Many people would concur that the world is currently an intricate place to live. Much of this assertion is attributed to two events that have begun to dictate our lives in recent years.
First, human beings are deeply immersed in unparalleled levels of assimilation and are engrossed in an intricate web of interacting processes and technologies brought about by improvements in information and communication technologies. Second, rapid change is now a common phenomenon with novel practices, organizations and technologies being launched incessantly into this extremely assimilated web (Calvano and John 29).
According to Chen and Clothier, the System-of-Systems (SOS) is an intricate concept that has been extensively studied (1). What’s more, the adoption of standard SE (Systems Engineering) practices to enhance SOS progress has turned out to be a demanding task for a number of organizations (especially defense agencies).
This is mainly attributed to the tendency for evolutionary SOS advancement, in contrast, to consciously engineered or strategically planned SOS activity. Systems evolution that ensues from diverse developments within SOS perspective demand organizations to be able to not only maintain and control SOS evolution but also have the ability to respond swiftly (and in a cost-effective manner) to different requirements of organizations and systems requirements (Chen and Clothier 2; Lane 3).
The SE society has started to deal with various issues and complexities attributed to emergence of SOS concept. For instance, some of the issues explored include the relationships between system engineering processes and adoptions of US DOD C4ISR Architecture Framework.
Further investigations have been undertaken to assess inventive system engineering methods and SOS features based on Systems Thinking. For instance, Carlock and Robert have integrated IT strategic planning (Grossman and Goolsby 13) with enterprise architecture initiatives (i.e. Meta Enterprise Architecture Strategy) or architecture frameworks (i.e. C4ISR Architecture Framework) to develop the Enterprise Systems Engineering (ESE) as a System-of-Systems solution for information-intensive organizations (242).
System engineering (SE) is a meticulous methodology that originated in the UK and US aerospace and defense sectors. According to Chen and Clothier, system engineering can be defined as “a logical sequence of activities and decisions that transforms an operational need into a description of system performance parameters and a preferred system configuration” (3). In light of the definition stated above, the effectiveness of system engineering is subject to a number of conditions:
- Systems objectives must be described at the onset of a project;
- All stakeholders must be able to visualize the anticipated system solutions;
- All stakeholders must approve the identified systems objectives;
- The procedure must be grounded upon a life-cycle approach to system development; and
- All environmental constituents (such as social policy, organization and technology) must be stable (Chen and Clothier 3).
It is worthy to note that systems engineering has been designed as a multidisciplinary sphere composed of a number of dissimilar engineering techniques, methods, processes and models in order to deal with engineering intricacy of modern systems engineering processes. The adoption of system engineering by an organization needs to be organized, designed and planned for success with regard to its precise requirements such as engineering processes and models (Chen and Clothier 3).
SOS Concept
Scholars have identified two types of SOS. These are: dedicated SOS and virtual SOS. The former (dedicated SOS) refers to huge and intricate systems made up of considerable, large-scale component systems developed to function together. In essence, a dedicated SOS is deliberately engineered and managed to accomplish an evolving requirement (Lane 3).
Numerous defense capability systems and traffic control systems are good examples of dedicated SOS. On the other hand, a virtual SOS is mainly prevalent in the defense context and is developed to buttress precise military operations (Chen and Clothier 4; Flood and Richard 360).
There are some engineering issues related to SOS system. For instance, an SOS is a system “being an object of engineering” (Chen and Clothier 4) in which mutually dependent systems are deemed as a single unit whilst individual systems evolve over a period of time (including integrating new systems, reconfiguration, integration, evolutionary development and redesign). It is crucial to mention that, in many instances, a defense SOS is typically an outcome of evolution or emergence.
In other words, the professed design of SOS is frequently a solution developed for a precise SOS evolution. Consequently, the process of retro-integrating current component systems is usually needed to enhance performance of SOS as well as attain benefits from non-intentionally engineered SOS (Chen and Clothier 4; Flood and Richard 360). There are several situations that might warrant a system evolution. These are:
- Self Evolution: A modification is initiated into a system as a result of improvement, modification, redevelopment or redesign. For instance, a Military Operation Center may be redesigned or modified without altering the interfaces of other SOS components.
- Joint Evolution: Two or more SOS systems are to be assimilated for enhanced interoperability. Examples of joint evolution include assimilation of the warship and the current SOS, and improvement of interoperability between the air defense missile and the surveillance plan.
- Emergent Evolution: A new system is to be developed in relation to or based upon the current systems with new capabilities. An example includes designing an assimilated air picture in relation to the current defense capability systems (Chen and Clothier 4).
SOS Challenges
The adoption of system engineering for SOS evolution and development brings about various challenges attributed principally to the changes within the SE context:
- Engineering object change: The object being engineered during the SOS lifecycle differs with respect to evolution circumstances. The object is frequently restricted to a precise part of an SOS.
- Engineering focus change: With respect to a particular evolution situation, the engineering focus can be replicated in various evolution needs (i.e. from integration, evolutionary development, redevelopment and redesign).
