foris information sharing across the DoD Enterprise Architecture (EA) Community of Interest (COI).

14. Conceptual Level of DM2 Activity Capability Resource Performer
anything can have Measures
Condition
Guidance
is-performable-under
Rule
Activity
Capability
Standard
Agreement
constrains
requires-ability-to-perform
Backup slide has term definitions
has
consumes-and-produces
is-performed-by
is-realized-by
Project
achieves-desired-effect (a state of a resource)
is-the-goal-of
Resource
describes-something
Activity: Work, not specific to a single organization, weapon system or individual that transforms inputs (Resources) into outputs (Resources) or changes their state.
Resource: Data, Information, Performers, Materiel, or Personnel Types that are produced or consumed.
Materiel: Equipment, apparatus or supplies that are of interest, without distinction as to its application for administrative or combat purposes.
Information: The state of a something of interest that is materialized -- in any medium or form -- and communicated or received.
Data: Representation of information in a formalized manner suitable for communication, interpretation, or processing by humans or by automatic means. Examples could be whole models, packages, entities, attributes, classes, domain values, enumeration values, records, tables, rows, columns, and fields.
Performer: Any entity - human, automated, or any aggregation of human and/or automated - that performs an activity and provides a capability.
Organization: A specific real-world assemblage of people and other resources organized for an on-going purpose.
System: A functionally, physically, and/or behaviorally related group of regularly interacting or interdependent elements.
Person Role: A category of persons defined by the role or roles they share that are relevant to an architecture.
Service: A mechanism to enable access to a set of one or more capabilities, where the access is provided using a prescribed interface and is exercised consistent with constraints and policies as specified by the service description. The mechanism is a Performer. The capabilities accessed are Resources -- Information, Data, Materiel, Performers, and Geo-political Extents.
Capability: The ability to achieve a Desired Effect under specified (performance) standards and conditions through combinations of ways and means (activities and resources) to perform a set of activities.
Condition: The state of an environment or situation in which a Performer performs.
Desired Effect: A desired state of a Resource.
Measure: The magnitude of some attribute of an individual.
Location: A point or extent in space that may be referred to physically or logically.
Guidance: An authoritative statement intended to lead or steer the execution of actions.
Rule: A principle or condition that governs behavior; a prescribed guide for conduct or action.
Agreement: A consent among parties regarding the terms and conditions of activities that said parties participate in.
Standard: A formal agreement documenting generally accepted specifications or criteria for products, processes, procedures, policies, systems, and/or personnel.
Project: A temporary endeavor undertaken to create Resources or Desired Effects.
Geopolitical Extent A geospatial extent whose boundaries are by declaration or agreement by political parties.
Information
Not shown but implied by the IDEAS Foundation:
Everything is 4-D and so has temporal parts, i.e., states
Everything has parts
Everything has subtypes
Materiel
Performer
Data
System
Organization
is-at
Location
GeoPolitical
Service
PersonRole
is-part-of

15. Methodology: DoDAF V2.0 to V 2.03 Architecture Development Process
The DoDAF 2.0 method is a high-level approach to the development and use of architectural descriptions.
It begins with determining the use and scope of the architectural description.
It then involves the determination of data requirements necessary to meet the use and scope.
It then involves the capture, collection, organization, etc. of data – this is the “modeling” portion of the method. This is what we traditionally think of when we think of building DoDAF architectures. The creation of models. It is from this concept that we are going to launch into a conversation about the DoDAF 2.0 models.
The full lifecycle of the method is to perform analysis on the data collected through the context of building models and the presentation of views IAW “information consumers” needs.
Determine Use, Scope and Data Requirements of Architecture
Architect (build models), analyze and present (report) 15

16. DoDAF V2.02 Vision Views for Other Stakeholders Structured Knowledge
Base – Common Model
Views for the Architect

17. Conceptual Depiction of DoD IE
The DoD IEA uses this conceptual depiction to describe the IE in providing guidance and direction
Enables an IE that is capable of delivering capabilities to end users through IE services.

18. Architecture Exchange Capability Unified Profile for DoDAF/MODAF (UPDM) OMG International Standard
Adaptive
Artisan Software
ASMG
BAE Systems
DoD
DND
embeddedPlus
Generic
IBM
Thales
Lockheed Martin Co
Mitre
L3 Comms
MOD
NoMagic
Raytheon
Rolls Royce
Sparx Systems
VisumPoint
Selex
UPDM RFC Group
Walt Okon DoD CIO, A&I 18

19. Vendor Tools are Necessary
Architecture Tools
Guidance
DoDAF v2.0
Federated Architecture Strategy
DoD IEA
DoD Tools
DoD Architecture Registry System (DARS)
DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR)
Enhanced Information Support Plan (E-ISP Tool)
Joint C4I Program Assessment Tool - Empowered
GIG Technical Guidance (GTG) Tool
Meta Data Repository (MDR)
Vendor Tools are Necessary

20. Vendor Tools are Necessary
COTS Tools
Vendor Tools are Necessary

22. Overall architecture framework convergence vision
Unified Direction of USG and NATO Achieving Strategic Goals and Capability
Overall architecture framework convergence vision
DoDAF
v1.5
1995
C4ISR F/W v1.0
v2.0
UAF
v2.05
2003
2007
JCIDS & NR-KPP
Applicability beyond C4ISR
Use-based
Integrated Architecture
2009
2010
2012
2014
v2.01
v2.02
v2.03
DoDAF/DNDAF
v2.04
1997
2016
2013
Joint Interoperability
DoDAF v1.0
C4ISR F/W v2.0
Net-centricity and SoA
SvcV views
26 AV/OV/SV/TV views
Linked to I&S policies
CADM 2.0
Fit-for-purpose
Data-centric architecture
Improved models of systems, services, capabilities, rules, measures
DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) based on IDEAS
Urgent CRs
52  1 XSD
IDEAS Foundation v1.0 fixes
TECHEDITS
DM2 OWL
Federal Common Approach
DNDAF Security Views
MODEM – DM2 Harmonization (IDEAS Domain Level)
NATO NAF
UDAF
Standardization, e.g.,
ISO
OMG
OASIS
Framework Objective:
Achieve a single integrated Architecture Framework for interoperability.
Achieve a US, Canada, and United Kingdom single Framework with a common Data Meta Model
Achieve alignment with the US Government Common Approach to Enterprise Architecture 22 22

23. Enterprise Architecture Fundamentals Course
The EA Fundamentals course consists of two intensive-resident sessions:
The first session examines enterprise architecture (EA).
The second session explores the use and effectiveness of architectural modeling.
Special points of interest of this training experience:
Gain understanding of DoD’s approach to enterprise architecture
Find out how key EA components and guiding principles are shaping the future of EA training and education
Potentially gain college credit toward a Master’s Degree
Network with enterprise architects from across DoD
Enrollment POCs:
Matt Newman:

24. EA Certificate Program
For more information >
Our Focus is the Government Architect

25. Unified Architecture Framework (UAF)
Strategic Direction
Mission Statement
Objectives
Unified Architecture Framework

26. Unified Architecture Framework
Unified Architecture Framework Strategic Direction
Move to Single Architecture Framework = Interoperability
Development of the AMN architecture in 2010
Development of Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) Versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0
Object Management Group (OMG) March 2012
Ideas Meeting in June 2012
NATO CAT workshop 10/11 Sept 2012
NATO Extraordinary Capability Architecture Team, Jan 13
Launchpad for Unified Architecture Framework (UAF)

27. 4.1 ARCHITECTURE FRAMEWORKS
Reference Document 3195
development of the AMN architecture in 2010 – Lessons Learned
Torsten Graeber, NATO C3 Agency
Afghan Mission Network (AMN)
June 2011
The Hague

28. 4.1 ARCHITECTURE FRAMEWORKS
4.1.2 Observations [Need for a Unified Architecture Framework]
Differences in DoDAF, MODAF, and NAF make it difficult to match the meta-model 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.

29. Unified Architecture Framework
DoD CIO Vision Statement:
Support achieving the DoD CIO Vision to deliver agile and secure information capabilities to enhance combat power and decision making
Move to Single World-Wide Architecture Framework
Coordinate and work with:
UK – MODAF
Canada DNDAF
NATO – NAF
Create an International Standard 29

30. Unified Architecture Framework will:
DoDAF will be foundational and enhanced
DoDAF will contain DNDAF Security Views/Models
DoDAF and MODAF will be Harmonized
UAF will be capability focused
DoDAF/UAF will become an international Standard (ISO/OMG)
DoDAF DM2 and MODEM will be Harmonized
DoDAF Sunsets and Unified Architecture Framework Emerges

31. Office Of Management and Budget (OMB) Agency Enterprise Roadmaps Walt Okon Senior Architect Engineer Architecture & Infrastructure (A&I) Directorate (703) 31

32. Convergence in the US -- Common Approach
Office Of Management and Budget
Convergence in the US -- Common Approach
Documentation section identifies 50 artifacts, what DoDAF calls models
DoD led the Artifact Working Group that is updating these artifacts

33. Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture
OMB Published Federal CIO Memo
Shared Services, 2 May 2012
OMB Published Common Approach
Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, 2 May 2012
Rewrite-Federal Segment Architecture Methodology (FSAM) to Collaborative Planning Methodology
DoDAF v2.02 Artifacts to Common Approach
OMB Tasking-DoD Enterprise Roadmap,
Provides Standardized method to develop
architectures

34. Common Approach with DoDAF 2 Implementation
DoDAF included in Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) 2.0 DRAFT artifact details
DoDAF v2.02 Change 1, Streamlined & Clarified
In DoD:
In JCIDS, acquisition, and systems engineering policies for over a year for all acquisitions
Three milestones including interoperability plan
Systems engineering reviews
Reference architectures using for IEA, JIE, JMTs, WMA, BMA, and I/C JARM – all DoD mission areas
23 Jan 2013

35. DoD’s Enterprise Roadmap
OMB Tasking
DoD CIO Development
Annual Roadmap Report
EA Management Tool

36. Agency Enterprise Roadmap
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-Tasked all Federal Departments and Agencies.
DoD CIO Internal Directorates to Develop Enterprise Roadmap
OMB, Federal Chief Architect tasked Agencies for EA Roadmap each April
Enterprise Roadmaps becomes an Agency management tool.

37. 2013 Agency Enterprise Roadmap Evaluation Template
Assessments will be performed by a panel of subject matter experts at OMB using a Likert Scale of 0-4 (see below) to indicate degree of completion and compliance with guidance on specific sections, as well as the accuracy and understandability of information throughout the Roadmap.

38. Enterprise Roadmap Evaluation – Main Body / IRM Strategic Plan
Evaluation Element
Comments
Score
Was the entire agency covered by the IRM Strategic Plan?
Was the IRM Strategic Plan developed consistent with guidance in OMB A-130?
Does the IRM Strategic Plan align with the agency’s overall Strategic Plan?
Does the IRM Strategic Plan identify specific goals?
Does the IRM Strategic Plan identify initiatives to achieve the goals?
Are there metrics for the initiatives (e.g., cost, schedule, performance)?
Does the IRM Strategic Plan link to the Enterprise Roadmap?
Final Draft v5 – May 3, 2013

39. FY 2015 Information Sharing Environment (ISE) Implementation Guidance
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, PROGRAM MANAGER, INFORMATION SHARING ENVIRONMENT, August 14, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR: SUBJECT: FY 2015 Information Sharing Environment (ISE) Implementation Guidance
This memorandum provides guidance for the Information Sharing Environment and other affected departments and agencies in accordance with the White House memorandum, FY 2014 Programmatic Guidance on Information Sharing and Safeguarding Goals, dated July 23, 2012 and the President’s National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding, issued December of Together, they reinforce the following goals:
1. Drive collective action through collaboration and accountability
2. Improve information discovery and access through common standards;
3. Optimize mission effectiveness through shared services and interoperability;
4. Strengthen information safeguarding through structural reform, policy, and technical solutions; and
5. Protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties through consistency and compliance
Built in consultation with stewards of the Strategy: the Information Sharing and Access Interagency Policy Committee (ISA-IPC), the Senior Information Sharing and Safeguarding Steering Committee (SISSSC) and the Federal Chief Information Officer Council. The guidance is intended to inform agency plans to implement the Strategy and align priorities.

