Systems of Systems - Design and Management


Published on

Describes systems of systems fundamentals and two projects related to risk management and design knowledge reuse

Published in: Technology, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Systems of Systems - Design and Management

    1. 1. Systems of Systems: Fundamentals, Design, Management Sandeep Purao , Ph.D. Associate Professor of IST Enterprise Informatics and Integration Center Standards Interest Group, Socio-technical Systems Lab
    2. 2. P O S T Environment System Sub- system Sub- system Sub- system Feedback Entropy Emergence
    3. 3. SoS: Fundamentals Purdue University, School of Engineering
    4. 4. The Evolution towards Systems of Systems Applications <ul><li>Very large number of ‘nodes’ </li></ul><ul><li>Under severe stress </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Changing users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Changing composition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Changing processes </li></ul></ul>Systems of Systems Application Integration A System of Systems
    5. 5. SoS: An Example An example of complex systems of systems at Hartford Property and Casualty (as of March 2007) Source: Gartner 2007
    6. 6. The key problem <ul><li>We have crossed a threshold where most of our large software ( and socio-technical ) systems can no longer be constructed as monoliths. </li></ul><ul><li>They are now constructed as groups of interoperating systems (as systems of systems) … made to interoperate through various forms of interfaces. </li></ul><ul><li>Fisher 2006 (SEI Tech Report), Italics Mine </li></ul>
    7. 7. Properties <ul><li>Operational independence of individual systems, </li></ul><ul><li>Managerial independence of individual systems, </li></ul><ul><li>Geographical distribution, </li></ul><ul><li>Emergent behavior, and </li></ul><ul><li>Evolutionary development </li></ul>(Sage 2001) Distinguishing between POST (plain-old systems thinking) and SoS <ul><li>The importance of ‘platform’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-> Enterprise Architecture </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. EA: An Example An example of Enterprise Architecture at UC Irvine Source: UC Irvine
    9. 9. EA as City Planning <ul><li>City Planning </li></ul><ul><li>City Master Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Transportation and Utilities Plans </li></ul><ul><li>Zoning Rules </li></ul><ul><li>Building Codes </li></ul><ul><li>Regulatory Guidance </li></ul><ul><li>Private Building Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Construction Crews </li></ul><ul><li>Enterprise Architecture </li></ul><ul><li>IT Strategic Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Major Technology Infrastructure Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Reference Architectures </li></ul><ul><li>Approved Technologies </li></ul><ul><li>IT Governance </li></ul><ul><li>Application Architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Development and Integration </li></ul>(Campbell and Mohun 2007)
    10. 10. Where does EA fit? Demand for IT Supply of IT Enterprise Architecture IT Effectiveness Gap IT Efficiency Gap Business strategy and process requirements Infrastructure, Development and Implementation Business Architecture Information Architecture Technology Architecture Application Architecture
    11. 11. CSFs for EA <ul><li>Are architecture decisions made at the right levels? </li></ul><ul><li>Are architecture outputs useful and actionable? </li></ul><ul><li>Do business/application teams support and use EA? </li></ul><ul><li>Is leadership actively supporting the effort? </li></ul><ul><li>Are architecture decisions enforced when appropriate? </li></ul><ul><li>Is the EA team skilled and is advancing its practices? </li></ul>(Campbell and Mohun 2007)
    12. 12. Measuring EA Value Example Metrics EA Benefit Show EA driven shared infrastructure enabled faster project deployment (case studies) Rapid change enabled Matrix business strategies to projects, show percent of &quot;business aligned&quot; projects (or investments) Improved alignment of IT with the business Show cases where new tech was NOT adopted; some where it was Business-driven introduction of new technology Show use of EA guidance to impact projects (investments) moving forward (qualitative) Direction and guidance for future investments Show quantity of new apps that use implemented shared infrastructure services Better leverage shared infrastructure Show fewer total # standard technologies/products (plus see integration for specific example) Reduction of needless complexity Count them, capture revenue (or other business value) associated with them and aggregate More-effective linkage with external systems Present common before scare and after EAI diagram; count change in # interfaces; # new apps integrated into overall portfolio (versus before) Improved integration between systems Reuse and repeat of common designs speeds decision making in projects: show less time to complete design, deliver successful project Reduced IT solution delivery time
    13. 13. SoS: Building <ul><li>We have crossed a threshold where most of our large software ( and socio-technical ) systems can no longer be constructed as monoliths. They are now constructed as groups of interoperating systems (as systems of systems) … made to interoperate through various forms of interfaces. </li></ul><ul><li>Unfortunately, while we can easily conceive these large systems of systems, we have trouble building them </li></ul>
    14. 14. The key role of ‘Process’ Services Processes Value Chain Legacy App ERP Module Adapted and extended from: IDS Scheer AG
