workshop handbook - asew19€¦ · australian systems engineering workshop 28-30 october 2015...

ASEW2015AUSTRALIAN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING WORKSHOP28-30 OCTOBER 2015SYDNEY, NSW, AUSTRALIA

WORKSHOP HANDBOOK

asew.sesa.org.au

INCORPORATING MODEL BASED SYSTEMS ENGINEERING SYMPOSIUM

NOVOTEL SYDNEY CENTRAL169 – 179 THOMAS STREETSYDNEY NSW 2000

Gold sponsor:

Photo used with permission of TfNSW


ASEW Organising CommitteeChair Quoc Do

MBSE Symposium Chair Kevin Robinson

MBSE Symposium Technical Chair Wayne Power

MBCD Working Group Chair David Harvey

Transport Program Chair Lilanthi Balasingham

Transport Program Technical Chair Anne O’Neil

Engineering Process Standards Working Group Ray Hentzschel

SESA Executive Officer Felicity Edwards

SESA Secretary Bill Parkins

Transport NSW John Massey

Transport NSW David Orr

SESA Management Committee Dan Hartigan

Health and Biomedical Working Group Edmund Kienast

Systems of Systems Jaci Pratt

SESA Management Committee Shaun Wilson

WELCOMEThe Systems Engineering Society of Australia (SESA) is proudly hosting the 2015 Australian Systems Engineering Workshop (ASEW 2015) in Sydney, featuring the 5th Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Symposium, Systems Engineering Transport Stream, and INCOSE/SESA Working Group’s workshops.

SESA is a Technical Society of Engineers Australia and the Australian chapter of the global body, International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). SESA has the mission of sharing, promoting and advancing systems engineering in Australia, seeking to increase the awareness of systems engineering to as broad an audience as possible and to provide an authoritative knowledge base to support systems engineering practitioners.

This year’s ASEW has attracted eminent keynote speakers from both the defence and transport sectors: RADM Mick Uzzell, Head of Navy Engineering; Mr Jim Modrouvanos, Director of Asset Standards, Department of Transport NSW; Mr Mark Wild, Special Advisor (Transport) Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Victoria; and Mr Mark Smith, Principal Manager, Industry & Technical Development Asset Standards Authority.

This event brings together leading technical, research, government and industry delegates from around Australia and overseas to share, promote and advance the best of systems engineering, and the benefits that each can bring to modern complex systems. The MBSE Symposium technical program offers a range of presentations on the application of MBSE approaches to defence and transport systems, systems of systems, product line engineering, case studies and lessons learned and more.

SESA recognises the need to promote systems engineering beyond traditional defence and aerospace sector. For the first time, this year’s ASEW features a parallel Systems Engineering Transport stream, covering a range of panel and round table discussions that foster and exchange systems engineering best practices in transportation, including SE tailoring practices, SE assessment management, case studies and more.

ASEW 2015 further provides a unique opportunity for different INCOSE/SESA special interest groups within Australia to meet, discuss, plan and work together to develop technical products that advance the systems engineering body of knowledge. There are workshops and meetings on the Friday 30th October for specialist SESA/INCOSE working groups including: Energy Transition Working Group; Engineering Process Standards Working Group; Model-Based Conceptual Design Working Group; and the new Healthcare Working Group. The morning workshops will be linked via web-conferencing facilities to a larger audience of INCOSE members, in the USA and Europe, who are world leaders in our profession.

As we work together at ASEW 2015 we will take a further important step to advance the state of the art and practice of systems engineering.

On the behalf of SESA, I warmly welcome you to the 2015 Australian Systems Engineering Workshop. Please enjoy the workshop!

Dr Quoc Do National President of SESA

2 2015 Australian Systems Engineering Workshop (incorporating Model Based Systems Engineering Symposium)

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS:

RADM Mick UzzellHead Navy Engineering (2011 – )

Rear Admiral Michael Uzzell, AM, RAN joined the Royal Australian Navy as a Midshipman in January 1982, graduating in 1985 with degree in Electrical Engineering, with majors in digital and radio frequency communication. He was awarded the RANC Jubilee Sword for achieving the highest score in professional training.

Completion of the Weapons & Electronics Application Course in 1986 was followed by postings to various ships, the RAN Trials & Assessing Unit and the Combat Data System Centre.

During his posting in HMAS Newcastle, LCDR Uzzell was awarded the Peter Mitchell Prize for Officer of the Year. A posting to the NATO Seasparrow Project in the USA was followed by a posting as Project Director, Evolved Seasparrow Missile in Australia.

As a Captain, he was posted as the Director Navy Weapon Systems in January 2003, with responsibility for the technical regulation of engineering change affecting armaments and combat management systems and subsequently, Chief Staff Officer (Engineering) in the Maritime Command.

He was promoted to Commodore and appointed to the position of Director General Guided Weapons & Explosive Ordnance in February 2007 and then Director General Major Surface Ships in late 2008.

On 22 July 2011 he was promoted to Rear Admiral and appointed Head Navy Engineering.

Jim ModrouvanosExecutive Director Asset Standards Authority, Transport for New South Wales

Jim Modrouvanos, BE (Elec) UTS, Grad Dip PA Syd, is currently the Director of the Asset Standards Authority within Transport for New South Wales with key accountabilities being the development of the technical base for NSW rail assets and the authorisation of organisations undertaking engineering works on the TfNSW funded rail network.

The Asset Standards Authority publishes systems engineering standards and are currently developing a transport network architectural model for Transport for New South Wales. The Asset standards Authority is responsible for assessing and authorising engineering organisations that carry out work on behalf of TfNSW.

Jim has qualifications in electrical engineering and public administration and over 20 years of experience in rail transportation. From 2005 until 2012, Jim held a number of General Manager roles in the Communications and Control, Strategic Asset Management and Chief Engineers Divisions of RailCorp.

Jim has significant experience in asset management, operational technology, engineering systems, standards development, general management and project management.

3http://asew.sesa.org.au


Mark SmithPrincipal Manager, Industry & Technical Development for Transport for NSW (TfNSW) Asset Standards Authority

Responsible for communications and industry engagement, he also leads development of industry capability to support TfNSW objectives in the delivery of high value infrastructure projects. Mark has delivered complex transport infrastructure solutions, in senior engineering governance roles, across the entire asset lifecycle – leading major commissions from the earliest stages of feasibility and design through to operations and maintenance.

Mark is a Chartered Electrical Engineer with over 15 years’ experience in signalling, rail systems and multidisciplinary infrastructure engineering management locally and internationally, including more recently the North West Rail Link (NWRL) and the Epping to Thornleigh Third Track (ETTT) project. He brings this extensive experience to the Asset Standards Authority and its industry partners to work with the supply chain to understand, interpret and apply TfNSW Asset Management policy and objectives at a delivery level.

Mark Wild Special advisor to the Secretary, Public Transport Victoria

Mark stated his career as an engineer in the electricity distribution and generation sector in his native North East of England. Following the deregulation of that industry in the early 1990’s Mark has gone on to work and lead organisations in several sector verticals. He has over 18 years experience as a senior executive in significant project and business leadership roles, the great majority of this time in transportation. In this time he has lead the Westinghouse Signals technology business and was most recently the CEO of Public Transport Victoria, responsible for all public transport in the state of Victoria.

He has recently taken up a new role as Special advisor to the Secretary, focused on a range of strategic issues and challenges including the procurement of new rolling stock for the State of Victoria. Mark is a Chartered Engineer and holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, he also has a MBA from Leeds University.


KEYNOTE ABSTRACTS

RADM Mick UzzellMODEL-BASED APPROACHES TO THE REBUILDING OF NAVAL ENGINEERINGThe Plan to Reform Support Ship Repair & Management Practices, the “Rizzo Report”, recommended the rebuilding of naval engineering in the Department of Defence to deliver better and more sustainable materiel outcomes The task of rebuilding was frustrated by the fact that there was no definition of the sum total of dependent and co-dependent activities that need to occur to deliver and assure the ongoing delivery of materiel that does what it is required to do, where it is required to do it, when it is required to do it, and for as long as it is required to do it. Part of the definition existed, and in most cases the activities that are defined are being done well. But it was recognised and accepted that

large parts of the definition did not exist. A functional modelling approach was taken to defining the totality of the functions that, if executed, generated a “seaworthy materiel” outcome. The model defines what needs to be done, how the functions interrelate, the required enablers of each function, and where specific control is to be applied to a function to address risk in the delivery of elemental outputs. The resultant Materiel Seaworthiness Functional Master Set has become the basis for naval engineering doctrine, policy, and resourcing, and should ensure that we are never without a complete, reference definition again.

Mark SmithSYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN ACTIONBy 2031 the population of NSW is expected to increase by 2 million. Almost 80% of this growth will occur within the Sydney metropolitan area. This will place increased pressure on our transport infrastructure as customer demands for an integrated transport system that can effectively transit the populace in and around Sydney grows.

With an existing TfNSW network asset base in excess of $100b in value and growing at a significant rate – the context for our unprecedented program of infrastructure build is well and truly set. So to, is the imperative to enhance and develop our asset base responsibly to ensure we establish and maintain a legacy network that can serve the City and the State for generations to come – ensuring Sydney continues to be a great place to live, work and do business.

The imperative to actively deploy and reinforce the principles of Systems Engineering (SE) has been set. Our mission is to consistently ‘breathe life’ into governance, procedures and protocols that provide the impetus to change the way we work and act consistently in the interests of the asset at all times. The keynote presentation will establish our intent and status on contemporary SE application issues including the client model, competence and assurance and will focus on our ‘Authorised Engineering Organisation’ model which is a catalyst for developing capability across and confidence in our partnership approach with industry across all modes.

Mark WildTHE PRACTICAL VALUE OF A SYSTEM ENGINEERING APPROACHMark Wild has over 20 years experience leading both organisations and projects in the Infrastructure and Transportation sectors across the globe. He has led high technology signaling contracting entities on the supply side and has a unique insight having also led transit authorities on the client side.

In this keynote presentation Mark will explore the lessons he has learned in adopting System Engineering approaches. In particular he will provide an insight into how System Engineering methodologies have created value and minimized risk. He will also reflect on case studies where things have

not gone so well and provide practical advice to practitioners and clients on how to avoid the pitfalls and issues that he has observed first hand.

In particular Mark will look at the current state of maturity of the discipline in Australia in the face of unprecedented investment in public transport infrastructure in our capital cities. Mark will pay particular attention to the skills and leadership development of the System Engineering Community and the current challenges and opportunities it faces.



SPONSORSSESA is grateful for the support of our sponsors:

GOLD SPONSOR

Fraser Nash ConsultancyFrazer-Nash Consultancy is a recognised world class systems and engineering technology organisation. We excel in solving complex engineering challenges. We work with clients across a range of sectors including defence, energy, resources, transport and industry. We understand what’s really important to our customers. A high quality result, complete reliability, value for money and a clear competitive edge.

www.fncaustralia.com.au

Chris Baker T: +61 8 7325 4200Level 8, 99 Gawler Place, Adelaide SA 5000

SILVER SPONSOR

TfNSW The Asset Standards Authority (ASA) is an independent unit established within Transport for NSW, and is the network design and standards authority for NSW transport assets. The ASA is responsible for developing engineering governance and frameworks to support industry delivery in assurance of design, safety, integrity, construction and commissioning of transport assets for the whole asset life cycle.

For general feedback or enquiries email: [email protected]

For standards feedback or enquiries email: [email protected]

Journalists can contact the Transport for NSW Media Unit via: [email protected]


BRONZE SPONSORS

ACMENA Group Pty LtdAcmena is an Australian-owned consultancy which helps clients manage project and enterprise risk by applying system engineering principles. Most of our clients are rail and transport authorities, operators and suppliers. With extensive experience across a number of systems engineering disciplines we integrate assurance, risk management and human-centred design processes into the systems engineering lifecycle to optimise safety, reliability and usability. As an IBM Business Partner, we also assist our clients to successfully deploy IBM Rational software solutions within their organisations.

www.acmena.com.au

Katherine Eastaughffe, Principal Consultant and [email protected]: +61 (0)417 831 6019 Mara Place, Ashgrove Qld 4060

Thiess John Holland DragadosThiess John Holland Dragados (TJHD) is the tunnelling contractor on the Sydney Metro Northwest project. It is an $8.3 billion rail project and Stage 1 of Sydney Metro–—Australia’s biggest public transport project. TJHD was awarded the $1.15 billion Tunnels and Station Civil (TSC) contract in June 2013 to design and construct the 15 kilometre twin tunnels, civil works for five new stations and two services facilities and a precast facility to make the concrete tunnel lining segments. Together, TJHD has delivered 70 per cent of Australia’s major underground infrastructure in the last decade and 1,200 kilometres of tunnels worldwide.

Dr Mahesh RimalT: 02 8045 1668M: 0400 985 914129 Showground Road, Castle Hill



CONFERENCE DINNER SPONSOR

Shoal EngineeringShoal is a leading systems engineering services firm which works across a broad range of industries including defence, transportation, aerospace, emergency services and intelligent infrastructure. With a team of dedicated, passionate, high-calibre individuals, based in Australian and North America, the company works with its clients to deliver a range of complex capital projects. Shoal’s people is comprised of specialists in large, integrated systems involving people and technology. What makes us unique is our focus on the concept and preliminary design phases. We specialise in understanding our client’s needs, and providing conceptual design solutions to meet the operational needs and agency goals, while addressing program funding and schedule constraints.

www.shoalgroup.com

Mobile: 0403 757 275PO Box 3005, Adelaide SA 5015


MathWorks Amy Stevens-JonesT: + 61 2 8669 4730Level 5, Tower 1495 Victoria AveChatswood NSW 2067

Project Performance International Joshua FreemanT: + 61 3 9876 73452 Parkgate DriveRighwood North Vic 3134

Rahim Engineering Consultancy Pty LtdZafar RahimT: + 61 488 101 65418 Catherine StreetArmidale NSW 2350

SESAPO Box 3892 Manuka ACT 2603T:+ 61 407548043

Spencer Tech Pty Ltd Daniel Spencer T: 0438 826 6575/58 De Laine AveEdwardstown SA 5039

EXHIBITORS


Photo used with permission of TfNSW


PROGRAMEngineering Process Standards workshop information.

