1
Enterprise ArchitectureUnified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM)Strategies, Policy, Governance, and Implementation
DoD and Federal Departments15 July 2011
Walt OkonSenior Architect Engineer
Architecture & Infrastructure DirectorateOffice of DoD [email protected]
703-607-0502
Future of Architecture
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
Common Architecture Framework Approach
• 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
DoDAF V2.0 Viewpoints Fit-For Purpose
Architecture viewpoints are composed of data that h as been organized to facilitate understanding. 6
All V
iewpoint
Overarching aspects of architecture context that re
late to all m
odels
Data and Inform
ation View
pointA
rticulate the data relationships and alignment str
uctures in the architecture content
Standards V
iewpoint
Articulate applicable O
perational, Business, Techni
cal, and Industry policy, standards, guidance, constraints,
and forecasts
Systems Viewpoint
Articulate the legacy systems or independent systems, their composition,
interconnectivity, and context providing for, or supporting, DoD functions
Services Viewpoint
Articulate the performers, activities, services, and their exchanges providing for,
or supporting, DoD functions
Operational Viewpoint
Articulate operational scenarios, processes, activities & requirements
Capability Viewpoint Articulate the capability requirement,
delivery timing, and deployed capability
Project V
iewpoint
Describes the relationships betw
een operational and capability
requirements and the various projects being im
pleme
nted; D
etails dependencies between capability m
anagement
and the D
efense Acquisition S
ystem process.
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
8
DoDAF V2.0 Vision
Views for the Architect
Structured Knowledge Base – Common Model
Views for Other Stakeholders
Levels of Architecture
9
Solution Level Architectures
Segment Level Architectures
Enterprise Level Architectures
DoD Enterprise
Capability Based
System ContextSoS ArchitecturesFoS Architectures
http://www.defenselink.mil/cio-nii/sites/diea/
10
UPDM – Unified Profile for DoDAF /MODAF
Adaptive
Artisan Software
ASMG
BAE Systems
DoD
DND
embeddedPlus
Generic
IBM
Thales
Lockheed Martin CoMitreL3 CommsMOD
NoMagic
Raytheon
Rolls Royce
Sparx Systems
VisumPoint
Selex
UPDM RFC Group
Walt OkonDoD Support
Why do we need ExchangeUCore
“The bottom line is this: The U.S. government had suf ficient information to have uncovered this plot and potentially disrupt the Christmas Day attack. But our intelligen ce community failed to connect those dots, which wo uld have placed the suspect on the "no fly" list.
In other words, this was not a failure to collect i ntelligence; it was a failure to integrate and unde rstand the intelligence that we already had. ”
President Barack Obama, 05 JAN 2010
11 Sep 2001 Terrorist Attacks
Haiti Earthquake
Hurricane Katrina
Japan Earth Quake,
Tsunami, Nuclear Risks
Middle East Pro-Democracy
Movements
Christmas Day Terrorist Attempt
DoD and IC Information Sharing
Initiatives
DOJ/DHS Experience in Federal, State, Local, Tribal Interoperability
ImplementLessonsLearned
To Achieve Operationally
Significant Results
Federal Inter-Agency
State, Civil, Local
Coalition Partners
NGOs and Industry
What is UCore
Message Framework Metadata
When What
Where
Who
• XML representation Interrogatives: When, Where, Who, What,
• What Taxonomy• Common Terms
• Security markings • Message framework• Rendering Instructions• Extension Guidance
UCore V2.0 Conceptual Data Model
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
Common Architecture Framework
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.
Elements of Quality Architecture
Common Architecture Framework Approach
• 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.
