optimize system design - hitchinssystems.hitchins.net/.../incose-tutorial/optimize.pdfoptimize...
TRANSCRIPT
30/04/16 dkh©2004 1
Optimize System Design
Derek Hitchins
30/04/16 dkh©2004 2
Why Optimizing is Important • Optimization results in the “best” solution to the
problem, where best may be: – Best value for money – Lowest risk of Blue casualties – Most cost effective – Maximum ROCE… – …and many more
• Generally, optimization is about compromise – E.g most cost-effective ≠ most effective
• Most effective may be unaffordable
– Apollo compromise was about mass, volume, capability and risk between the various parts
30/04/16 dkh©2004 3
Effectiveness • Measuring the effectiveness of LF2020 – it
has slipped a decade after looking at the technology– will be more difficult, but vital
• What is meant by effectiveness? – Cost effectiveness, cost exchange ratio, casualty
exchange ratio, ROCE? Or all of these? • In practice, it seems that effectiveness—the
degree of effect that one system has on another—is not fixed – It varies throughout an engagement, for
instance…
30/04/16 dkh©2004 4
Introducing a Reference Model • At this point we will use a Reference Model
– Encourages completeness of solution • Each element in Reference Model should find
correspondence in designed solution
– A good reference model will make measurement of the system solution easier
– With simple measurement comes the facility to optimize the design, i.e. maximize/minimize the appropriate measure
– We will use the Generic Reference Model • See www.hitchins.net/systemstop.html
– This should help us understand effectiveness, too
30/04/16 dkh©2004 6
Generic Reference Model • GRM describes “internals” of any
system – essential features, capabilities – must exist for a system to be:—
• complete, • functional, • and—if appropriate— • sentient
• GRM does not describe:— – conception, creation, becoming viable,
decay, decommissioning, etc. – any external features
30/04/16 dkh©2004 7
BehaviourManagement• Cognition
• Belief System• Selection
• Intent
Funct ionManagement
• Mission• Viability• Resources
Fo rmManagement• Structure• Potential• Influence
Being
DoingThinking
Stimulus
System
Generic Reference Model Level A
30/04/16 dkh©2004 8
Inseparability of GRM Aspects • Possible to view Being, Doing and Thinking
elements of GRM as independent • Useful as a check-list to see if a system
description has missing elements, but… • …falls well short of full potential • Different parts of Model identify different
facets of same system, – e.g. Thinking affects the manner of Doing; – Doing depends on Being; – Being enables Thinking (cogito ergo sum!)
30/04/16 dkh©2004 9
Generic Reference (Function)Model
• “The Management Set”
30/04/16 dkh©2004 10
Function Model—Laundry List View
Mission Viability
Resources
InformationObjectives
Strategy & Plans
Execution Cooperation
Acquisition Storage
Distribution Conversion
Disposal
Synergy Survival
EvolutionHomeostasis
Maintenance
The Management Set
Collect information
Set/resetobjectives
Strategize& plan
Executeplan
Co-operatewith others
(if necessary)
Operationalenvironment
➤ N.B. work is done in processing information into a plan—energy required to “drive” loop
➤ Internal “push/pull force” maintains loop dynamics
Mission Management
Resourceenvironment
Acquireresources
Storeresources
Distributeresources Convert
and utilizeresources
Discard excess/waste
➤ N.B. Resource management absorbs resources
➤ Storage essential to meet continual internal demand
➤ Internal “push/pull force” maintains loop dynamics
Resource Management
• Self-sustaining set • Homeostasis maintains
internal environment for all other internals
• Synergy co-ordinates all internal parts
• Maintenance detects, locates, replaces, disposes
• Survival protects from externals
• Evolution adapts, improves…
• Together = Viable System • c.f. neonate
Viability Management
SurvivalEvolution
Homeostasis
Synergy
Maintenance
Dynamic GR(Function)M • 3 elements seen in
respective “environments”
• Viability provides platform for Mission Management
• Resources provide energy & materials for Viability and (internal) operations
• Threats to Mission Management, Resource Management
• Change challenges Homeostasis (resist) and Evolution (adapt)
Threat
Survival Evolution
Homeostasis
Synergy
Maintenance
Resourceenvironment
Operationalenvironment
Acquisition
Storage
Distribution Conversion
Disposal
Information
Objectives
Strategy& Plans Execution
