DoDAF Integration Architecture

Editor's Notes

• #2: Isaac Newton is buried across the street. …as is Chaucer, CS Lewis, Charles Dickens, Lewis Carroll … even Byron and Oscar Wilde. Does make you wonder what the conversations are at night… when it gets quiet and all the ghosts come out… ----------------------------------------------- “Enterprise Architecture evaluation is about balancing tensions; an architecture cannot be perfect on all measurable performance dimensions” Evaluation should consider different aspects and tradeoffs among them.
• #3: A system is more than the sum of its pieces – it is the pieces themselves, placed into context of each other. Two spacecraft, designed independently – the only thing in common was the docking collar. In the end, the fact that they could look at the system as a whole that literally meant the difference between life and death.
• #4: How to choose? Buy, Build or Refit The challenge was to source a new platform, or refit an existing platform. Using capability gap analysis, combined with strict requirements management practices, it was determined to refit an existing platform New engines, new avionics, new payload management systems.. The only thing left was the airframe.
• #5: Once a common understanding of the gaps in capabilities were understood – and using an objective, systems approach to determining the best possible solution – a refit of an existing airframe was chosen to fill the void. The challenge had only just begun. In similar platforms, the government only maintained a supervisory and approval role, but left most of the systems design work one or more ‘prime’ contractors. In this project, it was determined that the government would take a more ‘hands on’ approach in order to ensure timely delivery against its requirements. HOWEVER, the government does not build planes. It relies on those contractors to do that. Those contractors maintain an adversarial relationship between themselves that would hamper building to a common goal. By introducing risk sharing mechanisms into the project – based on payouts and contract commitments - the typical adversarial walls began to break down. By incorporating ALL suppliers – down to the sub-system, sub-assembly and parts suppliers, innovative ideas can be shared. {PARTS INTEGRATION STORY}
• #7: “Enterprise Architecture evaluation is about balancing tensions; an architecture cannot be perfect on all measurable performance dimensions” Evaluation should consider different aspects and tradeoffs among them. Legal issues are rampant – ALSO INFORMS AND DEFINES STRATEGY – SO DO NOT THINK SCOPE CREEP, it is all about informing and helping others to make decisions by providing them actionable information. Intra-Political Factors include typical budgeting, etc Extra-Political Factors include technology transfer, as well as budgeting (See collation of JSF buyers) How many of you build architectures that address training gaps? Talk about DOTMLPF analysis
• #8: Certain capabilities of the aircraft were able to meet existing requirements – and others were not. A complete, objective look at the overall system of systems was required to establish the capability gaps required to be remediated. Gaps were given metrics in order to be prioritized based on overall future value. Even if significant improvements were available to lower priority items, they may not have been included in the future state due to budget and time constraints based on their expected future value. Talk about reluctance to do As-Is architecture
• #9: Sharing data and technology across capabilities which means that it shares across vendors. Corporate sensitivities are critical.
• #10: The addition of a government advocacy team was essential to add an acquisition-mandated ‘official’ vote to each sub-system delivery team. This included government participation on each of the design boards for the prime contractors. It ensured cross-platform benefit, not a solution optimized to a specific vendor. NOT SHOWN: sub-component and parts level members. These members were essential in building a solution that was sustainable over the long haul and leveraged innovative methods of production. From a financial perspective, long-term guaranteed contracts were put into place to build a confidence level among the primes and sub-primes. Without these, suppliers may not have been forthright in delivering solutions for the overall good…and optimized for their short-term gains.
• #13: RFP Discussion The Top Level Architecture – the sphere – constructs the bullet points of an RFP. One of the goals of a well formed Top Level Architecture is a ‘push button RFP’ Additionally, because these RFPs have been generated in light of where they fit within the context of the rest of the systems, the can be systematically vetted to evaluate how they fit.
• #14: We can see the wedge represented here. That is the “work” of architecting. The mission dictates the validation.
• #15: Clarify the Problem The current state of the enterprise and define the specific objectives for the future. It includes the understanding of: the motivation for change, the enterprise landscape, the stakeholder’s values, the ‘As-Is’ enterprise and de future holistic vision Generate Architectures Develop several candidate architectures using a systems thinking perspective. This step focuses only in the generation of alternatives, not in their evaluation. Evaluate Effectiveness Estimates how close each proposed architecture is with respect what is desired to achieve or obtain by the future enterprise. In its evaluation considers both: future strategic competencies needed and the future values of multiple stakeholders. Evaluate Resources Compares the level of effort required to implement any of the proposed candidate architectures. It allows the consideration of trade-offs that exist among different options. Evaluate Risk Assess the level of risk associated with each of the candidate architectures. It identifies uncertainties, likelihoods and the consequences that unexpected/ unforeseen events might have on different architectures. It provides important complementary information to decision makers.