In this blog, I wish to illustrate the vertical dimensions in the broad architecture I have been explaining in the last five blogs on a Defence Capability Framework - (01) to (05). Why is this "vertical" dimension so important? Well, if you are able to navigate or trace up and down within the same dimension (requirement, solution or process), then you get a very real insight into the whole "architecture" of the organisation, in this case the Australian Department of Defence.

REQUIREMENTS

Let's start at the strategic level and work down. From the overarching strategic guidance and priorities, we can develop the operational needs. We can't develop operational requirements without the context of the strategic guidance. It is this higher level context that permits an organisation to understand whether it is "doing the right thing"......whether it is being effective. It is the strategic guidance "hook" upon which the operational level requirement "can hang its hat".

The same goes for the downstream Functional Performance Specification (FPS) from the Operational Concept Document (OCD). The Functional Performance Specification (FPS) has to be developed within the context of the Operational Concept Document (OCD). If it isn't, then the operational concept won't be met or satisfied by the system developed under the auspices of the system level requirement.

I will cover (much) later the concept of "strategy and planning go downstream" versus "reporting and justification going upstream".....but...this is what is happening here. The strategy and planning has to flow downstream from the strategic level through the operational level to the system level. Moreover, the flow of reporting and/or justification must go upstream. In other words the lower level must be developed in the context of the higher level.

SOLUTIONS

The solutions space gives us the same sort of decomposition or...as you are going downstream ...increasing fidelity of the things that satisfy the various needs of the organisation. If I go from bottom to top this time for a change, we have systems being developed in the context of all the Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC). These are in turn developed in the context of Capabilities.

Why is this useful? Well it does several things:

• Firstly, it provides a degree of confidence that there is a consistency of investment from the strategic level to the system level. In other words, the overall Capabilities are in fact being supported by the required FIC and systems, whether they are in development or in-service. Further, funds spent of maintenance, is being directed into the correct systems.
• Secondly, it provides a framework for analysing and developing new solutions in response to the changing environment or in anticipation of the future environment.
• I would also say that thirdly but not lastly, it helps to ensure that funds are not expended on new systems or maintaining current or old systems that have no or little "capability impact" on the strategic situation for the country, in this case Australia. So it is a sort of "consistency check" to ensure the lower level systems upon which funds are being spent are aligned with the broader capability solutions. I suspect there is a bit of this "consistency checking" going on, but I doubt that there is an enduring "system" that evolves over time.

PROCESSES

The process dimension is fairly straight forward and increases the "vehicle" fidelity from strategic initiatives through major and minor projects to work breakdown structures (WBS).

It is in this dimension where costs of development and procurement are calculated. So it is very important for that reason alone. It is also important from a scheduling perspective.....WHEN are solutions going to be brought into existence or upgraded or removed because of which requirement. If these introduction or removal of systems get out of "synch", then we could get the "cart before the horse" ...literally.

THE VERTICAL FLOW

I won't be explicit with the "flow" up and down the various sectors as I am sure you can see it for yourself. But I would like to point out that regardless of your organisation, whether it is a government department or a business entity, having a view across the sectors is incomplete unless you have a view up and down the sectors. If you don't have a horizontal AND vertical view....you don't have an "architecture.