Search

Process models are very important in a wide range of application areas, for example, software development or operational management. The first step in modeling a process is gaining information and knowledge engineering. This information documented as process models are a very important part of Enterprise Architectures (EAs). All forces in the NATO use the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF). Process models in the NAF are represented as part of the operational view, the sub-view NOV-5. Process models are often the starting point for modeling or creating an EA. According to the principles of proper modeling, not only the correct use of the syntax is necessary but also the relevance of a model. This is inseparable from the underlying information from which the model is created.

Models of complex systems and systems of systems are described with NAF (NATO Architecture Framework) or DoDAF (DoD Architecture Framework). Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) is part of NAF and allows describing the behaviour of the different participants in the model. This notation is used by the French Army as well as its main suppliers to describe the interactions between participants involved in a mission. It is therefore important the models are correct. The VeriMoB project was a research project financed by the DGA (Direction Generale de l'Armement) which aimed at developing a tool that will help users to validate their BPMN models among the stakeholders. The tool had to cover three main aspects: a static verification, an interactive execution, and an automatic exploration of the possible scenarios. This paper will present the work done trying to convert BPMN to SDL in order to fulfil this objective with an existing toolset.

Architecture frameworks continue to evolve. The unified profile for the US Department of Defense (DoD) Architecture Framework (DoDAF) and the UK Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF) (UPDM) provides a standard means of representing DoDAF, MODAF, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) architecture framework (NAF) conformant architectures using the Unified Modeling Language (UML), and Systems Modeling Language (SysML). Since the UPDM V2.0 publication, further information has emerged such as the June 2011 NATO study entitled: ?Development of The AMN (Afghanistan Mission Network) Architecture In 2010 ? Lessons Learned,? by Torsten Graeber of the NATO C3 Agency. This report identified the following in section 4.1-ARCHITECTURE FRAMEWORKS, sub-section 4.1.2 Observations (Need for a Unified Architecture Framework) and stated that: Differences in DoDAF, MODAF, and NAF make it difficult to match the metamodel one to one. Some of the concepts in the frameworks have the same name but different definitions, such as different semantics. Difficult to crosswalk the concepts between the different frameworks lead to miscommunication between architects using different frameworks. Based on the above, the NATO Architecture Capability Team (Architecture CaT) meeting on 10-11 September 2012 committed to moving to a single worldwide architecture framework. Consequently, a new architecture framework profile supporting a unified framework is needed. It is intended that this framework bring the different architecture frameworks together. The UPDM V3.0 domain metamodel shall be derived from MODEM (the MODAF metamodel) and the DoDAF 2.0 metamodel (DM2), both of which are based on the International Defence Enterprise Architecture Specification Foundation (IDEAS). This paper will document the rationale behind the UPDM 3.0 as well as its new name of the unified architecture framework (UAF).

Models of complex systems and systems of systems are described with NAF (NATO Architecture Framework) or DoDAF (DoD Architecture Framework). Business Process Model Notation (BPMN) is part of NAF and allows describing the behavior of the different participants in the model. This notation is used by the French Army as well as its main suppliers to describe the interactions between participants involved in a mission. It is therefore important the models are correct. The VeriMoB project is a research project financed by the DGA (Direction Generale de l’Armement) in collaboration with Eurocontrol and Airbus DS who provided some real use cases. The project aims at developing a tool that will help users to verify their BPMN models. This tool covers three main aspects: a static verification, an interactive execution, an automatic exploration of the possible scenarios. This paper will present the results from this project.

