Microservices Expo Authors: Liz McMillan, Pat Romanski, Carmen Gonzalez, Elizabeth White, Jason Bloomberg

Related Topics: Microservices Expo

Microservices Expo: Article

So Many Frameworks...So Little Time: What's an Architect to Do?

The relationships between The Open Group Architecture Framework and the U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework

Numerous architecture framework standards have been developed and have matured over the past decade. Some of these standards overlap in their focus areas, and others address completely different aspects of the architecting process. In this latter case, a natural synergy can sometimes be identified and leveraged between frameworks.

An industry working group was formed to analyze and document the relationships between The Open Group Architecture Framework and the U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework, identifying complementary areas between these two standards. This article is a brief summary of that initiative's detailed 50-page white paper, "The Open Group Architecture Framework and the U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework."

The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) is primarily focused on architecting methodology - i.e, the "how to" aspect of architecture without prescribing description constructs to document the architecture. The U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) is focused on architecture description via a set of views without specifying any methodology. The complementary aspects of these two frameworks lead to the question: "Can architects benefit from leveraging both TOGAF and DoDAF together?" Two years ago, this is what a working group that included representatives from MITRE, Raytheon, and Architecting-the-Enterprise - supported by members of The Open Group Architecture Forum - set out to study. Core members of the group included individuals from the official DoDAF and TOGAF standards working groups. The baseline versions of the documents used were TOGAF Version 8.1 and DoDAF Version 1.0. Upcoming revisions of both these standards will heighten their support of architecting service-oriented systems, and both are valuable enablers to architects and architecture teams.

Below are some of the group's key findings, as well as insights into how architects can use these frameworks to align their business objectives better with IT infrastructure and systems.

Architecture Methodology: The Open Group Architecture Framework
The Open Group first developed the TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM) in 1995, baselining it from the Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management (TAFIM), a series of architecture guidance documents provided to them by the U.S. Department of Defense. The DOD spent millions of dollars and several years evolving its TAFIM before turning it over to the Open Group for its ongoing maturation and dissemination across government and industry. TAFIM was subsequently retired.

The ADM is a prescriptive, step-by-step instruction guide for "how to" architect. It's presented in a series of phases that guide the architect or architecture team through the architecting lifecycle of system development. The first seven releases of TOGAF ADM (1995-2001) were focused on providing technical architecting guidance. The 2002 release of TOGAF 8.0 extended this earlier technical focus into four areas: business, data, applications, and technology architectures. This "collection" of architectures is commonly known as enterprise architecture - the interrelation and integration of business and technology. This same business and technology interrelation and integration are at the heart of service-oriented architecture design and implementation.

Architecture Description: U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF)
The primary focus of the DoDAF is architecture description - it prescribes a specific set of models that illustrate the architecture of concern. The framework defines 26 products (see Table 1) that reflect three different architectural viewpoints: operational, systems, and technical standards. DoDAF was developed to support interoperability between systems whose architectures are described with this framework. It's easier to determine how to integrate systems when they are modeled in a "common language" so that system interfaces, data formats and exchanges, implemented standards, etc. can be analyzed with the operational and system behaviors and structure.

DoDAF has formed the basis for several other frameworks such the U.K.'s Ministry of Defense Architecture Framework (MODAF) and the soon-to-be-published Standardization Agreement (STANAG) NATO Architecture Framework. DoDAF is comprised of two volumes: "Definitions & Guidelines" and "Product Descriptions."

A supplemental DoDAF Deskbook was also published to provide guidance to DoDAF users. This Deskbook consolidates supporting information such as white papers, case studies, discussion on the Core Architecture Data Model (CADM), architecture tools, Universal Reference Resources (URRs), and the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) reference models.

