Managing Complexity with the Department of Defense Architecture Framework: Development of a Dynamic System Architecture Model

Architecture frameworks are tools for managing system complexity by structuring data in a common language and format. By characterizing the form, function, and rules governing systems, architecture frameworks serve as a communication tool to stakeholder communities with different views of the system and facilitate comparative evaluation across architectures. The goal of this research is to explore the applicability of architecture frameworks to the study of emergent properties of satellites. The U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework was selected to achieve this goal given its orientation towards technical systems in contrast to the majority of architecture frameworks focused on business enterprises. Although developed by military planners in the 1990’s to support the acquisition of interoperable information systems, the Department of Defense Architecture Framework can be used to connect operational concepts and capabilities to the technical architecture of any system. While the views of the Department of Defense Architecture Framework are well-defined, little guidance is provided on how the views are to be constructed. Vitech Corporation’s software program CORE, ® a systems engineering modeling tool with the ability rapidly to produce architecture views from a common data repository, was employed to complete Department of Defense Architecture Frameworks for the Hubble Space Telescope. Upon characterizing Hubble within this common structure, the value of the Department of Defense Architecture Framework for conducting dynamic quantitative analyses of system architectures was explored. A methodology is proposed and tested for evaluating human and robotic architectures for on-orbit servicing—the extension of the useful life of spacecraft through refueling, upgrading, repair, relocation, et al. In particular, a multi-year servicing campaign is modeled for Hubble including behavioral threads that characterize the Orbiting Observatory, servicing architecture, and science customers. Preliminary results indicate that, when coupled

[1]  David N. Spires,et al.  Beyond Horizons: A Half Century of Air Force Space Leadership , 1998 .

[2]  Simon Smith,et al.  Improving Requirement Modelling and Traceability within an Enterprise Architecture Framework: Methods, Blueprints and Experiences - Challenging the DoD AF Paradigm , 2004 .

[3]  Alexander H. Levis,et al.  C4ISR architectures: II. A structured analysis approach for architecture design , 2000 .

[4]  Jaap Schekkerman,et al.  How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Framework: Creating or Choosing an Enterprise Architecture Framework , 2003 .

[5]  Cory A. Cooper,et al.  A Systems Architectural Model for Man-Packable/Operable Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Mini/Micro Aerial Vehicles , 2005 .

[6]  Mark W. Maier,et al.  5.4.3 ANSI/IEEE 1471 and Systems Engineering , 2002, Syst. Eng..

[7]  E. Rechtin,et al.  The art of systems architecting , 1996, IEEE Spectrum.

[8]  Antony Tang,et al.  A comparative analysis of architecture frameworks , 2004, 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.

[9]  Carlos Troche,et al.  Architecture Development Lessons-Learned: A Three-Year Retrospective , 2004 .

[10]  Alexander H. Levis,et al.  C4ISR Architectures: I. Developing a Process for C4ISR Architecture Design , 2000 .

[11]  K.-U. Schrogl.  Buchbesprechung: "Beyond Horizons. A Half Century of Air Force Space Leadership"; David N. Spires , 2001 .

[12]  Jerry M. Couretas,et al.  Enterprise Architectures as a Catalyst for System-of-Systems Development: A Global ISR Perspective , 2003 .

[13]  Louis J. Lanzerotti.  Assessment of options for extending the life of the Hubble Space Telescope: final report , 2005 .