AFIT
Instructor Steve Glazewski, AFIT/LSS, presents a comparison between DODAF and
Unified Architecture Framework (UAF). Here’s a comparison between
the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) and the Department of
Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF):
Unified
Architecture Framework (UAF)
UAF, with its tight
coupling to SysML, “prepares” you better for a slightly smoother
transition into Digital Engineering when starting a System or Service
acquisition effort than equivalent DoDAF models did. That’s mainly
because of the SysML, and it presumes some sort of transportability of the
data FROM the requirements process at the tippy-top of the left arm of the
Systems Engineering “V” to the Digital Engineering (DE)/Model-Based
Systems Engineering (MBSE) process that runs down that left arm of the
“V.” The point there being that no DE/MBSE = no difference at all.
Origin: Evolved from the
Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM), combining elements from both
frameworks.
Purpose: Provides a
comprehensive approach to enterprise architecture, supporting a wide range
of stakeholders and viewpoints.
Flexibility: Designed to
be adaptable, allowing for the creation of DoDAF-compliant views as well
as additional useful views.
Scope: Broader in scope,
aiming to integrate various architectural frameworks and methodologies
into a unified approach.
Department
of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF)
Origin: Developed
specifically for the U.S. Department of Defense to ensure
standardized architecture practices across the department.
Purpose: Focuses on
architecture description through a set of predefined views, ensuring
consistency and interoperability within the DoD.
Structure: Provides
detailed guidelines and models for architecture development, emphasizing
conformance to ensure data reuse and common understanding.
Scope: Primarily
targeted at defense-related projects, with a strong emphasis on classified
and unclassified architecture development.
Key
Differences
Flexibility vs.
Specificity: UAF offers more flexibility and broader applicability, while
DoDAF is more specific to defense needs and provides detailed guidelines
for conformance.
Integration: UAF aims to
integrate multiple frameworks and methodologies, whereas DoDAF is focused
on standardizing architecture within the DoD.
Stakeholder
Focus: UAF supports a wider range of stakeholders, while DoDAF is tailored to
the needs of the DoD and its specific stakeholders.