Aligning TOGAF and NAF - Experiences from the Norwegian Armed Forces

  • Håvard D. Jørgensen
  • Tore Liland
  • Stein Skogvold
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 92)


This paper reports on experiences from establishing a reference architecture framework for the Norwegian Armed Forces. Like a number of other nations and NATO agencies, the armed forces chose TOGAF as their architecture development methodology (ADM), and the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) for metamodel and content organization. In order to make TOGAF and NAF work together and address the particular requirements of the armed forces, significant adaptation was required. Previous work has analyzed the combination of TOGAF and military frameworks on the high level, but no detailed mapping between TOGAF 9 and the NAF, DoDAF, or MODAF architecture content frameworks were available. Such a mapping is presented here. The resulting framework has been implemented as a set of UML profiles, and as the content structure for the national military architecture repository. It has been applied by a number of initiatives, ranging from enterprise capability maps to technical interoperability between systems and acquisition projects.


Architecture frameworks TOGAF NAF 


  1. 1.
    Department of Defense, Department of Defense Architecture Framework version 2.0 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hi-Q Systems: TOGAF to MODAF mapping (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jørgensen, H.D., Ohren, O.P.: Achieving Enterprise Interoperability through the Model-based Architecture Framework for Enterprises. In: Enterprise modelling and ontologies for Interoperability Workshop (EMOI), CAiSE, Riga, Latvia (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jørgensen, H.D.: Enterprise modeling – What We Have Learned, and What We Have Not. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 3–7. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework version 1.2.004 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    NATO NC3 Board: Compendium of NNEC-Related Architectures (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    NATO NC3 Board: RFCP Regarding NAF v.3.1, Chapter 5, (March 1, 2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    NATO NC3 Board: NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) v.3, appendix 1 to annex 1 to AC/322-D (2007) 0048 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OIO Architecture Guide,
  10. 10.
    Object Management Group: Unified Profile for the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) and the Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF), v. 2.0 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9, standard (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The Open Group: The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) and the US Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF), white paper (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Open Group: The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF 9) and the US Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF), white paper, rev (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Håvard D. Jørgensen
    • 1
  • Tore Liland
    • 2
  • Stein Skogvold
    • 3
  1. 1.Commitment ASLysakerNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Defence Logistics OrganizationBærumNorway
  3. 3.Acando ASOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations