Systems of systems engineering and the pragmatics of demand

1. Systems of Systems Engineering and the Pragmatics of Demand Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Philip Boxer, Bernie Cohen, Bill Anderson, Ed Morris 9th April 2008 Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 1

2. The focus of the talk Q1: How do we analyse systems of systems that do not have pre-defined boundaries? Q2: How do (socio-technical) systems of systems align themsleves to changing varieties of demand? – Healthcare systems – Edge-driven military systems A (1 and 2): By understanding how the pragmatics of demand translate into geometries-of-use – Geometries-of-use are particular patterns of interoperation – The agility of a SoS is a function of the variety of geometries it can support Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 2

3. The US DoD perception of the evolution of SoS Source: US DoD Enterprise Architecture Technical Reference Model [v0.04 dated 20 August 2005, http://www.defenselink.mil/cio-nii/docs/DOD_TRM_V0.4_10Aug.pdf] Organizational silos Process Chains Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 3

5. Organisation affects semantics in unpredictable ways Each represents the engineering of a meaning in terms of the particular way it is implemented Understanding the meaning depends on understanding exactly how it has been implemented layer 1: Machine Level Interoperability (lexis) layer 4: Organizational Interoperability (shared understanding of organizational processes) layer 3: Semantic Interoperability (shared understanding of meaning) layer 2: Syntactic Interoperability (language syntax) Eg TCP/IP protocol Eg C++, Java, XML Often domain specific Key here is the way things are understood to be actionable Standards try to base semantic issues on syntax – if you say it like this, then this is what you must mean… Standards are not enough Source: Why standards are not enough to Guarantee End-to-End Interoperability, Lewis et al, 2008 Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 5

6. The layers read into a particular context Stratification layers We have some missing layers… 1: Machine Level Interoperability (lexis) 2: Syntactic Interoperability (language syntax) 3: Semantic Interoperability (shared understanding of meaning) 4: Organisational Interoperability (shared understanding of organizational processes) 5: Situational Interoperability (the way a situation is engaged with) 6: Effects Environment (the contexts-of-use in which effects are created) effect decisive moment composite capability operational capability fielded capability equipment capability Engineering constraints ‘supply-side’ pragmatic constraints ‘demand-side’ The size of this overlap depends on how over- determining are the engineering constraints Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 6

7. Modeling SoS Complexity in Context  Visual PAN† Models—a layered, graphically represented, relational model whose schema is identified by the study team and which is populated by subject matter experts in a workshop setting Analysis is done in Three Stages: † PAN (Projective ANalysis) is used with permission of BRL. Defining this stratification involves modeling the forms of interoperability defining a system of systems (SoS) involved in the launch of a NATO modernization program.... …. Including the many ground and airborne systems and diverse organizations (as virtual systems) required to operate and sustain the NATO AWACS fleet.     Interoperability Landscapes—3-D histograms, derived by the study team from the PAN Matrices considered as simplicial complexes, which are the primary representation for reasoning back to the stakeholder community  Stratification Matrices—a stratified collection of Boolean matrices, derived from the Visual PAN Models by relational operators defined by the study team, that relate the supply side and demand side structures of the client's enterprise Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 7

8. a campaign plan Decisive Moments 6: Effects6 Composition to Achieve Effects We can think of this stratification as a stepped series of matrices: ‘supply- side’ ‘demand-side’ Composite Capabilitiesa mission 5 Synchronization Operational Capabilities a geometry of use 4 a force elementFielded Capabilities 3 Customization Orchestration an activity chain Equipment Capabilities 1 2 Value-chain management Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 8

10. Demand – what are the effects being supported? Problem domain Drivers of situations Situation 3 Situation 1 impacts on context-independent demand impacts on c-level Knowledgedomain The particular mission environment mission Uses composite capabilities Demand Situation A (an overall threat situation) Demand Situation B (an overall threat situation) Situation 4 Situation 2 context-independent demand Situation 5 mission mission mission mission Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 10

