updm group sar example brainstorm5(2010 02 24)

Search & Rescue (SAR) Sample – Annex CBrainstormingSession Five

Leonard F. Levine (Initial POC)[email protected]

UPDM Group24 February 2010

04/12/23 UPDMGroupSARExampleBrainstorm5(2010-02-24).ppt 2

03 March 2010 Agenda


Why Upgrade?

Scope of Revisions in UPDM 2.0. Reflect DoDAF 2.0 and new metamodel for UPDM 2.0. IDEAS. MoDAF. NAF.

Clarify Formal Normative Description with Informal Examples Educate User Requirements Testable More Real World Problems Detailed Systems Engineering or Enterprise Architecture examples

(handover) Separate “Part” or “Volume” Team Formation & Expertise Prioritization Next Steps and Action Items Need to Clarify Methodology embedded in UPDM in the Example Atego (Artisan) has upgraded sample from 1.0


Scope of Revisions in UPDM 2.0.

Reflect DoDAF 2.0 and new metamodel for UPDM 2.0. IDEAS. MoDAF. NAF. DoDAF now has 52 pre-canned models (vice views) and a custom/user-defined views

(capturing custom relationships). Should we even try to do 1 example of each model/view?

Need to be consistent with other views in sample• Some examples naturally won’t have SOAML

SysML – How more detailed than Enterprise Architecture concepts should the examples go. Timing with completion of metamodel before details of sample can be drafted

More SOAML? Bit of BPMN? SOPES DNDF? Consistency. Sample must be consistent, conservation issues with more detailed

BPMN, SysML issues. Correlation between methodologies & frameworks. Across various layers. Show hand-off/handover between EA & Sys Eng, Soft Eng?

Some items out of scope (too much detail) could be shared via external websites, bodies, etc. Training courses…

We are setting the boundaries of an AV-1 for the Sample! Is it one or many scenarios that we’re doing? Or something in-between?

Lifecycle? Large SAR EA example. Subset scenario such as requirement for new system.


OV-1 for the Sample

Graphics? Scenario?


Educate

Role of Education in a Standard? Is it a tutorial?


Sample Clarifies Formal Normative

Description

Role of Informal (non-normative) Examples or Samples


User Requirements of

SAR Sample

Who are the users? (That is, the intended readership?) Vendors? End Users of Vendors Tools? OMG Membership? ISO Reviewers? Configuration Managers? Architects & Designers? Program Managers?

Tentative consensus: All of the above.


Shall We continue to use SAR, another domain, and/or a

combination?

• Does someone want to raise an alternative?• Graham: Too much invested to switch

• Moe: Supplement with DoD and/or US Government GiG approach. How much extra work? Command & control? At least honorable mention of OV’s for multinational coordination. Key phrase “full spectrum dominance”. Stay away from SV’s?

• Len: Does USCG use GiG idea for SAR? USGS? Volunteer to do a little research… Look at GiG / NCOW (net-centric operations & warfare?). Look for CONOPS or high-level design?

• Antoine: Watch out for extra work, time delays, and consistency and coordination.

• Len (private): Avoid DoD (& MOD) politics on what the GiG really is..

• We may need a formal or informal vote. Ask the co-chairs to advise on issue. E-mail to Jim, Graham, Matthew. Group of volunteers only. Architects?

• ACTION DEFERRED UNTIL Next Session (2010-03-03)•


Testable

OMG Model Interoperability Working Group?

Others?


Real World Problems

More real world architectural problems or goals documented in the literature of the US, UK, Canadian, and other Coast Guards -- as well as international maritime authorities.

See example from Antoine of Mega Consensus: We want to concentrate on

real world problems.


More Detail

Detailed Systems Engineering? Flows, Constraints? Dynamics: state machines, activity diagrams? RECONFIRM: Consensus: We need detailed and

large set of examples because UPDM (DoDAF, MODAF) have a rich set of notations in current model, rich language. We need to show how to express competencies (one example per competency);

Enterprise Architecture examples? DoD or MoD Samples?


Format: Separate Part &

Volume

Consensus on Separate Part & Volume Ease of Editing & Publishing Ease of Configuration Management Problem of Consistency?

Color? Non-normative

Discriminatory?


