Systems Engineering for Systems of Systems
Lead Authors: Mike Henshaw, Judith Dahmann
Cook and Unewisse [2017] in “A SoS Approach for Engineering Capability Programs” outline the various approaches which have been adopted for SoSE. These are provided here using text drawn from this paper.
Enhanced Traditional Systems Engineering (ETSE)
ETSE applies traditional top-down systems engineering at the level of a portfolio of projects by adapting systems engineering processes and using architecture frameworks to represent the artifacts. Ideal for centralized, directed SoS management in a slowly changing environment. Key references: Levis and Wagenhals, (2000), USN, (2006 a&b).
Complex Systems Engineering (CSE)
CSE is based on complexity theory and strongly advocates that the top-down ETSE approach is not well suited to SoSE because it cannot handle the complexity of SoS and because the preconditions for TSE to be successful are not evident in SoS. CSE changes the focus from “…here is the solution designed from the requirements, now go implement it…” to “…here are the selective pressures acting on the elements present, now resolve or reduce them…” Ideal for rapidly integrating SoS from pre-existing Constituent Systems (CS) where little centralized control exists. Key reference: Bar-Yam, (2003); Norman and Kuras, (2006).
Dynamic Optimization of SOS using Value Measurement (DOSVM)
DOSVM draws on complexity theory and recognizes that it is the Constituent System Project Offices (CSPO) that have the resources and means to change, and that in many SoS, the actual authority and resources of any central element are never going to be sufficient to do more than guide the evolution of the SoS. In DOSVM, each CSPO views the SoS in terms of its utility to itself, seeking to “optimize” the SoS (from its point of view) through the influences available to it. DOSVM is ideal for collaborative SoS in which there is little or no central control. Key references: Honour (2016), Honour and Browning, (2007).
SoS Governance (SoSG)
SoSG, through its origins in complexity theory, seeks to expand SoSE away from the “technology first and technology only” perspective of earlier versions of SoSE. It includes appreciating the context to determine what initiatives might be feasible; identifying areas that can improve the SoS; and adopting a “long-term view” of the evolutionary development of the SoS. SoSG appreciates that de-centralized control can be expected and is suited to a wide range of collaborative and acknowledged SoS challenges. Key references: Keating (2015), Morris et al. (2006).
US Department of Defence SE for SoS: The Wave Model
The wave model is an evolutionary model that comprises five main process elements that incorporate experiential learning from many SoSE programs. It was originally designed for acknowledged SoS that have a small SoSE team but has also been applied to collaborative SoS challenges. It is a meta-methodology, i.e. one that guides the design of SoSE methodologies and is extensively documented. The wave model is widely applicable and is tailorable to the expected Australian Program level of SoSE effort. Key references: DoD, (2008), Dahmann et al (2011), Lane et al. (2010) & Dahmann and Heilmann (2012).
Mission engineering arose to support the assessment of naval systems and capabilities through a SoS approach to analyze the impact of making naval investments across the diverse domains of surface, undersea, air, land, and networks as well as maritime coalition force integration. Mission engineering assessments are executed following a systematic, quantifiable, and iterative approach, which combines the structure of systems engineering (SE) and the tactical insights from operational planning. This approach incorporates a mission focus into integrated capability development. Note that mission engineering activities can be aligned to the elements of the wave model. Key references, Moreland (2015), TTCP (2016).
The British Systems Thinking Approach (BSTA)
BSTA embodies soft systems thinking, systems theory, social theory, and the pragmatism of problem solving to achieve shared meaning and objectives across the stakeholder group to deal with the social and technical aspects of SoS simultaneously. Key to the approach is the mapping of the SoS of interest onto more detailed SE approaches. The BSTA is the ideal approach for SoS problems where there is no obvious consensus of what represents a good SoS outcome trajectory and where the SoS is already established and running. It works well for a wide range of problem definition challenges within the CLC. It can be combined with other approaches. Key references: Checkland and Scholes (1990), Hitchins, (2007).
Systemic Strategic Planning and Execution (SSPE)
(SSPE) is a comprehensive but austere multi-methodology inspired firstly by strategic planning, systems theory and BSTA to achieve inclusivity and stakeholder engagement in a systemic way and secondly by ideas from system engineering to achieve structured abstraction and trade-offs between candidate force structures. SSPE is ideally suited to force design and has been used successfully in Australia; it needs to be enhanced with additional technical approaches to cover technical integration aspects. References: Hodge and Cook (2014a, b &c).
