welcome to the 2015 system of systems engineering...

2015 SoSECIE Webinars - 1 Approved for Public Release | Distribution is unlimited.

We will start at 11am Eastern Time.

For Audio: call 1-888-450-5996 (Toll-free) / 1-719-955-1371 (Toll)

Passcode: 135790

You can download today’s presentation from the DASD(SE) Website:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/outreach/sosecollab.html

To add/remove yourself from the email list or suggest a future topic or

speaker, send an email to [email protected]

Welcome to the

2015 System of Systems Engineering

Collaborators Information Exchange (SoSECIE)


Co-sponsored by the

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

for Systems Engineering

and

National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Systems Engineering Division

System of Systems SE Committee

Industry Chairs: Rick Poel, Boeing and Mr. Jeff Wolske, Raytheon

OSD Liaison: Dr. Judith Dahmann, MITRE

Welcome to the

2015 System of Systems Engineering

Collaborators Information Exchange (SoSECIE)


NDIA System of Systems SE Committee

• Mission– To provide a forum where government, industry, and academia can share

lessons learned, promote best practices, address issues, and advocate

systems engineering for Systems of Systems (SoS)

– To identify successful strategies for applying systems engineering principles

to systems engineering of SoS

• Operating practices– SoS Committee meetings usually in conjunction with NDIA SE Division

meetings in February, April, June, and August− Face to face + virtual participation

− Additional telecons arranged as needed

− All are invited!

– NDIA 18th Systems Engineering Conference, October 26-29, 2015

Waterford Conference Center, Springfield, VA− Additional conference info: http://www.ndia.org/meetings/6870/

− Abstracts due Friday, May 29, 2015 at 5pm EST: http://application.ndia.org/abstracts/6870/

For more information:

http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Pages/SystemsofSystemsCommittee.aspx


Simple Rules of Engagement

• Very important: I have muted all participant lines for this

introduction and the briefing. Once the briefer is ready for

questions, you can use *6 to mute/unmute during the Q&A.

• If you need to contact me during the briefing, please use the CHAT

feature on DCO.

• In the event you have trouble with DCO, you can download the

presentation so you can follow along on your own.

• We are going to hold all questions until the end. If you would like to

ask a question using the CHAT feature, I will ask those questions

to the briefer when we get started with Q&A. Then I’ll ask each

community participating if they have questions: OSD, Army, Navy,

AF, Agencies, industry, academia. Be sure to state your name,

organization, and question clearly.

• If it looks like a question is going to require more discussion, I may

ask you to take it offline.

• If we run out of time, the speaker’s contact info is in the brief.


Disclaimer

The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems

Engineering (ODASD(SE)) makes no claims, promises or guarantees about

the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this

presentation and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its

contents.

No warranty of any kind, implied, expressed or statutory, including but not

limited to the warranties of non-infringement of third party rights, title,

merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and freedom from computer

virus, is given with respect to the contents of this presentation or its

hyperlinks to other Internet resources.

Reference in any presentation to any specific commercial products,

processes, or services, or the use of any trade, firm or corporation name is

for the information and convenience of the participants and subscribers,

and does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the

Department of Defense or ODASD(SE).


2015 System of Systems Engineering Collaborators Information Exchange Webinars

April 14, Critical Integration Links Identification for System of Systems, Mr. Subash Kafle and

Dr. Jason McZara, The MITRE Corporation

April 28, Synthesizing and Specifying Architectures for System of Systems, Dr. C. Robert Kenley,

Purdue University

• May 5, SoS Considerations in the Engineering of Systems, Dr. Judith Dahmann, The MITRE Corporation

• May 19, Lifecycle Modeling Language and SoS, Dr. Steven Dam, SPEC Innovations

• June 9, Lifecycle Verification of a System of Systems, Mr. Brian Hatchell, Mr. Fredrick Mauss, and

Mr. Kurt Silvers, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

• June 23, Incremental Commitment Spiral Model as Applied to SoS, Dr. Rich Turner, Stevens Institute of

Technology; Dr. Jo Ann Lane, University of Southern California

• July 28, Maintaining Emergence in Systems of Systems Integration: a Contractual Approach using

SysML, Dr. Jeremy Bryans, Dr. John Fitzgerald, and Dr. Richard Payne, University of Newcastle upon Tyne;

