BKCASE Workshop VDay 1 Summary

Hilton Garden InnPhoenix, Arizona

January 26-28, 2011

Our Partners

2

Under consideration

Under consideration

Remain as Observers

3

Workshop Objectives1. Review and resolve major/global SEBoK 0.25 review comments

and issues done

2. Complete a draft development plan for SEBoK 0.5 started

3. Review wiki business cases and determine forward strategy for wiki development of BKCASE 0.5 done

4. Review GRCSE 0.25 release process and resolve residual issues

5. Determine BKCASE staffing for SEBoK, GRCSE, wiki, and Case Studies

6. Review specific BKCASE outreach opportunities (conferences, articles, …) and obtain author volunteers for development of papers and presentations

7. Review status of coordination efforts with IEEE and INCOSE done

4

Wednesday’s AgendaTime Topic

8:00a Opening remarks, agenda review, new author and guest introductions – Art Pyster

8:30a SEBoK Review Discussion – Art Pyster10:00a Break

10:20a SEBoK Review Discussion (continued) – Art PysterSEBoK 0.25 Review Adjudication Strategy – Nicole Hutchison

12:00p Lunch

1:00p Wiki Business Cases and Selection of Business Model for Wiki Development – Nicole Hutchison

3:00p Break3:20p Case Study Update – Alice Squires5:00p Adjourn for the Day6:00p Group Dinner at Monti’s La Casa Vieja

5

Thursday’s AgendaTime Topic

8:00a Review of Day 1 – Dave Olwell9:00a GRCSE 0.25 Release Highlights – Tim Ferris

10:00a Break10:20a GRCSE 0.25 Release Details – Tim Ferris11:30p Lunch12:30p GRCSE 0.25 Release Details (continued) – Tim Ferris1:30p ASEE Paper – Dave Olwell2:00p Break2:20p Way Ahead for GRCSE Between Workshops V and VI – Tim Ferris3:00p BKCASE Staffing Plan for 2011 – Dave Olwell4:30p BKCASE Outreach Opportunities – Alice Squires4:45p Workshop VI Discussion – Art Pyster5:00p Adjourn

6

Friday’s Tentative Agenda

Time Topic

9:00a Review of Plans for Working Session – Art Pyster9:30a Working Sessions – Groups TBD

12:00p Lunch Served in Plenary Room1:00p Working Sessions (continued)3:00p Final Plenary Session and Workshop Wrap-Up – Dave Olwell3:30p Adjourn

Time Topic

8:00a Planning for The Day – Art Pyster

PART LEADS/CORE TEAM

ALL AUTHORS

Overall SEBoK Status

• More than 3000 comments from more than 100 reviewers. Wow! Many more than we had expected. Terrific response from the community.

• Many really excellent thoughtful comments• All comments captured in an adjudication matrix –

Nicole will go over this later today• Core Team spent two days last week understanding

the major points raised by the reviewers and preparing recommendations for your consideration today

7

8

Top 10 Issues1. SEBoK Structure/Organization isn’t clean; too many independent chapters,

no cross-linkages, no graphical “map” to help people navigate addressed2. Too much detail for many of the topics – should have less discourse and

more references wiki - some3. Doesn’t always strike the right balance between prescriptive and

descriptive material noted4. Chapters 1 to 3 need to be more aligned and consistent wiki5. Chapters 6 and 7 need to be more aligned and consistent wiki6. Chapters 9 to 12 need to be more aligned and consistent wiki7. References are erratic: 2-level system confusing; some stated that there

were too many references to be useful; too much BKCASE author work wiki8. Methodology for selecting what is in the glossary was unclear and many

people were surprised at what was left out wiki9. No clear rationale for deciding what should be in Chapter 14 (Cross-

Cutting); the term “cross-cutting” was confusing to many wiki10. Many style inconsistencies and need for stronger technical editing

Part 1: Beginnings – each part, chapter, topic will have introductionIntroduction, introducing System Concepts and Thinking, General Overview of SE and its Value – what and why of SEBoK – introduction and foundations – what and why of SE; SE is not always called SE and has aliases – how to use the SEBoK – distinguish between natural and engineered systems – our scope is engineered systems – top-level material that points to the other Parts where there is more depth – how SEBoK is related to GRCSE and GSwERC – graphical map of whole document – relationship to SWEBOK and PMBOK – why should people care about SEBoK and SE – address misconceptions about SE – introduce principles that are detailed in Part 2 – primary top 10 references for all of SEBoK discussed in Part 1 – use cases for different types of readers – different categories of readers – history of SE and this project – ethical principles of SE and engineering ethics but details in Part 4 – system concept overview in Part 1WHY

