The C4ISR Architecture Framework: History, Status,

and Plans for Evolution

P. Kathie Sowell 1
The MITRE Corporation
McLean, Virginia

Abstract

An architecture is “the structure of components, their relationships, and the principles

and guidelines governing their design and evolution over time.”
-- C4ISR Architecture Framework Version 2.0

The Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, and

Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, developed by the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) C4ISR Architecture Working Group, provides guidance
for describing architectures. It is intended to ensure that architectures developed by the
Commands, Services, and defense Agencies are interrelatable between and among the
organizations’ operational, systems, and technical architecture views, and are comparable
and integratable across Joint and multi-national organizational boundaries. The
Framework is intended to ensure that a clear audit trail exists from mission operations
and effectiveness measures to the characteristics of current and postulated C4ISR systems
and their contributions (performance and interoperability metrics) to mission operations.

This paper describes the four main components of the Framework, i.e., Architecture
Views (Operational, Systems, and Technical) and Linkages, Common Product Templates
and Common Data, Universal Guidance, and Common Building Block References.

Relationships to other popular and emerging architecture frameworks are described,

along with current plans for further evolution of the Framework.

1.0 History of the Framework

The initial impetus for the Framework came from the Defense Science Board, who
determined in the early 1990s that one of the key means for ensuring interoperable and
cost effective military systems is to establish comprehensive architectural guidance for all
of DoD. Consequently, the C4ISR Integration Task Force developed version 1.0 of the
C4ISR Architecture Framework in June of 1996, and the C4ISR Architecture Working
Group completed version 2.0 in December of 1997, under the auspices of the
Architecture Coordination Council (ACC) [C4ISR Architecture working Group, 1997].
1
The author wishes to acknowledge the support of the agencies that sponsor the work related to this paper:
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (C3I), Architectures and Interoperability Directorate; the
Federal CIO Council; and the Department of the Treasury.
In a 23 February 1998 memorandum, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition &
Technology), the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (C3I), and the Joint Staff
Director of C4 Systems (J6) mandated the C4ISR Architecture Framework, Version 2.0
for use in all C4ISR or related architectures. In addition, they directed that the
Framework be examined as the basis for a single architecture framework for all
functional areas or domains within the DoD [Architecture Coordination Council, 1998].

2.0 Framework Overview

2.1 Why Do We Need an Architecture Framework?

Development of C4ISR architectures is a distributed process. Because there has been no

uniform guidance governing architecture development, DoD components have described
their respective architectures using a variety of disparate perspectives, formats and
terminology. It has been virtually impossible to interrelate or compare one architecture
with another, an integration process we must perform in order to identify interoperability
issues and to find opportunities for technology leveraging and sharing.

Using the Framework over time, architectures can be dovetailed and opportunities for
enhanced interoperability, integration, and cost-effectiveness will be easier to identify
and act upon.

The Information Technology Management Reform Act and the Government Performance
and Results Act require Federal Government organizations to measure the performance
of existing and planned information systems and to report performance measures
annually. The Framework can help DoD organizations to satisfy these reporting
requirements by providing uniform methods for describing information systems and their
performance in context with mission and functional effectiveness.

2.2 Framework Components

The Framework has four main parts: definitions of three standard views of any given
architecture; common products (descriptive models) and data; common building block
references; and high-level guidance in how to use the Framework to describe an
architecture.

2.2.1 Definitions of Architecture Views

The Framework defines three views of any given architecture. Figure 1 illustrates these
three views and their relationships.
 Operational
View

Identifies Warfighter

Pr formuirem
In eq
oc a e
Relationships and Information Needs

ess tio nt
rem on dal

ing n E s
qui ati No

an xch
Re form ter-

s
ent

d L an
nge f In d In

ev ge
B a ppo C ap

els
cha s o an

Su ew
itie ns

si
N
Ex evel ssing

of
c T rtabi abili
qui es dtiv tio
s ,
Re eedlin s, aAnc socia

ec lity ties
L ce

hn a
Pro

olo nd
N ode As

s
ent

gy
s
to Nystem

rem
S Specific Capabilities
Identified to Satisfy Technical
Systems Information-Exchange View
View Levels and Other
Operational Requirements
Relates Capabilities and Characteristics Prescribes Standards and
to Operational Requirements Technical Criteria Governing Conventions
Interoperable Implementation/
Procurement of the Selected
System Capabilities

Figure 1. One Architecture…Three Views

The operational view describes the tasks and activities, the operational nodes, and the
information flows between nodes that are required to accomplish or support an operation.
The operational view describes the nature of information exchanges in detail sufficient to
determine what specific degree of information-exchange interoperability is required.

The systems view translates the required degree of interoperability into a set of system
capabilities needed, identifies current systems that are used in support of the operational
requirements (or postulated systems that could be used), and facilitates the comparison of
current/postulated system implementations with the needed capabilities.

The technical view articulates the criteria that govern the implementation of required
system capabilities.

To be consistent and integrated, an architecture description must provide explicit linkages

among its various views. The Framework product set, described briefly in the next
paragraphs, provides a number of such linkages among the views.