Future of Architecture
Achieving Secure Information Sharing
Information Integration SubcommitteeIdentity Federation Meeting
Implement ICAM
Identity, Credential, and Access Management
Unclassified 18
Federal CIO Council
ICAM Alliances: Interagency Security Committee, NSTIC NPO, CNSS, IC IdAM, NASCIO, & More
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 t o 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
Logi
cal A
cces
sP
hysi
cal A
cces
s
Unclassified 21
ICAM ScopeP
erso
nsN
on-P
erso
ns
22
Current DOD IdAM Attribute Governance
Secretary of Defense (SECDEF)
Identity Protection Mgt Sr. Coord Group (IPMSCG)
& working groupsDOD CIO
DoD CIO Executive
Board
Enterprise Guidance Board
(EGB)
IA Enterprise Review Group
(IAERG)
Enterprise Services Review Group (ESRG)
Architecture Standards Review
Group (ASRG)
Information Assurance Senior
Leaders (IASL)
Identity Access Mgt Task Force
(IdAM TF)& working groups
Identity Assurance & PKI (IdA/PKI) Directorate
Defense Information Systems Agency
(DISA)Joint Staff
GFM DI GOSC
GFM DI PIPWG
OUSD Personnel OUSD Personnel & Readiness
(P&R)
Defense Human Resources
Agency (DHRA)
Manpower Data Defense
Manpower Data Center (DMDC)
Committee AASC
DOD/IC Authorization Attribute Steering Committee AASC
Federal CIO Council(FICAM
Subcommittee)
Legend for governance light blue: DOD organizations
dark blue: DOD governance bodiesgrey: DOD/IC governance bodiesblack: federal governance bodies
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 provideleading-edge advisement, analysis, and designservices that align strategic priorities withmission capabilities and technology solutions.
Vision . To be a trusted, knowledgeable partnerswith agency executives, managers, staff, andexternal stakeholders to help accomplish missiongoals, manage change, and optimize resourcesthrough proven enterprise architecture methods.
Changes in Direction
Outcomes :• Revitalized community that is relevant and engaged.
• Strong leadership support for the participation of architects in keyinitiatives.
• A diversity of views within the community are heard andconsidered.
• New methods for architecture that are more agile, efficient andstandard.
• Updated policy to reflect new priorities, methods, and desiredoutcomes.
• A career path and training standards for federal enterprisearchitects.
Changes in Governance
• OMB, Federal CIO: Sets federal policy- EA programs, practices, reporti ng.
• 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, an d projects.
• AIC Outreach Sub-Committee : Runs quarterly “Architecture Plus” meetings for government and industry participants t o discuss EA issues.
Changes in Approach
Strategy
Business
Information & Data
Applications & Services
Technology Infrastructure
PRM
BRM
DRM
SRM
TRM
Integrating theFederal EAFramework
and ReferenceModels
Common Operating Environment
Sec
urity
Pro
file
Security Architecture
LOB
& O
A M
ission
“Vert icals”
Departmental Crosscuts
Strategic
Goals
Enabling
Applications
Business
Services
Host
Infrastructure
Data and
Information
Se
curi
ty C
on
tro
ls
(SR
M)
(PRM)
(BRM)
(DRM)
(TRM)
Cu
rre
nt V
iew
s Fu
tu
re
Vie
ws
Enterprise Plan
Transition Plan
Governance
Standards
Framework
Use
Mission
Success
Authoritative
Reference
Resource
Optimization F
unctio
nal
Integratio
n
Common Approach to Federal EA
FEAF-II
Changes in Scope
Level Scope PlanningDetail
Impact Audience
Govt.-WideServices
SectorServices
Sin
gle
Age
ncy
Mul
tiple
A
genc
ies
Government-Wide& International
Multi G2C, G2B, G2G
U.S. & OtherGovernments
Multiple Agencies,Businesses,
Interest Groups
National/GlobalOutcomes
SectorOutcomes
Medium
Medium
Agency-WideServices
Line of BusinessSpecific Services
ProgramSpecificServices
General Government
PolicyResourcesOversight
Transparency
Education &
Workforce Sector Defense
& Security Sector
Law & JusticeSector
Diplomacy & Trade
Sector
Economic & Financial
Sector
Transport & Space
Sector
Energy & Technolog
ySector
Environment &
Natural Resources
Sector
Health & Well-Being
Sector
Sector designations are needed to support new servi ces and interoperability across traditional agency boundari es.