Mr. Klaus Kristensen, Bang & Olufsen

• August 11, Systems Integration: He Who Hesitates Is Lost, Mr. James R. Armstrong, Stevens Institute of

Technology

• August 25, A Practitioner’s Approach Using Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) in Systems of

Systems, Mr. Richard Deakins and Mr. Doug Parsons, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research,

Development and Engineering Center

To receive meeting invites, email [email protected] or visit our

website: http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/outreach/sosecollab.html


2015 System of Systems Engineering Collaborators Information Exchange Webinars

• September 1, Approach to Capability-Based System-of-Systems Framework in Support of Naval Ship

Design, Dr. Santiago Balestrini-Robinson and Dr. Simon Briceño, Georgia Institute of Technology,

Cdr Jacques P. Olivier, Department of National Defence, Canada

• September 15, Traceable Engineering of Fault-Tolerant System of Systems, Dr. Zoe Andrews,

Dr. Claire Ingram, Dr. Richard Payne, Mr. Alexander Romanovsky, University of Newcastle upon Tyne;

Mr. Jon Holt and Mr. Simon Perry, Atego

• September 29, Set-Based Design in Requirements Development, Dr. Norbert Doerry, Naval Sea Systems

Command

• October 6, The Human Systems Integration Framework (HSIF): Defining a New Role to Enhance Cross-

Domain Collaboration, Dr. Matthew R. Risser and Mr. Frank C. Lacson, Pacific Science & Engineering

Group

• October 20, Model-based Product Line Engineering - Variations on a Theme, Mr. Matthew C. Hause,

Atego

• November 10, Towards a New Paradigm for Management of Complex Engineering Projects: A System-

of-Systems Framework, Ms. Jin Zhu and Dr. Ali Mostafavi, Florida International University

• November 24, Preferential System Connectivity and its Impact on Performance, Dr. David Flanigan and

Mr. Jeffery Dixon, The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

• December 1, Modelling Patterns for Systems of Systems Architectures, Dr. Claire Ingram and

Dr. Richard Payne, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

• December 15, Towards Technical Reference Frameworks to Support Open System Architecture

Initiatives, Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt, Software Engineering Institute

SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING COLLABORATORS INFORMATION EXCHANGE (SOSECIE)SYNTHESIZING AND SPECIFYING ARCHITECTURES FOR SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS

28 APRIL 2015

C. Robert Kenley, PhD, ESEPAssociate Professor of Engineering Practice

8

TODAY’S TALKTWO SOURCES TO GIVE YOU THE END-TO-END STORY

Selected material from two papers

• Kenley, C. Robert, Timothy M. Dannenhoffer, Paul C. Wood, and Daniel A.

DeLaurentis. 2014. Synthesizing and Specifying Architectures for System of

Systems. Paper read at 24th Annual INCOSE International Symposium, 30 June–

3 July 2014, at Las Vegas, US-NV.

• Mane, Muharrem, and Daniel DeLaurentis. 2012. Sensor Platform Management

Strategies in a Multi-Threat Environment. Paper read at Infotech@Aerospace

2012, 19 - 21 June, at Garden Grove, US-CA.

This material was developed under work supported by the US Missile Defense Agency

(MDA) under contract No. HQ0147-10-C-6001 and has been approved for public release.

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and

should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed

or implied, of the US Missile Defense Agency. The US Missile Defense Agency does not

endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.

9

Synthesizing and Specifying

Architectures for System of Systems

C. Robert Kenley, Timothy M. Dannenhoffer, Paul C. Wood,

and Daniel A. DeLaurentis

Purdue University

24th Annual INCOSE International Symposium

Approved for Public Release 13-MDA-7638, 14 December 13

10

July

A common question about SoS

• What is it that I should be doing for

systems of systems that is different from

what I always have done when

engineering a system?



11

July

Our answer comes in two parts

• Part 1

– Experience-based practices for generating

and evaluating C2BMC architectures

• Part 2

– Review of applicable model-based systems

engineering methods

– Showing how model-based methods apply to

our C2BMC example



12

July

PART 1

Experience-based practices for generating and evaluating C2BMC

architectures



13

July

A Missile Defense System of Systems

• US Ballistic Missile Defense System

(BMDS)

– Land-, sea-, air-, and space-based assets

– “Acknowledged” system of systems

(Dahmann and Baldwin 2008)

• Objectives, management, funding, and authority

are established for the system of systems

• The participating systems retain their own

management, funding, and authority in parallel



14

July

Reference Process for Synthesizing

Architectures


Operational Concept

Functional

Architecture

Physical

Architecture

Allocated Architecture

Dynamics

Model

Executable

Model

Performance

and Resource

Utilization

MetricsFigure adapted from Levis, Alexander H., and Lee W. Wagenhals. 2000. "C4ISR architectures: I.

