Unlocking Potential
Capability-Based Technical Reference Frameworks for Open System Architecture
Implementations(Leathart, Porter, Schmidt, O’Hare, Crisp, Laird)
Presented by John R. LeathartChief Engineer
PEO SUB-SSystems Integration Manager - Submarine
Warfare SystemsNAVSEA05UW
April 3, 2014
Unlocking Potential
Naval Enterprise OSA Strategy*
• Business changes
• Technical Reference Frameworks
• Implementation Tools
• OSA Training
*ASN RDA “Naval Open Systems Architecture Strategy” 26 November 2012
OSA Vision: Affordable, Open Platforms that Easily Accommodate Open Modules
Unlocking Potential
Technical Reference Framework
Page 3
• Provides a reusable architecture for a family of related applications• An integrated set of components
Standardized specifications
Architectures
Data Models
Protocols
Tools
Unlocking Potential 4
Open Interfaces - SPIES
Technical Frameworks Enable Buying Choice
SWFTS CANES
Unlocking Potential
Do You Have a Closed System?
• Is your system delivered through a single contract
– If so, has it been that way for a while?
• Is that prime contractor the only one who knows how your system is architected?
If you answered yes to these two questions, then you are at high risk of a having closed system
Unlocking Potential
What to do if You Have a Closed System• 1st step is to analyze your architecture
• Acquire system architecture documents and compare them to the following ten attributes
• Federated Acquisition/Integrated Operation• Data Driven• Expandable (Adaptable, Scalable, Extensible)
• Authoritative Governance• Published and Discoverable• Reduced Complexity (Modular Design, Minimized Coupling, Clear/Concise/Consistent)
• Be Open (Use of Open Standards, Support Re-Use, Utilize Central Services)
• Be Secure (Compliant, Certifiable, Reliable)
• Reusability (Portable Components)
• Defined Intellectual Property and Data Rights
Unlocking Potential
• You are an Open System– Should be easy to compete in smaller components,
lending towards right-sized competition
• You are not Open and need an plan of action – Describe at a high level the capability you are delivering – Using the description, define the pieces of that capability that when
combined make up that whole capability– Repeat the step on the pieces until it makes sense to stop
• Each piece should be clearly defined, easy to understand, and the individual capabilities are of manageable size
Capability Decomposition & the Method to the Madness
Do you meet all 10 characteristics?
YES
NO
Unlocking Potential
• You are not Open and need an plan of action (Continued)– Map the existing system in to these pieces
• If the mapping is difficult it is likely your systems architecture is lacking and that piece may need to be re-architected
• Change should be accomplished in an evolutionary, not revolutionary, manner• Map out the evolutionary plan of change of the architecture
• Requires defining interfaces between components• Use open principles for interfaces (published, using industry standards)
• Provides a manageable risk profile
Capability Decomposition & the Method to the Madness (cont.)
KEY TO SUCCESSFirst step should be modest and not aggressive
– Pick a piece outside of the programs critical path– Goal should be to prove the viability
Unlocking Potential
• BSY-2 Combat System for Seawolf Class submarines• Last submarine combat systems designed under GOTS procurement
• Very Capable• Very Costly & Delivered late
• After initial three Seawolf Class submarines were built the program was cancelled due to cost, with the combat systems significantly contributing to that cost
• Virginia Class submarines and COTS based combat systems• Design of the Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems (SWFTS)
• Hardware capability defined by the 2yr Technical Insertion (TI) process• Software was based on a data driven design
• Data model defined with 14 data groups utilizing an open standard middleware• Programatically broken up into separate PMOs each delivering a piece of the
overall combat system (Sonar, Tactical Control, Weapons Control, Imaging, etc)
PEO Submarines Combat Systems Success Story
Unlocking Potential
• Virginia Class submarines and COTS based combat systems (cont.)– Some significant keys to success of the APB process were
• The process brings in all sized businesses proposing solutions to requested topics Significant small business participation
– Software lifecycle created to support a drumbeat of improved capability
PEO Submarines Combat Systems Success Story (cont.)
• Two year cycle known as the Advanced Processor Build (APB)
– TI hardware design done on even years– APB software baselines are designed on
odd years
• Utilizes Open System Principles– Published and open interfaces – Use of open standards middleware– Baseline management (governance) on
System of System Interfaces
Unlocking Potential
• The solution was originally for Virginia Class submarines but were then extended to the other classes of fast attack submarines
• Has been in place for longer than a decade• Significant cost reductions of the cost of acquisition and maintenance of the
combat systems on the fast attack submarine fleet• Has dramatically reduced cost and has provided rapid new capability insertion to
the substantial benefit of the fleet.
• This is an example of how open systems principles work• Took a large monolithic combat system (BSY-2) and re-factored the capabilities
using open system principles• Has been working for more than a decade and still works• The TI and APB processes have been lauded as a model for acquisition in warfare
systems
PEO Submarines Combat Systems Success Story (cont.)
