Department of the Navy tive or overlapping systems, but also the ability to identify those
systems that need to be developed to fulfill a desired capability
Architecture Federation Pilot The DON views architecture federation as consisting of five
central elements that govern the process and the methodology
of federation: tiered accountability, categorization, semantic
The Defense Department recognized that the current approach alignment, reference architectures, and search and discovery,
of attempting to develop monolithic integrated architectures has as illustrated in Figure 1. Together these elements provide the
not worked well. Consequently, DoD has developed a concept of framework for effective federation of DON architectures.
architecture federation … Architecture federation techniques recognize that the re-
By Brant Frey
The Defense Department knows that the structured analysis
associated with architectures is essential to transform its plat-
form-centric environment to a net-centric environment. This
change will eliminate silos of data and information, thus making
information visible and accessible to all authorized users.
However, the DoD recognized that the current approach of
attempting to develop monolithic integrated architectures has
not worked well. Consequently, DoD has developed a concept
of architecture federation.
The Architecture and Interoperability Directorate of the office
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Informa-
tion Integration/Department of Defense Chief Information Of-
ficer (ASD(NII)/DoD CIO) published the Global Information Grid
(GIG) Architecture Federation Strategy version 1.2 in August
2007 (available on the Department of the Navy CIO Web site;
search for Enterprise Architecture). It outlines the basic concepts Figure 1.
and principles underlying architecture federation.
The DoD strategy has been kept at a high-level to allow each
service to develop a tailored implementation plan. Allowing sponsibility for architecture development is shared at several
each component to tailor an implementation plan is consis- echelons or what the DoD federation strategy calls tiers. Tiered
tent with the spirit of the federation approach. It endeavors to accountability establishes a hierarchy of architectures whereby
provide a minimum set of rules and standards from the higher subordinate architectures inherit characteristics from the higher
echelons within the DoD while allowing maximum flexibility at level architectures in a parent-child relationship. The basic con-
subordinate echelons. cept behind tiered accountability is to architect down to a mini-
This article outlines a portion of the DON’s implementation mum amount of detail at each tier to establish clear touch points
of the DoD federation strategy. It approaches DON architecture between the tiers. This concept is shown in Figure 2.
federation from the perspective of developing a repeatable To deal with the complexity and diversity of the enterprise,
process that, when applied to any number of architectures, pro-
duces a consistent result. The DON EA Federation Pilot Report
1.0, scheduled for release this summer, will outline processes, es-
sential inputs to these processes, expected outcomes, and the
rules required to achieve consistent success.
Architecture federation serves in part as a process for relating
or aligning subordinate and parent architectures via the map-
ping of common architecture information. At the same time,
federation provides an organizing construct that allows unique-
ness and autonomy throughout the enterprise. These aligned
architectures are subsequently located and linked through an
architecture management service, allowing consistent search
This alignment and discovery provide critical insight into the
enterprise, improving interoperability and reducing overlaps
and gaps. The ability to maintain line-of-sight for strategic mis-
sions and goals to the systems that instantiate those objectives
is achieved. This enhances not only the ability to view duplica- Figure 2.
CHIPS July – September 2008 41
Any successful federation mapping relationships are qualified as chitecture Development and Integration
effort is dependent upon equivalent to, part of, similar to, or no Environment (SADIE) to provide a search
relationship. and discovery service that would allow an
making architecture artifacts The activities and the relationships are authorized user access to relevant archi-
visible and accessible to then captured in a federation tool called tecture products.
analysts, planners and decision the Federation Log. To facilitate both Employing an architecture service al-
makers at all levels. search and discovery, the process devel- leviates the need for the DoD to create a
oped will leverage this consistent meth- single massive repository. Instead, archi-
odology to capture the taxonomy output tectures can be registered in the DoD Ar-
this concept sets the stage for dividing the of the federation process. chitecture Registry System (DARS), indi-
enterprise into manageable components. The “FedLog” is a standard means of cating that their products are contained
These components can be described and capturing the output of the federation within service-level repositories.
documented by the communities that are process while offering a searchable and Using a federation approach, the DON
most closely associated with them using a discoverable document that will facilitate expects to achieve the following results:
set of standard rules and practices. reuse of the federation effort and serve as
Ideally, only a small set of rules, com- an architecture analysis and quality con- • Decompose the DON enterprise into
mon terms and standards are inherited trol tool. logical mission segments based on tradi-
from the parent architectures to maintain Any successful federation effort is de- tional mission areas, horizontal tiers and
consistency throughout the enterprise pendent upon making architecture ar- the echelon level at which the architec-
and effective high-level guidance from tifacts visible and accessible to analysts, ture must exist;
each higher tier. planners and decision makers at all levels.
