Future of Architecture
Enterprise Architecture
Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM)
Strategies, Policy, Governance, and Implementation
DoD and Federal Departments
15 July 2011
Walt Okon
Senior Architect Engineer
Architecture & Infrastructure Directorate
Office of DoD CIO
walt.okon@osd.mil
703-607-0502 1
Secure Information Sharing
It is imperative to effectively securely exchange
information among components, Federal agencies,
coalition partners, foreign governments and
international organizations as a critical element of
our efforts to defend the nation and execute
national strategy
Effectively Securely Exchange Information
Secure Information Sharing
The use of architecture techniques ensures
alignment, clarity, and interoperability across
information sharing initiatives; Information Sharing
Environment (ISEs))
Architectures enable Departments and agencies to
eliminate redundancies by identifying information
sharing services that may be implemented and
shared internal to DoD and, potentially, across the
Federal Government.
Architectures Enabled
Secure Information Sharing
DoD is implementing services for IS that employs
Enterprise Services (ES) including service
registration, authentication, attribute‐based access
control, directory services, metadata registration,
federated search, and collaboration.
DoD partnering with IC on initiatives; e.g., service
definition and implementation, metadata
descriptions, Universal Core context‐independent
framework, and cross‐domain solutions.
Elements of Quality
Architecture
• Single Architecture Framework
• Policy, Direction, Guidance
• Exchange
• Architecture Tools
• Certified Architects
Enabling efficient and effective
acquisition of hardware, software and
services used by DoD in missions
Common Architecture Framework Approach
DoDAF V2.0 Viewpoints Fit-For Purpose
Services Viewpoint
Articulate the performers, activities,
services, and their exchanges providing for,
or supporting, DoD functions
Systems Viewpoint
Articulate the legacy systems or
independent systems, their composition,
interconnectivity, and context providing for,
or supporting, DoD functions
Project Viewpoint
Articulate operational scenarios, processes,
activities & requirements
Describes the relationships between operational and capability
requirements and the various projects being implemented;
Details dependencies between capability management and the
Defense Acquisition System process.
Operational Viewpoint
Standards Viewpoint
Articulate applicable Operational, Business, Technical, and
Industry policy, standards, guidance, constraints, and
forecasts
Data and Information Viewpoint
Articulate the data relationships and alignment structures in
the architecture content
All Viewpoint
Overarching aspects of architecture context that relate to all
models
Capability Viewpoint
Articulate the capability requirement,
delivery timing, and deployed capability
Architecture viewpoints are composed of data that has
been organized to facilitate understanding.
6
DoD Architecture
Framework 2.0
• What it is:
– Guidance on the types of data and
relationships needed to document a DoD
architecture in a standard way (new in 2.0)
– Guidance on format and content for a
standard set of DoDAF Described Models for
describing architectures
– High level meta-process for using the DoDAF
• What it isn’t:
– A specific architecture
– A tool
7
DoDAF V2.0 Vision
Views for Other
Stakeholders
Structured Knowledge
Base – Common Model
Views for the
Architect
8
Levels of Architecture
DoD Enterprise
System Context
SoS Architectures
FoS Architectures
Enterprise
Level Architectures
Capability Based
Segment Level Architectures
Solution Level Architectures
9
http://www.defenselink.mil/cionii/sites/diea/
10
UPDM – Unified Profile
for DoDAF/MODAF
Adaptive
ASMG
Lockheed Martin Co
Mitre
L3 Comms
MOD
BAE Systems
NoMagic
DoD
Raytheon
DND
Rolls Royce
embeddedPlus
Sparx Systems
Generic
VisumPoint
IBM
Selex
Artisan Software
Thales
UPDM RFC Group
Walt Okon
DoD Support
Why do we need Exchange
UCore
Middle East
Pro-Democracy
Movements
Japan Earth
Quake,
Tsunami,
Nuclear Risks
Coalition
Partners
Haiti
Earthquake
DoD and IC
Information Sharing
Initiatives
Implement
Lessons
Learned
Federal
Inter-Agency
Christmas Day
Terrorist
Attempt
DOJ/DHS Experience in
Federal, State, Local,
Tribal Interoperability
To Achieve
Operationally
Significant
Results
State,
Civil, Local
Hurricane
Katrina
11 Sep 2001
Terrorist
Attacks
NGOs and
Industry
“The bottom line is this: The U.S. government had sufficient information to have uncovered this plot and potentially
disrupt the Christmas Day attack. But our intelligence community failed to connect those dots, which would have
placed the suspect on the "no fly" list.
