Henson,
I have no objection to your view of SoS!
Classification that I give to SoS is not mine, it is most common (with few
variants). It is a pity that SoS have no achivements up to date (and
definitely no established systems engineering process, applicable method
etc.). This is simply retelling other theories and methods with SoS slang. (01)
May be fellow ontologists will change this and SoS will became true
discipline with specific ontology, but I doubt :-) Now SoS is simply brand
name for engineers that want to borrow something from economists,
politicians, general managers etc.. (02)
There exists other such a "brand sciences" like engineering management (this
is educational brand, it have no one concept that defined in engineering
management, only borrowing from general management, operations research,
etc.). (03)
I have small collection of this fashionable "brand sciences" that have no
their own concepts, theories, methods and are simply rebrending of other
disciplines with new names :-) (04)
Best regards,
Anatoly Levenchuk (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of henson graves
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:31 PM
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2012 discussion'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystems and
> SystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
>
> Anatoly,
> I do not think I am disagreeing with you very much. I certainly agree
with
> your definition of sos. Your classification of sos makes good sense. The
> principles needed to analyze, organize sos can be developed. They are
> somewhat different from traditional SE theory and practice, but so what.
> - henson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anatoly
> Levenchuk
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:18 AM
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2012 discussion'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BigSystems and
> SystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
>
> 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!
>
> 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.
>
> 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!).
>
>
> 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.
>
> System of systems is all about autonomy and independence and
> impossibility of developing in usual process --
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_systems
>
> 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/-------
>
> 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)
>
> Best regards,
> Anatoly Levenchuk
>
> > -----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/
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> _
> 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/
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> _
> 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/ (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (07)
|