8:1 [email protected]@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted ES/SDOE 678 Reconfigurable Agile Systems and Enterprises Fundamentals of Analysis,

8:1 [email protected], attributed copies permitted

ES/SDOE 678Reconfigurable Agile Systems and EnterprisesFundamentals of Analysis, Synthesis, and Performance

Session 8 – Operations: Closure and Integrity Management

School of Systems and EnterprisesStevens Institute of Technology, USA

mailto:[email protected]


Advising Master’s ProjectsIf I find your topic choice interesting, I will accept your request to be your 800 advisor, provided we can agree on a few things.• Mutual agreement on the final abstract.• Your personal intent to attack this problem as one you want to explore seriously for your

own curiosity, and for its potential value to L3. This translates to full mental engagement.• You will research, think, and write with a quality appropriate for critically-reviewed

publication – even if in the end the result cannot be published external to L3. I am not suggesting academic scientific high-Journal publication rigor here, but rather logical arguments, a demonstration of respectable research on what the field already knows (or doesn’t), no unsupported claims, appropriate use of references and language, and knowledgeable recognition of what your “audience” knows, perceives, and values. Among other things you must have a model of your “audience” in mind, and what they are inclined to believe and object to, so that you can leverage the one and overcome the other with meaningful logic.

• You understand that this is not simply another version of the 678 term project. The objective is not to “demonstrate” useful understanding of the 678 concepts, but rather to apply those that are appropriate to guide a thoughtful system-design proposal or analysis.

• You will budget and apply ~120 hours for the effort. • There will be multiple reviews of work-in-process.As your advisor I would help you understand and address any of the above that your are unclear on – if your heart and mind are engaged.I know that you can find other advisors that will not want as much. Please give careful consideration to your intended level of commitment. I am interested in projects that seek to make a difference in our understandings and options, and hopefully in what is considered seriously for action and implementation. And … a co-authored published paper is expected.



Current mental engagements

The Art of Systems Engineering: Masterful Design and ArchitectureAgile Systems Engineering Life Cycle Model Fundamentals, 15288 CompatibleSelf organizing systems-of-systems … applied to system security, or anything.

Applying agile concepts to real problems.

Some Master’s topics that attract me:Apply/explore agile concepts to solve real L3 problems(e.g., QRC, aircraft refurb, project/program mgmnt, et al.)Explore agile development-infrastructure concepts for developing hardware systems – software generally employs an Object-oriented development platform.Agile Project Management – as a general concept applicable to some type(s) of problems at L3, with UURVE, RSA, RRS and Strategy map.Agile Program Management – good for prog mgrs and wanna be prog mgrs who are knowledgeable.Self-Organizing systems of UAVsSomething that advances the self-organizing pattern project catalog: autocatalysis, fractals, etc.



Master’s Projects – SO-SoS Patterns – Class 2 Systems

Craig Nichols 678 Project: Agile Integration ProcessMaster’s Project: Self Org. PatternsINCOSE Paper: June 2011, DenverINSIGHT Essay: July 2011SSTC Invited Presentation

Jena Lugosky678 Project: Boyd OODA/On IntelligenceMaster’s Project: Stigmergic PatternsINCOSE Paper: June 2011, DenverINSIGHT Essay: July 2011Cognitive Research J. (invited, declined)

www.parshift.com/s/110620ArchitecturalPatternsForSOSoS.pdfwww.parshift.com/s/110701ArchitecturalPatternsForSOSoS-Essay.pdf

www.parshift.com/s/110620AdversarialStigmergyPatterns.pdf www.parshift.com/s/110701AdversarialStigmergyPatterns-Essay.pdf

Barry Papke: Last Planner Applied to Aircraft Structural Modification (IS13 Paper)Steve Anderson: Agile Aircraft Integration for QRC Programs (IS13 Paper)Jason Boss: Agile Aircraft Installation for QRC Environment (IS10 Paper)Art Brooks: On Adding a Fourth “Artificial” Simulation Environment Category to the

Live-Virtual-Constructive Simulation Environments (ITEA Paper)Billy Crews: The Agile ContractorKim Elliott: Real-Time Open Semantic Interoperability: A Network Centric Warfare Key