In other words, this was not a failure to collect intelligence; it was a failure to integrate and understand the
intelligence that we already had. ”
President Barack Obama, 05 JAN 2010
What is UCore
UCore V2.0 Conceptual Data Model
Message Framework
• XML representation
Interrogatives: When, Where,
Who, What,
• What Taxonomy
• Common Terms
• Security markings
• Message framework
• Rendering Instructions
• Extension Guidance
When
Metadata
What
Where
Who
Architecture Tools
• Guidance
– DoDAF v2.0
– Federated Architecture Strategy
– DoD IEA
• DoD Tools
– DoD Architecture Registry System (DARS)
– DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR)
– GIG Technical Guidance (GTG) Tool
– Meta Data Repository (MDR)
Vendor Tools are Necessary
Architecture Education &
Training
Certified Enterprise Architects
design the information
technology architecture
structure enabling the efficient
and effective acquisition of
hardware, software and services
utilized by the DoD in missions
supporting the warfighters.
Common Architecture Framework
Elements of Quality
Architecture
• Single Architecture Framework
• Policy, Direction, Guidance
• Exchange
• Architecture Tools
• Certified Architects
Enabling efficient and effective
acquisition of hardware, software and
services used by DoD in missions
deliverables.
Common Architecture Framework Approach
Future of Architecture
Achieving Secure Information Sharing
Information Integration Subcommittee
Identity Federation Meeting
Implement ICAM
Identity, Credential, and Access Management
Federal CIO Council
ICAM Alliances: Interagency Security Committee, NSTIC NPO, CNSS, IC IdAM, NASCIO, &
Unclassified
More
18
Secure Information Sharing
Extract from FY10: Leveraging the Power of
Technology
•To support this effort, the Federal Identity,
Credential, and Access Management (ICAM)
segment architecture provides Federal agencies
with a consistent approach for managing the vetting
and credentialing of individuals requiring access to
Federal information systems and facilities
•The ICAM segment architecture will serve as an
important tool for providing awareness to external
mission partners and drive the development and
implementation of interoperable solutions
Secure Information Sharing
Extract from FY12: IT Security and
Privacy
•Improve Identity Management: ICAM, PIV
Credentials, HSPD-12, NSTIC
•ICAM solutions leverage existing investments
in the Federal Government while promoting
efficient use of tax dollars when designing,
deploying, and operating information
technology systems
•With the majority of the Federal work- force
now possessing credentials, agencies can
accelerate their use of these for secure access
to Federal facilities and information systems
Unclassified
Logical Access
Physical Access
Persons
Non-Persons
ICAM Scope
21
Current DOD IdAM Attribute
Governance
Secretary of Defense
(SECDEF)
OUSD Personnel
& Readiness
(P&R)
Identity Protection Mgt Sr.
Coord Group (IPMSCG)
& working groups
Defense Human
Resources
Agency (DHRA)
Defense
Manpower Data
Center (DMDC)
DOD/IC Authorization
Attribute Steering
Committee AASC
Federal CIO Council
(FICAM
Subcommittee)
DOD CIO
Defense Information
Systems Agency
(DISA)
Joint Staff
GFM DI
GOSC
Identity
Assurance &
PKI (IdA/PKI)
Directorate
Identity Access
Mgt Task Force
(IdAM TF)
& working groups
DoD CIO
Executive
Board
Enterprise
Guidance Board
(EGB)
Legend for governance
light blue: DOD organizations
dark blue: DOD governance bodies
grey: DOD/IC governance bodies
black: federal governance bodies
GFM DI
PIPWG
Information
Assurance Senior
Leaders (IASL)
Enterprise
Services Review
Group (ESRG)
IA Enterprise
Review Group
(IAERG)
Architecture
Standards Review
Group (ASRG)
22
Architecture & Information
Sharing
Achieving Secure Information Sharing
Office of Management and Budget
Common Approach
Federal Enterprise Architecture (CA-FEA)
Dr. Scott Bernard, Federal Chief Architect
Changes in Federal Direction
Mission. Federal enterprise architects provide
leading-edge advisement, analysis, and design
services that align strategic priorities with
mission capabilities and technology solutions.
