Special Issues for Systems of Systems Kelly Schlegel and Kelly Kim Boeing

advertisement
Special Issues for
Systems of Systems
Kelly Schlegel and Kelly Kim
Boeing
October 29th, 2007
BOEING is a trademark of Boeing Management Company.
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Systems of Systems – Lead System
Integrator (LSI) Issues
• Issue 1: Expansive scale of Systems of Systems (SoS)
present challenges to traditional requirement
development approaches
• Issue 2: Organizational hurdles arise from many
(nearly 100) separate participating companies, all with
different expectations, processes, interests, skills,
terminologies, capabilities, different (and sometimes
competing) business interests and needs
• Issue 3: Technical challenges arise within the final
product from integrating many millions of lines of
software code – much pre- existing or COTS – and
resolving interface issues after supplier delivery
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Systems of Systems Interrelationships
Environments
Transportability/
Deployability
etc.
RAM
T-
Complementary Sys
Training and Logistics Systems
UGV
System/Platform3
NLOS - LS
System/Platform4
Safety
Man
Print
Memory
Sustainment
System/Platform2
Networked
Systems
Networked
/Interoperability
Comm
Communications
Networked Battle Command
Networked Lethality
Networked
Lethality
Training
Survivability
Training
Transportability
Survivability
Human Factors / MANPRINT
Maneuver
Sustainment
System/Platform1
Distributed Systems
Functional Areas
“The cube” can be interpreted as representing a set of integrated
requirements to be fulfilled by the SoS
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Issue 1: Expansive scale of Systems of Systems (SoS)
present challenges to traditional requirements
approaches
• Disciplined approach to balance requirements and
product development
• Leadership discipline to control risk
• Create a synchronized schedule for top-level
requirements development and flow down
• Even if systems/platforms are on different development
schedules, plan to create a set of common requirements for all
systems/platforms to a certain level of detail (usually the prime
item specification level) on an integrated schedule to ensure
SoS-level coordination is timely.
• Upside: Allows supplier work to progress while requirements
being definitized
• Downside: Causes interface issues, testing and traceability
issues later
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Issue 1: continued
• Provide explicit decomposition and allocation of requirements
• Supports traceability analysis and change impact analysis
• Especially important when customer requirements are expressed at
an integrated level
• Provide a way to clearly track performance expectations and tradeoffs (TPMs)
• Traces from previous spec revs must be “saved”
• Set up a common requirements Database structure to provide a
single source and decomposition environment for common and
unique requirements
• Address interoperability through integrated requirements sets
• When platforms interact, their interoperability is managed through
Interface Control Documents
• LSI can manage interoperability through integrated common
requirements and “matched pair” requirements in addition to the ICDs
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Issue 1 : continued
• Ensure that the multiple stakeholders in SoS programs participate
in the signature / baselining of requirements
• “The cube” shows that each requirement has three stakeholders that
should have signature authority – the functional requirements
developer, the distributed systems team, and the system/platform
team
• Development challenges require identifying appropriate degree of
abstraction and completeness applicable at multiple levels from
full SOS down to individual software items
• Involve test team to check for understandability & testability
• Support desired configuration for Production delivery
– Capability Phasing, build checkpoints, threads and sub-threads,
configuration matrices, traces for major events
• Involve suppliers in build checkpoints & establish checklists and exit
criteria
• Spirals and spinouts designed to identify issues before SoS PDR
• Tiger teams may need to be established to address gaps and loose
ends
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Issue 1 : continued
• Rigorous Application of Systems Engineering Methods
applied to Spec Tree
• Minimize the number of levels in order to minimize the number
of specifications
• Provide consistent level of detail within each level in the
specification structure
• Provide specifications to support verification at the planned
levels and groupings of items
• Provide specifications to support each item procured from a
supplier
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Issue 2: Organizational hurdles arise from many
separate participating companies
• Virtual Co-location Enables Communication
• Optimize on commonality through multi-site standard
• Common Program SDP
• SDP for each supplier that is consistent with Program SDP
• Identification of multiple parallel views & decompositions is key to
achieving SoS design scalability
• Identify Key Software Design concepts of SoS and manage APIs
• Common Middleware — Sustainable COTS-based middleware providing
common and critical run-time services across multiple target platforms
• Application Layer — Distributed, multi-site development and delivery of
required services via loosely coupled, composable application services
hosted on middleware
• Workflow Engine — Integrates application services into user/application
functions. Evolves with maturing tactics, techniques and procedures.
Supports service-level replacement of software components
• Service Oriented Architecture — Conformance to architectural rules that
describe build able service definitions, interface types, behavior management,
performance, and sustainment of individual services
• Application of independent and non-advocate reviews to ensure
mission assurance
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Issue 2: Coordination a challenge across
geographic locations
Land Systems
Redbank, NJ
Minneapolis, MN
Ft. Wayne, IN
Santa Clara, CA
Philadelphia, PA
Bloomington, MN
Huntington Beach, CA
Albuquerque, NM
St. Louis
Westminster, MD
Plano, Texas
San Diego, CA
McLean, VA
Mesa, AZ
San Diego, CA
Austin, TX
Scottsdale, AZ
Orlando, FL
States with software
Virtual Co-location Enables Communication
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Issue 3: Technical challenges arise within the final
product from integrating many millions of lines of
software code
• LSI test bed should provide white box testing as well as black box testing
• LSI should plan to develop early models/simulations (Matrix-X, Simulink)
that drive and test interface requirements
• Big bang integration introduces risk
• Planning and enforcing incremental integration of the software itself
• Set up Source Code CM structures where suppliers can put their interfaces
(e.g. source code for header files, IDL) and have other suppliers actually
compile and build against them.
• Develop and enforce Incremental integration process:
1. model services and interfaces
2. code up draft (detailed) interfaces, put them in publicly accessible area of CM
3. have them reviewed by interface users
4. have interface users compile against those interfaces
5. have providers create test stubs for those interfaces
6. have users test their code using these test stubs
7. providers create real implementations and release them
8. users build against real services and test against them prior to delivery to SWIT
• System/Software Integration labs should have a build-up of hardware in
the loop
• API, IDL and COTS (make/buy) decisions must be controlled by the
change board
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Conclusion: Key Elements for Successful
Systems of Systems
• Disciplined approach to balance requirements and product
development
• Strong SE trade space and CM during design phase
• Need concurrent vs. sequential processes
• Leadership discipline to control risk
• Fully vetted and defined ICD’s
• Complete and thorough interface management
• Incremental integration of the software and interfaces
• Clear TPM that gage the distributed performance across program
elements
• Tracking performance at the decomposed level of system
• Staged (gated) performance and design reviews
• Technical oversight, application of independent and non-advocate
mission assurance reviews
• Spirals and Spinouts find issues before SoS PDR
• Seamless information and data exchange systems
• Virtual co-location
• Incremental risk reduction / verification plan
• Test at every level of integration/development
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Download