2.2.2 Common Products and Data

Products are the representation formats, and the required data, that all of the DoD
components will use to describe their C4ISR architectures. The essential products are
those that every architecture description must include, provided that the subject view is
included in the architecture. The supporting products are those that will be needed for
some architecture descriptions, depending on the purpose of the architecture. The
Framework describes seven essential products and 19 supporting products.

It is critical to understand that a given product type is designated as “essential”

because it is one that higher-level integrators and decision makers will need to see in
order to make comparisons and budget decisions across multiple architectures.
Other products may be equally necessary, or even more necessary, for a specific
architecture effort, but if those products do not need to be seen by the higher level
decision-makers, those products are designated “supporting.” Simply stated,
“essential” means “essential for cross-architecture analysis.”

The product set was designed with relationships and connections among the products in
mind. These connections and relationships not only facilitate a more complete
representation of a given architecture, they also provide a means for relating technology
to mission requirements.

There are three essential products in the operational view:

The High-level Operational Concept Graphic (figure 2) is the most general of the
architecture-description products. Its main utility is as a facilitator of human
communication, and it is intended for presentation to high-level decision makers. This
kind of diagram can also be used as a means of orienting and focusing detailed
discussions. The graphic should be accompanied by explanatory text.

STATE
VECTOR

Figure 2. High-Level Operational Concept Graphic

The Operational Node Connectivity Description (figure 3) depicts the operational

nodes, the needlines between them, and the characteristics of the information exchanged.
A needline is simply an indication that two nodes need to exchange information; it does
not state how that exchange is accomplished, i.e., with what systems or networks.
 Information Exchange 1

• Information Des cription

•Name/Identifier
•Definition Node
•Media B
•Size Activity 2
•Units
• Information Exchange Activity 3
Attributes
•Frequency,
Timeliness,
Throughput
•Security
•Interoperability
Requirements
• Information Source
• Information Des tination
Node
C
Activity 3
Activity 1 Node
Activity 2 A

Figure 3. Operational Node Connectivity Description

The Operational Information Exchange Matrix (figure 4) displays the Information

Exchange Requirements (IER) among the operational nodes, identifying who exchanges
what information with whom, why the information is needed, and what degree of
information exchange sophistication is required. The matrix describes relevant attributes
of the exchange and keys the exchange to the producing and using activities and nodes
and to the needline the exchange satisfies.

INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION EXCHANGE

INFORMATION
DESCRIPTION INFORMATION
SOURCE INFORMATION
DESTINATION INFORMATION EXCHANGE
ATTRIBUTES
DESCRIPTION SOURCE DESTINATION ATTRIBUTES
OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL FREQUENCY,
INFORMATION ELEMENT & ELEMENT & TIMELINESS, INTEROPER-
DESCRIPTION MEDIA SIZE UNITS SECURITY
ELEMENT ACTIVITY THROUGHPUT ABILITY
ACTIVITY
REQUIREMENTS
NAME/IDENTIFIER DEFINITION DIGITAL, RANGE FEET, IDENTIFIER PRODUCING IDENTIFIER CONSUMING
VOICE, LIMITS LITERS, OF ACTIVITY OF ACTIVITY
TEXT, INCHES, PRODUCING CONSUMING
IMAGE, ETC. OE OE
ETC.

Figure 4. Operational Information Exchange Matrix

There is just one essential product in the systems view, the System Interface
Description (figure 5). However, to accommodate the range of detail that may be
required by individual architectures, this product can be shown in three perspectives:
internodal (with two levels of detail), intranodal, and intrasystem (system component).
 Essential Product: System Interface Description
Internodal Perspective
Node Edge-to-Node Edge SYS TEM SYS TEM Internodal Perspective SYS TEM SYS TEM
1 2 1 2
rfa
ce System-to-System rfa
ce
nte SYS TEM nte SYS TEM
SI fac
e SI fac
e
N OD E A MM ter
3 N OD E B MM ter
3 N OD E B
CO In CO In
S N OD E A S
SYS TEM M SYS TEM M
M M
1 CO 1 CO

SYS TEM SYS TEM

2 COMM S Interface 2 COMM S Interface
One
One -way
-way SAT
SAT Inte COM
Inte COM rfac SYS TEM
rfac SYS TEM e
e 1
1
EXTERNAL EXTERNAL
SYS TEM
CON NE CTION SYS TEM CON NE CTION
N OD E C 4 N OD E C 4

Intranodal Perspective Intrasystem Perspective

FROM OTHER
NODES

COMMUNICATIONS PROCESSING SYSTEM 1

Interface SYS TEM
SYS TEM 2 FROM
1 CS1/PS2 OTHER Com ponent 1 C om ponent 2
SYSTEM
S2
Inte

/P N OD E A
S1
rfac

eP
ac
erf
e PS

Int
COMMUNICATIONS

SYSTEM
TO
2/C

Com ponent 4 Com ponent 3

OTHER
S2

PROCESSING
NETWORK

SYS TEM
1 COMMUNICATIONS
SYS TEM
2 Com ponent 5

COMMUNICATIONS TO OTHE R
N ETWORK N ODES

Figure 5. System Interface Description, in Four Levels of Detail

The System Interface Description links together the operational and systems architecture
views by depicting the assignments of systems and their interfaces to the nodes and
needlines described in the Operational Node Connectivity Description.

