Difference between revisions of "Enterprise Systems Engineering Key Concepts"

From SEBoK
Jump to: navigation, search
(Enterprise Architecture Frameworks & Methodologies)
Line 64: Line 64:
  
 
==Enterprise Architecture Frameworks & Methodologies==
 
==Enterprise Architecture Frameworks & Methodologies==
 +
There are various frameworks and methodologies available that assist in the development of an [[Enterprise Architecture (glossary)|enterprise architecture]]. Some of these are described below.
 +
 
===TRAK Framework===
 
===TRAK Framework===
 
The “standard” entities and relationships used in architecture modeling of an enterprise are specified in metamodels and viewpoint specifications in various domain-specific architecture frameworks (add references for TOGAF, DODAF, FEAF, MEAF, TRAK, etc). The figure below, as one example, shows the metamodel for the TRAK architecture framework (ref).  
 
The “standard” entities and relationships used in architecture modeling of an enterprise are specified in metamodels and viewpoint specifications in various domain-specific architecture frameworks (add references for TOGAF, DODAF, FEAF, MEAF, TRAK, etc). The figure below, as one example, shows the metamodel for the TRAK architecture framework (ref).  
Line 95: Line 97:
  
 
Figure 7. Zachman Framework (Zachman, 1992)
 
Figure 7. Zachman Framework (Zachman, 1992)
 
  
 
==References==  
 
==References==  

Revision as of 21:34, 1 August 2011

The purpose of TSE is to bring together a diversity of discipline experts to address a wide range of problems inherent in the development of a large, complex “single” system (Blanchard and Fabrycky 2010; Hall 1989; Sage and Rouse 2009). ESE expands beyond this traditional basis to “consider the full range of SE services increasingly needed in a modern organization where information-intensive systems are becoming central elements of the organization’s business strategy.” (Carlock and Fenton 2001, 242-261) The traditional role of SE is heavily involved in system acquisition and implementation, especially in the context of government acquisition of very large, complex military and civil systems (e.g., F22 fighter jet and air traffic control system).

ESE encompasses this traditional role in system acquisition, but also incorporates enterprise strategic planning and enterprise investment analysis. These two additional roles for SE at the enterprise level are “shared with the organization’s senior line management, and tend to be more entrepreneurial, business-driven, and economic in nature in comparison to the more technical nature of classical systems engineering.” (Carlock and Fenton 2001, 242-261)

Closing the Gap

The MITRE Corporation has done significant development of ESE practices.

Today the watchword is enterprise systems engineering, reflecting a growing recognition that an “enterprise” may comprise many organizations from different parts of government, from the private and public sectors, and, in some cases, from other nations (MITRE 2004).

(Rebovich 2006) says there are “new and emerging modes of thought that are increasingly being recognized as essential to successful systems engineering in enterprises.” In addition to the TSE process areas, MITRE has included the following process areas in their ESE process (DeRosa 2005) to close the gap between ESE and product SE:

  • Strategic Technical Planning
  • Enterprise Architecture
  • Capabilities-Based Planning Analysis
  • Technology Planning
  • Enterprise Analysis and Assessment

These ESE processes are shown in the context of the entire enterprise in the figure below (DeRosa 2006). The ESE processes are shown in the middle with business processes on the left and TSE processes on the right.


Enterprise SE Process Areas in the Context of the Entire Enterprise

Figure 1. Enterprise SE Process Areas in the Context of the Entire Enterprise (DeRosa, 2006)

SE is viewed by many organizations and depicted in many process definitions as bounded by the beginning and end of a system development project. In MITRE this restricted definition was referred to as TSE. Many have taken a wider view seeking to apply SE to the “whole system” and “whole life cycle.” For example, Hitchins (1993) sets out a holistic, whole-life, wider system view of SE centered on operational purpose. Elliott and Deasley (Elliott and Deasley 2007) discuss the differences between development phase SE and in-service SE.

In contrast to TSE, ESE is more like a “regimen” (Kuras and White 2005) that is responsible for identifying “outcome spaces,” shaping the development environment, coupling development to operations, and rewarding results rather than perceived promises (DeRosa 2005). ESE must continually characterize the operational environmental and the results of enterprise or SoS interventions to stimulate further actions within and among various systems in the enterprise portfolio. Outcome spaces are characterized by a set of desired capabilities that help meet enterprise objectives, as opposed to definitive “user requirements” based on near-term needs. Enterprise capabilities must be robust enough to handle unknown threats and situations in the future. A detailed description of previous MITRE views on ESE can be found in (Rebovich and White 2011).