WEDNESDAY 28TH OCTOBER 2015MBSE SYMPOSIUM TRANSPORT STREAM

Time # Session Title Facilitator Session Title Facilitator

8:30 Registration open

9:00 Welcome from ASEW Chair Dr Quoc Do, ASEW Chair / SESA President Farm Cove & Bennelong Point rooms

Kevin Robinson

9:10 Technical Program IntroductionKevin Robinson, MBSE Symposium ChairLilanthi Balasingham, INCOSE Industry Outreach Ambassador – Transportation & Cross-IndustryFarm Cove & Bennelong Point rooms

9:20 Chartered Australian Systems Engineer (CASE) announcementMr Ray Hentzschel, SESA President-Elect Farm Cove & Bennelong Point rooms

9:25 ASEW Opening Address Mr Jim Modrouvanos, Director of Assets Standards Authority, Department of Transport, NSW Farm Cove & Bennelong Point rooms

9:45 Keynote: Model-based approaches to the Rebuilding of Naval Engineering RADM Mick Uzzell, Head of Navy Engineering, RANBennelong Point & Farm Cove rooms

10:30 Refreshments

11:00 IS1 Transport Theme: Using Product Line Engineering as a Decision Framework for MBSEMatthew Hause [presented remotely]Farm Cove room

Wayne Power Panel Session: SE Scaling & Tailoring Practices Panellists:Richard Fullalove (TfNSW)Patrick Lockley (TfNSW)Anne O’Neil (Former NY City Transit)Mike Reed (WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff)Bennelong Point room

Lilanthi Balasingham

11:30 IS2 Transport Theme: Beyond MBSE: Looking towards the Next Evolution in Systems Engineering David Long [presented remotely]

12:00 Lunch

13:00 1 Modern Architecture Definition and Assessment Techniques through ModelingJames KanyokFarm Cove room

Kevin Robinson Panel Session: Sydney Metro Case Study on Requirements & TraceabilityPanellists:John Massey (TfNSW)Dr. Mahesh Rimal (Thiess John Holland Dragados Joint Venture)Alex Krensel (Northwest Rapit Transit Consortium)Mike Langford (Systra GHD Joint Venture)Bennelong Point room

Anne O’Neil

13:30 WS1 Workshop: Architecture and Model-based approaches to enable the identification of future coalition integration and interoperability issuesKevin Robinson

15:00 Refreshments


MBSE SYMPOSIUM TRANSPORT STREAM


15:30 2 Lessons in Model ReuseDavid Readman, Stephen Passmore, Kevin Robinson, Daniel Spencer and Duane Jusaitis

David Harvey Panel Session: SE Implementation Case Studies Panellists: Hany Eldaly & Peter Tighe (Transurban)Martin Brown (ARUP)James Tomlinson (Acmena)Bennelong Point room


16:00 3 Patrol Boat Manning StudiesSandra Tavener and Sean Franco

16:30 4 Model-Based Conceptual Design through to system implementation – Lessons from a structured yet agile approachMatthew Wylie, David Harvey and Tommie Liddy

17:00 Close Day 1 – Transport Stream

19:00 ASEW Dinner – Novotel Hotel

Thursday 29th October 2015


Time # Presentation Title Facilitator Transport ASEW Facilitator

Morning coffee/tea

9:00 Keynote: The Practical Value of a System Engineering ApproachMr Mark Wild Special Advisor (Transport) Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Victoria Bennelong Point & Farm Cove Rooms

Quoc Do

9:45 Keynote – Mr Mark Smith, Principal Manager, Industry and Technical Development, Asset Standards Authority, Transport for NSW Bennelong Point & Farm Cove Rooms

10:30 Refreshments

11:00 5 Tranport Theme: Case Study: A Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Framework for Characterising Transportation Systems Over the Full Life CycleWilliam Scott, Gary Arabian, Peter Campbell and Farid ShirvaniFarm Cove room

Quoc Do Panel Session: SE-based Asset Management Panellists:Melissa Jovic (TfNSW)Kumar Sampath (WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff)Shane Day (ARUP)Helen Williams (Sydney Trains)Bennelong Point room

Anne O’Neil

11:30 6 Tranport Theme: Case Study: Custom Enhancement of MBSE Tools for Easier and More Accurate Use of the Transport Network ArchitectureWilliam Scott, Gary Arabian, Peter Campbell and Richard Fullalove

12:00 Lunch





13:00 7 Determining Return on Investment for MBSE, SE, and SoSEStephen Cook, Shaun WilsonFarm Cove room

Stephen Cook Workshop Session: Transport Industry Roundtable & Breakout Bennelong Point room

Anne O’Neil

8 Modelling life cycle process standardsRaymond Hentzschel

9 From Storyboards to S*Patterns: the Journey so FarJulianne Davy and Michael Harris

10 Model-Based Systems Engineering of Mobile Systems of SystemsGraham Hellestrand

15:00 Refreshments

15:30 11 Issues in Conceptual Design and MBSE Successes – Insights from the Model-Based Conceptual Design SurveysBrett MorrisFarm Cove room

Kevin Robinson Meeting: Transport Working Session Bennelong Point room


16:00 P1 Discussion on Issues in conceptual design – Panel / Round TableDavid Harvey

16:30 Overview of Working Group Meetings Overview of MBCD WG initiatives Closing remarks Kevin Robinson, MBSE Symposium Chair Lilanthi Balasingham, Industry Outreach Ambassador – Transportation & Cross-IndustryBennelong Point room

Kevin Robinson

17:00 Close Day 2

WORKING GROUP MEETINGS

Time Track 1Watsons Bay room

Track 2 Elizabeth Bay room

Morning coffee/tea

9:00 MBCD Working Group MeetingLavender Bay room

Engineering Process Standards Working Group MeetingWatsons Bay room

10:30 Refreshments

11:00 MBCD Working Group Meeting Energy Transition Working Group

12:30 Lunch

13:30 MBCD Working Group Meeting Healthcare Working Group

14:30 Refreshments

15:00 MBCD Working Group Meeting Engineering Process Standards Working Group Meeting

16:00 WG Lead Reports (MBCD WG – David Harvey, EPS WG – Ray Hentzschel, Healthcare WG – Edmund Kienast & Energy Transition – Mike O’Keefe) Closing remarks – Quoc Do, ASEW Chair

16:30 Close Day 3


TRANSPORT PROGRAM

IntroductionDear Industry Colleagues,

I am pleased to welcome you to the inaugural Systems Engineering in Transportation parallel stream to the 2015 Australian Systems Engineering Workshop. In doing so, I wish to acknowledge and express my appreciation to all who have helped to bring this program together, and especially for the significant contribution and support of Anne O’Neil – Systems Engineering Catalyst, INCOSE Industry Ambassador and all-round mentor extraordinaire, for her unwavering efforts in shaping the quality of the technical content of the program.

Following the May 2015 Transport Industry Roundtable held in Sydney, SESA and INCOSE host this regional forum to facilitate the benchmark and exchange of Systems Engineering best practices in transportation. With upcoming regional and international transportation forums hosted by the Australia region – SETE and CORE conferences (2016, Melbourne), ITS World Congress (2016, Melbourne) and INCOSE International Symposium (2017, Adelaide) – this gathering represents an important step in building industry engagement and momentum for systems engineering practices as well as to highlight and foster maturing practice across our region.

Our program of panel sessions, industry roundtables and working sessions is intended to foster peer-to-peer exchanges across agencies and the supply chain, extend the network of SE practitioners working in transport and share lessons from the current state of practice in our region, as well as benchmark against international trends. The program advances key themes of interest to the Transport Systems Engineering community as expressed in our May industry gathering.

Working together as a community through this and future forums arranged by SESA and INCOSE allows us to progressively work towards consistently delivering the benefits offered by Systems Engineering.

Come and be an active participant on this exciting journey!

Lilanthi Balasingham Chair, Transportation Program INCOSE Industry Ambassador

Systems Engineering Scaling & Tailoring Practices Panel Session Moderator: Lilanthi Balasingham Session: 11:00am – 12noon, Wed 28th Oct 2015

Appropriate tailoring and scaling of Systems Engineering is key to delivering value on programs and initiatives. An increasingly diverse range of industries, including transportation, now face complexity and integration challenges as a result of the extensive deployment of technology-intensive systems, as well as managing complex organisational interfaces in the supply chain.

As the industry works to establish recognition of this complexity, build systems-awareness, and seeks to conduct systems engineering activities, it is critical that any systems engineering activities conducted provide recognisable value. Inappropriately applied practices, if unsuited to the problem context, will lead to failure and can create a long-term barrier to future attempts to implement Systems Engineering.

This panel session is intended to explore decisions frameworks, types of tailoring considerations and methods, and experiences from the transport domain in selecting systems engineering practices.

Expectations on SE Scaling practices at TfNSW – Richard Fullalove, Manager – Systems Engineering

Process – Asset Standards Authority, TfNSW

Scaling & Tailoring Systems Engineering at New York City Transit – Anne O’Neil, Systems Engineering Catalyst &

Consultant (former founding Chief Systems Engineer – Capital Programs, MTA NYCT)

Invited Speaker presentation title – to be confirmed – Patrick Lockley, Senior Technical Manager –

Infrastructure & Services, TfNSW

Right-sizing Systems Engineering based on assessment of complexity and risk – Mike Reed, Section Executive, Major Projects, WSP |

Parsons Brinckerhoff



Sydney Metro case study on Requirements & Traceability Panel Session Moderated by: John Massey Session: 1:00pm – 3:00pm, Wed 28th Oct 2015

Effective Requirements Management is a key component of any major project delivery and is also a fundamental process for the successful engineering of systems. This interactive panel session examines the requirements development and management process across the project life cycle for the Sydney Metro North West project.

Sydney Metro is Australia’s largest public transport project, delivering more trains and faster services across all of Sydney. Sydney Metro is a new standalone railway network that will revolutionise the way Sydney travels. Sydney Metro has two core components:

• Sydney Metro Northwest – formerly the 36km North West Rail Link. This project is now under construction and will open in the first half of 2019 with a metro train every four minutes in the peak

• Sydney Metro City & Southwest – a new 30km metro line linking with Metro Northwest at Chatswood, and then under Sydney Harbour, through the CBD and south west to Bankstown. It is due to open in 2024 with the capacity to run a metro train every two minutes each way under the center of Sydney.

The panel session will bring the perspective from the transport agency, design and construct civil contractor, the major systems integrator and the independent certifier for a major rail transport project. They will share their experiences and lessons learned across a range of topics including:

• Business and Systems requirements and development

• Concept and Reference Design phases

• Contract requirements, requirements management tools and Change Control

• Integration of Safety Assurance and Safety Requirements Management

• Independent Certification – tools and approaches

PANELLISTS• John Massey, Requirements Manager, Sydney Metro

Delivery Office

• Dr. Mahesh Rimal, Requirements Manager, Thiess John Holland Dragados JV

• Alex Krensel, Requirements & Configuration Manager, NorthWest Rapid Transit Consortium

• Mike Langford, Independent Certifier – Systra GHD JV

Systems Engineering Implementation Case Studies Panel Session Moderated by: Lilanthi Balasingham Session: 3:30pm – 5:00pm, Wed 28th Oct 2015

With increasing recognition of the need for systems practices to deliver consistently successful outcomes, Transport agencies are incorporating Systems Engineering into frameworks for planning, project definition and delivery. This has in turn has generated a need for evolving the industry’s maturity of practice.

Apart from scaling and tailoring decisions, implementing Systems Engineering successfully is dependent on a range of other factors – there is increasing recognition of the need for decisions to be made in relation to process, tools and skill sets within the supply chain for example, among others. As practices evolve, there will naturally be varied levels of application, lessons learned and resulting benefits. Periodic exchanges of implementation experiences, reflections on decisions, approaches and results achieved will highlight emerging best practices and lead to improved delivery and operational performance.

This panel session is intended to highlight practices adopted, share insights and lessons learned from a range of programs, and provide commentary within the context of specific environments or endeavours.

Systems Engineering in a Changing Transport Business – Peter Tighe, Senior Technical Lead – OMCS, Transurban

& Hany Eldaly, ITS Engineering Manager, Transurban

Comparative assessment of industry and delivery models – UK, Malaysia & NSW – Martin Brown, Senior Systems Engineer, Arup

System Integration: delivering end user value to transport project portfolios – James Tomlinson, Principal Consultant, Acmena


Systems Engineering based Asset Management Panel Session Moderated by: Anne O’Neil Session: 11:00am – 12noon, Thurs 29th Oct 2015

As regional transport agencies are establishing Systems Engineering and Asset Management frameworks for standardizing their respective implementation – the two practices are viewed as extremely interrelated. Systems lifecycle concepts and practices underpin asset management implementation – and draw upon key systems engineering skills/expertise to successfully deliver the potential whole life, whole system cost benefits while managing risk and achieving improved performance targets. This present a unique opportunity for SE practitioners to demonstrate systems engineering value and gain further credibility and industry buy-in.

This panel session seeks to explore this intersection of Systems Engineering and Asset Management. We will particularly explore critical systems activities related to asset management implementation at various lifecycle phases – from establishing capital investment portfolios to RAMS. Agency expectations and needs, as well as related case studies of SE-based asset management implementation will be explored.

Systems Engineering application in Business Case development or in early stages of Life Cycle – Melissa Jovic, Manager – Rail Network Planning and

Service Strategy, TfNSW

Operator Maintainer – The view from here – Helen Williams, Asset Assurance Manager, Sydney

Trains

A discussion on how Systems Engineering can support the application of an Asset Management System (ISO 55001) – Shane Day, Asset Management Specialist, Arup

Systems Engineering based Asset Management framework and Interfaces between RAMS & Asset Management – Kumar Sampath, Senior Systems Assurance Engineer,

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Transport Industry Roundtable Facilitated by: Anne O’Neil Session: 1:00pm – 3:00pm, Thurs 29th Oct 2015

This session will be undertaken as a facilitated Knowledge Café, to generate open dialogue and interactive exchange among participants to advance relevant themes of interest to the Systems Engineering in Transport community. Industry roundtables seek to advance maturity of practice by sharing current evolving practices, experiences and lessons learned from across the broader regional community.

Topics to be discussed will be based on the key themes emerging from panel sessions on SE Scaling & Tailoring, SE-based Asset Management and strategies to selling the SE value proposition and addressing barriers to industry adoption

Participants will spend time in breakout groups to expand the conversation, exploring what resonated with their experiences and sharing their systems implementation practices. Participants will have the opportunity to contribute to all topics.

Transport Working SessionChair: Lilanthi Balasingham Session: 3:30pm – 4:30pm, Thurs 29th Oct 2015

This working session will be undertaken as an industry group meeting, reflect upon key discussions arising from the preceding two-day program and identify topics that warrant further exploration.

Prioritisation or topics, synergies with other industry and agency initiatives across the region will be explored, with all participants provided the opportunity to contribute to plans and coordination for future SE in Transport industry activities.

Individuals interested in shaping industry dialogue and contributing to future Transportation working group activities are encouraged to attend.



BiographiesTRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CHAIR & MODERATORLilanthi Balasingham INCOSE Industry Outreach Ambassador and Senior Systems Engineer, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Lilanthi is an engineering professional with over 15 years experience spanning a career in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom across water & wastewater and ground transportation sectors, dairy manufacturing and airport logistics.

With foundational qualifications in Electronics Engineering and Information Technology (Software Engineering & Computer Science), Lilanthi’s technical speciality is in the engineering of information systems and data acquisition for control & monitoring applications, including supervisory control & data acquisition systems, telemetry communications, real-time passenger information systems and ITS for managed motorways. She has a particular interest in requirements management and life-cycle considerations in the engineering of systems.

Since 2012, Lilanthi has been providing systems engineering services to the Sydney Metro delivery office, most significantly in establishing the Engineering Management Manual for the delivery office, the requirements and traceability framework across the major delivery packages of the NorthWest (former NWRL project), and tender evaluation of systems engineering management and related submissions for the Operations, Trains & Systems PPP contract. She is currently responsible for developing the corridor-specific system requirements for the City & Southwest project.

