Visual modeling using projective analysis (pan)

Visual Modeling using
projective analysis (PAN)
Philip Boxer
April 20th 2007
Copyright © BRL 2007 1

The ‘double challenge’ space

A Governance Framework Organizes Structural Issues
These correspond to different levels
of supplier alignment…
Multiple Enterprises: the activities
related to the operation of a system
of systems within the context of its
uses and users.
Single Enterprise: the activities
related to the management of one
agency in the context of other
agencies.
Single Task Systems: the
technologies (and the technical
activities to select and apply them)
that create and maintain
interoperable task systems.
… and to different agency
relationships:
Between multiple agencies
and their multiple task
systems.
Within single agencies and
their multiple task systems*.
Within single task systems
If we consider interoperability from the point of view of Wildland Fuels and Fire
Management, we can stratify different levels of interoperability between suppliers
within this environment:
Stratification of levels:
6. Effects environment
5. Mission environment
4. Deployed Force
3. Operationally ready
capabilities
2. Field-able capabilities
1. Equipment and bought-
in capabilities
* Depends on Deployed
Force Command structure

Three Views Organize Demand Responses
Service-
driven
Solution-
driven
Driven by the
anticipated longer term
consequences-on-the-
ground
I - Physical View
How do we get the equipment and people with
all the relevant support in the right place at
the right time and keep it there?
How do we get all the services working together
in such a way that the right capabilities and
information can be put in front of the right
decision-makers at the right time?
II – Situational View*
* Note that ‘situation’ here is defined
with respect to the fire manager with
command authority, and is in support
of their recognition of the present
situation….
III – Effects-based View
How do we draw upon the other two views in
support of generating desired operational
effects.

A Grid Organizes Governance to Demand
View of Response to
Demand
Physical
(service-
driven)
Situational
(solution-
driven)
Effects-based
(experience-
driven)
Supplier
Alignment
Single Task
System
Single Enterprise
(containing multiple
task systems)
Multiple Enterprises
(containing multiple task
systems)
The ‘comfort zone’ of a
single agency facing
known demands
Disruption due to the
challenge to supplier
alignment arising from the
multi-agency context
Disruption
due to
emergent
demands
arising from
dynamic
contexts-of-
use
SoS Target

Revealing a Double Challenge
Supplier
Alignment
Nature of Response to
Demand
Physical
(product-
driven)
Situat’nal
(solution-
driven)
Effects-based
(experience-
driven)
Single Task
System
Single Enterprise
task systems)
systems)
The second challenge:
Building the agility to
respond to the wildland
fire effects environment?
The first challenge: Synchronizing
the governance framework across
a complex operational context.

… requiring us to address the whole space.
Hierarchy layer
Structure-function and
trace layers
Synchronisation layer
321
654
987
Demand layer
Supplier
Alignment
Nature of Response to
Demand
Physical
(product-
driven)
Situat’nal
(solution-
driven)
Effects-based
(experience-
driven)
Single Task
System
Single Enterprise
task systems)
systems)
The way visual PAN models
the relationships between a
number of layers offers one
way of seeking to model
this space as a whole

Where does the technology fit
in?!

The role of the Models and Tools
Model ‘Push’
The models and tools are developed one-by-one around particular problems and challenges,
with varying degrees of adoption and take-up.
The Systems-of-Systems double challenge involves approaching this problem from the point-of-
view of effects ‘pull’
Effects ‘Pull’
Operational
Effects
Situational
Awareness
Materiel &
Technology
Organisational
learning,
Personnel &
Culture
Edge
Organisation
Leadership
& Education
Force
Recruitment
& Collective
Training
Facilities &
Infrastructure
Doctrine &
Concepts
‘Pull’
Operational
Effects
Situational
Awareness
Materiel &
Technology
Organisational
learning,
Personnel &
Culture
Edge
Organisation
Leadership
& Education
Force
Recruitment
& Collective
Training
Facilities &
Infrastructure
Doctrine &
Concepts

There tends to be a hole-in-the-middle between these two approaches.
Model
‘Push’
Effects
‘Pull’
basic capability
keeping it
working
deploying it
insufficient
demand leverage
insufficient
governance
leverage
doing the
business
maintaining
operational
effectiveness
through-life
sustainment
The hole-in-the-middle
Supplier
Alignment
Nature of Response to Demand
Physical
(product-
driven)
Situat’nal
(solution-
driven)
Effects-based
(experience-
driven)
Single Task
System
Single Enterprise
task systems)
systems)
Integrating it
The hole-in-the-
middle
The aim is to bridge the hole by developing risk mitigation strategies.

