15 Page 16 17 Appendix C Integrated Architectures Panel
2.1 CURRENT ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENT There is currently no common approach for architecture development and use within the De-partment of Defense (DoD). The unified commanders in chief (CINCs), the military Services, and the DoD agencies (C/ S/ As) are increasingly developing and using architectures to support a variety of objectives, such as visualizing and defining operational and technical concepts, identifying operational requirements, assessing areas for process improvement, guiding sys-tems development and implementation, and improving interoperability. There are many differ-ent views and approaches in use.
One factor contributing to the variation in approaches is the diversity of purposes that the archi-tecture serves, such as:
Developing joint requirements for program mission need statements (MNSs) and op-erational requirements documents (ORDs)
Identifying and prioritizing C4ISR system deficiencies and allocations in context with joint needs
Improving interoperability and identifying opportunities for integration
Determining policy/ doctrine, system support needs, and application/ infrastructure support needs for a specific joint warfighting functions
Identifying communications connectivity and capacity requirements
Measuring system strengths and weaknesses with respect to supporting joint opera-tions
Consequently, there has been no common agreement within DoD concerning what architec-tures are and what they can or should be able to do.
The current C4ISR environment in the DoD does not reflect the existence of an institutionalized process for architecture development. The Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management's (TAFIM's) Standards Based Architecture (SBA) Methodology describes a pro-cess to develop and achieve an integrated information technology architecture that some DoD organizations have chosen to use. All of the Services and some of the commands and agencies have established processes for developing, presenting, and managing architectures. The pro-cesses vary according to the organization, and some are more mature than others. Architectures are frequently initiated on an ad hoc basis when some authority directs action. The action is constrained by diverse local guidance that varies according to organization, is facilitated by
2- 1 16
16 Page 17 18 Integrated Architectures Panel Appendix Cdisparate tools, and culminates in some form of descriptive documentation or assessment. The highly decentralized processes in place have led to inefficiencies in architecture development, such as collecting and cataloging information that cannot be readily reused or failing to focus on specific critical aspects of architecture development such as a clear understanding of the warfighting functions to be supported.
The result has been a widespread perception that architectures are stovepiped, piecemeal, and disjointed. This has lead to a general lack of confidence in architectures throughout the DoD that has often culminated in reliance on "squeaky wheels" as the means to identify problems and the use of "gut feel" to develop solutions.
Several attempts have been made by DoD and the Services to remedy this situation. Examples include the Navy's Copernicus... Forward, the Army's Enterprise, and the Air Force's Horizon strategies for developing integrated C4I architectures, and Defense Information Systems Agency's (DISA's) Architecture Methodology Working Group (AMWG), Automated Architecture Tool Suite (AATS), and Standard Data Element- Based Automated Architecture Support Environ-ment (SAASE). Their efforts represent a strong start, but lack the centralized top- level support needed to develop a unified DoD- wide strategy for ensuring C4ISR capabilities meet warfighters' needs.
2.2 RESULTS OF RECENT DoD ARCHITECTURE INITIATIVES In October 1995, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed that a DoD- wide effort be under-taken to define and develop better means and processes for ensuring that C4I capabilities meet the needs of warfighters. To accomplish this goal, the C4ISR Integration Task Force (ITF) was established under the direction of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD [C3I]). This task force, consisting of representatives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military Services, and DoD agencies was organized into sets of panels and subpanels, each charged with tackling a different aspect of the problem.
The Integrated Architectures Panel has focused on the processes for DoD to develop coherent integrated C4ISR architectures. Prior to the establishment of this ITF, a variety of differing views of architecture persisted in the DoD community at large. These differing views included functional, operational, information, physical, systems, and technical. The four Services had decided to focus on an architecture construct consisting of operational, systems, and technical architectures. Early in the Panel's deliberation, this construct was accepted as the set of archi-tectures required in the DoD. The Panel has produced a set of agreed definitions of Operational Architecture, Systems Architecture, and Technical Architecture. Also, a common understand-ing of the nature and roles of operational, system, and technical architectures has emerged.
2.3 EVOLUTION OF THE C4ISR ARCHITECTURE FRAMEWORK In support of the C4ISR ITF Integrated Architectures Panel, the C4I Integration Support Activ-ity (CISA) undertook the task of leading an effort to develop a Framework for C4ISR architec-2-
17 Page 18 19 Appendix C Integrated Architectures Panel
ture development that establishes a standardized set of rules and guidance for the Services, commands, and DoD agencies to use in the development and documentation of C4ISR archi-tectures. This Framework builds upon other architecture efforts within the DoD, as shown in Figure 2- 1, by combining many of the concepts and ideas from them so they can be used together.
Once adopted, the architecture Framework will provide a common basis for developing archi-tectures that can be universally understood and readily compared to other architectures, will facilitate the reuse of architectural information and results, and will serve as the foundation for expansion and integration of architectures across organizational and functional boundaries. In addition, the C4ISR Architecture Framework will promote effective communications between warfighters and system developers by providing a context within which operational analysis and systems engineering can be integrated to provide logical connectivity from strategic objec-tives down to processes and supporting system elements. Ultimate potentials include:
Ensuring that DoD is acquiring capabilities that focus on the evolving needs for joint/ combined operations
Creating a joint, integrated C4ISR environment capable of effective multinational op-erations
Encouraging, facilitating, and emphasizing development of common solutions for simi-lar needs across CINCs, Services, and DoD agencies
18 Page 19 20 Integrated Architectures Panel Appendix C
Facilitating, improving, and ensuring compatibility, interoperability, and integration among C4ISR capabilities
Facilitating, encouraging, and ensuring the fielding of joint, integrated, and interoperable C4ISR capabilities that meet operational and support needs
Development of the Framework has been an evolutionary process, paralleling and keeping pace with the deliberations and conclusions of the Integrated Architectures Panel and its subpanels. Consequently, the framework as presented here represents only a snapshot in time of the current thinking, and will evolve and be refined as it is put into practice.
2- 4 19