Value-Based System of System Development

Transcription

1 Value-Based System of System Development Massachusetts Institute of Technology AIAA Infotech Conference 28 Sept 2005 Boston Sunday Globe supplement, August

2 Background Constellation Systems Study Explore the overall architecture near-term implications for returning to Moon going on to Mars CEV requirements Transportation system architecture Organization for systems engineering integration (SE&I) Multiple industry study teams funded by NASA Our team: Draper Laboratory MIT Components of the architecture we studied Launch/transportation, Information system, surface operations, campaigns, software/avionics, safety risk, enterprise, policy 6 month renewable study (12 months total Sept 04 to Aug 05) September Slide 2

3 Evolution of Thought About the Challenge MIT Graduate Design Class Space Systems Engineering semester study (report May 2004) Proposal summer 2004 Project first phase September 2004 Technical trades architecting Stakeholder value analysis Mid-term review December 2004 Extension phase February 2005 Refine technical architecture concepts (focused) Response to pop-up issues Continue stakeholder value analysis Begin enterprise architecture study Change of NASA Administrator April 2005 Project complete August 2005 September Slide 3

4 Starting Points Sustainability: primary organizing principle of the architecture concept Elements of sustainability: Well-understood minimized risks communicated to all stakeholders An affordable system Prolonged recognized delivery of value to all stakeholders A steady cadence of successes (addressing policy robustness) High-level design principles: Design for sustainability (which includes affordability) A holistic view of the SoS with a focus on value delivery A highly modular accretive design to allow for evolvability extensibility Mars as the reference goal to validate the Lunar concept September Slide 4

5 Initial Structure for the Study Sustainability Team: Enterprise architecture Policy Value delivery to stakeholders Architecture Team: CER System architecture Vehicle Team: CEV System design CEV subsystems Organization structure changed multiple times to reflect evolving study needs, understing of the problem Initial study structure reflects declared sponsor interests, existing architecture concepts, ideas about important departures from historical approaches September Slide 5

6 Baseline Mars Transportation Architecture 125 mt in-line SDLV (5-segment SRBs, XL ET, & upper stage; equivalent to lunar in-line LSDLV + upper stage) Earth Departure System TSH MAV ERV 30 mt Single Stick (5-segment SRB & upper stage) Aug Slide 6 NASA Concept Exploration Refinement Study

7 Mars Mission Campaign TImeline (Arch 969 w/ ERV) Months: Mission 1 Pre-deployment 180 Earth Departure 210 days 1375 days 180 days Mars Arrival Mission 1 Crew 605 Earth Departure Mars Arrival Human Surface Operations 158 days 605 days 0 B Mars Departure 0 Earth Arrival Mission 1 Backup ERV Earth Departure Mars Arrival Mars Arrival 210 days Mission 2 Pre-deployment Aug Slide 7 NASA Concept Exploration Refinement Study

8 Baseline Commonality Hardware Development Roadmap LEO / ISS Mission Hardware LES for CEV capsule: CEV + IPU (27 m 3 ): Rendezvous & Deorbit stage: CEV power pack: Design Philosophy: Maximize hardware commonality to minimize gap between lunar Mars s overall development production costs Mars Mission Hardware Mars ling gear & exosceleton: CEV launch vehicle: Heat protection parachutes for Mars Aerocapture Aeroentry SDLV upper stage (125 mt to LEO) Potentially EDSderived: Short Lunar Mission Hardware Common in-space propulsion stage (LCH 4 / LOX): Core propulsion stage Regular strap-on tanks XL strap-on tanks Lunar ling gear & exosceleton: Engine 1 (LCH 4 / LOX) Restartable, non-throttleable: Engine 2 (LCH 4 / LOX) Throttleable: Common Earth departure stage (LH 2 / LOX) Long Lunar Mission Hardware Habitat core inflatable pressurized tent for planetary surfaces: Note: Block upgrades across phases are not depicted OR Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle: ( 2 stages, 100 mt to LEO) Aug Slide 8 NASA Concept Exploration Refinement Study

