Speakers’ Abstracts

(In order as they appear in the Agenda)

“A Simplified Facilitated Process for Prioritization of System Requirements”

Authors:
Lorentz, John, U.S.C.G
Mazzuchi, Thomas, U.S.C.G
Sarkani, Shahram, U.S.C.G

Abstract:
The presentation will provide a detailed approach to a new collaborative requirements prioritization methodology that has been used successfully on four Coast Guard acquisition and development programs valued at $400M+. A statistical representation of participant survey results will be discussed.

Many technically compliant projects fail to deliver levels of performance and capability that the customer desires. Some of these systems completely meet “threshold” levels of performance; however, the distribution of resources in the process devoted to the development and management of the requirements does not always represent the “voice” of the customer. This is especially true for technically complex projects. This presentation will describe a simplified facilitated process for prioritization of system requirements. The collaborative prioritization process, and resulting artifacts, aid the systems engineer during early conceptual design by: establishing customer consensus, frontloading customer understanding of complexity, developing a common vision for how the system will be employed and by establishing early risk allocation to individual requirements.

All requirements are not the same. While there is a tendency to have many “thresholds” inside of a system design, there is usually a subset of requirements and system performance that is of the utmost importance to the design. These critical capabilities and critical levels of performance typically represent the reason the system is being built. Other capabilities may be willingly sacrificed or traded to achieve desired levels of performance inside of the critical capability. The systems engineer needs processes to identify these critical capabilities, the associated desired levels of performance and the risks associated with the specific requirements that define the critical capability. The facilitated prioritization exercise is designed to collaboratively draw out these critical capabilities and levels of performance so they can be emphasized in system design. Crafting the purpose, scheduling and process for prioritization events are key elements of systems engineering and modern project management. The benefits of early collaborative prioritization flow throughout the project schedule resulting in greater success during system deployment and operational testing.

The “Requirements Rationalization” prioritization process was first employed on a complex avionics integration project in 2003. The results from this new process was so well received by acquisition officials that it has been utilized on three follow on system acquisitions. The process was documented and analyzed for stakeholder/customer alignment and impact. This presentation will discuss the data and findings from participant surveys. In addition, the “Requirements Rationalization” process will be discussed in detail.

“Requirements Definition, Analysis, and Management from the INCOSE SE Handbook V3.1 Perspective”

Author:
John Clark, Northrop Grumman

Abstract:
Requirements Definition, Analysis, and Management continue to be three of the least well-understood systems engineering disciplines. Knowledge of the INCOSE SE Handbook V3.1 significantly aids this understanding. The goals of this presentation are to describe: 1) the Stakeholder Requirements Definition Process, the Requirements Analysis Process, and the Requirements Management Process; 2) the activities of the Requirements Definition Process; and 3) the relationships of these processes to the other SE Processes; from the INCOSE SE Handbook V3.1 perspective.

“Managing Hampton Roads Resiliency with an Object Oriented Paradigm”

Authors:
Volkan Cakir, Department of Industrial Engineering, Turkish Airforce Academy, Istanbul, Turkey
Berna Eren Tokgoz, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Adrian V. Gheorghe, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA

Abstract:
After 9/11 attacks to World Trade Center and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it has been understood that protection of a nation from extreme disasters is a challenging task. Extreme disasters can be both manmade and natural, and their impacts on nations’ critical infrastructures, economy and society could be devastating. Since it is obvious that protection plans are not enough after disaster strikes, there is a need for a holistic approach to create more resilient infrastructures to withstand extreme disasters. A resilient infrastructure can be defined as a component, system or facility that is able to withstand damage or disruption, but if affected, can be readily and cost-effectively restored. The key issue to achieve this is to incorporate existing protection plans with comprehensive preparedness actions to respond, recover and restore as quickly as possible and to minimize extreme disaster impacts (Scalingi, 2007). Hampton Roads consists of sixteen city and county jurisdictions and is home to 1.6 million people (the fifth largest metro area in the southeastern U.S. and the second largest metro area between Washington, D.C. and Atlanta). Hampton Roads is very critical for national security both militarily and economically, because it has the largest complex of military bases in the world and the second-largest port on the Atlantic coast, and it is the site of the world’s largest shipbuilder of combat vessels. Hampton Roads is low-lying and thus prone to flooding, is vulnerable to the effects of hurricanes and occasionally tornadoes, and is a likely target for a terrorist attack. Critical Infrastructure Resiliency of Hampton Roads Region (CIRHRR) project analyzes the regional resiliency in terms of four critical infrastructures namely electricity, transportation, communications and water sectors. Service interruption of any one or more of these interdependent infrastructures due to various threats could be catastrophic not only for the region but for the entire nation.

