jo ann lane university of southern california
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
Jo Ann LaneUniversity of Southern CaliforniaCenter for Systems and Software [email protected]
Dr. Paul CarlockNorthrop Grumman CorporationMission Systems [email protected]
COCOMO Forum 2006
COSOSIMO: How Well Does It Capture the Unique Aspects of System of Systems Engineering
Processes?
COSOSIMO: How Well Does It Capture the Unique Aspects of System of Systems Engineering
Processes?
2
• What is System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) and what makes it unique
• System of Systems Enterprise Systems Engineering (SoS ESE) and Enterprise Architecture Management Framework (EAMF) Overview
• Comparison of SoS ESE EAMF with SoSE unique features
• SoS ESE EAMF track record with respect to SoS success• COSOSIMO overview and relationship to SoS ESE EAMF• COSOSIMO parameter consistency with respect to SoS
ESE key features• Conclusions and impact on COSOSIMO evolution
OutlineOutline
3
SoSE and
What Makes it Unique
SoSE and
What Makes it Unique
4
• USAF SAB Report on SoSE for Air Force Capability (USAF 2005): The process of planning, analyzing, organizing, and integrating the capabilities of a mix of existing and new systems into a system-of-systems capability that is greater than the sum of the capabilities of the constituent parts. This processes emphasizes the process of discovering, developing, and implementing standards that promote interoperability among systems developed via different sponsorship, management, and primary acquisition processes.
• National Centers for Systems of Systems Engineering (NCOSOSE): The design, deployment, operation, and transformation of metasystems that must function as an integrated complex system to produce desirable results. These metasystems are themselves comprised of multiple autonomous embedded complex systems that can be diverse in technology, context, operation, geography, and conceptual frame. (http://www.eng.odu.edu/ncsose/what_is_SOSE.shtml)
What is SoSE?What is SoSE?
5
• Key areas where SoSE activities differ from traditional SE – Architecting composability vs. decomposition (Meilich 2006)
– Added “ilities” such as flexibility, adaptability, composability (USAF 2005)
– Net-friendly vs. hierachical (Meilich 2006)
– First order tradeoffs above the component systems level (e.g., optimization at the SoS level, instead of at the component system level) (Garber 2006)
– Early tradeoffs/evaluations of alternatives (Finley 2006)
– Human as part of the SoS (Siel 2006, Meilich 2006, USAF 2005)
– Discovery and application of convergence protocols (USAF 2005)
SoSE Compared to Traditional SE ActivitiesSoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities
6
• Key areas where SoSE activities differ from traditional SE (continued)– Organizational scope defined at runtime instead of at system
development time (Meilich 2006)– Dynamic reconfiguration of architecture as needs change (USAF
2005)– Modeling and simulation, in particular to better understand
“emergent behaviors” (Finley 2006)– Component systems separately acquired and continue to be
managed as independent systems (USAF 2005)– Intense concept phase analysis followed by continuous
anticipation; aided by ongoing experimentation (USAF 2005)
SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued)
SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued)
7
• Key Challenges for SoSE– Business model and incentives to encourage working
together at the SoS level (Garber 2006)– Doing the necessary tradeoffs at the SoS level (Garber
2006)– Human-system integration (Siel 2006, Meilich 2006)– Commonality of data, architecture, and business strategies
at the SoS level (Pair 2006)– Removing multiple decision making layers (Pair 2006)– Requiring accountability at the enterprise level (Pair 2006)– Evolution management (Meilich 2006)– Maturity of technology (Finley 2006)
For the most part, SoSE appears to be SE+
SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued)
SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued)
8
SoS ESE OverviewSoS ESE Overview
9
SoS ESESoS ESE
“System of Systems (SoS) Enterprise Systems Engineering (ESE) (also called “Agency-Level Systems Engineering” for federal enterprises) is the set of processes and activities devoted to capability-delivery design and integration throughout an enterprise’s mission planning.
It translates and implements the enterprise’s goals and objectives into a comprehensive and coherent Enterprise Architecture, a Strategic Plan for “System of Systems” Evolution or transformation.
Essentially, it is the enterprise’s Strategic Planning and Control Process.”
• SoS ESE was developed to respond to the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993.
• Low risk transformation of complex SoS Enterprises requires the discipline and rigor of SoS ESE.
• SoS ESE has a solid technical foundation that satisfies federal mandates for enterprise strategic planning and control.
