Enhancing Military Architectural Frameworks with Method Chunks: A Modular Approach to Agile C2-System Design

Jan Lundberg; Kent Andersson; Janis Stirna

doi:10.7250/csimq.2026-47.03

Enhancing Military Architectural Frameworks with Method Chunks: A Modular Approach to Agile C2-System Design

Authors

Jan Lundberg Swedish Defence University, Drottning Kristinas väg 37, 114 28 Stockholm, Sweden and Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Borgarfjordsgatan 12, 164 55 Kista, Sweden https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0485-6005
Kent Andersson Swedish Defence University, Drottning Kristinas väg 37, 114 28 Stockholm, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6104-5788
Janis Stirna Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Borgarfjordsgatan 12, 164 55 Kista, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3669-832X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7250/csimq.2026-47.03

Keywords:

NATO Architecture Framework (NAF), Command and Control System (C2-system), Situational Method Engineering (SME), Design Science Research (DSR), MAP-Based Formalization

Abstract

Military command and control system (C2-system) design is increasingly shaped by emerging technologies such as AI-enabled decision support, multi-sensor fusion and autonomous intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. Architecture frameworks such as the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) provide a structure for describing complex systems, but are less explicit about how to select entry points and sequence modeling activities. This article proposes a modular, context-informed framework, an extension to NAF, that combines Navigation Guidance with a repository of seven reusable Method Chunks (MCs) to support architectural design activities in a C2-system context. Using Design Science Research (DSR) as the overarching framework, this work is based on Situational Method Engineering (SME) and MAP-based formalization. A demonstration instantiates the framework for integrating a next-generation ISR capability into a C2-system. The resulting architecture and modeling activities link operational workflow to capability framing and cross-level capability dependencies and are consolidated through documentation and traceability artifacts. Collectively, the architecture supports reasoning about mission impact, capability motivation, coordination requirements, and traceability, while keeping later models anchored in a relevant operational context and workflow. The contribution of this work is methodological. The demonstration illustrates how a specific NAF-aligned modeling progression can be instantiated for an ISR integration case.

References

M. I. Handel, “Technological Surprise in War,” Intelligence and National Security, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–53, 1987.

M. Finkel, On flexibility: Recovery from Technological and Doctrinal Surprise on the Battlefield. Stanford Security Studies, 2011. Available: https://www.adlibris.com/se/bok/on-flexibility-9780804774895. Accessed on Jun. 13, 2024.

D. Phillips, “Multi-Domain Operations: Passing the Torch,” in Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, JSTOR, 2023. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep54863. Accessed on Jan. 04, 2024.

J. Lundberg, “Towards a Conceptual Framework for System of Systems,” in Proceedings of the Doctoral Consortium Papers Presented at the 35th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2023), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 3407, pp. 18–24, 2023. Available: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3407/paper3.pdf

J. Lundberg, J. Stirna, and K. Andersson, “Designing Military Command and Control Systems as System of Systems – An Analysis of Stakeholder Needs and Challenges,” in Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 14663, Springer, pp. 336–351, 2024.

E. Niewood, G. Grant, and T. Lewis, “A new battle command Architecture for Multi-Domain Operations,” 2019. Available: https://www.mitre.org/news-insights/publication/new-battle-command-architecture-multi-domain-operations. Accessed on Aug. 13, 2023.

NATO, “NATO – NATO Architecture Framework, Version 4.1.” Available: https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/publications-and-reports/NATO-Architecture-Framework-v4-1-en.pdf. Accessed on Jul. 27, 2026.

A. R. Hevner, S. T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram, “Design Science in Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 75–106, 2004.

J. Lundberg, K. Andersson, J. Ralyté, and J. Stirna, “Supporting Future Military Command- and Control (C2) System Design: Defining Method Components to Enhance the Existing Development Framework,” in ICCRTS25 – International Command and Control Research & Technology Symposium, 2025.

B. Henderson-Sellers, J. Ralyté, P. J. Ågerfalk, and M. Rossi, Situational Method Engineering. Springer, 2014.

J. Ralyté, R. Deneckère, and C. Rolland, “Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering,” in Advanced Information Systems Engineering. CAiSE 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2681, Springer, pp. 95–110, 2003.

I. Mirbel and J. Ralyté, “Situational method engineering: Combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches,” Requirements Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 58–78, 2006.

J. Ralyté, P. Backlund, H. Kühn, and M. A. Jeusfeld, “Method chunks for interoperability,” in Conceptual Modeling – ER 2006. ER 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4215, Springer, pp. 339–353, 2006.

B. Henderson-Sellers, C. Gonzalez-Perez, and J. Ralyté, “Comparison of method chunks and method fragments for situational method engineering,” in Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference, ASWEC, pp. 479–488, 2008.

DODAF – DOD Architecture Framework Version 2.02. Available: https://dodcio.defense.gov/library/dod-architecture-framework/. Accessed on Jun. 13, 2024.

The TOGAF® Standard, 10th Edition. Available: https://www.opengroup.org/togaf/10thedition. Accessed on Feb. 25, 2025.

J. Bankauskaite, “Comparative analysis of enterprise architecture frameworks,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technologies, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2470, pp. 61–64, 2019. Available: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2470/p19.pdf

H. A. H. Handley, “A Design Methodology for Fit-for-Purpose Human Views,” Systems Engineering, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 498–509, 2016.

