Enterprise Architecture in The Swedish Armed Forces Ladies and Gentlemen, As the Swedish Armed Forces CIO I am very honoured to be invited to give the international Key Note presentation on this ”must attend” conference. Especially to be a Key-Note speaker together with THE John Zachman, is really something in the Enterprise Architecture World. I am an architect by trade, although my degree is in Naval Architecture, rather than in Enterprise Architecture. I have found the similarities between these two Architecture worlds (or maybe “artefacts”) to be larger than the differences in many respects. A lot of strong wills on how and what to do, that has to be coordinated in order to get the overall organisation (or ship) to work as perfectly as possible. It is a very logical process but it cannot be mastered just like math, you need the skill and the touch of art to master it….and a lot of training. Well, in the Swedish Armed Forces we have trained a lot and we have made a lot of mistakes. But we have done some good things too. I will try to tell you a bit of both during these 30 minutes and also to give some advice in the end on what may work in a military world and what will not. Rear Admiral (L.H.) Thomas Engevall, CIO & Head of ERP Systems Swedish Armed Forces

WHY 64 000 49 000 (27´ + 22´) 2400 12 Surface Ships 4 Submarines Amph Bn < 30% < 360 days National 64 000 Today 3000 4 squadrons Transport and Helicopters 49 000 (27´ + 22´) = 100 % < 120 days 2014-19 17 600 8 Bn (mech, amph) 10 Bn (AA, Eng, Log, Ranger, Sec) But first of all, Why do we need this stuff called EA at all? Well, for us in the Swedish Armed Forces it is quite obvious. We are in the midst of a major change in many areas; First we will go from an overall conscript based force consisting of 64000 men and women, where a rather few of the units are in a state of high readiness to a; All volontary force comprising of 49000 sailors and soldiers where all units are to have a much hihgetr degree of readiness And at the same time increase our international footprint, be much better to handle our own national environment in Sweden’s near surroundings. And by the way, also develop new capabilities at the same time. This is a gigantic task. We simply need an organised and structured way of doing this, or we will face the consequences. And for our soldiers and sailors that consequence is met in casualties. Casualties happen in war, but it is our task and mission to give them the best possible tools for their task in order for them to be able to solve it with a minimum of casulaties. For me, and for us in the Swedish Armed Forces, that is what EA in the end is all about. 4000 Joint services (C 2, Log, Intel, SF) Usable Available Flexible = Expeditionary Forces 22 000 Home Guard 40 Bn

Swedish Armed Forces (SwAF) Architecture Effort Right, how are we supposed to take ourselves from a situation of today to a situation we want for tomorrow and at the same time be able to carry through increasingly complex missions in all of the battle arenas; in the air, on ground at sea and in the information arena? Descriptions of SwAF of today Descriptions of SwAF tomorrow The road map from today to tomorrow 4

SwAF as an ”Enterprise System” As you understand, SwAF is a quite complex system. When it comes to our present architecture it is like it’s stated on the slide, it’s still there – described or not. I mean that the architecture is not documented in an integrated context, but my colleague, Mikael Hagenbo that works more with architecture matters has a more cynical view on it (almost not at all). However we are in agreement that we want to change this, and this is what we are doing. How do we do it, well we have tried previously.. 5

Previous experiences of Architecture in the SwAF It has been a failure – over and over again. Just like this combat boat that ran aground during a show in last year. With just one more knot before he ran aground we would really have had som interesting insurance claims coming from the car-owners. “I parked my in the middle of car when a warship came from above and crushed it…” Why this failure for something that logical as Architecture or EA? 6