By way of definition…
10
The Enterprise Architecture (EA) incorporates both technical and programmatic information to– Define the strategic plan and roadmap for transformation– Support informed investment decision making
The Enterprise Architecture Management Framework (EAMF) provides the disciplined processes to evolve, maintain, and ensure the proper implementation of the Enterprise Architecture both efficiently and successfully
– Combined focus on strategic, tactical, and operational objectives– Clear roles and responsibilities are assigned to each partner in agency transformation– Governance support mechanisms for managing transformation activities
Integrates and leverages Best Practices from successful large-agency transformation efforts already accomplished
An approach to managing enterprise transformation that Utilizes a comprehensive, integrated, mission service-based enterprise architecture Defines an enterprise architecture management strategy that effectively employs all elements of the
acquisition framework to minimize risk and expedite delivery of benefits Is flexible to accommodate and leverage proven best practices of mature corporate, mission, and
cultural process reengineering methodologies
The SoS ESE Methodology
Architecting for Enterprise-Level TransformationArchitecting for Enterprise-Level Transformation
11
Three-Level SoS ESE MethodologyThree-Level SoS ESE Methodology
Tight linkage to the Organization’s Acquisition Strategy is critical to establishing a transformation partnership
12
• Integrated technical and programmatic description of the enterprise• Includes technical, cost, and schedule data, and all other data necessary to
define a strategic plan– Supports development of all architecture views (DoDAF, business, temporal,
security, data, cost, …)
• Lays out the transition of capabilities aligned with agency and stakeholder values and priorities
– Mission service-based derived from community needs• Mission service provision through capabilities• Capability provision through systems, people,
facilities, support activities
• Temporal in nature– Capability provision “how”
changes with time
The enterprise architecture IS the strategic plan for enterprise transformation
Characterizing the Enterprise Architecture (EA)Characterizing the Enterprise Architecture (EA)
DoDAF Views
13
Characterizing the Enterprise Architecture Management Framework
Characterizing the Enterprise Architecture Management Framework
Seamless life cycle acquisition management process that extends from identification of need to capability retirement
14
The EAMF ensures proper implementation of the enterprise architecture by explicitly integrating systems engineering into the acquisition process
Enterprise Architecture Management Framework (EAMF)
Enterprise Architecture Management Framework (EAMF)
15
Enterprise Architecture TaxonomyEnterprise Architecture Taxonomy
The enterprise architecture balances User Community needs against resources to achieve successful transformation
16
Industry Best Practices in the SoS ESE Methodology
Industry Best Practices in the SoS ESE Methodology
17
Performance Modeling and Measurement
System Needs and Requirements Management
Proven SE Provides the FoundationProven SE Provides the Foundation
Requirements Analysis Architecture Development Technology Insertion Risk Management CM IV&V Readiness …
Systems Engineering Activities
18
Value Engineering ensures a customer focus andtight alignment of enterprise strategic planning and implementation
Value Engineering Provides the Strategic EdgeValue Engineering Provides the Strategic Edge
• SE transformation discipline
– Quick, decisive performance improvements
– Aligns strategy with capabilities
– Builds ownership and acceptance
• Key areas:– Strategy development– Capability analysis– Change management– Communications
19Mission Engineering comprehensively defines capabilities to support effective systems engineering
Mission Engineering Enables Dynamic ResponsivenessMission Engineering Enables Dynamic Responsiveness
• SE discipline for visual definition and linkage to requirements
– Transforms capabilities into requirements
– Captures • Mission and business
processes• Business rules• Design approaches
– Vehicle for collaborative hand-off among performing organization elements
• Key activities– Community requirements– Capability requirements– Systems requirements
EnterpriseActivity Roadmap
(OperationsAnalysis)
Multi-Dimensional Requirements
View
20Melding of proven SE disciplines provides a rapid Enterprise Architecture definition
Application Within the EAMFApplication Within the EAMF
• Integrated disciplines provide critical artifacts across the EAMF to update EA
– Tight interface to customers and priorities
– Flexible for varying situations
– Responsive to short timeline needs
• Provides the basis for a decision support framework
– Technical and programmatic data
– All stakeholders involved
21
SoS ESE EAMF Track RecordSoS ESE EAMF Track Record
• Successes– FAA (1998-2001): Led to
Congress trusting the FAA architecture planning process and increasing the budget by 42% (9/11 changed priorities)
– National System for Geospatial-Intelligence: Using to guide enterprise architecture development. Incorporates scenario-based engineering into the framework.