Co-operation
Threat Change
30/04/16 dkh©2004 15
Generic Reference (Form) Model
30/04/16 dkh©2004 16
Generic Reference (Form) Model
Boundary Subsystems Connections Relationships Configurations
Structure
PowerCapacity
RedundancyDynamic Range
Potential
Cohesion
DispersionEnvironment
Influence
30/04/16 dkh©2004 18
Background to the Behaviour Model • Behaviour Model proposes how Behaviour
might be selected generically— – does not identify which behaviour results from a
given stimulus
• Of three first-level Models, Behaviour most complex, subtle. – based on a variety of psychological models – proposes way in which both instinctive and
sentient entities respond to stimulus – appropriate for individuals and groups – recognizes essential nature-nurture conflict – establishes Belief as central to behaviour
Response�Intent
GRM—Behaviour Management
Cognition
Tacitknowledge
Worldmodels
Stimulus Excitation
Nurture
• Collective Unconscious
• Instinct• Archetypes
• Libido• Aggression• Energy
• Character• Emotion
• Achievement• Conformance
• Beliefs• Rôles• Stereotypes• Categories• Values• Ethics• Morals• Ideologies• TrainingExperience
BeliefSystem
Environment
Motivation
Behavioural ArchetypesBehavioural Archetypes
Interpretation
Activation
Constraint
Selection
Evolution
Nature
30/04/16 dkh©2004 20
System N2 Chart—and Emergence
…where A and B are any two entities on
leading diagonal
A
B
Decisions, orders &
instructions
Interaction-outflow
Emergenceboundary & interaction
Emergence-endurance
Evidence-stable internal
environment
Emergence-evolution
Emergence-survivability
Evidence of internal order
Outflow- waste, excess
EmergencePerformance & Outflow
•Risk • opportunity
•priorityInforma
-tion
Objectives Purpose
Strategy and Plans Method
Execution
Potential partners
contribution
Partners contribution
(Sibling) Co-operation
ConstraintsShortfalls Constraints
Supply ActivationEndurance
Constraints
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
PriorityDirection
PriorityDirection Reflex
Energy efficiency
Inabilities
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Entry Exit
Empower-ment
ConfidenceCapability
Risk Threat
DriveOptions
ConfidenceDrive
Drive Drive
OptionsConfidence
Drive
Future needs
Demand
Resourceacquisition
Storage Discontinuous supply
Replenish-ment status
Replenish-ment status
Distribu-tion Localization
Replenish-ment status
Conver-sion
Fresh capacity Disposal
• Residue• Product• Waste
Resource status
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Demand
Demand
Residue of faulty parts
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Entry
Empower-ment
Channels
Empower-ment
Exit
Threat
Drive DriveDrive Drive
Capabil-ity
Drive
Sub-version
Utilization
Destructive variety
Internal energy source
Location
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
RegulationControl
RegulationControl
RegulationControl
Upkeep Upkeep Upkeep
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
Resist-ance
Neutraliz-ation
Distribu-tion
Neutraliz-ation
Neutraliz-ation
Disper-sion
(Internal) Environ
-mentMedia-tion
PowerDrive
Endur-ance Capacity
Neutraliz-ation
Replica-tion
Redund-ancy
Threat
Direction
Self defence
Reserves Status
Demand
Short-term continuance Demand
Replace-ment
Co-ordinationCo-operationSynergy Co-ordination
Co-operation
Survival OpportunityOpportunity
Long-term continuance Evolution
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
Short-term continuance
Homeo-stasis
Upkeep UpkeepUpkeep Upkeep Mainte-nance
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Stealth, damage tolerance
Feedback
Damage toleranceFeedback
Feedback
Feedback
Damage tolerance
Enable-ment
Threat
Feedback
Drive DriveDrive StatusDrive
Reconfigur-ability
Reconfigur-ability
Drive
Commit-ment
Conform-ability
Construct-ive variety
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
Upkeep UpkeepUpkeep Upkeep
RegulationControl
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Exit & entry Enclosure Protection?
Boundary Enclosure Protection?
Sub-systems
Defini-tion
Inter-flows
Connec-tions
Context Relation-ships
Aggre-gation
Enabl-ment
Contrac-tion
Enabl-ment Cohesion
Structure
Structure
Structure
Contain-ment
Disaggre-gation
Degrad-ation
Expan-sion
Degrad-ation
Operating conditions
Operating conditionsCharacter Context
Drive Drive Drive
Reconfigur-ability
Resili-ence
Resili-ence
Drive
Media-tion
Inflow Inflow
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Enclosure Protection?
