Transcript - SEDC Conference 2014

Model-Based System Integration (MBSI)
An Instructional Approach
Dr. Paul Montgomery
Associate Professor of Systems Engineering
Naval Postgraduate School
May 15, 2012
1
Perspectives Calibration






2
Developmental SE
SI – Different perspective from SEs
DoD – Developing complex systems
Academia – SE professor
MBSE – Evolving and maturing
MBSI – An idea (MBSE from SI’s
perspective)
BLUF
 Integration
• Integration begins at design
 Modeling
• Don’t try to integrate the system until you
successfully integrate the system model
 Instruction
• Integration must be experienced, not merely
studied
3
Essential Concepts of I&Q1
 Integration = ensuring the system comes
together
• Interfaces (connectivity and flow)
• Interactions (also interoperability)
 Qualification = ensuring the system is
acceptable to the customer (aka ‘acceptance’)
• Building the system correctly (aka ‘verification’)
• Building the correct system (aka ‘validation’)
1
4
I&Q = Integration and Qualification
What’s the Problem?
 Many system developments fail at
integration & qualification (I&Q)
… and fail badly
 Added cost, schedule, and needed redesign 1
• Hershey Foods Corp. PROJECT: IBM-led installation and integration of SAP,
Manugistics Group Inc. and Siebel Systems Inc. software…Hershey sales fell
12% in the quarter after the system went live — down $150.5 million
compared with the year before
• Norfolk Southern Corp. PROJECT: Systems integration with merger target
Consolidated Rail Corp…Norfolk Southern lost more than $113 million in
business during its 1998/1999 railroad merger with Conrail. Custom logistics
software wasn’t tested properly and a dispatcher mistakenly fed bogus test
data into the system
• Tri Valley Growers PROJECT: Oracle Corp. ERP and application integration…Tri
Valley bought at least $6 million worth of ERP software and services from
Oracle in 1996. None of the software worked as promised; some of it couldn’t
even be installed on Tri Valley’s DEC Alpha hardware, the co-op claimed in a
$20 million lawsuit filed in February.
5
From: “Top 10 Corporate Information Technology Failures”
Where are we (DoD) Going?
- DoD and SoS/LSI (Gansler)
 SoS acquisition and engineering is the
norm in DoD
 SoS design, integration and qualification
(I&Q) is highly complex
 DoD engineering workforce not well
aligned to LSI responsibilities
6
• Government oversight of LSI has been complicated with
contractual ambiguities
• Delineation of “inherently governmental functions” for LSI
needs more clarity
• Private LSIs have inherent conflicts of interests without
specific controls
• SoS integration requires a strong, centralized LSI
If SE is Well Defined, Why is I&Q a
Challenge?
 What’s wrong with this picture?
ID Needs
Deployment
O&M
Verification &
Validation
Define
Concept
Preliminary
Design
Detailed
Design
System I&T
Component
I&T
Component
Build
7
Production /
Mfg
MBSI
INTEGRATION BEGINS AT DESIGN
8
What is a System Model?
Functional
Decomposition
(Hierarchy)
Behavior
Diagram
(Sequence)
CORE
Model
Generic
Physical Block
Diagram
9
Functional
Flow Model
(FFBD)
Functional
Process Model
(IDEF0)
Interface
Diagram (N2)
MBSI – The SI’s MBSE Perspective
Design
Environment
Integration
Environment
Modeling Environment
MBSE?
10
MBSI?
Qualification
Environment
SE Activities Should Produce System
Definition/Model
Operational
Model
11
Interface
Physical
Model
Model
Functional
Behavioral
Model
Model
System
Definition
(“Model”)
System Model Underpins I&Q Activities
12
System Modeling
Don’t try to integrate the system until
you integrate the model
13
Progressive Integration
Different teams in
diverse locations
14
Integration and Qualification Considerations from
Functional Analysis
Complex
flows/connectivity
may indicate
complex interactions
and bears special
attention for
integration and
qualification focus
(or possible
redesign)
15
Integration and Qualification Considerations from
Behavior Analysis
High behavioral
interaction activity
bears special
attention for
integration and
qualification focus
(or possible
redesign)
16
Integration and Qualification Considerations from N2
Analysis
Large number of
interface content
(complex
interactions) can
warrant special
integration and
qualification focus
(or possible
redesign)
Function
1
Function
2
Function
3
Function
4
Function
5
17
I&Q Instructional Methods
INTEGRATION MUST BE EXPERIENCED,
NOT MERELY TAUGHT
18
Process
Approach
Popular Approaches to Teaching I&Q
SE Fundamentals
SE Integration
Test and Eval
Shortfalls:
Non-tangible experience
Hard to develop I&Q instincts
Disjointed learning experience
End-to-End
Approach
“Toys”
Approach
Shortfalls:
Cannot design components
Interfaces are fixed
Interface design may be hidden
Concept
Design
Integrate
Qualify
Build
System Model
System model is essential for project success
19
Shortfalls:
Not enough time
Not enough student skills
Set up for failure
MBSI Instructional Example
A PROJECT
20
Overview of Class Project
SOH Submarine Detection using Fire Scout
(STRAIT SCOUT)
21
Customer Problem Statement
Problem
In the Persian Gulf, we do not have a
reliable system to detect submarines
that egress and ingress through the
SOH by hiding in tanker wakes.
Research Questions
Can a combination of BAMS and one
FireScout be used to provide a high Pd
of the submarine behavior above?
What is shipping traffic density vs. Pd
performance of such a system?
What are some FireScout search
strategies for such a system
deployment?
22
Primary System Assets
 BAMS
- Persistent surveillance over AOR with
surface search Radar
 Fire Scout
•Speed = 0 – 90kts
 FireScout Sensor = LIDAR (Light
Detection and Ranging)
•Scanning
•Sub – inch resolution
23
Top-Level STRAIT SCOUT Architecture Concept
BAMS
1
FireScout
5
6
3
6
Red Team
7
1
Sensor
4
8
Test Parameters (Parameters, Scenarios,
Results)
1 – Ships and sub position data
2 – N/A
3 – Surface track data
4 – Sensor data
5 – Flight path commands
6 - Position data
7 – Environment parameters
8 – Test results
24
C2
8
Team Roles & Responsibilities
 LSI
• Primary stakeholder negotiations
• Top-level architecture
• Taxonomy and structure
– External systems interfaces
– Intra-subsystem interfaces
– Functional naming conventions
• Conop
• Integration and qualification strategy
– Integration strategy
– Acceptance goals, objectives, and agreements
• Leadership
 Subsystem teams
• Subsystem derived requirements
• Subsystem Design
– Functional, interfaces, and generic physical
• Subsystem integration and qualification
 Instructor = Primary customer/stakeholder
25
SE Design






