Henson, Anatoly,
Until principles are clarified and vetted for locus of fallacy there is a lot
of work to do.
One aspect of SOS that invariably arises is non-deterministic behavior by one
or more participating systems. Accordingly verifying the readiness of a SOS for
a given operation becomes problematical.
Jack (01)
On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:31 AM, henson graves wrote: (02)
> 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/ (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (04)
|