System of Systems: What They Are and How to Engineer Them
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

System of Systems: What They Are and How to Engineer Them

on

  • 758 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
758
Views on SlideShare
758
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • There is Another Cone of Uncertainty: Shorter increments are better Uncertainties in competition and technology evolution and changes in organizations and mission priorities, can wreak havoc with the best of system development programs. In addition, the longer the development cycle, the more likely it will be that several of these uncertainties or changes will occur and make the originally-defined system obsolete. Therefore, planning to develop a system using short increments helps to ensure that early, high priority capabilities can be developed and fielded and changes can be more easily accommodated in future increments.

System of Systems: What They Are and How to Engineer Them System of Systems: What They Are and How to Engineer Them Presentation Transcript

  • System of Systems: What They Are and How to Engineer Them Jo Ann Lane jolane at usc.edu 24 May 2010
  • Overview
    • SoS context and key challenges
    • SoSE strategies
      • Incremental commitment and evolution
      • Lean principles
      • Engineering cost estimation
      • Engineering and management artifacts
      • Test and evaluation
      • SysML modeling for SoS
    • Future plans
    • Acknowledgements
  • What is a “System of Systems”?
    • Very large systems using a framework or architecture to integrate constituent systems (CSs)
    • Exhibits emergent behavior not otherwise achievable by CSs
    • SoS CSs
      • Independently developed and managed
      • New or existing systems in various stages of development/evolution
      • May include a significant number of COTS products
      • Have their own purpose
      • Can dynamically come and go from SoS
    • Typical domains
      • Military/Crisis Response: Dynamic communications infrastructure
      • Business: Enterprise-wide and cross-enterprise integrations
    Based on Mark Maier’s SoS definition [Maier, 1998] Net - Centric SoS Net-Centric Connectivity Laboratory System Imaging Management System Pharmacy System Patient Management System Telemetry System Health Care Network
  • SoS Taxonomy
    • Virtual [Maier, 1998]
      • Lacks a central management authority and a clear SoS purpose
    • Collaborative [Maier, 1998]
      • CS engineering teams work together, but no overarching SoSE team to guide
    • Acknowledged [Dahmann, 2008]
      • Have recognized objectives, a designated manager, and resources at the SoS level (SoSE team)
    • Directed [Maier, 2008]
      • SoS centrally managed by a government, corporate, or Lead System Integrator (LSI) and built to fulfill specific purposes
  • Example: SoSE (Directed) Source Selection ● ● ● Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop Operation Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop Operation Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop Operation Operation Develop Operation Operation Operation System A System B System C System x LCO-type Proposal & Feasibility Info Candidate Supplier/ Strategic Partner n ● ● ● Candidate Supplier/ Strategic Partner 1 SoS-Level Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop FCR 1 DCR 1 Operation OCR 1 Rebaseline/ Adjustment FCR 1 OCR 2                            OCR x1 FCR B DCR B OCR B1 FCR A DCR A FCR C DCR C OCR C1 OCR x2 OCR x3 OCR x4 OCR x5 OCR C2 OCR B2 OCR A1
  • Example: SoSE (Acknowledged) Source Selection? Existing collaborative SoS? ● ● ● Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop Operation Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop Operation Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop Operation Operation Develop Operation Operation Operation System A System B System C System x Candidate Supplier/ Strategic Partner n ● ● ● Candidate Supplier/ Strategic Partner 1 SoS-Level Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop FCR 1 DCR 1 Operation OCR 1 Rebaseline/ Adjustment FCR 1 OCR 2                            OCR x1 FCR B DCR B OCR B1 FCR A DCR A FCR C DCR C OCR C1 OCR x2 OCR x3 OCR x4 OCR x5 OCR C2 OCR B2 OCR A1
  • Example: SoSE (Collaborative) ● ● ● Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop Operation Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop Operation Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop Operation Operation Develop Operation Operation Operation System A System B System C System x SoS-Level Valuation Exploration Architecting Develop FCR 1 DCR 1 Operation OCR 1 Rebaseline/ Adjustment FCR 1 OCR 2                            OCR x1 FCR B DCR B OCR B1 FCR A DCR A FCR C DCR C OCR C1 OCR x2 OCR x3 OCR x4 OCR x5 OCR C2 OCR B2 OCR A1 X
  • SoSE Activities and Challenges for “Acknowledged” SoS
    • Key challenges
      • Focusing CSs on SoS needs and capabilities
      • Coordinating development of new capabilities across CSs
      • Creating SoS roadmap to guide CS activities
      • Testing SoS capabilities in an asynchronous development environment
    • SoSE Guidebook* view based on interviews and analysis of 18 DoD SoSs in various stages:
      • Communications systems
      • Command and control systems
      • Integrated combat systems
      • Ballistic missile defense systems