EnablerJohn Goodman: Planning for unplanned workTom Hadden: On Detecting Aberrant Behavior in Unmanned Autonomous Systems

Using Peer Trajectory Monitoring TechniquesDavid Schaab: Agile Development of Requirements and Capability Maturity ModelRandy Wolf: Applying CMMI-DEV to Department of Defense Quick Reaction Capability

Projects

Master’s Projects – Class 1 Systems


http://www.parshift.com/s/110620ArchitecturalPatternsForSOSoS.pdf

http://www.parshift.com/s/110701ArchitecturalPatternsForSOSoS-Essay.pdf

http://www.parshift.com/s/110620AdversarialStigmergyPatterns.pdf

http://www.parshift.com/s/110701AdversarialStigmergyPatterns-Essay.pdf


FEEDBACK REVIEW

Unit 6 exercise: 10 RRS Principles and AAP Integrity ManagementUnit 7 exercise: Reality Factors and Strategic Activity ConOps Web



EXERCISE

Build your ConOps Web: use the “strategic objectives” from the operational story of your mid-term, and add the activities necessary to deliver the values

Generate one slide with your name on it:Strategic Activity ConOps Web – red and yellow bubbles

These slides get added to the end of the team’s growing group-exercise file,sequentially together as a group

Individuallyfor your chosen term project…


Term Project Guidance

Download (fresh today) the Project Guide document

www.Parshift.com/AgileSysAndEnt/ProjGuide/678ProjGuideCurrent.pdf

Read This…and Ask Questions

the morning of the last day (or sooner)

http://www.parshift.com/AgileSysAndEnt/ProjGuide/678ProjGuideCurrent.pdf

http://www.parshift.com/AgileSysAndEnt/ProjGuide/678ProjGuideCurrent.pdf


Who/What is Accountable Sustainability & Effectiveness

Module Mix Evolution:•Who (or what process) is responsible for ensuring that existing modules are upgraded, new modules are added, and inadequate modules are removed, in time to satisfy response needs?

Module Readiness :•Who (or what process) is responsible for ensuring that sufficient modules are ready for deployment at unpredictable times?

System Assembly/Reconfiguration: •Who (or what process) assembles new system configurations when new situations require something different in capability?

Infrastructure Evolution:•Who (or what process) is responsible for evolving the passive and active infrastructures as new rules and standards become appropriate to enable next generation capability.

The “passive” parts of the infrastructure are the interoperability standards

The “active” parts of the infrastructure



System Integrity – On Concept and SemanticsWords can have different meaning in different context – different system types provide a range of (dynamic) context, which determine how to interpret the (static) words used to indicate (three of) the four integrity responsibilities.Context: An agile system is always agile – not only at birth, not only sometimes, and not only after periodic scheduled refresh (e.g., annual update to the strategic plan). To accomplish this there are four responsibilities that are always active, ensuring that the system is always capable of on-demand response and always accomplishes on-demand response. The type of system provides the context for the four responsibilities. “Always” is relative – appropriate for the context.Module mix evolution responsibility: has a focus on the evolution of module pool types and all pool content. Maintaining the relevance of what “should be” available for on-demand usage. Here modules are defined, obtained, designed, constructed, trained, upgraded, and “catalogued” as approved for use. Here modules are also pronounced obsolete or no-longer-usable and removed from the catalog. On occasion whole module pools may come into or go out of approved-for-use “existence”.Module readiness responsibility: has a focus on access to and availability of modules ready-to-use on-demand. The context requires thoughtful and likely different interpretation for human modules, physical object modules, virtual data or program modules, and so forth. Modules are not out of stock. They are not on a higher priority job and unavailable. They are not in need of repair, or in need of new training. They are not inaccessible at-the-moment because the module-library system is down or delivery bandwidth isn’t sufficient; or its Sunday and they don’t work on Sunday. Infrastructure evolution responsibility is usually focused on passive-infrastructure module-interoperability rules and standards – that which enables drag-and-drop, plug-and-play. Infrastructure Evolution is also, however, responsible for ensuring that the active infrastructure (4 integrity responsibilities) evolves as necessary.



