DoDAF
DoDAF
Department of Defense Architecture Framework
1. Overview: DoDAF, the US DoD’s EA framework for representing complex defense systems through multiple views
flowchart LR
A["Heterogeneous defense systems<br/>lack interoperability;<br/>acquisition and operating costs balloon"] --"Standardize architecture<br/>via multiple views"--> B["DoDAF<br/>integrated architecture framework"] --"Improve interoperability<br/>and acquisition efficiency"--> C["Integrated operational<br/>capability for defense IT"]
style A fill:#FFEBEE,stroke:#D32F2F,color:#000
style B fill:#E3F2FD,stroke:#1976D2,color:#000
style C fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#388E3C,color:#000
Definition: An enterprise architecture framework used by the US Department of Defense (DoD) to describe the architecture of complex defense systems, programs, and organizations through a standardized system of views, achieving interoperability, more efficient system acquisition, and decision support.
Characteristics: (4-view system) Started as a 4-view system (AV, OV, SV, TV) in DoDAF 1.0, expanded to 8 view categories in DoDAF 2.0. (Defense-domain specialization) Unlike TOGAF or Zachman, it is specialized for the defense, military, and security domain — mission-centric architecture design. (JCIDS linkage) Linked to the US DoD’s JCIDS (Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System) and to national defense informatization systems elsewhere.
2. DoDAF’s core structure
A. The architecture view system
flowchart TD
subgraph R1[" "]
direction LR
AV["All View (AV)<br/>Overview view —<br/>architecture scope, purpose,<br/>assumptions, and overall context"]
OV["Operational View (OV)<br/>Operational view —<br/>mission, business processes,<br/>information exchange flows"]
end
subgraph R2[" "]
direction LR
SV["Systems View (SV)<br/>System view —<br/>system/service composition,<br/>functions and interfaces"]
TV["Technical View (TV)<br/>Technical view —<br/>standards, specifications,<br/>technical guidance, interoperability criteria"]
end
style AV fill:#1E3A5F,stroke:#1E3A5F,color:#fff
style OV fill:#E3F2FD,stroke:#1976D2,color:#000
style SV fill:#F3E5F5,stroke:#7B1FA2,color:#000
style TV fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#388E3C,color:#000
style R1 fill:none,stroke:none
style R2 fill:none,stroke:none
| View | Key question | Key deliverables | Target stakeholders |
|---|---|---|---|
| All View (AV) | What is this architecture for? | AV-1 (Overview), AV-2 (Integrated Dictionary) | All stakeholders |
| Operational View (OV) | How is the mission carried out? | OV-1 (High-level concept), OV-5 (Operational activities) | Operations planners |
| Systems View (SV) | Which systems support operations? | SV-1 (System interfaces), SV-4 (Functional description) | System engineers |
| Technical View (TV) | Which standards and technologies apply? | TV-1 (Technical standards profile) | Technical architects |
DoDAF 2.0 expanded view system
| Additional view | Description |
|---|---|
| Capability View (CV) | Gap analysis between required and current capabilities |
| Project View (PV) | Program/project schedule and investment planning |
| Services View (SvcV) | Representation of SOA-based service architecture |
| Data & Information View (DIV) | Data model and information structure |
B. Applying defense IT architecture and its linkage elsewhere
flowchart LR
subgraph US["US DoDAF application"]
direction TB
U1["JCIDS<br/>Joint Capabilities Integration<br/>and Development System"]
U2["PPBE<br/>Planning, Programming,<br/>Budgeting, and Execution"]
U3["DAS<br/>Defense Acquisition System"]
end
subgraph KR["Korea's defense architecture linkage"]
direction TB
K1["Defense Informatization<br/>Basic Act — national defense<br/>informatization framework"]
K2["Defense EA<br/>national defense enterprise architecture"]
K3["MND IT<br/>defense informatization program management"]
end
US --"Methodology reference,<br/>standards linkage"--> KR
style US fill:#E3F2FD,stroke:#1976D2,color:#1E3A5F
style KR fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#388E3C,color:#1B5E20
DoDAF vs. other EA frameworks
| Comparison | DoDAF | TOGAF | Zachman |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary target | Defense, military, intelligence agencies | Enterprises in general | General-purpose EA classification scheme |
| Central concept | Mission and capability | Business process / IT alignment | 6×6 classification matrix |
| Methodology | Multi-view architecture description | ADM cyclical process | Classification scheme (not a methodology) |
| Strengths | Interoperability, acquisition consistency | Change management, reuse | Completeness, systematic classification |
| Local linkage | Defense EA, Joint Chiefs of Staff architecture | Public-sector EA, financial-sector EA | EA documentation aid |
3. Expected benefits and practical application of DoDAF
| Category | Key expected benefit | Practical application |
|---|---|---|
| Interoperability | Standardized interfaces across heterogeneous defense systems | Specify information exchange between systems via OV/SV deliverables |
| Acquisition efficiency | Prevents redundant investment and identifies reusable components | Perform current-to-target architecture gap analysis based on SV |
| Decision support | Architecture-data-driven investment prioritization | Use the CV (Capability View) to visualize the gap between required and current capability |
| Public-sector application | Standard basis for EA in defense and public informatization programs | Apply the DoDAF OV/SV deliverable structure when establishing defense EA |