A Hybrid SoSE Approach Based on the Wave Model
This is an austere hybrid of the wave model with key elements from other approaches such as mission engineering. The wave model is inherently evolutionary and can be tailored to be agile, pragmatic, and austere and it is a proven approach that is well documented and has a track record of successful implementation, see, for example, Scrapper et al. (2016). Furthermore, for subsequent iterations, the wave model has the richness to support the technical aspects of integration, and the performance and behavioral analysis required for mission engineering. In addition, Dahmann (2012) has shown how the wave model can incorporate Program-level SoS test and evaluation. The proposed hybrid approach seeks to draw on the ability to design and manage enduring SoS capabilities across multiple defined development stages (as per the wave model) as well as the focus provided by considering the operational missions that instantiations of the SoS are to undertake thereby enabling assessment (as per mission engineering).
References
Works Cited
Bar-Yam Y., 2003, “Why Systems Engineering Fails – Towards Complex Systems Engineering”, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.
Checkland, P. & Scholes, J., 1990. Soft systems methodology in action, Wiley.
Cook S.C. & Unewisse M. H., 2017, A SoS Approach for Engineering Capability Programs’, 27th Annual INCOSE International Symposium (IS 2017) Adelaide, Australia, July 15-20, 2017
Dahmann, J., Rebovich, G., Lowry, R., Lane, J., & Baldwin, K., 2011, “An implementers' view of systems engineering for systems of systems”, 2011 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), pp. 212-217. IEEE.
Dahmann J. & Heilmann R. 2012 “SoS Systems Engineering and Test and Evaluation”, NDIA T&E Conference.
Lane, J., Dahmann, J., Rebovich, G. and Lowry, R., 2010, “Key system of systems engineering artefacts to guide engineering activities”, NDIA Systems Engineering Conference.
Levis, A.H. and Wagenhals, L.W., 2000, “C4ISR architectures: I. Developing a process for C4ISR architecture design”, Systems engineering, 3(4), pp.225-247. Hitchins, D.K., 2008, Systems engineering: a 21st century systems methodology. Wiley.
Hodge, R.J. and Cook, S.C., 2013, “Achieving action to improve the framework for defence strategy and execution: A case study”, System of Systems Engineering (SoSE), 2013 8th International Conference on (pp. 314-319). IEEE.
Hodge R.J. and Cook S.C., 2014a, “A system of systems methodologies for Strategic Planning in Complex Defence Enterprises” in Gorod A., White B. Ireland V., Gandhi S.J. & Sauser B., Case Studies in System of System, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems, Taylor and Francis.
Hodge R.J. and Cook S.C., 2014b, “Assessing whole-of-nation capabilities to respond to serious and unusual emergencies” in Gorod A., White B. Ireland V., Gandhi S.J. & Sauser B., Case Studies in System of System, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems, Taylor and Francis.
Honour, E. and Browning T., 2007, “Dynamic Optimization of Systems of Systems using Value Measurement,” Transactions of the Society for Design and Process Science 11 (1); 1-11.
Honour, E., 2016, “Engineering the Virtual or Collaborative SoS”, INSIGHT, Oct 2016.
Keating, C.B., 2015, “Complex system governance: Theory to practice challenges for system of systems engineering”, System of Systems Engineering Conference (SoSE), pp. 226-231 IEEE.
Moreland J.D Jr, 2015, “Mission Engineering Integration and Interoperability”, Leading Edge, Jan 2015.
Morris E., Place P. & Smith D., 2006, System-of-Systems Governance: New Patterns of Thought, Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-2006-TN-036.
Norman D.O. and Kuras M.L., 2006, “Engineering Complex Systems”, in Complex Engineered Systems, Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-32831-5, 206-245.
USN, 2006a, US Naval “Systems of Systems” Systems Engineering Guidebook Volume 1, ASN(RDA), US Navy.
USN, 2006b, US Naval “Systems of Systems” Systems Engineering Guidebook Volume 2, ASN(RDA), US Navy.