Systems of systems engineering and the pragmatics of demand

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

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


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


CHALLENGE

How are all these systems to interoperate?


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


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


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


a campaign plan

Decisive Moments

6: Effects 6

Composition to Achieve Effects

We can think of this stratification as a stepped series of matrices:

‘supply-side’

‘demand-side’

Composite Capabilities a mission

5

Synchronization

Operational Capabilities

a geometry of use

4

a force element Fielded Capabilities

3

Customization

Orchestration

an activity chain

Equipment Capabilities

1

2

Value-chain management


THE PRAGMATICS OF DEMAND

So how do we look more closely at the demand-side from which the ‘pull’ is coming? Analysing ‘geometries of use’


Demand – what are the effects being supported?

Pro

ble

m

do

mai

n

Drivers of situations

Situation 3

Situation 1

impacts on

context-independent demand

impacts on

c-level

Kn

ow

led

ge d

om

ain

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


Matrix 6: An effects ladder

(Isolate the Battlefield)

(Deny Access)

Destroy Fuel

Reserve

Destroy Bridge 1

Destroy Bridge 2

Reverse River

Crossing

Halt Second Echelon Destroy

Enemy Will

Win the War

Traffic Density Units in Bivouac Acceleration 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.


En

em

y c

rosse

s b

oa

rde

r

En

em

y r

ea

ch

es r

ive

r

En

em

y c

rosse

s r

ive

r

Re

cce

ap

pro

ach

es e

ne

my

Re

cce

co

mn

es in

to c

on

tact

with

en

em

y

En

em

y r

ea

ch

es m

ee

tin

g e

ng

ag

em

en

t lo

ca

tio

n

Me

tin

g e

ng

ag

em

en

t

En

em

y d

efe

ate

d

En

em

y f

ollo

w-o

n f

orc

es a

dva

nce

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


Forc

e e

lem

ent 1

Forc

e e

lem

ent 2

Forc

e e

lem

ent 3

Forc

e e

lem

ent 4

Forc

e e

lem

ent 5

Forc

e e

lem

ent 6

Forc

e e

lem

ent 7

Forc

e e

lem

ent 8

Forc

e e

lem

ent 9

Forc

e e

lem

ent 10

Forc

e e

lem

ent 11

Forc

e e

lem

ent 12

Forc

e e

lem

ent 13

Forc

e e

lem

ent 14

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


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


TO CONCLUDE


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.


END


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


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’


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


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


Business

Systems of systems engineering and the pragmatics of demand