This model describes the AV-1 DoDAF-described model for SINERGY architecture. The AV-1 model serves as a point of reference for the entire architecture specification. It provides a high-level summary of architecture information pertinent to all viewpoints.
This model consists of the following main sections:
The AV-1 should be used as a guide to understand the high-level objectives of SINERGY architecture. The list of DoDAF-described models listed herein provides detailed documentation of the architecture.
This architecture is designed to support the SINERGY key goal of providing situational awareness, security control, and emergency response management capabilities in open campus environments.
Name: SINERGY Architecture
Version: version 1.0
Completion status: under development
Completion date: 04/01/2010
Project start date: 09/01/2009
Project end date: 04/01/2011
Estimated effort: 1.5 man-years
Lead Architect: Amine Chigani, achigani@vt.edu
Supervisor: Osman Balci, balci@vt.edu
Tools used: Microsoft Office 2010, IBM Rational System Architect v.11.3 Microsoft Visio 2010, Micromedia Dreamweaver 8, Adobe Professional 9
File formats used: docx, vsd, mdb, html, png, jpeg, pdf, emf
SINERGY architecture specification consists of 24 DoDAF-described models namely:
1. |
AV-1 | Architecture Overview and Summary |
2. |
AV-2 | Integrated Dictionary |
3. |
CV-1 | Vision for the Architecture Capabilities |
4. |
CV-2 | Capability Taxonomy |
5. |
CV-4 | Capability Dependencies |
6. |
CV-6 | Capability to Operational Activities Mapping |
7. |
CV-7 | Capability to Services Mapping |
8. |
DIV-1 | Conceptual Data Model |
9. |
OV-1 | ERM Operational Model |
10. |
OV-1 | ERM Operational Model |
11. |
OV-2 | ERM Operational Resource Flow Description |
12. |
OV-2 | SA & SC Operational Resource Flow Description |
13. |
OV-4a | Organizational Relationships Chart |
14. |
OV-4b | Role-Based Organizational Relationships Chart |
15. |
OV-5a | ERM Operational Activity Decomposition Tree |
16. |
OV-5a | SA & SC Operational Activity Decomposition Tree |
17. |
OV-5b | ERM Operational Activity Model |
18. |
OV-5b | SA & SC Operational Activity Model |
19. |
StdV-1 | Standards Profile |
20. |
SV-1a | System Context Model |
21. |
SV-1b | Systems Interface Description |
22. |
SV-2 | Systems Resource Flow Description |
23. |
SV-3 | Systems-Systems Matrix |
24. |
SV-4 | Systems Functionality Taxonomy |
25 |
SV-5b | Operational Activity to Systems Traceability Matrix |
26 |
SvcV-1a | SOA Conceptual Layers |
27 |
SvcV-1b | SINERGY SOA-Based Architecture |
28 |
SvcV-1 | Services Context Description |
29 |
SvcV-2 | Services Resource Flow Description |
30 |
SvcV-3a | Systems-Services Matrix |
31 |
SvcV-4 | Services Categorization |
32 |
SvcV-5 | Operational Activity to Services Traceability Matrix |
SINERGY architecture specification was developed primarily to guide decision-makers on university campuses make acquisition decisions and develop strategies regarding the provision and maintenance of safety within their campuses. The architecture provides a university-wide solution to balancing openness and safety within campus environments through capabilities that enable security control, situational awareness, and emergency response management. It takes into consideration state and federal standards and is compliant with the Incident Command System (ICS).
In addition, SINERGY architecture specification was developed to understand the true requirements of the issues relating to campus safety and emergency management. It provides a blueprint to guide the design, development, and deployment of systems that can be used across open campuses to provide security control, situational awareness, and emergency response management capabilities.
Finally, a successful demonstration of the effectiveness of SINERGY architecture through architecture evaluation leads to implementations of software-based, network-centric systems of systems enabling institutions to be prepared to respond to man-made tragedies on their campuses. The impact can reach millions of students, faculty, and staff in thousands of colleges, universities, and other open campus environments.