Lilanthi is a founding member of PB’s Systems Engineering Practices and Solutions Community Of Practice and actively supports the INCOSE industry outreach mission through her role as an INCOSE Ambassador.

TRANSPORT PROGRAM TECHNICAL CHAIR, MODERATOR & INVITED SPEAKERAnne O’Neil P.E., CSEP INCOSE Industry Outreach Ambassador and Systems Engineering Catalyst & Consultant

As the founding Chief Systems Engineer for New York City Transit (NYCT), Anne established and integrated Systems Engineering capability to improve the agency’s capital project delivery.

A former INCOSE Board member, Anne currently serves as an Industry Outreach Ambassador. She has served as a systems champion within the transportation industry, raising SE awareness. She spearheaded the evolution of the INCOSE Transportation Working Group into an international forum for industry exchange, serving 6 years as co-chair. Concurrently in 2008, she founded and chaired until 2012 the Systems Engineering Committee for APTA, American Public Transportation Association. In 2009, Anne was profiled as a systems engineer by Money magazine, boosting the recognition

of the value of systems engineers across many sectors. In recognition of Anne’s extensive outreach efforts within the SE community and within the transportation industry, she was awarded the 2011 INCOSE Founders Award.

Anne has accumulated over 20 years of experience in private and public sectors. With career beginnings in electrical/control systems engineering in the power industry, she soon transitioned into the transportation industry with the emergence of the field of intelligent transportation systems (ITS). She designed and deployed advanced traffic management systems for vehicular tunnels and highways. Anne has served in corporate strategy, program leadership, engineering design, technical management, and construction management capacities.

Anne O’Neil currently advises organisations across a range of industries seeking to adopt systems practices and apply systems engineering (SE) capability to achieve and improve business outcomes.

INVITED SPEAKERRichard Fullalove, M.Eng (Elec), CPEng, NPER Manager, Systems Engineering Process – Asset Standards Authority, TfNSW

Richard Fullalove is an engineering professional with 30 years’ experience, involving research & development, progressing to signal design management, construction, testing, commissioning and maintenance. He’s worked on capital projects for 20 years, of which the last 15 years focused on multi-disciplinary rail systems engineering (SE), integration, system safety and assurance.

Over his career he’s held various senior engineering management positions including Regional Signal Manager, Project Manager, Principal Engineer and Systems Engineering Manager, focusing on innovation, process improvement, interface and integration, systematic engineering solutions and new capital projects.

His experience has evolved beyond signalling to engineering and integration of rail systems, including signalling, telecommunications, control systems, electrical traction (AC & DC), overhead wiring systems, high voltage feeders, track, buildings & structures, earthworks, and station systems. He’s managed or carried out requirements engineering, systems architecture development, interface management, human factors integration, RAM management, EMC management, systems safety assurance, verification, validation and operational readiness planning. Experienced in heavy rail passenger, rapid transit metro, semi-high speed passenger, general freight, and heavy haul rail systems and operations. He’s also gained experience on major programs such as the West Coast Route Modernization (UK), Manchester South Capacity Improvement Program (UK), Victoria Line Upgrade Program (UK), Epping-Chatswood Rail Link (Australia) and Novo Rail Alliance (Australia).


PANELLISTMike Reed Section Executive – Major Projects, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

With an engineering career spanning over 25 years, Mike’s technical specialties are in the design, delivery and assurance of transport and tunnel systems, communications and security infrastructure, and high-volume transactional systems.

Mike is an experienced director and manager of design teams in transport, tolling and energy system projects, providing dynamic and integrated design leadership of diverse disciplines associated with transport infrastructure (civil, structural, geotechnical, and urban design). He also provides technical leadership in relation to mechanical and electrical scope including establishment of operations frameworks to ensure delivered designs directly address the requirements of operations and maintenance.

Mike has experience across a broad range of systems engineering and systems integration projects, employing engineering methodologies to ensure the successful implementation of robust systems in a rapidly evolving technological domain. During 2008-2009 between major projects, Mike was appointed National Executive for the Systems, Communication and Electrical business group with revenue and line management accountabilities, during which time he oversaw team growth from 47 to 105 engineers and support staff. More recently, as Design Director for permanent works on the NZTA Waterview Connection and Great North Road Interchange project Alliance, Mike’s leadership was responsible for identifying and driving value engineering initiatives across integrated teams to realise in excess of $32m cost improvements to the program.

INVITED SPEAKERPatrick Lockley Senior Technical Manager – Infrastructure & Services, TfNSW

Patrick has built a career in Engineering and Engineering Management, graduating from Sydney University with a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering in Communications and Electronics, and undertaken design, project and systems engineering in a number of defence. His postgraduate Diploma in Business Administration from UTS coincided with his growth in engineering management roles, including Engineering Director at Rockwell Systems Australia and Engineering General Manager in Boeing Australia, General Manager Engineering at Tenix, Engineering Director at BAE Systems Australia and Engineering Director in Thales Australia’s Land Division. In this time his span of influence ranged from 130 Engineers to over 2000 Engineers and Technologists.

He has served on CRC boards and University advisory councils, particularly in their Systems Engineering departments. In his spare (engineering) time, he has also been the National President of SESA and a member of its international counterpart, INCOSE. He is keenly interested in the performance of the profession of Engineering, a strong advocate of Engineers Australia’s efforts

in developing its Engineering Executive competency recognition and also in the Warren Centre’s development of its protocol for Professional Performance, Innovation and Risk.

Patrick has recently changed his operational domain, first joining Downer Rail as GM Engineering, then moving to TfNSW to contribute to the customer side of Rail projects.

MODERATOR & SPEAKER John Massey

Requirements Manager, Metro Product & Integration, Sydney Metro Delivery Office, TfNSW

John Massey is an Engineering Executive with over 25 years of experience in systems engineering, project management and technical management across a diverse range of industries including defence, mining, transport, health and bulk material handling.

For over 16 years, in the various roles he held at Boeing Australia John successfully led multidisciplinary teams in some of the largest defence projects in Australia. John was also responsible for the systems engineering function at Boeing Australia helping the organisation achieve CMMI Level 3.

Recent experience includes senior technical and project management roles in projects involving requirements development, systems/safety assurance for rail, intelligent transport systems strategy, mining communications/automation systems design and asset management/condition monitoring for motorways and rail.

John is currently contracted to Transport for NSW providing systems engineering and safety assurance services for the Sydney Metro Program.

PANELLISTDr. Mahesh Rimal

Mahesh Rimal is a highly qualified structural engineer with extensive experience in design and engineering management of major infrastructure and tunnel projects in Japan, Thailand and Australia.

He has been involved in strategically planning, leading and managing the technical requirements of the NWRL TSC Project using DOORS right from the tender stage building on experience gained from the Glenfield to Leppington Rail Line (GLRL) Project where he led the tasks and developed a pro-forma for the Requirements and Traceability Matrix (RATM) as key part of the System and Sub-System design reports and managed requirements through to Contractor Commissioning and System Integration Phases of the project to demonstrate compliance of requirements over lifecycle of the Project.

He has worked as Design/Engineering Manager on the Lane Cove Tunnel Project, Brisbane’s Airport Link Project, Sydney Desalination Project, the Gold Coast Desalination Alliance Project and the Bangkok Metro Subway Project.



PANELLIST Alex Krensel

Alex Krensel is an engineer with 26 years’ experience in software and systems engineering for the defence, transport, telecommunications and construction industry.

Alex has held engineering and management positions with Telstra, CSC, British Aerospace, Motorola, Thales, and John Holland. Alex is currently the Requirements and Configuration Manager for the NorthWest Rapid Transit consortium.

PANELLIST Mike Langford

Mike Langford is an engineering professional with 26 years’ experience in systems engineering and development. His background is in the defence and transportation industries and has worked with a number of large engineering firms including Plessey, Siemens, British Aerospace, ADI, Downer and GHD.

Mike has been involved in all aspects of the project lifecycle on predominantly large scale, complex projects including the Australian Army Project Raven and Project Parakeet, HQ ADF Spectrum Management System, the Navy FFG Upgrade, the NSW Waratah Train Project and is currently working with the Systra GHD Joint Venture engaged as the Independent Certifier for the Sydney Metro Northwest Operations Trains and Systems (OTS) project.

INVITED SPEAKER Peter Tighe, BEng(Mech), MDesign(Industrial), MIEAust, MAIPM Senior Technical Lead – OMCS, Transurban

Peter has over 25 years’ experience in software intensive engineered systems across the entire system engineering project lifecycle and SDLC (formal or agile).

Peter has spent the last 10 years focussed in engineering software for critical infrastructure in the ship building sector, power distribution sector and transport sector. Peter is currently Transurban’s technical leader for Operations Management and Control Systems. His primary customers are the traffic control operators who use OMCS systems to keep Transurban’s roads open, flowing and safe.

Prior to that Peter spent most of his time on projects that helped define the internet as we know it today. For example, he spent 7 years as a human factors engineering leader at Hewlett Packard’s Advanced Network Test Division who delivered scientific instruments used to build the internet during the dot com bubble of 1990’s.

INVITED SPEAKER Hany Eldaly Engineering Manager – Systems, Transurban

PANELLIST Martin Brown Senior Systems Engineer, ARUP

Martin is an INCOSE Certified Systems Engineering Professional (CSEP) with 17 years’ experience of applying systems engineering and safety management in the aerospace, airport and rail industries.

Martin has experience in Stakeholder Requirements Definition & Analysis, Interface Management, Verification and Validation, System Integration & Certification and System Safety Management.

Martin has led the systems engineering and systems assurance deliverables on a number of high profile projects including Lindfield Substation, Sydney City Circle Improvement Project, Canberra Light Rail Project, Kuala Lumpur KLJ Line Extension, Sydney CBD and South East Light Rail, Heathrow Airport Tracked Transit System, Heathrow Baggage Connection Project and London Underground Power Upgrade Project

PANELLIST James Tomlinson Principal Consultant, Acmena

James Tomlinson BSc (Hons) CEng MBCS CITP and IBM Technically Certified Professional, is a Principal Consultant with Acmena and has over 15 years’ experience in systems engineering and requirements management using IBM Rational DOORS.

In the UK, James was the Requirements Manager for the £8.7bn West Coast Main Line Route Modernisation project and the Requirements Management Technical Authority at the UK Ministry of Defence.

In Australia, he was the Requirements Manager for Transport for New South Wales’ Automatic Train Protection Programme. This work led to the development of the TfNSW requirements schema, which is currently being deployed by Acmena on behalf of TfNSW Infrastructure and Services Division to new NSW projects such as Future Traction Supply, Wickham Transport Interchange and Tangara Train Upgrade. James is currently the Systems Engineering Technical Advisor for the $17.7bn Sydney Metro program, supporting the management and integration of requirements across both the North West and City and South West components of the program.


INVITED SPEAKER Melissa Jovic Manager, Rail Network Planning and Service Strategy

Melissa is a chartered professional civil engineer with more than 30 years’ experience in strategic planning, design, and program/ project management of railway and infrastructure projects.

Her experience includes high-speed, heavy and light rail systems on a wide range of projects within Australia, New Zealand and Europe.

Since 2009 she has been working for NSW government in the area of rail transport strategy. This encompasses development, refinement and implementation of the strategy, business cases developments and governance.

Currently working on Sydney’s Rail Future – Long Term Rail Strategy for Sydney Metropolitan Rail Network, her work includes the application of System Engineering in order to ensure benefit realisation and justify integrity and operational consistency within rail strategy portfolio.

INVITED SPEAKER Helen Williams Asset Assurance Manager, Sydney Trains

Helen is a Chartered Engineer with a background in complex and safety critical systems across a number of domains including rail, aviation and explosives who has specialised for the past 15 years of her career in the field of system safety and risk management. She has experience of safety and risk management planning, safety argument development, safety case reporting and hazard management, including the application of As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable (SFAIRP) principles, and of managing hazards and risks within both qualitative and quantitative frameworks.

Helen’s knowledge and experience includes the application of Human Factors Integration within a variety of environments including detailed studies into observability of failures and response by operators and the impact of the human-in-the-loop within risk assessments. She is also experienced in the application of Enterprise Risk management Frameworks including driving the implementation of an integrated approach to ERM and Safety Change Management as well as formal training in and application of Workplace Health and Safety.

PANELLIST Shane Day Asset Management Specialist, ARUP

Shane is an asset management professional with over 10 years’ experience in the specification, management and application of reliability, availability and maintenance across the rolling stock sector and over 10 years prior experience in aircraft maintenance.

Shane has specialist experience in reliability analysis, maintenance practice, development of technical maintenance plans, condition monitoring and root cause analysis investigations to ensure all decisions of operational and maintenance significance are based on quantified and or qualified analysis that can be related back to the business requirements.

Shane has previously worked with on the Waratah Train Project design team and then operations, Sydney Light Rail, Canberra Light Rail, 375/377 Fleet introduction, Adelaide City Council and is a certified Asset Management Assessor.

PANELLIST Kumar Sampath Senior Systems Assurance Engineer

Kumar is an engineering professional with over 29 years of experience. With a career spanning military aviation, rail and healthcare domains, Kumar has worked for global companies involved in product development and project execution in India, North America, China and Australia. He is a certified ISO Quality Systems Lead Auditor and has executed a number of technology-intensive projects implementing six sigma and lean processes.

With in-depth experience in systems engineering, reliability and safety engineering, asset management, project management, integration and all phases of system development life cycle, Kumar’s professional experience includes with compliance with global military, transport industry and regulatory standards (MIL-STD-882C, AREMA, CENELEC, RTCA/DO-178B & FDA, VRIOGS).

Kumar is currently providing specialist technical services on the Sydney Metro City and Southwest Reference Design, leading the Asset Management, and RAMS modelling and analysis efforts for the project.



WORKSHOPSENGINEERING PROCESS STANDARDSAustralia has taken a lead role in the development of the next revision of the Software life cycle processes standard ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207. We have accepted the responsibility to lead an International Study Group to propose appropriate software normative clauses to this standard, to be distinct from, but harmonised to the recently published System life cycle processes standard ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015. This Study Group has submitted a working draft to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 Systems and Software Engineering (S&SE) technical committee.

Based on the findings from the Study Group activity, the SESA EPS workshop will convene a global web-conference with INCOSE members within the Standards Initiative in the USA and Europe to develop a formal INCOSE position that recommends a way forward with ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207.

This is a great opportunity for Australian systems and software engineers to have real influence on the international stage, by contributing to the drafting of major international standards, and ensure that they capture all the process requirements that are germane to our profession.

We will also hear from the INCOSE leadership on plans to develop an Operational Plan for the Standards Initiative. This will afford us an opportunity to provide our stakeholder requirements for this plan.

The workshop will be split into two sessions on Friday 30 October.

1. 9:00-10:30am: This session will accommodate the global web-conference described above

2. 15:15-16:00pm: This session will look at ways in which can we best structure the EPS Working Group to meet the challenge of S&SE process standards going forward, that complies with the rules of engagement through Standards Australia, and make the most effective use of our position within the INCOSE Standards Initiative.