Developing a process for C4ISR architecture design." Systems Engineering no. 3 (4):225-247.


15

July

BMDS Operational Concept


2

Today’s Ballistic Missile Defense System

2 ncr-113929 / 12/01/11 Approved for Public Release 12- MDA-6524 (17 January 2012)

Approved for Public Release

12-MDA-6946 (12 Jul 12)


12-MDA-6946 (12 Jul 12)


13-MDA-7405 (14 August 13) Approved for Public Release 13-MDA-7638, 14 December 13

16

July

Functional Architecture:

Control and Information Flow


Impact Prediction

&Typing (TY)

Discrimination (DM)

Sensing (S)

Interceptor

Tasking (IT)

Missile

Tracking (MT)

Interceptor

Control (IC)

Kill

Assessment (KA)

Tracking Loop

Discrimination & Typing Loop

Target Engagement Chain

Kill Assessment Loop

Assessment and

Evaluation (AE)

Sensor

Tasking (ST)


17

July

Physical Architecture:

Platforms and Communications Links

Class Physical EntityRelevant

Attributes

Platform

Aircraft

Satellite

Ground Station

C2 Node

Interceptor

Location and

Trajectory

Processing

Resources

Interfaces to

Communications

Links

Communications

Link

Satellite

Wireless

Fiber

Communication

Protocols and

Capacities



18

July

When is the SoS distinction

manifest in the process?

• It is in defining

the allocated

architecture

that the

distinguishing

trait of

operational

independence

is exhibited.


Not here

Not here

Not here

But here


19

July

Allocated Architecture:

Options for Allocating Functions to a Sensor Platform


Platform Autonomy Level

LowHigh

MTST

AE

Independent

operation

S

self-tasking &

generate tracks

MTST

S

generate

tracks

MT

S

generate

measurements

SSensor Platform Sensor Platform Sensor Platform Sensor Platform


20

July

Allocated Architecture:

Example of Centralized vs. Decentralized Tracking

Location of Functionality According to Architecture

Centralization

Centralized

Centralized

Tracking and

Prioritization

Centralized

TrackingDecentralized

Fu

ncti

on

s

Missile Tracking

(MT)C2 C2 C2 Sensors

Assessment and

Evaluation (AE)C2 C2 Sensors Sensors

Sensor Tasking

(ST)C2 Sensors Sensors Sensors

Sensing (S) Sensors Sensors Sensors Sensors



21

July

Agent-Based Dynamics Model


• Modeling

functions as

agents

captures

operational

independence

Objectives/Desires

Knowledge/Beliefs/

Information

Act

DecideUpdate

Environment

Agent


22

July

Executable Model:

Discrete Agent Framework (DAF)


Physics-based models Architecture-based models

Moon

LEO

EARTH

Jupiter

Mars

Saturn

Venus

Mercury

DAF=+

• Individual system behavior– Physics-based and heuristic-based behavior models

• Architecture of systems or systems-of-systems– Modes and types of interactions across multiple system types (e.g. human, technological, etc.)

– Interdependencies between systems (e.g., exchange of info, data, energy, etc.)

• New knowledge via design of agents, their capabilities, and interaction rules


23

July

Generating Communications

Architectures• Architecture for a system of systems is defined by

interfaces [Maier (1998)]

• For C2BMC

– Interfaces = Communications Network

– Logical agent-to-agent connections prescribed by functional

architecture

• SoS architect allocates agents to platforms to create

architectures

• Physical network connections (communications

architectures) must be defined for all logical connections



24

July

What Our Model Builder Does

• Architect specifies which agents are to be logically connected,

ignoring complexities of physical network paths

• Architect specifies constraints and assumptions for physical network

(e.g., each ground station is connected to only a single type of

sensor)

• Model builder automatically creates physical communication paths

between agents based on a shortest path algorithm

– Distance can be defined in several ways (number of links, or total time to

transmit, which favors fiber connections over lower speed links)

