DoDAF Evolution Towards Mission Effectiveness

Q1: Better Support for DoD decision process requirements Student Perspectives – a compilation: Current views are insufficient to model the enterprise to address support process decisions requirements Workforce Mission goals, objectives and performance metrics Security & Privacy Services for Service Oriented Architecture Minimal interest in UML for work product views When used, the response by program elements (none IT people) has been mixed Views support the architect, but are not necessarily meaningful for program elements of the “business” and war fighter OV-5 process activity (IDEF0) does not semantically represent the “value” of alternative target processes The EA tools are cumbersome for non-IT personnel use

Q1: Better Support for DoD decision process requirements A Perspective: An EA initiative must be about addressing mission problems or outcomes EA tools need to be more intuitive for Program element’s use and non-methodology specific Consider graphical data visualization, simulation, and animation Include data types that are specific to mission outcomes and performance (i.e., cost, value proposition, and outcomes)

Q2: Support for additional DoDAF products Student Perspectives – a compilation: Current views are insufficiently linked or integrated Applications to business activities Security & Privacy linked to all views Minimal interest in UML for work product views Unfamiliar with UML When used, the response by program elements (none IT people) has been mixed

Q2: Support for additional DoDAF products A Perspective: In addition the topic gaps the students identified, how will the DoDAF evolve to address net-centric or information age concepts? Agility is based in part on organizational learning and collaboration how is this characterized in the DoDAF models? How are the multitude of EAs that form the GIG to be harmonized while ensuring global interoperability and supporting local specific mission needs?

Q6: How should the DoDAF updated to support linking producing and consuming architectures? If we look to other disciplines such as accounting or building architecture we see a fairly well defined set of standards regardless of locality and building type One can take the blueprint for an electrical design layout and in relatively straightforward manner be understood by an engineer from any where in the United States due to an accepted set of notations If the building industry with all its varieties of different building architectures from single family to sky scrapers can agree to a set of common diagram standards, I find it difficult to accept that some how Enterprise Architecture is substantively different

Q11: How should DoDAF evolve in order to support the integration of multiple EAs? A Perspective: How are the multitude of EAs that form the GIG to be harmonized while ensuring global interoperability and supporting local specific mission needs? An approach to address this issue is to adopt a federated architecture and supporting governance processes Heightened emphasis on Governance – Shared Power Integration and acceptance of multiple Enterprise Architectures Focus on cross-functional process by the Defense Department organization Focus on unique or less frequently occurring functions by supporting Services and organizations There is precedence: Canada, New York City, Kentucky, Department of Labor; OMB is considering a form of Federated EA called segmented architecture