ENERGY TRANSITION WORKING GROUPThe complexity of energy infrastructure continues to increase, due to factors such as

• increased population density in cities;

• the legacy of a state based power production and distribution;

• increases in energy demand from residental and industry sectors; and

• use of different energy sources, with pressure to diversify from coal based power.The energy sector was once the exclusive domain of technology specialists, like electrical engineers. However, with increases in complexity, systems engineering skills, like model based systems engineering, can assist with problems such as what is the right mix of different

energy technologies for a particular energy demand.You are invited to participate in the Energy Transition Workshop on Friday 30th October.

• This workshop is supported by SESA, the Australian Chapter of INCOSE and does not attract a cost, as an integral part of the Australian Systems Engineering Workshop (ASEW).

The general approach to workshops is a 15 minute presentation to define the problem, 45 minute of solution debate with the workshop attendees, 15 minutes of summarising (writing to ppt) and then 15 minutes to present back to all of the symposium audience.

Since this is a startup meeting for this working group, topics for discussion will consider how can the Systems Engineering community can contribute to the energy transition that is occurring in Australia, and engage with energy technologists in EA and IEEE? Also, more practical issues can be discussed, such as the preferred format for ongoing meetings of the working group, and electronic facilities required to support these meetings.

MODEL-BASED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN The aim of the Model-Based Conceptual Design (MBCD) Working Group is to advance the body of knowledge and practice of systems engineering through the development and application of model-based systems engineering methodologies to the Exploratory Research and Concept stages of systems engineering. To this end we established and have run the Australian Model-Based Systems Engineering Symposium for the last five years. Beyond our continued effort with organisation of the technical aspects of the symposium this year, the working group also plans to hold a half-day workshop on the Friday. This workshop will focus on our continuing work to record MBCD case studies and distil good practice guidelines. The event will utilise INCOSE’s teleconference and screen sharing capabilities to allow participation of our international working group members along with those who can attend the event in person. The half-day workshop will be followed by a brief MBCD Working Group committee meeting to plan our continuing collective effort.

ARCHITECTURE AND MODEL-BASED APPROACHES TO ENABLE THE IDENTIFICATION OF FUTURE COALITION INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ISSUESKevin Robinson, DST Group

Our future Land forces must be capable of operating effectively in a Joint and Coalition environment. The requirements for Land Joint/Coalition interoperability, and systems that deliver integrated capabilities, need to be identified early, well defined, and prioritised.

The literature identifies that architecture- and model-based approaches, provide a means to identify potential integration and interoperability issues, and identify key system and system


of systems needs and enablers that have the potential to manage, or even mitigate these issues. The literature also identifies the costs associated with correcting early design flaws and defects that result in future integration failures, is greatly reduced the earlier that integration and interoperability design decisions are identified and addressed.

The purpose of this workshop is to seek audience participation in understanding whether model-based system of systems engineering methods and approaches can be employed to identify future coalition integration and interoperability issues. Discussion should include, but not be limited to:

Identifying the key aspects and attributes of architecture/model-based approaches that support the elicitation of potential integration and interoperability issues, including the audiences experiences/examples of successful and unsuccessful model-based methods and approaches

Identify how the relationship, and therefore traceability, between scenario/mission based architecture/models and technology implementation and/or experimentation can be improved with model-based approaches.

Workshop Objective:

Objective – Develop an understanding whether model-based system of systems engineering methods and approaches can be employed to identify future coalition integration and interoperability issues.

Desired Outcomes – Identifying the key aspects and attributes of architecture/model-based approaches that support the elicitation of potential integration and interoperability issues

Identify the how the relationships between scenario/mission based architecture/models and technology implementation

Workshop Overview:

15 minutes introduction to the session and problem definition

60 minutes audience brainstorming and discussion15 minutes summary and conclusions

Kevin Robinson has been working in the field of Defence Science since 1992. After graduating from Cranfield University (UK) with an MSc in Electronic Systems Design (Control Systems), he joined what became the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) where he initially evaluated air-launched guided weapons, predominately the Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile (ASRAAM), before becoming the technical lead and manager on a number of guided weapon support programmes. In 2000 he qualified as a Chartered Engineer with the Royal Aeronautical Society and in 2004 completed an MSc in Advanced Systems Engineering (Guided Weapons) with Loughborough University (UK). In 2005 he left Dstl and joined the Australian Defence Science and Technology

Organisation (DSTO). At DSTO he became the Project Science and Technology Advisor (PSTA) for the Follow on Stand-Off Weapon (FOSOW) acquisition programme and undertook research on model-based systems engineering (MBSE).

In 2011 he became the Head of Weapons Capability Analysis in Weapons Systems Division, before moving to the role of Group Leader of the Systems Integration and Tactical Networking Science and Technology Capability in Land Division.

Kevin has also been an Adjunction Senior Research Fellow with The University of South Australia and chaired INCOSE’s Model-based Conceptual Design Working Group.

INCOSE HEALTHCARE WORKING GROUPThe purpose of the INCOSE Healthcare Working Group is to improve healthcare delivery in the world by bringing together systems engineers and systems thinkers in healthcare system to identify, develop, and tailor best practices for the improvement of healthcare delivery. The Working Group Chapter can be found here (www.incose.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/hwg-charter-2015aug3_b.pdf?sfvrsn=0).

We plan to achieve the above purpose by:

• Articulating the value and application of systems engineering to healthcare through simple examples and easily deployable guidelines, and

• Providing a forum for developing and sharing best practices, meeting world class experts in Systems Engineering and Healthcare (and across other industries).The creation of our group was driven by the fact that many of the organizations in the biomedical and healthcare industries do not necessary recognize or understand the value of systems engineering but could be significantly benefited from the application of Systems Engineering and Systems thinking. Please see the attachment (www.incose.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/hwg-brochure-2015-03-18-w-new-logos.pdf?sfvrsn=0) for Systems Engineering benefit to Healthcare.Please register to attend for this workshop on Friday 30 October 2015, for further questions please contact Edmund Kienast at [email protected]

• We would like to discuss your challenges in the Healthcare domain and how Systems Engineering can help to address some of the challenges, and also to discuss the need for an Australian Healthcare Special Interest Group to share, promote and advance best practices in this area



ABSTRACTS

Invited SpeakersUSING PRODUCT LINE ENGINEERING AS A DECISION FRAMEWORK FOR MBSEMatthew Hause, PTC

Product Line Engineering (PLE) is the engineering and management of a group of related products using a shared set of assets and a means of designing and manufacturing. PLE can include both system and software assets and involves all aspects of engineering including electrical, electronic, mechanical, chemical, etc. As this whole of system approach is also essential for systems engineering, PLE is becoming more relevant to systems engineers. Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) at the enterprise level using architecture frameworks such as DoDAF, and the systems level using the Systems Modelling Language (SysML) is now becoming the norm in the industry. The recent International Council on Systems Engineering International Workshop and International Symposium contained a large number of submissions on MBSE in a wide range of industries. This trend has been growing over the past 20 years and will continue to grow. In addition, PLE is being investigated particularly in the automotive arena, but also in rail, power systems, manufacturing and MBSE in general. These are all industries looking to adopt PLE and leverage the capabilities to achieve economies of scale and drive down product costs.

Traditionally, product lines evolved over a period of time. Manufacturers would create a single product for a specific purpose or customer. Variations of the product would be created when customers’ needs changed or to improve production. Eventually, these would evolve into product lines, each of which could contain complex components. Each of these components can be a complex system of systems in and of itself. Often the internal details of these systems are not pertinent or can increase the size of the model. In addition, it is often necessary to reuse the components without changing them. There may be several different versions of evolutions of the systems as well. However, creating the product lines after the fact takes considerable time, money and effort to achieve the return on investment. It can involve re-engineering the systems to identify and capitalize on the product lines and can disrupt development schedules. A different approach is necessary. Systems engineers start by examining the whole product as well as the whole of product life cycle. They also need to consider the evolution of the product line, potential variants, evolving technologies, future customer features, etc. from the very beginning. Combining MBSE and PLE provides the ability to implement Model-based Product Line Engineering (MB-PLE) at all levels of architecture and throughout the various phases of the development cycle. Adopting an MB-PLE approach impacts the fundamentals of how organizations deliver and compete with their product lines. Leveraging PLE early on will identify cost savings and commonality and provide a natural means for product evolution. Applied early on in the process, Orthogonal Variability Modeling (OVM) will also provide a natural decision set allowing engineers to perform trade-offs for specific customers and guide system development along the most effective route.

Adopting MB-PLE early on in the development lifecycle allows the organization to capitalize on the advantages of MB-PLE and leverage the proven ROI of these techniques. It will also provide a decision framework to guide development and ensure the most appropriate product for the market, domain and the customer. The variation points, variants, dependencies and mutual exclusion constructs naturally lend themselves to the decision making process as well as the product specification process. Using a decision execution engine, the engineer can review the results of the decision and perform trade-off analysis. The same techniques can be used for market analysis as well as detailed engineering making the techniques applicable for multiple stakeholders.

In this paper, we will first examine some of the available techniques for MBSE and PLE and how they provide Model-based Product Line Engineering (MB-PLE). Next we will look at how OVM provides a decision hierarchy. Using automotive examples, this paper will describe Model-based Product Line Engineering, the process for creating product lines, the 150% model, variant modelling, mapping variation systems, variant feature selection, product model creation, and the benefits of this approach as applicable to the military ground vehicle domain. Finally, it will show how the adoption of MB-PLE early on in the development lifecycle provides more benefits without the potential disruption and re-engineering that can be involved when it is adopted later on in the lifecycle.


ABSTRACTS

Matthew Hause is a PTC Engineering Fellow and GTM Technical Specialist, the co-chair of the UPDM group a member of the OMG Architecture Board, and a member of the OMG SysML specification team. He has been developing multi-national complex systems for over 35 years. He started out working in the power systems industry at Houston Light and Power and has been involved power systems controls for many years. He also has experience in military command and control systems, process control, manufacturing, factory automation, communications, SCADA, distributed control, office automation and many other areas of technical and real-time systems. His roles have varied from project manager to developer. His role at PTC includes mentoring, sales presentations, standards development, presentations at conferences, specification of the UPDM profile and developing and presenting training courses. He has written over 100 technical papers on architectural modeling, project management, systems engineering, model-based engineering, human factors, safety critical systems development, virtual team management, product line engineering, systems of systems, systems and software development with UML, SysML and Architectural Frameworks such as DoDAF and MODAF. He has been a regular presenter at INCOSE, the IEEE, BCS, the IET, the OMG, AIAA, DoD Enterprise Architecture, Embedded Systems Conference and many other conferences. He was recently a keynote speaker at the Model-based Systems Engineering Symposium at the DSTO in Australia. Matthew studied Electrical Engineering at the University of New Mexico and Computer Science at the University of Houston, Texas.

BEYOND MBSE: LOOKING TOWARDS THE NEXT EVOLUTION IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERINGDavid Long

For almost ten years, the systems engineering community has been focused on the transformation from document-centric to model-based techniques. While most systems engineering organizations have completed pilot efforts, established appropriate communities of practice, and are plotting their path forward, this transformation is far from complete. In terms of the Roger’s innovation adoption lifecycle, we are beyond the early adopters, in the early majority, and moving towards the tipping point where model-based systems engineering becomes the expected framework and approach for systems engineering.

Systems engineering remains a young discipline – one that must continue to learn and evolve, one where transitions should be viewed as waypoints along a journey rather than destinations themselves. While work remains to ensure the transformation to model-based techniques is both efficient and effective, it is time for the systems engineering community to begin looking beyond MBSE. When model-based is simply the way organizations practice systems engineering, what is the next evolution required to address next generation problems and deliver the organizational value required? How must the systems engineering practice evolve? What can we begin doing today – even in the continued implementation and adoption of MBSE – to prepare ourselves and our organizations to make that transition? Looking at the journey to date and the opportunities in the future, how can we characterize the next leg of the journey and plot a path forward for ourselves, our organizations, and the greater systems engineering practice?

For over twenty years, David Long has focused on enabling, applying, and advancing model-based systems engineering (MBSE) to help transform the state of the systems engineering practice. David is the founder and president of Vitech Corporation where he developed CORE®, a leading systems engineering software environment. He co-authored the book A Primer for Model-Based Systems Engineering and is a frequent presenter at industry events around the world. A committed member of the systems community, David was the president of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), a 10,000 member professional organization focused on sharing, promoting, and advancing the best of systems engineering.



Technical PresentationsMODERN ARCHITECTURE DEFINITION AND ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES THROUGH MODELLINGJames Kanyok, Lockheed Martin Corporation (USA)

In today’s world of producing large scale systems for customers in an environment where requirements are constantly evolving, it is imperative to leverage new and novel approaches to architecting our systems. In the past, the missions and requirements large scale systems needed to meet were reasonably stable over many years. The concept of operations and associated requirements were flowed one way from customer to system developer, the typical staged system and architecture reviews were held, and this was sufficient to assess correctness of the architecture and design. Those systems, while complicated, were mostly independent systems with relatively simple interfaces to other systems, often integrated after the fact rather than intentionally designed to work with other systems. Today’s systems are an order of magnitude more complicated as the missions and associated requirements get more stressing, requirements to interface and collaboratively work together with other systems are a main focus, and computing hardware and software capabilities increase exponentially to meet these missions and requirements. To be able to ensure new systems being proposed and developed meet these new demanding needs, we must apply a multi-faceted approach to architecting to ensure we build the right systems for customers. This approach needs to include:

1) Advanced Modeling techniques to capture the missions and multiple ’stakeholders’ needs in their context,

2) Advanced system modeling techniques to capture the essence of the System needs and performance based on the defined missions and stakeholder’s needs,

3) Ability to automatically assess and re-assess those models for multiple architecture options against stakeholder’s needs including KPPs, TRL levels, cost, risk, quality, correctness, etc. with continually evolving requirements,

4) Ability to automatically assess those architecture models against sound architecting principles such as complexity, openness, internal consistency, composibility, etc., and

5) Ability to convey and visualize the proposed architectures and overall solution to the customer in their frame of reference.

This paper will discuss these techniques and how they can be applied to modern system architecting.

James Kanyok is a Lockheed Martin Fellow and a Systems/Software Architect in the area of radar and sonar sensors. In this role he has worked on System/Software Architecture efforts across the Sensor domain designing, developing, and integrating real time sensor systems for over 20 years.

He also works several Lockheed Martin Corporate Engineering and Technology (CE&T) efforts. In the CE&T Advanced Practices area James supports Model Based Systems Development (MBSD) efforts working to apply the MBSD approach to programs within Lockheed Martin. He also is in the CE&T Joint Architect Working Group supporting the definition of the System and Software Architect role and related strategic activities at the corporate level.

James holds a Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University at Buffalo, a Masters Degree in Computer Engineering from Syracuse University, and a Masters Degree in Systems Architecture and Engineering from University of Southern California. He is also a graduate of the General Electric Edison Engineering program/Advanced Course in Engineering


ABSTRACTS

LESSONS IN MODEL REUSEDavid Readman, Defence Science and Technology Group; Stephen Passmore, Defence Science and Technology Group; Kevin Robinson, Defence Science and Technology Group; Duane Jusaitis, Shoal Group; Daniel Spencer, Shoal Group

The ability to reuse system models to provide an overall decrease in modelling effort depends on a number of factors: the pool of existing models; the similarity of these models to the current need; and the possible requirement to revisit current work. Existing models are often not designed with reuse in mind as it may increase model complexity and thus the effort required. Where reuse may be advantageous, and thus the return on investment worthwhile, is where there are a large number of subsystems that are used in different configurations for different overall capabilities within a larger mission system. The Australian Army is one such system. The deployed ground force is constantly forming as a system of systems, changing its configuration as the mission unfolds and then reforming for another mission in a different configuration. Modelling this would require many system models which would be more efficiently done if the constituent system models could be reused.

