Summary

This is one of those slightly strange happenstance events - completely unplanned although not beyond the original intent.

At the 2010 INCOSE Annual Systems Engineering Conference Chris Lowe and I presented on ‘Human Factors - On the Right TRAK?’ which looked at the consideration of human factors in the design or TRAK itself and the use of TRAK for human factors work’. At the time INCOSE only really wanted the presentation and anything else was optional. In the end we decided to go over the top and produce an accompanying document in some detail. As much as anything this was to make sure the essence / thinking was preserved since looking at some thinly-worded slides might not convey what was done in person at the time.

Some months later the Singapore Institution of Engineers approached INCOSE to ask if they could reproduce the article. Naturally we said “yes” - the original is on Slideshare in any case. Many more months passed and nothing happened and then in September 2011 they asked for the source files but had some problems using them which meant their deadline was missed. Anyway it looks to have been published at long last.

Having had a look it looks as though they’ve missed Chris off the headline (but he is in the acknowledgement at the end). Had we have been asked we could have provided decent graphics since it looks as though something has got munged in the publication.

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} TRAK Article Published by The Institution of Engineers (Singapore)

Categories: Architecture Framework, TRAK

Tags: incose, institute, publication, singapore, trak

Summary

Just received news from Rich Hilliard via the IEEE 1471 Users List (to become the “ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 Users List):

Today I was notified that IEEE P42010 was approved as a revised standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 31 October 2011.

This standard replaces IEEE 1471:2000 and is identical to the ISO standard approved in July with 21 approvals and 0 disapprovals from member bodies.

The new standard, designated ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering—Architecture description, is available from IEEE and ISO.

The IEEE 1471 website will become the ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 website.

The old website will redirect to the new URL which is:

• http://www.iso-architecture.org/42010/

Looking at the website I noticed

Per IEEE rules: An approved IEEE standard will remain active for   ten years. If the Sponsor does not complete a revision process   within ten years, the standard will be transferred to inactive   status.

Curious to know whether this means a standard has to be revised or whether the requirement is simply to review - it might still be a perfectly good standard even if it hasn’t been revised since the decision might be on review that it’s good enough.

Having to say ISO/IEC/IEEE every time is a bit of a mouthfull and therefore inevitably will be shortened in everyday use. Is there an acceptable shortform(s) e.g. ISO 42010, IEC 42010 and IEEE 42010? It’s unlikely in speech that the full qualification will be used.

Comments

4 comments

Comment on ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering—Architecture Description Released

Categories: News, Standards

Tags: ieee, iso, iso42010, news, standard

Summary

TRAK is a finalist in the 2011 IET Innovation Awards. As the IET say:

The IET Achievement Awards recognise the exceptional achievements of individuals working in the engineering and technology profession, from the well-known scientist to the fledgling engineer.

It was judged under the IET’s Asset Management category. It wasn’t easy to submit since it didn’t easily fit any of the categories against which judging was to be made. This is an all-too typical problem for systems engineering itself, for example under which subject category in a bookshop do you look for systems engineering books?

The IET’s judging criteria for the Asset Management category is:

The judges will look for originality and will place significant emphasis on the contribution made to whole life asset management, risk management and the impact on business performance.  Other factors include progress with implementation, integration into the business and the contribution to asset knowledge.

Last Friday (23rd September) the response came back:

I am delighted to inform you that your entry “TRAK - An Open Source Enterprise Architecture Framework”, reference 0383 has been selected as a finalist for the Asset Management category of the IET Innovation Awards 2011.

It was extremely competitive, with over 400 entries to the awards, but the judges felt that your innovation was amongst the best.

The finalists are listed on the IET Innovation Awards website.

Awards will be announced on 9th November at the Intercontinental Hotel in London.

The IET Innovation Awards 2011 will be hosted by Robert Llewellyn, actor, writer and presenter best known for playing the role of ‘Kryten’ in the hit science fiction sitcom Red Dwarf.

