Suleman Ayub

Question 1 Systems A system serves as a dynamic mechanization of interconnectivity of elements from different domains, reinforced by feedback loops; Designed in order to accentuate the feasibility of a task to be performed. Architecture Architecture encapsulates a skeleton of the system where by the structural overview of different components is organized in a way to potentiate their relativity and demonstrate principle guidelines governing the design. From the perspective of an enterprise, “Enterprise architecture describes the current (baseline) and future (target) states of the agency, and the plan to transition from the current to the future state, with a focus on agency strategy, program performance improvements and information technology investments.” (Matsuo and Ishii, 2010) Operational nodes vs. system nodes Operational nodes define the interconnectivity or net-centricity of the operations involved in implementing the system starting from the grass root to the managerial levels, while system nodes is a graphical way of representing the connectivity of the undermined system with other systems either external or internal influencing its capability. Needline Needline are the relative and reinforcing loops that define the interconnectivity between the different nodes of a system or of the main system with external ones. Holistic Engineering Holistic engineering is an approach, in which dynamic solutions based on theory and system environment are devised which are highly flexible and self-rectifying. The professionals who have a certain grip over every aspect of the underlying system and can tackle the minute complexities accordingly can only deal this with. 1 Operational Views Operational Views gives a graphical or elaborative description of all the tasks and activities involved where-by the activities are interconnected with one another. Systems Views System Views demonstrates the capabilities and dynamics of a system, its services and its communications interconnectivity. Question 2 As a chief architect of this momentous and complex infrastructure project, my foremost approach will be to elaborate the vision and scope of the project, by defining common grounds for all the stakeholders involved and the complexity of the system. As government agencies, common public and corporate entities will have a significant role; a clear definition of an unprecedented outcome will be mechanized. The scope and input required from all the entities will be taken under regard. As this project has a connection with the whole economics of the country, it will be a good practice to define all the possible outcomes, constraints and backdrops of implementing such a project. The system has a capability of restoring the economic crisis, the world went through, as it will be creating future jobs and it will be activating an industrial circle involving corporate entities. Second approach will be synthesizing the “initial point” for the architecture to be assembled. Meetings with the stakeholders and engineers will be organized to discuss in detail the feasibility and adjust accordingly on some common grounds. The stakeholders and government agencies will decide relative values. Technical feasibility will be thoroughly analyzed by the engineers. Four architecting processes namely: Normative, Rational, Argumentative and Heuristics will be dealt with. Vector investing will be formulized. A “Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF)” (Minoli, 2008), will be synthesized in detail, entailing all the technical and law related complexities involved. A “reference model” will be designed to facilitate cross agency analysis and possible opportunities for collaboration. 2 Service oriented architecture will also be worked out in which net-centric data strategy will be iterated, demonstrating view point of all the agencies and entities involved. To disintegrate such a humungous project “DoD architectural framework” (Dam, 2006) will be followed and all the system and operational views will be implemented to disintegrate the complexities and be more concise and definitive. Question 3 Heuristics are intelligent solutions based on intuition, guesses and creativity, backed with technical knowledge and skills. Heuristics play an important role in disintegrating the complexity of the system, for the architect, such that he or she can implement the ideas in an immaculate manner and understand the dynamics more clearly. These help greatly when one cannot easily come up with a theoretical solution to an underlying problem. Some of the very useful heuristics are 1. Starting from the very top and reinventing the problem can be an effective way to understand the system and come up with solutions. 2. Using wide range of graphical analysis to compare two items or a data is an effective way to make a decision. 3. Disintegrating a problem into small chunks make it easier to understand and solve. “When making a judgment between two items when only one of the items is recognized, the recognized item will be considered to have a higher criterion value” (Gigerenzer and Todd, 1999). Question 4 Mechanizing an effective architecture involves understanding the basic grass root issues and working your way up to the major problem statement. In order to do so, it is necessary to analyze each element, from operational or systems view involved, on individual as well as relative basis. To focus on structural synthesis the clients and customers collectively will define the relative value to each element. The architect and engineers will decide technical feasibility. Normative, 3 Rational, Argumentative and Heuristic architecting techniques will be used. It is a bright idea to use net centricity, as interconnectivity will become more efficient and transformative. “Zachman Framework” (Griffin, 2005), will be used in order to disintegrate the problem statement and implement the solutions. System interface diagrams with system matrix table will be employed to identify the relation between the systems. To elaborate the operational dynamics the OV5, in DOD architecture framework guidelines, “operational activity model” with OV2 “operational node connectivity” (Wisnosky and Vogel, 2005). Holistic engineering approach will be used in order to make a flexible system, to react to market pressures. Question 5 The major complexity of a system is the interconnectivity and information exchange of different elements of the system. For that matter “SV-1 System/services interface diagram” (Richards, 2007) of DODAF, will play a major role in simplifying the complexities involved. System nodes will be identified, as well as the system items and services will be defined, with their relationships with each other. Secondly, OV-5 “Operational activity model” (Baumgarten and Silverman, 2007, pp. 1--5) will play a major role in defining capabilities, operational activities, and cross-functional relationships. Thirdly, “SV-3 System to system matrix table” (Baker and Stewart et al., 2008) will give an overview of the interface characteristics and relations. It will aid in assessing potential commonalities and redundancies, consequently identifying the missing or lose links. 4 References 1. Baker, K., Stewart, A., Pogue, C. and Ramotar, R. 2008. Human Views: Extensions to the Department of Defense Architecture Framework. Ft. Belvoir: Defense Technical Information Center. 2. Baumgarten, E. and Silverman, S. J. 2007. Dynamic DoDAF and executable architectures. pp. 1--5. 3. Dam, S. H. 2006. DoD architecture framework. Marshall, VA: SPEC. 4. Gigerenzer, G. and Todd, P. M. 1999. Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press. 5. Griffin, L. K. 2005. Analysis and comparison of DoDAF and ZACHMAN framework for use as the architecture for the United States Coast Guard's maritime patrol (WPC). Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School. 6. Matsuo, T., Ishii, N. and Lee, R. 2010. 9th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science. Los Alamitos, Calif.: IEEE Computer Society. 7. Minoli, D. 2008. Enterprise architecture A to Z. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 8. Richards, M. G. 2007. Managing complexity with the department of defense architecture framework: Development of a dynamic system architecture model. 9. Wisnosky, D. E., Vogel, J. and Appleton, D. 2005. DoDAF Wizdom. Naperville, Ill.: Wizdom Systems, Inc. 5