• Benefits

– Reduces bookkeeping burden and errors

– Increases productivity and coverage (large number of architectures can

be created for evaluation)



25

July

PART 2

• Review of applicable model-based systems engineering

methods

• How the methods apply to our C2BMC example



26

July

Desiderata for Specifying SoS Using MBSE

• MBSE methods that specify SoS dynamics

models and executable models must

support

– Agent-based modeling of actions

– Interactions of actors who perform concurrent,

asynchronous activities



27

July

Using UML for Agent-Based Modeling

[Park, Kim, and Lee (2000)]

Intra-agent ModelsModel Approach

Goal Object model of a goal hierarchy

Belief Object model of beliefs and external message protocols

Plan Update beliefs; and determine actions to take and messages to send

Capability Logic for actions to be taken by the agent

Inter-agent Models


Model Approach

Agent Mobile Define how an agent coordinates its actions to perform a task with other agents (assumes a coordinator agent)

Agent Communication

Define how messages are exchanged between agents including sequence diagram of agent actions and messages

• Based on UML 1.1: does not assume complete autonomy among the agents nor

does it assume concurrency


28

July

Mapping Dynamics Models to

Executable Petri Net Models

• Petri nets

– Executable models for simulating interactions of

concurrent, asynchronous activities

• Pre-UML 2.0 Examples

– Mapping a business-process workflow model of the

dynamics of a biological system to a Petri net [Peleg,

Yeh, and Altman (2002)]

– Converting a UML 1.3 specification for the dynamics

of a C4ISR system to a colored Petri net [Wagenhals,

Haider, and Levis (2003)]



29

July

UML 2.0 to the Rescue

Figure from Quatrani’s 2005

“Introduction to UML 2.0”

Claims in the UML 2.0

spec

• “Petri-like semantics instead of

state machines” to allow for

concurrency that includes

tokens [OMG, OMG Unified

Modeling Language:

Superstructure (final adopted

spec, version 2.0, 2003-08-02),

Technical report, Object

Management Group (2003)]



30

July

UML 2.0 and Petri Nets

• Mapping UML 2.0 activity diagrams to

– Colored Petri nets [Störrle (2005)]

– Fundamental Modeling Concepts version of Petri net

diagram [Staines (2008)]

• Proposal to extend UML [Sinclair (2009)]

– Add explicit UML constructs for hierarchical and timed

colored Petri nets

– Purpose is to enable modeling and simulation of

system of systems



31

July

UML Activity Diagram for Completely

Centralized Tracking Architecture


S1= Sensor 1, S2 = Sensor 2, MT = Missile Tracking, AE = Assessment and Evaluation, ST = Sensor Tasking,

C2 = Command and ControlApproved for Public Release 13-MDA-7638, 14 December 13

32

July

UML Activity Diagram for Generic Agent



33

July

UML Activity Diagram for Missile

Tracking Agent



Generic Agent Item Missile Tracking Agent Item

Mass / Energy / Information Inputs S1 and S2 Measurements

Update Update Tracking Database

Knowledge / Beliefs / Information Tracking Database

Objectives / Desires Tracking Parameters

Decide Decide “Firm” Tracks

Decisions Firm Tracks

Act Send Tracks to AE

Mass / Energy / Information Outputs Track Messages

34

July

UML Activity Diagram for Centralized

MT with Distributed AE and ST


Sn= Sensor n, MT = Missile Tracking, AEn = Assessment and Evaluation n, STn = Sensor Tasking n,

C2 = Command and Control

Missile Tracking agent described previously


35

July

What We Have Done

• Applied “traditional” systems architecting process to SoS

• Discovered that the dynamic modeling of a SoS is key

step in applying the process

– Used agent-based modeling to capture emergent behavior that

derives from complex interactions of systems of systems.

• Developed methods to ease burden of manually

synthesizing network architectures

• Developed a “pattern” for agent-based models using

UML activity diagrams to specify the independently

operating constituent systems within SoS

« 24th Annual INCOSE International Symposium


36

July

What Next?

• Investigate the details of going from UML activity

diagrams to executable models

– Agent-based modeling tools such as Purdue’s Discrete Agent

Framework

• Maheshwari, Apoorv, C. Robert Kenley, and Daniel A. DeLaurentis.

2015. Creating Executable Agent-Based Models Using SysML.

Paper to be read at 25th

Annual INCOSE International Symposium, 13–16 July 2015, at

Bellevue, US-WA.

