Using Australian DAF to Architect Non-Operational IT Capabilities. Mr John B Morrison Kellogg Brown & Root

Transcription

1 Using Australian DAF to Architect Non-Operational IT Capabilities Mr John B Morrison Kellogg Brown & Root

2 Introduction The talk presents the outcomes of an investigation into the use of Australian DAF and similar frameworks for infrastructure capability defn. It identifies a number of problems, solutions adopted, and work to go

3 Caution The talk assumes some familiarity with the Australian DAF (AS DAF) or similar frameworks and the Defence Capability development process It presents real project experience but has not been fully trialed or refined and should be regarded as experimental

4 The situation investigated was the need to create an OCD that showed value from acquisition of ICT infrastructure, c.f. new NCW / EBO Operational capability. OCD generation supports key high level funding decisions about new Defence capability The CDD Guide suggests use of military scenarios and AS DAF views in OCD to state what the Capability does. Infrastructure is too generic for this to be approached simply

5

6 BEA Model BEA in this paper refers to the US DoD Business Enterprise Architecture. A (non-real) example of a key type of mapping from Operational Activities to the US Federal Business Reference Model (FEA) is shown below Example only for this paper: a demo OV-05 BEA to FEA BRM Activity Mapping Accept Property Services Accept Property List Operational Activity List FEA BRMs Goods Inwards Inventory Goods Acquisition Account for Workforce Administer Financial Assets

7 Problem 1 no military scenarios, key nodes, command chain, information exchanges or activities (eg METLs) relevant to infrastructure projects such as KM Problem 2 no generic business model of Defence ICT found for value modelling

8 Soln pt 1 Not military No relevant military scenarios, nodes, IERS or activities, so we: - Defined business scenarios to derive Operational Activities. These Op. Activities were arbitrary, ie no validation target set, eg METLs, AFDA, DBCS - Synthesized Operational Needs from these Op. Acts. Consolidated these into CONs - Used CREDs to standardise the Operational Needs, so they were easier to roll up into CONS

9 MoDAF StV-6 Capabilities vs Activities DAF CV-3 Capabilities CONs Activities, ONs Traces (up)

10 Consolidated Operational Needs Serial Priority Consolidated Operational Needs (as (optional CREDs) column? ) Many CREDs CON1 CON2 Essential Highly Desirable Exchange tasks and other information within & outside the organisation via electronic messages Retrieve information across the parts of the repository's) you are allowed to know about 1 Scenario n Step SCn.1 Action Receive a drafting task via from a manager Operational Activity (OV-5) A2.1 Receive Tasking Operational Needs (as CREDs) ON_n.1 Exchange tasking info via messages Many SCn.2 SCn.3 Save the as a legal record Find information for input to the draft A2.1 Receive Tasking A2.2 Prepare Briefing ON_n.2 Create records of key correspondence ON_n.3 Retrieve existing information located by searching across the organisation CREDs: C = Create R = Retrieve E = Exchange D = Dispose

11 Soln pt 2 No BRM etc CONS mapped to CV-3 infrastructure capability defn s, treating the latter as a validated reference model (ie like the FEA BRM) MoDAF StV-6 map between OV-5 activities and the CV-3 capabilities. Extension to DAF and CDD Guide to show how the activities depicted in the representative scenarios actually enhance the capability and maturity levels of the infrastructure

12 StV-6 CV-3 Capability Categories Op. Activity A2.1 Receive Tasking A2.2 Prepare Briefing KM Information Management CON99 X KM & Messaging CON1, CON42 X X CV-3 CV-3 s 16 Categories (Capabilities) Info. System Components Level Now Level To-Be Rationale KM KM & messaging Search and Access Provide messaging linked to knowledge management Delivery better value from info assets Many? Infrastructure Info. Security 2 4 Delivery more extensive access with better accountability Growth in capability

13

14 Work To Go Many Defence process models exist, eg AFDA, QEMS, DBCS, but didn t help produce or validate the Activities The CV-3 capabilities were very relevant to infrastructure but do not capture all of the non- Ops business Development of a BEA-like Australian model (based on AGIMO BRM) would identify standard activities and show why activites are needed/ useful and help show they provide capability

15 Using Australian DAF to Architect Non-Operational IT Capabilities Mr John B Morrison Kellogg Brown & Root L4/11 Lancaster Place, Majura Park, Canberra, Australia Tel Fax john.morrison@kbr.com