Until recently, Army systems have been purchased and implemented as isolated ‘stove piped’ capabilities with significant reliance on ‘humans in the loop’ in order to realise systems interoperability. This method of capability realisation is becoming more challenging with the increasing complexity of the digital battlefield. Initiatives such as the Enterprise Architecture programs and the Integrating Operational Concept Documents have been developed to address these challenges. Building on these initiatives, model based systems engineering approaches offer the potential to refine the expression of individual capability and facilitate the early discovery and analysis of systems integration and interoperability issues.

However, the range of Defence capabilities that are affected by the integration and interoperability challenges could easily lead to unconstrained modelling activity and as such there is a need for a pragmatic approach. The approach taken adopted four principles to guide the study: (1) model reuse; (2) reduced rigour in the verification of source material1; (3) an environment where “prototype” models could be rapidly developed, interrogated and removed into storage; and (4) a specific capability constraint. In order to explore how best to create these models a ‘sandpit’ modelling environment was developed as proposed by Q. Do [1] [2].

In the ‘sandpit’ used for this study, a number of existing models were imported into a common repository and a Long Range Fires (LRF)2 operational scenario was chosen as a capability constraint to limit the scope of the modelling while providing an example of a future capability need. The modelling conducted to date has demonstrated some reuse of model components, for example incorporating the weaponeering3 processes from an existing model into the LRF capability model. This weaponeering process was drawn from a larger system model created for an Australian Air Force project in order to generate the Operational Concept Document. In this example, the Army processes contained the same generalised steps for this capability but the lower level procedures and terminology differed. An Army weaponeering process was created by identifying and implementing the generalised process as an obvious common pattern between the originating context and our modelling need. This provided a foundation on which to insert the Army specific weaponeering procedures into the model.

While drawing the weaponeering process into the larger model was achievable it did show that there are a number of barriers to the reuse of models. In this example the greatest barrier was in the terminology and process differences between Army and Air Force indirect fire procedures; both procedures have the same originating ‘call for fires’ and desired effects, but different delivery processes. Identification of this barrier led to an investigation into other barriers to the reuse of existing models. These barriers are created by the modelling environment and context such as the software tools used, difference in schemas, different versions of these schemas and the background of the modeller. In order to effectively reuse a model the underlying differences need to be identified and the initial context defined.

The barriers that were encountered in this study limited the ability to reuse models but showed that there are a number of levels of reuse that may be available. Clearly the highest level is the full reuse of a model where the original context of the modelling activity safely fits within the context of the current activity. However, unless designed for from the outset, this level of full reuse would be the rare exception. The next level is component reuse where a section of an old model is suitable for import into a new model. Finally there is a knowledge representation of the model that is useful to gain an understanding of the original system but provides limited reuse outside of this. By gaining an understanding of these barriers to modelling and the levels of reuse available a judgement can be made in a case by case basis when attempting reuse of legacy models.

This study into the capability development of the LRF system is still in the initial phases of the modelling activity. Observations to date and some background research indicate that solutions could be reactive, identifying methodology to allow better reuse of these models, or proactive where the models are constructed to allow maximum reuse. Further investigation into the barriers, the classes of reuse and the solution space is required.

1 The source material is valid for the original context but has not yet been validated in the context of the current modelling.2 Long Range Fires is an artillery capability to provide long distance indirect fire support.3 Weaponeering is the process of determining the quantity of a specific type of lethal or nonlethal means required to create a desired effect on a given target.[3]



References:

1. Q. Do et al., “Systems integration sandpit for entrenching innovative systems engineering practice,” in INCOSE International Symposium., Chicago, IL, July 12-15 2010, vol. 20. Iss. 1. Pp 457-464.

2. Q. Do et al., “A sandpit for systems engineering and systems integration education and research,” in Int. J. of Intelligent Defence Support Systems., 2009, vol. 2. no. 3. Pp 246-267.

3. Department of Defence dictionary of military and associated terms, JP 1-02, 2015.

David Readman has worked in the communications field since 1988. After a career of 10 years in the Royal Australian Navy as a communications technician he left to complete a BEng in Computer Systems Engineering graduating in 2005. He then joined SIGNAV, a GPS research and development company. In 2007 he joined the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) in the Navigation Warfare System Project Office in the area of GPS enhancement. In 2010 he completed an MSc in Engineering Science and joined the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) in Land Division where he has been investigating the effects of increasing technology insertions into Army systems. He is now a member of the Systems Integration and Tactical Networking (SITN) Science and Technology Capability (STC).

Stephen Passmore is a systems analyst with DST Group in Defence. He applies MBSE methods to support analysis of large scale systems and has specialised in ISTAR and C2 systems. He is currently supporting the conceptual systems representations of the Combined Arms Fighting System and Combined Arms Teams within Army. He graduated as a B.Eng (Mech) and has completed the course-work for a M.Eng degree in Systems Engineering.

Kevin Robinson has been working in the field of Defence Science since 1992. After graduating from Cranfield University (UK) with an MSc in Electronic Systems Design (Control Systems), he joined what became the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) where he initially evaluated air-launched guided weapons, predominately the Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile (ASRAAM), before becoming the technical lead and manager on a number of guided weapon support programmes. In 2000 he qualified as a Chartered Engineer with the Royal Aeronautical Society and in 2004 completed an MSc in Advanced Systems Engineering (Guided Weapons) with Loughborough University (UK). In 2005 he left Dstl and joined the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO). At DSTO he became the Project Science and Technology Advisor (PSTA) for the Follow on Stand-Off Weapon (FOSOW) acquisition programme and undertook research on model-based systems engineering (MBSE). In 2011 he became the Head of Weapons Capability Analysis in Weapons Systems Division, before moving to the role of Group Leader of the Systems Integration and Tactical Networking Science and Technology Capability in Land Division. Kevin has also been an Adjunction Senior Research Fellow with The University of South Australia and chaired INCOSE’s Model-based Conceptual Design Working Group.

Duane Jusaitis is an ACS certified ICT professional with qualifications and experience in IT development, management and enterprise architecture. He is a graduate of the University of South Australia and is completing a postgraduate degree through the Australian Defence Force Academy. Duane is currently an Enterprise Architect at Shoal, applying his knowledge and experience to model and tool integration to help better manage and utilise system models and architecture framework implementation.

Daniel Spencer has over a decade of experience in design and development of systems solutions across a broad range of industries, both in Australia and the United Kingdom. Dan has been working with clients in Australian Defence and emergency services, developing tools and methods for a repeatable and comprehensive MBSE approach. He has applied this approach on a number of large, complex capability definition and development projects.


ABSTRACTS

PATROL BOAT MANNING STUDIESSandra Tavener, Defence Science and Technology Group; Sean Franco, Defence Science and Technology Group

The Defence White Paper 2013 stated the need for Defence to maintain its maritime patrol capability. This established a requirement to replace the Royal Australian Navy’s fleet of 14 Armidale Class Patrol Boats (ACPB) that are nearing their end-of-service life. The Defence White Paper also stated that to contribute to the stability and security of the South Pacific and Timor-Leste Australia will gift a fleet of vessels to replace the previously donated Pacific Patrol Boats, which need replacing over the period 2018-2028. To address these commitments two Navy acquisition projects were commenced: SEA 1179 Phase 2A – Patrol Boat Replacement (SEA 1179), and SEA 3036-1 – Pacific Patrol Boat Replacement (SEA 3036).

At the commencement of a Defence project a preliminary set of Capability Development Documents (CDD) are produced. The CDD comprise an Operational Concept Document (OCD), a Functional Performance Specification and a Test Concept Document.

The OCD describes the operational capabilities the new system must address and captures these as high level requirements. These requirements influence the design of the new system. For crewed Navy platforms one of these design requirements is the need to provide accommodation and services for the crew and additional passengers. Rather than accept current crewing practice and limit the design to use those numbers, the Defence Science and Technology Group were tasked to determine the actual manning level required to operate the SEA 1179 and SEA 3036 vessels to meet the operational capability defined in the respective OCDs.

Following the steps from the Operations Research Code of Best Practice two studies were conducted almost simultaneously over four months. The same methodology was used for both projects and, where-ever possible, data was shared between the projects.

After defining and obtaining agreement on the two study scopes and timelines a top down functional analysis approach was selected as the study methodology. This method begins with breaking down the high level system functions, stated in the OCDs in AUSDEF OV-5 diagrams, to lower level tasks. Skills are then mapped to these system tasks and scenarios are developed for modelling.

The scenarios used in the two studies were developed from OCD requirements and existing crew experience regarding concurrency of activity. They also captured possible tension points in manning requirements, or demonstrated the capability limits of a specific number of crew.

The scenarios modelled were:

• cruising / surveillance• damage control• boarding

– one seaboat– two seaboats

• tow / escort • combinations of the above.

Modelling was then performed to explore the crew number and composition required to perform a time sequenced series of system tasks based upon the scenarios. This involved allocating crew resources to the required system tasks for the different scenarios. Crew were allocated according to their skill match with the task, their availability and their level of fatigue.

The short time frame of the studies limited the choice of modelling tool to those we already had access to. Software tools that could automatically allocate crew to tasks were considered, but due to issues with verifying their results the final decision was to use synchronisation matrices (sync matrices) manually developed in Microsoft Visio.

Sync matrices are used by military personnel during planning to ensure activities performed by different military units are coordinated. These matrices are often tables or column diagrams; the first column listing the different military units, followed by columns representing key time points in the operation. At each row/column intersection the activity to be performed is noted. These matrices provide a representation of a sequence of tasks across a pool of resources over a period of time.

Results were obtained by aggregating the crew numbers required to perform the various tasks of a full scenario. The various tasks and single function scenarios were then merged to provide varying levels of tempo to inform the crewing options required.

Figure 1 shows an example of one of the sync matrices developed in the modelling. It covers a 48 hour period where a number of system functions are being performed concurrently, including cruising, boarding and towing.



Figure 1: 48 hour synch matrix of Patrol Boat system functions: cruise, board and tow

Figure notes: The tasks for each system function have the same colour. The left hand side green ovals are the crew roles (names removed). The curved lines and dots represent missing crew rows. The figure has been modified to meet public release criteria.

To enable the Project Leads to make an informed decision, different manning levels were considered and analysed. The results were presented in tables showing the capability that could be achieved using different manning levels; demonstrated in Table 1. The options were important because different commander’s had different priorities on how to use their small boats and perform boardings. The results were provided to the project leads in time to support decision making and in reports that could be referenced and made available to tenderers.

Table 1: Example of study results provided to client, showing the capability options possible for different levels of manning. (This table has been modified to meet public release criteria.)

Manning level Operational capability

x Operate the vessel during cruising and alongside only (General vessel operations)

x + 3 General vessel operations plus

Option 1• Boarding operations using x person boarding party and x person seaboat party• First response Damage Control (DC) capability but no boundary cooling support

OR

Option 2• Boarding operations using a x-2 person boarding party and x-1 seaboat operator• First response DC capability and x boundary cooling support


ABSTRACTS

x + 5 General PPB-R operations plus

Option 1• Boarding operations using x person boarding party and y person seaboat party• First response DC capability and x boundary cooling support

OR

Option 2• One steaming party• Boarding operations using x person boarding party and x person seaboat party• First response DC capability but no boundary cooling support

OR

Option 3• One steaming party• Boarding operations using x-2 person boarding party and x person seaboat party. Vessels to be

boarded must be compliant.• First response DC capability and x boundary cooling support

OR

Option 3• Two steaming parties• Boarding operations using x-3 person boarding party and x-1 person seaboat party. Vessels to

be boarded must be compliant.• First response DC capability but no boundary cooling support

The systems engineering methodology used in the study ensured the study findings were linked to the functions specified in the OCD making it very difficult to refute. The project lead for SEA 1179 is revisiting their original requirements based upon the outcomes of the study.

Sandra Tavener began her career with the DST Group shortly before graduating from the University of Sydney with a Bachelor of Science majoring in physics and pure mathematics. For the first half of her career she worked in the field of underwater acoustics, measuring properties affecting the underwater transmission of sound and modelling underwater noise. During the second half of her career she has worked in operations research as applied to the Australian Navy.

Since 2009 she has been researching and applying System Engineering and Business approaches to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of command and control. Her focus has been in improving personnel usage, processes employed and supporting technical systems in command and control systems.

Sean Franco graduated from the University of Adelaide in 2003 with a Bachelor of Computer Systems Engineering with Honors. He has been working at DST Group for the past 11 years in the broad fields of Amphibious Operations and Systems Engineering with a focus on C2 systems, and Simulation, Experimentation and Wargaming. He is currently the Staff Officer Science at Fleet HQ.



MODEL-BASED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN THROUGH TO SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION – LESSONS FROM A STRUCTURED YET AGILE APPROACHMatthew Wylie, Shoal Engineering; David Harvey, Shoal Engineering; Tommie Liddy, Shoal Engineering

Model-based conceptual design links information about the understanding of a problem to possible solutions. Although this technique can provide a richness of information and explanation that is difficult to capture through “flat” views on the information (such as specification documents), it is often difficult to provide and utilise this richness beyond the conceptual phase into the design and production stages. In this project, a model-based approach was used to support initial concept exploration through problem definition, decision to build a new system and production of a solution class specification. System design was then conducted according to this specification and supporting information in the model – bringing with it some of the benefits of this model-based approach. An agile scrum approach to software development has been used in the design and implementation of this technical solution. This implementation is ongoing, but has already uncovered some challenges and many benefits to this holistic approach.

Weapon range safety planning is conducted prior to live firing exercises to determine safety exclusion zones and ensure the safety of people and facilities. In many cases planning is still based on manual methods and is achieved using pencil, paper, look-up tables, and tried and tested processes. With the increased use of automated support in Defence, a project was started to develop a software tool to aid range safety planning. Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) tools and methods, in the form of the Whole of System Analytical Framework (WSAF), were used in the capability definition for this system. The WSAF was developed by the Defence Science and Technology Group to aid modelling, simulation and analysis of complex capabilities. It enables an organised, traceable architectural model of a complex capability to be created and utilised for knowledge capture and definition of that capability. The WSAF also provides processes and tools for the generation of system views and documentation for use in down-stream development activities. Example views are shown in Figures 1 and 2. These tools and methods aided in the development of a complete and comprehensive conceptual design. This approach also presented an opportunity to exploit the similarities between MBSE methods and software development methods, particularly around the use of functional models and decompositions as a source of requirements.

Figure 1. Example model view – System Hierarchy


ABSTRACTS

Figure 2. Example model view – System Connectivity

Following the MBSE conceptual design activity, an agile scrum software development process was used to develop the software products. This approach uses iterative software development, using a series of development ‘sprints’ for the incremental delivery of functioning products. It allows for adaption to change during the development process, and ensures a continued emphasis on collaboration with the stakeholder team towards an appropriate system solution.

