Department of Defense

1,302 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,302
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Department of Defense

  1. 1. Department of Defense Architecture Training WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect Office of the DoD CIO Architecture and Interoperability Directorate April 8, 2008 Version 1.0
  2. 2. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect White Paper Preparation: This White Paper proposes a way ahead for developing a more effective architecture workforce. The Architecture Training Team collected information from various sources that included contributors from various organizations (Appendix B). Architecture Training Team: Government Lead: Mr. Walt Okon – OASD(NII)/DoD CIO, Architecture and Interoperability Directorate Government Analysts: Allison Knippen – Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Tinisha McMillan – Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Contractor Support: Jennifer Lee – Booz | Allen | Hamilton Duration of Effort: April 2007 – April 2008 April 2007: Architecture Training Panel, Enterprise Architecture Conference - San Diego May 2007 – July 2007: Architecture Education and Training Opportunities Research August 2007 – September 2007: Interviews with the Services and Joint Staff September 2007 – October 2007: Workshops November 2007: Initial Draft of the White Paper December 2007: White Paper Review by Workshop Participants and Industry Meeting January 2008 – February 2008: White Paper Review by A&I Leadership March 2008: White Paper Review by the CIO Management Services Directorate Team April 2008: Final White Paper 2
  3. 3. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect PREFACE This White Paper, Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect, proposes a way ahead for developing a more effective architecture workforce. It recommends investigating the need for a framework that captures the knowledge, skills, abilities, and functions an architect in the DoD is expected to exhibit. The purpose of such a framework would be to promote the development of the current and future DoD architecture workforce against a set of standards through career development, education, training, and certification as appropriate. Setting standards would legitimize the DoD architect role for all initiatives and across all career paths. An initial competency framework capturing the information obtained from contributors is presented in this paper to provide a starting point for further analysis. This White Paper was prepared by the Office of the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO)/Architecture and Interoperability (A&I) Directorate in coordination with the CIO Management Services Directorate and is based on input provided by participants of the DoD Architecture Training Workshops (Appendix B). INTRODUCTION The Quadrennial Defense Review Report of 2006 states, “Acquiring the right knowledge and skills relevant to the challenges of the 21st century will receive new emphasis in recruitment, retention, training, assignments, career development and advancement…The combination of joint, combined and interagency capabilities in modern warfare represents the next step in the evolution of joint warfighting and places new demands on the Department’s training and education processes.” These new demands include the need to address interoperability and the modernization of systems and processes to ensure effective and efficient operation in an increasingly global environment. Architecture is a key enabler for achieving both by providing a systematic approach toward the planning, designing, and management of joint warfighting capabilities and efforts. Historically, the Department of Defense (DoD) embraced architecture in response to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular No. A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, as a means to improve investment planning and IT infrastructure management. Accordingly, architecture was embedded into the major decision processes of the DoD: the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), the Defense Acquisition System (DAS), the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process, and Capability Portfolio Management (CPM). Today, architecture plays a fundamental role in the development of the Defense Information Enterprise and the DoD’s transformation to Net-Centric Operations. As architecture continues to gain wider acceptance, its applicability is expanding to include warfighter operations and the new challenges of a collaborative environment. 3
