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 E-Mail: walter.j.okon.civ@mail.mil 20 August 2013 UNCLASSIFIED

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

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

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

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

Elements of Quality Architecture

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Vendor Tools are Necessary COTS Tools Vendor Tools are Necessary

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

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: newmane@ndu.edu

EA Certificate Program For more information > http://www.ndu.edu/iCollege/pcs/pcs_ea.html Our Focus is the Government Architect

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

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)

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

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.

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

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

Office Of Management and Budget (OMB) Agency Enterprise Roadmaps Walt Okon Senior Architect Engineer Architecture & Infrastructure (A&I) Directorate (703) 473-6849 walt.okon@osd.mil 31

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 2012. 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.

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

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

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

DNI Enterprise Registry and Repository (ER2) ER2 is Sponsored by the IC CIO http://shareit.mae.ic.gov/LandingPage/ 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

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

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

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

Delivering JIE Benefits Source: “DoD CIO’s 10 Point Plan for IT Modernization, “ Ms. Teri Takai, March 2012, http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/ITMod/CIO%2010%20Point%20Plan%20for%20IT%20Modernization.pdf (4/24/2012)

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

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 E-Mail: walter.j.okon.civ@mil.mil