We’ve always thought of TRAK as innovative not just in the product and its definition but in the approach and how it is managed. It’s nice to know that people that are independent think this as well!

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} TRAK is a Finalist in the 2011 IET Innovation Awards

Categories: Architecture Framework, TRAK, News

Tags: award, iet, innovation, institute, london, news, trak

Summary

It’s very hard when everyone seems to be claiming conformance with ISO/IEC 42010 to establish whether the claims are true. All too often we get ‘partly compliant with ’ which means what exactly? As a standard trying to get standardisation in the field of architecture description and trying to eliminate the variability and anarchy it isn’t much use to be partly compliant (any more than claiming to be partly pregnant). You either do or don’t conform. The hard work put in by those that try to conform to the standard is undermined by those that claim conformance but don’t actually conform.

I’m pleased to be able to say that TRAK has agreed to take part in a pilot against an official ‘conformance assessment instrument’ prototype that is being developed against ISO/IEC 42010:2011 which is soon to be jointly published by both the IEEE and ISO. The conformance instrument applies to Architecture Frameworks, Architecture Description Languages and Architecture Descriptions.

As ever I’m sure the assessment and feedback will benefit both sides in refining and sharpening up the documentation. These are early days and no doubt some ideas still need to be worked through, hence the pilot using the prototype conformance instrument.

I’m quietly confident with respect to TRAK itself (time will tell!) but more importantly it will be useful to have an independent assessment of any claim to conformity whereas the current situation allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to claim conformity with impunity and where no sanctions can be applied. I look forwards to this situation being changed.

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} Conformance Assessment vs ISO/IEC 42010:2011

Categories: Architecture Framework, TRAK, News, Standards

Tags: compliance, conformance, ieee, iso, iso42010, standard, trak

Summary

In the MODAF metamodel (M3) v 1.2.004 we have:

ArchitecturalDescription : public <<stereotype>> class

A specification of a system of systems at a technical level which also provides the business context for the system of systems.

This definition of an architecture description has been unchanged since at least v 1.1 (May 2007).

This defines an AD as a specification. This is too restrictive and doesn’t fit current usage within the MoD since MODAF ADs are more often used to discover and analyse the architecture that exists in order to assess the impact of decisions or proposed design changes.

The real problem is the ‘system of systems’ bit because it looks to be misusing the term. In restricting an AD to a ‘system of systems’ and not ‘system’:

 
• Are they then saying it is only an AD when it describes a ‘system of systems’? Since a ‘system of systems’ is formed from systems that have an independent existance this definition means that you can’t have a MODAF AD of a submarine where the systems are tightly coupled and have no meaningful existence away from the submarine.
 
• Are they saying MODAF cannot be used to describe a vanilla system? This states that a description of the architecture of a system (formed from essential parts that aren’t themselves systems) isn’t an AD.
 
• Are they saying that ‘system of systems’ is a new type (in which case how do they know it can be described using MODAF)? This would be technically incorrect since a ‘system of systems’ is of the type ‘system’ with the emergence et al that this brings.

I don’t for one minute believe that any of this is the intent nor that this represents how MODAF ADs are intended to be used. It doesn’t therefore reflect the real use of an AD and needs to be changed to make it a valid definition.

The good thing is that the MODAF M3 recognises the distinction between the architecture (of the system) and the thing that describes it (the AD). Far too many others confuse the 2 concepts

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} A MODAF Architecture Description Only Applies to a ‘System of Systems’?

Categories: Architecture Framework, MODAF

Tags: 1.2.004, architecture description, definition, m3, sos, system of systems

Summary

ADLs and Architecture Frameworks

Any architecture description language, e.g. UML, BPMN, ArchiMate potentially can be used to represent the views in any architecture framework. Whether they can or not depends on whether they have the necessary concepts/entities to suit those in the architecture framework and architecture viewpoint that governs the view content. The reality is however that as ADLs have been developed for different and often more generic purposes they all have limitations when used for an architecture framework. They may, for example, lack concepts that are needed or they might have rules which mean that relationships that are needed cannot be established. In the terminology of ISO/IEC 42010 their concerns might not align with the concerns addressed by the architecture framework and one or more architecture viewpoints within that framework.

