1 / 38

Systems Engineering of Complex Adaptive Systems

Systems Engineering of Complex Adaptive Systems. Otto Jons. National Defense Industrial Association 6 th Annual Systems Engineering Conference ( Oct. 2003 San Diego) . Preface. A rigorous scientific basis for Complex Adaptive Systems: - Still in its infancy

lucus
Download Presentation

Systems Engineering of Complex Adaptive Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Systems Engineering of Complex Adaptive Systems Otto Jons National Defense Industrial Association 6th Annual Systems Engineering Conference (Oct. 2003 San Diego)

  2. Preface • A rigorous scientific basis for Complex Adaptive Systems: - Still in its infancy • Popular science flavor of books by Gleick (“Chaos”) and Waldrop (“Complexity”): - Disdain (?) by some “serious” scientists and engineers • Some advances by scientists: See Holland (“Hidden Order” and “Emergence”) However: • Complex Adaptive System: - Profoundly important • Some “lessons (-ready to be-) learned”

  3. Outline • Systems Engineering: – A Very Brief Review • The Systems Spectrum • Complex Adaptive Systems • Developing (Elements of) CAS • Summary and Conclusions

  4. Current doctrine has matured into a standard process, The Systems Engineering Process Systems Analysis & Control • Process Input • Customer Needs/Objectives/Requirements • Missions • Measures of Effectiveness • Environments • Constraints • Technology Bae • Prior Output • Program Decision Requirements • Requirements From Tailored Specifications and Standards • Specific Preferred Alternatives • Trade-Off Studies • Effectiveness Analysis • Risk Management • Configuration Management • Interface Management • Data Management • Performance-Based Progress Measurement • SEMS • TPM • Technical Reviews • Requirements Analysis • Analyze Missions & Environments • Identify Functional Requirements • Define/Refine Performance &Design Constraint Requirements Requirements Loop • Functional Analysis/Allocation • Decompose to Lower-Level Functions • Allocate Performance & Other LimitingRequirements to All Functional Levels • Define/Refine Functional Interfaces (Internal/External) • Define/Refine/Integrate Functional Architecture Design Loop • Synthesis • Transform Architectures (Functional to Physical) • Define Alternative System Concepts Configuration Items & System Elements • Define/Refine Physical Interfaces (Internal/External) • Define Alternative Product & Process Solutions Verification • PROCESS OUTPUT • Decision Data Base • Decision Support Data • System Functional & Physical Architectures • Specification & Baselines • Balanced System Solutions • a process applied to any system.

  5. Nation • Government • DoD/Navy • Joint Force • Battle/Task Group • Ship • Machinery System • Propulsion System • Engine • Fuel Pump Naval System Hierarchies (Examples) System Hierarchies: The Vertical Dimension How about the Horizontal Dimension ?? Are there different System Categories ??

  6. Outline • Systems Engineering – A Brief Review • The Systems Spectrum: • Spectrum Samples • The Limits of Engineering

  7. From Newtonian Physics The Systems Spectrum A Brief Tutorial To “New Science”

  8. The Systems Spectrum • Traditional Engineering Systems (TES) =Newtonian/Mechanistic: =”Action equals Reaction”, etc. =The Foundation of Technology TES • Current SE Doctrine focuses (- exclusively??) on TES: • Development of an Optimal System for a Specified Need / Operation

  9. The Systems Spectrum • Traditional Engineering Systems • Dynamic Feedback Systems DFS TES e.g., Double Pendulum; - seemingly simple, but…..