MotorsGears/Pulleys

Infrastructure evolution

System assembly

Module mix evolution

Module readiness

Infrastructure

Helicopter Mobile RadarPlane

Modules/Components

IntegrityManagement

Active

Passive

Product Manager

Owner/Builder

Product System Eng.

Retail Distribution Process

Wheels Structural MaterialJoiners, Axles,

Small PartsTools

Agile Architecture Pattern (AAP)Notional Concept: System Response-Construction Kit

Details in www.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part1&2.pdf

Rules/Standards Radio Control Standards

Control ProtocolParts Interconnect StandardsSockets

SignalsSecuritySafetyService

(None)Harm-Proofing StandardsProcess Rules & ConOps


http://www.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part1&2.pdf


CubeSat Agile Architectural Pattern

Chassis


System assembly


Module readiness

Infrastructure

JHU/APL

IntegrityManagement

Active

Passive

Cal Poly SLO

Satellite Builder

COTS Developers & CPSLO

COTS Suppliers

ElectronicsCommunications

Auburn University

SensorsPower

Modules/Components

Rules/Standards

University of Colorado

System Examples of Increasing Complexity and Chronological Order

CP SLO: Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

Dove, Rick and Ralph LaBarge. 2014. Fundamentals of Agile Systems Engineering – Part 1. International Council on Systems Engineering IS14,Los Angeles, CA, 30-Jun-03Jul. www.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part1.pdf

SocketsSignalsSecuritySafetyService


http://www.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part1.pdf



Assembly in SIL


Module readiness

Infrastructure

Modules

Rules/Standards

IntegrityManagement

Active

Passive

process engineer

production

system engineer

material manager

small upgrade tech refresh large re-fit

QRC Device/Power/Cooling Installation Architecture

boxes rackszones SILs aircrafthardware


Physical interconnect standardsData/power/cooling transmissionPersonnel/Sil/supply-chain/et al.Weight/space/installation rulesAgile system/process ConOps

Boss, Jason and Rick Dove. 2010. Agile Aircraft Installation Architecture In a Quick Reaction Capability Environment. INCOSE International Symposium, Chicago, July 12-15. www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap100712IS10-AgileAircraftInstallationArchitecture.pdf


http://www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap100712IS10-AgileAircraftInstallationArchitecture.pdf


Classic Scrum: an Agile Architecture Pattern (AAP) Structuresuitable for agile SW development, but not for agile systems-engineering …


System assembly


Module readiness

Infrastructure

Sprint 2 Sprint nSprint 1

Modules/Components

Rules/Standards

IntegrityManagement

Active

Passive

Product Owner (PO)

Scrum Master

PO with Team Collaboration

Developers

Product Owners DevelopersScrum Masters Stakeholders

Retrospective Change

Product Backlog

Planning, I&I Sprint, ReviewDaily Scrum, RetrospectiveFull Info TransparencyScrum Master

Process Rules & ConOps

… because the RSA is different for an agile systems-engineering process,and the Scrum AAP strategy is inadequate for systems engineering


Dove, Rick and Ralph LaBarge. 2014. Agile Systems Engineering – Part 2. International Council on Systems Engineering IS14 Conference,Los Angeles, CA, 30-Jun-03Jul. www.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part2.pdf


http://www.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part2.pdf


If Time Permits…

Case Study or Guest Speaker

(appropriately chosen after first 3-day session)



BREAK



"What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail?" asks Regina Dugan, then director of DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. In this breathtaking talk she describes some of the extraordinary projects -- a robotic hummingbird, a prosthetic arm controlled by thought, and, well, the internet -- that her agency has created by not worrying that they might fail. (Followed by a Q&A with TED's Chris Anderson)

Regina Dugan directs the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the DoD innovation engine responsible for creating and preventing strategic surprise. With a doctorate in mechanical engineering from Caltech and master's and bachelor's degrees from Virginia Tech, Dr. Dugan is a business woman, inventor, and technology developer who rolls up her sleeves and goes directly to a problem whether it's in the lab or in Afghanistan. She's been called a "technogeek" with a knack for inspiring creative thinking, an artist-engineer. Many credit Dugan as a scientific coach, mentor, cheerleader and taskmaster. As a 2010 New York Times article explained, there are four stages to an encounter with Regina Dugan - "being a little scared, really scared, frustrated and then enlightened.“Vision alone is insufficient for Dugan. Rather, vision must be paired with the power of execution in order to make impossible things possible.

