Air Force Institute of Technology I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Air Force Institute of Technology 1 Maj Todd L. Wieser Maj Gregory Miller Maj Aaron Piepkorn

1

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Air Force Institute of Technology

1

Maj Todd L. WieserMaj Gregory MillerMaj Aaron PiepkornMaj James KennedyDr. Robert MillsLt Col John Colombi (PhD)

DoD Enterprise Architecting: DoD Enterprise Architecting: Joint Issues Derived From SOF Air AnalysisJoint Issues Derived From SOF Air Analysis

2I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Overview

IntroductionSix Step Enterprise Architecture ApproachSpecial Operations Forces (SOF) Air ArchitectureDoD And Joint Architecting – Observations And BiasesTopics for Further Research

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 2007

2. REPORT TYPE N/A

3. DATES COVERED -

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE DoD Enterprise Architecting: Joint Issues Derived From SOF Air Analysis

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Air Force Institute of Technology 2950 Hobson Way WPAFB, OH 45433-7765

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The original document contains color images.

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

SAR

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

16

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

2


Project to Analyze & Model SOF Air ops activities- Assist SOF Air community determine critical processes- Results to aid SOF Air: shortfalls, training, funding

SOF Air Is…- Inherently joint at tactical level- Designated AF and Army units - Unique application of air power

Introduction


DoDAF 6-Step EnterpriseArchitecture ApproachDetermine the

intended use of the architecture

Determine scope of the architecture

Determine characteristics to

be captured

Determine views and

products to be built

Gather data and build the requisite products

Use architecture for intended

purpose

PurposeCritical Uses

Target ObjectivesKey Tradeoffs

Probable Analysis Methods

Required characteristics(commensurate detail Across different views)and measures ofperformance

Products and datacontent determined by intended use

Completed architecture(populated by set)

Investment decisionsRequirements IDAcquisitionOperations planning and execution

Geographical/operational boundsTime phase(s)Functional boundsTechnology constraintsArchitecture resources/schedule

1

2 3 4 5 6

3


Old OV-5 Node Tree (Plan)

