The Use of the NAF in NATO

Why Use NAF in NATO

Architectural development not only supports conventional system planning and implementation activities, it is increasingly needed to secure acquisition of capability; anticipate operational deployment towards supporting developers who are recognise that their work no longer focuses on single systems. For example in the NATO Federated Mission Network (FMN)1 environment they need architectural information on systems that they will inter-work with in order to properly specify and develop their systems.

NATO Federated Mission Networking Implementation Plan (NFIP) was approved by the North Atlantic Council (NAC) [Ref. C-M(2015)0003-AS1, dated 30 Jan 2015] .

FMN is one of the key initiatives in meeting this changing need. FMN enables us to federate systems, sensors, and effectors and hence improve military effectiveness.

There is an increase in the need for international coalition operations (e.g. NATO Reaction Force (NRF)) and a growing need to deliver end-to-end capability, whilst delivering more for less and ensuring interoperability. Expeditionary types of operations, calling for ‘tailored’ military responses are now a key focus of NATO. The development and use of architectures support such operations by providing a mechanism, during operational planning, to dynamically ‘tailor’ capabilities to the required task and to assist in the clear definition and implementation of capability shortfalls.

The way in which architectures need to be developed and utilised mirrors the ways in which FMN compliant capabilities need to be developed, implemented and used, and hence architectures support operational planning as well as conventional planning including prototyping and experimentation work.

A formalised approach is needed to manage the complexity of modern operations whilst balancing all appropriate stakeholder concerns. Architecture Frameworks support this goal, and the most mature and widely adopted Architecture Frameworks in the defence sector are the US DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF), the UK MOD Architecture Framework (MODAF) and the Canadian Department of Defense, DND/CF, Architecture Framework (DNDAF). Whilst these architecture frameworks appear to resemble each other, they also comprise significant differences. A number of nations have agreed to improve alignment and aspire to develop a unified architecture framework for defence.2

USA, UK and Sweden and follow up discussions in 2012 with France and at ACaT workshops that that year. A draft agreement between Australia, Canada, USA, UK and Sweden was formulated on 10 September 2012.

The requirement for architectures are well documented in policy documents, directives and Capability Package documents. The benefits of an architectural approach leads NATO to the realisation of the need for a NAF to ensure consistency and harmonisation with and between NATO and National activities, and help to clearly defined relationships and interdependencies among the different planning disciplines. The NAF must be a flexible instrument and it must evolve to keep pace with the NATO transformation process, including changes in e.g. operational concepts, capability planning, and service-orientation. Paragraph 1.6 below identifies some of the most important transformational items that influence or drive the current need for changes in the NAF.

This version of the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) is the first step which unifies MODAF v1.2 and NAF v3.0 through the underpinning of the framework with a NATO version of the MODAF meta-model, known as MODAF Ontological Data Exchange Mechanism (MODEM).

Cost Savings

Architecture is not another cost saving initiative by itself. However an effective and understandable architecture saves costs of building, buying, supporting and maintaining multiple systems. It allows low priority, unnecessary or duplicate functionality to be identified and removed from the enterprise wide solution. System builds, changes and enhancements are cheaper as solutions from other areas in NATO can be identified and reused with common functions and requirements aggregated where appropriate. In the NATO environment some redundancy is necessary by the nature of the task undertaken, however use of the NAF helps to ensure that redundancy is planned, and that the investment in infrastructure can be optimised across the enterprise. The use of NAF also provides the ability to optimise the systems and capabilities produced by the nations in a coordinated NATO purpose.

Benefits from using the NAF

Within the context of NATO there is an increasing need for international coalition operations and a growing need to deliver end-to-end capability, whilst delivering more for less and ensuring interoperability. The NAF is an instrument to have a more structured approach to manage the complexity whilst balancing all appropriate stakeholder perspectives. The implementation of the NAF provides significant improvements in interoperability at operational and systems levels, achieved by the implementation of both a common approach and a common language across NATO. In summary, benefits delivered by implementing the NAF are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Short Term

NAF viewpoints provide a means of analysing and prioritising real-world problems by abstracting the real-world business environment to a structured and comprehensive model. NAF architectures enable an evidence-based analysis to a level of granularity appropriate to the scenario in question, and they provide a platform on which to prioritise issues and make well-grounded decisions by:

  1. Providing initial support for capability planning.

  2. Giving a methodology to revise and update the architectures that support the Enterprise, Capability and Project levels.