  10. DFS TES The Systems Spectrum • Traditional Engineering Systems Dynamic Feedback Systems Complex “Chaotic” Systems CCS e.g., Weather System; highly complex, also involving dynamic feed-back

  11. The Systems Spectrum • Traditional Engineering Systems • Dynamic Feedback Systems* • Complex “Chaotic” Systems** DFS CCS TES - DFS & CCS obey the laws of physics, however: Prediction of long-term behavior not possible because of extreme sensitivity to initial conditions

  12. The Systems Spectrum • Traditional Engineering Systems • Dynamic Feedback Systems* • Complex “Chaotic” Systems** DFS CCS CAS TES • Complex Adaptive Systems • = Characterized by “Adaptive Agents”

  13. The Systems Spectrum • Traditional Engineering Systems • Dynamic Feedback Systems* • Complex “Chaotic” Systems** DFS CCS R-CAS TES • Complex Adaptive Systems: Reactive CAS = Ecology; Natural systems, such as the Immune System;

  14. The Systems Spectrum • Traditional Engineering Systems • Dynamic Feedback Systems* • Complex “Chaotic” Systems** DFS CCS R-CAS TES P-CAS • Complex Adaptive Systems: • Reactive CAS Proactive CAS =Economies, Games, Conflicts, Warfare: Conscious decision-making by intelligent agents

  15. DFS CCS R-CAS P-CAS TES The Systems Spectrum • Engineering (-and Systems Engineering), to date: Focus almost exclusively on TES • Traditional engineering encounters increasing limitations • Warfare Systems are generally P-CAS • They may be R-CAS if threat-based • They may have TES - or R-CAS subsystems

  16. DFS CCS R-CAS P-CAS TES Systems Spectrum - Implications Proactive CAS Traditional Engineering Systems Explore differences between TES & P-CAS: Use the Naval Ship System: • Sheer Size & High Cost: • ~ i.e., No Prototyping • Long Life Span: • ~ 40+ Years

  17. DFS CCS R-CAS P-CAS TES • 2 to 10 Years Lifespan • (Generally: ) • Advanced Technology • 40+ Years Lifespan • (Generally: ) • Mature Technology Systems Spectrum - Implications The Naval Ship System: A Hybrid System The Hull: ATransportation System The Weapon Suit: A Warfare System (Often with a TransportationSubsystem)

  18. DFS CCS R-CAS P-CAS TES Systems Spectrum - Implications The Naval Ship System: A Hybrid System In Part = ATransportation System In Part = (Part of ) a Warfare System (Often with a TransportationSubsystem) • These Differences : • Manifest themselves in the ways Effectiveness is established • Warrant differing development approaches

  19. Payload (P) X Distance (D) Time (T) Effectiveness of a TES (A Shuttle Ship: A pure Transportation System:) Effectiveness (E) = Where: Tp – Time in Port Ts – Time @ Sea V - Speed E = P x D / (Tp + Ts) = P x D / (Tp + D / V) Note: - A Mathematical Relationship can be established between System Performance and Effectiveness. - The Objective is achieved largely by the System’s Output.

  20. Outline • Systems Engineering – A Brief Review • The Systems Spectrum: • Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS): • Effectiveness of P-CAS • Adaptation / Implication for Warfare Systems

  21. Effectiveness of P-CAS Mission Success / Effectiveness: Outcome (Not: Output) • Systems Deployed (The “Means”) & Their Capability • Strategies, Tactics, CONOPS (The “Ways”) • The Environment/ its Effect on “Means” and “Ways” (“Ways” & “Means”: Both “Ours -” & Theirs -”) Planned Outcome Actual Outcome > Mission Success : Planned Outcome < Actual Outcome Parameters:

  22. The Environment The “Ways” (Operations) The “Means” (System’s Capability) Effectiveness Effectiveness of PCAS (Cont.) The Goal: Accomplishing an Objective: = Winning a Battle = Succeeding in … ..(Name it) = Winning a Game of ….. (Ours & Theirs) • …Chess where: • The “Environment” (Board) is fixed • The “Means”: The Performance Capabilities of the pieces are defined and fixed • Effectiveness (= Winning) is then solely a function of the players’ “Ways”: How they play, react to and anticipate the opponent’s moves