Old - NODETRE1 (Decomposition)System Architect

Thu Feb 02, 2006 16:45Comment

1.1.3.2.4.3

PlanWeaponeering

1.1.3.2.1

Receive/Review

Unit/TeamTask

1.1.3.2.4.4

Determine/Request Air

Spt

1.1.3.1.2.4

Id/ReviewRules of

Engagement

1.1.3.2.4.6

AccompMsn Folders

1.1.3.2

Plan Msn/Prepare

MSR

1.1.3.1.3.3.4

DetermineA/G

Interface

1.1.3.1.3.3.6

DeconflictAir Space

1.1.2

Dev/DistribMICON &SOF MSR

1.1.3.2.4.2.3

Perform AirSpace

Deconfliction

1.1.3.1.3.2

ReviewCapability/ID

Limitation

1.1.3.1.2.3

StatusResources

1

1.1.3.2.3.2

Obtain/AnalyzeWeather

Info 2

1.1.3.1.2.3.5

ConductAssess-

ment

1.1.3.2.4.1

ProvideInitial MP

Brief

1.1.3.2.4.2

PrepareFlight Plan

1.1.3.1.2.1.1

AnalyzeMission

Tasking 1

1.1.3.2.3.1.3

Analyze/Exploit

Intel Data2

1.1.3.2.3.1.4

PrepareIntel MP

Brief

1.1.3.1.2

Review OpsData

1.1.3.1.2.1.2

Obtain/Update

Intel Data1

1.1.3.1.3.3.1

IdentifyWeaponsSystems

1.1.3.1.5.2

TaskUnit/Team

1.1.3.2.3.3

StatusResources 2

1.1.3.1.2.3.1

StatusAircraft

1.1

Plan SOFMission

1.1.3.1.2.1.3

Analyze/ExploitIntel

Data 1

1.1.3

ConfirmSOF MSR &

Dist MSR

1.1.3.1.3.3.3

PlotRoutes 1

1.1.3.1.3.3.2

PlotThreats 1

1.1.3.1.3.1

DeterminePriorities

1.1.3.1.3.3.5

IdentifyConv

Support

1.1.3.1.2.3.3

StatusAir

Crews 1

1.1.3.1.1

Receive/ReviewMSR

1.1.3.2.3.3.1.6

DeterA/C

Status

1.1.3.1.2.3.4

Consol/Maint

ResourceStatus 1

1.1.3.1.2.3.2

StatusST 1

1.1.3.2.3.3.1.4

DeterFuelsAvail

1.1.3.1

ConductInitial

Assesment

1.1.3.2.3.3.1.2

DeterA/C

MaintStatus

1.1.3.1.2.2

Obtain/AnalyzeWeather

Info 1

1.1.3.2.3.1.1

AnalyzeMissionTasking

2

1.1.3.2.3.3.1.5

DeterMunsAvail

1.1.3.2.3.3.1.3

DeterA/C

Config

1.1.3.1.4

BriefJSOACC

1.1.3.1.3.3

StrawmanMission

Plan

1.1.3.2.4.2.4

Plan A/GInterface

1.1.3.1.3

DevelopCourses of

Action

1.1.4

ApproveMICON

1.1.3.1.5

ApportionForces

1.1.3.2.3.1.2

Obtain/Update

IntelData 2

1.1.3.2.3.3.1.1

CoordA/C

Status

1.1.3.2.3.3.5

Rev/AssesPlannedTaskings

1.1.3.1.5.1

ConfirmMSR

1.1.3.2.4.5

DevelopSecurity

Plan

1.1.3.1.5.3

RequestConv

Support

1.1.3.1.2.1

PerformIntel

Support1

1.1.3.2.3.1

PerformIntel

Support2

1.1.3.2.2

IdentifyAFSOFMsn CC

1.1.3.1.3.4

DevelopMsn

Package

1.1.3.2.3.3.4

Cons/MainResourceStatus 2

1.1.3.2.3.3.1

StatusLogistics

1.1.3.2.3

InitializeOps

Database1.1.3.2.6

VerifyMsn

Package

1.1.3.2.4.2.2

PlotRoute 2

1.1.3.2.3.3.2

StatusST 2

1.1.3.2.3.3.3

StatusAir

Crews 2

1.1.3.2.4.2.1

PlotThreats 2

1.1.3.2.5

PerformRehersal

1.1.5

IntegrateSOF into

ATO

1.1.3.2.4

PlanMsn

1.1.1

Dev/distMITASK

1.1 - Plan

Incomplete -Everything

jammed under one

activity

Repetitive Activities


New OV-5 Node Tree(Plan and Prep)

A.0 Plan andPrep

A.1 AnalyzeTasking

A.2 PerformDetailedMissionPlanning

A.3 CoordinateSupport

Requests

A.4Synchronize

Mission Details

A.5 ConductRehearsal

A1.1 ReceiveTasking

A1.2 Make

MissionShells

A1.3FenceAssets

A1.4MakeSortie

A1.5 SubmitBasicPlan

A2.1ObtainPlanInfo

A2.2Create

DetailedPlan

A2.3CreateMission

Products

A2.4QC

MissionProducts

A2.5Distro

Products

A2.6ConductRoute

Deconfliction

A3.1 SubmitSupport

Requests

A3.2 IssueSupport

Requests

A3.3 ConfirmSupport

Requests

A3.1.1 SubmitTanker

Requests

A3.1.2SubmitSEAD

Requests

A3.1.3Submit

ISRRequests

A3.2.1ConfirmTanker

Requests

A3.2.2ConfirmSEAD

Requests

A3.2.3Confirm

ISRRequests

A3.3.1SubmitCountry

Clearances

A3.3.2Submit

DiplomaticClearances

A3.3.3SubmitBorder

Clearances

A4.1SyncPlans

A4.2 DevelopExecuteChecklist

A4.3 IssueSyncMatrix

A4.5 IssueCommPlan

A4.6 CreateORM

Checklist

A4.7SubmitORM

Checklist

A4.4CreateComm

Plan

4


JSOAC CC

J1 Personnel J2 ISR J3 Operations J4 Logistics J5 Plans J6 Communications J7 Mission Support J8 FM

