The complexity and cost of aviation mission systems are increasing at an exponential rate.  These increases are due in large part to the proliferation of software-intensive capabilities and increasing demand for greater systems integration and superior performance while meeting stringent safety and security requirements.  To a large extent, the Military Services develop aviation platforms through independent procurements using a unique set of requirements implemented by a single vendor.  Today’s architectures are often a byproduct of system design. System integration activities often generate the architecture and design of a system rather than system design following architectural guidance or constraints.   

While the benefits of Open Architecture (OA) and mandates for its use have been discussed for decades, experience has shown that singularly focused architectural approaches and broad mandates to “do Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA)” have not provided the expected improvements in affordability, program schedules, and warfighting capability.  OA concepts require a more comprehensive, strategic approach to yield the desired benefit across multiple systems and domains. More government strategy, direction and control is needed over architectural development to achieve affordability, decreased time to field and increased warfighting capabilities which could be met by strategic component reuse on a wider scale within established spheres of influence.

This document introduces work executed towards the strategic comprehensive architecture approach. Work was based on the analysis and documentation of the Key Business Drivers (KBDs) and architectural drivers supporting the efficient development and sustainment of interoperable aviation mission systems driven by the customer's business needs within a predefined range of programs, systems and components by a team of current Architects and Senior Systems Engineers.  Programs implementing this approach are expected to benefit from the planned reuse of architectural artifacts for follow up systems engineering products supporting the development of reusable component product lines avoiding the long-term challenges of vendor lock.

An architecture and its development process must be deliberately managed by the organization responsible for the enterprise, family of systems or individual system, and strategically focused on the key business drivers of the organization to realize the full benefits a system provides to the enterprise or family of system business and technical objectives.

A series of Comprehensive Architecture Strategy (CAS) workshops were organized to answer a series of fundamental architecture questions and gain insight into the definitions, relationships and understandings of the CAS approach.  The resulting workshops added to the body of knowledge relative to how Key Business Drivers (KBDs), Architecture Quality Attributes (QAs) and their mechanisms relate to each other and other levels of Quality Attributes dealing with Regulatory, Design, Implementation and Performance.  The workshops identified additional areas of possible research in how to create a knowledge base which will enhance architectural advances.