  23. The Environment The “Ways” (Operations) The “Means” (System’s Capability) (Ours & Theirs) Effectiveness Effectiveness of PCAS (Cont.) (Another Example:) The Mission: Winning a Football Game • The “Environment”/Field is Fixed and Further Neutralized by Switching Sides at Halftime • The “Means”: The Performance Capabilitiesof the Teams, as Units (Offensive -, Defensive – and Special Teams) , Individuals, Their Natural Ability, Conditioning, Training, • The “Ways”involve the Play-Book, the Plays Called and the Reaction of the Defense • Effectiveness (= Winning) is a Function of “Ways” and “Means”

  24. Observations re. Warfare • Proactive Adaptation in Warfare: - All about the Creation of Asymmetries (= greater strength at the point of contact) • Asymmetries may be created - “Locally”; - in the same general physical environment (maneuver warfare) - In an entirely different environment • Adaptation: More likely to be effective if it is not anticipated by the adversary • Warfare: Need not be proactive- adaptive; May be re-active-adaptive • Sun Tzu’s teachings: • All about Proactive Adaptation, - with little emphasis on own “Means”

  25. The Environment The “Ways” (Operations) The “Means” (System’s Capability) (Ours & Theirs) Effectiveness Proactive Adaptation in Warfare • Scope of Adaptation : • “Ways” - Speed (How Fast) • - Quality (How Well) • “Means” – Use of Existing Resources • - Future System Development • Environment (Choice) • Warfare Examples Using Existing “Means”: • Boyd’s OODA Loop: “Ways” (Speed & Quality) • Salamis, Trafalgar: “Ways” & Environment • Warfare Examples Using New “Ways” & “Means”: C A • Phalanx / Alexander the Great: • Minor modification of “Means” & “Ways”: • Vastly improved Effectiveness

  26. Effectiveness , Performance & Cost • Success in warfare: • - A function of effectiveness • - A Measure of the outcome of the battle • Effectiveness results from • - The combination of “Ways” & “Means”, ours & theirs, in the environment of contact • = Not (necessarily) from the performance capability of our systems (“Means”) • However: Cost = f (Performance) • Cost=f (Effectiveness) • ( Inexpensive systems may be highly effective…….) Effectiveness is established: - In the “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Space; - Not: in the Performance & Cost Trade-Space

  27. Transformation New “Ways” New Technology 3 Current “Ways” 2a 1 Current Technology 2b New “Means” Current “Means” The “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Space • Improving Mission Effectiveness • 1. Find Better ‘Ways” of Using Existing “Means” • 2. Retain Current “Ways” but Develop Improved “Means” • a. With Current Technology • b. With New / Advanced Technology • 3. Develop New “Ways” to Take Advantage of New “Means”

  28. Outline • Systems Engineering – A Brief Review • The Systems Spectrum: • Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) • Developing (Elements of) CAS • Systems “Engineering”(?) of CAS

  29. Material Support Material Development Processes The Warfare System of Systems Operations Development Personnel Support/ Dev’t Personnel ILS Requirements (MNS, ORD) Personnel Development (ICD, CDD) Manning The Acquisition System

  30. Performance Capabilities/ Requirements Ship System Development System of Systems Value Planned Use Mission Effectiveness (MOE) How Used Mission Analysis Intended Use How Used Functional Allocation Performance Capability (MOP) Developing/Acquiring Systems Cost $ System

  31. Value Mission Effectiveness (MOE) Intended Use Mission Analysis How Used Performance Capabilities/ Ship System Development - Today • The Process is generally executed sequentially since: • Rarely are CONOPS modified as the result of design results • Requirements are “engineered” to respond to operational needs and perceived needs for precision System Effectiveness 1. Input “Ways”) Requirements are to be met; - not to be negotiated !! Performance Capability (MOP) Developing/Acquiring Systems Cost $ 3. Output (“Means”) 2. Process

