|
IFEAD is an independent research and information
exchange organization working on the future state of Enterprise
Architecture.
|
|
|
|
Enterprise
Architecture in the Defense World
|
Promulgation
Memos
Memo:
DISR Baseline Release 04-2.0, 2004-12-22
Memo:
DISR Baseline Release 04-1.0, 2004-07-15
Memo:
JTA v6.0, 2003-11-24
Memo:
JTA v5.0, 2003-08-19
Memo:
JTA v4.0, 2002-08-12
Memo:
JTA v3.0, 1999-11-29
Memo:
JTA v2.0, 1998-11-30
Memo:
JTA v1.0, 1996-08-22
Briefings
Training:
DISRonline Search & Profiling, 2004-09-28
Training:
DISRonline Change Request Tool, 2004-09-28
|
Standards
Reports - (05-1.0)
Stds
Assigned for Periodic Review (for 05-2.0)
Stds
Returned to TWG for Action (from 05-1.0)
Standards
Reports - Current Registry (04-2.0)
DISR
Baseline 04-2.0 Summary
Stds
by NCES Category, 04-2.0
Stds
by Service Area, 04-2.0
Stds
by Primary Owner/Secondary Interest, 04-2.0
Stds
Assigned for Annual Review (Cycle 3),
04-2.0
New
Emerging Stds for Baseline Release 04-2.0
New
Mandated Stds for Baseline Release 04-2.0
Stds
Updated from Emerging to Mandated, 04-2.0
Stds
moved to Inactive/Retired, 04-2.0
Stds
Updated to Newer Version, 04-2.0
Stds
Returned to TWG for Action, 04-2.0
|
|
USA
Defense follows the EA leader
For once, the USA Defense Department
has been playing catch-up with the
rest of government.
Over the past year, USA Defense
created a new IT architecture that
mirrors the USA Federal Enterprise
Architecture, said Roy Mabry, a
senior architect in the department’s
CIO office.
“Our reference models are
not radically different from the
Office of Management and Budget’s
reference models,” Mabry said
at a recent conference on enterprise
architecture in Washington sponsored
by the Digital Government Institute
of Bethesda, Md. “We mapped
our mission areas to OMB’s
taxonomy.”
DOD previously had gone its own
way on EA, with its Command, Control,
Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance
Core Architecture. But DOD dumped
that data model last year and developed
one that aligns with the rest of
the government.
“To have true information
sharing and security, we have to
be planning across all of government,
which means normalizing justifications
across civilian, Defense and intelligence,”
said Norman Lorentz, former OMB
chief technology officer, who helped
DOD begin its shift to a more common
model. “By using the FEA methodology,
other agencies in theory could use
DOD’s work. All the components
should be plug-and-play.”
Lorentz, now managing director
for Federal Solutions Group of Vienna,
Va., added that DOD decided to mesh
its EA with the federal model because
OMB was making funding decisions
based on how well agencies’
systems matched up against the FEA.
Mabry said DOD developed four major
mission areas: business, warfighter,
intelligence and enterprise information.
The department’s Global Information
Grid Architecture encompasses all
the mission areas and the Technical,
Service Component, Business, Data
and Performance reference models
break down the mission areas into
functions and subfunctions.
Mabry said Defense will finish
the second versions of the reference
models this spring.
“The reference models can
help transform DOD because each
simplifies the complexities of our
missions,” he said. “We
took the FEA methodology as a high-level
taxonomy and its definitions to
organize the DOD mission areas.”
Mabry added that when his team
was developing each reference model,
architects found the reference models
needed to be extended because they
did not offer specific enough information
about some of DOD’s mission
areas.
Now that Version 1.0 of the architecture
is in place, Mabry said the CIO’s
office must make the case to program
chiefs that they should be more
involved in planning and deploying
systems.
|
|
EA
or BUST
November 2004, USA Fed up with the lack
of progress USA Defense has made on modernizing
its business systems, US-Congress is threatening
fines of $5,000 and jail time for the department’s
comptroller if systems do not comply with
the EA
Congress is enforcing its mandate that
the US Defense Department develop systems
compatible with the DOD Business Enterprise
Architecture—with the threat of jail
time and hefty fines for the department’s
comptroller.