PerceivedSituation
EnergySubstance
Inflow
Resili-ence
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Identifi-cation
Interpre-tation
Instinct Instinct
World Model
Cogni-tion
Resili-ence
Environments & entities
BeliefSystem
Exper-ience
Resili-ence
Resili-ence
Context
ContextStimulus interpret
-ationInstinctSpeed
Viewpoint,confidence
View points
Response expectations
Nature Archetypal behaviours
Behaviour Selection
Activa-tion
Behavioural Constraint
Motiva-tion
Excita-tion
Energy level
Confidence, morale
Choice of behaviour
Drive energy
Limits to Excitation
Achievement,conformance
drives
Loosening
Loosening
Media-tion
Media-tion
Media-tion
Tightening
Loosening
Media-tion
Loosening
Stimulus
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
Inheritance-patt-erns of thought &
behaviour
Co-ordinationCo-operation
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
Co-ordinationCo-operation
AccommodationAdaptationAdvance
Stimulus
Stimulus
Stimulus
Stimulus
Stimulus
Stimulus
Stimulus
Stimulus
Stimulus
Culture
Limits to behaviour intensity
Achievement,conformance
drives
Limits to behaviour
choice
• Updates• Continual Belief test
Updates
CuesModels
Updates
Updates
Superimposedviewpoints
Tacit Knowledge
Updates
Low-level knowledge
Reflex
Diversebeliefs
Shared beliefs
Choice of behaviour
Choice of behaviour
Choice of behaviour
Choice of behaviour
Response Intent
Response Intent
Filters on acceptability
Viewpoint
Filters on acceptability
Context, interpret-ations
Choice of behaviour
EnvironmentEnvironment"gives to"
Choice of behaviour
Choice of behaviour
Choice of behaviour
Red—GR(Function) ModelBlack—GR(Form) ModelBlue—GR(Behaviour) Model
Generic Reference Model – Level 0
30/04/16 dkh©2004 22
Effectiveness (2)
• Blue effectiveness can only be sensibly measured when Blue is interacting , e.g. with Red, in some Operational Environment
Operational
Environment
30/04/16 dkh©2004 23
Effectiveness (3)-Adding Impact of Logistics and Procurement on Operations
Blue effectiveness, endurance, etc., depend on its procurement, supporting
and enabling systems
30/04/16 dkh©2004 24
A Balanced Viewpoint
Form
Behaviour
MissionManagement
ResourceManagement
ViabilityManagement
Environment
LogisticsSystem
ProcurementSystem
DefenceSuppliers
Form Behaviour
MissionManagement
ResourceManagement
ViabilityManagement
LogisticsSystem
ProcurementSystem
DefenceSuppliers
Maintenance
Maintenance
30/04/16 dkh©2004 25
StimulusBehaviour
Management
Behavioural Influence
Structure Influence Potential
CognitionBehaviourselection Stimulation
Collectinformation
Set/resetobjectives Execute
Co-operatewith othersStrategize
& PlanMissionManagement
MissionManagement
BehaviourBehaviour
Form Form
ResourcemanagementResource
management
Acquire
Store
Distribute
Convert
Discard excess/waste
BeliefSystem NatureNurture
Maintenance
Survival
Evolution
Homeostasis
Synergy
ViabilityManagement
ViabilityManagement
GRM in Layers
30/04/16 dkh©2004 26
Strategize & Plan
Worldmodels
Stimulus
BehaviourManagement
Behavioural Influence
Structure
Systems
Influence Potential
Systems Systems
Tacitknowledge
Cognition
StimulusStimulus
Behaviourselection Stimulation
Nature
Constraint
Belief system Training
Ethics &morals
Doctrine
Interpre-tation
Motivation
Collectinformation
Set/resetobjectives
Co-operatewith others
Experience
MissionManagement
MissionManagement
BehaviourBehaviour
Form Form
Stimulus
Maintenance
Survival
Evolution
Homeostasis
Synergy
ViabilityManagement
ViabilityManagementResource
managementResource
management
Acquire
Store
Distribute
Convert
Discard excess/waste
Execute
GRM as Virtual Machine
30/04/16 dkh©2004 27
Instantiated GRM
Mobile Land Force Internal Structures
30/04/16 dkh©2004 28
Synergy
Worldmodels
Formationcontrol
Sensor systems
POL, weapon, spares reserves
Communicationsystems
Weapon systems
Tacitknowledge
CognitionNature
Belief system Training
Ethics andmorals
DoctrineMotivation
Experience
MissionManagement
Missionmanagement
BehaviourBehavior
Form Form
ViabilityManagement
Viabilitymanagement
ResourcemanagementResource
management
Acquire
Store
Distribute
Convert
Discard excess/waste
Homeostasis
Maintenance
Evolution
Constraint
Stimulation
Resourceenvironment
Operationalenvironment
Behavioral archetypes
Transportsystems AcquireAcquire
Synergy = cooperation and coordination between parts to produce desired external effects
Survival = avodiance of detection + self-defence + damage tolerance
Maintenance = detection, location, excision, replacement, and disposal of defective parts
Homeostasis = maintenance of internal environment appropriate to effective subsystems operations
Evolution = accommodation, adaptation, advance
R.A.S.P.
