1 / 41

Model-Based System Integration (MBSI) An Instructional Approach

Model-Based System Integration (MBSI) An Instructional Approach. Dr. Paul Montgomery Associate Professor of Systems Engineering Naval Postgraduate School May 15, 2012. Perspectives Calibration. Developmental SE SI – Different perspective from SEs DoD – Developing complex systems

cedric
Download Presentation

Model-Based System Integration (MBSI) An Instructional Approach

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. Model-Based System Integration (MBSI)An Instructional Approach Dr. Paul Montgomery Associate Professor of Systems Engineering Naval Postgraduate School May 15, 2012

  2. Perspectives Calibration • 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)

  3. 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

  4. 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 I&Q = Integration and Qualification

  5. 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. From: “Top 10 Corporate Information Technology Failures”

  6. 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 • 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

  7. If SE is Well Defined, Why is I&Q a Challenge? • What’s wrong with this picture? Verification & Validation ID Needs Deployment O&M Define Concept Production / Mfg Integration & Qualification Preliminary Design Definition & Decomposition System I&T Detailed Design Component I&T Component Build

  8. MBSI Integration begins at design

  9. What is a System Model? Functional Decomposition (Hierarchy) Functional Flow Model (FFBD) Functional Process Model (IDEF0) Behavior Diagram (Sequence) CORE Model Generic Physical Block Diagram Interface Diagram (N2)

  10. MBSI – The SI’s MBSE Perspective Design Environment Integration Environment Qualification Environment Modeling Environment MBSE? MBSI?

  11. SE Activities Should Produce System Definition/Model System Definition (“Model”) Operational Model Interface Model Physical Model Functional Model Behavioral Model

  12. System Model Underpins I&Q Activities

  13. System Modeling Don’t try to integrate the system until you integrate the model

  14. Progressive Integration Different teams in diverse locations

  15. 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)

  16. Integration and Qualification Considerations from Behavior Analysis High behavioral interaction activity bears special attention for integration and qualification focus (or possible redesign)

  17. Integration and Qualification Considerations from N2 Analysis Function 1 Large number of interface content (complex interactions) can warrant special integration and qualification focus (or possible redesign) Function 2 Function 3 Function 4 Function 5

  18. I&Q Instructional Methods Integration must be experienced, not merely taught

  19. Popular Approaches to Teaching I&Q Shortfalls: Non-tangible experience Hard to develop I&Q instincts Disjointed learning experience Process Approach SE Fundamentals SE Integration Test and Eval Shortfalls: Cannot design components Interfaces are fixed Interface design may be hidden “Toys” Approach Concept System Model Shortfalls: Not enough time Not enough student skills Set up for failure Qualify Design Integrate End-to-End Approach Build System model is essential for project success

  20. MBSI Instructional Example A Project

  21. Overview of Class Project SOH Submarine Detection using Fire Scout (STRAIT SCOUT)

  22. 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?

  23. 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

  24. Top-Level STRAIT SCOUT Architecture Concept BAMS 1 FireScout 5 6 3 6 Red Team Sensor C2 1 4 7 8 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

  25. 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

  26. SE Design • Define the problem • Develop functional architecture • Develop physical architecture • Develop operational architecture • Develop interface architecture • Define integration, test, V&V strategy

  27. Simulation Concept Tanker track and direction FireScout sensor scan field Wake (with sub) Detection? time time = t Wake (no sub) time = tn

  28. Project I&Q Environment Excel™ Subsystem A 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 VBA VBA “Dictator” Excel™ Excel™ Subsystem B VBA System Excel™ Subsystem C VBA Subsystem Teams LSI Team

  29. MBSI Environment “I&Q” “Design” Implementation Conop Needs Mission Constraints Assumptions Goals Objectives Functional Modeling Physical Modeling Cell formulas and VBA Sheets and cells Interface Modeling modeling Qualification Modeling Behavioral Modeling

  30. Primary Class Project Phases • System design • Model integration (CORE1) • System development (code) • Subsystem & System integration • System verification (test) • System validation (demonstrate) • System acceptance (grade) 1 CORE 8 (University) Service pack 3

  31. MBSI Instructional Example The si perspective

  32. 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?

  33. Simplified Strait Scout Sequence Diagram? LSI Red BAMS C2 FS Sensor Setup / Run loop Locations Target Data Flight Cmds Fly/ Location Sub detected Record Terminate

  34. Strait Scout Functional Context Systems Control flow is linear?

  35. N2 Interface complexity?

  36. IDEF Many interfaces? Many interfaces?

  37. Sequence Triggers? Responses?

  38. 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

  39. MBSI – An Instructional Approach Lessons learned

  40. 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

  41. 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/wp-content/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

More Related