Of course such a central assessment not only applies to UML but for any other language used to represent TRAK architecture viewpoints. After all this is architecture description and this is what it’s all about, surely - identifying the relationships and communicating them? Trouble is I can’t see anyone else doing it (or if they are they keep it out of the public gaze). For the life of me I can’t understand why you wouldn’t want the users to to use a tool or use a particular ADL without knowing the implications and limitations of this implementation. It’s inevitable that there are trade-offs because the ADL wasn’t designed for the specific purpose.Even if a view cannot be represented there is usually a workaround. Even if there aren’t workarounds it will only matter if the concerns of the task sponsor require the viewpoint that cannot be implemented. Knowing what you can and can’t do with a tool and with an ADL in that tool and therefore the suitability of both for the task(s) is important. How many architecture frameworks do you know that make this information publicly available?

The Assessment of UML Suitability to Represent TRAK Architecture Viewpoints is Part of the Implementation of TRAK i.e. Solution

TRAK

This mapping between ADL and architecture framework and therefore the suitability of the ADL for use seems to be something that is traditionally a dark secret.  In the interests of keeping everything in the open so that the user can make an informed decision I’ve mapped UML (as implemented in the UML profile for TRAK project on Sourceforge) against TRAK. Specifically I’ve identified the mandatory and optional tuples for each TRAK Viewpoint and compared them against the combinations of UML stereotype that would be needed and identified whether UML allows these combinations and can therefore be used to represent each TRAK tuple.

Although the TRAK metamodel is tiny by comparison with others (only types of architecture description element can appear in TRAK architecture views) there are a lot of relationships between them and therefore a lot of tuples that provide the many paths or routes through the TRAK metamodel and therefore richness of description available to the user. I think I’m right in saying that a metamodel is really a directed graph (so don’t get misled by the relative prominence of the big block things - they’re not the most important parts).

What falls out of this is a list of:

 
• TRAK Viewpoints (and therefore views) that UML can fully realise - 19 or the 22 TRAK viewpoints
 
• TRAK Viewpoints (and therefore views) that UML can partially realise - 2 viewpoints: CVp-03 Concept Item Exchange and SVp-02 Solution Resource Interaction
 
• TRAK Viewpoints (and therefore views) that UML cannot realise at all. There is only 1 viewpoint - the SVp-03 Solution Resource Interaction to Function Mapping Viewpoint because UML doesn’t permit a UML::Activity to be connected to a UML::InformationFlow and therefore this either has to be done manually or using a SQL query if the AD is stored in a database.

Importantly I’ve tried to identify why UML can only realise some viewpoints partially or not at all and the consequences of this with any workarounds.   This sort of situation exists in other frameworks. The difference here is that I felt it made sense not only to be open but to do this once in a central location rather than everyone do it in their own space time and time again.

Of course it depends on whether the UML profile is sensible (it may not be) and whether my assessment is correct (I’m no UML expert). The spreadsheet on which it is based has been circultaing around theTRAK SG members for some months including Simon Perry from Atego (who understands a lot more about UML than I do).

It is distinctly possible that there are errors or it can be improved. There is a tracker on the Sourceforge trak project for all of the documents that implement TRAK where you can submit comments or errors spotted. The assessment itself is in the/Suitability of Architecture Description Languages/UML/ directory within the trak project.

It is part of a big exercise to make things clear and place in full public (i.e. for users as well as tool implementers) so that we have clear mappings between:

 
1. TRAK and ISO/IEC 42010
 
2. each individual ADL and TRAK
   

so that where there are limitations or trade-offs you can see where these occur i.e. they might be in the international standard, in TRAK, an ADL or the implementation of an ADL in a tool.

Implementing TRAK in Another ADL?

As part of this exercise I’ve created an Open Office spreadsheet template which can be used to support the assessment of the suitability of that ADL for representing TRAK architecture viewpoints and therefore views. It is the basis of my assessment of the UML profile for TRAK.