The ‘I’ position from which a PAN
model is built

The domain of interest
White:
how we must
do what we do
Blue:
what we do
Internal External
Red:
particular
demands
Black:
the contexts
from which the
demands
emerge
The way
things
work
What
determines
shape
The ‘who for whom’:
Whose demands are we
satisfying?
The ‘why’:
Will we produce the effect
that we intend?
The ‘what’:
How do things work?
The ‘how’:
How are they
organised?
Identifying key actors and influences
The goal is to establish who the key actors are, and how they influence each other in
determining the performance of the whole:

Moving from Influence Mapping into Projective ANalysis
B: (influence maps) hierarchy
layer
C1: (actor-centric PAN) +
synchronisation, structure-function
& trace layers
C2: (demand-centric PAN) +
demand layer
D: (zones of interoperability)
landscapes & risk identification
E: (zone metrics) +
behavior/deontics
Actors, world views x ontologies (4-colours), issues, time-lines
Any currently available material on how the organisation works
Scenarios, ladders, event sequences, orchestration/composition
Stratification, slicing, landscapes and risk identification
e.g. the interface to other M&S approaches
Process
itself
A: consulting team’s pre-work
These layers
can all be
described as
topologies
These require
the addition
of
behaviours/
deontics to
the
topologies

The modelling framework

Modelling Interoperability
The approach to modeling interoperability is Projective ANalysis (PAN), designed to
describe the technology within its contexts-of-use.
This is done in terms of 5 layers of analysis:
– Structure/Function: The physical structure and functioning of resources and capabilities.
– Trace: The digital processes and software that interact with the physical processes.
– Hierarchy: The formal hierarchies under which the uses made of both the physical and
the digital are held accountable.
– Synchronization: The lateral relations of synchronisation and coordination within and
between Agencies and the services they provide ‘on the ground’.
– Demand: the nature of the environment giving rise to demands on the way the
operations are organised to deliver effective and timely services.
These 5 layers combine to form a model of the operational space as a whole, within
which Systems of Systems interoperate in relation to particular forms of demand.

Identifying what underlies the relationships
The actors influencing different aspects of the whole are influencing the interoperation of the
constituent elements.
Hierarchy: The formal
hierarchies under which the
uses made of both the physical
and digital are held
accountable.
Demand: the nature of the
environment giving rise to demands
on the way the operations are
organised to deliver effective and
timely services.
Synchronisation: The lateral relations of
synchronisation and coordination within and
between Agencies and the services they
provide ‘on the ground’.
Structure/Function: The
physical structure and
functioning of resources and
capabilities.
Trace: The digital
processes and software that
interact with the physical
processes.
Actors
The actors within the circle are
identified with the interoperating
constituent elements outside the circle
Constituent
Elements of PAN
Model
White:
how we must
do what we do
Blue:
what we do
Internal External
Red:
particular
demands
Black:
the contexts
from which the
demands
emerge
The way
things
work
What
determines
shape

Synchronisation
Trace Structure-Function Hierarchy
Demand
Combined Operational Space
PAN modelling
PAN modelling then fills in the relationships between these constituent elements

…which describes the underlying models from which composite capabilities are
generated, represented in the form of a stratification.
1
0
1b
22b1c
3b
4b
3
4 5
6
5b
sfo
How are ‘complex
objects’ formed?

The Outputs
Stratification analyses the different levels of interoperability* from the point of view of
the demands being placed on the system of systems by the environment.
— It enables the constructive risks associated
with constituent systems to be separated
out from the interoperability risks arising
from their orchestration and composition.
Landscape
— The outputs of the analysis provide a way of
identifying
o the root causes of interoperability risks and
the means of their mitigation.
o The succession logics of the underlying
models
supply-side
constructive
risks
demand-side
interoperability
risks
6. Effects environment
5. Mission environment
4. Deployed Force
3. Operationally ready capabilities
2. Field-able capabilities
1. Equipment and bought-in capabilities
* Stratification:
— It enables topological characteristics of the
system of systems to be represented in the
form of landscapes, describing
interoperability ‘hotspots’ (peaks) as well as
risks (gaps between peaks).
Why do gaps
matter?