11. Matrix 6: An effects ladder (Isolate the Battlefield) (Deny Access) Destroy Fuel Reserve Destroy Bridge 1 Destroy Bridge 2 Reverse River Crossing Halt Second EchelonDestroy Enemy Will Win the War Traffic Density Units in BivouacAcceleration of Straggler Count River Clear DMPI 1 DMPI 2 Carpet Bomb Drop Leaflets Objective Indicator Effect Desired • direct effect • indirect effect • complex effect • cumulative effect Effects Based Operations Terms Task/Activity (Mechanism) Source: M. McCrabb, “Effects-based Operations: An Overview” Available: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/af/ebo.ppt. Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 11

12. Enemycrossesboarder Enemyreachesriver Enemycrossesriver Recceapproachesenemy Reccecomnesintocontactwithenemy Enemyreachesmeetingengagementlocation Metingengagement Enemydefeated Enemyfollow-onforcesadvance Composite Capabilities X X X X X X X X Support Recce X X Identify enemy routes X X X X Report state X X X Identify crossing X X X Continuous observation X X X X Detect and Track X X X X X Cue strike X X X X Bda X X X Monitor X X X X Identify tragets X X X Identify patrols X X X X Support deception X X X X X X X X X Report movement Decisive Moments Reverse River Crossing Synchronisation Matrix 5 Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 12

13. Forceelement1 Forceelement2 Forceelement3 Forceelement4 Forceelement5 Forceelement6 Forceelement7 Forceelement8 Forceelement9 Forceelement10 Forceelement11 Forceelement12 Forceelement13 Forceelement14 Composite Capabilities x x x x x x Support Recce x x x x x x x x Identify enemy routes x x x x x x x Report state x x x x x x x x x Identify crossing x x x x x x Continuous observation x x x x x x x Detect and Track x x x x x x Cue strike x x x x x x x x x x Bda x x x x x x x x x x Monitor x x x x x x x Identify tragets x x x x x Identify patrols x x x x Support deception x x x x x x x x Report movement Operational Capability Geometries-of-use Matrix 4 Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 13

14. Geometry-of-use Landscape The more jagged the landscape, the greater the variety of geometries These two geometries are placed next to each other because there share common force elements, and are also different to their neighbours This is a specialised geometry that has limited elements in common with other geometries ‘q’ measures the extent of shared force elements n ‘n’ measures the number of other geometries with that level of shared force elements Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 14

16. To Conclude An effects ladder can be analysed in terms of the geometries needed to support the sequences of events generating its decisive moments. The variety of geometries across an appropriate number of effects ladders defines the degree of agility required of the supporting systems of systems. This requisite variety can then be used to define the granularity of the functionality that the supporting systems need to provide. Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 16

18. Enemy crosses border Enemy reaches river Enemy crosses river Recce approaches enemy Recce contacts enemy Enemy reaches location Meeting engage- ment Enemy defeated Event Sequence contained within Decisive Moment Reverse River Crossing The Sequence of Events contained in the Decisive Moment Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 18

19. The limitations of ‘Whole Product’ Thinking The supplier cannot anticipate all the ways in which their product will be used. “In marketing, a whole product is a generic product augmented by everything that is needed for the customer to have a compelling reason to buy. The generic product is what is usually shipped to the customer. The whole product typically augments the generic product with training and support, manuals, cables, additional software or hardware, installation instructions, professional services, etc.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_product ‘Push’ Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 19

20. The shift from ‘push’ to ‘pull’ logics A (socio-technical) system of systems must support a wide variety of operational effects – Healthcare – Edge-driven responses to threats ‘Pull’ Orchestration & Synchronisation Materiel & Technology Leadership & Education Facilities & Infrastructure Doctrine & Concepts Shared Culture &Trust Situational Awareness Force Cohesion & Training Edge Organisation Operational Effects Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 20

21. How do we move from a ‘push’ to a ‘pull’ perspective? We need a way of thinking through how the ‘push’ perspective can be aligned to the other ‘pull’ perspective. Model ‘Push’ Operational Effects Orchestration & Synchronisation Situational Awareness Doctrine & Concepts Materiel & Technology Shared Culture &Trust Edge Organisation Leadership & Education ‘Pull’ Force Cohesion & Training Facilities & Infrastructure Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 21

Systems of systems engineering and the pragmatics of demand

Boxer Research Ltd

Systems of systems engineering and the pragmatics of demand