James N. Martin

An updated version of the international standard for Architecture Description is expected to be published in 2021 as the new version of ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010. This paper provides an overview of the key concepts defined by this standard and the rationale for them. In particular, it describes the key new concepts such as aspects and perspectives that were incorporated to bring this into alignment with current architecting and MBSE practices. These concepts are used as the basis for architecture description templates and guidelines contained in methodology documents and in architecture modeling tools.

This paper describes a workflow for creating Enterprise Architecture (EA) views in accordance with the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) standard published by the Object Management Group (OMG). This workflow will be the foundation for a new EA Guide to be published as part of the OMG standard. The nine steps of the workflow are laid out in alignment with the stakeholder domains in the UAF for producing the requisite UAF views in each of those domains. This architecture description method can be used in conjunction with processes for the conceptualization and evaluation of an architecture, and also used as the basis for an EA modeling methodology, architecture development planning, MBSE capability assessment, and modeling project organization. The Guide covers architecting of the enterprise as well as architecting (at a high level) of a major entity within the enterprise. We will provide an understanding of what the Guide will contain and how it could be used.

Model‐Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is being applied in a new way at the enterprise level for the benefit of all its major programs and business units. For an enterprise to successfully implement MBSE, it must integrate models, datasets, tools, and infrastructure with appropriate processes, methods, and standards into a comprehensive, integrated MBSE “System”. This paper describes an approach being put to practice, which leverages MBSE principles and methods to architect this MBSE System, focusing on the descriptive models that serve as the foundation for MBSE. The approach is named (MBSE)² since it uses MBSE to architect and implement the MBSE System. This (MBSE)² approach is illustrated with example models of the MBSE System, showing how these models are used to inform the architecting process, monitor agile implementation of models, and facilitate model‐based execution of SE reviews and audits.SummaryFor an enterprise to successfully implement MBSE, it must integrate models, datasets, tools, and infrastructure with appropriate processes, methods, and standards into a comprehensive, integrated MBSE System. This paper describes an approach that uses system architecting and MBSE principles and methods to architect this MBSE System, focusing on the descriptive models that serve as the foundation for MBSE. The approach has been named (MBSE)² since it uses MBSE to architect and implement the MBSE System. This (MBSE)² approach was illustrated with example models of the MBSE System, showing how system modeling tools can be used to analyze the MBSE System models to inform the architecting process, monitor the agile implementation of models, and facilitate the evolved execution of SE reviews and audits.

In the world of modeling, we are now confronted with a new problem. The richness of the tools and methods available to us now have led to an “agony of abundance” when it comes to available options for modeling a system. The recently released Unified Architecture Framework, for example, has specified 71 possible architecture views that can be created. How can systems engineering cope with all the choices? How do you effectively choose the right models? How do you determine the appropriate contents of the models you do choose? This paper presents a Problem Framing approach that facilitates selection of the right models for the job, the ones that can add the greatest value and have the greatest utility for the various potential users of these models, and those that can provide the greatest insight into system trade‐offs and successful outcomes.

The definition and characteristics of system have eluded humans for a very long time, as different people refer to the concept of system in various ways. A set of surveys conducted by us revealed seven distinct worldviews on system. We describe the surveys, analyze their results, and comment on differences between the responses. Based on the outcomes, we offer a comprehensive definition of system that can be accepted by the various worldview holders as an arrangement of parts or elements that together exhibit behavior or meaning that the individual constituents do not. Further, we present a compiled list of systemness characteristics—features that different worldview holders expect any system to exhibit. Then we present and describe the different worldviews on system, compare them with previous system definitions, and map them to five system domains. We conclude that the various system worldviews offer useful perspectives for systems engineers, who should have the flexibility to accept the fact that different worldviews may be appropriate for different situations and be ready to adopt them as necessary.