You should use this template so that there is consistency in the approach taken. It is updated in line with the TRAK Viewpoints and TRAK Metamodel definitions.Please consider making the assessment available centrally so that others can find it and so that they don’t have to repeat the exercise. We have the space on the trak project to host these. If anyone has an alternate UML profile of TRAK I’d be interested to see the differences in implementation and this again would need to be assessed. Obviously we really only want representation or mapping for any one particular ADL.

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} Assessment of the Suitability of an ADL (UML, ArchiMate et al) to Represent TRAK Viewpoints/Views

Categories: Architecture Framework, TRAK, Standards

Tags: adl, architecture description language, architecture framework, implementation, solution, spreadsheet, template, trak, uml

Summary

There is a constant need to reduce the scope for inconsistency in any architecture description. TRAK is no different. TRAK has been defined in a way that is free of implementation and using natural language wherever possible. One of the pitfalls of this is the possibility that names will be implemented inconsistently in tools. For example, the attribute ‘start date’ might be called ‘start date’, ‘start_date’, ‘startDate’, ‘Start Date’ and so on. The danger in this is that upon exchange the receiving tool might not recognise this if it is using, say, ‘startDate’.

I’ve therefore created a document titled ‘TRAK. Implementation. Architecture Description Elements’. To put it into context a couple of diagrams (produced using the OmniGraffle stencil for TRAK):

The TRAK. Implementation. Architecture Description Elements Document is Part of the set of Documents that Improves Consistency of Exchange of an Architecture Description

Article continues…

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} Improving Consistency for Tools - ‘TRAK. Implementation. Architecture Description Elements’ Document

Categories: Architecture Framework, TRAK, Tools

Tags: architecture description, consistency, document, exchange, implement, solution, standard, tool

Summary

This is a bit of a tale, and not an unusual one at that. It concerns the development of a stencil for the Omni Group’s OmniGraffle drawing application which is available for both Mac and iPad. I’m a long time user of OmniGraffle Pro (at least 8 years) as well the the Mac (still have my original Mac Iici working) and OmniGraffle is just an easy to use and intuitive means of producing good drawings. All of the stuff in the defining TRAK documentation is produced using it.

Anyway, thought it might be an idea to have a stencil of the stereotypes and relationships to be able to knock up a quick TRAK architecture view when I felt it merited it (rather than firing up a bigger modelling tool such as Sparx Enterprise Architect). It’s all about horses for courses.

The OmniGraffle Stencil for TRAK Implements the TRAK Definition

The Beginning - Fumblings

Not knowing anything about developing a stencil I simply created the blocks needed for the TRAK views and added a set of connectors for the relationships having labelled them. Then I discovered on loading the stencil that OmniGraffle presents the bare connectors separately from the labels for those connectors so there were many connectors in the stencil all seemingly the same. Started again. This time I just had 2 connectors and a text label for each relationship. This cut down the noise but I discovered that on the iPad version it wasn’t easy to use these as it didn’t seem to allow you to drag the label onto the connector and for the 2 to remain locked together as it would do on the desktop version. Started again. This next version had separate connectors, each with it’s own label but this time I grouped the label with the line and this indeed stopped the stencil from displaying them separately.

Sharing

Now I felt I was starting to get the hang of it. The obvious choice was to lodge this onto Sourceforge with all the other TRAK stuff so I created a new project (trakomnigraffle) and then discovered the front end of Sourceforge had changed so much I no longer knew where to go to do what in setting it up. This looks to be a consequence of security and an earlier attack on Sourceforge this year. Then I remembered GraffleTopia. This is a site that holds stencils and templates for OmniGraffle. Even better it’s moved on apace such that when looking for a stencil in OmniGraffle, including the iPad, it will display results from GraffleTopia for download/installation. Sounds good so I duly submitted the stencil. It appeared last Friday on the 12th August so very pleased. The ability to see how many downloads is nice. Sure enough I found it does appear within the desktop and iPad versions and you can download it from the iPad version. For whatever reason it throws an error in OmniGraffle Pro when you select it for downloading. I then had to spend time submitting a bug report.