Reasons behind the brekdown The short version is that: We have been given the architects too much free play when they have tried to sell in the need for EA with more or less complex models (the one on the left – a cheat sheet of M3 is probably one of the most simple models that exist) and PPT plans with beautiful visions for the future. The problem is that very few admirals and guaranteed no general understood a single bit of it. I call it the architectural paradox: As military we love order, and when things are ship-shape. Since architecture is nothing else than order and effective was of keeping things ship-shape, we should all love architecture. However, we military dislike things we do not understand. And many times architecture is explained in a way that very few people, and especially high-ranking officers understand. So we end up in a situation where we dislike the stuff when we really should love it. If we do not understand it; it can even be bad for morale! Just like the strange architecture drawn house to the right who was owned by an old Danish Travel Agent during the 1960ies and 70ies. He was old but he had a very young and beautiful wife with a lot of friends. Bad for morale is not a success story in the military. 7

When WHEN So we have scrapped that method and we are trying much harder to tie EA much closer to what we are doing in Afganistan, in Kosovo, in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean. However, you must consider that EA, not only in defence, is still somehow immature and it takes time to produce with the very limited resources as we all are facing, but that make it even more important to start with the right thing. We have started our EA journey with what we have, e.g. MODAF, which I with kind permission from UK could decide to use in Sweden, with the headlight on the soldiers, sailors and airmen that risk their life everyday in different hot spots of the world. We call this effort ”Model Based Capability Development” (MbCD) and the focus for MbCD is aim documentation in the early phases of the life cycle for the mission systems that our soldiers, sailors and airmen eventually will end up depending on in theatre.

HOW Present state Required future state Demands until now Demands later Enterprise GAP Resources Now, we have arrived to ”How”. To illustrate it this slide shows how we should achieve the required end state. This is what we call Model Based Capability Development. A part of the SwAF EA and the starting point for the change process. Is To Be Measures 9

Traditional and Model Based Capability Development Document based Capability development Model Based Capability Development FMUP CONOPS TOEM TTEM Specification Standards And we cannot base that architecture on written documents in Word, Excel and Powerpoint. It will take only two complex systems to get lost when it comes to requirements, acquisition, configuration management et cetera in such a scenario. But we still have a document based system, such on the left …. But we are leaving in order to be able to use and reuse information and to be able to make sure that things are holding together better than before. In this we have a challenge. Acquisition Documents Legend: FMUP = Swedish Armed Forces Development Plan, TOEM = Tactical, Organisational, Economic Aim Document, TTEM = Tactical Technical Economic Aim Document 10 10 10

Who + Where The number of people that are influenced by the change in the SwAF HQ and at FMV Operational Personnel 1000 (SwAF), 500 (FMV) Management and Middle Management 200 (SwAF), 100 (FMV) Executive Decision makers 11 (SwAF), 40 (FMV) This slide is a rough estimate on how many people that will be influenced by the change introducing EA defence. In Sweden we have a quite unique solution with MOD at the sole political level, Swedish Armed Forces HQ – setting the requirements, deciding on funding and performing daily operations, FMV – Defence Materiel Administration making acquisition of equipment required by the SwAF and taking the technical responsibility for that equipment in a life cycle perspective. From what you can see, there is a lot of people that will be influenced and hopefully will harvest the benefits of EA in their daily work for defence. 11

Business areas that are influenced by the change in SwAF HQ and at FMV Who + Where Business areas that are influenced by the change in SwAF HQ and at FMV Strategy and business alignment Influenced in SwAF and at FMV Processes Mainly in the early phases and for doing decisions on route ahead. New methods are introduced. System support and technology New tools and technical capabilities are required. Organisation, roles and responsibility Increased transparency, roles that isn't needed anymore. New roles. Culture and leadership ”Need to know” vs ”Need to share to win” Other No ”Big Bang”. A gradual change This slide shows some of the areas of change – as an example. There are probably very many more. 12

FOR WHO – EXACTLY WHERE

Nordic Battle Group 2008 Sweden (2300), Finland (200), Norway (150) , Ireland (80) Estonia (50)

Nordic Battle Group 2008 major experiences Sweden has developed the capability to develop and lead complex multinational operations and exercises within the “political” EU framework. The high level of training and competence within the officers and soldiers has shown future potential with new personnel concept. NBG has been a driver for defence reform Focus Time and Deadlines Fixed Mindset within AF and in political level changed (still more to do...) Command and Control Logistics Joint Operations Experience reports are produced An overall success!

