Engineering a Complex System: The Air & Space Operations Center (AOC) as a Complex Systems Exemplar

1. 2004 MIT SDM Alumni Conference “Innovative Product and System Development” Engineering a Complex System:The Air & Space Operations Center (AOC) as a Complex Systems Exemplar Doug Norman Senior Technical Advisor, AOC-WS Dept Head, AF Battle Management / Command & Control dnorman@mitre.org 22 Oct 2004

2. Caveat The author's affiliation with The MITRE Corporation is provided for identification purposes only, and is not intended to convey or imply MITRE's concurrence with, or support for, the positions, opinions or viewpoints expressed by the author.

3. Outline for Discussion • What is an AOC? • What’s the issue? Why Rethink Systems Engineering? • Complexity and Complex Systems • Engineering Complex Systems

4. Roche cites AOC as “Top Weapon”

5. TBMCS: the “Engine” of the AOC ’03 Association for Enterprise Integration (AFEI) winner – Excellence in Enterprise Integration

6. An AOC

7. What an AOC Does:e.g.Global Strike CONOPS AOC WS is the Key C2ISR node and enabler for GSTF

8. Find Assess Fix Engage Track Target TST How it does it:Today’s ATO Process JFC COMPONENT COORD STRATEGYDEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT FORCEEXECUTION WEAPONEERING ALLOCATION JOINT ATO DEVELOPMENT

9. How it does it:AOC Block 10.1 System List • Capabilities • Improved ATO production & dissemination • Common air picture • Initial Formal Training Unit (FTU) infrastructure • Initial Battlespace Visual. • Initial TCT Capability • Initial Plans Automation • Initial ISR Management • Limited Coalition Interop • Transportable – limited deployability • Improved M2M • Initial Info Services Capability • Airspace management • Collaboration (chat) • Comm/Info management • Common weather picture • IW/Space • Air Mobility Coordination • Combat Search and Rescue • Mission Applications • Collection Management Mission Application • Command and Control Information Processing System • Command and Control Personal Computer • Generic Area Limitation Environment Lite • Global Command and Control System • Global Decision Support System • Global Transportation Network • Imagery Product Library • Information Warfare Planning Capability • Interim Targeting Solution • Joint Deployable Intelligence Support System • Operational Model Exploiting GPS Accuracy • PC Integrated Intelligence and Imagery • Planning and Decision Aid System • Personnel Recovery Mission Software • Portable Flight Planning System • RAINDROP • Requirement Management System • Space Battle Management Core System • Theater Battle Management Core System • Theater Weather Server • Worldwide Origin Threat System • Weapons System Video • Combat Survivor/Evader Locator • Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance Manager • Time Critical Targeting – F • All Source Satellite Evaluation Tool • Commanders Tactical Terminal • Generic Area Limitation Environment • Global Command and Control System – I3 • Powerscene • Services • Air Operations Net • Broadsword • Defense Message System • Global Broadcast System • INTELINK and INTELINK-S • Joint Collaboration Environment • NSA Threat Warning Net • Predator Video • Purple Net • Tactical Data Information Exchange System-Broadcast • Tactical Intelligence Broadcast System • Tactical Related Applications • CSP AUTODIN • Internet Relay Chat • Combat Track II • Hummingbird Exceed • JWARN • Global Hawk Access • Geospatial Product Library (Eagle Express) • Multi-Media Message Manager (M3 AMHS) • Outlook Web Access (OWA) • Sky Media • Infrastructure • Data wall • Domain Core • Perimeter Security System • JICO Support System • Radiant Mercury • Imagery Support Server Environment Guard • Community of Interest Network • C2 Weapon System Part Task Trainer • Joint Worldwide Intelligence Comm System • Sensitive but Unclassified Internet Protocol Net • Secure Internet Protocol Router Network • Tactical Data Links in formats A, B, J • Air Defense System Integrator – TSQ-214 • Deployable Transit-case System • Joint Tactical Air Ground System • Precision Lightweight Global Position Receiver • Tactical Data Processing Suite • Tactical Data Terminal • Tactical Receive Suite • Air Force DoDIIS Infrastructure (aka JEDI) • AOC Security Portal • Access Net • CENTRIX-S • Gigabyte Ethernet • GPS Timing • Network Appliance Filer System (NAS) • STAMPS • Multi-Level Security

10. What is Traditional Systems Engineering (TSE)? • Definition taken from the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE – www.incose.org ): “Systems Engineering is an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful systems. It focuses on defining customer needs and required functionality early in the development cycle, documenting requirements, then proceeding with design synthesis and system validation while considering the complete problem: • Operations • Performance • Test • Manufacturing • Cost & Schedule • Training & Support • Disposal Systems Engineering integrates all the disciplines and specialty groups into a team effort forming a structured development process that proceeds from concept to production to operation. Systems Engineering considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs.” What are the boundary conditions for this to be successful?