I know that OmniGraffle supports user data in terms of a set of keys and data values. It seemed therefore sensible to implement the attributes for the various elements in the TRAK metamodel. This would allow more information to be captured and it looked likely to offer a path through which a XML export could be produced with these which would allow a sensible conversion or import via XMI into a UML modelling tool. I then updated the stencil so that each object has the right set of attributes. Great - making progress! I then update the Sourceforge site and go to the GraffleTopia site to upload the new version only to find that it doesn’t support the workflow involved with an update -

Update: Have now found the link to edit and resubmit new versions of the stencil so can only assume it was stupidity and/or blindness on my part. The good news is that GraffleTopia and Sourceforge are in sync!

More Ideas, More Problems

Having all these attributes as user data is good. Trouble is I then thought it’d be nice to be able to copy the attributes and perhaps the values from one object to another. No problems - this is a job for AppleScript (a venerable but very useful scripting technology that operates across the Mac platform and has done so for many many years) which could automate this. Luckily I have a decent debugger but even so it wasn’t going well owing partly to ignorance or forgetting things on my part not having used it for a while. I had to call on support from the ‘Support Ninjas’ at OmniGraffle and each time I’ve managed to move it forwards. I’ve now got to the stage where I can populate a set of shapes with a set of TRAK attributes. Even better it recognises if there is a key with data that exists and asks whether it should continue and wipe this data out for that key or just skip this item. You can see it’s getting ever more complicated which I suppose is the penalty for user-friendliness. Unfortunately it hit a problem when testing for a key name that doesn’t exist. After another response from the OmniGraffle Support Ninjas it seems there is a bug with the AppleScript object in OmniGraffle which causes it to return an undefined object and causes a runtime error. I have been directed to a workaround but it’s going to take a while to get my head around this.

Continues on site…

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} Things that You Think That Are Going to be Simple Never Are

Categories: Architecture Framework, TRAK, Tools

Tags: applescript, application, bug, develop, drawing, implement, ipad, mac, omnigraffle, opensource, sourceforge, stencil, support, tool, trak

Summary

TRAK benefits from a lot of effort put in by a group of people who do this because they believe in it and have the motivation to get stuck in. A lot of this is invisible behind the scenes work and it is all unpaid. I can’t deny that it is nice, however, when this effort is recognised. It was therefore a pleasant surprise when an email popped up with a screenshot of an INCOSE working group award.

To put this in some context, INCOSE state:

The Working Group Awards and Recognition Program rewards efforts and achievements by individual or multiple Working Groups in support of INCOSE’s mission. By focusing on the Working Groups, it specifically recognises team effort. It does not replace existing awards, such as Service Awards.

All Working Groups that have approved charters under Technical Operations are eligible to receive awards under the Working Group Awards and Recognition Program. Not all awards are awarded every year. The Awards recognise exemplary Working Group activities in specific areas:

and it is in the following context that TRAK received the award:

Achieving the Systems Engineering Vision award is presented to the Working Group that has made the most significant contribution toward achieving the Systems Engineering Vision 2020.

Kuldeep, Colin and I received the award on behalf of TRAK at a Railway Interest Group (RIG) meeting in London, collecting it from the president-elect of INCOSE, John Thomas on his recent trip to the UK.

TRAK has always been about more than just the definition of a general purpose enterprise architecture framework - it’s as much about how it’s released and managed and maintained throughout its life and the interface and dynamics presented to users in doing so. We try hard to do this using in the way that you’d specify and manage any system so it’s doubly-nice to get recognition from the professional body that represents systems engineering.

The keener eyed will spot some advice being given from the INCOSE UK Architecture Working Group via feature and bug requests at the Sourceforge sites through which TRAK is released. I should stress that we’re always keen to encourage input and interaction from anyone - you don’t have to be part of a company or large organisation.