The language is tied to Title 31 of the
Antideficiency Act, which makes it illegal
for government agencies to use funds for
projects outside authorized purposes.
“I think the legislation is a step
in the right direction in terms of governance,
accountability and helping to bring together
the integration of thousands of business
systems in the department,” said Gregory
Kutz, director of financial management and
assurance for the Government Accountability
Office.
Kutz said when he did his review of the
department’s Business Management Modernization
Program in the summer, he found dozens of
systems across the Army, Air Force and Navy—totaling
$863 million in obligations—that were
in clear violation of the act.
Marilyn Fleming, chief architect for Defense’s
Business Management Modernization Program,
said DOD is listening.
Read
More About This Story
|
|
Joint
Warfare requires more Collaboration
The
USA Joint Forces Command has built a new command
and control facility for civilian and military
agencies and NATO countries that its chief
promises will be “a vibrant intellectual
engine.”
The
new Joint Systems Integration Command in Suffolk,
Va. USA, will incorporate a Joint National
Training Capability and begin initial operations
this month, said Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani
Jr., head of the USA Joint Forces Command.
He spoke in late September at the Commonwealth
of Virginia IT Symposium in Norfolk.
Construction
began on the 86,000-square-foot facility in
March. Its mission is rapid insertion of new
joint technologies for command, control, communications,
computers, intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance.
“We’re
going to demonstrate next-generation, multiagency
and multinational collaboration and interoperable
command and control across the full spectrum,”
Giambastiani said. “We don’t care
where the innovation comes from. There is
great value in having a wide net of partners.”
The
end result, he said, will be to “mass
the [military] effects when and where we choose,
not just to mass the equipment and forces.”
The
joint training program held trials three times
this year on the same training range, he said.
It will eventually replace separate training
exercises held by the Navy’s Top Gun
pilot school, the Air Force’s Air Warrior
program and the Army’s National Training
Center.
Joint
military teams of the future will be trained
to use the same terminals, or “kill boxes,”
Giambastiani said.
|
US-Intel
community looks to Enterprise Architecture
to build up information sharing
The
USA intelligence community—the collection
of federal agencies that gather, analyze
and disseminate intelligence—needs
to adopt an enterprise architecture to
break down the barriers that have long
prevented its members from sharing information.
The
community comprises three distinct elements:
agencies within the Defense Department,
such as the Defense Intelligence Agency;
those that are part of larger departments,
such as State and Energy; and one standalone
agency, the CIA.
“You
have to start with almost a federal view
of this, and even that’s not quite
big enough,” Wade said in an interview,
because even organizations outside the
community, such as the Homeland Security
Department and state and local law enforcement
agencies, rely on the intelligence.
The
intelligence community is still developing
the architecture. The blueprint will be
used to define and support all the purposes
and missions for which the community needs
to share information, including military
intelligence. The Defense Department is
working on its own plan, know as the ISR
integration roadmap
|
|
|
Business
Enterprise Architecture
The Department of Defense's (DoD) Business Enterprise
Architecture is a high-level blueprint to guide
the DoD's transformation. The Business Enterprise
Architecture describes the structural composition
of DoD business operations in ways that transcend
organizational boundaries - it demonstrates and
facilitates the derivative nature of the design
and development of business capabilities by linking
business needs to business capabilities and by tracing
business strategies to systems solutions.
|
|
|
|
Architecture
Overview
We are pleased to announce the delivery of the DoD-wide
Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) version 2.2.1,
which is pending government approval. The Standard
Financial Information Structure (SFIS) is introduced
in version 2.2.1. This builds upon version 2.2,
which is highlighted by the Enterprise Business
Process Model (EBPM).
|
Enterprise
Architecture Reference Models:
A Shared Vision for Service-Oriented Architectures
By
Tim Bass, Silk Road; bass@silkroad.com and Roy Mabry,
DoD OCIO ASD/NII; roy.mabry@osd.mil
The
business- and mission-driven objectives of service-oriented
architectures depend on the dynamic interaction
of collaborative integrated operations in a federated
operational environment. The theme of this paper
is that integrated operations can and should be
considered service-oriented nodes in a dynamic information
environment. In the Department of Defense, this
dynamic information environment has often been referred
to as “the global information grid” or
simply “the grid.” We describe enterprise
architecture reference models as a dynamic abstract
reference environment for net-centric collaboration
between the service-oriented “nodes on the
grid.” The complex, dynamic interaction of
service-oriented nodes in the net-centric environment
creates an opportunity to view enterprise architecture
as a taxonomy of well-defined systems architectures
governed by a set of enterprise architecture reference
models.