Example: On-line Learning
Example: EnergyEfficient Housing
Example:Smart-Roads
Example: Alternative Fuels
Example: ElectronicPatient Records
Example: Border Protection
Example:International LegalCases
Example: International Trade & Exports
Example: Global Economic Tracking
Central sector for general government support services and transparency
Changes in Use – Shared Services
Secure Information Sharing
Achieving Secure Information SharingWhite House
Information Sharing Environment Governance
Interagency Policy Committee
Cross
Federal
Information
Sharing
Co Chairs
NSS / PM-ISEDNI
DHS
DOJ DOD
DOS
•Intelligence
•Law Enforcement
•Defense
•Homeland Security
•Foreign Affairs
Scope
I&A / POL
Information
Sharing and
Access IPC
Co Chairs
WH / DHS
Information and
Communications
Infrastructure
IPC Smart Grid
Cyber Security
Cyber
Legislation
Architecture/
R&D
International
Privacy,
Civil Rights,
Civil Liberties
Cyber Budget
Cyber OPSLegal
IRIS
IS&A Sub IPCs
DOD
DNI
DOSDOJ
DHS
National SAR
Initiative
DOJ BJA
Fusion Centers
DHS I&A
Watchlisting &
Screening
DHS POL
Information
Integration
PMISE
Privacy,
Civil Rights,
Civil Liberties
TREAS
TREAS
IC CIO
DoD CIO
TBD
TBD
RISS
LEISP
RISS National
Policy Group
IC ISE
Information Sharing Environment Governance
Sub-Committees
Working Groups
Information Sharing & AccessInteragency Policy Committee
Co-Chairs: Monte Hawkins, NSS & Kshemendra Paul, PM-ISE
Suspicious Activity Reporting
Chair: Jim Burch (DoJ/BJA)
Fusion CenterChair: Bart Johnson
(DHS)Vice Chair: Owen
Harris (FBI)
Information IntegrationChair: David Bray (PM-ISE)
Watchlisting & ScreeningChair: Monte Hawkins
(NSS)
Assured SBU Network Interoperability Working Group
Chair: Kevin Heald
Assured Secret Network Interoperability Working
GroupChair: James Beagles (DHS)
Paul Grant (DoD CIO); Chuck Kosak (USD(P)); Karen Ri ggs (JS)
• Chuck Kosak (USD(P)) • Mike Reheuser (DPCLO)
• Regina Piper (DoD CIO)
Data Aggregation Working Group
Chair: Donna Roy (DHS)Chair: Hank Bebe (DNI)
• Paul Grant (DoD CIO)• Carl Consumano (DoD CIO)
• Paul Grant (DoD CIO)• Carl Consumano (DoD CIO)
• Matt Taveres (HD&ASA)• Adam Gorowitz (USD(P))
• Stephanie Beavers (HD&ASA)
• Paul Grant (DoD CIO)• Walt Okon (DoD CIO)
Nominations Database Enhancements
Encounters Screening
AuditInformation Technology
ISE Privacy Guideline Revisions
Privacy, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
Chair: Alex Joel (DNI)
HSPD-24 National Security Threat
HSPD-6 International Outreach
Standards Working Group
Chair: Walt Okon (DoD)
Federal Shared Services Strategy
Shared Service Working Group
Office of Management and BudgetOffice of E-Government & IT
34
Shared Services: Part of the IT Reform Agenda
Reform Item #6:
Develop a
Strategy for
Shared Services
35
History of Shared Services
Quicksilver2001
Cloud-First2010
E-Government Act2002
Clinger-Cohen1996
E-Gov InitiativesInitial 25
2003
Lines of BusinessInitial 5 (HR, GM, FM, FHA,CM)
2004
Lines of BusinessRound 2 (Geo, BFE, ITI, ISS)
2006
Payroll Consolidation Completes
2009
GAO Report: Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication
2011
E-Gov InitiativesRound 2 (DAIP, ITDS,
IAD-Loans/Grants)
2008
Shared Service
s2011
36
What is a Shared Service?
Shared ServiceProducer ConsumersProvider
� Roles: Provider, Producer, Consumer� Sources: Internal or external to the
agency (government or commercial).
37
Shared Service Concept
Public Clouds Federal Clouds
Collaboration
Content ManagementCloud eMail Others
Virtual Meeting
Education & Workforce
Health & Well-Being
Defense & Security
Diplomacy & Trade
Economic & Financial
Environment & Natural Resources
Transport & Space
Energy & Technology
enablers
First focus on support
sector services, as this
has the greatest initial
potential for lowering
duplication & waste.
38
Delivery Channels & Considerations
Delivery Considerations
• Is the service commercially available?• Are there security, privacy, classified requirement s?• Does the agency need to be a provider?• How does a provider agency meet customer needs?
39
QuestionsWalt Okon
Senior Architect EngineerArchitecture & Infrastructure Directorate
Office of DoD [email protected]
703-607-0502
Secure Information Sharing