Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
DoDAF and Other Frameworks
Published in Howard Eisner, Systems Architecting, 2019
The Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the DoD had this to say about DoDAF [1]:DodAF is the overarching comprehensive framework and conceptual model enabling the development of architectures to facilitate the ability of DoD managers at all levels to make decisions more effectively through organized information sharing across the Department, Joint Capability Areas (JCAs), Mission, Component, and Program boundaries. This, of course, sees DoDAF in terms of providing “information,” which is largely generic, and assisting in terms of decision-making. This approach, as of Version 2 of DoDAF, emphasizes “data” in distinction to “products.” The earlier product emphasis had its day and gave way to the next perspective and set of artifacts.
Top dozen suggestions for systems engineers
Published in Howard Eisner, Thinking, 2019
The Department of Defense Architecting Framework (DoDAF) approach to architecting a system is likely to be continued as a result of the commitment made over the years by the Department of Defense. Despite that apparent fact, the Eisner’s Architecting Method (EAM) approach will provide a broadening of your considerations, hopefully leading to a greater likelihood of success. Recall that this involves designing several alternative systems and selecting the best among them on the basis of a cost-effectiveness comparison. Thus, the basic steps are as follows: Functional decompositionSynthesisAnalysisCost-effectiveness evaluation
Software Project Management Introduction
Published in Marvin Gechman, Project Management of Large Software-Intensive Systems, 2019
During system development, integration and operational problems frequently arise due to inconsistencies, ambiguities, and omissions in addressing quality attributes between system and software architectures. These problems are compounded in a SoS. The architecture framework for the Department of Defense is called DoDAF. It provides a good set of architectural views for a SoS architecture. It is important to remember that identifying and addressing quality attributes early in the process, and evaluating the architecture to identify risks, is a key to success.
A systematic mapping study on enterprise architecture mining
Published in Enterprise Information Systems, 2019
Ricardo Perez-Castillo, Francisco Ruiz-Gonzalez, Marcela Genero, Mario Piattini
Several EA frameworks have emerged and achieved certain relevance in the last few years. TOGAF (The Open Group 2011b) has been widely adopted in the market (The Open Group 2016b), which considers TOGAF to be the de facto standard (Simon, Fischbach, and Schoder 2013). This framework provides the Architecture Development Method (ADM), which depicts a methodology for the iterative development of EA. There are also other EA frameworks apart from TOGAF. The ‘Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF)’ is the conceptual model and framework employed to enable the EA development, specifically in the case of defence agencies. Similarly, MODAF is the UK Ministry of Defense Architecture Framework, which supplements DoDAF with two new viewpoints. Both frameworks were ‘developed for a specific domain and enterprises and were not designed to be used beyond those bounds’ (Rouhani et al. 2015). Some proposals even use in combination TOGAF and DoDAF (Tao et al. 2017).
Bridging Joint Operations and Engineering Management through an Operational Mission Architecture Framework
Published in Engineering Management Journal, 2022
Paul Beery, Thomas Irwin, Eugene Paulo, Anthony Pollman, Wayne Porter, Stephen Gillespie
Within the DAS, the linkage of the requirements and acquisition processes is intended to achieve the balance between requirements, capability, and resources. Requirements definition and technology maturation are considered throughout the process to promote a disciplined approach toward affordable systems and production. Three key documents, the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), the Capability Development Document (CDD), and the Capability Production Document (CPD) are produced based on the JCIDS process and facilitate integration between system acquisition and system requirements development. This idea has been expanded by recent work in the DoD realm, notably (Dahmann, 2019) (Gold, 2016) (Hernandez et al., 2018), and (Beery & Paulo, 2019), which propose expanding traditional engineering approaches to specifically consider DoD missions during the early stages of system acquisition and engineering. Notably, both the foundational DoD guidance and recent mission-focused literature emphasizes the utility of DoDAF products. These DoDAF products define the system that will be acquired and developed and accordingly drive the development of plans that will guide capability assessments, system development, and investment decisions (Department of Defense, 2009). DoDAF views span eight broad perspectives: Capability, Operational, Services, Systems, Project, Data and Information, Standards, and All (which provide system context) Viewpoints. Utilization of these standardized system representations facilitates information sharing and communication between the requirements community and the acquisition/technical communities.
Towards generic platform to support collaboration in freight transportation: taxonomic literature and design based on Zachman framework
Published in Enterprise Information Systems, 2023
Abdelghani Saoud, Adil Bellabdaoui
Many Enterprise Architecture Frameworks exist to help companies drive a digital transformation, such as Zachman Framework, TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework), DoDAF (Department of Defence Architecture Framework), each has strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others. However, in this work, Zachman framework is selected because it is simple in describing any complex system without imposing specific methodology, models or notations (Bondar et al. 2017). Besides, it proposes a suitable schema to explore literature in a taxonomic and structured way.