The MBSE approach to capability design provided a highly structured and traceable system design where system requirements can be linked back to functionality, user needs, use cases, and high-level guidance. An example of such traceability is shown in Figure 3. The model also provided a mechanism for capturing and understanding the more complex connectivity between elements of the capability. Figure 4 shows a subset of the WSAF model element classes and relationships utilised in the conceptual design activity. The richness of information in the model was utilised to add context and detail to the requirements set and system specification. Specific views and diagrams were able to be generated from the WSAF model to assist the customer’s understanding of the system design. By utilising this model-based approach to capability design, the solution system functions were already defined and modelled prior to the software development phase. Additionally the system requirements were already organised by function and could be traced back through the problem space analysis to the original driving guidance. This reduced the software development effort normally required to translate system requirements into functional software design specifications, and reduced the potential for introducing errors through the misinterpretation of system requirements by the software development team.



Figure 3. Traceability example

Figure 4. A subset of the WSAF model classes and relationships utilised in the conceptual design

S ystem R equirementsOperational Needs

S ystem ArchitectureOperational B ehaviour F unctional Des ignOperational Architecture

[Architecture]

CapabilitySystem

[Component]

composed of

[System Mission]

augmented by

joins

joins

built from

performs

[Link]

[Item]

Scenario[Operational

Activity]

decomposed by

Capability Node[Performer]

performs

built from

performs

composed of

Single Statement of User Need[Requirement]

refines

Critical Operational Issue

[Critical Issue]

exhibits

Solution-Independent Constraint[Guidance]

Operational Need[Requirement]

refined by

MOE[Performance Characteristic]

Non-Functional Requirement

[Requirement]

[Verfication Requirement]

verified by

verified by

enabled by

enabled by

enabled by

bas is of

enabled by

[Interface]

connects

comprised of

connects

refined by

Functional Requirement

[Requirement]

s pec ified by

Interface Requirement

[Requirement]

transfers

verified by

Sub-System/Component

[Component]

built from

refined by

[Operational Activity]

Decomposedby

generates addressed by

System Function[Function]

decomposed by

s pec ified by

inputs/outputs/triggered by

MOP[Performance Characteristic]

exhibits

s pec ified by

[Performer]

exhibits

res ults in

inputs/outputs/triggered by

Solution Constraint

[Requirement]

guides

[Operational Task]

achieved by

Policy and Regulation

Source[Document]

documents

[Operational Item]

decomposed by

ExternalSystem

[Component]


ABSTRACTS

Employing an agile scrum software development method allowed for design flexibility during development and prioritisation of the features of highest importance to the customer. The regular delivery of functioning software products at the conclusion of each sprint, and enhanced collaboration between the stakeholder and development teams, enabled early customer evaluation and feedback. When this resulted in design changes they could be represented in the WSAF model to understand their impact on the overall system. Figure 5 shows how the model-based traceability was linked into the software development domain to provide ongoing system design guidance during product development.

The flexibility of the agile scrum approach and the understanding of the impact on the system gained through the WSAF model allowed design changes to be implemented earlier in the development process than would normally be achieved through sequential development methods.

Figure 5. Traceability from conceptual design into software development

The combination of these methods ensured that the project had a focus on understanding the client need and solving the right problem throughout problem definition, solution specification and solution system implementation. This should increase the likelihood that not only is the solution verified and meets requirements, but that it is a valid solution and addresses the client problem. This presentation will explain the methods used and outline the challenges faced and benefits gained.

Matthew Wylie – Matthew is a professional engineer with a wide range of systems engineering and project management experience. Matthew has led systems engineering projects and teams in the Defence, automotive and electronics industries; and has experience managing systems engineering projects in all phases of the systems lifecycle. Matthew is a Senior Systems Engineer within the Shoal Engineering (formerly Aerospace Concepts) MBSE program.

Dr David Harvey – David is a systems engineer with a particular interest in Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). He holds a bachelor degree and a doctorate both in the field of mechatronics. He is currently the Chief Systems Engineer at Shoal Engineering (formerly Aerospace Concepts). Shoal has developed an MBSE approach and tailored tool to assist in complex system definition in conjunction with Australian Defence partners. As well as leading this development, he is also involved in applying the tool and approach to capability definition in major Australian Defence projects. David is also the chair of INCOSE’s Model-Based Conceptual Design Working Group.



Tommie Liddy – Tommie Liddy is a mechatronic engineer completing his Ph.D. in Robotics at the University of Adelaide while working as a senior Systems Engineer and Programs Manager at Shoal Engineering (formerly Aerospace Concepts). His academic study has focused on navigation control for Ackermann vehicles and uses vector fields as control schemes. Development of this work was achieved through simulation of vital concepts then a physical implementation of the final system. As part of the MBSE team at Shoal Tommie is developing MBSE tools for operational analysis and capability definition.

CASE STUDY: A MODEL BASED SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (MBSE) FRAMEWORK FOR CHARACTERISING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS OVER THE FULL LIFE CYCLEWilliam Scott, SMART, University of Wollongong; Gary Arabian, Asset Standards Authority, TfNSW; Peter Campbell, SMART, University of Wollongong; Richard Fullalove, Asset Standards Authority, TfNSW

Development of new infrastructure has numerous challenges that have to be overcome to be able to realise the desired system capabilities. Along with the common problems encountered in major system acquisitions, new infrastructure has to be rolled out in the context of existing systems and with minimal disturbance to the existing commuters, and in addition undergoes great public scrutiny. Transport for NSW (TfNSW) through its Asset Standards Authority (ASA) is introducing MBSE as a means to better manage the information surrounding infrastructure projects as a means to improve project delivery and outcome. Part of this process involves the development of an architecture framework that consistently structures the information to ensure that the project is delivered on time and under budget. This framework is referred to as the Transport Network Architecture Framework (TNAF).

The development of the TNAF has been driven by several factors. The primary driver has been the ability to create a consistent view of the available information which includes the derivation of the desired capability (i.e. top-down drivers), the impact of existing documents and standards (bottom up) and capture of the operational activities. The views provided by the TNAF are intended to be able to convey the required information within the context for the operation of the transport system.

Another key need is to have the ability to capture the evolution of the system over time. Infrastructure projects generally have extended and phased implementation schedules, which can be subject to change from many sources and have to meet not only current and projected demands, but also integrate with other future infrastructure that is under consideration. Therefore, knowledge is needed at a very detailed level of not only the system and its interfaces but how and when it will be deployed to ensure that the various system configurations are robust, safe and able to meet cost and schedule goals.

Development of the TNAF began using TRAK which is a derivative of MoDAF as the framework to specify the available information. It became apparent that TRAK was insufficient to provide the desired level of information and so UPDM is being introduced to supplement the TRAK views. Also, custom views are being derived that fill gaps in the depiction of the required information.

For the TNAF to meet the objectives of TfNSW there is a wide variety of information that has to be captured. Figure 1 depicts the areas that have been identified with space allotted for the other modes of transport to be populated later. The respective areas will be discussed in the presentation. The initial work has largely focussed on the heavy rail mode of transport; however, it is ASAs intention to expand the TNAF into other transport modes such as light rail, buses, ferries, walkways etc… At the higher level is the capture of the derivation of the capabilities and interdependencies from the goals and structures of the various organisations that comprise TfNSW. As it currently stands, the TNAF also contains the generic design for a multi-modal transport system so any projects that are undertaken will become an element within an integrated transport network that spans from passenger departure to destination. This generic design is both physical and behavioural, enabling the specification of common elements that comprise the network and the associated behaviour to be exhibited.


ABSTRACTS

Figure 1 – TNAF Entry Diagram depicting modelled regions

The TNAF has so far been decomposed down several levels to the point where project implementation detail is necessary to depict the information more concisely. The conceptual model can be used to identify the necessary functionality and interfaces needed when procuring a system by mapping the project onto the conceptual model elements. Also, as indicated above, this conceptual design links the existing standards and developing documentation within the model structure.



The development and application of the TNAF has proven to be an effective means to get stakeholders to communicate through a common depiction of the system structure. The ability to model an interaction from multiple perspectives has also enabled the integration of the need from the different stakeholders into dedicated, interrelated views which is now being used to influence how TfNSW organisations depict the current and future operation of the transport system as well as the constraints (such as standards and regulations) that have to be met during acquisition.

Dr William Scott has been engaged in Systems Engineering since the 90s where he undertook research at the University of South Australia into enhancing SE tool capabilities using artificial intelligence techniques. Since then he has been engaged in modelling and simulation activities that aim to enhance SE activities largely in Australian defence but also other areas such as hospital operations.

Recently, he moved to University of Wollongong where he has been engaged in examining the application of MBSE to assist the acquisition and modelling of public transport system for TfNSW.

Gary Arabian – Engineering is a profession focussed on service, innovation and challenges which are drivers that resonate with Gary. He is an enthusiastic and proactive engineer who likes to solve complex problems with a passion. After completing a Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering at University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) in 2012, and working for a few years in different engineering industries in multiple roles, he felt the need to further his knowledge in engineering management. In 2014, he completed his Master of Engineering Management at UTS. He is now approaching 2 years with the systems engineering team at the Asset Standards Authority (a branch of Transport for NSW). During his time with the ASA, he has helped communicate Model Based Systems Engineering across the Transport cluster and managed the development of the Transport Network Functional Architecture.

Peter Campbell is an Honorary Research Professor at the University of Wollongong and recently retired from the Defence and Systems Institute at the University of South Australia where he was engaged in the use of MBSE in defence and infrastructure applications over the last 10 years. Prior to his university appointments he was a research centre leader and the director of the Decision and Information Sciences Division at Argonne National Laboratory (now renamed Global Security Sciences) which specialises in the development of decision support tools and analysis for application to complex behavioural problems for US government agencies. He is currently the director of a project to develop an architecture framework model to assist in the management and delivery of the complex of projects that Transport for NSW, Australia is currently engaged in delivering. Peter has been a member of INCOSE since 2009 and participates in the Infrastructure and MBSE working groups.

Richard Fullalove is an engineering professional with 30 years’ experience, involving research & development, progressing to signal design management, construction, testing, commissioning and maintenance. He’s worked on capital projects for 20 years, of which the last 15 years focused on multi-disciplinary rail systems engineering (SE), integration, system safety and assurance.

Over his career he’s held various senior engineering management positions including Regional Signal Manager, Project Manager, Principal Engineer and Systems Engineering Manager, focusing on innovation, process improvement, interface and integration, systematic engineering solutions and new capital projects.

His experience has evolved beyond signalling to engineering and integration of rail systems, including signalling, telecommunications, control systems, electrical traction (AC & DC), overhead wiring systems, high voltage feeders, track, buildings & structures, earthworks, and station systems. He’s managed or carried out requirements engineering, systems architecture development, interface management, human factors integration, RAM management, EMC management, systems safety assurance, verification, validation and operational readiness planning. Experienced in heavy rail passenger, rapid transit metro, semi-high speed passenger, general freight, and heavy haul rail systems and operations. He’s also gained experience on major programs such as the West Coast Route Modernization (UK), Manchester South Capacity Improvement Program (UK), Victoria Line Upgrade Program (UK), Epping-Chatswood Rail Link (Australia) and Novo Rail Alliance (Australia).

Holds a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering, Chartered Professional Engineer, and on the National Professional Engineers Register (NPER).


ABSTRACTS

CASE STUDY: CUSTOM ENHANCEMENT OF MBSE TOOLS FOR EASIER AND MORE ACCURATE USE OF THE TRANSPORT NETWORK ARCHITECTUREWilliam Scott, SMART, University of Wollongong; Gary Arabian, Asset Standards Authority, TfNSW; Asset Standards Authority, TfNSW, SMART, University of Wollongong; Farid Shirvani, SMART, University of Wollongong

Delivery of large transport infrastructure projects can be difficult as they suffer not only the problems of large acquisitions (such as in Defence projects) but undergo greater public scrutiny and have to be safely deployed with minimal impact on the existing infrastructure and commuter base. TfNSW is currently engaged in the transition to greater use of MBSE as a means to manage the information and to deliver better services more efficiently. The Asset Standards Authority (ASA) within TfNSW is developing a Transport Network Architecture Framework supported by a series of tool enhancements that aim to provide consistent information. This information conforms to best practice and reduces user effort to promote greater ease for future users when developing new content.

An enabler for these enhancements has been the evolution of tool databases to include type information and the introduction of validation engines that can be used to evaluate the content. Systems Engineering tools have evolved from utilising simple databases to object-oriented databases (OODB) in tools such as DOORS. MBSE tools add additional information that types the objects in the database which can be used as a knowledge representation that facilitates the creation of agents that utilise artificial intelligence techniques to provide feedback on the quality of the information. For example, an agent can be created that tests the available requirements against the criteria for a good requirement. The typed database allows the easier identification of what needs to be tested and, when undergoing the tests, the data that has been associated with the requirement.

Another enabler is the use of Architecture Frameworks (AF) in the model as an indicator of the structure, quantity and maturity of the available data. The existence of particular diagrams acts as signposts that the related areas within the model database have been considered and subsequently populated. These signposts are related to the process that generates the associated information (Figure 6). This diagram depicts how one AF (in this case the architecture framework called “The Railway Architecture frameworK” (TRAK) relates to the TfNSW system life cycle.

Figure 6. TRAK views to system life cycle mapping



The overall usability of the whole MBSE modelling capability being developed by ASA is being improved by the development of a number of enhancements to assist users, and to give greater confidence in the model representations and outputs. These enhancements aim to provide improvements in three ways: • Distribution of data and information • Standardisation of Diagrams and Structure • Validation of the model and anomaly detection

Data distribution is an important activity within TfNSW as concepts and decisions made by some divisions and contractors naturally impact others both up and down the system lifecycle. The MBSE tool environment is seen as an opportunity for better communication between these organisations through development of a common correct and consistent view of the system for all parties to reference; and to act as a conduit for data to flow between the organisations. However, to realise this vision, there will be a need to develop interfaces and export tools. This will allow the data to be transferred between its nominal format used in the various organisations and the common views found in the MBSE environment which provides the link between all.

Other enhancements have been developed that automate tool activity so that the content is consistent independent of the content author, and at reduced effort. The amount of time spent performing simple formatting tasks such as laying out the boxes for consistent size and locations has already been substantial. Therefore a formatter routine has been developed that will reduce this effort by automatically performing some of this activity.

The formatter is applied to a diagram which examines the elements and colours them based on the TRAK metamodel. The formatter then ensures the size and representation options are applied to that diagram. The formatter examines the type of diagram and if there is a predefined format, the routine then lays out the diagram. This will be populated as the standard layouts for the identified diagram types are defined as a part of ASA practice.

These enhancements have ensured that the data model is appropriately structured and is consistent with other organisations’ data. However this doesn’t give any indication of the quality of the data. To reduce the Garbage-In-Garbage-Out problem, a series of assessment enhancements have been created that make assertions about the quality of the data and to find potential issues within the model. Several of these are described below:

• Requirement content validation: a requirement text validation tool that utilises a word identification routine to detect problems in written requirements. This routine is based on the work of NASA in their Automated Requirements Measurement (ARM) tool (Wilson et al 1997), James (2000) and further developed at UniSA (Kasser 2002, Kasser et al 2003, Kasser 2004). This tool finds the requirements in the MBSE database and then applies the rule-based assessment to only these elements.