  3. Indicating the applicability of technical standards for the system being developed.

Medium Term

Improved efficiency, effectiveness and standardisation of processes and ways of working, such as in capability based planning, the acquisition cycle and across lines of development, including:

  1. Improved ability to include FMN Maturity Levels descriptions and link to the NATO Interoperability Standards and Profiles (NISP).

  2. Improved ability to share architectural information.

  3. Improved understanding of the processes across the capability and C3 planning cycles.

  4. Enhanced systems interoperability.

Long Term

  1. Avoidance of unnecessary costs in the overall investment programme addressing shortcomings identified by organisations in their various reviews. This leads to:

  2. Reduction in cost overruns.

  3. Reduction in contract errors.

  4. Improved integration across platforms.

  5. Reduction in duplication of investment expenditure.

  6. Agile acquisition and reduced time to bring capability into service.

  7. More efficient use of common funded budgets.

  8. Improved requirements specifications

  9. New projects scoped more accurately meaning fewer adverse ‘surprises’ and cost increases during implementation.

  10. Reduced development risks/costs for projects and faster introduction, so that business benefits can be realised earlier.

  11. Cost reduction through the introduction of standards and improved management of life-cycle costs.

  12. Improved validation and assurance of solutions.

  13. More coherent portfolio of military capabilities and more integrated systems.

  14. Improved portfolio and programme management.

  15. Scarce resources are now focused on investments that are best aligned with the enterprise needs and strategy – not those with the loudest or most powerful sponsors.

  16. Avoidance of unnecessary costs in the overall investment programme. There is less need for expensive ‘temporary’ workarounds caused by incomplete project implementations.

Development of new and improved military capability – in particular supporting the achievement of FMN goals and objectives (in particular the benefits that were originally identified with the NNEC Feasibility study and Foundation documents), including:

  1. Capability gaps identified, with better capability integration.

  2. Interoperability promoted across NATO and in NRF scenarios.

  3. Increased assurance that customer requirements are satisfied.

  4. Reduction in risk for delivery of the equipment programme.

As a whole, these benefits allow for more efficient and timely delivery of enhanced capability.

NATO Levels and Types of Architecture

In order to manage the complexity of the NATO Enterprise, the NATO Enterprise Architecture Policy identifies three levels of architecture and four different domains/types of architecture. The levels and types of architecture are as defined below.

Architectures at the NATO Enterprise Level

They provide the architecture content that forms the foundation for architectural coherence across the entire NATO Enterprise, and beyond. Architectures at this level will span many change programmes (e.g. capability packages). Key components of architectures at the NATO Enterprise-level are:

  1. The C3 Taxonomy and the Technical Services Framework that provide a common language for the description of C3 Capabilities and ICT Services.

  2. The C3 Integrated Master Plan (IMP) which provides an overview of the status of key C3 Capabilities.

  3. The NISP which provides the most current baseline of interoperability profiles and technical standards.

Architectures at the Capability Level

Architectures at this level are used to support the delivery of large, multi-phased and multi-project change initiatives (e.g. capability packages). They are used to:

  1. Facilitate the definition of resource proposals to address existing shortfalls between the available (as-is) capability and the required (to-be) capability.

  2. Support the scoping and phasing of projects to resolve these shortfalls.

  3. Identify synergies between the projects.

  4. Direct, monitor and evaluate the execution of a set of related projects.

Architectures at the Project Level

Architectures at this level are describing the envisioned solution that the project aims to implement. They are used to:

  1. Articulate the high-level design for a project in order to govern its execution.

  2. Assure compliance with architectural governance.

  3. Support the integration and alignment between projects.

  4. Inform budget and acquisition decisions (e.g. in a Type B Cost Estimate (TBCE)).

  5. Provide the basis for more detailed specifications during contract preparation (e.g. in an Invitation for Bids (IFB)).