The DON’s federation process pro- As part of the DON federation strategy, • Demonstrate clear program align-
vides a method for linking or aligning there is a focus on making the products ment with mission architectures, as
subordinate and parent architectures via accessible and visible through the use of well as alignment with the DoD-level
the mapping of common architectural GIG Architecture Enterprise Services. architectures;
information. This concept advocates sub- The GAES would work in conjunction
ordinate architecture alignment to the with other DON repositories such as the • Use the federation techniques to
parent architecture. For alignment, the Naval Architecture Repository System identify gaps and overlaps in existing
operational activity model (OV-5) node (NARS) and the Systems Command Ar- architectures;
tree, which describes the activities that
are normally conducted in the course of BMA WMA Architectures
achieving a mission, capability or a busi- P1 (Parent 1)
ness goal, serves as the basis for federa-
tion and acts as a reliable touch point be- Align to WMA
Align to BMA
tween architectures. via BEA via JCA
This is based on the belief that activities activities activities
are of an enduring nature. Capabilities will
change over time as will the processes and (Notional) DON Level
systems that instantiate those capabili- DON Logistics Enterprise Architecture Architectures
ties. As activities are aligned throughout C1 (Child 1) & P2
the enterprise to a tiered taxonomy, the
ability to trace capability development in Align to Align to
systems can be effectively realized. DON level DON level
The subsequent ability to direct, Reference Reference
change, challenge or administer architec-
ture development is guided from above USMC/Logistics DON Mission
rather than below. Consistent with the N4 Architecture Organization Architectures
idea of tiered accountability, a series of Architecture Log OA C2 (Child 2) & P3
DON level reference architectures and
DON mission-level reference architec- Align to
Align to Navy
tures (detailed in Figure 3), which are Mission Marine Corps
effectively aligned to high-level capabili- Architecture Mission
ties, can serve as the parent taxonomies Architecture
for program architectures to utilize.
(n) Program Architectures (n) Program Architectures
The semantic alignment of activities DON Program
to a parent or reference architecture is Automate the activities as represented Automate the activities as represented Architectures
in mission reference architectures in mission reference architectures C3 (Child 3) & P4
achieved by using a four-part grading
system that qualifies the strength of the
relationship between activities. These Figure 3.
42 CHIPS www.chips.navy.mil Dedicated to Sharing Information - Technology - Experience
• Provide a basis for each program to
demonstrate how it contributes to naval
and joint missions;
• Identify strengths in current systems
and their contribution to required naval
• Leverage existing architecture in-
vestments and reuse the artifacts as a
starting point for creation of the larger
• Increase insight into the interactions
and dependencies among DoD/DON mis- By NETWARCOM Public Affairs
sions, organizations and systems; – Artist’s conception of a WGS satellite in orbit
• Improve architecture information Operations Coordination and Execution Lead Capt. Kevin Johnson, at Naval Network
sharing; Warfare Command, recently announced the transition of Pacific fleet communications to
the Wideband Global System (WGS-1), the first of a series of six new generation commu-
• Improve investment decisions; and nications satellites that will dramatically improve NETWARCOM’s ability to provide timely
and accurate information and decision superiority to the fleet.
• Establish enterprise boundaries. “This is a tremendous first step in improving our communications, both afloat and
ashore. It will not only improve our tactical communications but will also allow us to con-
The federation process and model duct our logistics and other routine communications in a more timely manner and allow
were tested through a pilot program Sailors more flexibility to complete online training courses and communicate with their
using both a Navy command and control families,” Johnson said.
architecture and a Marine Corps logis- Each WGS satellite provides more communication capability than the entire Defense
tics architecture that aligned to both the Satellite Communications System (DSCS) constellation and has been eagerly anticipated
Business Enterprise Architecture and the by Navy forces in the Pacific theater. Follow-on WGS-2 and WGS-3 will provide improved
Warfighter Mission Architecture. communications capability in the Indian Ocean and Atlantic.
The federation process is independent The WGS program augments, and will eventually replace, the existing DSCS which
of any particular enterprise hierarchy but provides super high frequency (SHF) wideband communications. The reconfigurable an-
will work as long as a defined tiered struc- tennas on WGS satellites will enhance fleet operations by increasing the commander’s
ture and a tiered accountability construct ability to tailor coverage areas to match operational scenarios.
are established. Navy carrier and expeditionary strike groups will use WGS to provide high-capacity
connectivity between ships and into the terrestrial portion of the Defense Information
Systems Network (DISN). Ships operating in the Western Pacific will have the first op-
portunity to use these new satellites. USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) was the first ship to access
WGS-1 during its recent transition to operational status.
The WGS satellites are key elements of a system that is expected to provide a signifi-
In April 2008, the Booz Allen Hamilton cant increase in global communications capabilities for the fleet. These satellites provide
team working with the DON CIO was pre- communication capacity, connectivity and flexibility for Navy forces afloat and ashore.
sented with a Department of Defense En- The WGS constellation will maintain interoperability with existing and programmed
terprise Architecture Achievement award X-band and Ka-band satellite terminals. WGS supports the Navy’s warfighting informa-
— a first from the DoD. The award recog- tion exchange requirements, enabling execution of tactical command, control, commu-
nized significant contributions in advanc- nications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR); battle man-
ing enterprise architecture for the DoD. agement; and combat support information.
WGS also augments the current Ka-band Global Broadcast Service (on UHF follow-on
Web links: satellites) by providing additional information broadcast capabilities.
DON CIO – www.doncio.navy.mil “We’ll be closely monitoring the transition to WGS to ensure we are using it to its full-
ASD(NII)/DoD CIO – www. est capacity and are eagerly awaiting WGS-2, WGS-3 and the rest of the Wideband Global
defenselink.mil/cio-nii/ System constellation,” Johnson said.
NETWARCOM is the Navy’s type commander for networks, information operations,
space and intelligence, and the central operational authority responsible for providing
ready information professional, information warfare and intelligence forces.
Brant Frey provides support to the DON CIO Enter-
prise Architecture team. For more information, go to the NETWARCOM Web site at www.netwarcom.navy.mil.
CHIPS July – September 2008 43