SAR Team:Formation & Expertise

Name Expertise

Matthew Hause

Volunteers:

• Primary: Lars, Len, Moe, Antoine

• Secondary (less time commitment): Graham

Call for Volunteers

Architect

End User Point of View

SME (SAR Expertise)

Functional Expertise: E.g., Service Oriented Expertise

Expert in using chosen modeling tool

Permanent Team Chair & co-chair (Matthew ?)

Teleconferencing & Whiteboarding

Other?


Use of Individual Upgrades to/since UPDM

1.0 SAR Sample• Atego (Artisan) How extensive? Very.

• Mega. Antoine has some extensions from Mega.

• Services from Lars-Olof.

• Services also from Graham.

• Annotated Bibliography with Text / Graphic Excerpts from Len (about 100 pp.)


Prioritization

1 Form Team for SAR Example Upgrade.

2 Determine & clearly articulate objectives (see Modeling Guidance)

3 Draft Unified Example and then specializations.

4 Write Tech Note to Governments on why one unified example is or is not possible


Modeling Guidance (Methodology)

Need to Clarify Methodology embedded in UPDM in the Example (not questioning MoDAF or DoDAF or NAF… internal methodologies) Physical and UPDM Elements? What represents what?

Physical: How do I do a communications network? Just a set of connections? Architecture versus science/engineering. We should include at least 1 network SAR example in UPDM 2.0.

Modeling Guidance (rather than Method versus methodology) Refer back to the heuristics of guidelines. Ex. Implicit relationship between OV-5 (Activity

Model) and SV-4 (), a semantic relationship. But the metamodel is supposed to take care of this? We should provide High level guidance. Most End users are not going back to metamodel (associated with frameworks). Remember, in MoDAF, some “technical users” use metamodel frequently. Enterprise Goal such as increasing air traffic by 80%. Hard to explain “goal”, for example. Could be clarified in SAR. Could be done in UPDM – whether in UPDM L0 and L1.

Here’s why we are showing this example in the first place. (Len started this in UPDM 1.0 intro paragraphs.) Why should be deeper and include modeling guidance.

Need a paragraph by e-mail from Moe Antoine Other



Also different vendors may have slightly takes, or guidance, or implementation related X things on methodology.

DISCUSS: Moe (and Dave McD?): Different Acquisition processes (e.g. US DoD’s JCIDS) require different modeling approaches. See “UPDM/DoDAF 2.0: Its Place and Role in Defense Acquisition Its Place and Role in Defense Acquisition” by Clarence Moreland at end of this presentation. DOTMLPF (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and

Education, Personnel and Facilities ) (US) vs. DLOD (Defence Lines of Development (UK) http://www.aof.mod.uk/aofcontent/strategic/guide/sg_howacqworks.htm

The subjects are, however, much the same. Can one unified example cover both?

Ref to Moe’s Triangle. Upper levels (e.g. Architectures) capture highest level enterprise structure and activities. Lowest level captures LOEs, individual level, data types (eg, integers), specific functions on a radar screen (de-cluttering) implemented in low level software

Low level may not understand high level concepts and vice versa. (Radar operation vs. net centric vision)

http://www.aof.mod.uk/aofcontent/strategic/guide/sg_howacqworks.htm



DISCUSS: Methodology Structure. 3 component – work organization, modeling heuristics, & language. JCIDS/DoDAF dictates inputs such as tasks lists, doctrines, and standards and dictates output such as the views, OV’s, AV’s, TV’s, etc. (Reality most in DoD use JCIDS & DoDAF together.) 3 major analytical areas: functional area analysis primarily by government (capstone documents, requirements…), functional needs government & civilian (FFRDCs such as MITRE, …), and functional solution analysis (industry).

Len: Although DoDAF is “view neutral” and even supports User Defined Views, there are a certain number of minimal views required for registration and comparison in the DoD (see purpose of DARS and associated registries).

Language continuum - (see Moe's slides) from High Level Lexicon to Lower Level Grammars (Morphemes//Semmes, Lexem's, Tokens)



What is In Bounds? And What is Out of Bounds? Out of BoundsOut of Bounds

Ontology. Metadata modeling such as Chris Patridge’s xxx and/or the IDEAS Group is NOT part of end-user concerns for methodology in the UPDM 2.0 SAR Example.