Results Summary
The TOGAF/DoDAF working group validated its original hypothesis that there is synergy across a number of areas between these two frameworks, where DoDAF views can be used throughout the steps of the TOGAF ADM phases to develop a model of the overall architecture. The model can be used to document architectural decisions made following the TOGAF architecture methodology and through ongoing iteration and evolution of all architecture artifacts across the system development lifecycle. The general relationships between the DoDAF views and TOGAF phases are as follows:

  • DoDAF's All Views primarily aligns with TOGAF Preliminary Phase and Phase A: Architecture Vision.
  • DoDAF's Operational View primarily aligns with TOGAF Phase B: Business Architecture and Phase C: Information Systems Architecture activities.
  • DoDAF's Systems View primarily aligns with TOGAF Phase C: Information Systems Architecture, Phase D: Technology Architecture, Phase F: Migration Planning, and Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions.
  • DoDAF's Technical Standards View primarily aligns with TOGAF Phase D: Technology Architecture, Technical Reference Model, and Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions.
Table 2 overviews the primary relationships identified through analysis of these two leading architecture frameworks. Specific tailoring guidelines to adapt the TOGAF ADM methodology steps for DoDAF model outputs are documented in the detailed white paper of this analysis effort.

Relevance of the Findings
While the TOGAF/DoDAF working group initially set out simply to compare the two frameworks, its efforts recognized that the frameworks were complimentary. What this means for architects today is that they can immediately use the TOGAF ADM to build DoDAF architectures, and, in doing so, leverage a more robust, comprehensive, and complete enterprise architecture development method designed with business alignment in mind.

The working group also observed that both frameworks are currently dealing with potential gaps such as support for service orientation. The organizations that maintain these different frameworks would benefit should they come together to harmonize their efforts and work on evolving their respective frameworks to deal with the gaps such as security viewpoints, Service Oriented Architectures, and net centricity. For the architect, this ultimately means being better equipped to practice within a much broader space, which is a significant advantage in today's competitive environment.

Each complex architecting endeavor requires several key elements to be successful: repeatable methodology, standardized output models, formal validation, governance, collaboration guidelines, configuration management, tools, and patterns. The architect can address many of these needs through the application of The Open Group's Architecture Development Method as a disciplined process in developing the Department of Defense Architecture Framework set of views to model the architecture.

More Stories By Fatma Dandashi

Dr. Fatma Dandashi leads an Object Management Group (OMG) effort to define a UML profile for the DOD Architecture Framework. Prior to this activity she supported the development of Air Force Enterprise Architecture for SAF/XC. Dr. Dandashi was task lead on the MITRE development team responsible for DoD Architecture Framework Version 1.0 (Volumes I and II), and currently serves on the working group developing DoDAF Version 2.0.

Dr. Dandashi holds a PhD in information technology from George Mason University, ann MS in computer science from the University of Louisiana (Lafayette), and a BA in computers/business administration from the Lebanese American University.

More Stories By Terence Blevins

Terence Blevins is branch chief and lead architect, Air Force Operational Support Enterprise Architecture, at Mitre. He has been involved with the architecture discipline since the '80s when he was at the NCR Corporation as director of strategic architecture. He has been involved with evolving this discipline since 1996 when he first was introduced to The Open Group's Architecture Forum. Terence was co-chair of the Architecture Forum and frequent contributor of content to TOGAF including the Business Scenario Method.

He holds undergraduate and Masters degrees in Mathematics from Youngstown State University. He is TOGAF 8 certified.

More Stories By Rolf Siegers

Rolf Siegers is Raytheon’s corporate director of architecture & systems integration and an Engineering Fellow. He also sits on Raytheon’s corporate Architecture Review Board (ARB), leading and supporting a variety of architecture-related initiatives.

Rolf’s program experience includes leading several multi-discipline software architecture teams for large-scale, software-intensive national and international systems since 1997. He is a certified TOGAF-8 architect (The Open Group), ATAMÒ Evaluator (SEI), and Software Architecture Professional (SEI). Rolf holds bachelor degrees in Computer Science and Mathematics from Huntingdon College and is a member of IEEE and INCOSE.

More Stories By Judith Jones

Judith Jones has served as an advisor to Brussels, CCTA and industry organizations on enterprise architecture and IS/IT architecture and frameworks, eGovernment, practitioner of TOGAF, and Prince 2. Her background experience includes 10 years as an independent consultant and 20+ years as a business manager with ICL, now Fujitsu Services.

