DODAF - DOD Architecture Framework Version 2.02 - DOD Deputy Chief Information Officer

CM Overview

Configuration Management of the DoDAF Architecture Framework

CM provides an orderly way to facilitate change, based on a documented requirements baseline, and utilizing best practices in the change management process. This is intended to ensure that expectations are fully understood and realized in an efficient manner, including proper consideration of all potential impacts on customers and resources. CM is a necessary and critical process to assure an orderly and stable evolution of any Architectural Description and also to ensure that the DoDAF remains current in the face of evolving methods and techniques of Architectural Description creation and management.

This section provides a summary overview of the two primary a `spects of CM of DoD enterprise architecture efforts:

  • CM guidance to developers of specific instance Architectural Descriptions prepared within DoD in accordance with the DoDAF.
  • CM of the DoD Framework document content itself.

These CM activities are complementary with existing DoD CM processes for the DARS, the DoD Information Technology Standards Registry (DISR), and the Metadata Registry (MDR). A more comprehensive description of the overall CM Process is found online in the DoDAF Journal.

Configuration Management Authority

The CM Authority for the contents of the DoDAF document is the DoD CIO, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD) Enterprise Architecture & Standards Directorate.

Configuration Management Guidance for Program Managers

There are many benefits to the Department gained by adhering to a CM Program in the production of architectural data, thus providing consistency to the creation and utilization of presentation views, while still allowing flexibility in graphical presentation. These include:

  • Utilization of the DM2 (Conceptual, Logical and PES) in architectural data collection, organization, storage, and documentation.
  • Utilization of DoDAF technical guidance (Contained in Volume 2, and the DoDAF Journal) in the creation and graphical representation of views, based on architectural data and a desired viewpoint. This is accomplished by:
    • DoDAF definition of attributes for common architectural views. Thus, there is a known basis for making change to architectural views, and a means for evaluating the effectiveness of that change according to the chosen viewpoint.
    • DoDAF representation of a common vocabulary and grammar for documenting Architectural Descriptions thus facilitating common understanding among DoD components, ensuring interoperability in exchanging architectural data and federation of individual Architectural Descriptions within a higher tier enterprise view.
  • Traceability of Requirements. Architectural data can more easily be associated with baseline requirements, and, as requirements change, the associated impacts on present and future actions can more easily be evaluated, and more accurately reflect the change requirement.
  • Configuration Identification. Utilization of DoDAF data elements allows a consistent identification of Configuration Items (CIs), which are currently defined as:

    • The Vocabulary – The Elements (e.g., process, system function, Capability) and Views (AV, OV, SV, StdV, etc.) that describe the behavioral, tabular, mapping, ontological, and structural representations of an Architectural Description. The metadata (e.g., Information about data in the Architectural Description).
    • The Grammar– The formal conceptual and logical relationships between elements and products of the Vocabulary – The Conceptual and LDM.
    • The Presentation Guidelines – “Fit-for-Purpose” viewpoints, dashboards, decision views, etc.
    • Methods and Process Guidelines.
    • The DoDAF Document – The narrative volumes comprising the DoDAF.

  • Organized Process. Change activity is controlled through a known, documented, and organized process.
  • Improved Change Management. Architectural data can be better managed to produce stable and consistent requirements to guide the development of interoperable systems, processes, and procedures.
  • Improved Analysis and Trades. Analyses that better reflect customer need through common understanding and explicit documentation of architecture baselines and change evolution.

Configuration Management Implementation

Each Architectural Description effort must establish a CM process and document it in a CM Plan. This plan is submitted when each version or update to the Architectural Description is submitted to DARS for registration and discovery. In developing CM processes for Architectural Descriptions it is recommended that best practices be adopted such as those outlined in Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Standard EA-649. This a flexible, but well-defined standard employed most often at the enterprise level. Its flexibility lies in the ability to provide CM practices that can be selectively applied to the degree necessary for each of the areas to be covered under this plan.

Evaluating Architecture Changes

Appropriate evaluation criteria should be developed in the CM Plan and applied according to the scope and tier of the Architectural Description effort. The evaluation criteria must include factors that test compliance with the Net-Centric Reference Architectures and the DoD IE as outlined in Section 3.0 of the DoDAF and the Net-Centric Guidance contained in Volume 2. The results of architecture evaluations should be used to guide decisions for approving proposed changes, as well as in planning future extensions or updates to the Architectural Description.

The DARS Registration Process

Consistent with the federated architecture approach described in Section 3, essential architectural information must be registered with DARS so that discovery of reusable architectural data can be accomplished throughout the Department. Generally, and as further described in the instructions on registration contained online in the DARS, this consists of the Overview and Summary Information (AV-1) which can be completed online, and the Configuration Control Plan (CCP) that describes how the organization intends to manage and periodically update its information. Individual data entities and other artifacts are similarly registered in the DMR.