[EDIT] Rationale. Questionable

UML 2 “methodology”. Quotation that no development process is implied. However, OO approach is useful? Standard static & dynamic analyses are useful? Etc. ???

In BoundsIn Bounds [EDIT]


DoDAF v. MoDAF:Can we have a Unified Example?

• Can one example do both? Probably no as things stand today (3 Feb 10).

• Two examples needed because of naming conventions and different concepts.

• Example ‘capability’ is defined similarly but used very differently. Organization types.

• Issue: Reluctance of DM2 TWG in accommodate these differences.

• Suggestion – constructing example of dissonance in charts/models between DoDAF and MoDAF and bringing back to DoD / MoD principals.

• Trace differences back to “authoritative sources”.

• Example use of Performer in DoD. Can aliasing be done better?

• Goal (for Example Point of View): Try to make DoDAF/MoDAF modeling for end users closer together (fewer obvious differences).


Next Steps and Action Items

Next Steps Continue brainstorming session Session 5: Next Wednesday 03 March 2010 another 45 minutes!

Action Items Matthew to send invitations to join SAR Example Team including

call for chair/co-chair. Done. Len to send this revised presentation to Moe, who will send out

to group. Do again. Group to review slides & conduct e-mail threads as we feel need

SAR and/or GIG – see page xxx for notes *Methodology 15 min – done, see page 15 -16 for notes Reminder (Moe, Antoine, Others), please provide feedback

on page 15.***NEED MORE FEEDBACK***


References

DLOD (Defence Lines of Development (UK) http://www.aof.mod.uk/aofcontent/strategic/guide/sg_howacqworks.htm

DOTMLPF (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel and Facilities ) (US) [Edit] (relating to methodology); JCIDS; DoD 5002 (acquisition)

IBM. Developing Object-Oriented Software: An Experienced Based Approach [add isbn, etc.] – as applied to system architecture.

Add about half dozen (6) primary References from Len’s SAR bibliography?

Len to send clean copy of full references for posting on Wiki. Need to REVIEW above. Don’t’ let references drive example &

methodology choices…




Preparation – “Run Up” to OMG Tech Meeting, Jacksonville,

• 22 March 2010

• Goal: Hand over to a permanent “SAR” team by end of this meeting

• Meet on Sunday 21st Face-to-Face – the volunteers and brainstorming? Evening? Len to volunteer. Conflict with Architecture Ecosystem.

• Brief the whole UPDM Group on consensus and items in progress. Len to volunteer as long as it does not imply that I will chair the permanent team.


Backup

• Presentation from Clarence Moreland (Moe) on Methodology

04/12/23 UPDMGroupSARExampleBrainstorm5(2010-02-24).ppt

26

UPDM/DoDAF 2.0

Its Place and Role in Defense Acquisition Its Place and Role in

Defense Acquisition

Clarence Moreland Atego Inc. All Rights Reserved


2704/12/23 27

JCIDS Analysis Process

The FAA synthesizes existing guidance to The FAA synthesizes existing guidance to specify the military problems to be studied.specify the military problems to be studied.

The FSA takes this assessment as input, and generates recommendations for solutions to the needs.The FSA takes this assessment as input, and generates recommendations for solutions to the needs.

FNA then FNA then examines that examines that problem, problem, assesses how assesses how well the DOD well the DOD can address can address the problem the problem givengivenits current its current program, and program, and recommends recommends needs the DOD needs the DOD should should address. address.

Architectures are utilized Throughout



28

Methodology

• Modeling Language– The language or notation used to convey ideas in both

the problem domain (analysis) and the solution domain (design)

• Modeling Heuristics– Describes how the modeling language can be used in

specific situations• Work Organization

– A framework for organizing and performing development work (the process)