Role of Requirements in ESE

TSE typically translates user needs into system requirements that drive the design of the system elements. The system requirements must be “frozen” long enough for the system components to be designed, developed, tested, built, and delivered to the end users (which can sometimes take years, and in the case of very large, complicated systems like spacecraft and fighter jets, more than a decade).

ESE, on the other hand, must account for the fact that the enterprise must be driven not by requirements (that rarely can even be defined, let alone made stable) but instead by continually changing organizational visions, goals, governance priorities, evolving technologies, and user expectations. An enterprise consists of people, processes, and technology where the people act as “agents” of the enterprise:

Ackoff has characterized an enterprise as a “purposeful system” composed of agents who choose both their goals and the means for accomplishing those goals. The variety of people, organizations, and their strategies is what creates the inherent complexity and non-determinism in an enterprise. ESE must account for the concerns, interests and objectives of these agents (DeRosa 2006).

Extensions Beyond Traditional SE

These considerations were taken into account when extending the process areas for ESE. The acquisition-oriented SE concept areas in the Friedman-Sage framework (Friedman and Sage 2004, 84-96) were extended to cover the strategic and investment-oriented ESE activities described above. Four new process areas were added to the list as shown in the table below. Additions or changes are shown in italics.

To emphasize the fact that an enterprise is dealing with many systems within its portfolio of systems, the word “enterprise” is used in the first two process areas dealing with requirements and architecture. Portfolio and Program views are emphasized, as well.

The word “program” is used to replace “system” since the programs are the system “elements” of the enterprise when you treat the Enterprise as a system. Projects are like “subsystems” of these programs. It is really the life cycle of the programs that is supported by enterprise management, while the Programs themselves are responsible for managing and supporting the life cycles of their particular systems. The word “portfolio” is used to emphasize the collections of Programs within the enterprise that must also be managed as a group.

Table 1. Extension of TSE to ESE Process Area (Martin, 2010)

Extension of TSE to ESE Process Areas


Enterprise Entities and Relationships

An enterprise “system” has different entities and relationships than you might find in a product/service system (see note 5). Products and services are usually treated as “assets” as shown in the figure below (Troux 2010). Other enterprise entities of interest are things like information, knowledge, skills, finances, policies, process, strategy, markets, and resources.

Note 5. An “enterprise system” should not be confused with the enterprise “perceived as a system.” An enterprise system is a product (or service) system used across the enterprise, such as payroll, financial accounting, or enterprise resource planning applications, and consolidated data center, data warehouse, and other such facilities and equipment used across one or more organizations.


Asset Domain and Concept Domain Categories for Enterprise Entities

Figure 2. Asset Domain and Concept Domain Categories for Enterprise Entities (Troux, 2010)

The figure below shows examples of entities for applications, software, infrastructure and hardware in the asset domains of an enterprise along with typical entities for the analysis domain such as risk, constraints, findings, recommendations, factors, and trends. Also shown here are the relevant relationships between such entities. This is from the Troux Semantics metamodel used in the Troux Architect modeling tool for enterprise architecture activities. Other enterprise modeling tools have similar metamodels (or sometimes called “schemas”).


Examples of Enterprise Entities & Relationships

Figure 3. Examples of Enterprise Entities & Relationships (Troux, 2010)

Enterprise Architecture Frameworks & Methodologies

There are various frameworks and methodologies available that assist in the development of an enterprise architecture. Some of these are described below.

TRAK Framework

The “standard” entities and relationships used in architecture modeling of an enterprise are specified in metamodels and viewpoint specifications in various domain-specific architecture frameworks (add references for TOGAF, DODAF, FEAF, MEAF, TRAK, etc). The figure below, as one example, shows the metamodel for the TRAK architecture framework (ref).


TRAK Metamodel

Figure 4. TRAK Metamodel (TRAK, 2011)

DODAF Framework

The figure below shows the metamodel for the DOD Architecture framework (ref). There are several good books that explain how to use architecture frameworks and to do architecture modeling. (add references)


DODAF Conceptual Data Model

Figure 5. DODAF Conceptual Data Model (DOD, 2010)

TOGAF Framework

Some frameworks (like TOGAF) are more properly called methodologies since they focus on the process (see figure below) by which artifacts are created and how they are used. Other frameworks (like Zachman and FEAF) are more properly called taxonomies since they define and categorize the kinds of elements of interest to the enterprise analyst (Ref: A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb466232.aspx).