  4. 4. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect Due to this expanded use of architecture, it has become necessary to evaluate the current architecture education and training environment to ensure proper development of the workforce responsible for addressing the challenges of the 21st century. PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND APPROACH The purpose of this White Paper is to propose an initial recommendation on a way ahead to improve the development of the DoD’s architecture workforce and the architecture education and training environment. It includes an initial competency framework as a starting point for further analysis. The scope of this White Paper applies to the DoD audience. This document addresses the DoD architecture workforce and is not specifically intended for architects that work in non-DoD domains. The initial recommendation of this white paper is based on an evaluation of the architecture education and training environment against the requirements of the DoD. The approach taken to gather information included the following:  Research of the current architecture education and training environment  Interviews with the Services and Joint Staff to identify gaps and/or issues with the architecture workforce and the education and training environment  Four workshops open to combatant commands, military services, defense agencies, and academic institutions to identify the requirements for the functions and competencies of a DoD architect  Additional research on materials from various government and military organizations, academic institutions, and private industries (i.e., Air Force, Federal Enterprise Architecture Certification Institute, Gartner). FINDINGS Interviews with the Services and Joint Staff revealed the following issues: 1. There is a need for closer evaluation of the architecture workforce to determine composition and areas of improvement. 2. Executive-level seniors are not appropriately prepared to use architectures for decision making purposes or enterprise-level management. 3. The use of architecture spans beyond the architect, but is not promoted to affect those areas. 4. A career path for architectures does not exist in current personnel systems. 5. A baseline for the varying levels/experience of architects does not exist. 6. Architecture analysis does not occur consistently across the DoD. 7. Architecture information is not applied consistently toward the DoD decision support processes. 4
  5. 5. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect 8. There is a need for the improved integration and federation of architectures. 9. Information management is not effectively represented by architecture. 10. The sharing of architecture data is not enforced. 11. Current architecture courses do not sufficiently cover architecture basics, the gap between the different levels of architecture, or the gap between architecture development and usage. 12. Current certification and accreditation programs are not governed, allowing anyone to provide certification. This often results in certified architects who do not possess the appropriate knowledge or skills. Further assessment of the architecture education and training environment against the requirements of the DoD suggested that the following gaps are pivotal factors for the issues above: 1. Architecture stakeholders are not readily prepared to leverage the benefits of an architecture. This may be the result of a gap in the education and training of these stakeholders or a gap in the ability of architects to promote the significance of architecture. 2. There is no standard or incentive to encourage the professional growth of architects in the DoD. This is a gap in itself as expectations have not been consistently established for the development, analysis, and management of architectures. Today’s architecture workforce is not working toward a standard expectation for performance. 3. The architecture community lacks visibility into the opportunities afforded by the current education and training environment. Various programs and courses exist that address different aspects of architecture; however, few are aware of their existence or value. RECOMMENDED WAY AHEAD The recommended way ahead outlines proposed activities to address the initial findings and to enhance the education and training environment for improved development of the architecture workforce. The activities are organized under two categories: short-term goals and long-term vision. Short-Term Goals: 1. Obtain statistics on the composition of the architecture workforce. These statistics will be used to determine the impact of any recommendations prior to moving forward. 2. Perform appropriate analysis to validate the identified gaps and any additional gaps that may exist. 3. Assess existing competencies for adequacy (i.e., Clinger-Cohen Competencies). 5
  6. 6. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect 4. Review position descriptions, job opportunity announcements, and contract language to determine if they would benefit from a standard (i.e., competency framework). 5. Investigate the need for a framework that captures the knowledge, skills, abilities, and functions an architect in the DoD is expected to exhibit to ensure success at every stage in an architecture life cycle. 6. Develop a web-based workspace to enable the visibility of the architecture education and training environment. Afford users the ability to self-govern this environment through student reviews and ratings. Long-Term Vision: 1. Pave the way for architect careers to promote the recruiting and retention of DoD architects. Establish incentives and architecture specialties as appropriate through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Job Family Standards and through Military Occupational Specialties (MOS). 