      • Intelligence information systems
      • Space-related systems
    * http://www.acq.osd.mil/sse/docs/SE-Guide-for-SoS.pdf Translating capability objectives Translating capability objectives Translating capability objectives Addressing new requirements & options Addressing new requirements & options Addressing requirements & solution options Understanding systems & relationships (includes plans) Understanding systems & relationships (includes plans) Understanding systems & relationships External Environment Developing, evolving and maintaining SoS design/arch Developing, evolving and maintaining SoS design/arch Developing & evolving SoS architecture Assessing (actual) performance to capability objectives Assessing (actual) performance to capability objectives Assessing performance to capability objectives Orchestrating upgrades to SoS Orchestrating upgrades to SoS Orchestrating upgrades to SoS Monitoring & assessing changes Monitoring & assessing changes Monitoring & assessing changes
  • SoSE Core Element Description
    • Translating Capability Objectives
      • Starts with an SoS need or new capability
      • Works to understand new capability and alternatives for providing it
    • Understanding Systems and Their Relationships
      • Collects and maintains information about current state of the SoS and its CSs
    • Assessing Performance to Capability Objectives
      • Evaluation of current performance and how performance meets current and future needs
    • Developing/Evolving SoS Architecture
      • Evaluation of existing SoS architecture and identification of alternatives to mitigate limitations and improve performance
    • Monitoring and Assessing Changes
      • Monitoring of CS non-SoS changes
    • Addressing Requirements and Solution Options
      • Evaluation/prioritization of SoS reqs
      • Evaluation of solution options and selection of option
    • Orchestrating Upgrades
      • Oversight activity to monitor progress of the CS SoS capability upgrades and mitigate obstacles
  • Current System Acquisition Methods Easy to misinterpret as one-size-fits-all
    • V-Model 1
    • Spiral Model 2
    High level guidance assumes that acquirers have extensive acquisition experience... Without experience, too easy to misinterpret and auger in with disastrous results... 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Model 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_model
  • Typical Acquisition Process
    • Aircraft pilot coming off a cargo plane is assigned to manage/ oversee the acquisition of a new aircraft subsystem
      • Excellent understanding of aircraft personnel needs
      • No experience with system/software development
      • Conditioned to plan the flight and fly the plan
      • Tends to interpret V-model diagram sequentially
      • Tends to interpret spiral diagram as one-size-fits-all
      • Leading to
          • Excessive complexity and confusion
          • Missed budgets and schedules
  • Rapid Change Creates a Late Cone of Uncertainty – Need incremental vs. one-shot development Uncertainties in competition, technology, organizations, mission priorities
  • SoSE Synchronization Challenges O&S PD EMD ● ● ● Constituent System n (pre-existing)       TD MSA New System A Constituent System B (pre-existing)          MS A MS B MS C Increment m Increment n-1 SoS SE Level* Increment m+1 Increment n Increment n+1   
  • SoSE Process Strategies: Incremental Commitment Model for SoS Clear “battle rhythm” for SoS incremental upgrades, driven by prioritized backlog of needed capabilities…. Constituent systems use their own lifecycle upgrade processes to integrate SoS requirements into their own incremental upgrade….
  • SoSE Incremental Approach to Capability Synchronization O&S PD EMD ● ● ● Constituent System n (pre-existing)       TD MSA New System A Constituent System B (pre-existing)          MS A MS B MS C Increment m Increment n-1 SoS SE Level* Increment m+1 Increment n Increment n+1    Key to rapid development of SoS capabilities: Short constituent system increments…
    • Holistic view across SoS, focus on long term goals
    • Guided by prioritized stakeholder capability needs
    • Continuous learning organization
      • Monitoring and assessing changes
      • Assessing performance to capability objectives
    • SoSE “battle rhythm”
      • Make decisions slowly by consensus
      • Consider all options
      • Continuous process flow through concurrent engineering
      • “ Pull” CS engineering knowledge as needed
      • Implement rapidly
      • Level the workload—use systems with available “bandwidth”
    • Minimize waste by
      • Avoiding duplication of engineering efforts at CS level
      • Eliminating none-valuing adding engineering activities
    • Respect and challenge suppliers (CS engineering teams)
    Initial Lean Indicators in SoSE
    • Minimize waste
    • Be responsive to change
    • Right thing at the right place, at the right time, and in the right quantity
    • Effective relationships (people and organizations) with the value stream
    • Continuously improve processes and products
    • Focus on quality from the beginning
    Objectives of Lean Enterprise Principles* * E. Murman, et al., Lean Enterprise Value: Insights from MIT’s Lean Aerospace Initiative. New York , NY: Palgrave, 2002