Assume that any (good) methodology minimally has these three components


29

Test & Evaluation

Operational Rqmts Dev

Effectiveness Analysis

Tactics Development

Mission Planning & Rehearsal

Hierarchy of Frameworks and MS&A

Architecture Framework

Enterprise Processes, CDRL & WBS

Modeling Guidelines

Language & Notation

Many-on-ManyConcept-to-Construct

One-on-OneConcept-to-Construct

System/Subsystem/Component

RESOLUTIONIncreasing

Aggregation

Comparative Results

Actual Performance

Increasing Resolution

FUNCTIONS SUPPORTED

Design Manufacturing

CostTech Rqmts

Development

FORCE OR SOS LEVEL

Air Wings

Battle GroupsCorps

Division

Joint Combined Forces

Combat Support Services

Combat Support

Combat

Combat Maneuver System

Tank

Gunner’s Controls & Display Panel

Fire Control

UML/SysML/IDEF/BPMNUML/SysML/IDEF/BPMN

Systems & Signals, OR, Automata TheorySystems & Signals, OR, Automata Theory

Methodologies, Practices, & Methodologies, Practices, & ProceduresProcedures

C, C++, C# Java, C, C++, C# Java, ADAADA

Lexicon

Heuristics

DataDictionary

Denotations(two levels)

Connotations (three levels)

DOTMLPFDLOD

Capabilities

Materials


• Semmes

Morphemes

Grammars

• Lexemes• Tokens


30

Systems are Amalgamated ArchitecturesSystems of Systems are Emergent Architectures

• Information Hiding- Higher levels defined w/o knowledge of lower level implementation

• Separation of Concerns- Policy separated from mechanism- Lower levels only recognize context imposed by contract with higher level Recursive Structures Enables Commonality and Consistency

At each level of hierarchy a consistent set of policies & Profiles are applied

Verified Architectural Principles affirmed at one level are Captured, Codified & Reified at lower levels via the Profiles, Patterns, Policies Profiles, Patterns, Policies Institutionalized within the Repository’s Data Institutionalized within the Repository’s Data DictionaryDictionary.

Variability explicitly managed at different levels of refinement/abstraction

via recursive application of Standards, Policies, Principles, Patterns and Idioms.

DARSDARS

AF - DoDAF

Process - JCIDS

Procedure – Mil Std 499

Language(s) – UML/SysML/BPMN

SoS

Acquisition

Systems

Policy

Policy

Policy

Policy

Components

MS&A



31

Methodology Structure

Modeling HeuristicsModeling Heuristics

Work OrganizationWork Organization

CONOPSDevelopment

OperationalScenariosDefinition

ArchitectureFrameworkDefinition

CONOPSDevelopment



CONOPSDevelopment



Functional Area Analysis

CONOPSDevelopment


ArchitectureFramework

Definition

JointIntegratingConcept

GapAnalysis

GapAnalysis

GapAnalysis

GapAnalysis

Find

TrackFix

Target

AccessEngage

“ As Is”

Find

TrackFix

Find

TrackFix

FindFind

TrackFix

Target

AccessEngage

Find

TrackFix

Target

AccessEngage

“ As Is”

Find

TrackFix

Find

TrackFix

FindFind

TrackFix

Target

AccessEngage

Target

AccessEngage

TargetTarget

AccessEngage

“ As Is ”

ConstructiveIteration



Functional Needs Analysis

IntegratedExperiments

Performance

DefinitionMeasurement

NotationNotation

OV-1,OV-5,OV-6c

OV-2,OV-4OV-6

Class &StateDiagrams

SystemPerformance

OV-2,OV-3,SV-1,SV-2,SV-4,SV-6,SV-7,SV-10c


DoDAF

Task ListsConditionsDoctrineStandards


Add input from Antoine

As requested during our previous meeting, I am proposing two questions related to modeling techniques using UPDM.

1. How to represent the following sentence : « Support a 30% increase of air traffic”.

Is this represented as an objective, a capability or an activity?

2. How to represent a local network or the BGAN network of Inmarsat?

Is it represented as an artifact or as a resource architecture?

•


As requested during our previous meeting, I am proposing two questions related to modeling techniques using UPDM.

1. How to represent the following sentence : « Support a 30% increase of air traffic”.

Is this represented as an objective, a capability or an activity?

2. How to represent a local network or the BGAN network of Inmarsat?

Is it represented as an artifact or as a resource architecture?

• Antoine wants to add more questions.

• keep these types of questions in mind when we actually do the examples.

• Part of SAR example should ask these questions.


Maritime SAR Configuration (Antoine Lonjon)


Blank

THANK YOU!

updm group sar example brainstorm5(2010 02 24)

Documents

updm dodaf

sar example upgrade

sar team

sar sample atego artisan

large sar ea example

updm elements

details of sample

sample graphics