Download
this paper here (PDF 553 Kb)
|
US-DOD
to test Business Modernization Architecture
The
Defense Department later this month will release
two requests for proposals for pilot programs using
its Business Management Modernization Program architecture.
DOD
will award contracts for a new accounting system
based on the requirements identified last April
by Defense employees and contractor IBM Corp. U.S.
Transportation Command, Air Force Mobility will
conduct one test and the Army Installation Management
Agency will run the other one during fiscal 2005,
said JoAnn Boutelle, DOD’s deputy chief finance
officer.
“All
the services are cooperating to work on the implementation
of these new processes so we will end up with a
common set of processes,” Boutelle said at
the annual conference sponsored by the Joint Financial
Management Improvement Program in Washington. “All
the bases will eventually run the same system with
some tweaking needed.”
|
The
USA Defense Department will start certifying enterprise
architecture software that is compatible with the
agency’s own architecture terminology.
Each
of the vendors’ products can be used with the
Department of Defense Architecture Repository System,
which the military services can use for sharing
and integrating their architectures.
By
serving as a central repository, DARS was created
to counter the growing interoperability of enterprise
architecture development software, even though most
products use the open Extensible Markup Language,
Parmele said.
Compliant
with the Defense Architecture Framework, DARS uses
Version 2.0 of DOD’s Core Architecture Data
Model terminology for defining organizational components.
The
certification will ensure that the company’s
software can read CADM-based XML files and that
it can convert and export user-generated files into
the CADM terminology.
“The
overall objective is for the people to interchange
data without problems,” said Bill Wright, chief
executive officer for Computas Inc., of Sammamish,
Wash. “If someone in the Navy needs to exchange
data with the Air Force or Army, they can access
the data and pull it right into the software they
are using without writing a code or doing a lot
of analysis of how that data maps.”
To
generate vendor interest, the office undertook a
proof of concept last fall with four companies to
demonstrate that CADM-based data could be moved
among different software programs.
The
second phase of this work, now underway, involves
vendors writing their own DARS-compatible plug-ins.
The teams currently working through the second phase
of a prototype of DARS include Computas, IBM Corp.,
IDS Scheer AG of Germany, Popkin Software and Systems
Inc. of New York, Proforma Corp., of Southfield,
Mich., and Schafer Corp. of Arlington, Va.
Companies
that build compatible products will be certified
after the prototype is finished in June.
|
The
need for better interoperability and information
flow across DoD in support of the joint Warfighter
has been widely recognized. Joint Vision 2010 provided
the baseline for this vision, anticipating future
warfighting that embodied the improved intelligence
and command and control available in the information
age. It stressed technological innovation as the
means to enable DoD systems to interact with each
other, exchanging vital information across platforms
and across systems within a platform during joint
operations. Joint Vision 2020 goes beyond technological
innovation, and points toward innovation in all
aspects of force, and it addresses the need for
interoperability in joint, multinational, and interagency
operations.
USD
(AT&L) memo, subject: NATO Standards for Use
in the Acquisition of Munitions, provides direction
in the use of selected NATO Standardization Agreements
(STANAGs) and Allied Ordnance Publications (AOPs)
in furthering the DoD goal of interoperability with
our NATO allies.
At left is a discussion paper on interoperability
as supported by the Defense Standardization Program
(also available as a PowerPoint briefing, with notes.
A number of joint initiatives are underway within
DoD that attempt to address these concerns. Some
of the the decisions reached by these joint bodies,
as described in different documents, have a definite
impact on Defense standardization. Several of the
key efforts are outlined below
|
|
The
acronym C4ISR stands for Command,
Control, Computers,
Communications (C4),
Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance (ISR).
The C4ISR Architecture Framework Version 2.0 is a
framework giving comprehensive architectural guidance
for all of these related Defense and DoD domains,
in order to ensure interoperable and cost effective
military systems.
The
Framework is under revision to generalize it to apply
to all functional areas of the Department of Defense.
It is already being used in government areas beyond
the Defense sector.