“Since we took to the sky, we have wanted to fly faster and farther. And to do so, we've had to believe in impossible things and we've had to refuse to fear failure.” (Regina Dugan)

Video and text above at: www.ted.com/talks/regina_dugan_from_mach_20_glider_to_humming_bird_drone.html

Guest Speaker: Regina DuganFrom mach-20 glider to humming bird drone (File20-25)


http://www.ted.com/talks/regina_dugan_from_mach_20_glider_to_humming_bird_drone.html


Agility Workshop

General Motors West Mifflin, PA

Situation:Many highly-agile unique processes and practices in this low-volume high-variety production environment.

All were the design efforts of a few “naturals”, who cannot articulate to others how to continue this necessary practice after they retire.



General Motors Workshop

Analyzed: The JIT Assembly Line process.

Analyzed: The Pittsburgh Universal Holding Device.

Exercise: Core Competency Insight Diffusion…one of the most important problems facing all companies today: how to make good intuitive knowledge in a few employee-heads in one part of the company explicit, so that it can be taught to new employees and taken to other parts of the company.

The workshop group included about 10 management and executive level participants from the plant. First they analyzed the two things above that they were very familiar with and respected highly – looking through the lens of the 10 RRS principles to identify how these were employed to enable agility. Then they were guided through an exercise that applied these principles to the design of a new process.



Core Competency Diffusion Strategy

Solve RealProblems

StudentsRenew

Knowledge

Packageas Metaphor

Models

AnalyzeExternal Case

for Ideas

AnalyzeLocal Case for

Principles

RotateStudent/Mentor

Roles

EstablishPersonalValues

Base onFundamental

Principles

FacilitateInsight

Reviewand Selectfor Quality

Focus onResponse

Issue/Value

Design aBusinessPractice

- Strategic Themes/Values

- Functional Activities



Core Competency Insight Diffusion

Drag & Drop Modules:

• Mentors

• Students

• Case Models (Knowledge)

• Local Rules (Knowledge)

• Outside Cases (Knowledge)

• Application Exercises

• Personal Value Examples

Plug & Play Framework:

• Fundamental-Principle Based

• Solve Real Problem

• Students Renew Knowledge

• Change Issue/Value Focus

• Insight Facilitation

Operational/Integrity ManagementKnowledge Mgnt Committee: Framework/Process.

HR/OD: Students, Mentors, IDG formation.QA Committee: Rules/Problems/Models.

Students: Outside Cases, Value Examples.

Change Proficiency

Key Proactive Issues:Creation:

Tacit Knowledge CaptureStudent Interest/Value

Improvement:Knowledge AccuracyKnowledge Effectiveness

Migration:Knowledge Focus

Addition/Subtraction:Student TypesFresh Outside Knowledge

Key Reactive Issues:Correction:

Incorrect KnowledgePoor Value Knowledge

Variation:Flexible Student Schedule

Expansion:Any Size Group

Reconfiguration:Rules«–»Applications

Sample Insight Development Groups (IDGs)

x xx

x xx x x

x

CaseModels

StudentsOutsideCases

ApplicationExercises

MentorsLocalRules

x xxx x

xx xx

ValueExamples

New HiresExistingEmployee Group



Activities (Functions) Establish personal values 1

Analyze external case for ideas 2

Analyze local case for principles 3

Design a business practice 4

Package as response ability models 5

Rotate student / mentor roles 6

Review and select for quality 7 Sel

f C

ont

ain

ed U

nits

Plu

g C

ompa

tibili

ty

Fac

ilita

ted

Re-

Use

Fla

t In

tera

ctio

n

Def

err

ed C

om

mitm

ent

Dis

trib

ute

d C

ontr

ol &

Inf

o

Sel

f O

rga

niza

tion

Ela

stic

Cap

aci

ty

Red

unda

ncy

& D

ive

rsity

Evo

lvin

g S

tand

ard

s

Principle-Based Activities, and Issues Served

R

eact

ive

Pro

acti

ve

Issues (Requirements)