2. Formalize a competency framework for those architecture specialties that require specific skills and experience. 3. Investigate the requirement for certification across architecture specialties to substantiate the skills and experience of architects working in the DoD. 4. Work with DoD-affiliated academic institutions to enhance their curricula to accommodate the architecture requirements of the DoD. 5. Explore other avenues for workforce development (i.e., active supervision, performance management, mentoring, group instruction). These proposed short-term goals and long-term vision establish a means for improving the architecture workforce. The proposed activities maintain the flexibility to pursue improvements across various channels. The following section outlines a draft competency framework that captures initial input from workshop participants for the functions and competencies of an architect. It does not represent the competencies required by the DoD, but rather, provides a starting point for further analysis. 6
  7. 7. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect THE DOD ARCHITECT COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK Description The general term, architect, is “a person who designs and guides a plan or undertaking”1. This definition also applies to the DoD Architect, hereafter referred to as Architect. The Architect is responsible for depicting user requirements in a holistic representation of a defined DoD domain and guiding the evolution of that domain to achieve a vision. The DoD Architect Competency Framework, hereafter referred to as the Competency Framework, is a culmination of input gathered through research, interviews, and workshops on the standard knowledge, skills, and abilities Architects should obtain at varying levels of maturity. The contributors of this White Paper recognized that driving the professional development of Architects toward a standard legitimizes their role and better prepares them for success. The concepts in this framework apply to all Architects in the DoD, regardless of working domain (contractor, civilian, or military), career title (GS level, rank, or role), or architecture specialty (IT, security, software, etc.). This framework is intended to be a starting point for further analysis. Framework Foundation The foundation of the Competency Framework is based on three tiers representing the different roles in a DoD architecture initiative with each tier having varying levels of increasing expertise (Figure 1). TIER EXPERTISE 3 Management Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 2 Analysis Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 1 Development Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Figure 1. Framework Structure Architects are expected to perform the functions of the role represented by each tier: development, analysis, and management. Each tier within itself has varying degrees of expertise (maturity) ranging from Level 1 to Level 3. Each level of maturity is based on knowledge, experience, and performance. For instance, as a Level 1 in the development tier, one is expected to have little to no knowledge of architecture development. As a Level 3 in the development tier, one is expected to have an in depth knowledge of development frameworks, modeling techniques, and tools. Additionally, Level 3 experience should include development at the project, program, and/or enterprise level. 1 Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2006-2007 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/architect 7
  8. 8. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect The following are general descriptions of each tier: Tier 1 Architects focus on the development of architectures. Their primary function is to develop architectures based on user Tier 1 requirements and input from subject matter experts. As Tier 1 Development Architects mature, their experience should include the use of various modeling techniques and tools and experience with program or enterprise-level architecture development. Tier 2 Architects focus on the analysis of architectures. Their primary function is to analyze architectures for the purposes of integration, interoperability, gap analysis, risk assessment, Tier 2 leveragability, compliance, and business decision making. As Tier Analysis 2 Architects mature, their experience should include the use of various analysis techniques and program or enterprise-level analysis. Tier 3 Architects focus on the management of architectures. Their primary function is to lead and manage an architecture effort Tier 3 through its entire lifecycle, from development to execution/ Management implementation. As Tier 3 Architects mature, their experience should include strategic analysis, transformation efforts, and management of an enterprise-level architecture. Functions and Associated Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) Tables 1, 2, and 3 identify the collected functions and associated KSAs for each tier of the Competency Framework. These functions and KSAs represent Level 3 criteria at each tier and are independent of educational degree, working domain (contractor, civilian, military), or career title (GS level, rank, or role). Standard criteria, such as those that follow, support three essential tasks. First, a baseline standard across the DoD enables managers and supervisors to more clearly define workforce requirements. Second, employees and their supervisors gain the ability to analyze their specific gaps in competency. Finally, a clear understanding of required competencies helps employees identify the functions needed to progress to the next professional level, empowering them to pursue career paths that are mutually beneficial to both their individual careers and the DoD. Adherence to any standard substantiates the skills and experience of a workforce, fosters careers, and ultimately, enhances the success of operations. 8
