There’s more than one way to skin a framework Aurelijus Morkevicius No Magic Europe, Savanoriu ave. 363, Kaunas LT - 51480, Lithuania aurelijus.morkevicius@nomagic.com Copyright © held by the author. ABSTRACT which artifacts to deliver and in what sequence need to be Today's architecture modeling environment suffers from answered. Every company deals with this issue differently. being an effort to satisfy milestone decisions. Typically, the Organizations not complying with the standardized approach architecture effort is separated from the Systems Engineering end up having differently structured models with different set (SE) leading to a lack of traceability from the systems of views. It results in the loss of capability to interexchange, requirements to the architecture resulting in interoperable loss of capability to communicate with other teams, overhead systems. Due to the way that the Architecture models are in tool customization, and specific trainings need. Moreover, created they generally consist of static diagrams and provide the models become impossible to integrate and reuse. limited analytical support to the decision maker. Taking industry demand in account and addressing Applying the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF), changing landscape of defense architecture frameworks previously known as Unified profile for MODAF and DoDAF (adoption of IDEAS ontology for DoDAF and MODAF), in (UPDM), using a Model-based Systems Engineering (MBSE) September of 2013, a Request for Proposal for UPDM 3.0 approach moves the architecture modeling effort to one that is (later renamed to UAF) was created with the following preface: an integral part of SE, helping the systems integrator to develop “The scope of UPDM V3.0 includes support for modeling interoperable systems, with traceability to requirements and architectures, heretofore referred to as Architecture across views, using one integrated architecture model that Descriptions (ADs) as defined in [ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011], enables impact analysis, gap analysis, trade studies, simulations based on SysML v1.3, where such an AD consists of a (what-if scenarios), and engineering analysis. collection of views and constituent models that represent a set of UPDM-specified governing viewpoints (stakeholders’ Why UPDM? There are three major architecture concerns). The scope of UPDM v3.0 also includes mechanisms frameworks used for defense architectures these days. It is for developing custom views to represent user-specified Department of Defense architecture framework (DoDAF), viewpoints. The intent is to use the UPDM V3.0 to provide a Ministry of Defense architecture framework (MODAF) and standard representation for AD support for Defense NATO architecture framework (NAF). The practice of cross- Organizations. Another intent is to improve the ability to organizational and cross-country projects within NATO exchange architecture data between related tools that are countries showed a clear evidence that without unification and UML/SysML based and tools that are based on other standards. interoperability, successful use of architectures is hard to achieve. This was a motivator for UPDM to start its existence. The profile should include support for developing an AD for a set of viewpoints such as project, operational, capability, In March 2008, the UPDM Group was formed by members services, systems, standard, security and performance of INCOSE and the OMG to create the Unified Profile for viewpoints, to include modeling and relating such elements as DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) using UML/SysML. Members activities, nodes, system functions, ports, protocols, interfaces, of the UPDM group were tool vendors, members of industry systems’ physical properties, and units of measure as defined and representatives from the US DoD, British MOD, NATO, by the architecture frameworks DoDAF, MODAF/ MODEM, Canadian and Swedish armed forces. Members of the DoDAF NAF, and the Security Viewpoint from DNDAF. In addition, 2.0 taskforce were heavily involved to ensure that DoDAF 2.0 the profile should allow for the modeling of related domain and UPDM converged as much as possible. Tools supporting concepts such as DoD’s Doctrine, Organization, Training, UPDM have been available for some time and are in use on Materiel, Leadership & education, Personnel, and Facilities multiple government and industry projects. [DOTMLPF], the UK Ministry of Defence Lines of Development [DLOD] elements which are: Training, Why UAF? Six years passed and the period of paradigm Equipment, Personnel, Information, Concepts and Doctrine, shift from document-centric systems engineering approach to