The
impetus for the Framework was the realization within
the US Department of Defense that DoD organizations
across the world were developing architectures representing
specific contributions and relationships with respect
to overall DoD operations, but that significant differences
in content and formats were inhibiting the ability
to rationalize or compare different architecture descriptions.
In turn, disparate and unrelatable architecture products
were leading to non-integrated, non-interoperable,
and non-cost effective capabilities in the field.
The
C4ISR Architecture Framework is intended to ensure
that the architecture descriptions developed by the
various Commands, Services, and Agencies within DoD
are interrelatable between and among each organization’s
operational, systems, and technical architecture views,
and are comparable and integratable across Joint and
multi-national organizational boundaries.
In
particular, the Framework:
- Assures
that architectures are integratable across the Defense
community
- Establishes
linkages or threads that tie together the operational,
systems, and technical views of an architecture
- Provides
the basis for an audit trail that relates current
and postulated systems to measures of effectiveness
for mission operations
Download
C4ISR Version 2 Architecture Framework (3459Kb) 
Other
NATO countries developed simular C3I or C4ISR frameworks
for their Enterprise Architecture activities.
|
Enterprise
Architecture Tools for Delivering Combat and Business
Capabilities
C4ISR
Architecture Framework, Methods & Tools Comparison
The
C4ISR AF Products are robust in terms of capturing
the architecture, but are problematic when they need
to be rigorously modeled on the path to producing
a system that is compliant with that architecture.
The recommended documentation of the artifacts from
this architecture is not consistent across all the
products from a system or software "methodology representation"
standpoint.
Download
C4ISR Tools & Methods Comparison Presentation
(682Kb)
|
C4ISR
Architectures Working Group-Digital Library
In
order to achieve the dominant battlespace awareness
called for in Joint Vision 2010, today’s fragmented
Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) development
processes must become more focused, efficient, and
effective. The objective must be a joint C4ISR capability
that is integrated, interoperable, efficient, and
meets today’s demanding mission needs.
|
US-Army
WIN-T program enters Phase 2
09-2003
The
US Army has begun the development and demonstration
phase of its Warfighter Information Network-Tactical
project.
Michael
Wynne, acting undersecretary of Defense for acquisition,
technology and logistics, has given the Army approval
to proceed beyond the concept phase of WIN-T.
The
US Army recently awarded $68 million to General
Dynamics Corp. and $63 million to Lockheed Martin
Corp. for Phase 2 work.
Wynne
also gave the program the Defense Department’s top
acquisition designation, which means that because
the program’s total procurement is more than $10
billion, DOD “will maintain a higher level of visibility
into WIN-T, which is an essential element of the
department’s transformation strategy,” Wynne said.
The
decision came the day after the Defense Acquisition
Board met to review the project, said Donald L.
Keller, WIN-T project director. The Army Communications-Electronics
Command in Fort Monmouth, N.J., oversees the project.
Through
the WIN-T program, the Army plans to build a high-speed,
high-capacity network for wired and wireless voice,
data, video and imagery communications for soldiers
on the battlefield.
“The
Army had to demonstrate that the requirements are
sound, that a system and operational architecture
have been developed and that the program is affordable,”
Keller said. That’s what consumed much of the first
phase, he said—developing the system architecture,
performing technology assessments and running cost
estimates.
In
this second phase, the service will spend 27 months
working with Lockheed Martin’s mission systems group
and General Dynamics’ command, control, computers
and communications systems division.
The
contractors will work with the Army to design the
system, run models and simulations of the communications
network, and build equipment prototypes, Keller
said.
Selection
by 2006
By
2006, the Army will pick one of the two vendors
to begin rolling out an operational version of WIN-T.
The
network will replace the Tri-service Tactical Communications
system, which is based on military technology from
the 1970s. Signal battalions are required to use
the system for most communications functions.
The
new system will use commercial products and standards
so that new technology can be incorporated as soon
as it becomes available. The network will be part
of the user’s platform and not dependent on the
Signal Corps to provide the communications link.
WIN-T
will require interfaces with other Defense combat
systems as well as the Army’s Future Combat Systems,
Joint Tactical Radio System and ultimately the equipment
for the Objective Force Warrior, the Army’s high-tech
vision for 21st-century combat forces.
|
US-Defense
Inspector General criticizes Business Enterprise
Architecture
07/2003
The
US Defense Department Inspector General’s office
last week issued a report criticizing DOD’s Business
Enterprise Architecture and calling for the department
to address the issues quickly.