  9. 9. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect Tier 1 - Development, Level 3 Functions  Develop architecture products that incorporate client/customer requirements and input from subject matter experts  Integrate architectures for a harmonized view of the domain at the project, program, or enterprise level  Map the relationships of business processes, information/data flow, information technology, and human interaction  Post architecture data to facilitate the sharing and reuse of information Knowledge Skills Abilities  Architecture framework  Architecture tool or tool suite  Recognize relationships  Process modeling  Registry system/architecture  Time management  Information/data modeling warehousing  Architecture integration Table 1. Development Functions and KSAs Tier 2 - Analysis, Level 3 Functions  Perform architectural analyses to identify gaps, redundancies, or areas of improvement  Perform architectural analyses to identify cost benefits, performance issues, and risk  Ensure that the development of architectures supports federation  Ensure that the development of architectures is compliant with overarching policies and guidance  Ensure that the development of architectures supports the key decision processes of the organization  Develop transition and sequencing plans based on the as-is and to-be architectures  Provide interoperability solutions to clients/customers  Deliver and present architectural analyses results and supporting architecture products to clients/customers and senior-level decision makers Knowledge Skills Abilities  Architecture federation  Gap and redundancy analysis  Leadership  Executable architectures  Process improvement  Pattern and trend recognition  Overarching policies and analysis guidance (e.g., Federal  Cost/benefit analysis Enterprise Architecture  Mission thread analysis (FEA), Enterprise  Performance analysis Architecture Management  Risk analysis Maturity Framework  Statistical analysis (EAMMF), Global  Traceability analysis from Information Grid (GIG) architecture to actual policies, DoD Architecture capability implementation Registry System (DARS) policies, net-centric strategies, etc.)  Architectural elements of key decision processes (e.g., JCIDS, DAS, PPBE, PfM)  IT investment management  Interoperability standards  Various tools and tool suites Table 2. Analysis Functions and KSAs 9
  10. 10. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect Tier 3 - Management, Level 3 Functions  Lead and manage the architecture effort from development to execution/implementation at the project, program, or enterprise level  Perform quality assurance checks on architecture products and analyses  Provide strategic-level analysis to clients/customers  Provide recommendations for transition efforts using architectural information  Provide expertise toward leadership decision making for enterprise transformation  Establish/govern architecture policies, standards, and methods  Develop and train architecture staff to ensure their growth Knowledge Skills Abilities  Project/program management  Business cost/benefit  Teach/mentor  Enterprise architecture analysis  Motivate/inspire  Enterprise structure  Quality assessment  Visionary  Enterprise strategy and goals  Organizational analysis  Organizational change  Organizational performance management analysis  Architecture governance  Cultural analysis  Architecture standards and  Strategic vision planning methods  Cultural awareness  Industry best practices Table 3. Management Functions and KSAs Core Competencies While specific competencies are identified for each tier, there are those KSAs that an Architect should have at any tier (Figure 2). These collected KSAs make up the core competencies of an Architect. The core competencies take into account that the quality of development, analysis, or management is improved when one area understands the role and purpose of the other areas. For example, a developer that understands the functions of an analyst develops architectures that capture all the necessary data for the purpose of analysis. As another example, managers that understand development are equipped to make better decisions for the planning and resourcing of a project. The concept of core competencies also accounts for the challenge of rotating personnel in the DoD environment. Ideally, as one progresses through the tiers, the competencies from development to management build upon each other. However, in the DoD, personnel are not always afforded the luxury of specializing in one area and may be moved from post to post performing various tasks. For example, command managers inexperienced in architecture, but experienced in management, may find themselves managing an architecture effort. The core competencies set a baseline for the KSAs an Architect should have prior to assuming a Level 1 role at any of the tiers. These core competencies are identified in Table 4. 10
