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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 4 Action Items Letter of Strategic Intent -- US Master Brief – UK
Drafted
Master Brief – UK
Roadmap – CA
NATO A-CaT Workshop Agenda – US
Complete

8. 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.