  6. Support contractor selection.

  7. Govern the delivery of contracted products and services.

  8. Provide the basis for service transition and service operation activities.

Types of Architectures

Architecture on each level shall cover the following architecture types:

  1. Business Architecture - describing the business strategy, governance, organisation, and key business processes (including process ownership and key decisions) of the organisation.

  2. Information Architecture - describing the structure of an organisation’s logical and physical information assets and the associated data management resources and linking the information required to the key business processes and decisions.

  3. Application Architecture – providing a blueprint for the individual application systems to be deployed, the information which they provide, the interactions between the application systems and their relationships to the core business processes of the organisation with the frameworks for services to be exposed as business functions for integration.

  4. Technology Architecture – describing the hardware, software and network infrastructure needed to support the deployment of the application systems.

Purpose and Scope of NAF for NATO

The NAF provides a method and a formalism that enable NATO to manage and bring forward strongly needed capabilities and support the implementation of FMN and other capabilities.

A NAF based architecture may be used to provide a complete expression of the NATO enterprise, as in NATO Enterprise Architecture, though care must be taken to have a clear purpose in mind for developing such architectures. The NAF meta-model defines the essential modelling elements that can be used to describe the NATO enterprise and its environment, including Partners.

The NAF supports capturing the vision of NATO in all its dimensions and complexity. The NAF architectures developed will be an important contribution to ensure that the members of the Alliance (including Partner Nations) are focussing on the same goals. Development of operational capabilities and the transformational process to reach the objectives of FMN are examples of what NAF architectures will support.

Management of the NATO Architecture Framework and Architectures

Responsibility for the content of the NAF rests with the appropriate governing body. In the context of NATO it is with the C3B. The C3B will consult with, and be responsive to, the views of other senior NATO committees and the Strategic Commands when finalising the NAF for notation by the NAC, and during its further development.

The key to the achievement of coherence amongst NATO and National architectures is the NAF Meta-Model and it’s associated Architecture Data Exchange Mechanism (ADEM) and hence special attention needs to be placed on the standardization and configuration management of these components.

Within the NATO context, NAF will be used to develop the architectures according to the NATO EA policy.

NATO EA Policy requires to use NAF-based architectures and in particular the architecture at Enterprise and Capability levels as a means to establish oversight and basis for the governance of NATO business and necessary coordination between senior committees and Nations.

NATO Imperative Documents

NATO Interoperability Policy and Interoperability Directive

For consultation and for multi-national and joint operations, the cooperation between capitals, military headquarters, and forces is essential. Common and Jointly funded NATO C3 systems must be interoperable and must interoperate with National C3 systems. Likewise, national C3 systems of members and partners must interoperate to enable forces to operate together effectively. Continuous enhancement of interoperability throughout the NATO C3 System[13] for the support of functions ranging from political consultation to strategic, operational, and tactical activities is therefore imperative. The current version of the NATO Interoperability Policy is AC/322-D(2008)0041. This policy will be supported by an NATO C3 Board NATO Networked C3 (NNC3) Interoperability Directive to describe the elements of the NATO C3 Interoperability Environment which together provide the means to support the achievement of NNC3 interoperability.

NATO Interoperability Policy

The aim of the NATO Interoperability Policy (NIP) is to define and mandate the measures necessary to achieve and maintain NNC3 interoperability to match the needs of NATO as the organisation and nation’s transition to a network-enabled environment. The policy identifies NATO’s intent for NNC3 interoperability, and identifies the principles and responsibilities for ensuring the development and effective use of systems to provide interoperable services supporting the sharing of information across the physical, information and human domains. The policy describes roles and responsibilities necessary to support the implementation of the policy as well as the documentation and products needed to achieve interoperable and affordable C3 systems to meet the needs of the Alliance.