Part 1 – introduction, foundations

9

WHAT ARE SYSTEMSProduct Systems (new), Service Systems, Enterprise Systems. Systems of Systems, Systems Science, SW-intensive systems, Complex Systems – more details of systems thinking and systems science elaborating on what is in Part 1 – systems thinking details in Part 2 – what we are engineering but not how we engineer it – could call this Part “Systems” – system properties and characteristics – recognize the parts of a system such as interfaces without getting into how they are created and engineered – emerging properties – quality attributes which are elaborated in Part 3 – introduces the basic vocabulary and philosophy of systems but not how to build them – systems have stakeholders – systems have entropy – Hitchin’s principles – not too philosophical and academic so we don’t lose the audience – relationships between enterprises, services, and products

Part 2 – System Taxonomy

10

HOW AND WHEN SYSTEMS ARE BUILTLife Cycles, System Definition, System Realization, System Deployment and Use, Life Management, Cross-Cutting, Issues Unique to Pr, S, E, SoS, SE management (how to manage), management outcomes but not who does it

How to build the stuff described in Part 2How you realize enterprise systems – application of SE techniques to realize enterprise objectives; enterprises are continuous; products and services are discreteExplaining the range of techniques that go with howAspects of SE managementTechniques, etc. for specialty engineeringCross-cutting techniques

Part 3: Engineering Across the Life Cycles

11

Enabling SE in the Organization, Agreement, Competency, SE in the Global Context/Across Cultures (new)how do you organize to do SE including within an enterprise – designing an organization to do SE – matrix, functional, project, concurrent engineering, IPTs, startups vs. stable companies; how do proper SE in a rapidly evolving companySIZE MATTERS – impacts the way you organize – try to separate thinking about what vs who/whereOrganizational improvement approaches, cmmi, itil, …Has aspects of SE management; cmmi might help in sorting out organizational vs project levels vs individual levelEthics and roles people play – look at people cmm – how is it relevant – importance to the public – look at IEEE/INCOSE codes of ethics including for IEEE Software Engineering ethicsProfessionalism (prepatory knowledge, certification, workforce development, role of engineers in society, etc, tied to professional engineers,…)Organizing for specialty engineering

Part 4: Who and Where

12

Case Studies in Different Domains and ApplicationsContrast and compare 3 different applications in SE across domains, different size projectsDomain-specific concernsCase study matrix – the criteriaCase studies themselves – about 3 – have to be available but not physically included in SEBoKUsed as examples of how SE was applied as opposed to trying to cover every domainShape the development of new case studies – strengths and weaknesses of use of SE principles and techniques – criteria for “good” case studiesTake existing case studies rather than write them ourselves Table + analysis ala GPSMotivate new case studies that could be written – by students, by companies for internal training

Part 5: Case Studies

13

Part 1: Beginnings – Barry Boehm and Art Pyster

Part 2: System Taxonomy – Rick Adcock and Nicole Hutchison

Part 3: Engineering Across the Life Cycle – Bud Lawson and Dave Olwell

Part 4: Engineering In and Across Organizations – Garry Roedler and Alice Squires

Part 5: Domain Specific Examples – Heidi Davidz and Alice Squires

Issue #1: Proposed Part Lead Authorsand Core Team Members

Chapter leader and chapter author assignments still to be decided – people can stay with assignments from 0.25 or move elsewhere

14

Issue #9: Cross-Cutting1. Purpose of what was Chapter 14 in SEBoK 0.25 is to capture “specialty”

engineering that permeates across all other chapters2. Often called “non-functional” topics, such as reliability, security, and

safety3. For SEBoK 0.5, will pick top TBD topics to include4. For 0.5, will provide a template for all included topics to provide for

common structure, style, content, and length5. Will try to include only non-functional topics that are common across

multiple domains6. Other chapters should address non-functional topics lightly and point to

cross-cutting chapter; conversely, cross-cutting chapter should point to other chapters

7. Well-suited for wiki structure8. Name “cross-cutting” not well-accepted. Need another name

15

16

Wiki

7-8 July 2010

Topic 2 (Article Title)Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet[1], consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor[2] in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolor eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.

Lorem ipsum[3] dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore

Body – Generated from 0.5 Materials

magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. [4]

Part 1Part 2Part 1

KA 1KA 2Topic 1Topic 2

KA 3Part 4Part 5

Discussion ThreadPlease provide any comments on Topic 2 below.

Comment Entry Area (access controls TBD)

Comment 1: User XXXXXBody of Comment

Comment 2: User XXXXBody of Comment . . . .

