Welcome to the 2015 System of Systems Engineering Collaborators Information Exchange (SoSECIE)

Transcription

1 Welcome to the 2015 System of Systems Engineering Collaborators Information Exchange (SoSECIE) We will start at 11am Eastern Time. For Audio: call (Toll-free) / (Toll) Passcode: You can download today s presentation from the DASD(SE) Website: To add/remove yourself from the list or suggest a future topic or speaker, send an to osd.atl.asd-re.se@mail.mil 2015 SoSECIE Webinars - 1 Approved for Public Release Distribution is unlimited.

2 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 2015 SoSECIE Webinars - 2 Approved for Public Release Distribution is unlimited.

3 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 18 th Systems Engineering Conference, October 26-29, 2015 Waterford Conference Center, Springfield, VA Additional conference info: Abstracts due Friday, May 29, 2015 at 5pm EST: For more information: SoSECIE Webinars - 3 Approved for Public Release Distribution is unlimited.

4 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 SoSECIE Webinars - 4 Approved for Public Release Distribution is unlimited.

5 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) SoSECIE Webinars - 5 Approved for Public Release Distribution is unlimited.

6 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 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, osd.atl.asd-re.se@mail.mil or visit our website: SoSECIE Webinars - 6 Approved for Public Release Distribution is unlimited.

7 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 Systemof-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 2015 SoSECIE Webinars - 7 Approved for Public Release Distribution is unlimited.

8 SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING COLLABORATORS INFORMATION EXCHANGE (SOSECIE) SYNTHESIZING AND SPECIFYING ARCHITECTURES FOR SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS 28 APRIL 2015 C. Robert Kenley, PhD, ESEP Associate Professor of Engineering Practice 8

9 TODAY S TALK TWO 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 Synthesizing and Specifying Architectures for System of Systems. Paper read at 24th Annual INCOSE International Symposium, 30 June , at Las Vegas, US-NV. Mane, Muharrem, and Daniel DeLaurentis Sensor Platform Management Strategies in a Multi-Threat Environment. Paper read at Infotech@Aerospace 2012, June, at Garden Grove, US-CA. This material was developed under work supported by the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) under contract No. HQ 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

10 Synthesizing and Specifying Architectures for System of Systems C. Robert Kenley, Timothy M. Dannenhoffer, Paul C. Wood, and Daniel A. DeLaurentis Purdue University 10

11 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

12 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

13 Experience-based practices for generating and evaluating C2BMC architectures PART 1 13

14 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

15 Reference Process for Synthesizing Architectures Operational Concept Dynamics Model Functional Architecture Physical Architecture Allocated Architecture Executable Model Performance and Resource Utilization Metrics Figure adapted from Levis, Alexander H., and Lee W. Wagenhals "C4ISR architectures: I. Developing a process for C4ISR architecture design." Systems Engineering no. 3 (4):

16 BMDS Operational Concept Today s Ballistic Missile Defense System Approved for Public Release 12-MDA-6946 (12 Jul 12) 16 Approved for Public Release Approved for Public Release 12- MDA-6524 (17 January 2012) 13-MDA-7405 (14 August 13) 2 2 Approved for Public Release ncr MDA-6946 (12 / 12/01/11 Jul 12)

17 Functional Architecture: Control and Information Flow Missile Tracking (MT) Tracking Loop Discrimination & Typing Loop Discrimination (DM) Target Engagement Chain Kill Assessment Loop Impact Prediction &Typing (TY) Assessment and Evaluation (AE) Sensing (S) Kill Assessment (KA) Sensor Tasking (ST) Interceptor Control (IC) Interceptor Tasking (IT) 17

18 Physical Architecture: Platforms and Communications Links Class Platform Communications Link Physical Entity Aircraft Satellite Ground Station C2 Node Interceptor Satellite Wireless Fiber Relevant Attributes Location and Trajectory Processing Resources Interfaces to Communications Links Communication Protocols and Capacities 18

19 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 But here Not here Not here 19

20 Allocated Architecture: Options for Allocating Functions to a Sensor Platform Sensor Platform Sensor Platform Sensor Platform Sensor Platform S S S S ST MT ST MT MT AE Independent operation self-tasking & generate tracks generate tracks generate measurements Platform Autonomy Level High Low 20

21 Allocated Architecture: Example of Centralized vs. Decentralized Tracking Functions Missile Tracking (MT) Assessment and Evaluation (AE) Sensor Tasking (ST) Location of Functionality According to Architecture Centralization Centralized Centralized Tracking and Prioritization Centralized Tracking Decentralized C2 C2 C2 Sensors C2 C2 Sensors Sensors C2 Sensors Sensors Sensors Sensing (S) Sensors Sensors Sensors Sensors 21

