Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

DODAF 2 - Now That Systems Views Deprecated, What Happens?

In releasing DODAF 2 significant changes were made from DODAF 1.5 not the least of which are the changes to the definition and use of ‘System’ which can now perform functions, be made from materiel and personnel rather than just computer hardware - all good and very necessary when representing a real system. The trouble is that there are then some very odd statements and advice made with respect to describing systems.

From DODAF Viewpoints and Models:

The Systems Viewpoint, for Legacy support, is the design for solutions articulating the systems, their composition, interconnectivity, and context providing for or supporting operational and capability functions.

and from the Systems Viewpoint

The Systems DoDAF-described Models are available for support of legacy systems. As architectures are updated, they should transition from Systems to Services and utilize the models within the Services Viewpoint.

So it seems that Systems Views are being withdrawn and the official advice is to transition from Systems Views to Services views. This is worrying for a number of reasons:

• you cannot equate a System with a Service. A System is a thing characterised by emergent behaviour. A Service is usually an abstract activity-like thing with no notion of technology or implementation. A System is very definitely part of the implementation. If they are considered to be the same why have both sets of views?
• if the Systems Views disappear you cannot then describe any implementation using DODAF. It is surely very important to be able to describe the things we see in the real world. So what happens to the companies that design and develop these systems if they no longer have any means to describe the architecture of the things they develop and deliver? Enterprise architecture should bring different communities together for the common good not cut them out.
• if Systems Views disappear the means to gather the data relating to systems for the underlying DODAF Data Model disappears. This is owned by the DoD so they alone probably feel the effects of this.
• the linkage to the Operational, Project, Services and Capability Viewpoints disappears. Without the Systems Views and systems you lose the ability to describe how systems realise capabilities or the operational needs. Equally without Systems you can’t describe when these are delivered or removed from service and therefore the effects on capability. How can you then implement a service?

All in all this is pretty serious. I therefore posted a question on the DODAF Group on LinkedIn asking what people were planning to do as a result of the advice to migrate the Systems Views to the Service Views. I only got one responder, but a valuable one in Charles Thornburgh. He correctly pointed out that it wasn’t mandatory. It is still, however, official DoD advice. He also pointed out that a lot of the best brains were engaged in looking at this including DoDAF Meta-model Working Group to determine if there is a difference in modeling Services vs. Systems. I pointed out that I’d thought that this would have been done before advising users.

It could be quite a while before the analysis and impact assessment is complete. The easiest action would be to remove the official advice from the DODAF 2 website until such time that the way forwards has been agreed. Maintaining the advice knowing that there are significant problems doesn’t seem like a sensible idea - what happens if the advice is acted on? There will be some very unhappy bunnies in industry if the advice is withdrawn much later.

Has anyone actually followed this advice? What did you do / how did you approach this? Any helpful suggestions for the rest of us?

Comments

Comment on this article

Related Articles

{REL[6049][related1_blog]ezqptdBYREL}

Sharing tags:

• NATO AF v3.1 - Is It Now Time to Merge MODAF and the NATO AF? (10% )
• Every Viewpoint Has to Be Distinct - Say “Goodbye” to the TRAK CVp-02 Concept Viewpoint (10% )
• Risk and Threats - The Common Ground Between Security and Safety? (10% )
• Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (10% )
• Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk? (10% )

External Links

• DODAF 2 website - DODAF Viewpoints and Models
• DODAF 2 website - Systems Viewpoint

TRAK is in the Wild - Now an Open Source Enterprise Architecture Framework

TRAK has been released, thanks to the foresight of London Underground Ltd., under an open source license.

Releasing TRAK under open source is important because

• it is a standard to facilitate the exchange of architecture models
• it recognises that there are many who could contribute expertise if allowed to do so - any with the need or energy/motivation can participate
• it provides a feasible maintenance and support system - one where TRAK has the wherewithall to heal itself
• it keeps the cost of using the standard to a minimum - since architecture is a form of communication we shouldn’t tax it!
• it represents pragmatism in terms of releasing early, not waiting for perfection and in collaborating for the common good

The UK Department for Transport are the sponsor of TRAK as part of a wider systems engineering initiative.

The release of TRAK has been split into 4 products.

The first 2 parts form the logical definition of TRAK.

• the TRAK metamodel. This specifies the allowable object types and relationships that can be used. In essence it provides the language that an architect can use through the set of nouns and verbs. It includes a simplified metamodel for easy reference. It also includes a detailed comparison against MODAF 1.2 in order to set an initial baseline. One of the reasons for release using the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is that the History section is preserved together with attribution to those who help develop TRAK. The metamodel is at trakmetamodel.sourceforge.io
• the TRAK architecture viewpoint definitions. TRAK adopts ISO 42010 / IEEE 1471 practice by having a viewpoint for each architectural view that specifies the concerns addressed, the allowable objects (from the metamodel), the suggested presentation format and the consistency rules. It includes a comparison against MODAF 1.2 view set. It is released as open source under the GFDL at trakviewpoints.sourceforge.io

The second 2 parts are implementations against the logical definition.

• the MDG Technology for TRAK. This is a Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect (EA) file that contains the architectural model used to create both the MDG plugin that implements TRAK in Enterprise Architect and the UML profile for TRAK which is used by Enterprise Architect and any other UML modelling tool. It represents the implementation of both the TRAK metamodel and the TRAK viewpoint definition as far as is possible. It contains the EA plugin and the source EA project file. It is released under the GNU Public License version3 (GPL v3) at mdgfortrak.sourceforge.io
• the UML profile for TRAK. This provides the set of objects and relationships defined within the TRAK Metamodel in a way that any decent UML modelling tool can use. It is released under the GPL v3 at trakumlprofile.sourceforge.io

Not saying it’s perfect - we know it isn’t. It’s good enough for practical purposes and we have a list of things that need looking at. What I hope is, being open source, that anyone needing to apply it in a particular situation and finding it lacking can then get involved to solve the problem. Application and usability are all important - more so than any theoretical underpinning. The framework is not a system - this only arises when you add tools, people, organisations and therefore you always have to address visibility, navigation, affordance etc - in short the user interface for the whole thing. We hope in this way that TRAK will be user-centric and problem-led rather than specification-centric.

If you do want to get involved there are forums set up at the TRAK Viewpoints and TRAK Metamodel sites.

Comments

Comment on this article

Related Articles

Sharing tags:

• Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (25% )
• Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk? (13% )
• Just When You Thought It Was Safe - EntiTy Returns (13% )
• Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk Part 2? (6% )
• What Would a TRAK View Look Like in a Graph Database? Part 1 (6% )

External Links

Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3