Strategy Plans

Strategy & Combat Plans MIM

SWO/STO IPS

ISRMobility

JSOAD SOLE

JSOAC CC

ADM

Deputy CC

Director, Air & SpaceOperations Center

Combat Operations

Current Ops PersonnelRecovery

IntertheaterMobility/Tanker

Logistics &Load Plans

Fire & LNOs Battlespace C3 Systems

JSOAC/SOLE Integration

JSOACC

HO PALA FM

CCEA1 Personnel A2 Intel A3 Operations A4 Logistics A5 Plans A6 Communications

A33 Current Ops A34 Weather A35 Ops Plans

A7 Medical A8 Security A8 Info Technology

Chief of Staff

Operating & MaintenanceUnits

OV-4 Organization ChartsOrganization A

Organization B

Organization C

J-staff model

Functional AOC model

J-staff model


DoD And Joint Architecting: Observations And Biases

The Architecture TeamCommon LexiconProcess OwnershipAppropriate AbstractionOrganizational BiasLevel of War BiasHollow Transfer Activities

5


Building The Architecture Team

1 SOF pilot, 2 fighter pilots, 1 civil engineerAll familiar with DoDAF architecture viewsOne SME & most familiar with operationsEssential for team to have a good mix of SMEs and systems architects2 Elements - Core team and network of SMEs

HEURISTICS:Lack of experience in the domain = architecting painA readily available network of SMEs makes the architecture relevant


Common LexiconDifferences in vocabulary between servicesRock Drill vs. Rehearsal- Deck (USN) = Ground (AF)- Latrine (USA) = Head (USN)

DoD Dictionary & Joint/Multi-service publications provide common ground

6


A3.3.1.11

FulfillRequests forInformation

(RFI)

Completed RFIsRFIs

A3.3.1.44

ConductEmergencyResponse

A3.3.1.33

Track MissionProgress

A3.3.1.22

ChangeTaskings

A3.3.1.11

FulfillRequests forInformation

(RFI)

Post Mission Reports

Mission Approval

Mission Approval

Threat Data Friendly Info

ATO/ACO

ATO/ACO

Friendly Info

Resource StatusSPINs

Mission Planning Folder (SOMPF)

Resource Status

Threat Data

Completed RFIsRFIs

Common Lexicon

completed request for information —1. Any specific time-sensitive ad hoc requirement for

intelligence, information or products to support an ongoing crisis or operation not necessarily related tostanding requirements or scheduled intelligence production. A request for information can be initiated to respond to operational requirements and will be validated in accordance with the theater command’s procedures. 2. The National Security Agency/Central Security Service uses this term to state ad hoc signals intelligence requirements. Also called RFI.See also information; intelligence. (JP 2-01)

Definitions taken straight out of Joint Pubs

RFI

HEURISTIC: All users of the architecture must understand the vocabulary – Use joint agreed upon definitions prior to service

unique


Process Ownership

Overlapping guidance from multiple organizations & services

Unofficial versus official guidance

7


Process Ownership

Who owns the process?Multiple stakeholders in joint processesCommon process requires buy-inOwner needs to be designated for irreconcilable differences

HEURISTIC: When establishing an enterprise-wide operational architecture, there needs to be one benevolent dictator to overcome irreconcilable differences


Appropriate Abstraction

Abstraction vs. Usefulness of the Model

High Abstraction

Low Abstraction

Useful to architects

Useful to lowest level Users

Very Complex / Unit Specific Language

Over Simplified / High Level Management Language

Tough to find the sweet spot

HEURISTIC: Architect at the level of abstraction that answers the questions. The abstraction level will be determined by the stakeholder with the lowest level abstraction needs/questions.