– Petri-net modeling tools

• Look at usefulness of other UML constructs

– Executable models based on state machine diagrams



37

Sensor Platform Management Strategies in a Multi-Threat Environment

Muharrem Mane

Daniel DeLaurentis

Center for Integrated Systems in AerospacePurdue University, West Lafayette, IN

Approved for Public Release 12- MDA-6880 (6 June 12)

Infotech@Aerospace 201238

July

Reference Process for Synthesizing

Architectures



Operational Concept

FunctionalArchitecture

PhysicalArchitecture

Allocated Architecture

Dynamics Model

Executable Model

Performance and Resource Utilization

Metrics

Focus of 2014

INCOSE Paper

Focus of 2012

Infotech Paper

Figure adapted from Levis, Alexander H., and Lee W. Wagenhals. 2000. "C4ISR architectures: I. Developing a process for C4ISR architecture design." Systems Engineering no. 3 (4):225-247.

39

sensor

C2

sensor C2

C2

Sensor Tasking(level of centralization)

Track Formation(level of centralization)

Track Assessment(level of centralization)

Example Analysis• Explore architecture dimensions with two

levels of centralization– Centralized: at C2 (command and control) node– Decentralized: at sensor

• Compare performance – Track quality– Track accuracy

Task \ Architecture A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6

Track Formation C2 C2 C2 Sensor Sensor Sensor

Track Assessment C2 C2 Sensor Sensor C2 C2

Sensor Tasking C2 Sensor Sensor Sensor Sensor C2



Results

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

time [sec]

tra

ck v

elo

city c

ova

ria

nce

err

or

[m/s

]

A-1

track-1

track-2

track-3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

time [sec]

tra

ck v

elo

city

co

va

ria

nce

err

or

[m/s

]

A-2

track-1

track-2

track-3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

time [sec]

tra

ck v

elo

city c

ova

ria

nce

err

or

[m/s

]

A-3

track-1

track-2

track-3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

time [sec]

tra

ck v

elo

city

co

va

ria

nce

err

or

[m/s

]

A-4

track-1

track-2

track-3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

time [sec]

tra

ck v

elo

city c

ova

ria

nce

err

or

[m/s

]

A-5

track-1

track-2

track-3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

time [sec]tr

ack v

elo

city c

ova

ria

nce

err

or

[m/s

]

A-6

track-1

track-2

track-3







Impact of Sensor Tasking

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

time [sec]

tra

ck v

elo

city c

ova

ria

nce

err

or

[m/s

]

A-1

track-1

track-2

track-3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

time [sec]

tra

ck v

elo

city

co

va

ria

nce

err

or

[m/s

]

A-2

track-1

track-2

track-3







Impact of Track Formation

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

time [sec]

tra

ck v

elo

city c

ova

ria

nce

err

or

[m/s

]

A-3

track-1

track-2

track-3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

time [sec]

tra

ck v

elo

city

co

va

ria

nce

err

or

[m/s

]

A-4

track-1

track-2

track-3







Summary• Missile tracking architecture centralization taxonomy

– Guides exploration of architecture design space

• Modeling and simulation framework– Behavioral-model-based simulation framework

– Enable performance comparison of architecture concepts

– Capture interaction between functions (and systems)

• Sample scenario observations– Centralization of sensor tasking can coordinate and

effectively use sensor resources to have impact on track quality

– Centralization of track formation larger impact on track quality



WHAT DID WE PRESENT TODAY?

• Showed applicability of “traditional” systems architecting process to SoS

• Reviewed experience-based practices for generating and evaluating C2BMC

architectures

• Described one method to ease burden of manually synthesizing network

architectures

• Reviewed applicable model-based systems engineering methods for

specifying SoS architectures

• Showed how model-based methods apply to our C2BMC example

• Described a “pattern” for agent-based models to specify independently

operating constituent systems within SoS

• Showed how agent-based modeling captured emergent behavior for our

C2BMC example

• Provided you background for our 2015 INCOSE paper to be presented on 16

July

45

THANK YOU

C. Robert Kenley, PhD, ESEP

Associate Professor of Engineering Practice

School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University

315 N Grant St, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2023

Phone: +1 765 494 5160 • Mobile Phone: +1 765 430 3774

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ckenley/

46

welcome to the 2015 system of systems engineering...

Documents