AWG 20 April 2012 Candidate Topics Attendees: Greg Weidman (ODNI) Adrian Linz (OPM) Bill Garvin (SSA) Minesh Patel (SBA) Robert Damashek (DoD) Yen Shan (SBA) Marco (HHS) Walt (DoD) Ramana (FAA) Review 17 April AWG Review plan for 30 April deliverable Artifact list nominations Domain leads, co-lead, members Next meeting 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO

Artifact applicability to scope Sub-Architecture Domain Core Artifact Strategy Concept Overview Diagram Business High-Level Process Diagram Data High-Level Logical Data Model Applications Application Interface Diagram Infrastructure High-Level Network Diagram Security Control List Core vs Top-Level Scope DECISION: Remove for 30 April deliverable 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO

AWG Working Papers -- FOUO “One liners” Model Description CV-1: Capability Effects Presents effects caused by capabilities and measures for these effects. CV-2: Capability Hierarchies Presents one or more hierarchies of capabilities and the types of hierarchical relationships between these capabilities. CV-3: Capability Schedules Presents schedules for the deployment of capabilities in terms of timelines. CV-4: Capability Dependencies Presents dependencies among effects caused by capabilities. CV-5: Capability Deployments Presents schedules for the deployment of capabilities in terms of organizations and locations. CV-6: Capability Activities Presents activities that are performed to cause the desired effects of a capability. CV-7: Capabilities and Services Presents a mapping of capabilities to services. DECISION: GOOD ACHIEVABLE INTERMEDIATE WAY TO GO 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO

DoDAF Close Matches – use to harvest some “one liners” 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO

Next Steps & Assignments / volunteers Start with 19 DoDAF “one liners” that match (~freebies) Look through other 31 CA artifacts and see which ones you’d like to nominate for 30 April. Others as well, e.g., from DoDAF, CPM, or other agency sources ones Informal criteria is we think it’s Important in your agency Fills a vacuum in the CA domains. Rule: Nomination must accompanied by a “one liner”. Add the one-liners to the new lists Review and iterate Modify domain descriptions to be consistent (lead, co-lead, members) Strategic Business Application Data Infrastructure Security (Bill Garvin lead unclass, TBD, TBD) Review whole package Deliver 30 April 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO

AWG Working Papers -- FOUO Review Plan for 30 April 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO

AWG Working Papers -- FOUO Artifact Nominations (see spreadsheet list) 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO

Msgs on this topic today   From: Damashek, Robert [rdamashek@binarygroup.com]   1.       Many of the CPM outputs and quite a few of Dr. Bernard’s artifacts have largely unstructured content, vs. other architectural artifacts that are largely structured.  A strategic plan and CONOPS are two examples of the former.  The distinction is the usability of largely structured content for analytics and decision support inside of the collaborative planning process vs. use of unstructured content (absent some semantic analysis capability) largely to document and communicate the results of the planning activity. 2.       Somewhat related is the usefulness of the artifact for reuse in subsequent collaborative planning cycles.  In CPM, we have included specific steps to assess reuse of existing solutions, or potentially just some of the associated artifacts.  In the case where an entire solution might be reused (potentially as a shared service), the entire artifact set may be assessed.  In other cases, it is largely the structured content that is most useful for analyzing the as-is state.  The unstructured content tends to aggregate the structured content, rendering it difficult to reuse for robust analysis.  Many of the CPM outputs fall into this category.  They document the results of planning rather than the structured content used to come up with the plan.  Other CPM outputs could be rendered using a structured artifact, and as such are instances of the use of such an artifact.  The CPM team has yet to do that mapping. With respect to the technical artifacts, I believe that the Common Approach should emphasize those artifacts that contribute to planning for Federal strategies, such as cloud-first and shared-first.  In that way, the need for many of the detailed technical architecture artifacts may be eliminated in a lot of cases in favor of those that specifically support reuse of infrastructure.  Note that some of the other artifacts that Dr. Bernard has articulated would be useful for an assessment for data center or infrastructure consolidation, but that this may likely be applicable to only a small set of collaborative planning efforts. In the attached, I have gathered some definitions from Wikipedia, when the actual source is well documented.  I also have entered comments on a few in cases where a single artifact may relate to several CPM artifacts and we need to ensure that the Common Approach artifact includes all those CPM artifacts, and where the CPM artifacts might be mapped to more than one Common Approach artifact. 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO

Msgs on this topic today Dear Artifact WG:   I want to very strongly agree with Robert's comments below.  Most of the proposed artifacts in this spreadsheet have unstructured content.  In addition, there are many instances of redundant content between them.  This will make both for great difficulty in doing analytics on the resulting data, and with extra effort expended validating the consistency between differing artifacts.  We urgently need a significantly smaller, more structured list with well defined data formats.  The path we are on now is a recipe for spending a lot of money and effort to produce shelfware.  For example, if you look at the DoDAF artifacts that are mapped to the Knowledge Management Plan, this plan would have to be essentially the entire architecture of the enterprise to satisfy all these requirements. The lack of a single overview of the entire scope of the system is also very troubling, as is the lack of an integrated dictionary for the architecture.  If I produce all of these artifacts, but have no integrated dictionary, there's no reason to think that I'm actually on a path to produce an integrated capability. The link between this voluminous list of artifacts and the FEA is also fully obscured.  We want the FEA to be the common language for architecture; the artifacts should call out explicitly which FEA reference model should serve as the common vocabulary for a given artifact. I've added to Robert's spreadsheet 5 artifacts at the top that should be included. These are well-defined, structured artifacts  based on DoDAF that will facilitate analytics and reduce redundancy.  I've also made some notes about appropriate stakeholders for some other artifacts, and some points where explicit call-outs to the FEA should be included.  In general, however, we need to scrub through the remaining list and remove any that are free-form, omnibus reports that are likely to involve a lot of work with very little analytical return. Regards, Greg Weidman Contractor ODNI/MED/EI&A/D&I/ 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO

Thoughts on structured vs unstructured architectures Greg Weidman (ODNI) Adrian Linz (OPM) Metamodel should have some minimum content and then agency can improve Bill Garvin (SSA) Need more than lists, guidance for agencies to make lists Minesh Patel (SBA) Yen Shan (SBA) Robert Damashek (DoD) Marco (HHS) Walt (DoD) Structured, according to an exchangeable metamodel Ramana (FAA) 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO

Domain Narrative Description Revisions Lead Co-Lead Members Strategic   Business Services Greg Weidman  Data and Information Enabling Applications Host Infrastructure  DISA? Security Controls  Bill Garvin  I/C (GW to find) 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO

AWG Working Papers -- FOUO Next Meeting 23 April -- AWG meet to review and iterate CA artifact lists 3-4 PM GTM: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/296807050 DCO:  https://connect.dco.dod.mil/caawg Dial +1 (773) 897-3001, Access Code: 296-807-050 17 April 2012 AWG Working Papers -- FOUO