8


1.3.4.1.2.1.4

ConductTerminal/Objective

Ops 1

1.3.4.1.2.2.4


Ops 2

1.3.4.1.2.3.4


Ops 3

1.3.4.1.2.3.2

ConductEn-

RouteFlight 3

1.3.4.1.2.1.2

ConductEn-

RouteFlight 1

1.3.4.1.2.1.1

AccomplishLaunch 1

1.3.4.1.2.3.1

AccomplishLaunch 3

1.3.4.1.2.2.2

ConductEn-

RouteFlight 2

1.3.4.1.2.2.1

AccomplishLaunch 2

1.3.4.1.2.1.3

ConductAir

Refueling1

1.3.4.1.2.2.3

ConductAir

Refueling2

1.3.4.1.2.3.3

ConductAir

Refueling3

1.3.4.1.2.1

ProvideForce

Application

1.3.4.1.2.1.5

AccomplishRecovery

1

1.3.4.1.2.2.5

AccomplishRecovery 2

1.3.4.1.2.3.5

AccomplishRecovery 3

1.3.4.1.2

ConductFlightOps

1.3.4.1.2.2

ProvideMobility

1.3.4.1.2.3

ProvidePsy Ops

Organizational Bias

Old Node Tree decomposed with organizational baggage

PrecisionEngagement Unit

SpecializedMobility Unit

PsyopUnit

ConductEn-

RouteFlight 2

ConductEn-

RouteFlight 1

ConductEn-

RouteFlight 3


Organizational Bias

Organizational bias can be spotted by repeated activities

HEURISTIC:Architectures should be modeled

independently of the organization

9


Level of War Bias

Military architectures/systems/personnel tend to focus on either operational level or tactical level, not both

Operational Level- Focused on major operations and providing the means by

which tactical successes are exploited- Parts of Air Operations Center, Major Headquarters

Tactical Level- Focused on battles and engagements- Squadron, Aircraft, Airman, Soldier


Level of War BiasGood info

&decisions here

Come from good processes & systems

here

& here

& here

10


Level of War BiasSystems tend to be built to satisfy needs of only one level- TBMCS-FL- TBMCS-UL

Processes do not follow operational and tactical level boundaries- Stream back forth across both levels- Flow is key to net-centric operations

Heuristic: When architecting DoD systems, do not limit context to operational or tactical level if not necessary –follow the process/flow


Hollow Transfer ActivitiesMove information, do not transform it Indicated with terms such as- Obtain- Receive- Transmit- Issue- Distribute- Submit- Store

Information class with location attribute

Obtain Information

Information A at location 1

Information A at location 2

Obtain Information

Information A Information A

11


Hollow Transfer Activities

With Visibility

Can see key activity and apply mechanismSV functions map to OV activities

Determine Mission Tasks

Distribute Task to Planners

Mission Task

Objective

Plan

Resources

System A System B

Create Plan

Mission Task

With Hollow Transfer Activity

Mechanism that performs “distribute task”


Hollow Transfer ActivitiesWithout Visibility

Can loose visibility on transfer activity- Capability/systems gap- Lack of interoperability

System A System B

Determine Mission Task

Create Plan

Mission Task

Objective

Plan

Resources

Cannot clearly see what mechanism distributes

the task

Without Hollow Transfer Activity

Heuristic: Be critical of Hollow Transfer Activities; ensure they have the appropriate visibility

12


Observations Summary

The Architecture Team- Lack of experience in the domain = architecting pain- Need for an available network of SMEs (still in the field)

Common Lexicon- All users of the architecture must understand the

vocabularyProcess Ownership- When establishing an enterprise wide operational

architect, there needs to be a boss Appropriate Abstraction- Architect at the highest level of abstraction which provides

the most insight for the user


Observations Summary

Organizational Bias - People tend to think organization first, not process- Architectures should be modeled independent of the

organizationLevel of War Bias- When architecting DoD systems, do not limit context to

operational or tactical level if not necessary – follow the process/flow

Hollow Transfer Activities- Be critical of Hollow Information Transfer Activities,

ensure they have the appropriate visibility

13


Topics for Further Research

Object Oriented or Structured Analysis?- Which one best for capturing info flow- Which one best for modeling DoD organizational based

processesWhat models best capture Hollow Transfer Activities?- As TPPU evolves in systems, how do we ensure the

information flows are not dropped from architectureAFSO21, BPR, and DoDAF – how do they mix? Constraints based architecture?- Start with organization/systems, then build operational

architecture

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Air Force Institute of Technology

26

[email protected]@afit.edu

QUESTIONS???QUESTIONS???

