COMMENTARY
uncertainty and re-engineering while increasing common understanding for stakeholders.
When the development and maintenance of these architecture products are managed by the acquisition stakeholder community in an upfront plan, requirements gener- ation can follow a documented process from initial concept to prototype. Te architectures can be used to communicate operational goals and system constraints between disparate groups. Decisions made or not made in system development can be adjudicated in terms of the architecture. Program managers can consult the archi- tecture to check if a capability, operation or component is affected by a decision to add or remove a function from a system. Second- and third-order effects that are not obvious in stovepiped system devel- opment can be easily identified when the system is placed in the larger system-of- systems or enterprise architecture.
ARCHITECTURE AS A PROVIDER Leveraging the data stored in an architec- ture model provides several benefits. First, it links concepts to capabilities to solu- tions and provides operational context, processes, activities and requirements. Tis end-to-end traceability ensures that the developed system remains focused on
TEST FIRE
The Army fires a Patriot missile in a recent test. A system recently devel- oped by the Air and Missile Defense Cross-Functional Team to fit an immedi- ate need for maneuver units to identify and counter air threats quickly and effec- tively didn’t include requirements for integration with existing offensive fire control systems. (U.S. Army photo)
Soldiers’ needs. Architecture defines the standards for implementation necessary to field an interoperable system. Setting standards not only ensures interopera- bility with existing systems, but it also creates more opportunity for develop- ment of future capabilities that may be integrated, by setting expectations and enabling modular integration.
A linkage from concept to capabil- ity to solution ensures that a Soldier’s needs continue to be met in increasingly complex systems through simplified configuration management. The abil- ity to trace architectures from concept view to system view ensures that cross- portfolio requirements are identified and not ignored or casually traded away later in the development process. A stan- dardized architecture methodology and diagram set allows different stakehold- ers to communicate their interests and concerns across portfolio boundaries in a language that can be universally under- stood. Te architect is able to capture the warfighter’s requirements and translate them into the language of the materiel developer. Traceability works in both directions, giving materiel developers insight into how a particular requirement meets warfighter needs, and showing the warfighter why a particular materiel solu- tion was chosen given the cost, schedule
and performance constraints that the materiel developer must adhere to. Tis makes it easier to understand the decisions made by all parties in the Army’s modern- ization process.
ARCHITECTURE AS A VALIDATOR Through the requirements generation process, architecture captures and defines system attributes and provides a basis for comparing system performance against operational requirements. Architecture may be used to link analysis with early experimentation using the operational requirements, system attributes and underlying data stored in the architec- ture model. Prototyping, experimentation and analyses, via modeling and simulation, will help refine requirements and help set the threshold and objective specifications for materiel development. High-fidelity models and complex scenarios are chal- lenging enough to build and maintain without analysts spending time combing stakeholders’ repositories for data—much of which is unusable because it is incom- plete, has dissimilar formats or accounts only for inter-portfolio connections.
An architecture model can be referenced for standardized performance, integra- tion and interoperability requirements that can be analyzed before the evaluation
https://asc.ar my.mil
131
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156