RRS Principles

Capturing hidden tacit knowledge 3567 35 356 57 3 37 6 3 3 37

Creating student interest and value 124 1 1 1 12 124 124 1 1

Improving knowledge accuracy 367 6 3 37 6 3 3 7

Improving knowledge effectiveness 1245 45 245 45 1 12 5 2

Migrating the knowledge focus 247 27 4 2 4 7 247 4 47

Accommodating different student types (all) 25 6 347 2 12345 1 17 2

Injecting fresh outside knowledge 26 26 26 2 6 2

Finding and fixing incorrect knowledge 367 7 7 3 3 6 3 3 7

Excising poor value knowledge 2357 7 7 3 3 2 23 35 257

Allowing flexible student schedules 34 34 34 34

Accommodating any size group 2345 2345 234 2 25 34 234

Reinterpret rules for new applications 23457 27 5 2 357 23457

Details: http://www.parshift.com/Essays/essay039.htm

(Case: An Insight Development System)

Closure Matrix – Where Deep Design Begins


http://www.parshift.com/Essays/essay039.htm


Creating Conceptual Design Closure

The closure tool is where design thought gets deep. Here the preliminary issues, principles, and activities are sifted for relevance and related for synergy.

The tool is first used to specify which activities will address which issues, and why; and to verify (in the mind of the designer) that the set of issues and the set of activities are necessary and sufficient. It is a time to step back from the preliminary, somewhat brainstormed, formulation of the problem and the solution-architecture, and do a sanity check before specifying design-principle employment. Not explored further here, Chapter 7 of the text book can assist.

The real work with the closure tool is generally on the employment and purpose of principles - the ones that would compromise potential if they are not employed as design elements. This we will explore further here.

Issue-Focused, Principle-Based Design - The General Process

1) Pick an activity, and describe its general process sequence.

2) Focusing on one issue: sequentially think if/how each of the ten principles might be employed by the activity to address the issue meaningfully. Then write a paragraph that describes the key principles and what they achieve.

3) Loop through all issues for item 2.4) Loop through all activities for item 1.

Note for term project: Do 1-2-3 as exemplified in the following slides and in Chapter 7 of the text book (mainly in final section headed “Principle-Based design”) … as a minimum.



The Activity

Analyze Local Case for Principles(strong similarities to the GM workshop process that designed this activity)

This is the primary mechanism for capturing core-competency knowledge, and uses the students to analyze and describe the features and underlying principles of an existing highly adaptable system. Typically the original designers of these existing systems employ techniques that they are unable to articulate to others sufficient for duplicating the expertise. The purpose of this analysis is twofold: first, it turns tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, and second, it is a warm-up exercise for the group which subsequently employs what they have learned to solve the workshop application problem. Students choose the subject for analysis from candidates suggested by mentors. Mentors provide process guidance, aiming the group toward the eventual descriptive requirements for consistent knowledge representation.

1a) Describe the activity and …



Activity Process Sequence Described(Analyze Local Case For Principles)

1.Explain in presentation/tour the case under analysis.

2.Full group Q&A and discussion.

3.Breakout sub-groups identify issues and values.

4.Full group discussion on sub-group results.

5.Breakouts build activity diagram and identify framework, modules, and system responsibilities.


7.Breakouts build closure matrix with RRS examples.


9.Mentors lead consensus-making among sub-group differences where possible – as a transition into the next activity: Metaphor Model Packaging.

1b) … its process sequence



Issue: Capture Hidden Tacit Knowledge

Employing the flat interaction principle we encourage the sub-groups to independently question and probe the people involved in designing or operating the system under analysis without restricting this to a full group discussion and Q&A activity.

Importantly, deferred commitment is at work by first examining issues and activities before identifying the underlying principles that are important - which tends to broaden the perspective while focusing it on priorities at the same time.