  • SoSE Process Strategies: Incorporation of Lean Enterprise Principles SoSE guided by LAI Lean Enterprise 4 Grand Questions Lean Enterprise 4 Grand Questions mapped to SoSE core elements…. Lean Enterprise 4 Grand Questions mapped to DoD SoSE case studies…. SoSE Core Element Lean Enterprise Grand Questions Stakeholder Considerations Holistic Enterprise View Q1: Understand Current Q2: Future Possibilities Q3: Strategies and Tactics for Future Q4: Change Process Translating Capability Objectives X X X Understanding Systems and Relationships X X X Assessing Performance to Capability Objectives X X X X Developing and Evolving an SoS Architecture X X X X Monitoring and Assessing Changes X X X X Addressing Requirements and Solution Options X X X X Orchestrating Upgrades to SoS X X X
  • SoSE Process Strategies: Engineering Cost Estimation System Capability CS 1 SoSE contribution effort SoSE effort Equivalent set of “ sea-level” requirements Conversion to COSYSMO size units Calculations based on SoS characteristics/size and capability implementation approach using COSYSMO algorithm CS n SoSE contribution effort • • • SoSE Effort Applies reuse factors, different cost factors for each engineering organization at each system level, and diseconomy of scale for SoS and CS-level requirements implemented in the same upgrade cycle….
  • SoSE Process Strategies: Artifacts Focus is on “value-adding” data and information… Many artifacts can also be characterized as key boundary objects between SoS and constituent system levels…
  • SoSE Process Strategies: Test and Evaluation
    • Key strategies
      • SoSE team/framework responsible for SoS-level testing
      • Build on CS-level testing
      • Use of test ranges and operational testing
      • Risk and evidence-based approach
      • Focus on
          • SoS capabilities
          • Network
          • Interoperability
          • Emergent behaviors
      • Performance assessment over time
      • Feedback process for fielded SoS
  • SysML Models that Support SoS Engineering Needs
    • Object classes
      • Characterize each SoS CS and its capabilities
    • Interface classes
      • Describe each CS interface
    • Input/output entity classes
      • Express the associated data attributes of each data item transferred over that interface
    • Use cases
      • Characterize both CS and SoS capabilities from the different user perspectives
    • Sequence diagrams
      • Characterize and analyze the operational flow for an SoS capability
    • Logical data models
      • Details about available information within each CS
  • SysML Modeling for SoS: Regional Area Crisis Response SoS (RACRS) Context Diagram Scenario Use Cases Scenario Sequence Diagram Interface Class I/O Entities I/O Entities By Actor
  • Future SoSE Research Plans
    • Conduct deeper dives into
      • Lean lens analysis
      • Test and evaluation analysis
      • SoSE artifacts
      • SoS architecture evolution
      • RACRS model development and analysis techniques
    • SoSE cost model
      • Incorporate additional cost factors into COSYSMO to capture additional SoS characteristics and non-traditional SE effort
      • Evaluate impacts of insufficient SE at SoS level on rework
      • Break out SoSE effort
        • Planning
        • Implementation
        • SoS-level testing
  • Acknowledgements
    • DoD Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E)
      • Stevens-USC Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) support
      • SoS case study work that has provided considerable engineering insights into SoSE
    • LAI for their research into lean enterprise concepts
    • Dr. Ricardo Valerdi’s COSYSMO cost model upon which the SoSE cost model is based
  • References
    • Dahmann, J. and K. Baldwin. 2008. Understanding the current state of US defense systems of systems and the implications for systems engineering. Proceedings of the IEEE Systems Conference , April 7-10, in Montreal, Canada.
    • Dahmann, J., G. Rebovich, J. Lane, and R. Lowry. 2010. System engineering artifacts for SoS. Proceedings of the IEEE Systems Conference , 5-8 April, in San Diego, CA.
    • Dahmann, J., J. Lane, G. Rebovich, and R. Lowry. 2010. System of systems test and evaluation challenges. Proceedings of the IEEE System of Systems Engineering Co nference, 22-24 June, in Loughborough, UK.
    • Department of Defense. 2008. Systems e ngineering guide for system of systems, version 1.0.
    • Lane, J. and R. Valerdi. 2010. How to Accelerate Understanding and Optimization of System of Systems Engineering through Lean Enterprise Principles, IEEE Systems Conference.
    • Lane, J. and T. Bohn. 2010. Using SySML to evolve systems of systems. USC CSSE Technical Report USC-CSSE-2010-506.
    • Maier, M. 1998. Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Systems Engineering 1, no. 4: 267-284.
    • Valerdi, R. 2005. Constructive systems engineering cost model . PhD. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
    • Valerdi, R. and M. Wheaton. 2005. ANSI/EIA 632 as a standardized WBS for COSYSMO, AIAA-2005-7373, Proceedings of the AIAA 5th Aviation, Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference , Arlington, Virginia.
    • Wang, G., R. Valerdi, A. Ankrum, C. Millar, and G. Roedler. 2008. COSYSMO reuse extension, Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Symposium of INCOSE , The Netherlands.
    Most of these papers can be found at: http://csse.usc.edu/csse/TECHRPTS/