The System Interface Description identifies the interfaces between nodes, between
systems, and between the components of a system, depending on the needs of a particular
architecture.

There is also just one essential product in the technical view, the Technical Architecture
Profile (figure 6). The Technical Architecture Profile references the technical standards
that apply to the architecture and how they need to be, or have been, implemented.
 Service Area Service Standard
Operating System Kernel FIPS Pub 151-1 (POSIX.1)
Shell and Utilities IEEE P1003.2
Software Programming Languages FIPS Pub 119 (Ada)
Engineering Services
User Client Server FIPS Pub 158 (X-Window
Interface Operations System)
Object Definition and DoD Human Computer Interface
Management Style Guide
Window Management FIPS Pub 158 (X-Window
System)
Dialogue Support Project Standard
Data Management Data Management FIPS Pub 127-2 (SQL)
Data Interchange Data Interchange FIPS Pub 152 (SGML)
Electronic Data Interchange FIPS Pub 161 (EDI)
Graphics Graphics FIPS Pub 153 (PHIGS)

. . .
Figure 6. Example Technical Architecture Profile

In addition to the view-specific essential products described here, there are two more
essential products that apply to all three views. These are the Overview and Summary
and the Integrated Dictionary.

For each product, appendix A of the Framework contains a table presenting details of the
product attributes or characteristics. Each product attribute represents a piece of
information about a given architecture that should be captured in the product and stored
in the Integrated Dictionary.

As the Framework is used and lessons-learned are compiled, the set of information
elements needed to describe architectures will be refined.

Architecture Product Linkages – the Audit Trail That Relates Technology to

Mission Operations

The three architecture views provide a basis for analyzing proposed investments in terms
of their contributions to mission effectiveness. Because the Framework products are
closely interrelated, this kind of trace-back can be readily accomplished.

In figure 7, each of the three architecture views (operational, systems, and technical) is
represented by examples of the appropriate performance measures for that view, the
information that must be captured to evaluate whether those measures can be or are being
met, and the main Framework product or products used to capture that information.
 What Performance What Information
Where Captured? Audit Trail
Measures? Must Be Captured?
O

Operational Mission
P Mission Effectiveness Mission Operations A

Requirements
E COUNTERDRUGS • Players, activities,
R BOLIVIA PIT RAID NEO
PANAMA interactions, ... Operational Node Connectivity
TIMELY
A INTERDICTION
Description
SUCCESSFUL
EVACUATION • Information exchanges
T
I DISASTER • Execution environment
RELIEF
O PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL • Projected risks
HURRICANE
CONFLICT
N SAUDI ARABIA PFP

S LIVES SAVED TARGETS

KILLED

System Interface Description

Capabilities
S System Requirements System Attributes/Metrics

Systems
Y Internode Intranode Intrasystem
• Required functions • Functions supported
S • Interoperability level E
• Required interoperability B C D
T Node Edge System System Component
E level to to to to
M • Performance requirements • Performance Node Edge System System Component
S • Threat protection • Degree of risk C1 D1
System System
mitigation Communications Communications
Description Description

Implementation
T
Implementation Compliance System Implementations

Criteria
E
C
F
H • Standards • Applications and products
N Technical Architecture
I
• Common Operating • Platform, operating system Profile
C Environment
A
L UNCLASSIFIED

Figure 7. Audit Trail Linking Technology to Mission Operations

As the architecture description moves from the operational view to the systems view,
information about the systems that satisfy the operational needs is overlaid on the
operational information, and the mission effectiveness measures are translated into
system performance measures. The prevailing technical architecture standards provide
implementation criteria for the systems that satisfy the operational requirements.

The sequence of products, indicated by the circled letters above, provides a mechanism
for relating the systems solutions (investments) back to their operational requirements
(mission effectiveness). The Framework does not explicitly dictate the sequence in
which products should be built, but by taking advantage of the inherent relationships
among the products, one can tailor an appropriate sequence to suit the analysis at hand.

2.2.3 Common Building Block References

There are many efforts ongoing and evolving in DoD that focus on the common goals of
interoperability, integration, and cost-effective investments. A number of reference
models and information standards exist that serve as sources for guidelines and attributes
that must be consulted while building architecture products. Each of these resources is
defined and described in its own document. Table 1 lists some of these resource building
blocks.
 Applicable
Universal Reference
Architecture General Nature
Views Resource

All Views
C4ISR Core Architecture Logical data model of information used to describe and build architectures
Data Model (CADM)
All Views
Defense Data Dictionary Repository of standard data definitions, formats, usage, and structures
System (DDDS)
Levels of Information Reference Model of interoperability levels and operational, systems,
All Views Systems Interoperability
(LISI) and technical architecture associations