  11. 11. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect TIER EXPERTISE Core Competencies 3 Management Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 2 Analysis Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 1 Development Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Figure 2. Core Competencies for All Tiers and Levels Knowledge Skills Abilities Competence to perform an A body of information applied An observable competence to observable behavior or a directly to the performance of a perform a learned psychomotor behavior that results in an function.2 act.2 observable product.2  Architecture development  Modeling techniques  Communication  Architecture analysis  Application of frameworks (verbal/written/presentation)  Vertical area of knowledge  Application of tools  Abstract analytical thinking  Business processes  Requirements gathering  Quickly grasp concepts  Information technology  Analysis techniques  Teamwork  Innovative Table 4. Core Competencies While these core competencies span across all tiers, depth and breadth of each competency may differ depending on functional requirements. An initiative may require a Tier 1 Architect to have an in depth knowledge of the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) and a Tier 3 to have a general understanding of various frameworks. Table 5 provides a notional example of how these core competencies can be defined based on the different roles of an Architect: development, analysis, and management. Core Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 2 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Qualification Standards for General Schedule Positions, General Policies and Instructions, Part C. and D., http://www.opm.gov/qualifications/SEC-II/s2-c-d.asp 11
  12. 12. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect Competency Development Analysis Management  Architecture  DoDAF  Architecture  General frameworks development  Mapping analysis integration  Architectural  Architecture  General knowledge  Trade-off/risk strategic analysis analysis of security analysis  Expert knowledge  Vertical area of architecture  Advanced of security knowledge  Project-level knowledge of architecture and its  Business processes business process security architecture impact to other  Information architecture impact  Program-level areas technology  Data/information business process  Enterprise-level flow and architecture impact business process relationships  Standards for architecture impact interoperability  Policies and guidance on information technology  Modeling  Advanced Unified  Basic UML  General techniques Modeling Language  DoDAF products understanding of the  Application of (UML) and its relationship various modeling frameworks  DoDAF products with other techniques  Application of  Architecture framework products  An understanding of tools development tool  Architecture framework product  Requirements experience analysis tool suite representations gathering  Requirements experience  Architecture  Analysis gathering at the  Requirements analytics/reporting techniques operational-level gathering at the tools  Pattern recognition business-level  Requirements and graphical  Statistics gathering at the representation of enterprise-level information  Competitive analysis  Communication  Client/customer  Client/customer  Client/customer (verbal/written/pre interaction at the interaction at the interaction at the sentation) operational-level business/manageme enterprise-level and  Abstract analytical and peer-to-peer nt-level decisional briefs to thinking  Relationships  Relationships senior leadership  Quickly grasp between systems between systems of  Impact of concepts  New domain- systems transformation on  Teamwork specific processes  New technology enterprise strategy  Innovative  Peer-to-peer approaches (e.g.,  New organizational teamwork Service Oriented management  Operational-level Architecture approaches solutions (SOA))  Senior/leadership-  Hybrid teamwork level teamwork (government,  Enterprise-level military, solutions contractors)  Business-level solutions Table 5. Core Competencies Example Transitioning Within and Between Tiers 12