Vision. To be a trusted, knowledgeable partners
with agency executives, managers, staff, and
external stakeholders to help accomplish mission
goals, manage change, and optimize resources
through proven enterprise architecture methods.
Changes in Direction
Outcomes:
• Revitalized community that is relevant and engaged.
• Strong leadership support for the participation of architects in key
initiatives.
• A diversity of views within the community are heard and
considered.
• New methods for architecture that are more agile, efficient and
standard.
• Updated policy to reflect new priorities, methods, and desired
outcomes.
• A career path and training standards for federal enterprise
architects.
Changes in Governance
•
OMB, Federal CIO: Sets federal policy- EA programs, practices, reporting.
•
OMB, Chief Architect: Leads federal EA community, advises Federal CIO.
Runs quarterly Chief Architect Forum Meetings.
•
OMB, FEAPMO: Maintains federal EA approach and does projects.
•
CIO Council: Promotes federal IT community discussions, advises
Federal CIO, publishes best practices and reports, maintains reference
archive.
•
CIO Council, AIC: Promotes best practices, supports outreach.
•
AIC Sub-Committees: Promotes the development of best practices and
methods in specific EA areas, supports outreach, and projects.
•
AIC Outreach Sub-Committee: Runs quarterly “Architecture Plus”
meetings for government and industry participants to discuss EA issues.
Changes in Approach
Common Approach to Federal EA
FEAF-II
Mission
Success
Integrating the
Federal EA
Framework
and Reference
Models
re
ectu
chit
y Ar
urit
Sec
ts
scu
ros
al C
t
n
e
artm
Dep
Governance
ion
ss
Mi
OA als”
B & rtic
LO “Ve
Pro
f
ile
Strategy
Standards
Authoritative
Reference
Security Controls (SRM)
Current Views
Use
Se
cu
rity
BRM
nt
me
ron
nvi
E
ting
era
Op
on
m
Com
Information & Data
DRM
SRM
Technology Infrastructure
Functional
Integration
Transition Plan
Business
Applications & Services
Framework
Strategic
(PRM)
Goals
Business
(BRM)
Services
Data and
(DRM)
Information
Enabling
Applications
(TRM)
Host
Infrastructure
Future Views
Resource
Optimization
Enterprise Plan
PRM
TRM
Multiple
Agencies
Changes in Scope
Level
Scope
Govt.-Wide
Services
U.S. & Other
Governments
Sector
Services
Multiple Agencies,
Businesses,
Interest Groups
Single Agency
Agency-Wide
Services
Line of Business
Specific
Services
Program
Specific
Services
Planning
Detail
Medium
Medium
Impact
Audience
National/Global
Government-Wide
Outcomes
& International
Sector
Outcomes
Multi
G2C, G2B, G2G
Changes in Use – Shared Services
Sector designations are needed to support new services and
interoperability across traditional agency boundaries.
Example:
On-line Learning
Health &
Well-Being
Education
&
Workforce
Sector
Defense
& Security
Sector
Example: Energy
Efficient Housing
Example:
Smart-Roads
Example:
Alternative
Fuels
Environme
nt &
Natural
Resources
Sector
Energy &
Technolog
y
Sector
General
Government
Policy
Resources
Oversight
Example: Border
Protection
Law &
Justice
Sector
Transparency
Diplomacy
& Trade
Sector
Sector
Transport
& Space
Economic
& Financial
Sector
Sector
Example: Electronic
Patient Records
Central sector for general government
support services and transparency
Example:
International Legal
Cases
Example: International
Trade & Exports
Example: Global
Economic Tracking
Secure Information Sharing
Achieving Secure Information Sharing
White House
Information Sharing Environment Governance
Interagency Policy Committee
Information Sharing Environment
Governance
Scope
Cross
Federal
Information