Operational Universal Joint Hierarchical listing of the tasks that can be performed by a Joint military force
Task List (UJTL)

Operational Joint Operational (In development) -- High-level, evolving architecture depicting Joint
Architecture (JOA) and multi-national operational relationships

System Technical Reference Common conceptual framework and vocabulary encompassing a

Technical Model (TRM) representation of the information system domain
System DII Common Operating Framework for systems development encompassing systems architecture
Technical Environment (COE) standards, software reuse, sharable data, interoperability and automated integration

Technical
Shared Data Strategy and mechanism for data-sharing in the context of
Environment (SHADE) DII COE-compliant systems
Technical Joint Technical IT standards and guidelines
Architecture (JTA)
UNCLASSIFIED

Table 1. Universal Reference Resources

2.2.4 Universal Guidance

Guidance in the Framework concerning the process of describing an architecture, i.e.,

what steps to perform and in what order, has intentionally been kept to a very high level
to allow organizations to design their own processes tailored to their own needs.

The most critical aspect of the guidance is that the purpose for building the architecture
description should be clearly understood and articulated up front. This purpose will
influence the choice of what information to gather, what products to build, and what
kinds of analysis to apply. Figure 8 illustrates this.
 1
Determine the
intended use of
the architecture

Purpose
Critical issues
Target objectives
Key tradeoffs
Probable analysis methods

2 3 4 5 6
Determine the Determine the Determine
Build the Use architecture
architecture characteristics views and
requisite for intended
scope to be captured products to be
products purpose
built

Geographical/operational Required characteristics All essential products Completed architecture • Prudent investments
bounds (commensurate detail Relevant supporting (populated product set)
Timephase(s) products • Improved business processes
across the different • Increased interoperability
Functional bounds views) and measures of
Technology constraints performance •
Architecture resources/ •
schedule •

UNCLASSIFIED

Figure 8. Framework Process Guidance

3.0 Adaptations Beyond DoD and Relationships to Other Frameworks

Although it was developed for C4ISR, the Framework has been used successfully in other
DoD domains, such as electronic commerce, logistics, and health services, as well as in
the Intelligence Community. Other Agencies and Departments of the Federal
Government are also adopting the descriptive product types developed for the DoD
Framework. Governments outside the United States have expressed interest in the DoD
Framework, most notably Australia, Sweden, and Israel.

A far-reaching goal of architecture development is to have a common means for

expressing architectures so that architectures can be understood and compared at many
levels -- for example, within Agencies and Departments (e.g., Service-to-Service within
DoD, or bureau-to-bureau within the Treasury Department) and across Agencies or
Departments (e.g., between DoD and the Treasury Department). Some can even envision
a world in which industry architectures can be readily compared with those of the Federal
Government (e.g., to compare the way DoD performs payroll operations with the way
IBM performs payroll operations). To this end, a number of organizations are developing
architecture frameworks that tell their architects how to describe their architectures using
common techniques and templates.

In addition to Government, industry is beginning to show interest in the C4ISR

Architecture Framework as well. The Open Group is a multi-national organization, one
of whose purposes is to develop an industry-wide common practice for architecture
description. The group has expressed a desire to incorporate some of the principles and
techniques of the C4ISR Architecture Framework into their document, which is entitled
The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) [Author’s Correspondence, 2000].

The C4ISR Architecture Framework does not dictate a specific methodology to be used
when describing architectures. An organization can devise its own method for
developing the products (that is, which supporting products should be built, in what
order, and to what level of detail), or it can use the Framework in conjunction with
another, existing methodology or framework. This flexibility has made it easier to adapt
DoD’s Framework to other domains. The sections below describe the relationships
between DoD’s Framework and some other frameworks, and how other communities are
using the architecture products prescribed in DoD’s Framework.

3.1 Relationship to the Zachman Framework

The Zachman Framework is a way of thinking about an enterprise in an organized way so

that it can be described and analyzed. The columns represent various aspects of the
enterprise that can be addressed, and the rows represent various viewpoints from which
those aspects can be described [Zachman, 1987]. Thus, each cell, formed by the
intersection of a column and a row, represents an aspect of the enterprise modeled from a
particular point of view. The architect selects and models the cells that are appropriate to
the purpose of the analysis.

As shown by the color coding in figure 9, the views and individual products of the C4ISR
Architecture Framework, Version 2.0 map to the cells of the Zachman Framework
[Sowell, 1999]. (The figure maps only the most frequently-used DoD products, not all of
them.)

Blue cells indicate that the C4ISR Architecture Framework contains operational view
products that map to the cells; orange cells indicate that the C4ISR Framework contains
systems products that map to the cells; and blue/orange cells indicate that the C4ISR
Framework contains both operational and systems products that map to the cells. (Note
that there are no red cells; this reflects the fact that no technical view products map to the
Zachman Framework. This is because the Zachman Framework does not call for the
explicit modeling of the applicable rules and standards themselves, but assumes standards
to apply within multiple cells.)