NBG 2008 challenges Flexibility and expeditionary mindset Situation awareness and intelligence Deployment and logistics Athena mechanism and operations budget Common political – military understanding (nationally – internationally) Civil-Military cooperation, comprehensive approach Budget constraints Materiel and systems ready for training and operations Late and limited use of architecture related tools

Step 1: STANDARDIZE OUR MISSION UNITS/SYSTEMS EA in SwAF Step 1: STANDARDIZE OUR MISSION UNITS/SYSTEMS Information interfaces, Interoperability, Communication, Modularity, Logistic, Maintenance, Training, Doctrine, Aim Documentation etc. We need to act, based on a foundation belief system, in a similar way. This must shape the vision and aim for EA in SwAF. 17

Step 2: INCREASE USEABILITY EA in SwAF Step 2: INCREASE USEABILITY Exploit the standardization to introduce new capabilities/combined mission units more rapidly and to lower costs compared to today 18

EA in SwAF ….. To answer the question ”When”. Step 3: EXPLOIT USEABILITY TO THE MAXIMUM LEVEL Govern and optimize the operation of SwAF over time. ….. To answer the question ”When”. I don’t know when we are were we want to be. From what I’ve learned so far, TTT (Things Take Time). EA is a rocky road with a lot of obstacles. However, I expect to have something that could be regarded as quite useful in 2012 with a growth to be very useful in 2014. Since there are no certified experts within this area yet, I strongly support international co-operation within this area so the defence EA community can learn and grow in a pace that is possible to achieve. Learning from each other and share costs and experiences is crucial from my point of view to achieve success. 19

Battle Group 2011 Force Commander is appointed: Brigadier General Stefan Andersson (Army) Experiences from NBG 2008 are being incorporated in the current planning Equipment (ready for use before training year (2010) Challenges addressed Early staffing of key personnel Nations participation: Finland, Norway, Ireland & Estonia 2000+ soldiers (of which 1600 are Swedish). Readiness level 10 days, Endurance 30 (1290) days One of the areas where we now are using MODAF and architectural work

Recommendations Use a stable and established framework with belonging rules and principles. All models that are created in a state of ”No Rules Involved” for descriptions, design and life cycle management, will diverge in such a way that they need to me re-modelled when necessary rules are finally introduced. Something that will be costly. Very costly. NEC properties as e.g. flexibility, adaptively, modularity, interoperability and so on, requires a developed way of looking at the defence enterprise (service oriented) and new method and structural components. We must also get used to new words and be able to re-learn - but…. Data and information are strategic resources. Not only something that could be presupposed to exist. Start to deal with data, meta data and information as strategic important assets for defence. To do that…. We must invest in new competencies. Finally, ”WHAT” in the sense of “what to do”. This slide shows some recommendations learned from our EA experiences. 21

What works Focus on your own daily business and capture and address its problems and challenges. Use a language that is understandable for decision makers and co-workers. Keep architectures in a tight leash. Make use of a developed information and communication strategy Exploit examples that are easy to understand and adopt Create sponsorship from executive level. Quit theorizing too much. Work! Don’t give up! Deliver results that are useful to the soldier and sailor 22

A good architecture is a prerequisite for success! 23

THANK YOU! QUESTIONS! I am also proud to tell you all that the Swedish Armed Forces has been represented here since the very first conference back in 2008. Actually, we have been honoured to be invited to speak on all of them. Previous presentations has been made by the Chief Architect at our CIO Department, LtCol Mikael Hagenbo, who is here with me this year as well togehter with Mr Peder Blomqvist, who you all heard this morning. Mikaal has earned some rest and can enjoy the show this year. 24 24 24