INCOSE MBSE Model Based System Engineering System of

INCOSE (MBSE) Model Based System Engineering System of Systems and Enterprise Architecture Activity Ron Williamson Raytheon ron. williamson@incose. org January 26/27, 2013 INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Breakout Session Outbrief INCOSE MBSE Wiki page: http: //www. omgwiki. org/mbse Google: incose omg wiki mbse INCOSE MBSE So. S/Enterprise Modeling Wiki page: http: //www. omgwiki. org/MBSE/doku. php? id=mbse: enterprise Linked. In Group: INCOSE MBSE So. S / EA Modeling Credits: Mark Sampson, Sanford Friedenthal, the INCOSE MBSE Team INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013 1

Session… in a Nutshell • INCOSE MBSE So. S/EA Background – http: //www. omgwiki. org/MBSE/doku. php? id=mbse: enterprise – Linked. In Group: INCOSE MBSE So. S / EA Modeling – Focus on Architecture Framework Standards, So. S Engineering & EA Best Practices • What’s missing and how does MBSE help fill the gaps? Judith Dahmann – So. S Engineering Pain Points • How do we describe Systems of Systems & Enterprise Architectures and what’s the role of MBSE…. focus on Architecture Framework Standards Matthew Hause – Beyond annotated nodes and links drawings – Beyond cartoons and lightning bolts – Beyond textual Specifications of Functionality and Performance/Quality Factors • How do we Engineer So. S’s and what is the role of MBSE (Auto/Aero Case Study) Charles Dickerson • Panel Discussion INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013 2

So. S Defined • An So. S is defined as • – “a set or arrangement of systems that results when independent and useful systems are combined into a larger system that delivers unique capabilities”. There are four types of So. S: – – Virtual • Virtual So. S lack a central management authority and a centrally agreed upon purpose for the system-ofsystems. • Large-scale behavior emerges—and may be desirable—but this type of So. S must rely upon relatively invisible mechanisms to maintain it. Collaborative • In collaborative So. S the component systems interact more or less voluntarily to fulfill agreed upon central purposes. Acknowledged (Primary form of Do. D So. S • Acknowledged So. S have recognized objectives, a designated manager, and resources for the So. S; however, the constituent systems retain their independent ownership, objectives, funding, and development and sustainment approaches. • Changes in the systems are based on collaboration between the So. S and the system. Directed • Directed So. S’s are those in which the integrated system-of-systems is built and managed to fulfill specific purposes. • It is centrally managed during long-term operation to continue to fulfill those purposes as well as any new ones the system owners might wish to address. • The component systems maintain an ability to operate independently, but their normal operational mode is subordinated to the central managed purpose. INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013 3

Dr. Judith Dahmann So. S Pain Points Question Lack of So. S Authorities & Funding Leadership What are effective collaboration patterns in systems of systems? Constituent Systems What are effective approaches to integrating constituent systems into a So. S? Capabilities & Requirements How can SE address So. S capabilities and requirements? Autonomy, Interdependencies & Emergence Testing, Validation & Learning How can SE provide methods and tools for addressing the complexities of So. S interdependencies and emergent behaviors? So. S Principles What are the key So. S thinking principles, skills and supporting examples? What are the roles and characteristics of effective So. S leadership? How can SE approach the challenges of So. S testing, including incremental validation and continuous learning in So. S? Survey identified seven ‘pain points’ raising a set of So. S SE questions INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013 4

Matthew Hause Architecture Framework Future Problems • Systems of systems will grow in complexity and scale – Architectures will be necessary for understanding and governance – Essential for proper management and control – Tools will need to evolve to support this • Individual national support of proprietary architecture frameworks will become unsupportable – Unaffordable – Not interoperable – A barrier to communications • The ROI case for MBSE has not yet been made – Some evidence exists, but it is not yet overwhelming – Power. Point Engineering is still the status quo INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013

Matthew Hause Architecture Framework Action List • Development of the UAF will solve many problems (but not all) – Requires immediate support and funding from national governments – A change from “individual cars” to shared transport – Local variants will be necessary • An interchange standard will be essential – Problems with PES or its replacement must be overcome – Work on interchange using RDF is looking promising • Reference Architectures need to be created and shared – At both the capability and component level • A fundamental change in process needs to happen – MBSE needs to change from “extra work” to “how things are done” – Tools need to evolve to better enable this change in process • The case for MBSE Must be made – Industry partners Must publish more success stories – Governments Must require MBSE starting with the concept phase, the bid process and throughout the acquisition lifecycle INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013

Prof. Charles Dickerson Summary International Workshop 26 – 29 Jan 2013 Jacksonville, FL USA • Achieve an integrated approach to ESo. S engineering – ESo. SE methods independent of tools and modeling languages – Use of modeling languages (e. g. Sys. ML) – Integration with modeling and simulation tools • Case studies – The Sys. ML HSUV as a starting point for a conceptual vehicle – Possibly evolve to a common auto-aero ESo. S architecture? • Test methods, tools & approaches in case studies: prove the integrated approach is executable and repeatable ESo. SE IV&V Sys. ML HSUV Electronic System of Systems Engineering Integration, Verification and Validation Systems Modeling Language Hybrid Sport Utility Vehicle INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013 7

Outbrief Approach • The Good • The Bad • The Ugly • Recommendations !!! INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013 8

The Good, The Bad , The Ugly Recommendations • Good – Huge potential for MBSE to address issues • Bad – Independent and demanding to get the constituent models • Ugly – Claim can “do” it but haven’t taken time to address fundamental issues • Recommendations/Next Steps: – Outbrief topics (top 5) study/initiatives to look at the issues – Challenge study INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013 9

The Good, The Bad , The Ugly Recommendations • Good – Have modeling language (e. g. Sys. ML) • Bad – Not an executable language? (subset of primary model but too simple) • Ugly – Repeatable process not defined • Architecture design -> Build -> IV&V • OOSEM not well known • Not full process, method, people, solution – Need a persuasive argument – Traditional hierarchy approach doesn’t work • Need abstraction but not levels • Recommendations: – Develop reference case studies (include change over time) – Demonstrate the value proposition – Develop So. S/Enterprise trade plan • Technical, organization, etc INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013 10

The Good, The Bad , The Ugly Recommendations • Good: – Standards for AF’s combining for interchange to support analysis, etc. (4+ ISO related standards) • Bad: – So much entrenched positions • Ugly – So many standards to choose from – Standards-based AF’s need to evolve to support Enterprise Architecture • Recommendations: – Reconcile ISO, etc. Architecture and modeling standards – Case study for value proposition for following standards – Push government and industry to use standards and save money INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013 11

The Good, The Bad , The Ugly Recommendations • Good – Make applicable ISO standards as a starting point for progressing standards • ISO 11354 Enterprise Interoperability • Bad – Don’t have a well defined process of So. SE/EA • Ugly – Ad hoc everyone has their own approach – How to start with constituent systems • Recommend – Push standards to add process sections – Include system evolution impact on So. S evolution INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop January 2013 12