Table 1 lists the IUs of SINERGY architecture specification models. We categorize these IUs by stakeholder categories.
|
Developers |
|
|---|---|
1 |
Establishing interoperability and integration guidelines for SINERGY component systems |
2 |
Evaluation of how the architecture specification enables SINERGY to exhibit its required quality characteristics |
3 |
Evaluation of the soundness of architecture decisions and their impact on SINERGY development |
4 |
Input to the Design Process of SINERGY life cycle |
5 |
Guide to the deployment, maintenance, and evolution of SINERGY |
6 |
Reusable abstraction for developing systems that exhibit similar functional and quality characteristics to those of SINERGY |
Managers and Decision Makers |
|
7 |
Means of communication among all SINERGY stakeholders |
8 |
Evaluation of the adherence of SINERGY operational models to established campus emergency, privacy, and legal guidelines |
9 |
Training personnel with responsibilities related to campus situational awareness, security control, and emergency response management |
10 |
Gap analysis between existing and planned SINERGY capabilities |
11 |
Supporting decision makers devise an acquisition strategy of SINERGY capabilities |
12 |
Identification of performers, organizational units, and locations related SINERGY operations |
13 |
Contractual reference between decision makers and potential providers of SINERGY component systems |
The history of university, college, and high school campuses is eventful with man-made tragedies ensuing a tremendous loss of life and property. Virginia Tech’s April 16 shooting [VT 2007] ignited the discussion about balancing openness and safety in open campus environments. Decision-makers face the challenge to ensure that their campuses provide an open learning environment and at the same time safe. Existing technology solutions are characterized by addressing bits and pieces of the problem (e.g. electronic notification systems). Without a comprehensive, innovative understanding of the requirements for an institution-wide solution that enables effective security control and efficient emergency response, the proposed solutions fall short from the desired outcomes.
The first step toward an effective solution is to understand the operating environment. The scope of SINERGY architecture is confined to an open campus environment, where access to campus facilities is generally open to faculty, staff, students, and campus visitors. Shared campus facilities include the gym, athletic facilities, library, hallways, cafeterias, administrative office buildings, and residential halls. Figure 1 depicts an overview of the facilities in an open campus environment.
Figure 1: AV-1 SINERGY operating context
SINERGY architecture provides a holistic view that addresses the problem by decomposing it into three major areas of interests:
In other words, a safe and open campus environment can be realized through a system that enables the creation of a common operating picture (COP) of the campus environment shared by all campus entities (i.e., situational awareness). Having a common picture of what goes on campus at any point in time is key to enabling effective security control measures to be put in place (i.e., security control). Finally, common situational awareness and effective security control lay the foundation for an efficient and effective emergency response management in the case of an emergency.
The SINERGY architecture describes a solution that will exist within a larger set of business rules that guide the day-to-day operation of a university campus. Educational institutions are required to comply with state and federal regulations in the preparation for emergencies and establishment of contingency plans for responding to threats that could harm personnel, faculty, students, or property.
The development of SINERGY architecture is guided by the following references:
SINERGY is developed as part of a research conducted at the computer science department, Virginia Tech, by Amine Chigani and Osman Balci. The developers of this architecture permit the unlimited reuse and distribution of part or all of the architecture for non-commercial purposes, provided that clear attribution to the original authors is specified.
Balci, O. and W.F. Ormsby (2008), “Network-Centric Military System Architecture Assessment Methodology,” International Journal of System of Systems Engineering 1, 1-2, 271-292.
DoDAF (2009a), “DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.0 Volume I: Introduction, Overview, and Concepts - Manager’s Guide,” Architecture Framework Working Group, Washington, DC.
DoDAF (2009b), “DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.0 Volume II: Architectural Data and Models - Architect’s Guide,” Architecture Framework Working Group, Washington, DC.
DoDAF (2009c), “DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.0 Volume III: DoDAF Meta-model Physical Exchange Specification - Developer’s Guide,” Architecture Framework Working Group, Washington, DC.
FEMA (2010), “Incident Command System (ICS),” Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/ICSResource/assets/reviewMaterials.pdf
VT (2007), “The We Remember Website,” Virginia Tech, http://www.weremember.vt.edu
