Department of Defense Architecture Framework

The Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) is an architecture framework for the United States Department of Defense (DoD) that provides visualization infrastructure for specific stakeholders concerns through viewpoints organized by various views. These views are artifacts for visualizing, understanding, and assimilating the broad scope and complexities of an architecture description through tabular, structural, behavioral, ontological, pictorial, temporal, graphical, probabilistic, or alternative conceptual means. The current release is DoDAF 2.02.
This Architecture Framework is especially suited to large systems with complex integration and interoperability challenges, and it is apparently unique in its employment of "operational views". These views offer overview and details aimed to specific stakeholders within their domain and in interaction with other domains in which the system will operate.
Overview.
The DoDAF provides a foundational framework for developing and representing architecture descriptions that ensure a common denominator for understanding, comparing, and integrating architectures across organizational, joint, and multinational boundaries. It establishes data element definitions, rules, and relationships and a baseline set of products for consistent development of systems, integrated, or federated architectures. These architecture descriptions may include families of systems (FoS), systems of systems (SoS), and net-centric capabilities for interoperating and interacting in the non-combat environment.
DoD Components are expected to conform to DoDAF to the maximum extent possible in development of architectures within the Department. Conformance ensures that reuse of information, architecture artifacts, models, and viewpoints can be shared with common understanding. All major U.S. DoD weapons and information technology system acquisitions are required to develop and document an enterprise architecture (EA) using the views prescribed in the DoDAF. While it is clearly aimed at military systems, DoDAF has broad applicability across the private, public and voluntary sectors around the world, and represents one of a large number of systems architecture frameworks.
History.
The first version of the development DoDAF was developed in the 1990s under the name C4ISR Architecture Framework. In the same period the reference model TAFIM, which was initiated in 1986, was further developed. The first C4ISR Architecture Framework v1.0, released 7 June 1996, was created in response to the passage of the Clinger-Cohen Act. It addressed the 1995 Deputy Secretary of Defense directive that a DoD-wide effort be undertaken to define and develop a better means and process for ensuring that C4ISR capabilities were interoperable and met the needs of the warfighter. Continued development effort resulted in December 1997 in the second version, C4ISR Architecture Framework v2.0.
In August 2003 the DoDAF v1.0 was released, which restructured the C4ISR Framework v2.0 to offer guidance, product descriptions, and supplementary information in two volumes and a Desk Book. It broadened the applicability of architecture tenets and practices to all Mission Areas rather than just the C4ISR community. This document addressed usage, integrated architectures, DoD and Federal policies, value of architectures, architecture measures, DoD decision support processes, development techniques, analytical techniques, and the CADM v1.01, and moved towards a repository-based approach by placing emphasis on architecture data elements that comprise architecture products. In February 2004 the documentation of Version 1.0 was released with volume "I: Definitions and Guidelines", "II: Product Descriptions" and a "Deskbook". In April 2007 the Version 1.5 was released with a documentation of "Definitions and Guidelines", "Product Descriptions" and "Architecture Data Description".
On May 28, 2009 DoDAF v2.0 was approved by the Department of Defense. The current version is DoDAF 2.02 
DoDAF V2.0 is published on a public website.
Other derivative frameworks based on DoDAF include the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) and Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework. Like other EA approaches, for example The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), DoDAF is organized around a shared repository to hold work products. The repository is defined by the common database schema Core Architecture Data Model 2.0 and the DoD Architecture Registry System (DARS). A key feature of DoDAF is interoperability, which is organized as a series of levels, called Levels of Information System Interoperability (LISI). The developing system must not only meet its internal data needs but also those of the operational framework into which it is set.
Capabilities and mission.
See the diagram for a depiction of the Capabilities Emphasis, as tied in with mission/course of action, threads, activities, and architectures. 
The DoD has moved toward a focus on the delivery of capabilities, which are the reason for creating the system/service.
The Capability Models describe capability taxonomy and capability evolution. 
A capability thread would equate to the specific activities, rules, and systems that are linked to that particular capability.
The concept of capability, as defined by its Meta-model Data Group allows one to answer questions such as:
The Mission or Course of Action is described by a Concept of Operations (CONOPS), and is organized by Capabilities.
Version 1.5 views.
The DoDAF V1.5 defines a set of products, a view model, that act as mechanisms for visualizing, understanding, and assimilating the broad scope and complexities of an architecture description through graphic, tabular, or textual means. These products are organized under four views:
Each view depicts certain perspectives of an architecture as described below. Only a subset of the full DoDAF viewset is usually created for each system development. The figure represents the information that links the operational view, systems and services view, and technical standards view. The three views and their interrelationships – driven by common architecture data elements – provide the basis for
deriving measures such as interoperability or performance, and for measuring the impact of the values of these metrics on operational mission and task effectiveness.
All view.
All view (AV) products provide overarching descriptions of the entire architecture and define the scope and context of the architecture. The DoDAF V1.5 AV products are defined as:
Operational view.
Operational View (OV) products provide descriptions of the tasks and activities, operational elements, and information exchanges required to accomplish DoD missions. The OV provides textual and graphical representations of operational nodes and elements, assigned tasks and activities, and information flows between nodes. It defines the type of information exchanged, the frequency of exchanges, the tasks and activities supported by these exchanges and the nature of the exchanges. The DoDAF V1.5 OV products are defined as:
Systems and services view.
Systems and services view (SV) is a set of graphical and textual products that describe systems and services and interconnections providing for, or supporting, DoD functions. SV products focus on specific physical systems with specific physical (geographical) locations. The relationship between architecture data elements across the SV to the OV can be exemplified as systems are procured and fielded to support organizations and their operations. The DoDAF V1.5 SV products are:
Technical standards view.