DOD
has spent $100 million with lead contractor IBM
Corp. to develop the business enterprise architecture,
but it has not defined what a business management
IT system is or established a systems inventory
that is synchronized with the modernization effort,
a deputy assistant IG found in the July 10 report.
Furthermore,
DOD has not established procedures for enterprise
architecture workers to develop and maintain a complete
list of business systems, according to David K.
Steensma, deputy IG for auditing.
DOD
has broken its financial framework into seven business
areas: logistics, acquisition, accounting and financial
management, program and budget, personnel and readiness,
technology infrastructure and real property, and
environmental liabilities. DOD has appointed financial
managers to oversee each of the business areas.
But,
“DOD does not have a single-source repository to
collect its business information, reduce the burden
of multiple and costly data calls, and inform its
transforming initiatives,” according to the report.
Download
this report 'Systems Inventory to Support the Business
Enterprise Architecture (D-2003-117) (333Kb PDF)
|
|
|
|
|
US-Department
of Defense, Business Enterprise Architecture
05/2003,
The Defense Department’s Financial Management Modernization
Program office, became the Business Management Modernization
Program office. And DOD’s financial management architecture
is now the business enterprise architecture.
Last month, DOD unveiled a plan to whittle its more
than 2,200 financial systems for an enterprise architecture
being developed by IBM Corp. The architecture identifies
the business rules as well as the technology needed
for a departmentwide financial infrastructure.
|
|
Financial
Management Enterprise Architecture
05/02/2003
The
Department of Defense will be managed in an efficient,
business-like manner, in which accurate, reliable,
and timely financial information, affirmed by clean
audit opinions, is available on a routine basis to
support informed decision-making at all levels throughout
the Department.
In July 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
established the Financial Management Modernization
Program (FMMP), the most comprehensive and ambitious
DoD-wide reform initiative of its kind. Just as the
Department is transforming our nation's military forces,
so is it also modernizing the business and financial
processes and systems to deliver reliable and accurate
information for timely decision-making. In this way,
the Department will not only benefit from greater
efficiency, but also apply the resources saved directly
to our war fighting capability.
The
scope of FMMP is broad and deep, encompassing the
Department's business activities and infrastructure.
The Department’s business activities include financial
and non-financial operations and systems. Non-financial
business operations and systems include those that
support the acquisition, medical, transportation,
property, inventory, supply, and personnel communities,
as well as other communities. The first step is to
design a Financial Management Enterprise Architecture
(FMEA) that will modernize and integrate both processes
and systems, which are now isolated from one another.
The FMEA will be the blueprint to transform the Department's
business operations and will leverage systems and
technologies to enable this comprehensive change.
Such fundamental and sweeping change is never easy,
yet reform is essential to ensure Defense operations
well into the 21st Century.
A successful FMMP will mean responsible and effective
stewardship of the resources entrusted to us—resources
essential for protecting American freedom. A comprehensive
approach, senior management commitment, and inter-Departmental
cooperation will help guarantee that momentum for
this reform initiative is sustained over the long
term.
|
US-DoD
Financial Management Enterprise Architecture
View FMEA's Vision, Scope and Approach
Download
Defense Wide Enterprise Architecture Presentation
(99Kb Pdf)
Downlaod
Presentation E-Government & Enterprise Architecture
(807KB zip)
|
IFIP-IFAC
Task Force on Architectures for Enterprise Integration
Enterprise
Integration has steadily evolved from the ninteen-seventies
with increasing needs of integrating the information
and material flow throughout the enterprise. Separate
achievements have been accomplished in the area
of manufacturing both in design and production (NC
and CAD/CAM systems, CIM systems, Manufacturing
Cells, Material Requirements Planning and Production
Scheduling Systems), and in the area of business
support (Accounting, Financial Planning, Human Resource
Management, Decision Support Systems, etc).
|
IFIP
IFAC
|
|
Interesting
Defense Links
|
|
|
|
Extended Enterprise
Architecture Framework / E2AF &
Extended Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model / E2AMM are Service Marks
(SM) registered by IFEAD |