9 Future Space Communications: Interplanetary Internet (IPN) Aug Slide 9 NASA Concept Exploration Refinement Study

10 Exploration System Stakeholders Direct indirect beneficiaries of space activities Categorized into stakeholder super groups that correspond with general areas of societal impact Exploration Stakeholders Addressed Science Economic Security Public, Engineers Technologists, NASA Scientists, NASA, Other US agencies Commercial enterprises, Other US agencies, Engineers Technologists DoD, Intelligence, International Partners US Public, Media, Educators, Executive Branch, Congress, NASA September Slide 10

11 Formal Modeling of Stakeholder Interests: Executive Branch President Re-Election Public Executive Policy Making Space Laws/Acts Other Executive Branch Entities Public Approval Implementing other less popular policies Public Perception of the President Exploration Program Technology Magmt Exploration Program Fiscal Magmt Value Delivery Improving public opinion Space Explorating Approval of National Policy Media Diffusion Space Exploration Program Approval of Security Policy Educating Approval of Global Leadership Approval of Foreign Policy Enabling technologies Foreign Soverngt Claim discouragement Dual use technologies Show Progress on Space Vision Security Leadership Home Abroad Providing Natl Security September Slide 11

12 Science Science Science Science Science Science of experience of experience of experience of experience Developmental of experience Technology outside NASA Scientists All Scientists All Quality results from Other Government Agencies DoE, HHS security providers DoD Other Government Agencies DoC/NOAA Space resource development Earth Operators Space resource development Other Government Agencies security providers Other Government Agencies DoE, HHS DoD DoC/NOAA Space resource development Earth Operators Space resource development about effects (e.g. radiation) on human health about effects (e.g. space habitat, low gravity) on human health Environmental data monitoring gather more per gather more per gather more per Science Science gather more per Earth Operators Space resource development Earth Operators Space resource development gather more per Scientists Scientists Training of crew NASA NASA Scientific Increase training of crew Science Science gather more per Security providers (DoD, NRO, etc) Scientific community Scientists Scientific community Other gov agencies (NOAA, DoE, FAA, EPA) youth future Commercial youth future Science youth future NASA youth future Security providers Scientific community Other gov agencies (NOAA, DoE, FAA, EPA) Commercial Science NASA (DoD, NRO, etc) Scientists youth future youth future youth future youth future Environmental data Understing of Universe to continue to attract a skilled to continue to attract a skilled to continue to attract a skilled to continue to attract a skilled NASA NASA Highperformance NASA NASA Highperformance Security providers (DoD, NRO, etc) youth future Planetary scientists Security providers (DoD, NRO, etc) Geologists youth future Understing the evolution of the solar system to continue to attract a skilled Technoloigst Technoloigst Rewarding stimulating endeavors Increase Increase Increase attract attract attract attract attract attracting create or maintain fidelity of transmitted data about effects (e.g. radiation) on human health about effects (e.g. space habitat, low gravity) on human health of Earth's environment explorer explorer explorer explorer explorer explorer explorer results from science explorer quality of environmental data provided to DoD scientific about the evolution of planetary surface a a a a top scientists engineers top scientists engineers both the perception reality of simulating rewarding science techology jobs the skills of the using running running developing developing developing increasing increasing increasing high quality trans means (e.g HDTV) experiments, observations measurements experiments, observations measurements Technology Capabilities (e.g. sensors that can be used for environmental monitoring) that are of interest of other agencies the ability to plan under uncertainty the ability to plan under uncertainty interaction communication with explorers interaction communication with explorers interaction communication with explorers fidelity of transmitted data BY using high quality trans means (e.g HDTV) TO about effects (e.g. radiation) on human health BY running experiments, observations measurements TO about effects (e.g. space habitat, low gravity) on human health BY running experiments, observations measurements To Increase of Earth's environment BY developing Technology Capabilities (e.g. sensors that can be used for environmental monitoring) that are of interest of other agencies TO explorer BY developing the ability to plan under uncertainty TO explorer BY developing the ability to plan under uncertainty TO explorer BY increasing interaction communication with explorers TO explorer BY increasing interaction communication with explorers TO explorer BY increasing interaction communication with explorers training explorers TO explorer BY training explorers training explorers TO explorer BY training explorers conducting studies TO Increase results from BY conducting studies developing improving studying investigating the ability to plan under uncertainty inter-agency data transfer capability results of (video, data, images, samples) communicating gained through experience to workers currently in yet to enter the communicating gained through experience to workers currently in yet to enter the communicating gained through experience to workers currently in yet to enter the communicating gained through experience to workers currently in yet to enter the creating creating increasing developing impactor flux vs time stimulating rewarding jobs stimulating rewarding jobs positive visibility of results of jobs new technologies TO science explorer BY developing the ability to plan under uncertainty quality of environmental data provided to DoD BY improving inter-agency data transfer capability TO Increase scientific BY studying results of (video, data, images, samples) TO Increase about the evolution of planetary surface BY investigating impactor flux vs time BY communicating gained through experience to workers currently in yet to enter the BY communicating gained through experience to workers currently in yet to enter the BY communicating gained through experience to workers currently in yet to enter the BY communicating gained through experience to workers currently in yet to enter the TO attract top scientists engineers BY creating stimulating rewarding jobs To attracting top scientists engineers BY creating stimulating rewarding jobs To create both the perception reality of simulating rewarding science techology jobs BY increasing positive visibility of results of jobs or maintain the skills of the BY developing new technologies science science science science science science science or maintain the skills of the polling data related to space Generate positive perception to electorate Increase NASA Budget throughigh Visibility N/A Metrics health of astronauts, pilots, service members radiation health assessments protocols (Amount information exchanged??) natio american identity on natio american identity on Object written havent touched it better wellness improve human health in the presence of radiation mate to explore, political support in Congress with general public Architecture proxy for the metric technologies or disobtain Technologies/ of use in agencies dom # publications, # of citations per publication Quality of data Health level, accident rate in the launch reliability Metrics shorter times from need to capability on orbit; cheaper cost per unit capability on orbit # of partner countries partnering ; popularity of the us governement abroad International media opinion polls; international partnership in space activities Amount of data collected returned Amount of data Commerical components; launch process changes Enhance grow international partnerships focused on space as well as wide global interest in space in general, commercial human space in particular NASA funding stable or growing Freedom of action for US other countries in space. n; a n; a Science payload delivered to M surface Observation days for crew on surface Observation days for robots on surface Recon survey Spacial area of a given site that can be reached Diversity of sites Ability to temporally re-plan within (week to month) Ability to temporally re-plan adapt in campaign N/A Architecture proxy for the metric DoD support for NASA activities no proxies necessary, these metrics are directly measurable no proxies necessary, these metrics are directly measurable n; a From Stakeholder Interests to Technical Measures Auxiliary columns Auxiliary columns Stakehol Need Objective Overarching der objective Scientists Scientific TO underst origin, evolution fate of the solar system BY interpreting geologic environments Identify stakeholder, their needs derived objectives (14) Stakeholder needs (171) Use object process modeling (OPM) to define value flow system descriptive language Overarching Exploration objectives (39) Metric # of publications, # of citations Clustered through objectives hierarchy tree Translate objectives into metrics, proximate measure indicators Proximate indicators drive system of systems architecture Proximate Measure Amount of data collected returned Quality of data Indicator Metric Science payload delivered to M surface Observation days for crew on surface Observation days for robots on surface Recon survey Spacial area of a given site that can be reached Diversity of sites Ability to temporally re-plan within (week to month Ability to temporally re-plan adapt in campaign September Slide 12

13 The Gap Between Value Engineering Metrics Stakeholder Values Pride, inspiration, economic development, policy support, etc. Metrics Gap Technical Architecture Kg, N, M, Kº, bits/sec, etc. The gap is caused (in part) by: Stakeholder diversity/ dispersion Different levels of stakeholders definition/ aggregation Multiple pathways for flows of benefits Multiple interaction modes (e.g., markets, hierarchies, clans, etc.) Temporal separation between cause effect The architect is the arbitrator in interpreting/ bridging the gap September Slide 13

14 Exploration Functions 85 Function Population A B C D E Continuously increasing safety 66 reliability Inspecting overseeing technical 67 systems safety Architecture review 68 analysis 69 Manufacturing oversight Increasing 70 safety/minimizing risk 71 Mitigating hazards Having contingency 72 plans 73 Validating systems 74 Testing systems Ensuring crew skill 75 diversity Inspecting overseeing operations 76 safety 77 Assessing Risk 78 Instilling safety culture Capturing tacit operations 79 Ensuring explorer 80 health Explorer health monitoring 81 evaluating Mitigating radiation 82 exposure Radiation Health 83 assessing Managing thermal 84 environment Assuring crew L0 6 functions L1 26 functions L2 68 functions L3 150 functions L4 205 functions L5 91 functions L6 4 functions Total: 550 diversity Background Based on inputs from all effort areas in the study Implications Defining the architecture in a useful way involves mapping functions to forms Comprehensive list provides holistic perspective Enterprise functions based on surrogate enterprises Disparity in progress between technical enterprise system definition highlights differing analytical maturity levels 550 functions defined Addresses both social technical systems Organized into hierarchical tree structure 7 levels of hierarchy 6 main branches in the hierarchical structure What is driving the architecture? Stakeholder values or modeling capability? September Slide 14

15 Value Defines, is Delivered by Architecture Beneficiaries Other stakeholders Needs Value Delivery process feedback loop Responses, including resources received Directed Resources Actions including delivering benefits Value creating organization(s) Capabilities Needed Resources The Value Delivery System (i.e., the architecture) must be designed to deliver value to the stakeholders, actually deliver that value Actual value delivery process depends on nature of relationships/ exchanges among stakeholders Proximate measures feed the technical architecture process Enterprise architecture governs value flows among stakeholders This architecting process was found to be highly Iterative September Slide 15

16 Which Stakeholders Benefit From This Architecture? # functions of interest Scientific Commercial Executive- Congress US People Intl Partners The architecture that emerged (based on fairly narrowly-defined technical merit) most looked like previous architectures, not surprisingly most addressed the needs of legacy stakeholders Media Security Educators Benefits valued by stakeholders are linked to the functions that produce those benefits Sum of functions that produce stakeholder-valued benefits are displayed by stakeholder in graph Not weighted (e.g., by $, intrinsic value, etc) Top beneficiaries are /Scientists (traditional NASA constituency; jobs) Commercial (providing launch services systems, jobs) Executive Congress (fiduciary concerns, political capital) September Slide 16

17 Comments on Enterprise Architecting Creating adapting structures in response to needs Create structures that enable value creation (e.g., new products are created by innovative product development systems) More efficient enterprises are created through an on-going transformation process that relies on feedback, analysis correction High-performance supplier logistics networks are created in the service of providing customers with fast, inexpensive, high-quality products in a way that beats competitors makes money There is evidence that a few exceptional enterprise architects with vision have created new ways of structuring enterprises This process generally unfolds over many years (decades), with accounts suggesting it was largely through the types of processes outlined above: Solving problems a few at a time, relentlessly, with deliberate focused alteration of decision rules We haven t systematically investigated whether there have been other enterprise architects that have been equally visionary have led their enterprises to ruin Is EA unequivocally good? September Slide 17

18 Lessons Learned Large gap between stakeholder analysis technical system architecting Stakeholder analysis is immature in theory, tools, concepts, empirical evidence, (i.e., which apply: economics, political science, physics, decision theory, etc?) Phasing of work: don t start the stakeholder analysis at the same time you start hardware architecting No formal theory-supported methods to derive technical measures from societal stakeholder values independent of architecture concepts Formalized analytical processes can yield any solutions depending on the assumptions made along the way Formality is not a (very good) substitute for architecting judgment The architect is ultimately the arbitrator to bridge the gap between stakeholders technical system, whether intentional, systematic, transparent, acd, or not In our study, the technical architecture concept was fairly defined at the outset; in reality the architecture is even more defined by existing constraints Enterprise system of system architecting challenges introduce social temporal dynamics that are not well characterized/modeled in existing system architecting methods September Slide 18