• Detection of orphans: finds objects that are in the database but not included in any diagrams and moves them into an “orphanage” for review. This validation tool ensures that no objects are inadvertently lost and that there is no extraneous legacy data that is not accessible through the views.

• Replication detection and merger: finds replicated data and merges them into a single depiction. The need for the tool initially came from discovering that some information (particularly relationships) was replicated as it was constructed in different diagrams by different authors. This can cause issues as changes to some are not then applied to the other occurrences in other diagrams in the database. The tool was developed to identify and merge these replicated links so that all the diagrams display the same data and not replicated versions. This routine will be further enhanced to rectify issues as they are specified by ASA best practice in the future.

The introduction of these enhancements results in an integrated tool environment that makes for easier use of the MBSE approach tailored to the TfNSW context. The various tools that have been developed will be discussed in more detail during the presentation.

References

1. James L (2000) Providing Pragmatic Advice On How Good Your Requirements Are – The Precept “Requirements Counselor” Utility. Proceedings of the 2000 INCOSE Symposium

2. Kasser J (2002) A Prototype Tool for Improving the Wording of Requirements. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium of the INCOSE, Las Vegas, NV, July 2002.

3. Kasser J, Tran X-L, Matisons S (2003) Prototype Educational Tools for Systems and Software (PETS) Engineering. Proceedings of the SETE 2003 Conference, Brisbane.

4. Kasser J (2004) The First Requirements Elucidator Demonstration (FRED) tool. Systems Engineering, Vol 7, No 3, pp 243–256.

5. Wilson WM, Rosenberg LH, Hyatt LE (1997) Automated Analysis of Requirement Specifications. Proceedings of the nineteenth International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) p161-171


ABSTRACTS

Dr William Scott has been engaged in Systems Engineering since the 90s where he undertook research at the University of South Australia into enhancing SE tool capabilities using artificial intelligence techniques. Since then he has been engaged in modelling and simulation activities that aim to enhance SE activities largely in Australian defence but also other areas such as hospital operations.

Recently, he moved to University of Wollongong where he has been engaged in examining the application of MBSE to assist the acquisition and modelling of public transport system for TfNSW.

Gary Arabian – Engineering is a profession focussed on service, innovation and challenges which are drivers that resonate with Gary. He is an enthusiastic and proactive engineer who likes to solve complex problems with a passion. After completing a Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering at University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) in 2012, and working for a few years in different engineering industries in multiple roles, he felt the need to further his knowledge in engineering management. In 2014, he completed his Master of Engineering Management at UTS. He is now approaching 2 years with the systems engineering team at the Asset Standards Authority (a branch of Transport for NSW). During his time with the ASA, he has helped communicate Model Based Systems Engineering across the Transport cluster and managed the development of the Transport Network Functional Architecture.

Peter Campbell is an Honorary Research Professor at the University of Wollongong and recently retired from the Defence and Systems Institute at the University of South Australia where he was engaged in the use of MBSE in defence and infrastructure applications over the last 10 years. Prior to his university appointments he was a research centre leader and the director of the Decision and Information Sciences Division at Argonne National Laboratory (now renamed Global Security Sciences) which specialises in the development of decision support tools and analysis for application to complex behavioural problems for US government agencies. He is currently the director of a project to develop an architecture framework model to assist in the management and delivery of the complex of projects that Transport for NSW, Australia is currently engaged in delivering. Peter has been a member of INCOSE since 2009 and participates in the Infrastructure and MBSE working groups.

Farid Shirvani is a PhD student in SMART infrastructure facility, University of Wollongong (UoW) under supervision of Professor Campbell since 2012. His research interest is assessment and application of MBSE methodologies and tools in complex systems domain. He holds an MS in Information and Communication Technology with major in Enterprise Networking from UoW in 2011. Farid is involved in a project in which UoW developed an architecture model for TfNSW using the architecture framework techniques and modelling languages; as a research assistant Farid has contributed in this project to which his PhD research in aligned.



DETERMINING RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR MBSE, SE, AND SOSEStephen Cook, Creative Systems Engineering; Shaun Wilson, Shoal Group Pty Ltd

In the spirit of continuous improvement, and particularly in austere times, it is customary for organisations of all types to examine their activities and standard processes in order to ensure that their resource allocation is aligned to their organisational goals. It should be noted that organisational improvement goes beyond optimising existing approaches; it must encompass innovation if the organisation is to thrive in a dynamic environment. Engineering environments have seen many innovations over the years that have led to more mature processes, methods, tools and techniques; all necessary elements to contain project risk, improve the quality of organisational outputs, and to conform to changing international standards. A question that often arises in enterprise improvement efforts is how to estimate the Return on Investment (RoI) or value proposition for any given investment. Indeed, Morris et al (2015) reported that the lack of RoI evidence is a major issue in the MBSE area. Corollary questions are:

• What is the appropriate amount of investment in any given activity?• What are the investment priorities?• How should the investment effort be phased over time?

RoI had its origins in financial circles and is conventionally stated as a percentage calculated as the financial return divided by the investment cost. However, when used in an enterprise improvement sense, determining RoI is problematical because it is not easy to convert changes in organisational effectiveness into a monetary value. Furthermore, many organisational interventions will exhibit a return that is distributed across time, sometimes decades. Consider, for example, the pay off period for the introduction of improved IT systems, upgraded knowledge management systems, better quality systems, or enhanced systems engineering. In addition, all organisations that undertake complex engineering work already embody methodologies, processes, methods, tools and techniques to some extent, (some of which may still be rolling out). Thus the RoI challenge becomes trying to isolate the potential benefit of a proposed initiative, in some tangible way, from other influence effects on organisational performance.

Following the introduction of the problem context, the presentation will describe techniques that have been proposed to inform the estimation of RoI for change proposals. The first will be the work on the effectiveness of systems engineering pioneered by Honour (2001-2013) and Elm (2012) that builds a compelling case for employing systems engineering and proffers guidance on the amount of effort to apply in each SE activity area for a given project size. This will be followed by a discussion of the work of Oswalt et al. (2012) on the ROI of modelling and simulation within the US Department of Defense. Included will be a description of the set of metrics used and how they were combined into an objective function that can be evaluated using multi-attribute value analysis to evaluate and prioritise modelling and simulation investments. The third technique described will be the work of Maude and Cook (2015) that uses a model-based approach to estimate the RoI of defence capability upgrades that works by determining the improvement in system effectiveness offered by various system upgrade options against the cost of each upgrade. We discuss how this technique is not only valuable for the project but also enables higher-level decision makers to select the option that best meets force-level capability aims.

The presentation will conclude with a discussion on how these techniques could be applied to help produce business cases for initiatives such as improving organisational SE or SoSE practices and for enhancing MBSE tools and practices.


ABSTRACTS

Prof Stephen Cook has had a varied career that commenced with ten years in the telecommunications and aerospace industries in the UK and Australia, working as a design engineer and technical manager. Over that period he designed 13 products or systems that were sold around the world, some in high volume. He subsequently joined the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) rising to Research Leader Military Information Networks in 1994 responsible for the management and scientific leadership of 70 research staff. In 1997 he was seconded to the University of South Australia where he was appointed Professor of Systems Engineering and led a variety of research concentrations in that discipline culminating in a five-year appointment as the founding Director of the Defence and Systems Institute. Over his 17 years at UniSA, he pursued a wide span of research interests including systems mathematical modelling, systems engineering of C2 systems, systems approaches for defence capability development, systems of systems engineering, and developing theoretical frameworks to support the coherent teaching of systems engineering. He has supervised 23 successful research students, mostly PhDs. At UniSA, Prof Cook was responsible for overseeing the introduction of several master’s degrees in systems engineering and project management and actively taught in all of these. In 2014 Prof Cook left UniSA and became the Principal of the consulting firm Creative Systems Engineering that undertakes management consulting in systems engineering and related disciplines primarily in the defence sector. He retains his interests in academic matters through his adjunct professorships at the University of Adelaide, the University of South Australia and Loughborough University, UK.

Prof Cook is listed in Who’s Who in Australia, Who’s Who in Science and Engineering (USA) and Who’s Who in the World for his contributions to systems engineering. He has also received recognition through a variety of awards such as the Secretary of Defence’s Award for Achievement, Engineers Australia Engineering Excellence Award for Research, best paper awards, and his election to the small group of INCOSE Fellows and Full Members of the Omega Alpha Association honour society in systems engineering. He is also a Fellow of Engineers Australia, a Fellow of the IET (UK), and is a Past President of the Systems Engineering Society of Australia.

Shaun Wilson is the Chief Executive Officer of systems engineering house, Shoal Engineering Pty Ltd. He is a practising systems engineer with particular expertise in aerospace modelling and simulation and in conceptual design of complex systems. His experience spans from aerospace and defence to mining and leisure sports. Shaun sits on a range of company boards, holds multiple degrees, and is published in several technical fields. He is a Past President of the Systems Engineering Society of Australia.



MODELLING LIFE CYCLE PROCESS STANDARDSRay Hentzschel, Defence – Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group

The Systems and Software lifecycle process standards, together with their guides and elaboration standards underpin the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge, particularly the SE Handbook, which forms the knowledge base for the qualification component of the INCOSE Systems Engineering certification (CSEP). Therefore these standards constitute the foundational documents that govern the practice of Systems Engineering.

The problem is, however, that there are over 700 process requirements in the primary Systems life cycle standard alone, and many internal interactions between these, and many more relationships with the external standards in the suite of life cycle standards. It is very hard to assimilate these in flat file documents. It is equally difficult then to assess compliance of organisational processes assets, and compliance of project life cycle processes, with these standards.

There has been much effort involved in capturing model based techniques in the body of knowledge, but limited effort to capture the body of knowledge in a model. This presentation explores recent efforts to at least capture the foundational standards in a model.

The presentation will explore the various use cases for such a model, including:

1. Standards Development: Validation that the standards are internally consistent prior to publishing a. Outcomes are achieved by the composite of the tasks within a Processb. All information items defined in ISO/IEC/IEEE 15289 have producers and consumers as required in ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288.

2. Tailoring of compliant Organisational Process assets.

3. Building a compliant system lifecycle model.

4. Compliance Assessment: A tool for assessing compliance of 2 or 3.

5. Generation of the standard document as a rendered output of the model.

6. Professionalization: Model to underpin Handbook

The construct of the current set lifecycle process standards conform to a strict hierarchy of processes, activities and tasks, and employ consistent nomenclature defining the relationships between the various elements of this hierarchy. This precise syntax lends itself to representation in a behavioural model. This presentation will describe how the CORE schema has been extended to accommodate the capture of the standard in a way that can be better utilised by the user base to standardise the acquisition and supply of products across their life cycle.

A model will enforce consistency between life cycle standards, and apply regular patterns of process description that will aid readability and give graphical representation of the relationship between elements internal and external to each individual standard. A traditional standard document could be rendered as a validated artefact of the model if required.

A number of issues are yet to be resolved before such a model can be made available to the user community. First of all, these models contain ISO proprietary information that needs protection. Secondly, it will be a major paradigm shift for ISO in thinking about alternate ways to deliver components of standards other than in flat monolithic documents. A behavioural model is in essence a relational database that captures bits of interrelated information across a multitude of standards.

This development is in its infancy, and discussions will follow the symposium in at the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 plenary meeting in New York following this symposium, supported by INCOSE representatives including the INCOSE president.

Ray Hentzschel is the Director of Systems Engineering in the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group of the Department of Defence. His office is part of the Directorate of Materiel Engineering within the Standardisation Office. In this capacity Ray is the Defence representative to the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 Systems and Software Engineering.

Ray has held senior software and systems engineering roles supporting the P-3C Orion and Jindalee Over-the-Horizon Radar capabilities, and is now involved in the development of related policy for the Department of Defence.


ABSTRACTS

FROM STORYBOARDS TO S*PATTERNS: THE JOURNEY SO FARJulianne Davy, Department of Defence, Defence Science & Technology Group; Michael Harris, Department of Defence, Defence Science & Technology Group

Introduction

The Army has recognised that future force design and technological solutions will be influenced by the operating environment which it faces out to 2035. Of particular concern will be the sprawl of littoral mega-cities and the ability to provide joint fire support in congested areas where the risk of collateral damage is high. The Army has proposed a new ground based long range fires capability that will be ‘…an all-weather, day & night capable system to deliver precision fires, independently and to partner joint, allied and coalition long range fires.’ [1]. Early research to identify possible integration and interoperability issues of such a capability is desirable.

This presentation describes our journey to develop a suitable MBSE methodology to transition from conceptual systems thinking of the military problem domain to model-based systems engineering of long-range fires solution concepts.

Starting with a Storyboard

Scenarios and storyboards are well known techniques to communicate a sequence of events in time. The rich interactive visualisation imbued by a storyboard can be used to understand the context of the long-range fires problem area. Thus the initial approach was to develop a chosen scenario broken into stages described by storyboards. The specific scenario-based model proved worthwhile in understanding the context, but it only took us so far. We realised we needed to model the generic joint fires dynamic targeting ‘design pattern’ that could then be adapted to each scenario under consideration. The process steps followed (Figure 7), after the problem space was described (step 1), were to develop both the scenario (step 2) and the design pattern (step 3) in parallel, so that both the context and the domain could be used to produce the formal model (step 4). We anticipate that mismatches between mapping the scenario (using new capability) on to the design pattern (applying current doctrine), may point to integration or interoperability weak points.

Figure 7: Proposed process to develop scenario model.



Design patterns

Design patterns were originally conceived as an architectural construct by Alexander et al. [2], who defined them as:describing a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing the same thing twice.

Design patterns were then promoted in the field of object-oriented software design [3, 4] and, by the mid-2000s, systems engineers were using design patterns to identify and solve system problems by sharing and imitating their knowledge and experience [5].

For the purposes of this investigation, the joint fires design pattern was considered a general reusable solution to the long-range fires problems within a given context defined by an operational scenario. A search of Australian doctrine and its authorised coalition sources yielded a possible design pattern: the individual dynamic targeting steps of Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage and Assess (F2T2EA) of the Joint Targeting Cycle [6] provided as general activity flows. Initial efforts to model this led to problems as the doctrinal flow-charts were neither complete nor consistent. While considering how best to resolve the problems, new insights from the pattern-based systems engineering (PBSE) field suggested an alternative direction.

Pattern-based systems engineering

INCOSE established the PBSE Patterns Challenge Team in 2013 to ‘advance the availability of model-based System Patterns…’ [7]. The Challenge Team recently reported using model-based systems patterns at the enterprise level [8] and described the following Systematica (S*) Pattern Class Hierarchy pyramid (Figure 8) for PBSE models:

• S* Metamodel: The smallest set of information sufficient to describe a system for systems engineering purposes (i.e. schema).

• S*Models: Models containing a certain minimal set of elements and conforming to the S*Metamodel. The S*Model describes the system components and the relationships between them. The same S*Metamodel will apply for each related S*Model.