Extreme disasters, both natural and manmade, must be handled by each city’s emergency management departments. It is important to have a manageable plan which is prepared by emergency management departments before disasters. Since emergency management departments have to deal with other complex and large scale systems such as plant management, public utilities, fire department and police department, they have to have an efficient and effective organizational structure to coordinate all these systems. Strong organizational structure is the key point to respond fast before and during disasters, and recover quickly after disasters. In order to establish strong emergency management and organizational structure for cities, enterprise management approach can be useful. Managing an enterprise or large complex system is a very challenging task because of rapid technological changes, complex economic dynamics and adaptation to new markets, trends and opportunities. It is critical for enterprises to respond to these challenges in a timely manner with quick decision making. TopEase is one of the software which provides necessary critical information about enterprise itself for managers to see holistic picture of a complex system (Pulfer and Schmid, 2006). TopEase was developed by Pulinco Inc., to provide methodology for a holistic view of a system to manage its complexity, to get transparency and to control the change and/or transformation processes for continuous improvement and success. Therefore, an approach based on TopEase has been used in the CIRHRR project. In the presentation, some examples developed by using TopEase will be presented.

“From Throw Away to Persistent; the Future of Requirements Traceability in the USAF”

Authors:
Cheryl Connors, The MITRE Corporation
Deborah Hawle, The MITRE Corporation

Abstract:
As the USAF transitions to a service oriented architecture (SOA) environment, the current acquisition methodology must change from a system (i.e. buying another “box”) to a service acquisition model for exchanging critical information exchanges (IEs). In order to achieve this transition, there is a need to persist the requirements to provide rationale for the acquisition, implementation and maintenance funding. We will discuss the current methodology utilized by the USAF for implementing IE requirements and propose the creation of a Requirements Repository that would persist these requirements to support the desired SOA approach. The repository will provide traceability from an initial requirements request to its implementation by a platform, service or system.

“Application of a Model-Based SE Approach to Architecting an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Exercise”

Author:
Fred Rojek, Booz Allen Hamilton

Abstract:
This is a novel application of SE principles to the architecting, integration and execution of a live-fire exercise. The purpose of the exercise is to assess emerging ISR technologies within an operationally representative environment. The SE challenge is to integrate new and legacy systems (each a system within it own right) to demonstrate and validate new ISR capabilities that address some of the top challenges facing the warfighter. The approach employs classic systems engineering practices and processes to understand and clarify exercise objectives and requirements, and ultimately produce a verified and validated exercise design, consisting of the major architectural components (assets that will participate in the exercise) and their interfaces, that will demonstrate the original objectives. The approach also employs an integrated set of models as the primary artifact to clearly communicate exercise requirements and the evolving architecture design to exercise participants and stakeholders. Also, a single, automated SE tool is used to maintain the vast amounts of data and information that compose the models. This data and information is maintained in a central, configuration controlled repository throughout exercise development, in this manner serves to underpin the entire development effort.

“Energy Security: Tangibles and Intangibles, Technology and Policy, Opposite Ends of a SoSEParadox Spectrum”

Authors:
Adrian V. Gheorghe, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Dan V. Vamanu

Abstract:
Today's infrastructures and their associated systems e.g. energy, pipelines, water, telecommunication, banking, Internet, etc. are delivering services for addressing an adequate quality of life; most of these systems were not designed as integrated systems, but gradually evolved over time. They are an expression of protecting our national security, our homeland security. These infrastructures become critical to society, at large. They are defined today as critical infrastructures. The complexity generated by interdependent critical infrastructures requires a new approach in dealing with the coexistence of physical infrastructures with their management, and highly exposed to a variety of threats e.g. natural disasters, technical failures, malicious attacks. The new developments in systems science brought into picture the system of systems platform. There is time to understand the way how this new platform is equipped with tools, ideology and innovation to firmly address complexity, resiliency, and governance of critical infrastructures.

“Impact of Decisions Made to Systems Engineering: Cost vs. Reliability System”

Authors:
David A. Ekker, Industrial Engineering Technology, Tidewater Community College, Advanced Technology Center Office, Virginia Beach, Virginia
Stella B. Bondi, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Resit Unal, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA

Abstract:
- Impact on decisions made in terms of cost and reliability - Selection of strategy for maintaining an operational system - Decisions made are faced with trade-off between cost and operational reliability

“A Layered Approach to Composition and Interoperation in Complex Systems”

Authors:
Andreas Tolk, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Saikou Y. Diallo, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Robert D. King, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Charles D. Turnitsa, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA

Abstract:
Complex systems are defined as systems with many components and multiple nontrivial interconnections. The term system of systems is often used alternatively, in particular when pre-existent systems are used to be composed to provide a new portfolio of functionality. Again, we have multiple systems that are connected via multiple interfaces, often using several alternative means of communications. In the information technology world, services are used to provide functionality to users by building a service-oriented architecture. In this chapter, we are evaluating such complex systems, focusing on man-made (and managed) systems.