26
Define the problem
Develop functional architecture
Develop physical architecture
Develop operational architecture
Develop interface architecture
Define integration, test, V&V strategy
Simulation Concept
Tanker track and direction
FireScout
sensor scan field
Wake (with sub)
Detection?
time = t
Wake (no sub)
time = tn
27
Subsystem A
Excel™
VBA
Subsystem B
VBA
“Dictator”
Project I&Q Environment
Excel™
Excel™
VBA
System
Subsystem C
Excel™
VBA
28
Subsystem
Teams
LSI
Team
Advantages:
Readily available “Office” tools
Concept-to-design
Interface visibility
Team integration = subsystem integration
LSI integration = system integration
Disadvantages:
VBA is not innate SE skill
Too much to do in time alloted
Integration can still be undisciplined
MBSI Environment
“Design”
“I&Q”
Implementation
29
Functional Modeling
Physical Modeling
Cell formulas and VBA
Sheets and cells
Interface
Modeling
Behavioral
Modeling
Qualification
Modeling
modeling
Conop
Needs
Mission
Constraints
Assumptions
Goals
Objectives
Primary Class Project Phases







1
30
System design
Model integration (CORE1)
System development (code)
Subsystem & System integration
System verification (test)
System validation (demonstrate)
System acceptance (grade)
CORE 8 (University) Service pack 3
MBSI Instructional Example
THE SI PERSPECTIVE
31
SI Challenge Questions
 Do you understand your problem and what your
subsystem needs to do?
 Do you understand enough about your subsystem
behaviors to define functions?
 How many functions are in your subsystem?
 Are the functions “modular” and simple?
 How many interactions do you expect?
 How many external interfaces do you need to define?
 How many internal interfaces do you need to define?
 Have you thought of which functions need to be
integrated first?
 What are the integration and qualification risks that are
starting to emerge?
32
Simplified Strait Scout Sequence
Diagram?
LSI
Red
BAMS
C2
FS
Sensor
Setup / Run
loop
Locations
Target Data
Flight Cmds
Sub detected
Record
Terminate
33
Fly/ Location
Strait Scout Functional Context
Systems
Control flow is
linear?
34
N2
Interface
complexity?
35
IDEF
Many
interfaces?
36
Sequence
Triggers?
Responses?
37
Student Discoveries
 Early requirements clarification is important
 Early architecture design imperative (especially
functional and interface)
 Rushing to development prior to model definition wastes
time and effort
 Early model integration drives out:




Functional gaps and overlaps
Interface inconsistencies and discontinuities
System behavior misunderstandings
Inter and intra-system interface problems
 SI involvement in design can reduce risk during I&Q
 Project would have failed without MBSE/MBSI methods
38
MBSI – An Instructional Approach
LESSONS LEARNED
39
Value of MBSI
 Successful I&Q requires:
• Strong LSI / SI
• Detailed system definition (particularly interfaces and functional
interactions)
• Early taxonomy and structure definition
• Early SI influence with I&Q success perspective
• Modeling in order to discipline design efforts
• Model integration prior to system integration to reduce I&Q risks
• Diverse and integrated SE/SI support system (i.e. tool sets, etc.)
 MBSE tools not yet MBSI tools
 “Teach” I&Q using MBSI applied to experiential project
40
References
 Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management, Sage and
Rouse (ed.), Wiley and Sons, 1999, Chapter 14
 Systems Engineering Guide for Systems of Systems, Ver 1.0, Aug 2008,






Director, Systems and Software Engineering, DUSD (Acq and Tech), OSD (AT&L)
The Role of the Lead System Integrator, Gansler, et.al., NPS-AM-09-005,
Jan 2009
Top 10 Corporate Information Technology Failures,
www.computerworld.com/computerworld/records/images/pdf/44NfailChart.
pdf
http://cdn.business2community.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/04/customer-experience-focus.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18-ef-usnhornt.jpg
http://www.behavioradvisor.com/sbPuzzled.jpg
http://www.blogspot.com/-hSnr-sGBKko/T2_WfiI8DI/AAAAAAAAD88/tzcvl7wxgRA/s1600/acellphone.gif
41