Judith is an extremely active member of The Open Group and has worked with their Architecture Forum to establish enterprise architecture development processes and strategies suitable for global government and private sector usage. She currently leads the TOGAF 9 development effort.

Comments (0)

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.

Microservices Articles
Modern software design has fundamentally changed how we manage applications, causing many to turn to containers as the new virtual machine for resource management. As container adoption grows beyond stateless applications to stateful workloads, the need for persistent storage is foundational - something customers routinely cite as a top pain point. In his session at @DevOpsSummit at 21st Cloud Expo, Bill Borsari, Head of Systems Engineering at Datera, explored how organizations can reap the bene...
"NetApp's vision is how we help organizations manage data - delivering the right data in the right place, in the right time, to the people who need it, and doing it agnostic to what the platform is," explained Josh Atwell, Developer Advocate for NetApp, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at 20th Cloud Expo, held June 6-8, 2017, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY.
The Jevons Paradox suggests that when technological advances increase efficiency of a resource, it results in an overall increase in consumption. Writing on the increased use of coal as a result of technological improvements, 19th-century economist William Stanley Jevons found that these improvements led to the development of new ways to utilize coal. In his session at 19th Cloud Expo, Mark Thiele, Chief Strategy Officer for Apcera, compared the Jevons Paradox to modern-day enterprise IT, examin...
In his session at 20th Cloud Expo, Mike Johnston, an infrastructure engineer at Supergiant.io, discussed how to use Kubernetes to set up a SaaS infrastructure for your business. Mike Johnston is an infrastructure engineer at Supergiant.io with over 12 years of experience designing, deploying, and maintaining server and workstation infrastructure at all scales. He has experience with brick and mortar data centers as well as cloud providers like Digital Ocean, Amazon Web Services, and Rackspace. H...
Skeuomorphism usually means retaining existing design cues in something new that doesn’t actually need them. However, the concept of skeuomorphism can be thought of as relating more broadly to applying existing patterns to new technologies that, in fact, cry out for new approaches. In his session at DevOps Summit, Gordon Haff, Senior Cloud Strategy Marketing and Evangelism Manager at Red Hat, will discuss why containers should be paired with new architectural practices such as microservices ra...
In his session at 20th Cloud Expo, Scott Davis, CTO of Embotics, discussed how automation can provide the dynamic management required to cost-effectively deliver microservices and container solutions at scale. He also discussed how flexible automation is the key to effectively bridging and seamlessly coordinating both IT and developer needs for component orchestration across disparate clouds – an increasingly important requirement at today’s multi-cloud enterprise.
The Software Defined Data Center (SDDC), which enables organizations to seamlessly run in a hybrid cloud model (public + private cloud), is here to stay. IDC estimates that the software-defined networking market will be valued at $3.7 billion by 2016. Security is a key component and benefit of the SDDC, and offers an opportunity to build security 'from the ground up' and weave it into the environment from day one. In his session at 16th Cloud Expo, Reuven Harrison, CTO and Co-Founder of Tufin, ...
DevOps is often described as a combination of technology and culture. Without both, DevOps isn't complete. However, applying the culture to outdated technology is a recipe for disaster; as response times grow and connections between teams are delayed by technology, the culture will die. A Nutanix Enterprise Cloud has many benefits that provide the needed base for a true DevOps paradigm. In their Day 3 Keynote at 20th Cloud Expo, Chris Brown, a Solutions Marketing Manager at Nutanix, and Mark Lav...
Many organizations are now looking to DevOps maturity models to gauge their DevOps adoption and compare their maturity to their peers. However, as enterprise organizations rush to adopt DevOps, moving past experimentation to embrace it at scale, they are in danger of falling into the trap that they have fallen into time and time again. Unfortunately, we've seen this movie before, and we know how it ends: badly.
TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) is a common and reliable transmission protocol on the Internet. TCP was introduced in the 70s by Stanford University for US Defense to establish connectivity between distributed systems to maintain a backup of defense information. At the time, TCP was introduced to communicate amongst a selected set of devices for a smaller dataset over shorter distances. As the Internet evolved, however, the number of applications and users, and the types of data accessed and...