    15. 15. BPMN (White 2006 – IBM and
    16. 16. A key Design Abstraction <ul><li>Interaction Patterns as Design Knowledge </li></ul>(Hohpe and Woolfe 2004)
    17. 17. ID Assist: Research Prototype (Umapathy and Purao 2007)
    18. 18. Evaluation Results Support to use Design Knowledge Complexity of Design Task Designer Expertise Design Quality Design Effort + _ (Umapathy and Purao 2007) Yes Yes
    19. 19. SoS: Project Risk Service-oriented Integration Service-oriented Development Business Process Design Service Lifecycle Infrastructure Standards Service Model Governance Process Portfolio Management Enterprise Transformation Application Portolios Project-by- Project Project Risks
    20. 20. Research on ISD Risks (Adapted from Mathiassen 2003 and Purao and Mathiassen 2004)
    21. 21. <ul><li>Levels </li></ul><ul><li>External context </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational context </li></ul><ul><li>Technology context </li></ul><ul><li>Project context </li></ul>Evolving SoS Characterizing SoS Risks Scott and Vessey 2002
    22. 22. A pilot study <ul><li>Focus: SoS project risks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Participants: two organizations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Status of integration project </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Imminent or ongoing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Method: Focus groups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple stakeholders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Audio-recorded </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extensive notes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cleaned up and analyzed </li></ul></ul>(Purao 2006, Mathiassen 2006)
    23. 23. Pilot study results External Organizational Info System Project Management Users Developers Management is aware of more risks than Users or Developers. However, it is the Developers and Users, who will have access to the detailed information needed to track events and manage risks. (Purao, Smith and Paul 2007)
    24. 24. Pilot study results Event Perception by Developers Perception by Management Perception by Users Loss of jobs Lack of training Lack of defined processes The same event is perceived differently by different groups of stakeholders
    25. 25. Highlighting selective phases Planning Design Implement’n Operational Management Users Developers Everyone concerned about Implementation stage. Not even the developers seem concerned about Design. Broad stages in the project
    26. 26. Pilot study results <ul><li>Realization of the scale, complexity of the project </li></ul><ul><li>Non-specificity of perceived risks </li></ul><ul><li>Isolated pockets of over-confidence </li></ul><ul><li>An a-ha recognition of risks </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Hope someone is dealing with this’ </li></ul><ul><li>Recognition of the socio-technical consequences </li></ul><ul><li>Quick digression into blaming other stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Calls for decision-makers to ‘pay attention’ to actors </li></ul>
    27. 27. Summary <ul><li>SoS as the New Normal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>instead of POST </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Patterns of Interacting Systems as a new Design Abstraction for building SoS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>instead of Algorithms or Components </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Risks for SoS Projects: Distributed, Emergent </li></ul><ul><ul><li>not well-researched or well-understood </li></ul></ul>
    28. 28. Our research <ul><li>Zhao, L., Goul, M., Purao, S. , Vitharana, P.. 2007. Impacts of service-oriented computing on business and education. Panel at Americas Conference on Information Systems. </li></ul><ul><li>Robinson, W., and Purao , S. 2007. Specifying and monitoring commitments in open business processes. Paper under review. </li></ul><ul><li>K. Umapathy, Purao , S. 2007. Exploring Alternatives for Representing and Accessing Design Knowledge about Enterprise Integration. International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Auckland, New Zealand. 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>Purao , S., Paul, S., and Smith, S. 2007. Understanding enterprise integration project risks: A focus group study. International Workshop on Enterprise Information Systems Engineering 2007. Regensburg, Germany 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>K. Umapathy, Purao , S. 2007. Towards a theoretical foundation for web services. IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC) Salt Lake City, Utah. 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>Xiaocong, F. Umapathy, K. Yen, J. Purao , S. 2004. An Agent-based Approach for Interleaved Composition and Execution of Complex Web Services. 23rd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Shanghai, China. </li></ul><ul><li>Cameron , B., Purao , S. 2006. Enterprise Systems & Integration Education: Innovative Approaches Utilizing Experience-based Learning. 1st International workshop on Enterprise Systems. Milwaukee, WI. </li></ul><ul><li>Bagby, J., Purao , S., P. Mitra. 2006. Standards Development, Disruptive Innovation and the Nature of Participation: Lock-In, Lock-Out, Holdup. 34th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC), Washington, DC. </li></ul><ul><li>Umapathy, K. Purao , S. Sugumaran, V. 2003. Facilitating Conversations among Web Services as Speech-act based Discourses. 13th Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems. Seattle, WA. </li></ul>