1. DoDAF Evolution Towards Mission Effectiveness

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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