Decision making
Assess situation
Identify threats and
opportunitiesInitiate action
Decisionmode
Generate optionsin sequence
Simulatementally
Y
N
Review allconstraints
Select preferred
option
Recognition-primed decisions
Naive decisions
Monitor
ExecuteInitiate action
Behaviorselection
Generateall options
Survival
Battledamagedisplays
Resourcesdisplays
Formationdisplays
30/04/16 dkh©2004 29
Filling in the Numbers • Note that all separate land vehicles, UAVs,
FACs, etc., treated as one system – Valid—if we achieve organismic design
• However, different design options would introduce different values for many of the parameters. F’rinstance – Battle damage might be greater with fewer, larger,
concentrated vehicles. However… – Battle damage repair might take much longer with
more, widely dispersed vehicles – Similarly, rearming and refuelling on the go would
be quite different for different options
30/04/16 dkh©2004 30
Synergy
Worldmodels
Formationcontrol
Sensor systems
POL, weapon, spares reserves
Communicationsystems
Weapon systems
Tacitknowledge
CognitionNature
Belief system Training
Ethics andmorals
DoctrineMotivation
Experience
MissionManagement
Missionmanagement
BehaviourBehavior
Form Form
ViabilityManagement
Viabilitymanagement
ResourcemanagementResource
management
Acquire
Store
Distribute
Convert
Discard excess/waste
Homeostasis
Maintenance
Evolution
Constraint
Stimulation
Resourceenvironment
Operationalenvironment
Behavioral archetypes
Transportsystems AcquireAcquire
Synergy = cooperation and coordination between parts to produce desired external effects
Survival = avodiance of detection + self-defence + damage tolerance
Maintenance = detection, location, excision, replacement, and disposal of defective parts
Homeostasis = maintenance of internal environment appropriate to effective subsystems operations
Evolution = accommodation, adaptation, advance
R.A.S.P.
Decision making
Assess situation
Identify threats and
opportunitiesInitiate action
Decisionmode
Generate optionsin sequence
Simulatementally
Y
N
Review allconstraints
Select preferred
option
Recognition-primed decisions
Naive decisions
Monitor
ExecuteInitiate action
Behaviorselection
Generateall options
Survival
Battledamagedisplays
Resourcesdisplays
Formationdisplays
Synergy
Worldmodels
Formationcontrol
Sensor systems
POL, weapon, spares reserves
Communicationsystems
Weapon systems
Tacitknowledge
CognitionNature
Belief system Training
Ethics andmorals
DoctrineMotivation
Experience
MissionManagement
Missionmanagement
BehaviourBehavior
Form Form
ViabilityManagement
Viabilitymanagement
ResourcemanagementResource
management
Acquire
Store
Distribute
Convert
Discard excess/waste
Homeostasis
Maintenance
Evolution
Constraint
Stimulation
Resourceenvironment
Operationalenvironment
Behavioral archetypes
Transportsystems AcquireAcquire
Synergy = cooperation and coordination between parts to produce desired external effects
Survival = avodiance of detection + self-defence + damage tolerance
Maintenance = detection, location, excision, replacement, and disposal of defective parts
Homeostasis = maintenance of internal environment appropriate to effective subsystems operations
Evolution = accommodation, adaptation, advance
R.A.S.P.
Decision making
Assess situation
Identify threats and
opportunitiesInitiate action
Decisionmode
Generate optionsin sequence
Simulatementally
Y
N
Review allconstraints
Select preferred
option
Recognition-primed decisions
Naive decisions
Monitor
ExecuteInitiate action
Behaviorselection
Generateall options
Survival
Battledamagedisplays
Resourcesdisplays
Formationdisplays
Let Battle Commence…!
…but just a minute…
Blue Land Force 2010
Red Land Force 2010
30/04/16 dkh©2004 31
We Don’t Know Enough
• We don’t know anything about our supposed enemy
• We don’t know much about out own forces future beliefs and behaviours, training, etc.
• How can we possibly fill in the details necessary to make the simulation work sensibly?
30/04/16 dkh©2004 32
Strengths of the Approach • All true—but no reason to cop out • First, and initially, it is sensible to assume
that an enemy is neither inadequate, nor a giant in ten-league boots.
• It is sensible, as a start point, to assume that Red is as capable as Blue.