Community Involvement & Conversation: Specific aspect of wiki development

Related TopicsTopic 1Topic 2Topic 3Topic 4. . . .

CitationsCitation 1Citation 2Citation 3Citation 4. . . .

Related Primary References

Reference 1Reference 2. . . .

GlossaryTerm 1Term 2Term 3Term 4. . . .

Figure Caption

Guidance Materials

Citations, Glossary, and primary references – Generated from 0.5 materials

Related Primary References and Related topics: New efforts unique to Wiki discussion

Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK)

SEBoK Map: Generated from TOC

Way Ahead

• Workshop V—Determine approach for version 0.5• Wiki team:

– Review cost data to verify selection is appropriate– Determine appropriate technology/server options– Draft framework for 0.5 (based on author team work)– Work with Core Team to develop a technical review/editing plan for version 0.5

• Milestones (subject to change):– Workshop VI: Draft Architecture– May: Initial 0.5 materials imported to Wiki environment (Static)– June: Authors begin working in Wiki environment (Evolving)– Workshop VII: Any issues with Wiki use are discussed addressed– August: Final drafts of materials in Wiki (Static—by author team)

Draft of additional SEBoK Views (author team and wiki team)– August-Sept: Technical editing; Core Team coordination with Part Leads to close

gaps, correct redundancies, etc.– Sept: 0.5 Open for review (Static with comment feature enabled)

19

Adjudication / review

7-8 July 2010

Category Comment Type Comment Adjudication Explanation/ Actions

Chapter 10 Local

Somehow the central engineering process of DESIGN seems to have (almost) disappeared. Try and fit the project to build a dam (e.g. the Three Gorges dam, a very complex project) int othe framework you are describing here. Also, you do not identify and discuss any of the existing design processes/approaches (e.g. TRIZ, morphology, etc.). Accepted

Chapter 1010.5 System Verification The content of these sections will not suffice for agile systems that engage a non- deterministic environment. See Ring, J . et al, System of Systems Readiness Assessment, IEEE Systems Conference 2010, San Diego, CA Accepted

Chapter 1010.6 System Validation The content of these sections will not suffice for agile systems that engage a non- deterministic environment. See Ring, J . et al, System of Systems Readiness Assessment, IEEE Systems Conference 2010, San Diego, CA Accepted

Chapter 10

Diagram context: sometimes, there is one context diagram (example Validation), sometime there are 2 context diagrams (example Implementation: context diagram of INCOSE SE Hdbk 3.2 + INCOSE SE Hdbk 3.1), sometimes, no context diagram (Integration & Verification) Accepted

Chapter 10 Transition is not in System realization Accepted

Chapter 10There are some inconsistencies such as different terms used for the same item (example in verification, a verification method is "test", in validation, it is called "testing") Noted

Chapter 10 The definitions of Verification and Validation are different from the definitions in INCOSE SE Handbook V3.2. Accepted

Chapter 10 Clarification of definitions of MS A, MS B and MS C is needed (p. 376, Figure 76). Accepted

20

Expectations for adjudication

• Each chapter allocated to a part. Each part lead/team to complete adjudication for its chapters by April Workshop.

• Core and part leads to meet to discuss common/cross cutting issues. Emerging issues can be floated up at any time.

• Part teams to decide work plan on Friday.• Teams to begin addressing the ‘accept’ and

‘modify’ items for W6 (April).

7-8 July 2010

21

ASEE article

• Rubric for classifying compliance with GRCSE is the principal new contribution

• Intended uses• Unintended uses• GSWeRC may follow this approach.

7-8 July 2010

Table 1. Systems Engineering Program Development Phases Mapped to GRCSE Initial Emerging Developed Highly Developed

Expected Student

Background

Meets none of the GRCSE expectations.

Requires a technical undergraduate degree or two years of experience.

Most students meet the expected GRCSE background.

All students meet the expected GRCSE background.

Objectives Objectives are not established or do not align with GRCSE.

Objectives have been established and address level of ability in systems engineering practice.

Objectives address most of the GRCSE objectives.

Program objectives have been shaped by program stakeholders and address all GRCSE objectives.

22

IEEE/INCOSE

• IEEE systems council has no capability to be steward, while computer society does

• Put it under educational activities board with CS executing. But CS is not in Sys council

• Proposal is to put a committee together between INCOSE (2), IEEE (2), plus two from BKCASE to write stewardship agreements– How co-governed– Agreement to be signed by all three parties– Step towards tighter relationship between INCOSE / IEEE– Don’t freeze out other organizations for revisions

• Clean transition by 2012 is goal• Use GSWeRC as example

7-8 July 2010

23

More fun….

7-8 July 2010