Technical standards view (TV) products define technical standards, implementation conventions, business rules and criteria that govern the architecture. The DoDAF V1.5 TV products are as follows:
Version 2.0 viewpoints.
In DoDAF V2.0, architectural viewpoints are composed of data that has been organized to facilitate understanding. To align with ISO Standards, where appropriate, the terminology has changed from Views to Viewpoint (e.g., the Operational View is now the Operational Viewpoint).
The architectures for DoDAF V1.0 and DoDAF V1.5 may continue to be used. When appropriate (usually indicated by policy or by the decision-maker), DoDAF V1.0 and V1.5 architectures will need to update their architecture. When pre-DoDAF V2.0 architecture is compared with DoDAF V2.0 architecture, concept differences (such as Node) must be defined or explained for the newer architecture. In regard to DoDAF V1.5 products, they have been transformed into parts of the DoDAF V2.0 models. In most cases, the DoDAF V2.0 Meta-model supports the DoDAF V1.5 data concepts, with one notable exception: Node. Node is a complex, logical concept that is represented with more concrete concepts.
Data and Information Viewpoint (DIV).
Note, see Logical data model for discussion of the relationship of these three DIV data models, with comparison of the Conceptual, Logical & Physical Data Models.
Creating an integrated architecture using DoDAF.
The DODAF 2.0 Architects Guide repeated DOD Instruction 4630.8 definition of an integrated architecture as "An architecture consisting of multiple views facilitating integration and promoting interoperability across capabilities and among integrated architectures." For the purposes of architecture development, the term integrated means that data required in more than one of the architectural models is commonly defined and understood across those models. Integrated architectures are a property or design principle for architectures at all levels: Capability,Component, Solution, and Enterprise (in the context of the DoD Enterprise Architecture (EA) being a federation [of] architectures). In simpler terms, integration is seen in the connection from items common among architecture products, where items shown in one architecture product (such as sites used or systems interfaced or services provided) should have the identical number, name, and meaning appear in related architecture product views."
There are many different approaches for creating an integrated architecture using DoDAF and for determining which products are required. The approach depends on the requirements and the expected results; i.e., what the resulting architecture will be used for.
As one example, the DoDAF v1.0 listed the following products as the "minimum set of products required to satisfy the definition of an OV, SV and TV." One note: while the DoDAF does not list the OV-1 artifact as a core product, its development is strongly encouraged. The sequence of the artifacts listed below gives a suggested order in which the artifacts could be developed. The actual sequence of view generation and their potential customization is a function of the application domain and the specific needs of the effort.
One concern about the DoDAF is how well these products meet actual stakeholder concerns for any given system of interest. One can view DoDAF products, or at least the 3 views, as ANSI/IEEE 1471-2000 or ISO/IEC 42010 "viewpoints". But to build an architecture description that corresponds to ANSI/IEEE 1471-2000 or ISO/IEC 42010, it is necessary to clearly identify the stakeholders and their concerns that map to each selected DoDAF product. Otherwise there is the risk of producing products with no customers.
The figure "DoDAF V1.5 Products Matrix" shows how the DoD Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 6212.01E specifies which DoDAF V1.5 products are required for each type of analysis, in the context of the Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP):
Representation.
Representations for the DoDAF products may be drawn from many diagramming techniques including:
There is a UPDM (Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF) effort within the OMG to standardize the representation of DoDAF products when UML is used.
DoDAF generically describes in the representation of the artifacts to be generated, but allows considerable flexibility regarding the specific formats and modeling techniques. The DoDAF deskbook provides examples in using traditional systems engineering and data engineering techniques, and secondly, UML format. DoDAF proclaims latitude in work product format, without professing one diagramming technique over another.
In addition to graphical representation, there is typically a requirement to provide metadata to the Defense Information Technology Portfolio Repository (DITPR) or other architectural repositories.
Meta-model.
DoDAF has a meta-model underpinning the framework, defining the types of modelling elements that can be used in each view and the relationships between them. DoDAF versions 1.0 thru 1.5 used the CADM meta-model, which was defined in IDEF1X (then later in UML) with an XML Schema derived from the resulting relational database. From version 2.0, DoDAF has adopted the IDEAS Group foundation ontology as the basis for its new meta-model. This new meta-model is called "DM2"; an acronym for "DoDAF Meta-Model". Each of these three levels of the DM2 is important to a particular viewer of Departmental processes:
The purposes of the DM2 are:
The DM2 defines architectural data elements and enables the integration and federation of Architectural Descriptions. It establishes a basis for semantic (i.e., understanding) consistency within and across Architectural Descriptions. In this manner, the DM2 supports the exchange and reuse of architectural information among JCAs, Components, and Federal and Coalition partners, thus facilitating the understanding and implementation of interoperability of processes and systems. As the DM2 matures to meet the ongoing data requirements of process owners, decision makers, architects, and new technologies, it will evolve to a resource that more completely supports the requirements for architectural data, published in a consistently understandable way, and will enable greater ease for discovering, sharing, and reusing architectural data across organizational boundaries.
To facilitate the use of information at the data layer, the DoDAF describes a set of models for visualizing data through graphic, tabular, or textual means. These views relate to stakeholder requirements for producing an Architectural Description.
Relationship to other architecture frameworks.
The UPDM (Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF) is an OMG initiative to standardize UML and SysML usage for USA and UK defense architecture frameworks. In addition, the multi-national IDEAS Group, which is supported by Australia, Canada, Sweden, UK, USA, with NATO observers, has launched an initiative to develop a formal ontology for enterprise architectures.
Criticism.
The efficacy of DoDAF at the U.S. Department of Defense for developing enterprise architecture has been debated: