Systems of Systems
Challenges and
Strategies
Jo Ann Lane jolane at usc.edu
March 2010

•
Incremental commitment and evolution
•
Lean principles
•
Engineering cost estimation
•
Engineering and management artifacts
•
Test and evaluation
2

Very large systems using a framework or architecture to integrate constituent systems
(CSs)
Exhibits emergent behavior not otherwise achievable by CSs
SoS CSs
•
Independently developed and managed
•
New or existing systems in various stages of development/evolution
•
May include a significant number of COTS products
•
Have their own purpose
•
Can dynamically come and go from SoS
Typical domains
•
Business: Enterprise-wide and cross-enterprise integrations
•
Military/Crisis Response: Dynamic communications infrastructure
Patient
Management
System
Pharmacy
System
Net-Centric
Connectivit y
Health
Care
Network
Telemetry
System
Based on Mark Maier’s SoS definition [Maier, 1998]
Laboratory
System
Imaging
Management
System
3

Virtual [Maier, 1998]
•
Lacks a central management authority and a clear SoS purpose
Collaborative [Maier, 1998]
•
CS engineering teams work together, but no overarching SoSE team to guide
Acknowledged [Dahmann, 2008]
•
Have recognized objectives, a designated manager, and resources at the SoS level (SoSE team)
Directed [Maier, 2008]
•
SoS centrally managed by a government, corporate, or Lead
System Integrator (LSI) and built to fulfill specific purposes
4

Translating capability capability objectives
Orchestrating upgrades
Understanding
Understanding relationships relationships
Addressing new requirements
& solution options
Monitoring
& assessing changes
External Environment
Assessing
(actual) performance to capability objectives
Developing
& evolving
SoS architecture
SoSE
(SoS SE Guidebook View Based on
Interviews and Analysis of
18 DoD SoSs in Various Stages)
•
Focusing CSs on SoS needs and capabilities
•
Coordinating development of new capabilities across CSs
•
Creating SoS roadmap to guide CS activities
•
Testing SoS capabilities in an asynchronous development environment
5

SoS SE Level*
Constituent
System n
  
(pre-existing)
Constituent
System B
(pre-existing)
  
Increment m
●
●
●
Increment n-1
New System A
  
MSA
Increment n
MS A
TD
Increment m+1
EMD
  
Increment n+1
MS B
PD
  
MS C
O&S
  
6

Clear “battle rhythm” for SoS incremental upgrades, driven by prioritized backlog of needed capabilities….
Constituent systems use their own lifecycle upgrade processes to integrate SoS requirements into their own incremental upgrade….
7

SoSE guided by LAI Lean Enterprise
4 Grand Questions Lean Enterprise 4 Grand Questions mapped to DoD SoSE case studies….
Lean Enterprise 4 Grand Questions mapped to SoSE core elements….
SoSE Core Element
Q1: Understand
Current
Lean Enterprise Grand Questions
Q2: Future
Possibilities
Q3: Strategies and
Tactics for Future
Q4: Change
Process
Stakeholder
Considerations
Holistic
Enterprise
View
Translating Capability Objectives
Understanding Systems and Relationships
Assessing Performance to Capability Objectives
Developing and Evolving an SoS Architecture
Monitoring and Assessing Changes
Addressing Requirements and Solution Options
Orchestrating Upgrades to SoS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8

Conversion to
COSYSMO size units
Calculations based on SoS characteristics/size and capability implementation approach using
COSYSMO algorithm
SoSE effort
CS 1 SoSE contribution effort
SoSE
Effort
System
Capability
Equivalent set of
“sea-level” requirements
CS n SoSE contribution effort
Applies reuse factors, different cost factors for each engineering organization at each system level, and diseconomy of scale for SoS and CSlevel requirements implemented in the same upgrade cycle….
9

Artifacts that apply across the elements
SoS Planning
Elements
SoS Master
Plan
Risks and
Mitigations
Agreements
Capability
Objectives
Requirements
Space
CONOPS
Information
About
Systems which Impact
SoS
Risks and
Mitigations
Translating
Translating capability objectives
Understanding
Understanding systems & relationships
Orchestrating upgrades to SoS
Addressing requirements
& solution options
Monitoring
& assessing changes
Assessing performance
To capability objectives
Developing
& evolving
SoS architecture
External Environment
Artifacts can be characterized as key boundary objects between SoS and constituent system levels…
Performance
Measures and
Metrics
Performance
Data
SoS
Architecture
Requirements
Space
Integrated
Master
Schedule
Technical
Baselines
Technical
Plans
Performance
Data
10

•
SoS-level testing builds on CSlevel testing
•
Use of test ranges and operational testing
•
Evidence-based approach
•
Focus on
•
SoS capabilities
•
Network
•
Interoperability
•
Assessment of SoS performance over time
•
Feedback process for fielded
SoS
11

Conduct deeper dives into
•
Lean lens analysis
•
Test and evaluation analysis
•
SoSE artifacts
•
SoS architecture evolution
SoSE cost model
•
Incorporate additional cost factors into COSYSMO to capture additional SoS characteristics and non-traditional SE effort
•
Evaluate impacts of insufficient SE at SoS level on rework
•
Break out SoSE effort
•
Planning
•
Implementation
•
SoS-level testing
12

DoD Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E)
•
Stevens-USC Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) support
•
SoS case study work that has provided considerable engineering insights into SoSE
LAI for their research into lean enterprise concepts
Dr. Ricardo Valerdi’s pioneering work in the development of the COSYSMO cost model upon which the SoSE cost model is based
13

14

1. Dahmann, J. and K. Baldwin. 2008. Understanding the current state of US defense systems of systems and the implications for systems engineering. Proceedings of the IEEE Systems
Conference, April 7-10, in Montreal, Canada.
2. Department of Defense. 2008. Systems engineering guide for system of systems, version 1.0.
3. Maier, M. 1998. Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Systems Engineering 1, no. 4:
267-284.
4. Valerdi, R. 2005. Constructive systems engineering cost model. PhD. Dissertation, University of
Southern California.
5. Valerdi, R. and M. Wheaton. 2005. ANSI/EIA 632 as a standardized WBS for COSYSMO, AIAA-
2005-7373, Proceedings of the AIAA 5th Aviation, Technology, Integration, and Operations
Conference, Arlington, Virginia.
6. Wang, G., R. Valerdi, A. Ankrum, C. Millar, and G. Roedler. 2008. COSYSMO reuse extension,
Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Symposium of INCOSE, The Netherlands.
15