  13. 13. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect This framework includes the concept of transitioning within and between tiers. It illustrates growth in a specific role (Figure 3) and progress through each tier (Figure 4). Experience, Education and Competency Training, Performance Framework Functions and KSAs Core Competencies Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Figure 3. Transitioning Between Levels Transitioning between levels within a specific tier is based on the attributes of experience, education and training, and performance. As these attributes increase, so does the ability of the Architect to perform the functions and exhibit the KSAs at a specified level. Achieving a certain level indicates that an Architect is competent to perform the functions expected at that level. In this concept, a Level 1 equates to having little to no experience with functions that require the core competencies, a Level 2 equates to performing required functions with assistance, and a Level 3 equates to performing advanced functions with little to no assistance. TIER EXPERTISE Core Competencies 3 Management Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 2 Analysis Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 1 Development Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Figure 4. Transitioning Between Tiers Figure 4 represents one example of a possible career path in architecture. The time it takes to transition between tiers as indicated in the above figure varies depending on individual ability. Per this example, prior to entering the next tier, individuals should be functioning as a Level 2 practitioner at their current tier. The transition between Tier 1 and Tier 2 migrates the individual from the developer to the analyst role. This transition is facilitated with coursework in architecture analysis and increased responsibility. While education and training play a role in the advancement of a Tier 2 to a Tier 3, much of this transition is dependent on experience and performance. In this concept, analysts interested in becoming architecture managers will spend a considerable amount of time 13
  14. 14. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect performing both analytical and managerial functions with the scope of management functions limited to project and/or program-level efforts. It needs to be noted that Tier 1 and 2 functions are intricately linked. In many cases, the functions of these tiers will overlap, with an Architect becoming proficient in both development and analysis in parallel. It also needs to be noted that Architects at the Management Tier do not necessarily start at Tier 1. All tiers require the core competencies, which provide a baseline in the areas of development, analysis, and management. This baseline is sufficient for a Level 1 Architect at any tier. Regardless of standard, Architects should understand the competencies required at each professional level in order to appropriately plan their career steps in the architecture field. Grandfather Clause For any standard, it is necessary to consider a grandfather clause for applicable staff. In this concept, for DoD personnel and contractors functioning as Tier 1, 2, or 3 Architects today, they will be grandfathered into a tier and level based on their years and type of experience and performance. Performance will be assessed against the core competencies of the Competency Framework. These individuals will be expected to perform the functions at their appropriate level outlined in the Competency Framework one year after being grandfathered into a tier and level. Stratification of Tiers by Focus Area The architecture space has become complex accommodating various aspects of an organization from strategic planning to systems implementation. Because of this, Architects tend to focus in a certain area of expertise to better support their architecting realm. Today’s DoD environment consists of four architecting realms: strategic, capability, operational, and systems. Architecting Realms Description Strategic Architecting Plans the alignment of resources with the enterprise strategy. Translates capability needs into enterprise engineering Capability Architecting requirements. Integrates operational forces into an effective Operational Architecting mission-focused structure. Allocates engineering requirements to system/product Systems Architecting components. These realms are supported by four main focus areas of architecture: data/information, systems, business, and enterprise. The Data/Information Architect defines major classes of data, develops data models, assesses the data strategy and impacts to the data architecture, and ensures the proper flow of information throughout the organization. The Systems Architect describes applications and infrastructure, maps applications to class entities and business processes, considers best practices and solutions associated with software, hardware, and operations support, and ensures interoperability and integration of systems across the organization. The Business Architect scopes business areas, models business processes, defines business requirements, and ensures the effectiveness and efficiency of processes across the organization in coordination with capabilities and 14
