1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. 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

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

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

8. Msgs on this topic today
From: Damashek, Robert  
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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. AWG Working Papers -- FOUO
Next Meeting
23 April -- AWG meet to review and iterate CA artifact lists
3-4 PM
GTM:
DCO: 
Dial +1 (773) , Access Code:
17 April 2012
AWG Working Papers -- FOUO