11. Boundary conditions for TSE • Boundaries for successful applications of TSE: • The specific desired outcome must be known a priori, and it must be clear and unambiguous (implied in this is that the edges of the system, and thus responsibility, are clear and known); • There must be a single, common manager who is able to make decisions about allocating available resources to ensure completion; • Change is introduced and managed centrally; • There must be “fungible” resources (that is money, people, time, etc.) which can be applied and reallocated as needed.

12. The tension between users and acquirers… • User-assessed value is related to: • Immediate usefulness to the operators • Agility of potential interconnections and interconnected elements • Acceptance of innovation • Both technical and operational • The Operator’s Problem with current Acquisition as the source of AOCs: • Late to need • Too bureaucratic • Seldom delivers “what’s needed” • Too expensive • Too-early demand for unknown (and potentially unknowable) answers to needs • Hard to argue with, and win – they tend to have the documentation justifying what they’ve done • But often, what they do “feels wrong” • The problem is probably Systems Engineering – and that which it implies and includes • Why Rethink Systems Engineering? • Complexity and Complex Systems • Engineering Complex Systems • Complex Systems Engineering in Practice

13. Observation 1: No grand design possible • The AOC System of Systems is an opportunistic aggregation, not a design • Only the AOC System Program Office (SPO), which has the acquisition responsibility, has a strong interest in an AOC design, yet it has no way to impose its design on others, • As currently structured, since many of the elements don’t belong to the AOC SPO, and the AOC SPO has the responsibility for the integration, delivery, and operational admin of the AOC, the AOC SPO has insufficient authority to execute its responsibilities, • Since the AOC doesn’t spend its money for many of the elements, the element-owners have little incentive to comply with an AOC design, • The need for, and the appearance of, a specific new tool or application at the AOC is often driven by a new, immediate need.

14. Multiple System-ownersESC-Managed Systems in Red • Tactical Intelligence Broadcast System (ESC/SR)* • Tactical Related Applications (ESC/SR)* • CSP AUTODIN • Internet Relay Chat (COTS) • Combat Track II (ESC/SRK) • Hummingbird Exceed (COTS) • JWARN (USMC SC) • Global Hawk Access (ASC/RAV) • Geospatial Product Library (Eagle Express) (NIMA) • Multi-Media Message Manager (M3 AMHS) (ESC/SR) • Outlook Web Access (OWA) (COTS) • Sky Media • Infrastructure • Data wall (n/a) • Domain Core (n/a) • Perimeter Security System (ESC/ACF) • JICO Support System (ESC/ACF) • Radiant Mercury (ARFL) • Imagery Support Server Environment Guard (ARFL) • Community of Interest Network (n/a) • C2 Weapon System Part Task Trainer (AFC2TIG) • Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (n/a) • Sensitive but Unclassified Internet Protocol Network (n/a) • Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (n/a) • Tactical Data Links in formats A, B, J (n/a) • Air Defense System Integrator – TSQ-214 (ESC/DI) • Deployable Transit-case System (ESC/SRG) • Joint Tactical Air Ground System (Army) • Precision Lightweight Global Position Receiver (n/a) • Tactical Data Processing Suite (ESC/SR)* • Tactical Data Terminal (ESC/SR)* • Tactical Receive Suite (ESC/SR)* • Air Force DoDIIS Infrastructure (aka JEDI) (AFRL) • AOC Security Portal (n/a) • Access Net • CENTRIX-S (n/a) • Gigabyte Ethernet (n/a) • GPS Timing (n/a) • Network Appliance Filer System (NAS) (n/a) • STAMPS • Multi-Level Security (n/a) • Mission Applications • Collection Management Mission Application (Navy) • Command and Control Information Processing System (AMC) • Command and Control Personal Computer (USMC) • Generic Area Limitation Environment Lite (NRO) • Global Command and Control System (ESC/DI) • Global Decision Support System (AMC) • Global Transportation Network (TRANSCOM) • Imagery Product Library (NIMA) • Information Warfare Planning Capability (ESC/SR) • Interim Targeting Solution (AFRL) • Joint Deployable Intelligence Support System (NMIC) • Operational Model Exploiting GPS Accuracy (ESC/NDC) • PC Integrated Intelligence and Imagery (ESC/ACJ) • Planning and Decision Aid System (NSA) • Personnel Recovery Mission Software (JPRA) • Portable Flight Planning System (ESC/ACU) • RAINDROP (COTS) • Requirement Management System (DIA) • Space Battle Management Core System (ESC/NDC) • Theater Battle Management Core System (ESC/ACF) • Theater Weather Server (ESC/ACW) • Worldwide Origin Threat System (ESC/NDC) • Weapons System Video (AF/SCM) • Combat Survivor/Evader Locator (SMC/CZJ) • Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance Manager (ESC/SR) • Time Critical Targeting – F (ESC/ACF) • All Source Satellite Evaluation Tool (NRO) • Commanders Tactical Terminal (ESC/SR) • Generic Area Limitation Environment (NRO) • Global Command and Control System – I3 (ESC/DI) • Powerscene (n/a) • Services • Air Operations Net (n/a) • Broadsword (AFRL) • Defense Message System (SSG) • Global Broadcast System (ESC/MC) • INTELINK and INTELINK-S (n/a) • Joint Collaboration Environment (COTS) • NSA Threat Warning Net (n/a) • Predator Video (ESC/SRG) • Purple Net (n/a) • Tactical Data Information Exchange System-Broadcast (ESC/SR)* Over 30 separate PEs are represented in the AOC