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} TRAK Receives an INCOSE 2010 Working Group Award

Categories: Architecture Framework, TRAK, News

Tags: award, event, incose, london, systems engineering, team

Summary

The NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) has been around for many years now. It has been on a convergence path with MODAF from version 3 (released in November 2007) and the latest version, 3.1 appears to be even more closely aligned with MODAF than ever. I say ‘appears’ since there is only 1 part - Chapter 5 - that has been released and the remainder is subject to an official delay.

The documentation for NAF isn’t the best as it describes on Wikipedia with respect to version 3:

The documentation of the NAF Rev 3 views (Chapter 4) does not always align well with the NAF Meta Model (Chapter 5). This is particularly the case with some of the examples, which are based on DoDAF version 1.0. Some NAF users find it useful to first of all refer the official MODAF Documentation - [1]. This is a useful strategy, as the MOD documentation can be somewhat easier to follow, and NAF and MODAF share a common meta-model.

There is certainly a consistency problem. At version 3 the framework consists of 7 views each of which has a number of subviews. A NAF::View is a collection of NAF::Subviews that are related by the subject matter. This terminology actually came from DODAF 1.X.

Chapter 7, Architecture Definitions, Terminology and Ontology, 7.2.1 defines NAF::View:

A set of subviews grouped by purpose.

clearly a collection of subviews, and defines NAF::Subview as

A pattern from which to develop individual products by establishing the purposes and audience for a product and the techniques for its creation and analysis.

Note: this is called Viewpoint in IEEE-1471-2000; perspective is often used in the same sense.

Under 7.2.3 NAF Metamodel Terminology it then defines NAF::View as:

A specification of a way to present an aspect of the architecture. Views are defined with one or more purposes in mind - e.g. showing the logical topology of the enterprise, describing a process model, defining a data model, etc

...continued…

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} NATO AF v3.1 - Is It Now Time to Merge MODAF and the NATO AF?

Categories: Architecture Framework, MODAF, NAF, Standards

Tags: meaning, modaf, naf, nato, view, viewpoint

Summary

ISO/IEC 42010 advocates or, more likely, is predicated on the assumption that an architecture description of a complex system needs many architecture views. Each describes the real world architecture and addresses a different set or concerns or questions posed. The typical concerns each view addresses are defined within an architecture viewpoint which is a specification for each view type. Note that this use of ‘viewpoint’ is not that same as that used in MODAF and DODAF where viewpoint is a collection of architecture views, not a specification.

Pretty obviously these need to overlap so that the reader can move around the architecture description and also understand the context for any part. For example there’s no point in showing a function without showing the thing that performs the function and this in turn might realise or implement part of a concept. Overlapping views are therefore a good thing. This in turn requires overlap between the defining viewpoints (ISO terminology).

Whilst some overlap is always good, too much overlap in invariably bad. If there is too much overlap in the things that can be shown in different view types then it becomes difficult if not impossible for the reader to understand the purpose of each view type and differentiate between them. It also leads to inconsistency in the way that an architect approaches the task since if the same content can be shown on 2 view types one architect might choose one view type and another might choose the second. From the reader’s point this is confusing since there is no clear expectation in terms of finding particular objects and relationships. In essence it is a human factors problem since with too much overlap the affordance suffers as there is no longer a clear distinction between view type and the likely view content. From the point of ISO/IEC 42010 the risk is that there is no longer any clear distinction in terms of the concerns addressed by each view type.

This is best illustrated by practical example. The following is taken from MODAF 1.2.004 and looks at the MODAF::SV-1 Resource Interaction Specification View vs the MODAF::SV-2 set (SV-2a System Port Specification View, SV-2b System Port Connectivity Description View and SV-2c System Connectivity Clusters View).

