889 Systemarkitektur : erfaringer og anbefalinger

This report contains a short introduction to the field of systems architecting, its application in the military domain, potential benefits and some central concepts and tools. Special attention is given to the NAF (NATO Architecture Framework), which the Norwegian Defence has recently chosen to adopt. The report also summarizes experiences from experimentation with the use of NAF at FFI, and concludes with a set of specific recommendations. It is expected that most (larger) projects in the Norwegian defence sector and in NATO will shortly be using the NAF and methods such as those described in this report. FFI will very likely be required to deliver according to the NAF in several of its activity areas. This gives rise to the need for knowledge and skill development and definition of roles and processes with respect to architecture work at FFI and in the Norwegian Defence in general. The field of systems architecting and the many different architecture frameworks have arisen as an answer to the increasing internal and external complexity which is now faced by most enterprises and projects. The motivation for applying the NAF in the norwegian defence community is the achievement of interoperable solutions and efficiency in operations, planning, development and administration. The NAF may be used to support a number of different types of activities, ranging from detailed systems and concept development to enterprise management and force planning. Implementing use of the NAF is not primarily meant to replace the use of other tools or methods, but rather to supplement them. Text document may be more compact when supported by well structured electronic architecture models. These models will help manage relationships and enable full traceability between resources and requirements. The established work methods (or lack thereof) of today are not effective or efficient given high ambitions regarding interoperability in a complex multinational context with rapid technological and social developments and strong budget restrictions. If NATO network enabled capability (NEC) is to become a reality, new work methods and processes within R&D, acquisitions and planning are clearly required. The architecture methodology described in this report supports efficiency through improved communication within and among projects and diverse communities of interest, as well as through helping to structure complex problems. Through the active use of electronic architecture models developed according to the NAF, and possibly using a graphical modeling language like the UML (Unified Modeling Language), cross domain multidisciplinary cooperation may be realized much more efficiently than today. Experience at FFI with using the NAF proves it to be promising, yet challenging to implement. Quite a few find the framework (especially in combination with UML) to represent a hindrance rather than an asset, and a great many more have little or no knowledge of the NAF. There exists a considerable gap in knowledge (about the field of architecture) and mindset between the few eager proponents of the NAF and the rest. Applying and developing/adapting new methodology in a project with severe restrictions on available time, personnel and funds is highly challenging. The difficulties with applying the NAF arise from lacking training, guidance, tools, leadership and decisions regarding specific “best practices” for use. If the norwegian defence community is to reap any great benefits from this new methodology, a wider participation and active support is required within projects and the organization as a whole. Working methodology must be given more emphasis than today, especially in the early phases of projects. Managers on all levels must be familiar with the NAF and actively integrate architecture work in their projects. Despite the NAF being quite complicated, “quick wins” are possible. It is recommended to stimulate a wider adoption of the NAF by organizing several courses and taking a rather pragmatic attitude to the framework itself. “More models” is more important than “NAF correct models” to begin with. Such a simplified implementation seems to be a prerequisite for wider implementation of architecture methodologies today, given the immaturity of the methods and tools. Alongside this effort to “bring architecture to the masses”, further development of specialist knowledge and skills within a limited community is recommended. This core of a few people should work to develop the tools and methods with the goal of enabling model integration, model execution etc to bring the greatest gains in the long run. Architecture modeling should not be perceived as an additional task for projects, but should rather replace or reduce other tasks. It is mostly about doing things differently, rather than doing more with the already stretched project resources. The intention is to increase efficiency in the enterprise as a whole. This of course implies that some will experience the opposite during a short transitional period, until the benefits start to be apparent. Many may however start to experience the benefits quickly. Military enterprise development issues and interest for the field of systems architecting is well reflected in civilian enterprises of many kinds. Civilian and defence related systems architecture communities have something to gain from common arenas for cooperation and knowledge exchange. If the recommendations in this report are accepted implemented, then the described architecture methodology may valuably support the realization of the future network enabled capabilities (NEC). FFI continues to contribute to the further development and implementation of architecture methodologies (including the NAF) within the Norwegian defence community through the newly started project 1176 Service Orientation and Semantic Interoperability in the Information Infrastructure.