The visual syntax

Symbols
syncn/dsyncn
unit
outcome
hierarchy/
synchronisation layers
demand-side
stakeholder
demand
situation
driver
customer
situation
demand layer
supplies
dsupplies
determines
ddetermines
frames
dframes
controls
satisfies
drives
contains
capy/system
event/trace
khow/design
process/dprocess
structure-function/
trace layers

The visual PAN syntaxStructure-
Function
capabil
ity
kno
w-
how
event
process
outcom
e
A physical process
A capability determining the
behaviour of another capability
or of a process
An event generated by a
process
An outcome generated by a
process, and capable of being
contained by a customer
situation or party to the
satisfaction of a customer
situation.
Know-how that can alter the
way in which other know-how
and capabilities determine
behaviour. Can be party to
satisfying customer situations.
Trace
system
trace
dproces
s
desi
gn
A digital process i.e. a software
process
A digital system that can
determine the behaviour of
another system, a digital process
or a physical process
Design that can alter the way in
which other designs and systems
determine behaviour. Can be
party to satisfying customer
situations.
A digital event created by a
process or a digital process
Hierarchy
unit
A unit of vertical
accountability over all the
entities it controls. (Also
represents their state).
Synchronisation
order
The framing of a horizontal
synchronisation of the
entities it includes
dorder
The digital framing of a
horizontal synchronisation
of the events and traces it
includes
Demand
customer
situation
problem domain
demand
situation
driver
The place from which the
‘I’ of the client system is
formulating its demands
A particular context-of-use
A particular customer
situation within a context-
of-use representing a
particular formulation of a
demand within that
context. (Also represents
the state of the demand).
A driver determining the
nature of the satisfaction
demanded by a customer
situation
How are legal
relations defined?

Structure-Function-Trace

activity/ trace
chains
contains
contains
contains
drives
demand
organisation
Relations between symbols
determines
determines
determines
controlscontrols
controls
contains
controls
ddetermines
ddetermines
ddetermines
frames
determines
supplies
Used to represent the sourcing
of infrastructure & know-how
dsupplies
state data
dframes dframes
controls
situational data
dsupplies
dsupplies
dsupplies
dsupplies
frames
satisfies
An outcome that
can satisfy must be
accompanied by
know-how
The super-ordinate unit is a
supply-side actor
supplies supplies
supplies

hierarchytrace
synchronisation demand
structure-function
composite
Wildfire middle-out

Why these symbols?

What the modeller models
boundary perimeter
3rd order
2nd order
deterministic
structure-
determined
reactive*
structure-
determined
passive*
Process*
edge
deterministic
structure-
determining*
organisation-
determined
reactive
organisation-
determined
passive
non-deterministic
deterministic
organisation-
determining
governance-
determined
reactive
non-deterministic
stakeholder
governance-
determining
driver
non-deterministic
On the supply-side,
the stakeholder is
represented as the
top of a hierarchy
closures
1st order
Modeller’s model of the system-of-interest:
How does this relate
to DoDAF?
stakeholder

The visual PAN layers
structure-
determined
reactive
structure-
determined
passive
structure-
determining
process
structure-function/
trace layers
demand-side
stakeholder
governance-
determining
driver
governance-
determined
reactive
demand layerhierarchy/
synchronisation layers
organisation-
determining
organisation-
determined
reactive
organisation-
determined
passive
supply-side stakeholders
implicit in the ‘top’ of the
hierarchy
Projective
Analysis
Reflective
Analysis

What is the stratification?

1c
super-
structure
e.g.
it wing
Contexts-of-use
5b
5
composition of
orchestrated
constituent
capabilities
Underlying
infrastructures
Stratification is not independent of
context-of-use
Composition with
context-of-use
Self-Synchronisation of
orchestrated services
with demands arising
from context-of-use
constituent
capabilities
e.g. comms
interoperability
3b
3
7
drivers
e.g. joint ops
7b
problem
domains
e.g.
out-of-area
operations
6
demand situations e.g.
crisis response
mission
situations
e.g. aew
capability
1b
direct
organisation
e.g. ops
wing, data
management
0processes e.g. change
notifications, iff
events
e.g. nav
output,
identity
tracks
1services e.g. display consoles,
mission planning
know-how e.g.
programmers, test design
What is the relationship
to DoTMLPF?
Effects
Ladders
2b 2outcomes e.g. certified
mods, on station
Design control over
customisation of
constituent services
orchestrations of constituent
capabilities e.g. of datalink, esm 4b 4
6b
data platforms
e.g. mission record
Activity
Chains
Governance of
constituent capabilities
Situational data fusion