Comments

2 comments

Comment on Keep Clear Separation Between the Concerns that Each Architecture View Addresses

Categories: Architecture Framework, DODAF, MODAF, NAF, Standards

Tags: dodaf, iso42010, modaf, naf, nato, purpose, solution, stakeholder concern, structure, viewpoint

Summary

Just managed to shovel the last part of the documents that defines TRAK into cyberspace last night. The main purpose of the revision is to anticipate the likely requirements from ISO/IEC 42010 expected to be released under a slightly new name during 2011. There are quite a few changes to the ISO not the least of which is that it has requirements for architecture frameworks and makes reference to a framework metamodel. The opportunity has also been used to respond to constructive comments and requests made by the INCOSE UK Architecture Working Group.

In the end this has proved a bigger change to the existing documents than anticipated. We now have a 3 document set that defines TRAK since it became clear that things that were global or common or which were best dealt with as “a whole” would be best separated into an overall TRAK Enterprise Architecture Framework document. This has meant things like the bye laws, colour rules and conformance/non-conformance with TRAK being moved into this document. It also provides the better place to provide advice on choosing an architecture description language to represent TRAK and to describe how TRAK relates to ISO/IEC 42010.

This new 3 document structure has resulted in breaking out a new project on Sourceforge. The top-level reference for TRAK is now trak.sourceforge.net which is an improvement on the old bifurcated reference to both the viewpoints (trakviewpoints.sourceforge.net) and metamodel (trakmetamodel.sourceforge.net) projects / sites. Errors or feature requests for any of the documents can be made on the respective site.

As a result of comments made by Rich Hilliard (always useful) it became clear that the old viewpoint definitions needed to be sharpened up. In particular I’ve added stakeholders derived from the standard , added more detail and examples to the presentation sections. Some of this existed in the old days before release as open source but never got incorporated into the new documents. In any case some of the thinking and the changes to the ISO have changed the content and it had to be started afresh. A suggestion was to add a ‘well-formedness’ section which attempts to define the minimum acceptable content for a view of each type. The latter was quite hard work and an empirical task as you think you’ve got it nailed, draw an example to immediately find that it breaks the rules. It’s not quite complete but a lot better for the effort and therefore worth releasing rather than waiting for perfection.

No doubt there will be a few “after shocks” but nothing of the scale of this revision (I hope!).

One of the ongoing questions is how to make it more concise, less wordy but accessible and understandable to the ‘normal’ Mk1 Human Being (the “non-softie”). In particular is there a way to define the minimum content visually without words - there are ways from the software world but are these likely to understandable to the non-softie or non-tecchie? Constructive suggestions on a postcard.

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} New Revision (“The ISO 42010 Mix”) of TRAK Released

Categories: Architecture Framework, TRAK, News, Standards

Tags: architecture description, definition, incose, iso42010, standard, trak, viewpoint

Summary

I’m spending a lot of time playing ‘spot the difference’ to capture the changes in the Canadian DNDAF (at v1.7 from 1.6), MODAF (at 1.2.004 from 1.2.003) and NATO AF (at 3.1 from 3 - or at least will be when the documentation is properly accessible). This is harder than it needs be owing to the patchy nature in which changes are identified and recorded in the various architecture frameworks - or not. In this respect MODAF is definitely one of the better frameworks.

One of the significant changes with the release of the MODAF 1.2.004 (May 2010) is that all resources are now equal in that not only can interactions (Resource Interactions) be identified between them but can also be characterised and flows of information, energy, materiel and people captured. Prior to this MODAF could only characterise interactions for artefacts, systems but not for human resources. 1.2.004 also  adds the ability to show materiel, energy and people flows to various systems and operational views.

All of this is good and much needed for describing the real world. It does now highlight the Needline as a throwback to the earlier information-only days. In the solution-free operational views the node (the nearest we get to ‘thing’ or ‘stuff’ ) is connected to another node by a needline. In 1.2.004 it is defined as:

A relationship between Nodes representing a bundle of InformationExchanges.

i.e. a collection of information exchanges.

In the old days (MODAF 1.1 - May 2007) it was defined as:

A relationship specifying the need to exchange information between nodes…

which has a more explicit (=better) link to it being a line identifying a need and hence the name of the stereotype.