• Then, we can assume, too, that Red ethics, morals, behaviours, training, etc., are the same as Blue’s, even if we are not too sure what Blue’s are
30/04/16 dkh©2004 33
So… • In the first instance, create Blue from your
own designs, filling in parameter values from knowledge, experience or SWAG – Employ appropriate, trusted weather and radio
transmission models, typical Rx/Tx sensitivities & powers, and so on
– Having created Blue, replicate to create Red and couple so that the sensors and weapons of Blue seek Red and vice versa.
– Run the model. First run should be a standoff, with both parties inflicting and receiving equal damage (e.g. averaged out over, say, 1,000 runs)
30/04/16 dkh©2004 34
Wheatstone Bridge? • In a sense, the two interacting models operate
like a Wheatstone Bridge (look it up!)
– Things that we may not know about in both Blue or Red tend to cancel out
– If we think,say, ethics, may be a showstopper, then we insert the same model element for ethics on both sides:
• No difference. However… • Change Blue Ethics and the effects of “just and only”
ethics on operational effectiveness may be observed • If it is minor, then ignore • If it is major, then we need to know—research!
30/04/16 dkh©2004 35
Blue & Red Firing Patterns
4:28 PM Wed, May 31, 2000
Firing
Page 20.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00
Time
1:
1 :
1 :
2 :
2 :
2 :
3 :
3 :
3 :
0.00
25.00
50.00
0.00
4.00
8.00
1: Weapons Display 2: Naive Decision Out[Fire Weapon] 3: RPD Decision Out[Fire Weapon]
1 1 1
1
2 2 2 23 3 3 3
• Combatants close, engage, continue closing • Initially “work out” firing opportunities (pink, using logic) • Eventually just fire as fast as possible (green, using
experience‚RPD)
30/04/16 dkh©2004 36
• Establish a scenario – E.g. 2 identical land forces, 100m separation, engaging, weather
• Install identical technology – Radars, jammers, ESM, navigation, engines, weapons, situation
displays, battle damage displays, formation control, maintenance, etc.
• Install identical people – Training, cognitive abilities, experience, learning capability,
behaviour, etc. • Establish identical C2 processes
– Assess situation, identify threats, etc. – Make decisions—engage, withdraw, fire, repair damage, etc.
• Underpin with comprehensive cost models – Capital, maintenance, operating, damage repair, people…costs
Using the Model—1
30/04/16 dkh©2004 37
Using the Model—2 • Identical forces engage, score identical results
– Cost effectiveness, cost-exchange ratios, casualty exchange ratios
• Hold one force constant. Change only one item on other force, say active radar transmitter power
• Run model again – Any difference in results due to single change ∴ changing Tx power makes… δE difference to
overall effectiveness (E) • in that scenario against that opposition
• Takes account of all interactions, dynamics, costs
30/04/16 dkh©2004 38
Effectiveness is Emergent Effectiveness—COTS Vs.Bespoke Weapon
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
Blue Cost Effectiveness Red Cost Effectiveness Cost Exchange Ratio
Separation (nm)30.4 23.8 17.8 12.4 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2
Equal time intervals
Red Force —Bespoke
Weapon
Blue Force —COTS Weapon
30/04/16 dkh©2004 39
Using the Model—3 • Can optimize one force’s technology:—
– Against given opposition in given scenario
• Vary performance of each component up—measure—down—measure and restore
• Repeat for all components—install single change that made biggest increase in, say, cost effectiveness
• Repeat process until no further increase (20-30 cycles?) • Process is cumulative selection. • Result is optimum set of technologies,
– with ideal MOPs = requirements?
30/04/16 dkh©2004 40
Test Bed • The Interacting Blue Red Force Model
becomes a test bed: what are… – Effects of training on Effectiveness? – Can a smarter missile make up for not-so-smart
operators/decision-makers? – Effects on Effectiveness of increasing active
radar power? – …carrying more/less weapons – Etc., etc.,
• Possible to ratchet overall design, too.
Increasing Blue Tx Power
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Increasing Radar Tx Power
Casualty ER Poly. (Casualty ER) Establishing Requirements
• Model indicates optimum radar Tx power
• too low, cannot detect target
• too high alerts enemy ESM
• Sound approach to establishing MOPs and Requirements • Views radar in context as part of C2 system, in combat,
interacting with other systems—including Red systems! • Not in isolation as a disconnected building block
Casualty Exchange Ratio
30/04/16 dkh©2004 42
Identical Combatants—Caution!
• Each MoE is a complex emergent property
• Combat unpredictability makes them more so!
• Not a simple weighting and scoring game! 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Blue Cost Effectiveness Distribution
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Cost Exchange Ratio
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Casualty Exchange Ratio