22 Agent-Based Dynamics Model Modeling functions as agents captures operational independence Update Agent Objectives/ Desires Knowledge/ Beliefs/ Information Decide Act Environment 22

23 Executable Model: Discrete Agent Framework (DAF) Saturn + Jupiter Mars Moon = DAF LEO Venus Physics-based models Architecture-based models EARTH Mercury 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

24 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

25 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

26 Review of applicable model-based systems engineering methods How the methods apply to our C2BMC example PART 2 26

27 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

28 Using UML for Agent-Based Modeling [Park, Kim, and Lee (2000)] Intra-agent Models Model Goal Belief Plan Capability Approach Object model of a goal hierarchy Object model of beliefs and external message protocols Update beliefs; and determine actions to take and messages to send Logic for actions to be taken by the agent Inter-agent Models Model Agent Mobile Agent Communication Approach Define how an agent coordinates its actions to perform a task with other agents (assumes a coordinator agent) 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

29 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

30 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, ), Technical report, Object Management Group (2003)] 30

31 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

32 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 Control 32

33 UML Activity Diagram for Generic Agent 33

34 UML Activity Diagram for Missile Tracking Agent Generic Agent Item Mass / Energy / Information Inputs Missile Tracking Agent Item 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

35 UML Activity Diagram for Centralized MT with Distributed AE and ST Missile Tracking agent described previously Sn= Sensor n, MT = Missile Tracking, AEn = Assessment and Evaluation n, STn = Sensor Tasking n, C2 = Command and Control 35

36 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 36 «

37 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 Creating Executable Agent-Based Models Using SysML. Paper to be read at 25 th Annual INCOSE International Symposium, , at Bellevue, US-WA. Petri-net modeling tools Look at usefulness of other UML constructs Executable models based on state machine diagrams 37

38 Sensor Platform Management Strategies in a Multi-Threat Environment Muharrem Mane Daniel DeLaurentis Center for Integrated Systems in Aerospace Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 38 Approved for Public Release 12- MDA-6880 (6 June 12) Infotech@Aerospace 2012

39 Reference Process for Synthesizing Architectures Operational Concept Functional Architecture Allocated Architecture Physical Architecture Focus of 2014 INCOSE Paper Dynamics Model Executable Model Performance and Resource Utilization Metrics Focus of 2012 Infotech Paper Figure adapted from Levis, Alexander H., and Lee W. Wagenhals "C4ISR architectures: I. Developing a process for C4ISR architecture design." Systems Engineering no. 3 (4):

40 Example Analysis Track Formation (level of centralization) C2 Explore architecture dimensions with two levels of centralization Centralized: at C2 (command and control) node Decentralized: at sensor Compare performance Track quality Track accuracy sensor sensor C2 Sensor Tasking (level of centralization) C2 Track Assessment (level of centralization) 40 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 Infotech@Aerospace 2012 Approved for Public Release 12- MDA-6880 (6 June 12)

41 Results 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 track velocity covariance error [m/s] A-1 track-1 track-2 track-3 track velocity covariance error [m/s] A-2 track-1 track-2 track-3 track velocity covariance error [m/s] A-3 track-1 track-2 track-3 track velocity covariance error [m/s] time [sec] A-4 track-1 track-2 track-3 track velocity covariance error [m/s] time [sec] A-5 track-1 track-2 track-3 track velocity covariance error [m/s] time [sec] A-6 track-1 track-2 track time [sec] time [sec] Infotech@Aerospace 2012 Approved for Public Release 12- MDA-6880 (6 June 12) time [sec]

42 Impact of Sensor Tasking 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 track velocity covariance error [m/s] A-1 track-1 track-2 track-3 track velocity covariance error [m/s] A-2 track-1 track-2 track time [sec] Infotech@Aerospace 2012 Approved for Public Release 12- MDA-6880 (6 June 12) time [sec]

43 Impact of Track Formation 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 track velocity covariance error [m/s] A-3 track-1 track-2 track-3 track velocity covariance error [m/s] A-4 track-1 track-2 track time [sec] Infotech@Aerospace 2012 Approved for Public Release 12- MDA-6880 (6 June 12) time [sec]

44 Summary 44 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 2012 Approved for Public Release 12- MDA-6880 (6 June 12)

45 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 45

46 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, Phone: Mobile Phone: kenley@purdue.edu Web: 46