TOGAF Methodology

Figure 6. TOGAF Methodology (TOGAF, 2009)

Zachman Framework

The figure below shows the Zachman architecture framework (taxonomy) (Zachman 1987 and 1992). The columns represent the six “interrogatives” of why, how, what, who, where, and when, and these can be considered to be “stakeholder concerns” of the enterprise stakeholders. These columns also represent data (i.e., the “what”), functions, networks, people, time, and motivation. The rows represent the different stakeholder “perspectives”: contextual (planners), conceptual (owners), logical (designers), physical (builders), and detailed (subcontractors or suppliers). These rows also represent the following “perspectives”: scope (i.e., contextual), business model, system model, technology model, and detailed representations.


Zachman Framework

Figure 7. Zachman Framework (Zachman, 1992)

References

Citations

  1. Blanchard, B. S., and W. J. Fabrycky. 2010. Systems engineering and analysis. Prentice-hall international series in industrial and systems engineering. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
  2. Carlock, Paul and Robert Fenton. 2001. “System of Systems (SoS) Enterprise Systems Engineering for Information-Intensive Organizations,” Systems Engineering Journal, Vol 4, No 4, 242-261.
  3. DeRosa, J. K. 2006. “An Enterprise Systems Engineering Model,” INCOSE Symposium Proceedings.
  4. ———. 2005. “Enterprise Systems Engineering,” Air Force Association, Industry Day, Day 1, Danvers, MA, 4 August 2005, https://www.paulrevereafa.org/IndustryDay/05/presentations/index.asp
  5. DoD. 2010. DoD architecture framework (DODAF), version 2.0. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
  6. Elliott, C., and P. Deasley. 2007. Creating systems that work--principles of engineering systems for the 21st century. Vol. (n/a). London, England: Royal Academy of Engineering.
  7. Friedman, G., and A. P. Sage. 2004. Case studies of systems engineering and management in systems acquisition. Systems Engineering 7 (1): 84-96.
  8. Hall, A. D. 1989. Metasystems methodology: A new synthesis and unification. International series on systems science and engineering. 1st ed. Vol. 3. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
  9. Hitchins, D. 1993. Putting systems to work. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
  10. Kuras, M. L., and B. E. White. 2005. Engineering enterprises using complex-systems engineering. Paper presented at 15th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, 10-15 July, 2010, Rochester, NY, USA.
  11. Martin, J. N. 2010. An enterprise systems engineering framework. Paper presented at 20th Anniversary International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, 12-15 July, 2010, Chicago, IL, USA.
  12. MITRE. 2004. MITRE 2004 annual report. McLean, VA, USA: MITRE Corporation.
  13. Rebovich, G. 2006. Systems thinking for the enterprise: New & emerging perspectives. Paper presented at IEEE/SMC International Conference on System of Systems Engineering, April 2006, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  14. Rebovich, G., and B. E. White, eds. 2011. Enterprise systems engineering: Advances in the theory and practice. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
  15. Sage, A. P., and W. B. Rouse, eds. 2009. Handbook of system engineering and management. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
  16. TOGAF. 2009. The open group architecture framework. Version 9. http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/. Accessed July 2011.
  17. TRAK. 2011. TRAK enterprise architecture framework. http://trak.sourceforge.net/index.html. Accessed July 2011.
  18. Troux. 2010. Metamodeling and modeling with Troux Semantics. Troux Technologies. Version 9, July 2010.
  19. Zachman, J. A. 1992. Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal 31 (3): 590-616.
  20. ———. 1987. A framework for information systems architectures. IBM Systems Journal 26 (3): 276-92.

Primary References

  1. DeRosa, J. K. 2006. “An Enterprise Systems Engineering Model,” INCOSE Symposium Proceedings.
  2. Kuras, M. L., and B. E. White. 2005. Engineering enterprises using complex-systems engineering. Paper presented at 15th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, 10-15 July, 2010, Rochester, NY, USA.
  3. Martin, J. N. 2010. An enterprise systems engineering framework. Paper presented at 20th Anniversary International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, 12-15 July, 2010, Chicago, IL, USA.
  4. Rebovich, G., and B. E. White, eds. 2011. Enterprise systems engineering: Advances in the theory and practice. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.

Additional References

TBD



Article Discussion

[Go to discussion page]

<- Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article ->