- Engineering environmental change: In addition to SOS evolution, various evolution circumstances require dissimilar engineering contexts according to supporting instruments, information and knowledge resources, and terms of stakeholders (Chen and Clothier 5).
Architecture in Practice
Architecture stands out as one of the principal constituents of contemporary SE (Kopetz 112). The main goal of Architecture practice is to help an organization develop architecture capability by harmonizing related architectural processes. In the absence of a harmonized architecture practice, system architecting becomes complicated and exasperating within the SOS evolution backdrop as it cannot be executed effectively without dealing with other architecture problems.
Thus, a methodical examination of architecture practice provides a wonderful prospect for SE community to collaborate with other related fields such as architecture issues of SOS and software engineering and information systems (Chen and Clothier 11).
The current immaturity with respect to architecture practice has brought about uncertainty regarding the appropriate use of architecture methodologies and structures. Nonetheless, SE can be augmented in a number of ways by redefining the functions of architecture within the context of SE for SOS development and integrating architecture production with SE activities.
As a subset of system engineering field, architecture practice can be planned, streamlined and integrated successfully with SE processes in the entire system life-cycle needed for SOS. Thus, the maturation process of architecture will generate a variety of architecture-related processes and products deemed as components of an engineering field.
For example, project-based system engineering has an element of architecting, which is a component of architecture practice of an organization. Therefore, SE teams require architecture assistance from all pertinent spheres of architecture practice in order to successfully execute this activity for different evolutions within the context of SOS. In a nutshell, SE teams must employ architecture capabilities created via the architecture practice in the entire organization (Chen and Clothier 12).
Recent works in SOS and the lead systems integrator concept
The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP) Joint System Analysis (JSA) technical Panel 4 (TP-4) aspires to shape national acquisition processes and strategies in order to realize efficient joint coalition capability. For example, current TP-4 initiatives consist of case studies on applications of system engineering in latest defense capability development among coalition member states with an emphasis on SOS.
As of now, the TTCP TP-4 is engaged in designing a Coalition Systems Engineering Process (CSEP) with the intention of setting up synchronized and integrated SE processes across defense organization. This will result in enhanced defense capabilities of the coalition in future, especially in the sphere of interoperability and architecture practice (Chen and Clothier 13).
Force Levels Systems Engineering (FLSE) is another program of Defense Science & Technology Organization (DSTO) designed for use by Australian Defense Organization (ADO). The main aim of FLSE is to assist the ADO set up system engineering structure that can be used to augment and implement the Defense Capability Systems Life Cycle Management (DCSLCM). It is expected that this structure will ultimately envelop all areas related to DCSLCM (such as In Service, Acquisition, Capability Development and Strategic Planning).
As opposed to other SE teams engaged in development projects or acquisition, the main objective of FLSE initiative is to design techniques and solutions for system engineering (SE) application to DCSLCM (Chen and Clothier 13). Some of the processes relevant to FLSE program include:
- Defining a conceptual SE structure that encloses DCSLCM
- Illuminating and streamlining working surroundings of the processes with respects to their techniques, tools, references and inputs/outputs employed.
- Defining a mutually shared Defense Capability Architecture Information Model (DCAIM) as a foundation for Systems-of-Systems SE data administration that openly facilitates business processes management within the DCSLCM framework
- Developing an SOS system engineering supporting environment that is assimilated with SE and architecture tools to offer a DCAIM-based SE knowledge warehouse (Chen and Clothier 13).
In essence, FLSE program is projected to assist the ADO employ System Thinking and system engineering at an organizational level and within the entire context of DCSLCM. Thus, ADO is expected to use FLSE to offer a superior engineering atmosphere for enhanced application of SE at conventional project level (Chen and Clothier 13).
Works Cited
Calvano, Charles and Philip John. “Systems Engineering in an Age of Complexity.” IEEE Engineering Management Review, 32.4(2004): 29-38. Print.
Carlock, Paul and Fenton Robert. “System-of-Systems (SoS) enterprise systems engineering for information-intensive organizations.” Sys Eng 4.4(2001): 242 261. Print.
Chen, Pin and Jennie Clothier. “Advancing Systems Engineering for Systems-of Systems Challenges. System Engineering 6.3(2003): 1-14. Print.
Flood, Scott and Paul Richard. “An Assessment of the Lead Systems Integrator Concept as applied to the Future Combat System Program.” Defense Acquisition Review Journal (2006): 355-373. Print.
Grossman, Claudia and A. Goolsby. Engineering A Learning Healthcare System: A Look at the Future, Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press. 2011. Print.
Kopetz, Hermann. “The Time-Triggered Architecture.” Proceedings of the IEEE 91.1(2003): 112-126. Print.
Lane, Ann. Systems of Systems Lead Systems Integrators: Where do they spend their time and what make them more/less efficient? Southern Carolina: University of Southern Carolina: 2005. Print.