• Description of Analysis Phase to determine if an architecture lends itself to being constituted by modular components
Endsystem EndsystemWireless/wired Networks
Sensor Systems
Weapons Systems
C2 System Weapons Control
Technology base:Proprietary MWVxWorksFDDI/LANS
EngagementSystem
Technology base:Proprietary MWPOSIXVME/1553
KillEval SchedEO
Network
AAWEG
AAW
AAWTBMEG
AAWAAW
AAWMG
TMBMG
Technology base:Proprietary MWMercuryLink16/11/4
Technology base:DII-COEPOSIXATM/Ethernet
Technology base:Proprietary MWPOSIXNTDS
Applications Applications
Operating System
OperatingSystem
Illum
Applications
Endsystem
Applications
EndsystemWireless/wired Networks
Common ServicesDistribution Middleware
Infrastructure Middleware
Domain-Specific Services
Middleware
Wireless/wired Networks
Sensor Systems
Weapons Systems
EngagementSystem
Common ServicesDistribution Middleware
Infrastructure Middleware
Domain-Specific Services
Operating System
OperatingSystem
C2 System Weapons Control
Stove-piped versus layered & modular
Published Open Interfaces & Standards: Methodology
• Determine the granularity & capability scope of the open interfaces & standards• Granularity is a measure of the “surface area” of the interface• Capability scope identifies the layer(s) of abstraction that are
addressed
Published Open Interfaces & Standards: Methodology
Com
ms
Rada
rs
Laun
cher
s
Othe
r
Early OSAwith COTS
Com
ms
Rada
rs
L aun
cher
s
Oth e
r
OSA with Domain Reuse
Com
ms
Rada
rs
Laun
cher
s
Othe
r
OSA withSOA
Com
ms
Rada
rs
Laun
cher
s
Oth e
r
OSA withProduct Lines
Com
ms
Rada
rs
Laun
cher
s
Othe
r
Ad HocArchitecture
• Determine which of the identified components can be published as either • Open standards, which either exist already or which could be
defined/ratified via a recognized standards organization, or• Published domain-specific interfaces (local standards), which are
defined by agreements amongst government & contractors in one or more domains
Open standard
s
Open domain-specific
interfaces
Published Open Interfaces & Standards: MethodologyCo
mm
s
R ad a
r s
L aun
cher
s
Oth e
r
Early OSAwith COTS
Com
ms
Rada
rs
Laun
cher
s
Othe
r
OSA with Domain Reuse
Com
ms
R ad a
r s
L aun
cher
s
Oth e
r
OSA withSOA
Com
ms
R ad a
r s
L aun
cher
s
Oth e
r
OSA withProduct Lines
• Determine the appropriate governance models best suited for defining, adopting, & publishing the open interfaces & standards
• Relevant examples include• International standards
bodies• Vendor-centric “de facto
standards” • Managed
Government/Industry consortium
Published Open Interfaces & Standards: Methodology
• Common data models & protocols help achieve interoperability between hardware and/or software applications & services
• These common data models & protocols simplify data interchange & exchange between components from different suppliers or components implemented using different technologies.
Common Data Models & Protocols for OSA Initiatives
Unlocking Potential
What is a Common Data Model and Why is it Important?
• Common data models define the terminology that a program uses for all of its data sources and the relationships that exist between different data items
• A common data model enables data interoperability between applications
• A Government owned data model can provide protection from a vendor lock on their interfaces
• Ensure interoperability between applications • A Common Data Model
– Allow applications to loosely coupled– Applications can upgrade at their own pace, because the data model
provides for a common exchange
Unlocking Potential
Commercial Industry Using Data Models
Amazon and Facebook -Utilize a common data model to share key characteristics of their customers
Apple and Samsung -Use Data Models to Support the Quick Launch of New Smart Phone Products
Unlocking Potential
Navy Implementation of a Data Model
19
The Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) Community of Interest Data Model (ACDM)is:
• An information exchange model– A standard to support moving information between systems– Designed to provide unambiguous interpretation
• Intended as a living model– Continually evolve to the changing needs of the ASW community– Grow in capability as the sophistication of ASW systems increases
• Developed to be Flexible– Support interoperability between software platforms– Extensible/scalable for individual system / program needs
• Broad in scope– Tracks and situational awareness– Sensor metrics and sensor data– Mission planning– Simulation and training– Reconstruction and analysis
Unlocking Potential
TRF Governance Plan• Guides the TRF description in acquisition program
documents such as – • Acquisition Plan• RFP• System Engineering Plan• Interoperability DODAF Views• Information Support Plan• System Specifications• Software Development Plan• Configuration Management Plan
• Creates a coherent picture concerning adherence to OSD and Navy OSA policy.
21
Better Buying Power 2.0Promoting Effective Competition for the Life Cycle
https://acc.dau.mil/bbp
Enforce open system architectures and effectively manage technical data rights:
This item is continued from BBP 1.0 and will focus on improving the Department’s early planning for open architectures and the successful execution of the plan to provide for open architectures and modular systems. This will include the development of a business model and associated intellectual property strategy (data rights planning) that can be implemented over the lifecycle of the product, starting while competition still exists.
Unlocking Potential
Questions?