15. Observation 2: Issues with “Integration” • Integration-enabling technologies, and integration developments (glueware), are grafted onto the elements (systems) of the AOC after delivery • Each element in the aggregate is designed and built with its own understanding of the world – around its own set of “conceptual atoms” • Integration among these elements requires effort to understand and bring these potentially disparate “conceptual atoms” in line so they can be composed • Integration is a source of work and revenue – using today’s business model (employer/contractor) contractors sell engineering hours • “Big Integration” is a potential cash-cow for those who perform it • Little incentive to limit the work, or find ways to be more effective • Late integration guarantees the delivery of an integrated, operational AOC will lag behind the availability of the individual elements; however, the expectation from the field is that general availability and integrated are synonymous. This potential disappointment is further compounded by the need to expend additional funds for the integration proper.

16. Observation 3: Funds for Integration • Funds for integration are limited • Ability for user to wait is limited • Barriers for building automated functionality (in software) are low, setting expectations that it’s easy and quick • Integration tends to be built around a defined work flow which implements a specific concept of operation. Integration “glue” which implements the CONOP binds systems into rigid relationships. This is contrary to achieving “agility” and “netcentricity.” • Testing issues

17. Observation 4: “Planning” and Expectations • “Planning” as a primary SoS strategy has problems • Focuses on the future – but is based in the past • Imposes expectations, and dependencies, on partially-interested participants • Design implied in the plan is based on today’s understandings. As things change in the world all the elements to be composed are subject to different pressures and decisions which likely will not align • Measures of Success based on promises – not achievements • Plans focus on “things” rather than “collaborations about things”

18. Waters the eyes What we ignore Community’s Information Architecture Storage, Access Technologies & Information Distribution Services Information Services Loose Coupling Assumed Knowledge Where we spend our resources Considered boring… mere details Decision Support Tools Tight Coupling Operator Position Tools Observation 5: What consumes our time and resources? Shared Understanding (Language) Wide Breadth of utility Narrow Half-life of entity Short Long

19. The Issue(s), so far (condensed) • The Gov’t (and industry in general – world wide, in fact) has been unable to build large systems, or integrate systems into larger collections predictably. • This is as true for the AOC as it is for others… • How do we position ourselves and our engineering activities to avoid this outcome? • For the most part, today’s systems are not composable. The systems: • Don’t share a common conceptual basis. • Aren’t built for the same purpose, or for use within specific work flows, or for use exclusively at AOCs, • Share an acquisition environment which pushes them to be “stand alone“ (regardless of any statements to the contrary), • Have no common control or management, • Don’t share common funding which can be directed to “problems” as required, • Many of the systems have many “customers,” of which the AOC is only one, • Evolve at different rates (as do system components). Integrating the AOC is an unbounded, unpredictable engineering activity

