Henson refer to my text from another thread, I need to repeat it here:
--- /quote---
Need to clarify: systems of systems is not simply about decomposition of
system to another systems! (01)
1. ISO 15288 intentionally depart from traditional terminology
"system-subsystem" and have only "system" at all levels - for stressing
recursive usage of systems engineering life cycle processes on all levels.
This is not "system of systems", it another wording: every "system" consists
from "system elements" that can be regarded as "systems". This is "systems
in system" hierarchy (while usually this has no usage as a term and words
"system" stay apart in a sentence). This is all about modules. (02)
All this system-of-interest has "passive" systems/modules in it, thus
permitting usual development lifecycle
(requirements-architecture-design-implementation-integration-transfer into
operation-operations-retirement). This life cycle applicable on every level
of systems in system (of interest, not system-of-systems!). (03)
2. "System of systems" is a term that describe specific situation when we
need create system from already established systems (not modules!) while
each of this established systems has autonomy (owner, systems in operational
environment, enabling systems etc.) and thus have difficulties to change to
fit upper level "system of system". There was (and is) multiple attempts to
develop special "system of systems" methodologies but all of them appear
like retelling of management, conflictology, politics, economy and so on
theories with "system" language. Nothing new was created up to now, no
specific concepts and processes appears, no strong results obtained. There
is one exclusion: system of systems impossible to "develop" and apply to
them usual engineering process (like that in ISO 15288): there is
nonsufficient authority to perform it due to autonomy of each system (each
of this system have its own architector and primary stakeholders). Thus
system of systems can only evolve during evolution process with coordinated
development in each of its systems. If you have system of systems (e.g. in
organizational engineering) you have to think in evolution terms, not in
traditional engineering ones. (04)
System of systems is all about autonomy and independence and impossibility
of developing in usual process --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_systems (05)
We have several meetings of INCOSE Russian chapter where think about system
of systems in application to enabling system (that is usually organization
that have every single employee as owner of oneself thus autonomous and not
permit to "developing" as a passive system-of-interest). I have a talk about
it a couple years ago on one of the international system of systems workshop
-- http://www.slideshare.net/ailev/enabling-systems-of-systems-engineering
---quote/------- (06)
There is classification of system of systems in the relation of
"architectural manageability" that mentioned by Henson:
-- directed (that have appointed architect that have authority and resources
to rule systems in system of systems);
-- acknowledged (that have recognizable architect of system of systems, but
architect have no authority and resources to command each of systems);
-- collaborative (systems negotiate in every evolution step, but there are
no system of systems architect or project manager);
-- virtual (systems in system of systems do not know about existence of each
other, overall system of systems exist only in somebody mind) (07)
Best regards,
Anatoly Levenchuk (08)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of henson graves
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:57 PM
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2012 discussion'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystems and
> SystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
>
>
> I agree with Anatoly's characterization of "System of systems" is a term
that
> describe specific situation when we need create system from already
> established systems (not modules!) while each of this established systems
> has autonomy (owner, systems in operational environment, enabling
> systems
> etc.) and thus have difficulties to change to fit upper level "system of
system.
> However, when the owners of the systems agree on a common objective
> they can sometimes achieve a common objective while continuing with
> individual systems pursuits. It is definitely possible to build theories
which
> can be used to analyze when a system of systems is likely to work and
when
> it is almost certainly likely to fail.
>
> For example most large scale aerospace programs include many individual
> enterprises which also compete, e.g., Lockheed Martin and Boeing on the
> same team. By looking at how the system of enterprises is organized one
> can make good predictions of its success and potential problems. This is
not
> my primary intellectual interest but I have observed and participated in
> these systems of systems.
> - Henson
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> _
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (010)
|