Unit redundancy is employed by purposely having multiple sub-groups go after the same analysis independently so that if one gets in a hole another will surly succeed.

By the same token, we let these sub-groups exercise a high degree of self-organization as to how they will schedule their analysis activity, how they will interpret the principles, what libraried cases they will study for guidance, and how they will arrive at a self-contained unit conclusion - requiring no dependence on other sub-groups.

Of course their conclusion is going to be plug compatible with the full group because the analysis structure is a given: the metaphor model is the template.

This independent work by multiple groups will develop a broader and deeper set of alternative views, guard against single-view dogma, and generally make progress even if some of the people in the group are confused and lost.

Finally, evolving standards will modify our understandings of the principles and their usage, and the change issue/value focus to keep up with new learnings and perspectives.

2) Pick an issue, write a paragraph showing RRS-principle usage



Issue: Improving Knowledge Accuracy

Redundant sub-groups and even duplicate analyses by whole groups refines the knowledge.

Self organization of the sub-groups and allowing direct flat interaction between teams and sources increases the likelihood that some teams will uncover knowledge overlooked by others who approach the process differently.

As before, deferring the close look at principles focuses the priorities; and allowing direct team/source interaction broadens the total perspective.

Issue: Improving Knowledge EffectivenessChartering each sub-group as a self-contained unit means that they must build a complete stand-alone analysis, and not split up the effort with another – meaning they will learn a full system with all its checks and balances and not simply a few odds and ends about something that appears to work.

2-loop) Pick another issue, write a paragraph showing RRS-principle usage



Issue: Different Student types

The issue of different student types is accommodated by deferring the selection of the local case until the participant profile is known - and at the same time letting the group self-decide what the case shall be from among their own candidates as well as those offered by mentors.

Issue: Finding and Fixing Incorrect KnowledgeIssue: Excising Poor Value Knowledge

Though they are two distinct issues, finding and fixing incorrect knowledge and excising poor value knowledge are both achieved identically in our case here - and in a similar manner to improving knowledge accuracy.Redundant sub-groups and even duplicate analyses by whole groups is bound to produce differing points of view and even expose a sacred cow now and then. Self organization of the sub-groups and flat interaction increases the likelihood that some teams will look at things differently than others. Finally, deferring the close look at principles until a sound set of issues and values is developed is likely to ferret out bad assumptions




Issue: Flexible Student Schedules

The issue of flexible student schedules is enabled by self-organizing sub-groups that stand-alone as self-contained teams and are able to interact peer-to-peer (flat interaction) in their analysis work. Though there are some times when an entire workshop group must meet together, the bulk of the time consuming work is spread over weeks and can occur asynchronously

Issue: Accommodating Any Size Analysis GroupThe issue of accommodating any size analysis group, from a few new hires to a large retraining class, relies on the flexible capacity afforded by splitting a total group into any number of sub-group teams, chartering these teams as independent self-contained units that work to a common plug-compatible process structure, and having them all work redundantly on the same objectives.

Issue: Reinterpret Rules for New ApplicationsTechnology, applications, and corporate strategy change with time. By distributing control of this total process to the points of maximum knowledge we vest evolving standards responsibility in the hands of the knowledge management committee, for they have the current strategies and future goals of the organization in sight.




"When I am working on a problem,I never think about beauty, but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."-- R. Buckminster Fuller

“Quality is practical, and factories and airlines and hospital labs must be practical. But it is also moral and aesthetic. And it is also perceptual and subjective.”-- Tom Peters