Transaction and Governance costs
7
7b
6
5b
54b 4
2b
3b
2 3
1c 1b
0
1
6b Governance
Output Transactions
Operational
Capability
Force
package
Mission
Environment
1
2
3
Equipmentto
requirement
2
3
4
Equipment
availability
3
4
5
Capability
availability
4
5
6
Mission
availability
Effects
Environment
Equipment
Fielded
equipment
5
6
JointOps
availability
1
2
Supplyto
specification
‘smart’ ‘TLAM’ TLCM TLCM+Trad’l
Collaboration
4-5 TLCM
Supply chain
management
2-3 SCM
Market inputs
0-1 COTS
Production
1-2
Synchronization
5-6 TLCM+
Costs
5 Synchronization
4 Collaboration
Economies of
alignment (3rd)
Customization 3-
4 TLAM
Transaction cost
approach
Economies
of scale (1st)
1 Production
0 Market inputs
Economies
of scope (2nd)
3 Customization
2 SCM
Relating the
asymmetries,
colours etc

order/B
(designkhow)/Z csitn/Y
unit/A outcome/X
Complex object - Unit_orchn
Which units have a demand-side relationship to
customer situations?
satisfies
synchronisessynchronises
controls
controls
determining

Overlapping
constituent parts
Why do ‘Gaps’ matter?
a ‘gap’ = lack of overlapping
parts enabling
synchronisation across
services in a way that relates
to the demand as a whole
service four
service one
‘traffic’ around the
gap as each service
tries to solve what it
can
a whole
demandA ‘whole’ demand
service one
service two
service three
service four
service five
service six
Services needing to be
involved
‘service’ could be at the
level of (e.g.) an
organisational unit or at the
level of a software object.
‘overlap’ could be defined
as (e.g.) liaison people at
one level or as shared data
at another.
collaborative SoS
service one
service two
service three
service four
service five
service six
‘horizontal’ process of
collaboration in response
to the whole demand.
The challenge:
The
problem: Solutions:
service one
service two
service three
service four
service five
service six
directed SoS
‘vertical’ separation of
the whole demand into
deconflicted parts

Visual PAN Syntax

The DLoDs/DoTMLPF
Command

Mapping the different schemas
6-level
stratification 1st
2nd
3rd
WHO/M
WHY
HOW
WHAT
Four colours/
causes
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
8-level
stratification
The Three Asymmetries: the three forms of
asymmetry forming the basis of competitive
advantage –
3rd – the demand is not the experience,
2nd – the business is not the solution, and
1st – the technology is not the product.

modelling
contexts
contexts-of-
governance
contexts-
of-use
modalities
of reality
The Zachman Connection
SCOPE
(Competitive context)
Planning
BUSINESS
MODEL
(Conceptual)
Owning
SYSTEM
MODEL
(Logical)
Designing
TECHNOLOGY
MODEL
(Physical)
Building
DETAILED
REPRESENTATIONS
(out-of-modelling-context)
Subcontracting
DATA
(WHAT)
e.g. data
MOTIVATION
(WHY)
e.g. strategy
TIME
(WHEN)
e.g. schedule
PEOPLE
(WHO)
e.g. organisation
NETWORK
(WHERE)
e.g. network
FUNCTION
(HOW)
e.g. function
SCOPE
Planning
BUSINESS
MODEL
(Conceptual)
Owning
SYSTEM
MODEL
(Logical)
Designing
TECHNOLOGY
MODEL
(Physical)
Building
DETAILED
REPRESENTATIONS
Subcontracting
DATA
(WHAT)
e.g. data
MOTIVATION
(WHY)
e.g. strategy
TIME
(WHEN)
e.g. schedule
PEOPLE
(WHO)
e.g. organisation
NETWORK
(WHERE)
e.g. network
FUNCTION
(HOW)
e.g. function
USE CONTEXT
(WHO for WHOM)
e.g. particular client
USE CONTEXT
(WHO for WHOM)
EVENT
(WHAT)
e.g. things done
EVENT
(WHAT)
e.g. things done
COLLABORATIVE
MODEL
(Pragmatic)
Governing
COLLABORATIVE
MODEL
(Pragmatic)
Governing

Source of coloured squares: Zachman
Framework, www.zifa.com
SCOPE
Planning
BUSINESS MODEL
(Conceptual)
Owning
SYSTEM
MODEL
(Logical)
Designing
TECHNOLOGY
MODEL
(Physical)
Building
DETAILED
REPRESENTATIONS
Subcontracting
DATA
(WHAT)
e.g. data
MOTIVATION
(WHY)
e.g. strategy
TIME
(WHEN)
e.g. schedule
PEOPLE
(WHO)
e.g. organisation
NETWORK
(WHERE)
e.g. network
FUNCTION
(HOW)
e.g. function
USE CONTEXT
(WHO for WHOM)
EVENT
(WHAT)
e.g. things done
COLLABORATIVE
MODEL
(Pragmatic)
Governing
The WHAT The WHYThe WHO/MThe HOW

Visual modeling using projective analysis (pan)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Visual modeling using projective analysis (pan)

Similar to Visual modeling using projective analysis (pan) (20)

More from Boxer Research Ltd

More from Boxer Research Ltd (17)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Visual modeling using projective analysis (pan)