S. Buckl, F. Matthes, and C. M. Schweda, “A Method Base for Enterprise Architecture Management,” in Engineering Methods in the Service-Oriented Context. ME 2011. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 351, Springer, pp. 34–48, 2011.

M. Farwick, C. M. Schweda, R. Breu, and I. Hanschke, “A situational method for semi-automated Enterprise Architecture Documentation,” Software & Systems Modeling, vol. 15, pp. 397–426, 2016.

E. Kornyshova and R. Deneckère, “A Proposal of a Situational Approach for Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Application to TOGAF,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 207, pp. 3493–3506, 2022.

H. D. Jørgensen, T. Liland, and S. Skogvold, “Aligning TOGAF and NAF - Experiences from the Norwegian armed forces,” Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 92, Springer, pp. 131–146, 2011.

INCOSE, Systems engineering handbook – A Guide for system life cycle processes and activities. Fourth edition. Wiley, 2015.

A. Hevner and S. Chatterjee, Design Research in Information Systems. Springer, 2010.

K. Andersson, J. Lundberg, and J. Stirna, “Emerging technology calls for a systemic view on military capability,” in Companion Proceedings of the 16th IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modeling and the 13th Enterprise Design and Engineering Working Conference: BES, DTE, FACETE, Tools & Demos, Forum, EDEN Doctoral Consortium, co-located with PoEM 2023, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 3645, 2023. Available: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3645/facete2.pdf

J. Lundberg, J. Stirna, J. Zdravkovic, and K. Andersson, “Beyond Technology: Goal-Oriented Analysis for Integrating Emerging Technologies into Military Command and Control Systems,” in 29th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, London, Sep. 2024.

J. Lundberg, S. Hacks, and K. Andersson, “Refinement of a Conceptual Model of a military C2-system through Low-Level Goal Decomposition,” in Companion Proceedings of the 17th IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modeling Forum, M4S, FACETE, AEM, Tools and Demos, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 3855, 2024. Available: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3855/forum9.pdf

J. Lundberg, K. Andersson, and J. Stirna, “Enhancing C2-Systems: Validation of Goal and Concept Models with Stakeholders,” in Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS EMMSAD 2025. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 558, Springer, pp. 353–367, 2025.

J. Lundberg, “Operationalizing Evaluation in Design Science Research: A Structured Framework for Artifact Assessment in C2-System Development,” in Companion Proceedings of the 18th IFIP Working Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modeling: PoEM Forum, Doctoral Consortium, Business Case and Tool Forum, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 4171, 2025. Available: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-4171/paper_60.pdf

S. Brinkkemper, “Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 275–280, 1996.

J. Ralyté and C. Rolland, “An approach for method reengineering,” in Conceptual Modeling – ER 2001. ER 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2224, Springer, pp. 471–484, 2001.

C. Rolland, N. Prakash, and A. Benjamen, “A multi-model view of process modelling,” Requirements Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 169–187, 1999.

C. Rolland, “Capturing System Intentionality with Maps,” in Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering, pp. 141–158, 2007.

C. Rolland and N. Prakash, “A Proposal for Context-Specific Method Engineering,” in Method Engineering, ME 1996. IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing, pp. 191–208, 1996.

J. Lundberg, J. Stirna, and K. Andersson, “Operationalizing military insights – A second report on C2-System development.” Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386328609_Operationalizing_military_insights_-A_second_report_on_C2-System_development. Accessed on Dec. 02, 2024.

M. A. Harwell, T. C. Hutchinson, J. W. P. Cropper, C. C. Harwell, and H. D. Grover, Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War. John Wiley and Sons, 1989.

U. Siebert et al., “State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3,” Value in Health, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 812–820, 2012.

P. Johannesson and E. Perjons, An Introduction to Design Science. Springer, 2014.

C. Brose, The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare. Hachette Books, 2020.

H. R. Penney, “Scale, Scope, Speed & Survivability: Winning the Kill Chain Competition,” MITCHELL INSTITUTE Policy Papers, vol. 40, 2023. Available: https://www.mitchellaerospacepower.org/app/uploads/2023/05/Scale_Scope_Speed_Survivability_-KillChain_-Policy_Paper_40-New.pdf. Accessed on Aug. 13, 2023.

A. Cockburn, Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins. Henry Holt and Co., 2015.

P. Berens, “Introduction to Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR),” in Advanced Radar Systems, Signal and Data Processing, Educational Notes RTO-EN-SET-086bis, paper 3, 2007. Available: https://publications.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Educational%20Notes/RTO-EN-SET-086bis/EN-SET-086bis-03.pdf. Accessed on Jan. 13, 2026.

J. Andress and S. Winterfeld, “Cyber Doctrine,” Cyber Warfare, pp. 53–82, 2014.

A. Dupont, “Intelligence for the Twenty-First Century,” Intelligence and National Security, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 15–39, 2006.

NATO, “Allied Joint Publication (AJP) 3.9 Joint Targeting.” Available: https://nllp.jallc.nato.int/cmnt/ciedcoi/CIED%20PUBLICATIONS/Handbooks%20and%20Doctrines/AJP%203.9.%20DOCTRINE%20OF%20JOINT%20TARGETING.pdf. Accessed on Jan. 06, 2026.

NATO, “NATO AJP-3 Joint Doctrine for the Conduct of Operations,” 2025.

NATO, “NATO AJP 3.2 Joint Doctrine for Land Operations,” 2022.

O. L. de Weck, “Technology Scouting,” in Technology Roadmapping and Development, pp. 395–424, 2022.