|
The Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) is a framework for development of a systems architecture or enterprise architecture (EA). All major U.S. Government Department of Defense (DoD) weapons and information technology system procurements are required to develop an EA and document that architecture using the set of views prescribed in the DoDAF. While it is clearly aimed at military systems, it has broad applicability across the private, public and voluntary sectors around the world and represents only one of a large number of systems architecture frameworks. It is especially suited to large systems with complex integration and interoperability challenges, and is apparently unique in its use of "operational views" detailing the external customer's operating domain in which the developing system will operate (ref. Zachman framework). DoDAF overview DoDAF is the implementation chosen by the United States Department of Defense to gain compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act and United States Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-11 and A-130. It is administered by the Undersecretary of Defense for Business Transformation's DoDAF Working Group. DoDAF was formerly named C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) AF. Other derivative frameworks based on DoDAF include the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) and Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) Architecture Framework (MODAF). Like other EA approaches, for example The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), DoDAF is organized around a shared repository to hold work products. The repository is defined by the Core Architecture Data Model 2.0 (CADM -- essentially a common database schema) and the DoD Architecture Repository System (DARS). A key feature of DoDAF is interoperability, which is organized as a series of levels, called Levels of Information System Interoperability (LISI). The developing system must not only meet its internal data needs but also those of the operational framework into which it is set. Artifact Views DoDAF views are organized into four basic view sets: overarching All View (AV), Operational View (OV), Systems View (SV), and the Technical Standards View (TV). Only a subset of the full DoDAF viewset is usually created for each system development. All View (AV) AV products provide overarching descriptions of the entire architecture and define the scope and context of the architecture. The AV products are defined as: Operational View (OV) OV products provide descriptions of the tasks and activities, operational elements, and information exchanges required to accomplish DoD missions. The OV provides textual and graphical representations of operational nodes and elements, assigned tasks and activities, and information flows between nodes. It defines the type of information exchanged, the frequency of exchanges, the tasks and activities supported by these exchanges and the nature of the exchanges. The OV products are defined as: Systems View (SV) SV products provide graphical and textual descriptions of systems and system interconnections that provide or support DoD functions. Interconnections between systems defined in the OV are described in the SVs. The SV products are: Technical Standards View (TV) TV products define technical standards, implementation conventions, business rules and criteria that govern the architecture. The TV products are as follows: Creating an integrated architecture using DoDAF DoDAF v1.0 listed the following products as the “minimum set of products required to satisfy the definition of an OV, SV and TV.” One note: while the DoDAF does not list the OV-1 artifact as a core product, its development is strongly encouraged. The sequence of the artifacts listed below gives a suggested order in which the artifacts could be developed. The actual sequence of view generation and their potential customization is a function of the application domain and the specific needs of the effort. One concern about the DoDAF is how well these products meet actual stakeholder concerns for any given system of interest. One can view DoDAF products, or at least the 3 views, as ANSI/IEEE 1471-2000 viewpoints. But to build an architecture description that corresponds to ANSI/IEEE 1471-2000, it is necessary to clearly identify the stakeholders and their concerns that map to each selected DoDAF product. Otherwise there is the risk (seen in at least some DoDAF architecture efforts) of producing products with no customers. Representation Representations for the DoDAF products may be drawn from many diagramming techniques including: tables, ICAM Definition Language, Entity-Relationship Diagrams (ERDs), UML/ SysML, and other custom techniques depending on the product, tool used, and contractor/customer preferences. There is a UPDM (UML Profile for DoDAF and MODAF) effort within the OMG to standardize the representation of DoDAF products when UML is used. DoDAF generically describes in the representation of the artifacts to be generated, but allows considerable flexibility regarding the specific formats and modeling techniques. The DoDAF deskbook provides examples in using traditional systems engineering and data engineering techniques, and secondly, UML format. DoDAF proclaims latitude in work product format, without professing one diagramming technique over another. In addition to graphical representation, there is typically a requirement to provide metadata to the Defense Information Technology Portfolio Repository (DITPR) or other architectural repositories. Versions and timeline Harmonization between national architecture frameworks There is an OMG effort to standardise a UML Profile for military architecture frameworks UPDM (UML Profile for DoDAF and MODAF). In addition, the IDEAS Group is a four nation (Australia, Canada, UK, USA + NATO as observers) effort to standardise a conceptual model for military architecture frameworks. See also Tools A number of development tools help enterprise architects create the artifacts; some of these are listed below. Other tools provide full repositories of these artifacts. | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
 |
|
| |