Ovals have been overlaid onto the color-coded cells. These ovals represent individual
products from the C4ISR Architecture Framework that correspond to the Zachman cell or
cells onto which the oval is overlaid. Operational products are represented by blue ovals,
and systems products by yellow or orange ovals.
 Data Function Network People Time Motivation
List of Things List of Locations List of Organizations List of Business
Important to Business List of Pr ocesses Important to Business Important to Business List of Events Goals/Str ategies
Planner’s Integrated Activity Operational
Significant to Business

View Diction- Model Node

ary Command Operational End/Means=Major
(List) Connectivity Business Goal/CSF
Relationships Event
Description e.g., Business Plan
e.g., Entity
e.g., Function Flow
Diagr am Chart Trace
e.g., Entity
Relationship
Owner’s Relationship
Diagr am
Diagr am Activity Information
View Model Exchange Time= Business Event End=Business
Logical Matrix Agent=Org Unit Cycle=Business Cycle Objectives
Wor k=Work Product Means=Business
Data Strategy

Model e.g., Distributed e.g., Human Interface e.g., Pr ocessing

O perational Architecture Structure
e.g., Knowledge
Architecture
Designer’s A ctivity to System
Sys. Function Interface Activity
View M atrix Description Model
Entity=Data Entity
Relationship= Data
(High End=Criterion
Relationship System Level) Agent=Role
Wor k=Deliver able Means=Option
Functionality Operational
e.g., Human/
Description System Event Trace e.g., Knowledge
e.g., Data Design
System System
Engin e e r Design
Builder’s Physical Interface Interface
Interface Description Systems
View Data
Description Description Event Trace
Model (Detailed) (Detailed)
End=Condition
Means=Action
(Detailed)
e.g., Pr ogram e.g., Knowledge
An Definition
Subcontractor’s System Aspect of
COMMS
View Ent =Fields
Rel =Addresses
Funct=Language Stmts
Description
Multiple Time=Interrupt
Cycle=Machine Cycle
End=Subcondition
Arg=Control Blocks Means=Step
Products

C4ISR Architecture Operational Systems Technical View

Framework Products View (rules not explicit in Zachman)
View

Figure 9: Selected DoD Framework Products Mapped to Zachman Framework Cells

Note that in some instances a cell is blue and orange, indicating that the C4ISR
Architecture Framework contains both operational and systems products that correspond
to the cell, but only a blue oval is shown in the cell. This is because not all the C4ISR
Architecture Framework products are represented, only some of those that have been
most frequently used in DoD architectures to date. The Function/Designer cell is blue
and orange because the Operational Activity to Systems Function Matrix, while shown in
the C4ISR Architecture Framework as a systems view product, is actually a pivot point
between the operational and systems views.

Through this product-to-cell mapping, the C4ISR Architecture Framework can provide
templates and guidelines for modeling the enterprise features that correspond to the
Zachman cells.

3.2 Using the DoD Framework Product Types with the Federal Enterprise
Architecture Framework

The Federal CIO Council has developed the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework
(FEAF) Version 1.1, which provides guidance in how to describe architectures for multi-
organizational functional segments of the Federal Government [Federal CIO Council,
1999]. As shown in figure 10, the FEAF partitions a given architecture into a Business
architecture and a Design architecture, with the Design architecture further partitioned
into Data, Applications, and Technology aspects.
 Standards

Current Target
Business Business Business
Business Architecture Architecture
Models Strategic
Drivers
Design Design Design Design Direction
Drivers Architecture Models Architecture
• Data • Data • Data
• A pplications • A pplications • Applications
• Technology • Technology • Technology

Architectural Models

Transitional Processes

Figure 10: Structure of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework Components

The FEAF guidance is built on the foundation of a modified Zachman Framework, with
the Spewak Enterprise Architecture Planning overlaid onto the first two rows. The first
two rows are considered essential for all architectures built in accordance with the FEAF.
Very high-level text descriptions are provided of the models that should be built to fulfill
the cells of the modified-Zachman matrix.

3.2.1 Comparison of the Federal Framework and the DoD Framework

Figure 11 illustrates the following correspondence between the FEAF components and
the DoD Framework Views: the Business architecture roughly corresponds to the DoD’s
Operational View, the Design architecture roughly corresponds to the DoD’s Systems
View, and the FEAF’s Standards roughly correspond to DoD’s Technical View. (Data is
distributed across the Operational and Systems Views in the DoD Framework.)

Standards DoD Framework

Technical View

Current Target DoD Framework

Business Business Business Operational View
Business Architecture Architecture
Drivers Models Strategic
Design Direction
Drivers Design Design Design
Architecture Models Architecture DoD Framework
Systems View
Architectural Models

Transitional Processes

Figure 11: DoD Framework Views Mapped to the Federal Framework Components
As stated above, the FEAF guidance is built on the foundation of the Zachman
Framework, with the Spewak Enterprise Architecture Planning overlaid onto the first two
rows. Because, as shown earlier, the DoD Framework products can be used to fill out the
cells of the Zachman Framework, the DoD products can also be used to fill out the cells
of the FEAF. Figure 12 illustrates the mapping of selected DoD Framework products to
the corresponding cells of the FEAF. Note that the FEAF has made some modifications
and annotations to the Zachman Framework rows and column names.