Organization, Infrastructure, Logistics (TEPID OIL), and the model-based systems engineering (MBSE) revealed gaps of NATO equivalent.” (OMG, 2013). MBSE approach. Where one of the gaps was no standardized methodology available. Belief in Systems Modeling Since the issue of RFP, UPDM 3.0 group identified the list Framework as a savior did not come true. Language by its of mandatory requirements: definition provides syntax and a bit of semantics, however, not pragmatics. To successfully apply language like SysML,  Provide Domain Metamodel (Abstract Syntax and questions like how to structure the model, what views to build, Constraints)  An Architecture Framework Profile Using SysML This presentation introduces to a brand new UAF and explores how to leverage MBSE with architecture modeling in  Enable the Expression of Business Process Models an integrated and disciplined approach, enabling the  Architecture Modeling Support for Defense, Industry, modernization of complex systems (Systems of Systems, C4I and government Organizations systems, and heavy industry systems).  Use of SysML Requirements Elements and Diagrams REFERENCES  Use of SysML Parametric Elements and Diagrams [1] Object Management Group (OMG), 2015, OMG Systems Modeling Mapped to Measurements Language (OMG SysML™), V1.4, OMG Document Number: formal/2015-06-03, URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.4/PDF,  Support for Data and Information Viewpoints: Accessed October, 2016 Conceptual, Logical, and Physical Schema Views and [2] Object Management Group (OMG), 2009, Unified Profile for the Constituent Models Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) and the Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF), available at  Traceability Matrix for Backward Compatibility with http://www.omg.org/spec/UPDM/ UPDM 2.x [3] Object Management Group (OMG), 2009c, Unified Profile for DoDAF/MODAF (UPDM) 2.0 Request for Proposal), available at  Requirements Traceability Matrix to Supported Defense http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?c4i/2009-09-02. Architecture Frameworks [4] Object Management Group (OMG), 2013, Unified Profile for DoDAF/MODAF (UPDM) 3.0 Request for Proposal), available at  Example Architecture Description http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc.cgi?c4i/2013-9-11. [5] ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 - Systems and software engineering -  Matrix of Applicable Elements and Relationships for Architecture description. Iso.org. 2011-11-24. Accessed 2013. Each Presentation Artifact [6] Mazeika, D., Morkevicius, A., and Aleksandraviciene, A., 2016, MBSE driven approach for defining problem domain, 11th System of Systems  Model Interchange Engineering Conference (SoSE), Kongsberg, 2016, pp. 1-6.  Extensibility to Enable the Definition of Custom [7] Hause, M., Bleakley, G. and Morkevicius, A. 2016, Technology Update on the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF). INCOSE International Viewpoints Symposium, 26: 1145–1160.  And a list of optional requirements. Mentioning few of [8] Bleakley, G. and Morkevicius, A. 2016, Transitioning from UPDM to the complete list: the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF). Integrated Enterprise Architecture 2016.  Viewpoints in Support of SoS Life Cycle Processes and Analyses AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY  Human Systems Integration (HSI); Aurelijus Morkevicius is OMG® Certified UML, Systems Modeling and BPM professional. Currently he is a Head of  Support of Security Domain. Solutions Department at No Magic Europe. He has the expertise of model-based systems engineering (mostly based The author of the presentation in behalf of other submitters on SysML) and defense architectures (DoDAF, MODAF, of the UPDM 3.0 specification, believes that the UPDM 3.0 NAF). Aurelijus is working with companies such as General submission meets the requirements listed above. For the reason Electric, Bombardier Transportation, Deutsche Bahn, ZF, Ford, to support civil engineering needs, domains that are beyond the SIEMENS, BMW, etc. He is also a chairman and one of the scope of defense frameworks and many other reasons outlined leading architects for the current OMG UAF (previously in this paper, we have renamed UPDM 3.0 to UAF 1.0. known as UPDM) standard development group. In addition, The Alpha version of UAF specification is accepted by Aurelijus is actively involved in educational activities. He OMG in June 2016. The final version of UAF 1.0 specification received a PhD in Informatics Engineering from the Kaunas very likely to be published in June 2017. University of Technology in 2013. Aurelijus is also a lecturer, author of multiple articles, and conference speaker.