ProjectedOperational

Story

ArchitecturalConcept

& Integrity

ResponseSituation Analysis

RRSPrinciples Synthesis

ConOpsObjectives& Activities

Reality Factors

Identified

ClosureMatrixDesign

QualityEvaluation

RAPTools & Process



In-Class Tool Applications

Class Warm-ups Team Trials Team ProjectUnit 2

Unit 3

Unit 4

Unit 5

Unit 6

Unit 7

Unit 8

Unit 9

Unit 10

ConOps: Objectives

Reactive/Proactive

RS Analysis

Framework/Modules

RRS + Integrity

RS Analysis

RRS Analysis

Reality Factors: Case

RS Analysis: Case

RRS Analysis: Case

Reality + Activities

Integrity Closure

AAP Analysis: Case



EXERCISE

Process to follow…A - Chose an activityB - Describe the steps of that activity (Slide 1)C - Identify which issues are addressed by that activity (Put activity # next to the appropriate issues in closure matrix)D - Identify which principles are employed for each issue addressed (Put activity # at intersection cell in closure matrix)F – Choose one issue with lots of intersections

and explain in prose how principles apply

Generate three slides (like the examples on next 3 slides):1: Pick one activity and describe its process steps in a paragraph2: Closure Matrix – Show all Issue/Principle hits for that Activity (use template)3: Choose one or more Issues and explain how the principles are employed to

address the issue in the activity you chose – perhaps a sentence each



Analyze Local Case For Principles

Process Steps in This (our chosen) Activity

1.Explain in presentation/tour the case under analysis.

2.Full group Q&A and discussion.

3.Breakout sub-groups identify issues and values.


5.Breakouts build activity diagram and identify framework, modules, and system responsibilities.


7.Breakouts build closure matrix with RRS examples.


9.Mentors lead consensus-making among sub-group differences where possible - as a transition into the next activity: Metaphor Model Packaging.

Slide 1 “GM Example”



Closure Matrix

Activities (Functions) Establish personal values 1

Analyze external case for ideas 2

Analyze local case for principles 3

Design a business practice 4

Package as response ability models 5

Rotate student / mentor roles 6

Review and select for quality 7 Sel

f C

ont

ain

ed U

nits

Plu

g C

ompa

tibili

ty

Fac

ilita

ted

Re-

Use

Fla

t In

tera

ctio

n

Def

err

ed C

om

mitm

ent

Dis

trib

ute

d C

ontr

ol &

Inf

o

Sel

f O

rga

niza

tion

Ela

stic

Cap

aci

ty

Red

unda

ncy

& D

ive

rsity

Evo

lvin

g S

tand

ard

s

Principle-Based Activities, and Issues Served

R

eact

ive

Pro

acti

ve

Issues (Requirements)

RRS Principles

Capturing hidden tacit knowledge 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Creating student interest and value

Improving knowledge accuracy 3 3 3 3 3

Improving knowledge effectiveness

Migrating the knowledge focus

Accommodating different student types (all) 3 3

Injecting fresh outside knowledge

Finding and fixing incorrect knowledge 3 3 3 3 3

Excising poor value knowledge 3 3 3 3 3

Allowing flexible student schedules 3 3 3 3

Accommodating any size group 3 3 3 3 3

Reinterpret rules for new applications 3 3 3

Case: An Insight Development System

Slide 2 “GM Example”**Use Excel Form**



Issue: Capture Hidden Tacit Knowledge

Employing the flat interaction principle we encourage the sub-groups to independently question and probe the people involved in designing or operating the system under analysis without restricting this to a full group discussion and Q&A activity.

Importantly, deferred commitment is at work by first examining issues and activities before identifying the underlying principles that are important - which tends to broaden the perspective while focusing it on priorities at the same time.

Unit redundancy is employed by purposely having multiple sub-groups go after the same analysis independently so that if one gets in a hole another will surly succeed.

By the same token, we let these sub-groups exercise a high degree of self-organization as to how they will schedule their analysis activity, how they will interpret the principles, what libraried cases they will study for guidance, and how they will arrive at a self-contained unit conclusion - requiring no dependence on other sub-groups.

Of course their conclusion is going to be plug compatible with the full group because the analysis structure is a given: the metaphor model is the template.

This independent work by multiple groups will develop a broader and deeper set of alternative views, guard against single-view dogma, and generally make progress even if some of the people in the group are confused and lost.

Finally, evolving standards will modify our understandings of the principles and their usage, and the change issue/value focus to keep up with new learnings and perspectives.

Slide 3 “GM Example”


Documents

8:1 [email protected]@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted ES/SDOE 678 Reconfigurable Agile Systems and Enterprises Fundamentals of Analysis,