40. DOD and DNI together on Standards
Joint Standards Program Governance and Joint Enterprise Standards Committee (JESC)

41. ASRG Organizational Structure (Current)
LEGEND
ASRG
Architecture & Standards Review Group
TIC
Technical Integration Committee
FAC
Federated Architecture Committee
DoDAF
DoD Architecture Framework
DM2
DoDAF Meta Model
DARS
DoD Architecture Registry System
ITSC
Information Technology Standards
Committee
EWSE
Enterprise-Wide System Engineering
GTG CMB
GIG Technical Guidance Configuration
Management Board
JESC
JESC
JESC
UNCLASSIFIED 41

42. Executive Steering Group
IT Standards
Executive Steering Group
IT Standards Oversight Panel
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 42

43. DNI Enterprise Registry and Repository (ER2)
ER2 is
Sponsored by the IC CIO
Built and operated by NRO - the service provider for the IC CIO
Part of the IC enterprise service delivery infrastructure featuring:
Publishing and Managing: Easy to populate and update data (supports bulk loads)
Discovery and Reuse: Search for and take advantage of available capabilities
All Apps in one place – enhanced visibility
Stimulates reuse – supports efficiency
Enhanced Portfolio Management: Provides for better informed decision making, automated reporting, improved management and the leveraging of IT investments
Governance and Oversight: Supports publishing, tracking, decision points, and lifecycle milestones
Metrics: Users, providers, services, applications, downloads, reuse
Training: Robust ER2 Training Gateway (CBTs) and training sessions available
Graphics are Unclassified
The Point of Service for Sharing IT within the IC

44. IC ITE in DNI Enterprise Registry and Repository (ER2)
Classification
POCs
Emerging Asset Types
Content
Collections
Agreements
Controlled Vocabularies
Schema
Widgets
Applications
Services
Software
Standard Citations
IT Profiles
Business Profiles
Providers
Graphics are Unclassified
Published, managed, and searchable in one place
Relate-able / traceable to each other
Available to all IC PKI users on JWICS
Classification

45. Architecture and Standards Approved Baselines
ASRG = Architecture & Standards Review Group
FAC = Federated Architecture Committee
ITSC = Information Technology Standards Committee
DARS = DoD Architecture Registry System
DISR = DoD IT Standards Registry
DARS
Architectures
Approved
DISR
IT Standards
ASRG
ITSC
FAC 45 45

46. Unified Architecture Framework Emerges
Unified v2.03
DoDAF
v1.5
1995
C4ISR F/W v1.0
v2.0
UDF
2003
2007
JCIDS & NR-KPP
Applicability beyond C4ISR
Use-based
Integrated Architecture
2009
2010
2012
2014
v2.01
v2.02
Change 1
DoDAF/DNDAF
1997
2016
2013
Joint Interoperability
DoDAF v1.0
C4ISR F/W v2.0
Net-centricity and SoA
SvcV views
26 AV/OV/SV/TV views
Linked to I&S policies
CADM 2.0
Fit-for-purpose
Data-centric architecture
Improved models of systems, services, capabilities, rules, measures
DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) based on IDEAS
Urgent CRs
52  1 XSD
IDEAS Foundation v1.0 fixes
TECHEDITS
DM2 OWL
Federal Common Approach
DNDAF Security Views
MODEM – DM2 Harmonization (IDEAS Domain Level)
NATO NAF
UDAF
Standardization, e.g.,
ISO
OMG
OASIS
UAF
Framework Objective:
Achieve a single integrated Architecture Framework for interoperability.
Achieve a US, Canada, and United Kingdom single Framework with a common Data Meta Model
Achieve alignment with the US Government Common Approach to Enterprise Architecture
Unified Architecture Framework Emerges 46 46

47. Delivering JIE Benefits
Source: “DoD CIO’s 10 Point Plan for IT Modernization, “ Ms. Teri Takai, March 2012, (4/24/2012)

48. Defense is our Mission: In 2013 and Now- How are we doing??
Interoperability??
Air Traffic Control
FAA - NexGen

49. Question and Discussion
DoD CIO
Question and Discussion
DoDAF Strategic Direction of Moving DoDAF towards an Unified Architecture Framework and Standard
Walt Okon
Senior Architect Engineer
Architecture & Interoperability Directorate
Office of the Secretary of Defense