  15. 15. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect systems. The Enterprise Architect aligns mission goals and strategic objectives with transformation efforts, integrates the architecting realms into a holistic view of the enterprise, and enables an environment that utilizes architecture methodologies to improve the management of an enterprise through policy and guidance. Architecting Realms Focus Area Architects Enterprise Architect Strategic Capability Architecting Architecting Business Architect Data/Information Architect Operational Systems Architecting Architecting Systems Architect Architecting Realms Architecture Workforce Composition Requires a blend of all four focus areas with emphasis on the Strategic Architecting Enterprise Architect. Requires a blend of data/information, systems, and business Capability Architecting with emphasis on the Business Architect. Requires a blend of all four focus areas with emphasis on the Operational Architecting Enterprise and Business Architects, specifically Architects with an understanding of warfighter operations. Requires a blend of data/information, systems, and business Systems Architecting with emphasis on the Data/Information and Systems Architects. Further analysis may reveal that these realms and focus areas may need to be redefined to align with architecture maturity. With specialization being a common route, standards for these specializations should be considered. Table 6 identifies the four main focus areas of architecture (data/information, systems, business, and enterprise) along with a notional example of the core body of knowledge necessary at each tier. Conceptually, the core competencies, as well as the specific functions and KSAs for each tier, will still apply to Architects in these focus areas in addition to their specialized skills. 15
  16. 16. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect Stratification Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Focus Area Development Analysis Management  Data modeling  Relational database  Data strategy  Data management systems  Data warehousing  Information sharing Data/Information  Object-oriented,  Information flow environment service-oriented, analysis  Information systems modular open system concepts  Integration and  Modeling and  Acquisition and interoperability simulation resourcing solutions Systems  Network operations  Information  Open standards  Systems technology  System to business engineering  Compliance policies mapping analysis  Process improvement  Business mission  Process modeling techniques and and vision  Business modeling analysis  Measures of Business language  Concepts of effectiveness  Business rules operation  Business cost  Requirements analysis analysis  Enterprise  Guidance and  Federation transformation policy (e.g., OMB’s  Enterprise  Enterprise strategy FEA) architecture and goals Enterprise  Performance terminology  Enterprise IT and analysis  Integration business process  Decision process specialist management analysis solutions Table 6. Stratification of Tiers Notional Means for Institutionalizing the Framework Certification and Accreditation Certification and accreditation is a costly process. However, it is an appropriate process for institutionalizing standards across the workforce. Success with this approach has been seen in the project management sector, where project management certifications based on the Project Management Body of Knowledge standard are validating the skill sets of managers across industry and government. The DoD implemented a similar process and saw similar results with the acquisition community. Today, the information assurance community is taking a step to improve their workforce with mandatory certification in compliance with DoD Directive 8570.01, Information Assurance Training, Certification, and Workforce Management. Communities are starting to realize that investing in the workforce results in long term effectiveness and efficiency. 16
  17. 17. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect Individual organizations, academic institutions, and private industries should be encouraged to develop certification programs against a standard. Specific certification criteria (experience, education, training), while determined by the individual organization, academic institution, or private industry, should be derived from a standard. Government and Military Career Impact To properly institutionalize standards across the workforce, impact must be made at the career level. Incentives need to exist to direct or retain individuals within an architecture career field. Today, the OPM Series and Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) do not offer architecture career paths. Insertion of architecture criteria into these processes will be necessary to foster the growth and development of the architecture workforce. Contractor Impact Today, contractors perform a significant portion of architecture development work. Appropriately, they should be held to the same architecture workforce standards as government and military employees. An approach to enforce this standard is to require specific architecture skill sets or levels in contractual statements of work. This ensures that the government receives consistent and appropriate expertise in their architecture efforts. 17
