Industry & INCOSE Perspectives On
SOS Architecting Critical Success Factors
Paul Robitaille
Director & Corporate Fellow – Systems Engineering
Lockheed Martin Corporation
President, INCOSE
paul.robitaille@lmco.com
1
Agenda
- Definition of Architecture & Attributes of System & SOS
Architectures
- Observed Limitations in current practice
- Key SOS Architecting Success Factors
- Activities In Work to Advance the Practice
2
Architecture
 Definition
 The fundamental organization of a system (or SOS) embodied in its components, their
relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principles guiding its
design and evolution. (Source: IEEE 1471)
 Purpose/Value
 Provides a description of a system or system of systems that can support multiple
stakeholder concerns
 Operational Users – Describes how the system operates and the operational value in
terms of the provided capabilities, interoperability, and MOE’s
 Acquisition Executives – Provides comparison data to support acquisitions decisions in
terms of systems contribution to the overall capabilities and MOE’s
 Program Managers – Describes critical metrics for monitoring performance in terms of
MOP’s, KPP’s, and CAIV
 System Developers – Describes system, element, and component physical and functional
characteristics, interfaces, and constraints
 Architectural Description
 Capabilities in terms of Doctrine, Training, Materiel, Personnel, Leadership, Facilities
(DOTMPLF)
 Operational environment
 Interoperability requirements
 Logical/Physical elements, topology, and their interfaces
 Behavior
 Performance and physical characteristics
3
Observed Architecting Limitations
(DOD Context)
 Inability to support capabilities-based planning processes with a useful
architecture description of ends, ways, and means expressed as the full
range of DOTMLPF architecture alternatives
 Inability to support systems acquisition and portfolio planning/investment
processes with an unambiguous way to compare architecture alternatives
 Inability to integrate architecture descriptions with other systems engineering
artifacts such as requirements specifications and engineering analyses
 In general, not focusing on client-valued support to core organizational processes
 In general, not producing results in the language of those who need them
Although “pockets of good practice” do exist, architecting in general is
failing to meet the expectations of its clients
4
Proposed Critical Success Factors
Ensure the architecture definition can be used to answer the
specific questions under study for the stakeholders:
1. Data-centric, not product centric approach – yielding actionable
architectures
2. Unambiguous, clear, and semantically rich views – (Remember
Zachman’s principles!)
3. Identify the core set of architecture elements
4. Support executable architecture development & analysis
5. Be useful for more than just IT architecting
6. Support cost-benefit analyses
7. Enable federating / linking of architectures
8. Support structured / object modeling methodologies
9. Seamlessly fit within the broader set of SE process
(Reference: Ring, Current State of DoDAF / CADM v 1.0 Architecting)
5
Multi-Level Systems Engineering Process
Joint
Warfighting
Concepts
Capability
Based
Analysis
Enterprise
System
Engineering
Program
System
Engineering
Capability
Verification
Architecture
Development
Architecture
Verification
Coordinate / Support Development & Engineering Changes
Stakeholder
Requirements
Stakeholder
Analysis
Requirements
Analysis
Requirements
Analysis
Architectural
Design
Synthesis
Synthesis
Synthesis
Implementation
Synthesis
System
Validation
System
Verification
Integration
Integration
Integration
Integration
Integration
Unit Test
Unit Test
Unit Test
Unit Test
Architecting needs to link with a multi-level Systems Engineering Process
6
Related Development Research
Activities
 DODAF V2.0 WG
 Delivery of Version 1.5 1st Quarter 2007
 V 2.0 - ensure required SE information is included to support stakeholder needs
 DOD OUSD AT&L – DOD SOSE Guide Book – with support from INCOSE
 INCOSE - Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)
 Develop model based SE methods and techniques to facilitate SE-Design
communications
 ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 WG42
 New Group dedicated to architecture & linked to WG7 (Life cycle processes)
 Fast tracked IEEE 1471 into ISO/IEC 25961 which is planned for update
 Object Management Group (OMG)
 Drive detailed requirements for standard architecture representations (e.g.
SysML, UML Profile for DODAF/MODAF) for SE/SoSE
 LM - Extending the SE Vee Model to Address SOS SE
 Net Centric Operations Industry Consortium (NCOIC)
 Support standard frameworks for interoperability and net centric strategies
7
INCOSE Architecture Working Group (AWG)
Core Leadership Team
 Dr. Harry Crisp
INCOSE Fellow
 Mr. Hillary Sillitto
INCOSE UK Chapter President
Head of Integration Authority, MOD
 Mr. Dennis DeVoti, P.E.
Deputy Commissioning Officer
NYC Transit - CPM
 Mr. Sanford Friedenthal
INCOSE Liaison to the OMG
Chair, OMG Systems Engineering Domain
Special Interest Group (SE DISG)
Lockheed Martin
 Mr. Dwayne Hardy
American Systems Corporation
Advisor to the DoD Open Systems Joint Task
Force (OSJTF)
 Dr. Barry Boehm
Professor of Software Engineering
Director, USC Center for Software
Engineering
University of Southern California
 Mr. James Martin
INCOSE Head of Standards
The Aerospace Corporation
 Dr. Charles Dickerson
Chair, INCOSE Architecture Working Group
Technical Fellow, BAE Systems
 Dr. William Crossley
Associate Professor – Purdue University
 Stuart Arnold
Qinetiq
8
INCOSE AWG 2006 Activities
 SE process integration with MDA standards:
 Dwayne Hardy, Sandy Friedenthal
 UPDM initial submission to OMG uses SysML (decision in Dec)
 Possibility of INCOSE role in DoDAF revision?
 Architecture based cost estimation: (initial work posted)
 Barry Boehm, JoAnn Lane, Thomas Tan
 Relation of Architecting to SE:
 Eileen Pimentel
 Need to integrate with work on OSD (AT&L) SoS SE Guidebook
 Utility of Architecture for decision support (late 2006)
 Hillary Sillitto, Harry Crisp, C. Dickerson
 DoD SOSE Guide:
 C. Dickerson & A. Meilich
9
INCOSE AWG Web Site
 The web site is now operational on INCOSE Connect
 Relation of the web site to the AWG and INCOSE
 Core working group/leaders (contributors to BOK; write authority)
 Community of practice (AWG members have read access)
 Community of interest (access of all INCOSE TBD)
 Leaders are responsible for posting a focus area
 Visibility as an incentive for progress
 Ultimately the AWG web site should provide an open portal to a
broader international community
10
SE Shared Vision Project
 INCOSE Led Project to develop a consensus, community shared
vision for Systems Engineering
 A follow-up comment adjudication meeting will be held on
January 27-30 in conjunction with the INCOSE International
Workshop in Albuquerque, NM
 Community Review Period From 30 October – 15 December 2006
 Version 2.0 of SE Vision (PDF)
 Review Guidance Sheet (MS Word)
 Comment Submittal Sheet (Excel)
11
SE Vision V2.0 Findings
Grand Challenges:
 Multi-Dimensional mathematical model manager
 Evolutionary computational and generic algorithms to help explore the trade
space
 Quantitative risk management based on decision theory
 Value and preference model to translate diverse stakeholder requirements
 More comprehensive collaborative integrated development toolset that will
support distributed large scale system and SOS development
Maybe not Grand Challenges, but still Challenges needing work:
 SoS “Grade” Baseline Management Techniques
 Risk based processes with supporting measures and improved risk
management techniques
12
Questions?
13