Data Applications Technology People Time Motivation

List of Things List of Processes the List of Locations List of Organizations List of Events List of Business
Important to Business
Important to Business Activity
Business Performs Important to Business Significant to Business Goals/Strategies
Planner’s View Integrated Model Operational
Objectives/Scope Diction-
Entity=Class of
(List)
Function=Class of
Node
Node=Major Business Command Time=Major Business End/Means=Major
aryThing
Business Business Process Connectivity
Location Agent=Major Org Unit Event Business Goal/CSF

Description Relationships Operational

e.g., Function Flow e.g., Business Plan
e.g., Entity
Relationship
Diagram
e.g., Logistics Network Chart
e.g., Organization
Chart
Event
e.g., Master Schedule

Owner’s View Diagram Information Trace

Activity Exchange
Enterprise Model Ent=Business Entity
Model Node=Business
Matrix
Location
Link=Business Agent=Org Unit Time= Business Event
End=Business
Objectives
Function=Business Means=Business
Rel=Business Rule Linkage Work=Work Product Cycle=Business Cycle
Process Strategy
Logical e.g., Data Flow Diagram
e.g., Data Model e.g., Human Interface
Data Operational System Architecture
e.g., Processing e.g., Knowledge
Structure Architecture
Designer’s View Model Activity to Interface Activity
AnalystEngineer Secretary

Sys. Function Description Model

Information Systems Entity=Data Entity
Matrix (High
Time=System Event End=Criterion
Model Relationship= Data System Level) Agent=Role
Cycle=Processing Cycle Means=Option
Relationship Work=Deliverable
Functionality
e.g., Data Design Description Operational
e.g., Control Structure

System System Event Trace e.g., Knowledge

Design
System Engineer Secretary
Analyst
Builder’s View Physical Interface
Interface Interface
Description Systems
Technology Model Data Description (Detailed)
Description
Event Trace End=Condition
Model (Detailed) (Detailed) Means=Action

e.g., Security
e.g., Data Definition e.g., Program System Architecture
An e.g., Knowledge
Description Definition
Subcontractor’s View COMMS Aspect of
Description
Detailed Specifications Ent=Fields
Rel=Addresses
Funct=Language Stmts
Arg=Control Blocks
Multiple Time=Interrupt
Cycle=Machine Cycle
End=Subcondition
Means=Step
Products
Current Focus Future Focus
of Federal Framework of Federal Framework

Figure 12: Selected DoD Product Types Mapped to the Federal Framework’s Zachman-Based Cells

3.2.2 Using the DoD Products in the FEAF: Federal Framework Pilot Architectures

The Federal CIO Council seeks to develop, maintain, and facilitate the implementation of
the top-level enterprise architecture for the Federal enterprise. This architecture will
serve as a reference point to facilitate the efficient and effective coordination of common
business processes, information flows, systems, and investments among Federal agencies.

The approach taken to develop this Federal enterprise architecture is to develop

architectures for selected high-priority cross-agency business lines, or “Federal
Segments,” which will collectively constitute the enterprise architecture.

With technical leadership provided by MITRE, a pilot effort is being conducted in which
architecture descriptions will be constructed for one of the Federal Segments, to test the
utility of the FEAF guidance. The candidate functional segment as of this writing is
Grants.
There was concern within the Federal Agencies Information Architectures Working
Group (FAIAWG) that the Zachman Framework did not provide enough detailed
direction to enable a useful architecture analysis. At this point, the FAIWG turned to the
C4ISR Architecture Framework products for this additional architecture information.
Representatives of the FAIAWG worked with MITRE to examine the DoD products;
they determined that the products were usable for the Federal Pilot with almost no
modifications. Accordingly, four of the C4ISR Architecture Framework’s essential
products and one supporting product will be used to populate the appropriate cells of the
modified Zachman Framework.

The pilot effort will produce, in accordance with the Federal Enterprise Architecture
Framework (as amended by the DoD C4ISR Architecture Framework products), a
narrow-scope architecture pilot segment that can be used to gather lessons-learned for
further development or improvement of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework.
This effort will also support the activities of the Federal CIO Council’s Emerging
Information Technology and Interoperability Committee and contribute to the
Committee’s near term vision, which is increased interoperability of Federal business
processes to achieve a cost-effective, value-added contribution to the efficiency of the
Federal enterprise.

Figure 13 illustrates the products selected from DoD’s Framework that will be used as
templates for populating the Federal Framework cells selected for the Pilot [Sowell,
1999]. Although, as shown previously, many more DoD products map to the FEAF cells,
only a few products were selected for a thin-thread example architecture for the Pilot.