Two terms often used synonymously but actually referring to two different concepts are interoperation and composition. Interoperation deals with the questions how a complex system works, how the composing elements work with each other, how they are orchestrated to deliver the required functionality to the user, etc. Composition deals with the question what components can be integrated into the systems and ad functionality without creating problems with other components. This chapter describes a layered approach in support of composability and interoperation in complex systems. This approach is neither complete nor exclusive. It is intended to help master students and practitioners in engineering disciplines and information technology to better understand how to use means of knowledge management to understand, describe, and manage complex systems in all life cycles. Furthermore, the approach supports evaluation, planning, and execution of integration projects. To this end, the chapter is divided into the four sections. In the first section, we will introduce the levels of interoperation that play a role in complex systems. Building layered models has been proven to be very successful in order to understand the effects and importance of decisions for the system. From this model, we will derive the necessity to align three disciplines in order to understand and manage complex systems: data engineering, process engineering, and constraint engineering. Each discipline will be described in its own section.

The approach presented in this chapter has been proven to support students and practitioners within several projects conducted in the recent years. The applications are in the domain of defense, homeland security, and energy. In all cases, the supported task was twofold: (1) understanding how the current system interoperates, and (2) showing how legacy systems can be migrated to participate in the de-sired system of systems. Documentation of these examples can be found in (Bern-stein et al. 2004; Parent and Spaccapietra 1998; Parent and Spaccapietra 2000; Rahm et al. 2004; Seligman et al. 2002; Spaccapietra, 1998; Tolk and Diallo 2005).

“Requirements Analysis from an Systems Engineering Standards Perspective”

Author:
John Clark, Northrop Grumman Corporation

Abstract:
Requirements Analysis continues to be one of the least well-understood systems engineering disciplines. Knowledge of the systems and software engineering standards significantly aids this understanding, including the relationship between systems and software requirements analysis.

The goals of this presentation are to: 1) describe the requirements analysis process from the systems and software engineering standards perspective; 2) show the relationships between systems and software requirements analysis based on these standards; and 3) encourage and challenge the participants to read, understand, select, tailor, and apply these standards, i.e., "stand on the standards," as opposed to relying solely on other sources such as instructions, procedures, guides, textbooks, education, training, and experience. Individuals may have an understanding of portions of requirements analysis based on these other sources. Standards, developed by subject matter experts and approved by nationally recognized standards organizations, provide a more complete and common understanding.

“Integrated T&E process and tools in Complex Naval Acquisition Programs”

Author:
Stephen Randolph, Alion Science and Technology

Abstract:
Integrated Test & Evaluation (T&E) provides an integral part of the Systems Engineering Process identifying levels of performance, assisting developers in identifying and correcting deficiencies, and validating to the system owner that the performance requirements are met in a cost efficient manner. Historically, developmental T&E activities conducted by the Program Office have been fire-walled from the operational T&E activities and organizations.

Complex Naval Acquisition programs have additional constraints supporting the needs and requirements of varied customer groups such as the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marines, and the U.S. Navy. Various processes and tools have been developed that meet the various programmatic needs and will provide a cost savings in an Integrated T&E environment.

This presentation will discuss lessons learned and an oversight into the methodology and tools that provide a cost-effective interface between Requirements Engineering, the developmental T&E communities, and operational T&E communities for future joint programs.

“Sub-Optimal Systems Engineering in Requirements Documents”

Author:
Robert Smole, Northrop Grumman – Shipbuilding, Newport News, VA

Abstract:
Motivation: Although systems engineers desire to implement all the best practices of systems engineering, often times the customer constrains the project such that a sub-optimal approach is required. Problem: The CVN78 Voice System SRD (System Requirements Document) did not follow systems engineering practices. The requirements were mixed in with functions and/or contained multiple requirements within one requirement. These requirements also used something other than ‘shall’, such as ‘is’, ‘will’, ‘should’, or ‘may’. Also, the requirements were not managed within a CASE tool. These factors combined to make traceability, decomposition, verification, and validation impossible. The systems engineer was tasked to rescue the requirements and apply good systems engineering; however, there were constraints on what could be changed. The overall format could not change, and some of the requirements would remain as suggestions (e.g., the use of ‘may’ was allowed). Approach: Determined which systems engineering practices would be vital to project success while recognizing limits imposed by the project constraints. Obtained customer agreement on the degree of systems engineering to be used. Moved the requirements from the text document into a CASE tool. Applied the sub-optimal systems engineering practices. Results: The systems engineer was able to produce a revision to the SRD that included a Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM), Verification Cross-Reference Matrix (VCRM), and satisfied the document format constraints of the customer. Conclusions: By applying sub-optimal systems engineering, the CVN78 Voice System requirements are traceable, verifiable, and suitable for decomposition within the constraints and expectations of the customer.

“A Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) Approach to Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) Architecting”

Authors:
Kevin M. Gunn, The MITRE Corporation
Fatma Dandashi, The MITRE Corporation
David J. Edwards, The MITRE Corporation

Abstract:
The scenario: (1) you have an environment with some idea of the requirements to transfer information in support of decision-making; (2) you know most of the “players” who will produce and consume this information, but perhaps not all of them; (3) there are existing automated systems in place that facilitate some of the information exchanges, and some systems that are planned or assumed; and (4) you are required to invest your budget constrained funds to migrate to a service-oriented architecture while maintaining your current capabilities.

This paper starts with describing the “traditional” DoDAF approach to establish a common understanding of the problem space. We then define an approach toward guiding the infrastructure and investment plans toward a service-oriented solution.