Review June 2012 London Unified Architecture Framework Meeting NATO Architecture Capability Team (A-CaT) Workshop Mr. Walt Okon 10 September 2012

Briefing Topics Meeting Purpose High-level Agreements Harmonization of Frameworks 4 Action Items Letter of Strategic Intent Master Brief Roadmap NATO A-CaT Workshop Agenda

Meeting Purpose Determine a shared goal for a Unified Architecture Framework Discuss benefits from National perspectives Explore ways to achieve Consider existing and in-development material Plan to share direction and discuss at NATO A-CaT workshop in September 2012

Meeting Objectives Agreement from all participants that a single unified (description) architecture framework (UAF) is the way ahead. Development of a Roadmap for convergence Defence focused….. but Catering for external stakeholders (e.g. Government requirements) Plan for NATO CAT workshop 10/11 Sept 2012

High-level Agreements Architecture views are difficult to agree on because: Different National purposes and policies for them Different meanings of terms used to describe them International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS) Foundation v1.0 is accepted. DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) and MODEM are founded on common IDEAS Foundation v1.0. Meta models provide a way to work towards UAF.

Harmonization of Frameworks Harmonize DM2 and MODEM. DoDAF – DNDAF – MODAF Compare DM2  MODEM and vice-versa. Minimal impact changes to DM2 or MODEM easy to accept. More difficult issues will involve IDEAS analysis (BORO). In parallel, identify and define core views that are relatively easy to agree upon using IDEAS-based view descriptions such as US Federal Government Common Approach and draft DoDAF version 2.03.

4 Action Items Letter of Strategic Intent -- US Master Brief – UK Drafted Master Brief – UK Roadmap – CA NATO A-CaT Workshop Agenda – US Complete

Discussion Questions? Notes Action: US will provide the Competencies Framework ===================================================== UK – Need a coalition Planning process. Architectures can be used for documentation. Norway – Changed the National plan down to provide a business plan. Need for a better Meta Model. Fabrica – Need to look at the Methodology. French – Methodology – look at TOGAF, France looks a several tool. It is a nightmare. Support UAF and a common Meta Model. Need to have compliant tools. Sweden – Focus on the Meta Model and use the tolls. Build a repository. Who is taking care of the Data in the repository's. Be able to share the data. Sweden has posted some documents. France – we are drived by the tools. Canada – Presentation. Three type approach. DND/CF program Canadian Foeces. Strategic Direction, Emplof a standards architecture Framework. Provide architecture to support the senior decision making. Stakholders build the content. DARRS – Central Registry and Respository. Strong move to Data Management. ISO 4210 NAF _ Why NAF? Is there a difference from MODAF and NAF? NAF 3.1 is MODAF. Is a NATO Architecture Framework still needed.