Data Applications Technology

Architecture Architecture Architecture
(entities = what) (activities = how) (locations = where)

Blue Text: Perspectives List of Business List of Business Locations

List of Business Objects
C4ISR Processes Operational Node Connectivity -
Framework Planner s View
Activity Model • Major nodes only
Objectives/ (Hierarchy of activities
Products • Needlines not annotated
Scope
Semantic Model Business Process Model Business Logistics System
Shading = Op’nl Node Connectivity
Products to be Owners View • All nodes
Enterprise Operational Information • Needlines annotated
built in Model Exchange Matrix
Pilot also contributes) Operational Information
(No separate Exchange Matrix
Activity Model;
activities Designer’s View Logical Data Model Application Architecture System Geographic Deployment
shown in Information Sys. Interface Description
Node Systems (Internodal, System-to System)
Connectivity Model Technical Architecture Profile
Description
Builders View
Physical Data Model System Design Technology Architecture
NOTE: Technology
Model
C4ISR
Architecture Data Definition Programs
“Supporting S/W Network Architecture
Framework’s “Library or Encyclopedia”
“All Views” Subcontractors Components”
View
products
Detailed
are needed by Specifications
all cells!

Figure 13. DoD Framework Products Mapped to the Federal Pilot Architecture Models
Note that the Technical Architecture Profile does not actually map to the FEAF cells,
because “Standards” are not explicit in the FEAF’s modified Zachman Framework. It is
included here for completeness of the Pilot.

3.3 Using the DoD Framework Products with the Treasury Department’s Enterprise
Architecture Framework

On 3 January 1997 the Treasury Department published its Treasury Enterprise

Architecture Framework (TISAF) [Department of the Treasury, 1997]. At this writing,
the TISAF document is evolving to become the Treasury Enterprise Architecture
Framework (TEAF). Some of the goals for this evolution are to make the document more
user-friendly, to make it more explicit in its direction (more prescriptive rather than just
descriptive), and to make it consistent with the FEAF. To further all of these goals, the
TEAF uses the same DoD Framework products that are being used in the FEAF Pilot,
and makes those products mandatory.

The TEAF is based on an adaptation of the Zachman Framework, using essentially the
same rows (perspectives) as the Zachman Framework, collapsing the bottom two rows
into one, and modifying the columns into four “Views” as shown in figure 14.

TEAF Views
TEAF Perspectives

Infrastructure
Organizational
Information
Functional

Planner
View

View

View

View

Owner

Designer

Builder

Figure 14. The Views and Perspectives of the Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework
The current draft TEAF adopts the distinction between essential and supporting products
that is used in the DoD Framework (the TEAF calls the products “work products”). The
TEAF has adopted the DoD Essential product set as a starting point, to which Treasury-
specific products may be added later. In addition, the TEAF lists many of the DoD’s
supporting products, as well as other products derived from IRS work and other sources.

Figure 15 illustrates the selected DoD products mapped to the cells of the Treasury
Framework [Department of the Treasury, 2000]. Note that this mapping is representative
and for illustration only; the TEAF document was in draft as of this writing and the exact
mapping may therefore be subject to change.

The DoD Framework allows for constructing products at multiple levels of detail, as
needed; the TEAF has accounted for this by giving each level of detail a distinct product
name. For example, the DoD’s Operational Node Connectivity Description is
represented three times in the TEAF matrix: once as Node Connectivity Description
(Conceptual), once as Node Connectivity Description (Logical), and once as Node
Connectivity Description (Physical).

Functional Information Organizational Infrastructure

View View View View

Technical Reference
Mission & Vision Information Model
Planner Organization Chart
Statements Dictionary
Perspective Standards Profile

Information Assurance
Activity Model
Information Node Connectivity Risk Assessment
Owner Exchange Matrix Description
Perspective Information Assurance (Conceptual) (Conceptual) System Interface
Trust Model Description
Level 1

Information
Business Process/
System Function Matrix Exchange Matrix
(Logical)
Designer Node Connectivity System Interface
Event Trace Diagrams Description Description
Perspective Data CRUD Matrices (Logical) Levels 2 & 3
State Charts Logical Data Models

Information System Interface

Exchange Matrix Description
System Node Connectivity
Builder Functionality (Physical) Level 4
Description
Description
Perspective (Physical)
Physical System Performance
Data Models Parameters Matrix

Work Products Other

from DoD Work Products

Figure 15. Representative Mapping of the DoD Framework’s Products to the Cells of the TEAF
3.4 U.S. Customs Service Use of the DoD Framework Products

The U.S. Customs Service is using several of the DoD Framework’s product types in
developing an architecture description of its Automated Commercial System. This effort
is described in another CCRTS conference paper [Thomas et al., 2000].

4.0 Current Plans for Evolution of the Framework

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (C3I) is undertaking an effort to evolve
the C4ISR Architecture Framework beyond its current Version 2.0. The plan is to
develop a Version 2.1, which makes some improvements and refinements to Version 2.0,
and to develop the broad outlines for an evolution to a Version 3.0. The main objectives
in developing Version 2.1 are to

1. Widen the scope of the document from C4ISR to more explicitly address
DoD-wide application.

2. Improve on version 2.0 to leverage lessons learned and emerging tools and
methodologies. These improvements will include simplification, clarification,
and a discussion of the implications of object-oriented techniques and tools on
the Framework.