• S*Patterns: Re-usable, configurable S*Models. The S*Pattern (shown as the general systems pattern in

• Figure 8) is the design pattern to which any lower level S*Models (describing candidate model configurations) need to conform.

Of particular interest to us were the concept of the S*Pattern as the ‘general design pattern’ (Figure 8) and the methods developed by the PBSE Patterns Challenge Team. These suggested that the dynamic targeting steps (the F2T2EA activities) could be mapped onto the appropriate elements of the S*Metamodel, which would then allow the development of an S*Pattern for use in the whole long-range fires system domain.

Figure 8: Joint Fires Pattern Class Hierarchy. Adapted from Schindel [8]


ABSTRACTS

Conclusions

This presentation describes the start of our journey to develop an appropriate methodology for modelling military capabilities to investigate integration and interoperability issues.

There were two main difficulties in our initial process. Firstly the problem space was unclear as it was confounded by three separate drivers: (1) to develop the methodology to discover interoperability issues in the land battlespace, (2) to model long-range fires scenarios set in complex urban environments, and (3) to apply the methodology in order to identify interoperability issues between existing and future land systems. Secondly, more effort was needed (including greater stakeholder engagement) prior to launching into modelling.

The use of soft-systems methodologies (such as scenarios and storyboards) aided our understanding of the stakeholders’ needs, and the refinement of the initial problem space. However, such methods are insufficient to develop formal models. We anticipate the early use of design patterns (such as the PBSE S*Pattern) will allow us to develop an enduring model of the long-range fires system suitable for future investigations of integration and interoperability issues.

References

1. Army Headquarters, Paper Five: Joint Land Engagement Systems Defence, Editor. 2014: Canberra.

2. Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein, A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. 1977, USA: Oxford University Press.

3. Gamma, E., et al., Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. 1994: Pearson Education.

4. Vlissides, J., et al., Design patterns: Elements of reusable object-oriented software. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1995. 49(120): p. 11.

5. Pfister, F., et al., A proposed meta‐model for formalizing systems engineering knowledge, based on functional architectural patterns. Systems Engineering, 2012. 15(3): p. 321-332.

6. Department of Defense (USA), Joint Publication 3-60 Joint Doctrine for Targeting. 2003.

7. Team, I.P.C. INCOSE PBSE Challenge Team Charter. 2013.

8. Schindel, W., et al. Accelerating MBSE Impacts Across the Enterprise: Model-Based S* Pattern. in Proc. of INCOSE International Symposium IS2015, Seattle. 2015.

Julianne Davy graduated as a defence cadet from Flinders University with a PhD in synthetic organic chemistry in 1992. Julianne then worked at DSTO working in the field of nonlinear optics and sol-gel technology. In 2000 she moved into human factors and focussed on the integrated soldier combat system. Currently Julianne’s research interest is in model based systems engineering for capability analysis and risk assessment.

Michael Harris has been a watchmaker, an army officer, an electronic systems R&D manager and a vehicle test manager in defence industries, and an academic at a systems engineering research centre. He joined the Defence Science and Technology Group in 2009, continuing his research interests in defence systems.



MODEL-BASED SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OF MOBILE SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMSGraham R. Hellestrand, Embedded Systems Technology, Inc.

As systems have become more complex and systems of systems have entered the engineering domain, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) has evolved from Model-Based Design [Ref 1] to address the new complexity. MBSE is a top down model-based process driven by rapid prototyping and empiricism. Optimization, statistics and the rules of scientific experimentation are fundamental tools of MBSEs [Refs 2, 3].

The MBSE process is briefly outlined (see Figure 1) [Ref [4]: From Requirements, which include System Acceptance Tests, are derived Executable Specifications – parameterized continuous and discrete domain models – which communicate with latency, and that correctly execute the Acceptance Tests; candidate Architectures are particular parameterizations of the Specifications – usually selected by objective functions in an optimization process; Design typically extracts control and plant from an architecture model and further tests are created to verify the correct operation of control and plant in the context of the network connections; and Realization is, the mapping of control functions to state machines or the generation software code for particular ECUs, executives and device drivers.

Figure 1. MBSE Process with its Integrated Elaboration & Verification

Specifications, Architectures and Communications: Architectures are instances of a Specification identified by the bindings of its type, structural, functional and temporal parameters to particular values – typically determined as part of an optimization process. An architecture determines the complexity, behaviour and performance of both the modeled systems and the physical systems derived from it. The foundation of specifications of mobile systems is communication between physical plant and the systems that control them (controllers), as well, as communication between controllers.

Architecture and Design Modelling and the Correspondence between Modelled and Physical Systems: An example of a model of an architecture of a mobile system is shown in Figure 2, below. This architecture is one of the set of architectures defined by a parameterized, executable specification. In this model, the plant and their controllers are connected by multiple Signals networks and the controllers by 2 CAN networks. In Figure 2, the structure of the model is designed to be, also, the structure of the physical system.


ABSTRACTS

Figure 2: Parallel Hybrid Vehicle Control Architecture (modelled and physical)

Systems of Heterogeneous Module Types and Time: Having an architecture of an intended physical system enables the construction of an executable system model from plant modules (components of the system model), controller modules (ECU + software) and network modules. The plant are likely to be sample-timed, numerically evaluated differential or integral equation modules. The controllers are likely to be: event-timed virtual ECU modules executing software – possibly production-level; untimed Software in the Loop (SIL) modules that execute production software natively on a core or computer, and interface with plant and other controllers via event-timed I/O peripheral device modules; or differential/integral equation modules. Sample-timed or event-timed network models connect controller modules to their plant modules. In addition, message passing network connections from most controllers to other controllers are present to support high frequency coordination and control communications.

Simulating Heterogeneous, Distributed Architecture and Design Models: Assuming the structural affinity between the modeled and the physical systems of Fig.2, we can partition the modeled system into distinct, simulatable plant and control modules joined by their respective network models – a process called disjointing. The plant and control modules of a distributed system model can be simulated concurrently, with the network models connecting them being used to (i) join modules and effect communications and (ii) synchronize activities in a manner that creates maximal concurrency.

In Fig. 3, below, the orange blocks in the graph represent the wall-clock time taken by a single plant or control module (process) simulating to completion on a single core – each takes ~16 wall-clock time units. The blue bars in the graph represent the wall-clock time required to execute a distributed system model on a single core. The exponential curve lying above the blue bars, plots the simulation performance degradation (as a %) of a distributed system model executing on a single core vs the functionally and timing equivalent, disjointed distributed system model simulating on a number of cores [Ref 5].



Figure 3: Comparison of Single- vs Multi-core Simulation of Distributed Systems

Selecting Architectures from Executable Specifications

Parameters may be used to select type, structure, function (including behaviour) and timing. Structure parameters may be used to accommodate a number of executable specifications embedded within an over-arching specification. As specification are executable, the selection process is reducible to an optimization problem guided by an appropriate objective function.

An initial state-space may be defined by hundreds, if not thousands (as in automotive and aerospace domains), of parameters each having a multiplicity of quantitative or qualitative levels. A state-space that is computationally traversable in reasonable time must be bounded by small set of parameters with each having a limited number levels. The choice of objective functions is the other determinant of practicality. Figure 4 is a visualization of a reduced state-space, still with a large number state-value points, a search path directed by objective functions, and an optimal selection (the green dot).

Figure 4. An optimization state-space & search path driven by an objective function to local optimum

Architecting Systems of Systems: System of systems are direct specification extensions of the typical systems discussed above. In essence, there needs to be a connection between systems in a system of systems. In the automotive space, these connections are effected by sensors (radar, lidar, IR, LED, ultrasound, video, DSRC, 4G/5G, etc.) and human drivers. Autonomous drivers rely just on sensors (Fig 5.).


ABSTRACTS

Figure 5. Multiple vehicles interconnected via sensors

Summary:

A Model-Based Systems Engineering process is presented and discussed in general terms of its demonstrable capabilities, particularly in relation to complex systems of systems. Some real examples of systems and systems of systems are introduced – that execute under the MBSE framework [Ref 5]. This MBSE is in use by a number of automotive OEMs in USA and Japan.

References:

1. Winters, F.J., Mielenz, C, and Hellestrand, G.R., “Design Process Changes Enabling Rapid Development”, Proc, 30th Convergence, 2004-21-0085, Oct. 2004, 613-624.

2. Hellestrand, G.R., “Engineering Safe Autonomous Mobile Systems of Systems: Using Specification (Model) based Systems Architecture and Engineering”, IEEE 7th International Systems Conference, Orlando, Florida, April 2013, 599-605.

3. Abdallah, A., Feron, E.M., Hellestrand, G.R., Koopmen, P., and Wolf, M. “Hardware/Software Codesign of Aerospace and Automotive Systems”, Proc. IEEE, Vol. 98, No. 4, April 2010, 584-602.

4. Pagerit, S., Sharer, P., Rousseau, A., Sun, Q, Kropinski, M., Clark, N., Torossian, J. and Hellestrand, G.R. “Rapid Partitioning, Automatic Assembly and Multi-core Simulation of Distributed Vehicle Systems”, Proc. IEEE VPP Conference, Ottawa, Canada, Oct. 2015.

5. Embedded Systems Technology, ESSE Systems Engineering Workbench, www.essetek.com/automotive-systems.html

Graham Hellestrand has been CEO of Embedded Systems Technology (US and Australian based companies) since 2007. Prior to EST, Inc. he was CEO of VaST Systems Technology Corp. 1997-2005 (US and Australian based companies). From 1989-1998 he was Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia. He was elected Emeritus Professor, UNSW in 2003.



ISSUES IN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND MBSE SUCCESSES – INSIGHTS FROM THE MODEL-BASED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SURVEYSBrett Morris, Defence Science and Technology Group

The INCOSE Model-Based Conceptual Design (MBCD) Working Group (WG) has been established with the vision to “Develop best practice for MBCD”. MBCD is defined as “the application of MBSE to the Exploratory Research and Concept Stages of the generic life-cycle defined by INCOSE”. As a stepping stone on the path to achieving this vision, a WG activity was initiated to assist with building an understanding of the issues and successes people involved in the conceptual design stage have experienced.

The activity commenced by conducting an initial survey of WG members during 2014. This first survey comprised mostly open-ended questions for respondents to describe their conceptual design issues and MBCD successes. From these responses, issue and success themes were identified and presented in [1] and [2]. Amongst the data collected from respondents were the geographical regions where they had performed conceptual design. This data highlighted that the majority of respondents had performed conceptual design in the Oceania region, which hints at the possibility of non-response bias being present in the results. In an effort to address concerns that the conceptual design issues and MBCD successes identified from the first survey may not be representative of the entire population of people involved in conceptual design, a second survey was undertaken from 13th July until 28th August 2015.

The second survey utilised the structure of the first, which comprised three sections, but utilised more closed questions to minimise the time required to complete the questionnaire. The first section collected professional data on the respondent. The second section captured data on the conceptual design issues the respondent had encountered and the final section collected data on MBCD successes the respondent had experienced. In the conceptual design issue and MBCD successes sections, respondents were asked to reflect on their experience and select the frequency with which they had encountered a set of issue and success themes. The themes were contained in statements constructed from the results of the first MBCD survey. Respondents also had the opportunity to provide a free text response for any other issues and successes they had experienced.

Forty responses were collected during the period that the second survey was open. As with the first survey, the highest number of responses (18) came from people who had performed conceptual design in the Oceania region. However, this time, responses were more evenly spread across the North American (16) and European (11) regions. The conceptual design issue themes respondents indicated they had experienced most often were stakeholder solutioneering (i.e. specifying a solution without understanding the problem) and a lack of stakeholder engagement. The MBCD success themes respondents chose most often were that MBCD had provided clearer understanding of the problem space and helped inform requirements development.

During this presentation, the results from the second survey are presented and discussed, along with a comparison between results from the first and second surveys. Some of the key insights about the issues faced by people working in the conceptual design stage of a system’s life cycle and the successes gained from applying MBSE during this stage that were identified from the respondent’s data are discussed. The presentation concludes with an overview of the activities the MBCD WG is undertaking to address the issues and enhance the successes identified in the surveys.

References

1. Morris, B. and D Harvey (2014) Model-Based Conceptual Design Survey, workshop held at the MBSE Symposium 2014, 27-28 October 2014, Canberra, Australia

2. Morris, B. A., D. Harvey and Q. Do. (2015), Survey of Model-Based Conceptual Design Challenges, SETE2015 Conference, 27-29 April, Canberra, Australia.

Brett Morris is a Naval Architect/Systems Engineer who joined DSTG in 2007. He has previously worked for the RAN in the Directorate of Navy Platform Systems and his research interests are in the fields of Naval ship concept and requirements exploration, along with Systems Engineering applications to Naval Architecture. Brett has a Grad. Dip. in Systems Engineering, a BE (Nav. Arch.) and is currently undertaking part-time research towards a PhD.


ABSTRACTS

WORKSHOP: ARCHITECTURE AND MODEL-BASED APPROACHES TO ENABLE THE IDENTIFICATION OF FUTURE COALITION INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ISSUESKevin Robinson, DST Group, [email protected]

Our future Land forces must be capable of operating effectively in a Joint and Coalition environment. The requirements for Land Joint/Coalition interoperability, and systems that deliver integrated capabilities, need to be identified early, well defined, and prioritised.

The literature identifies that architecture- and model-based approaches, provide a means to identify potential integration and interoperability issues, and identify key system and system of systems needs and enablers that have the potential to manage, or even mitigate these issues. The literature also identifies the costs associated with correcting early design flaws and defects that result in future integration failures, is greatly reduced the earlier that integration and interoperability design decisions are identified and addressed.

The purpose of this workshop is to seek audience participation in understanding whether model-based system of systems engineering methods and approaches can be employed to identify future coalition integration and interoperability issues. Discussion should include, but not be limited to:

1. Identifying the key aspects and attributes of architecture/model-based approaches that support the elicitation of potential integration and interoperability issues, including the audiences experiences/examples of successful and unsuccessful model-based methods and approaches

2. Identify how the relationship, and therefore traceability, between scenario/mission based architecture/models and technology implementation and/or experimentation can be improved with model-based approaches.

Kevin Robinson has been working in the field of Defence Science since 1992. After graduating from Cranfield University (UK) with an MSc in Electronic Systems Design (Control Systems), he joined what became the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) where he initially evaluated air-launched guided weapons, predominately the Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile (ASRAAM), before becoming the technical lead and manager on a number of guided weapon support programmes. In 2000 he qualified as a Chartered Engineer with the Royal Aeronautical Society and in 2004 completed an MSc in Advanced Systems Engineering (Guided Weapons) with Loughborough University (UK). In 2005 he left Dstl and joined the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO). At DSTO he became the Project Science and Technology Advisor (PSTA) for the Follow on Stand-Off Weapon (FOSOW) acquisition programme and undertook research on model-based systems engineering (MBSE).

In 2011 he became the Head of Weapons Capability Analysis in Weapons Systems Division, before moving to the role of Group Leader of the Systems Integration and Tactical Networking Science and Technology Capability in Land Division.

Kevin has also been an Adjunction Senior Research Fellow with The University of South Australia and chaired INCOSE’s Model-based Conceptual Design Working Group.


asew.sesa.org.au