20. Can TSE be applied to the AOC? • Boundaries for successful applications of TSE: • The specific desired outcome must be known a priori, and it must be clear and unambiguous (implied in this is that the edges of the system, and thus responsibility, are clear and known); • Not true for the AOC • There must be a single, common manager who is able to make decisions about allocating available resources to ensure completion; • Not true for the AOC • Change is introduced and managed centrally; • Not true for the AOC (although it attempts to be) • There must be “fungible” resources (that is money, people, time, etc.) which can be applied and reallocated as needed. • Not True for the AOC TSE does not fit the context of the AOC as currently structured

21. So… How can we characterize this new context? • A metaphor: the Watchmaker and the Gardener • A useful (set of) metaphor(s) for framing the differences in problem spaces • The watchmaker – has a specific outcome • Develops and uses an a priori design which has been well-vetted, and well-analyzed • Can “prove” the design – it is correct & complete • Can price the design – all requirements/elements are known and stable • Can schedule the creation • The gardener – has an outcome space • Develops a desired outcome; generally an “architecture-like” statement of acceptability • Specific result not known a priori • Sense – and – respond to conditions as they emerge • Guides garden into the desired outcome space Sounds like a “complexity” problem?

22. What is Complexity? • A measure of potentiality • It does not mean “Difficult to understand” • Contrast with “Intricacy” • Mousetrap example Shannon number Low High brittle resilient Complex Complex Intricate Intricate Ants at honey http://www.ento.csiro.au/science/ants/pests.htm Mousetrap® Game by Milton Bradley

23. What is a Complex System? • A Complex System is a system: • Whose structure and behavior is not deducible, nor may it be inferred, from the structure and behavior of its component parts; • Characteristics by the presence of independent agents which introduce changes • Whose elements can change in response to imposed “pressures” from neighboring elements (note the reciprocal and transitive implications of this); • Has a large number of useful potential arrangements of its elements; • That continually increases its own complexity given a steady influx of energy (raw resources); Tend to be both Bottoms-up & Top-down

24. Is the AOC a Complex System? • A Complex System is a system: • Whose structure and behavior is not deducible, nor may it be inferred, from the structure and behavior of its component parts; • Partially true for the AOC • Characteristics by the presence of independent agents which introduce changes • True for the AOC • Whose elements can change in response to imposed “pressures” from neighboring elements (note the reciprocal and transitive implications of this); • True for the AOC • Has a large number of useful potential arrangements of its elements; • True for the AOC • That continually increases its own complexity given a steady influx of energy (raw resources); • True for the AOC Yes, the AOC is a Complex System

25. Needs Flow: Revenue Flow: Information Things Business User/Ops Yet another Observation: Dissonance and Partial-connectivity between two “Ecosystems” • Ecosystem 1: User/Ops • About the flow of Information and transformations of information • Ecosystem 2: Business • About the flow of revenue • How is “selective pressure” realized in each? • What are the interrelations?

26. What would CSE involve? • Deliberate and accelerated mimicry of the processes that drive Natural Selection • Characteristics of environments supporting natural evolution (an Ecosystem) • Co-existence and interact-ability – required to form an “environment” • Evolvability – must be able to change • Sensitivity to environment – change a function of “selective” pressure • Variety – “competitors” within a niche • Fitness – differential response to environment • Artificial Engineering Environment for (co)Evolution • Development Environment – setting up a continuous interaction space • Outcome Spaces (not outcomes) • Developmental Precepts – “forced” rules for interaction • Continuous Characterization – continuing selective pressure • Judging – choices made, with consequences • Rewards based on achieved result and value • Safety Regulations – sensitivity to “unsuccessful” varieties • Duality – the coexistence of “build time” and “run time”

27. Summary • Many systems exist which have the characteristics and behaviors of Complex Systems – such as the AOC • Traditional Systems Engineering only takes one so far • Something akin to Complex Systems Engineering is needed • Complex Systems Engineering should support the deliberate mimicry of evolution/co-evolution