  32. Systems Engineering Process for TES Systems Analysis & Control • Process Input • Customer Needs/Objectives/Requirements • Missions • Measures of Effectiveness • Environments • Constraints • Technology Bae • Prior Output • Program Decision Requirements • Requirements From Tailored Specifications and Standards 1. Input (“Ways”) • Specific Preferred Alternatives • Trade-Off Studies • Effectiveness Analysis • Risk Management • Configuration Management • Interface Management • Data Management • Performance-Based Progress Measurement • SEMS • TPM • Technical Reviews • Requirements Analysis • Analyze Missions & Environments • Identify Functional Requirements • Define/Refine Performance &Design Constraint Requirements Requirements Loop 2. Systems Engineering Process • Functional Analysis/Allocation • Decompose to Lower-Level Functions • Allocate Performance & Other LimitingRequirements to All Functional Levels • Define/Refine Functional Interfaces (Internal/External) • Define/Refine/Integrate Functional Architecture Design Loop • Synthesis • Transform Architectures (Functional to Physical) • Define Alternative System Concepts Configuration Items & System Elements • Define/Refine Physical Interfaces (Internal/External) • Define Alternative Product & Process Solutions Verification • PROCESS OUTPUT • Decision Data Base • Decision Support Data • System Functional & Physical Architectures • Specification & Baselines • Balanced System Solutions 3. Output (“Means”)

  33. “Ways” Development SE Process for P-CAS Systems Analysis & Control • Process Input • Customer Needs/Objectives/Requirements • Missions • Measures of Effectiveness • Environments • Constraints • Technology Bae • Prior Output • Program Decision Requirements • Requirements From Tailored Specifications and Standards “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Space • Specific Preferred Alternatives • Trade-Off Studies • Effectiveness Analysis • Risk Management • Configuration Management • Interface Management • Data Management • Performance-Based Progress Measurement • SEMS • TPM • Technical Reviews • Requirements Analysis • Analyze Missions & Environments • Identify Functional Requirements • Define/Refine Performance &Design Constraint Requirements Requirements Loop • Functional Analysis/Allocation • Decompose to Lower-Level Functions • Allocate Performance & Other LimitingRequirements to All Functional Levels • Define/Refine Functional Interfaces (Internal/External) • Define/Refine/Integrate Functional Architecture Design Loop • Synthesis • Transform Architectures (Functional to Physical) • Define Alternative System Concepts Configuration Items & System Elements • Define/Refine Physical Interfaces (Internal/External) • Define Alternative Product & Process Solutions Concurrent “Ways” & “Means” Development: The “Means” Solution Verification • PROCESS OUTPUT • Decision Data Base • Decision Support Data • System Functional & Physical Architectures • Specification & Baselines • Balanced System Solutions “Means” Development

  34. Both performance capability and cost are • design-dependent , require some system definition because • It is not possible to assess a system’s performance capability or even technical feasibility without a design definition • It is rarely possible to develop reliable cost estimates for new systems solely on the basis of performance requirements. For P-CAS, in particular… : • Cost information is crucial to make prudent decisions regarding quality versus quantity • Valid performance predictions and cost estimates must be based on a Design Definition • The “Ways” & “Means”Trade-Off is incomplete if only the Required Capability is identified A“Means” Solution must be defined !

  35. The “Means” Solution The “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Off Concept Formulation Solution – Based Acquisition

  36. The “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Off Concept Formulation Credits: NAVSHIPS 0900-060-0100, “Guide for Conducting Ship Concept Formulation”, Figure 2-4, page 2-16, 1969 A.D.

  37. Summary • Systems form a Spectrum ranging - from Traditional Engineering Systems (TES) - - to Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) • CAS may be Reactive (R-CAS) or Proactive (P-CAS) • P-CAS are of special interest to the Defense Industry • TES display a strong link of • System/”Means” Performance and Effectiveness • In Proactive CAS, this link is often very weak: • It is greatly diluted by • how and where we use systems (“Our Ways”) and • the adversary’s “Ways” and “Means” This challenges the Sanctity of Performance Requirements

  38. Summary (For Proactive Complex Adaptive Systems, such as Warfare Systems, in particular…) • Requirements must “float” until the Exploration of the “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Space has been completed Only the user can determine which combination of “Ways & Means” will be most effective • Completion entails the selection of the “Means” Solution based on effectiveness, capability and cost • This requires a design definition; • Therefore: “Definition before Acquisition”; therefore: Solution-Based Acquisition

More Related