14


Backup


Steps 1 - 3Step 1: Determine the Intended Use of the Architecture- Used to identify shortfalls, enhance training, allocate funding- Document standard core processes- Present at JSOAC conference for workshop

Step 2: Determine the Scope of the Architecture- Limited to “Conduct SOF Air Operations” phase- Deployment, re-deployment, & support not included- Activities when forces in place & prepared to execute

Step 3: Determine the Characteristics to be Captured- Find standard information flows & operational activities required

to execute SOF Air operations - Independent of organizational restrictions—Difficult in SOF Air- Independent of traditional levels of war

15


Steps 4 - 6

Step 4: Determining Views & Products to be Built- Primary focus was OV-5 Node Tree & Activity Models- Limited by project time line (.3 man years) - OV-4 Organizational Relationship models used in analysis to

separate organization from processes

Step 5: Gathering Data & Build Requisite Products- Most time-consuming step (85%) – extensive research- OV-4 Organization Chart – no orgs were the same- OV-5 Node Tree – analyzed existing (incomplete), produced new- OV-5 Activity Model – analyzed existing (incomplete), created

new streamlined models


Step 5: Publications ReviewedJoint Publication 3-05, Doctrine for Joint Special Operation, 17 Dec 2004Joint Publication 3-05.1, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations, 19 Dec 2001Joint Publication 3-05.2, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Special Operations Targeting and Mission Planning, 23 May 2003Joint Publication 3-30, Command and Control for Joint Air Operations, 05 Jun 2003USSOCOM Directive 525-8, Joint Special Operations Air Component (JSOAC), 26 Jan 1999USSOCOM Directive 525-7, Special Operations Liaison Element (SOLE), 28 Mar 2003352 SOG Instruction 10-202, Air Force Special Operations Component Europe (AFSOCEUR) Structure and Procedures, 01 Sep 2005USPACOM JSOAC Operating Instruction, United States Pacific Command Theater Special Operations Air Component (USPACOM TSOAC) Joint Special Operations Air Component Operating Instruction, 21 Apr 2005 (RevC - Draft)SOCCENT C/JSOAC J3 Annex, Combined Joint Special Operations Air Component (CJSOAC) Standard Operating Procedure, 04 Mar 2005AFSOC Instruction 13-102, Joint Special Operations Air component (JSOAC), 09 May 2006 (Draft)AFSOC Instruction 13-101, Operational Procedures Special Operations Liaison Element (SOLE), 01 Aug 2005Hurlburt Field Instruction 10-402, Air Force Special Operations Component (AFSOC) Operations, 05 Apr 1996 (AFSOF)AF Doctrine Document 2-7, Special Operations, 16 Dec 2005AF Instruction 13-1AOC, Volume 3, Operational Procedures – Air and Space Operations Center, 01 Aug 2005AF Operational Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 2-3.1, USAF Command and Control Nodes, 30 Dec 2004(C2 Nodes)AF Operational Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 2-3.2, Air and Space Operations Center, 13 Dec 2004Field Manual 1-108, Doctrine for Army Special Operations Aviation Forces, 03 Nov 1993

Very extensive governing publications review

16


Steps 4 - 6

Step 4: Determining Views & Products to be Built- Primary focus was OV-5 Node Tree & Activity Models - OV-4 Organizational Relationship models used in analysis to separate

organization from processes

Step 5: Gathering Data & Build Requisite Products- Most time-consuming step (85%) – extensive research- OV-4 Organization Chart – no orgs were the same- OV-5 Node Tree – analyzed existing (incomplete), produced new- OV-5 Activity Model – analyzed existing (incomplete), created new

streamlined models

Step 6: Use Architecture for Intended Purpose- Presented at conference/workshopped for 2 days- Used to assign organization and system mechanisms- Accepted by SOF Air as start to new baseline – living architecture


New Complete OV-5 Node Tree

Distributed & Less Redundant Activities

A3.3 Executeand Track

A3.4 Analyze,Report and

Reconstitute

A3.2 Plan andPrep

A3.1 Requestand Task

A.3 ConductOperations

Documents

Air Force Institute of Technology I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Air Force Institute of Technology 1 Maj Todd L. Wieser Maj Gregory Miller Maj Aaron Piepkorn