View NAF:NOV-4 Organisational Relationship Chart Subview



The NOV-4 Organisational Relationship Chart subview is part of the NATO Operational View and one of the 49 NATO Architecture Framework subviews*.

Version & Date

Version 3.1

* =  changed at 3.1

+ =  new at 3.1

The change history is derived from the definition of each NATO Architecture view within section 5.2.4 NATO Operational View (NOV) in AC/322(SC/1-WG/1)N(2009)0005-ADD2.  NATO Architecture Framework Version 3.1 document from .

See NAF Release History.


From the NATO Architecture Framework v3, CHAPTER 4, Section 4.5.4

The Organisational Relationship Chart identifies the key players in the operational domain that is subject to the architecture effort, and illustrates the organisational relationships among these key players.

Covered by NATO release conditions


From the NATO Architecture Framework v3, CHAPTER 4, Section 4.5.4

An NOV-4 product particularly identifies the key players. These key players may be deployed to the nodes of an NOV-2, which contain added detail on how the key players interact together in order to conduct their corresponding operational activities of NOV-5. Key players seem to be best described using role-based descriptions, independent of the fact whether a role actually involves an entire operational node or just a single human role. NOV-4 may be developed using strictly role-based elements representing the key players.

There can be many types of organisational relationships between the key players:

  • Command and Control (C2) relationships;
  • hierarchical relationships;
  • functional relationships;
  • reporting relationships;
  • collaboration relationships, and so on.

Organisational relationships are important to depict in a NATO Operational View, because they can illustrate fundamental human roles (e.g. who or what type of skill is needed to conduct operational activities) as well as management relationships (e.g., command structure or relationship to other key players). Also, organisational relationships may influence how the operational nodes in an NOV-2 are connected. For example, command and control relationships may differ under different circumstances. Differing command relationships may mean that activities are performed differently or by different units. Different coordination relationships may mean that connectivity requirements are changed.

Covered by NATO release conditions

Data Objects*

From the NATO Architecture Framework v3.1, CHAPTER 5, Section

The data in an NOV-4 can include:

Covered by NATO release conditions

From The MODAF Operational Viewpoint p24:


Full size:File:MODAF OV4OrganisationalRelationships simpplifiedMM.gif

Subject to Crown Copyright

Note: The fragment of simplified metamodel is identical to that in MODAF 1.2.004 for the MODAF::OV-4 Organisational Relationships Chart View with the following substitutions for view/subview number:


Configuration History

  • 3.1 replaces Role with Role Type in data objects


The NOV-4 looks to be misplaced. It could be described using the NSV-1.

Stereotypes such as Actual Post, Post Type, Actual Organisation, Organisation Type are defined in the glossary for the NATO Operational View. These are really part of the solution and therefore the System View. Node is the structural equivalent to Resource in the Operational View.

Role / Role type is part of the NATO System View

Resource Interactions are definitely part of the NATO System View not the operational one (which should be solution independent).

Competence, in the Operational View, is closely associated with a Functional Resource which is in the System View.

These are legacy structural problems probably inherited from MODAF.

The equivalent could be expressed using the NSV-1 System Interface Description Subview.

Ways of depicting an organisation chart  and also role extents using different frameworks are covered separately.


Other Frameworks

See also:



Category:Framework -> View
Category:NAF -> Subview



© 2010 Eclectica Systems Ltd.