Architecture Technology: Questions (DoD Specific)

1. What do we produce…so what…can anybody use it?

2. Do we interface with the customer properly?

3. How does the architecture concept relate to People, Process, Methods, Tools specifically related to the JMT, JCIDS and Federation, additionally cyber?
a) Is our mission and tasking consistent with the needs of the greater community?

Note* Architecture is rooted in capturing of methods and process.

4. What is the easiest, intuitive, most practical and cost effective way to share information (architecture context) across the multiple C/S/As?
a) What is the whole purpose behind architecture?
b) Why do you need to see an end to end process?
c) How is this related to DOTMLPF-P?

d) Why is DOTMLPF-P the foundation for all capability?  The whole point of architecture is to understand the DOTMLPF-P implication of your capability and underlying process.  What is needed in architecture should support this concept.

Note* Architectures are built in the language of architects and architectures need to be consumed in the language of the various consumers.

5. Should architectures be linked to business process or some other foundational system nomenclature?

6. Should this become the social gathering interface across C/S/As to find, share, and view Architectures and knowledge?

Note* It needs to be context driven.  The set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event; “the historical context” Is the information relative to what the user is looking for?

7. Does the site have information that the C/S/As need?
a) Is this relative or relevant in regard to the work that they are performing?
b) How do you know?

c) If the resource or site goes down what is the impact? How do you know?  Does anyone complain? If so, how many complaints?  Are they from multiple communities or a few?

    d) What methods or measures do you use to verify or validate?

Note* Just saying something is relevant isn’t enough.

8.  Is there a broad searching capability?

Note* The capability should be a one stop shop to search and view for anything housed in other repositories with Pass-through authentication so the user will not have to login to another site.

a) “Broad” meaning does the search / query across multiple domains?
b) What are the results of the searches?
c) What data does the search tool provide?
d) What are the limitations?
e) Who has access?
f) Is the data produced or presented standard in any way?

9. What is the purpose of architecture data?

a) What are the standards? Who made the standards?  Are they actual standards or guidance?

b) In terms of reuse, what is the value of architecture data relative to the cost of extracting and creating this data?

c) How do you maintain “architect intent” when extracting or using architecture data (not the products).

Note*   What does Architects intent mean?
Intent is bilateral – Both data producers and consumers have to have intent aligned within context.

d) Do we understand the differences between architecture data and architecture products?

Note*   If I have data and it is disconnected from the original product or view that was created, the data may or may not retain its reusability? It may not even be valid.

10. Why do we need to know where data is used in other architectures?
a) What is the relevance vs. the cost to create these mappings?
b) Who is the authority on data once the data is extracted and reused?

Note* Data creators i.e. Program Managers still maintain authority over data they created.

11. What are potential risks of presenting aggregated data from multiple repositories?
a) What methods have we used to evaluate these risks?

12. Is there value of using DM2 in its current form and for who is this value a benefit?

Note*Unfortunately, Many C/S/As do not care to reuse architecture outside of their domain since they already have many of the architectures built. These C/S/As want to be able to easily search and view other architectures.

Note* Many of these architectures are not DoDAF 2.0   Does this matter?

Note* There are not tools available today including DM2 that will allow the complete transfer of the architecture into another architecture tool how will this impact our mission?

**Further definition of Architect Intent**
Architectures are created by architects “for purpose”.  The data in the architectures is contextually aligned to the product as designed.  In order to use the data for analysis the “intent” of the product must convey to the data.  When Architect B is pulling multiple data threads from Architect A’s data it may not always naturally align.  If Architect B alters the data or maps it to make it align you change the nature of the data and can impact any further composition or analysis.

14) How can we leverage people collaborating as a tool as part of this effort?

15) How do our efforts relate to the C2 framework in this context?

a) How do we use the C2 framework in implementing an actionable and dynamic architecture?

Note* Functions for Organizing, Understanding, Planning, Deciding, Directing and Monitoring

b) Do we need tools for this framework to be actualized?

16) When have we asked for requirements from our stakeholders or customers?

2 thoughts on “Architecture Technology: Questions (DoD Specific)

  1. The questions that struck me the most were the ones about easy, intuitive, practical and useful ways of understanding our customers. Accurate, timely, relevant and useful were the foursome most often asked for by media representatives when I worked at the Air Force Press Desk at the Pentagon. However, each type of publication – professional, popular, opinion-based, sensationalist—cared about each of them in varied order. So it is with what you’re talking about here. No one really wants to do architecture anymore than someone wants to diagram sentences or edit papers, or repeat experiments. But if we wish to be taken seriously as practitioners of the scientific method, we have to be good scientists. That means we have to follow the guidance I found today in a lecture given by Canadian physicist Colin Latham who served as a governmental “boffin” scientist during World War II. He was advising the technology community in Guyana about the role science and technology have on cultural development. His words were spoken in 1976 but still ring true today:

    “In some languages the word “science” is synonymous with knowledge. Traditionally, a scientist is one who seeks new knowledge with complete honesty and objectivity in his theoretical and experimental investigations. He designs an experiment with economy and, often, with elegance; he defines accurately the boundaries within which the experiment is valid. He has a precise knowledge of the limits of error of his observations, measurements and computations and makes sure that the experiment itself does not interfere with the system under study.”

    While we do this work, we must remember for whom we do it. Other scientists will be impressed by statistical graphs, peer-reviewed journals and careful worded documents. The public will care less unless they can find a way to apply what has been learned into their daily lives. We must do the same with public service. We have to remember that the purpose of government is to facilitate public service—of the people, for the people, and by the people—if democracy is to endure. This means that everything we do with technology at least in the DoD must be directed to the people who interact with us the least rather than those who do so the most—the generals and admirals. We must instead focus on the junior officers and enlisted men who are Reservists and Guardsmen since they care deeply about service but only get to do so occasionally. This means that they way we organize, train and equip must be so simple that “a caveman could do it!” Not that what we do is stupid or ignorant but is instead elegant, intuitive and immediately obvious.

    I think that we need to build a cadre of such individuals who have had combat or contingency experience and then interact with them as if they were our most precious resources. Give them access to people who could ask them questions and the who could respond nearly immediately with ideas that are creative, innovative and practical. All of the architectures, ontologies, taxonomies, coding, frameworks, etc must be shown as symbols and shapes like those that are captivating the current smartphone transformation. We need to spend some time with customer relationship managers, information architects and human factor psychologists so that we can then use what they know about understanding users within the Department.
    Once we have this information, we need to meet with world class game designers, human-machine interface designers and product designers so that we can build our “connectors” correctly. Our interfaces, our displays and our collections of data are only valuable if they are easily used, addictively helpful and constantly responsive to the needs of their users.

    We need to think about how information can be gathered, sorted, analyzed, reflected upon and then transformed in such a way that an individual is captivated and awed by the result. Right now, we too addicted to data when we should be committed to story. For it is story that has been the way culture has been preserved and change created. From story comes interaction whether it be community or entertainment. This is how we must create our systems as well. We are not machines, we are not only rational but are dynamic, emotional, malleable organic collections that continuously morph and evolve based on the experiences and individuals with which we interact.

    Knowing the Law is good and right and necessary. but finding a way to have it live in your heart, and mind and spirit is so much better…


Comments are closed.