It still doesn’t seem right to only being able to express a need for information. Why not a need for energy, people or materiel? It would make much more sense to unify any need under needline and define it as A relationship identifying the need to exchange energy, information, materiel or people. At least then it would be consistent with the rationalisation / equal treatment of resources (Resource Type).

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} Representing ‘The Needy’ in MODAF - The Needline

Categories: Architecture Framework, MODAF, Standards

Tags: 1.2.004, configuration control, modaf, needline, operational

Summary

Research streams are managed by the RSSB on behalf of the UK Technical Strategy Advisory Group (TSAG). An idea of the context for both organisations is provided within the demonstration architecture description on this site.

From the UK Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) - Research & Development e-Newsletter - Issue. 66 October 2010.

Research in Progress. T912 The Railway Functional Architecture

The Railway Functional Architecture (RFA) research project was commissioned by RSSB on behalf of the Technical Strategy Advisory Group (TSAG). It is intended to identify, at a fairly high level of abstraction, the technology-based functions that must be performed for a modern railway to operate.

The output of this work will be a model that builds on the rail architecture framework (TRAK), which was developed for generic use within the rail industry. In early 2011 we will publish the RFA on the RSSB/TSAG website. A master copy will be retained by RSSB in an enterprise architect project file (.EAP) to be made available on request for organisations that want to manipulate or further develop the model.

An architectural framework (ie TRAK) was used to ensure the creation of a model that is well structured and governed by documented rules, so that it could be maintained and extended without undue effort. Architecture frameworks are commonly used in information technology and information system governance. Because, like the railway, these disciplines are so broad and because the enterprises in which they are engaged can be large and complex, the models associated with the discipline also tend to be large and complex.

The RFA has been subject to iterative improvements as a consequence of discussions both with individual industry experts and with stakeholders in workshop sessions. We acknowledge the input of the following organisations: ATOC, Network Rail, Birmingham University Centre for Rail Research, RFG, LUL, DfT, RIA, Transport Scotland, Crossrail.

The work may aid in: identifying where commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and ‘plug and play’ technologies may be employed; where ‘open systems’ architectures and ‘lean’ systems may be introduced; eliminating systems which duplicate functions; and shortening product development cycles by putting a standard architecture in place. Several other uses have become apparent as the model has been developed and those will be described in more detail when the finished product is published.

An overview of this work was presented at the INCOSE UK Annual Systems Engineering Conference (ASEC) 2010 by Andy Prior (Systems Engineering and Assessment Ltd.)

Work is underway to investigate the feasibility of releasing the architecture description for the railway functional architecture as open source in early 2011.

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} RSSB - Research and Development - The (UK) Railway Functional Architecture (RFA)

Categories: Architecture Framework, TRAK, News

Tags: research, rssb, sea, strategy, trak, tsag, uk

Summary

This is a recurring theme. Systems-thinking, systems engineering and architecture description are primarily concerned with identifying and managing the important relationships with other things in the world. They are relationship-centric rather than object-centric.

It is often hard for folks used to using flat 2D diagrams produced in PowerPoint or Visio to appreciate the potential power behind relationships. Having said this a lot of tools marketed for architecture description or enterprise architecture are software development tools which are naturally and properly object-oriented rather than relationship-oriented.

Having a repository with a rich set of (consistent) objects and relationships allows you to explore beyond the immediate vicinity to assess impacts and dependencies. Although not intended for this purpose there is a very nice example on TED.com of the use of relationships by ecologist Eric Berlow which is helped by the ability to visualise them in a nice way. This could equally be achieved using a repository.

This is why sticking to the flat-land isn’t adequate to understanding where things sit and therefore how best to manage risk. The world isn’t flat!

Anybody used visualisation software for this sort of thing? What works best? Any good case studies where this has helped to either save the day or revealed something unexpected?

Comments

Be the first to comment on {resource_type} Using Relationships and a Repository - Visualisation

Categories: Architecture Modelling, Tools

Tags: berlow, relationship, repository, visualisation