– Other classified programs
• Reasons why ESE EAMF has not worked well on some other programs– Lack of senior management
commitment to processes– Interdependencies not
accurately reported and tracked
– Inaccurate tracking of schedule/budget issues
• The EA, as a strategic plan, is only as good as the data it contains and the commitment of the organization to keep it current and correct
22
COSOSIMO Overview and Relationship to SoS ESE EAMF
COSOSIMO Overview and Relationship to SoS ESE EAMF
23
Planning, Requirements Management,
and Architecting (PRA)
Source Selection and Supplier
Oversight (SO)
SoS Integrationand Testing
(I&T)
Size Drivers
Cost Drivers
SoSDefinition andIntegrationEffort
COSOSIMO Reduced Parameter Sub-Model Overview
COSOSIMO Reduced Parameter Sub-Model Overview
24
COSOSIMO/SoS ESE EAMF RelationshipCOSOSIMO/SoS ESE EAMF Relationship
PRA
COSOSIMO
SO I&T
Strategic Analysis
CapabilityAnalysis
AlternativeAnalysis Implement
OperationsAnd
Sustainment
25
COSOSIMO Parameter Consistency With Respect to
SoS ESE Key Features
COSOSIMO Parameter Consistency With Respect to
SoS ESE Key Features
26
PRA
Size Drivers• # SoS-related requirements• # SoS interface protocols
Cost Drivers• Requirements understanding• Level of service requirements• Stakeholder team cohesion• SoS team capability• Maturity of LSI processes• Tool support• Cost/schedule compatibility• SoS risk resolution
LSI PRAEffort
Associated EAMF Key Features• Tight interface to customers and
priorities• Flexible for varying situations• Responsive to short timelines
needs• Provides the basis for a decision
support framework• Integrated technical and
programmatic (including cost) data
• All stakeholders involved
COSOSIMO: PRA Sub-ModelCOSOSIMO: PRA Sub-Model
27
SO
Size Drivers• # independent component
system organizations
Cost Drivers• Requirements understanding• Architecture maturity• Level of service requirements• SoS team capability• Maturity of LSI processes• Tool support• Cost/schedule compatibility• SoS risk resolution
LSI SOEffort
Associated EAMF Key Features• Identification of viable
alternatives• Comprehensive analysis of
alternatives• Selection based on stakeholder
priorities• Consistency with both current
and projected budget profiles
COSOSIMO: SO Sub-ModelCOSOSIMO: SO Sub-Model
28
I&T
Size Drivers• # SoS interface protocols• # SoS scenarios• # unique component systems
Cost Drivers• Requirements understanding• Architecture maturity• Level of service requirements• SoS team capability• Maturity of LSI processes• Tool support• Cost/schedule compatibility• SoS risk resolution• Component system maturity and
stability• Component system readiness
LSI I&TEffort
Associated EAMF Key Features• Customer communications and
feedback• IV&V• Transformation assessment and
impact review• In-service metrics and feedback
COSOSIMO: I&T Sub-ModelCOSOSIMO: I&T Sub-Model
29
Conclusions and Impact on COSOSIMO Evolution
Conclusions and Impact on COSOSIMO Evolution
30
Summary• What is “special” about SoSE in the enterprise
environment? – SoSE is SE+ with the focus being on “enterprise transformation”– SoSE is SE tightly integrated with the acquisition process– SoSE requires flexibility, flexibility, and more flexibility in both
engineering and acquisition as the environment changes during the transformation process
– SoSE requires more of a “governance support” mechanism than long term detailed planning and structured oversight
– Key features to being successful• Need a Strategic Plan/Enterprise Architecture for on-going SoS
evolution and transformation that includes technical, cost, and schedule aspects
• Planning and honesty about variance in actual progress are critical—need to constantly adjust to reality
• A flexible, evolvable architecture is required for on-going success• Understanding current business processes and re-engineering
those processes to take advantage of SoS capabilities is key
31
Summary (continued)
• How does EAMF compare to SoSE observations? – Addresses many of the differences and challenges identified in
recent conferences and workshops:• Added “ilities” such as flexibility, adaptability, composability• Early tradeoffs and tradeoffs above the component systems level• Managerial independence of component systems• Intense concept phase analysis followed by continuous anticipation• Business model and incentives to encourage working together at
the SoS level• Commonality of data, architecture, and business strategies at the
SoS level• Requiring accountability at the enterprise level• Evolution management• Technology maturity
32
Summary (continued)
• Can “close enough” SoSE effort estimates be obtained from current SE cost models such as COSYSMO?– Probably not– Current SE cost models do not account for levels of complexities
seen in many SoSs, the need for significant business process re-engineering, and the coordination of multiple component system “owners”
– Still need data from SoSE programs to determine the extent and impact of these differences
• What does this mean for COSOSIMO?– There is an identified need for COSOSIMO—those that are in
the midst of SoSE programs do not have the estimation support they need from existing cost models
– The path taken will be determined by the number and types of differences from the current SE cost model, COSYSMO
33
Carlock, P.G., and R.E. Fenton, "System of Systems (SoS) Enterprise Systems for Information-Intensive Organizations," Systems Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 242-261, 2001
DiMario, Mike (2006); “System of Systems Characteristics and Interoperability in Joint Command Control”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference
Electronic Industries Alliance (1999); EIA Standard 632: Processes for Engineering a SystemFinley, James (2006); “Keynote Address”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering
Conference Garber, Vitalij (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems
Engineering ConferenceINCOSE (2006); Systems Engineering Handbook, Version 3, INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03Krygiel, A. (1999); Behind the Wizard’s Curtain; CCRP Publication Series, July, 1999, p. 33Maier, M. (1998); “Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems”; Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 4 (pp
267-284)Meilich, Abe (2006); “System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) and Architecture Challenges in a Net Centric
Environment”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering ConferencePair, Major General Carlos (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of
Systems Engineering Conference Proceedings of AFOSR SoSE Workshop, Sponsored by Purdue University, 17-18 May 2006Proceedings of Society for Design and Process Science 9th World Conference on Integrated Design and
Process Technology, San Diego, CA, 25-30 June 2006Siel, Carl (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering
ConferenceUnited States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (2005); Report on System-of-Systems Engineering for Air
Force Capability Development; Public Release SAB-TR-05-04
SoSE ReferencesSoSE References