It is the intent that any architectures that are compliant with version 2.0 will also be
compliant with version 2.1 without modifications. Any major changes such as making
the Activity Model a required product will be “grandfathered” to make exceptions for
architecture efforts already underway.

Overall reaction to the C4ISR Architecture Framework, Version 2.0 guidance was quite
positive. Most organizations supported the requirement for such guidance, and the
consensus was that, if executed properly, the guidance can provide a valuable vehicle for
streamlining the architecture process as well as related processes.
Several suggestions were submitted with respect to Framework enhancements. Some of
the more significant suggestions are described in table 1. As of this writing, these are
some of the changes that are expected to appear in the draft of Version 2.1. The final
product may differ, pending working group recommendations.

Table 1. Some Version 2.1 Changes Planned Resulting from Community Feedback

Community Feedback on Version 2.0 Resulting Changes Planned for

Version 2.1
• Remove C4ISR from the title. • Plan to do
• Streamline, clarify definitions. • Plan to do
• Please make the Activity Model • Plan to do, and redesignate as “OV-2”
“Essential.” • NOTE: Operational Node Connectivity
Description and Operational Information
Exchange Matrix must be renumbered
because of the insertion of the Activity
Model into the Essential product set.
• Provide more process guidance, i.e., • Some organization-specific tailorings of
how to use the Framework. the Framework generic process will be
referenced and excerpted.
• Provide some guidance for those of us • Mappings to object-oriented notations
using object-oriented techniques. are planned.
• Example architecture showing object-
oriented versions of products is planned.
• Give some guidance on how to move • A Capability Maturity Profile product is
from “AS-IS” to “TO-BE” planned (AV-3).
architectures.
• Address the “value of architectures” • A new section is planned to begin
question. addressing the value of architectures and
architecture metrics.
 Table 1. Some Version 2.1 Changes Planned Resulting from Community Feedback – concluded

Community Feedback on Version 2.0 Resulting Changes Planned for

Version 2.1
• The examples are confusing and too • Real-world examples will be omitted in
numerous. favor of generic templates.
• The distinction between “essential” and • Will use clarified terms to emphasize the
“supporting” products is confusing. intent – that some products are needed
Please eliminate the distinction or for Joint analysis, integration, and reuse
change the names. and are therefore mandatory even if they
are not directly needed for the individual
architecture’s specific purpose.
• We need more structure in the • The matrix will be further detailed.
Operational Information Exchange
Matrix, less freedom.
• Clarify the connections between the • The Operational Information Exchange
operational view and the systems view. Matrix and the Systems Data Exchange
Matrix (formerly called the “Systems
Information Exchange Matrix”) will be
refined and more closely related to
facilitate the transformation of
operational requirements into system
requirements.
• Product Relationship Charts will
illustrate other relationships among the
views.
• A “value of architectures” section is
planned to address an audit trail through
the views.
• The Framework is too big. • Document will be restructured, with key
information in a relatively small body
and supplementary information in
appendices.
• Please provide information on • Some general information about tool
automated tools (also some advice not will be provided, but no particular
to get into detailed tool discussions). commercial tools will be endorsed.
• Please clarify that the Operational • Existing words to that effect will be
Node Connectivity Description (OV-2) supplemented with a template showing
can be used to portray “functional” functional nodes.
rather than physical nodes.
• We need more guidance on the degree • Activity Model write-up will be revised
of freedom allowed in the graphical to be less IDEF0-specific.
appearance of the product; as it is, the • A mapping of products to object-
Framework seems to imply that only oriented notations is planned.
Structured Analysis representations • Example architecture is planned that
can be used. illustrates object-oriented product
alternatives.
 References

[Architecture Coordination Council, 1998] Memorandum, 23 February 1998, Subject:

Strategic Direction for a Dod Architecture Framework.

[Author’s Correspondence, 2000] Communication with TOGAF committee members.

[C4ISR Architecture Working Group, 1997] C4ISR Architecture Framework Version

2.0. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communications and Intelligence, Washington D.C., November 1997.

[Department of the Treasury, 1997] Treasury Information System Architecture

Framework, version 1.0. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information
Systems and Chief Information Officer, Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C.,
3 January 1997.

[Department of the Treasury, 2000] Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework,

Version 1. Department of the Treasury Chief Information Officers’ Council,
Washington, D.C., July 2000 (in draft as of this writing).

[Federal CIO Council, 1999] Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 1.1.
Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA., 1999.

[Sowell, 1999] P. Kathie Sowell. The C4ISR Architecture Framework and the Federal
Enterprise Architecture Framework. The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Virginia. 1999.

[Sowell, 1999] P. Kathie Sowell. Consolidated Mapping of C4ISR Framework Products

to Federal Framework Models. The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Virginia, 1999.

[Thomas et al., 2000] Rob C. Thomas II, Raymond A. Beamer, P. Kathie Sowell.
Civilian Application of the DoD C4ISR Architecture Framework: A Treasury
Department Case Study, 5th International Command and Control Research and
Technology Symposium, 2000.

[Zachman, 1987] John A. Zachman. A Framework for Information Systems

Architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3): 276-291, 1987.