As a result of growing and changing customer requirements, Airbus are moving towards a Model Based System Engineering Development (MBSD) approach, as the current Model Based System Engineering (MBSE) no longer meets these new customer needs. These new customer requirements are now moving outside the boundaries of the standard set of MBSE artefacts, which concentrate solely on set of system engineering models. The introduction of the NATO Architecture Framework Version 4 (NAF4), The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) and Human System Integration (HSI) standards spread the requirement across the whole project lifecycle and most engineering project domains. We now require a System Engineering process that delivers a model based solution for all engineering domains and provides integration across the entire project process / lifecycle.This paper continues the five year research and implementation journey at Airbus to provide a continuous process of improvement and adding Humans into the System Engineering process. It started in 2014 with the integration of Human Views into our operational development process (IEEE Syscon 2014) [ref 1], then the integration of Human System Integration (HSI) and Non-functional requirements (AHFE 2015) [ref 2], then the integration of HSI into MBSE (AHFE 2016) [ref 3], then the Continuous development of MBSE with HSI and customer change (iHSI 2018) [ref 4] and in 2019 this paper, the introduction of MBSD.

To provide modeling and simulation functionality as services is strategically leveraged in the defense domain and elsewhere. To describe and understand the context, the ecosystem, wherein such services are used and interoperate with other services and capabilities, one needs tools that capture the simulation services themselves as well as the capability landscape they operate in. By using the NATO Consultation, Command, and Control (C3) Taxonomy to structure architecture design in the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF), cohesive descriptions of modeling and simulation capabilities within larger contexts can be given. We show how a basic seven-step approach may benefit architecture work for modeling and simulation at the overarching, reference, and target architectural levels; in particular for (1) hybrid architectures that embed simulation architectures within a larger service-oriented architecture and (2) for architectural design of simulation scenarios. Central to the approach is the use of the C3 Taxonomy as a repository for overarching architecture building blocks and patterns. We conclude that the promotion of technical functionality as capabilities in their own right helps delineate simulation environment boundaries, helps delineate services within and outside the boundary, and is an enabler for defining the service concepts in cloud-based approaches to modeling and simulation as a service (MSaaS).

Engineering of requirements is not supported directly in the metamodels of common Enterprise Architecture Frameworks, such as the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF). This problem has been addressed in a recent study that proposed a “Requirements View” as an extension to the NAF metamodel [4]. Based on this we introduce a methodology to determine how well requirements are covered by an architecture model in order to further integrate requirements engineering and architecture modelling and to support a project manager in tracking project progress.

Recently an approach for information system design and delivery according to run-time context has been developed. It uses the concept of capability to express the organization’s ability and capacity that enables it to achieve a business goal in a certain context, and hence is denoted Capability Driven Development (CDD). The concept of capability has also been used in other approaches because it facilitates business investment focus, it can be used as a baseline for business planning, and it directly leads to service specification and design. For example, several Enterprise Architecture frameworks have included capability as a key concept for analyzing organization’s abilities to deliver desired functions. A notable contribution in this area is The NATO Architecture Framework (NAF), which aims at being a de facto standard for organizations operating in the areas of NATO. This paper analyses the possibilities of mapping the CDD concepts to NAF concepts that are relevant for capability design.

Problem statement: The Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) Systems provided situational awareness about operational environment and supported in decision making and directed to operative environment. These systems had been used by various agencies like defense, police, investigation, road, rail, airports, oil and gas related department. However, the increase use of C4I system had made it more important and attractive. Consequently interest in design and development of C4I system had increased among the researchers. Many defense industry frameworks were available but the problem was a suitable selection of a framework in design and development of C4I system. Approach: This study described the concepts, tool and methodology being used for evaluation analysis of different frameworks by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Results: We had compared different defense industry frameworks like Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DODAF), Ministry of Defense Architecture Framework (MODAF) and NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) and found that AHP is fairly good tool in terms of analysis. Conclusion: Different defense industry frameworks such as DODAF, MODAF and NAF had been evaluated and compared using AHP.

The future military forces will more often use multiple complex systems. The number of sub-systems should not appear at the user level. The design of a portal helps to reduce the complexity. It should be conceived regarding every discipline, including ergonomics. NAF (NATO Architecture Framework) is the enterprise architecture framework defined by the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). This framework is divided into different levels, to independently treat the systems engineering tasks. In this paper, we present a method and objects to conceive portal-like user interfaces using the NAF framework. We then present a tool we have developed to follow this method.