NATO Interoperability Directive

The NATO Interoperability Directive (NID) provides binding directives for the application of the NATO C3 interoperability process and the use of key enablers throughout the life-cycle of NATO C3 projects, hereby the NAF. The NAF standard provides the rules, guidance, and descriptive representations for developing and presenting architectures to ensure a common denominator for understanding, comparing, and integrating architectures. The NID describes:

  1. mandatory architecture types,

  2. minimum set of architecture views and sub-views (previously called templates), and

  3. architecture roles and responsibilities.

NATO Strategic Vision

Future military forces must be agile, joint and expeditionary in character and design. They must be capable of operating across the spectrum of conflict, rapidly deployable and sustainable for whatever duration and tempo of operations, technologically superior, supported via an integrated logistics system and capable of operating in a networked environment. These forces must be rapidly adaptable and fully interoperable with other military forces and capable of interacting seamlessly with civil authorities, nongovernmental organisations and other agencies in the joint operations area.

Decision superiority necessitates a force that is organised, trained and equipped to operate in a collaborative, globally integrated common operational network. This network must link military forces, government and non-government agencies, and others in a seamless planning, assessment and execution environment. The provision of enabling technology to provide for the seamless exchange of information is critical. Interoperability and interconnectivity will be key enablers to achieving decision superiority.

Network-Enabled Capability (NEC) is critical to the rapid delivery of military effects and will allow powerful new combinations of combat power. The realisation of the strategic vision will be the transformation of NATO and national capabilities into a NNEC environment.

The strategic vision transforms the way operational and business processes are considered to a more holistic view of required capabilities and away from a system oriented paradigm. This holistic approach requires a framework to guide development of the capabilities in a consistent and network enabled manner.

The aim of the document is to describe the need for NNEC architectures that support the development of the C3, Command and Control, Communications and Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems aspects of NNEC. This document identifies the types of required architectures and architecture products, and describes how these products will be used to support the evolutionary planning, development, implementation and use of NNEC related C3, C4ISR systems. The ‘Compendium of NNEC Related Architectures’ provides the basis for the development of the detailed ‘Rolling Architecture Plan for NNEC’, which lays out details of architecture development plans and schedules.

The identification of interfaces between National systems and between NATO and National systems, and the specification of associated interoperability standards is a critical success factor in the development of NNEC. Architectures have a critical role to play in the process of identifying the key interfaces involved and in supporting the identification and development of information sharing and technical implementation standards to support NNEC interoperability needs.

NATO Response Force

The NATO Response Force (NRF) Concept is intended to generate a coherent, joint, trained and certified force package, held at very high readiness that will be tailored for an assigned mission. The NRF package is rotational in nature and should be periodically committed to by Nations in order to meet the agreed statement of requirements and to undergo the appropriate joint training for a specific rotation. The Alliance needs to be assured of the availability of HQs/forces declared to the NRF. However, there may be circumstances where some forces or assets will not be available for a particular operation. The Combined Joint Statement of Requirements (CJSOR) and the associated force generation process must provide sufficient operational flexibility and resilience to ensure the Alliance has, on hand, a credible deployable force.

The NRF is a high readiness, joint and combined force, capable of performing certain missions on its own, as well as participating in an operation as part of a larger force, or serving as an initial entry force that prepares the theatre for follow-on forces. The NRF will be able to participate in the full range of NATO operations and be capable of conducting opposed entry into a hostile area. The NRF is limited in size, composition and capabilities. Due to the complexity of any given situation, that such a force might encounter, it is not a ‘one size fits all’ solution to emerging crisis situations.

NRF can be seen as the Force that will be confronted first with all transformational decisions and convergence to NNEC. An architecture framework is needed that enables NATO and/or NRF commanders to guide the transition from today’s separate National capabilities to a next generation integrated and holistic NNEC capability and ensure consistency and interoperability as required.

  1. The NNEC has been merged into the Federated Mission Networking. On 29 January 2015 the ↩

  2. This was a decision taken as a result of a number of meetings in 2011 with the Australia, Canada, ↩