  18. 18. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect APPENDIX A – ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY Acronym Description A&I Architecture and Interoperability CIO Chief Information Office CPM Capability Portfolio Management DARS DoD Architecture Registry System DAS Defense Acquisition System DoD Department of Defense DoDAF Department of Defense Architecture Framework EAMMF Enterprise Architecture Maturity Management Framework FEA Federal Enterprise Architecture GIG Global Information Grid IT Information Technology JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System KSA Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities MECC Military Education Coordination Council MOS Military Occupational Specialty OASD(NII) Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration OMB Office of Management and Budget OPM Office of Personnel Management PfM Portfolio Management PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution USD(AT&L) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Term Definition The structure of components, their relationships, and the principles and Architecture guidelines governing their design and evolution over time. The Department of Defense information resources, assets, and processes required to achieve an information advantage and share information across the Department and with mission partners. It includes: (a) the information itself, and the Department’s management over the information life cycle; (b) Defense Information the processes, including risk management, associated with managing Enterprise information to accomplish all DoD missions; (c) activities related to designing, building, populating, acquiring, managing, operating, protecting and defending the information enterprise; and (d) related information resources such as personnel, funds, equipment, and information technology, including national security systems. 18
  19. 19. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect Global Information Grid (GIG) is the globally interconnected, end-to-end set of information capabilities, associated processes, and personnel for collecting, Global Information Grid processing, storing, disseminating, and managing information on demand to warfighters, defense policymakers, and support personnel. The exploitation of the human and technical networking of all elements of an appropriately trained joint force by fully integrating collective capabilities, Net-Centric Operations awareness, knowledge, experience, and superior decision making to achieve a high level of agility and effectiveness in dispersed, decentralized, dynamic and uncertain operational environments. Enterprise Company; firm; undertaking; business; endeavor. Knowledge A body of information applied directly to the performance of a function. Skills An observable competence to perform a learned psychomotor act. Competence to perform an observable behavior or a behavior that results in Abilities an observable product. 19
  20. 20. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect APPENDIX B – DOD ARCHITECTURE TRAINING WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 20
  21. 21. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect Last Name First Name Unit / Office Email Arrington Cleve BTA CLEVELAND.ARRINGTON@BTA.MIL Bellman Beryl FEAC bellman@feacinstitute.org Bocast Alexander SAF/XC Alexander.Bocast.ctr@pentagon.af.mil Boddie Dr. Stan NDU BoddieS@ndu.edu Brown Spencer DIA (DS-EM-2) spencer.brown@dia.mil Case Randy Raytheon Randy_R_Case@raytheon.com Chen Mike DNI CTR chen_michael@bah.com Chhibber Sumeet OSD NII Chhibber_Sumeet@bah.com Cosentino Ann Marie Army PdM NETOPS AnnMarie.Cosentino@us.army.mil Cunningham Marilee IDA Mcunning@ida.org Dam Steve CTR StevenDam@spec-1.com Ecarma Victor DON CIO Ecarma.Victor.ctr@navy.mil Eudy Dr. Eileen Army TRADOC ARCIC eileen.eudy@us.army.mil Flora Pamela USD(P&R) IM pamela.flora.ctr@osd.pentagon.mil Gelderloos Duane BTA duane.r.gelderloos.ctr@bta.mil Giammarco Kristin Army CIO/G-6 Kristin.Giammarco@us.army.mil Green Bob DON CIO Robert.A.Green2@navy.mil Green David HQMC C4 David.e.green1@usmc.mil Gruendl Lois DoD CIO Lois.Gruendl.ctr@osd.mil Guerra Maj Monica USAF/DIA DS/EM-2 monica.guerra@dia.mil Hunt Carla DISA Carla.Hunt@disa.mil Jenkin Daniel BTA (contractor) dan.jenkin.ctr@bta.mil Kershaw Mike HQMC C4 Michael.Kershaw@usmc.mil Kettner James DIA (DS-EM-2) james.kettner@dia.mil Kieloch Ned DoD CIO Ned.Kieloch@osd.mil Knippen Allison ASD/NII/DISA allison.knippen@disa.mil Kropp Wayne Army TRADOC ARCIC wayne.kropp1@us.army.mil Lal Chetna Army CIO/G-6 chetna.lal@us.army.mil 21
  22. 22. WHITE PAPER Phase I: A Competency Framework for the DoD Architect Lee Jennifer BAH lee_jennifer@bah.com Maddox Alice SAF/XCPAA Alice.Maddox@pentagon.af.mil Maddry Emmett Naval Surface Warfare emmett.maddry@navy.mil Center McGibbon Mark NDU McgibbonH@ndu.edu McMillan Tinisha DISA tinisha.mcMillan@disa.mil Newman Matt NDU NewmanE@ndu.edu Okon Walt OSD NII Walt.Okon@osd.mil Pineda Hilda BAH pineda_hilda@bah.com Rausch Felix FEAC felix@feacinstitute.org Rice Barbara DISA (GE32) Barbara.Rice@disa.mil Sadauskas Leonard DoD CIO (CTR) Leonard.Sadauskas.ctr@osd.mil Schnoor Janet MCBEO janet.schnoor@usmc.mil Sherman Quinise DISA (GE32) Quinise.Sherman@disa.mil Smith Clark PM-ISE gordocs@dni.gov Sutherland Jonathan JCS / J6I Johnathan.a.Sutherland@js.pentagon.mil Tang John Army PdM NETOPS John.Tang@us.army.mil Thompson Bob DISA robert.thompson@disa.mil Thornburg Charles BAH thornburg_charles@bah.com Williams Kenneth JFCOM Kenneth.Williams@jfcom.mil Zavin Jack OSD NII Jack.Zavin@osd.mil 22

×