Thank you for a very interesting read. I wonder is there any word on an update to 2024’s “Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision For Canada’s Defence” where these principals can be articulated.
The world has changed since that document came out. The government’s view on defence has changed significantly. We need a defence paper like yesterday. We are going to spend billions on subs. Both proponents offer different capabilities, but there is no up-to-date document outlining what capabilities the navy should have.
Do you think that a public-facing National Security Strategy document produced by PCO with departmental input would help to clarify these principles and provide guidance to departments? Could a document like that also serve to provide guidance and reassurance to the public and journalists and help build a better understanding of our core defense strategies? I imagine a document like that could either be quite useful or quite useless depending on how diplomatically it is, and perhaps more or less risky to create.
I think you can certainly do capability-based planning with certain principles as factors to consider in the planning process. We should not in principle buy less capable equipment just to avoid buying from the US.
What you are describing is called Enterprise Architecture in the systems world. There is an entire discipline around this and has a major formal process called TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework - Cap Gemini and USDOD derived). It mandates all the requirements that you have stated (starting with vision and principles) and has the advantage that there are many practitioners that are TOGAF certified both within the Government, but also from many consulting outfits (beware the consultant though!). The method great, because it is cooperative, iterative, and consensus based. And can be fast! Talk with some of the IT architecture folks that you know (or get to know them) and watch them get fired up. The defence of Canada is a large system, why not treat it as one?
Thank you for a very interesting read. I wonder is there any word on an update to 2024’s “Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision For Canada’s Defence” where these principals can be articulated.
The world has changed since that document came out. The government’s view on defence has changed significantly. We need a defence paper like yesterday. We are going to spend billions on subs. Both proponents offer different capabilities, but there is no up-to-date document outlining what capabilities the navy should have.
Do you think that a public-facing National Security Strategy document produced by PCO with departmental input would help to clarify these principles and provide guidance to departments? Could a document like that also serve to provide guidance and reassurance to the public and journalists and help build a better understanding of our core defense strategies? I imagine a document like that could either be quite useful or quite useless depending on how diplomatically it is, and perhaps more or less risky to create.
A well crafted NSS could do it.
I think you can certainly do capability-based planning with certain principles as factors to consider in the planning process. We should not in principle buy less capable equipment just to avoid buying from the US.
What you are describing is called Enterprise Architecture in the systems world. There is an entire discipline around this and has a major formal process called TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework - Cap Gemini and USDOD derived). It mandates all the requirements that you have stated (starting with vision and principles) and has the advantage that there are many practitioners that are TOGAF certified both within the Government, but also from many consulting outfits (beware the consultant though!). The method great, because it is cooperative, iterative, and consensus based. And can be fast! Talk with some of the IT architecture folks that you know (or get to know them) and watch them get fired up. The defence of Canada is a large system, why not treat it as one?