Configuration Control Board

The DoDAF Configuration Control Board (CCB) provides an organized management review process to ensure validity, currency, and timeliness of architectural data described over time. The board provides CM and control carefully scoped and administered to reduce the burden and complexity of architecture sharing and maintenance, as well as update, while providing flexibility to the DoD community in the continued management of their architectural views and associated data. The CCB consists of members appointed by the Deputy DoD CIO, and includes representatives of the Joint Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Services, Combatant Commands, and Defense Agencies.

Technical Working Groups

The CCB may, from time to time, establish technical working groups (TWG), as required, to oversee, review, and make recommendations to the board on specific technical aspects of the CM Program, or configuration items. TWGs provide the subject-matter expertise necessary to ensure that documents, the DM2, and other products under configuration control of the CCB are maintained in a responsible manner. TWGs, when tasked by the CCB, provide detailed and comprehensive technical review of proposed changes and recommendations to the CCB on action(s) to be taken that result from recommended changes.

In addition, there is a standing TWG for the DM2. DM2 change requests (action items) can be raised by any of the working group members or flow down from the CCB. A working copy of the DM2 is maintained, along with all reference and research materials and the current action item tracker. DM2 issues impacting the foundation are forwarded to the International Defense Enterprise Architecture Specification (IDEAS) Group for consideration. When a number of changes have accumulated, the TWG recommends a new DM2 baseline version be established and released. Upon, approval by the CCB, the new DM2 is published along with a record of changes from last baseline and a new working copy is setup.

Both permanent members of the CCB and members of all technical working groups are notified about all CCB meetings and all scheduled TWG sessions, as are the Combatant Commands and Defense Agencies.

Topic Areas in the DM2 Collaboration Site

Topic Areas in the DM2 Collaboration Site

DM2 Working Group (WG)

The Configuration Management Authority for the DM2 is the DoD CIO. The management structure of the CM Program is in two parts: The Architecture and Standards Review Group (ASRG) and the DM2 Working Groups (WG).

The DM2 WG is the configuration management working body for the DM2. The DM2 WG was established during DoDAF 2.0 development and was transitioned to be the DM2 CM body. The DM2 WG oversees, reviews, and makes recommendations to the ASRG on specific technical aspects of the CM Program, or Configuration Items (CI). The DM2 WG provides the subject-matter expertise necessary to ensure that DM2 CI’s under configuration control of the ASRG are maintained in a responsible manner. The DM2 WG when tasked by the ASRG, provides detailed and comprehensive technical review of proposed changes and recommendations to the ASRG on action(s) to be taken that result from recommended changes. The DM2 WG also acts as the DoD Enterprise Architecture COI Data Management Working Group (DMWG).
The DM2 WG interacts with the following organizations as shown in the figure below. Roles of these organizations with respect to DM2 CM are as follows:

DM2 WG Organizational Interaction

  1. Architecture and Standards Review Group (ASRG). The ASRG serves within the DoD CIO Enterprise Governance framework. The ASRG is subordinate to the DOD CIO Enterprise Guidance Board. It is chartered to: review architecture policy and guidance; identify DoD Information technology (IT) technical standards; oversee IT standards management; review architectures and enforce architecture policy; oversee DoD EA Federation; and enforce DoD Information Enterprise Architecture (IEA) compliance.
    The ASRG works through a dedicated secretariat, standing groups, and ad hoc working groups (Tiger Teams) to execute its responsibilities. Standing groups include the Information Technology Standards Committee (ITSC), Global Information Grid Technical Guidance Configuration Management Board (GTG CMB), the Architecture Review Group (ARG) and the Enterprise Reference Architecture Cell (ERAC). Ad hoc groups will be constituted as needed to work specific issues related to policy, compliance criteria, reference models, and related issues in the EA and standards domains.  Support will be provided by member organizations, and existing groups will re-align under the ASRG as applicable.
    The ASRG provides the overall direction and management of DM2 CM and exercises approval authority over all changes proposed in any part of the DM2 CI’s.
  2. IDEAS Group.  TBS
  3. Industry Advisory and Standards Groups to include OMG and OASIS.  TBS
  4. Related COI’s to include UCORE and C2 Core.  TBS
  5. Controlled Vocabulary groups.  TBS
  6. Pilots and Early Adopters.  TBS
  7. DoDAF WG.  TBS
  9. DoD MDR WG.  TBS
  10. EA Tool Vendors.  TBS