Sharing
•Intelligence
•Law Enforcement
•Defense
•Homeland Security
•Foreign Affairs
Information
Sharing and
Access IPC
IS&A Sub IPCs
Architecture/
R&D
Information and
Communications
Infrastructure
IPC
IC ISE
Co Chairs
NSS / PM-ISE
DNI
DHS
Smart Grid
Cyber Security
Cyber Budget
Cyber OPS
Co Chairs
WH / DHS
Watchlisting &
Screening
DHS POL
DOD
TBD
International
I&A / POL
Legal
Privacy,
Civil Rights,
Civil Liberties
Information
Integration
PMISE
DNI
IRIS
Privacy,
Civil Rights,
Civil Liberties
National SAR
Initiative
DOJ BJA
DOS
DOJ
IC CIO
Cyber
Legislation
Fusion Centers
DHS I&A
TREAS
TREAS
TBD
LEISP
DoD CIO
RISS
RISS National
Policy Group
DHS
DOS
DOJ
DOD
Information Sharing & Access
Interagency Policy Committee
Co-Chairs: Monte Hawkins, NSS & Kshemendra Paul,
PM-ISE
Paul Grant (DoD CIO); Chuck Kosak (USD(P)); Karen Riggs (JS)
Sub-Committees
Watchlisting & Screening
Chair: Monte Hawkins
(NSS)
• Matt Taveres (HD&ASA)
• Adam Gorowitz (USD(P))
Fusion Center
Chair: Bart Johnson
(DHS)
Vice Chair: Owen
Harris (FBI)
Suspicious Activity
Reporting
Chair: Jim Burch
(DoJ/BJA)
Privacy, Civil Rights &
Civil Liberties
Chair: Alex Joel (DNI)
• Mike Reheuser (DPCLO)
• Chuck Kosak (USD(P)) • Stephanie Beavers (HD&ASA)
Information Integration
Chair: David Bray (PM-ISE)
• Paul Grant (DoD CIO)
• Carl Consumano (DoD CIO)
Working Groups
HSPD-6 International
Outreach
Nominations
HSPD-24 National
Security Threat
ISE Privacy Guideline
Revisions
Database
Enhancements
Screening
Audit
Standards Working
Group
Chair: Walt Okon (DoD)
Data Aggregation Working
Group
Chair: Donna Roy (DHS)
Chair: Hank Bebe (DNI)
Encounters
Information
Technology
• Regina Piper (DoD CIO)
Assured Secret Network
Interoperability Working
Group
Chair: James Beagles (DHS)
Assured SBU Network
Interoperability
Working Group
Chair: Kevin Heald
• Paul Grant (DoD CIO)
• Paul Grant (DoD CIO)
• Carl Consumano (DoD CIO) • Walt Okon (DoD CIO)
Federal Shared
Services Strategy
Shared Service Working Group
Office of Management and Budget
Office of E-Government & IT
Shared Services:
Part of the IT Reform Agenda
Reform Item #6:
Develop a
Strategy for
Shared Services
34
History of Shared Services
Cloud-First
2010
Lines of Business
Round 2 (Geo, BFE, ITI, ISS)
2006
Lines of Business
Initial 5 (HR, GM, FM, FHA,CM)
2004
E-Government
Act
E-Gov
Initiatives
Round 2 (DAIP, ITDS,
IAD-Loans/Grants)
2008
Shared
Service
s
2011
2002
Quicksilve
r
2001
E-Gov Initiatives
ClingerInitial 25
Cohen
2003
Payroll Consolidation
Completes
2009
1996
GAO Report: Opportunities to Reduce
Potential Duplication
2011
35
What is a Shared Service?
Provider
Roles:
Sources:
agency
Shared Service
Producer
Consumers
Provider, Producer, Consumer
Internal or external to the
(government or commercial).
36
Shared Service Concept
Education &
Workforce
Defense &
Security
Economic &
Financial
Transport &
Space
Health &
Well-Being
Diplomacy &
Trade
Environment
& Natural
Resources
Energy &
Technology
enablers
Cloud eMail
Virtual
Content
Collaboratio Management Meeting
n
Public Clouds
Others
Federal Clouds
First focus on support
sector services, as this
has the greatest initial
potential for lowering
duplication & waste.
37
Delivery Channels & Considerations
Delivery Considerations
• Is the service commercially available?
• Are there security, privacy, classified requirements?
• Does the agency need to be a provider?
• How does a provider agency meet customer needs?
38
Secure Information Sharing
Questions
Walt Okon
Senior Architect Engineer
Architecture & Infrastructure Directorate
Office of DoD CIO
walt.okon@osd.mil
703-607-0502
39