optimizing the total system · 2016. 1. 15. · joint ipt! market systems! engineering! sub-systems...

9-Feb-14 2004©DKHitchins 1

Optimizing the Total System

Professor Derek K Hitchins


Systems engineering Principles •  Systems engineering is, essentially, a problem solving

methodology, e.g., –  “The art and science of creating optimal system solutions to

complex problems”

•  The proper application of systems engineering observes three fundamental system tenets: –  Holistic—encompass the whole issue or problem –  Organismic—all parts interact to behave as a unified whole –  Synthetic—bring parts together under a single, overarching

CONOPS and architecture •  No Cartesian reduction - it contradicts the first two tenets


Issue

Identify differences betweenReal and Ideal World

Verify

PotentialImprovements

Identify problemsymptoms

Group problem symptomsinto problem themes

Model problem themes(Ideal World)

Generate options to resolve Issue

Generate criteriafor an ideal solution

Synthesize, prove & deploy preferredsolution option(s)

ReferenceModels

Conceive optimal solution

Redo to address

unresolved problems

Systems Engineering

Paradigm

• functional • physical • behavioral

Address all problem components to avoid (Forrester’s) Counter-intuitive response

Use tools and methods to accommodate complexity

Ensure solution completeness— if any solution exists

Logical, consistent, but not necessarily culturally acceptable

Avoid reduction to maintain solution system coherence


SE & Defence Acquisition •  Smart Procurement /Acquisition appears to be neither

holistic nor organismic •  System of Systems appears to be “bottom-up-

integration” –  Dangerously incorrect method of joining systems –  cause of many disasters in the past

•  Prima facie, Defence Acquisition not consistent with systems engineering in UK or US –  UK and US both effectively failed to introduce Japanese-

style lean commercial SE, COTS, etc… –  …as required by Lord Robertson in UK, 1996/7 –  …and by US Administration c.1995(?)


…taking a fresh look…

…but, is it already too late…?


Product/sub-system Engineering

Project System Engineering

Business System Engineering

Industry System Engineering

Socio-Economic Systems Engineering

The 5-Layer Systems Engineering Model •  International Commonwealth. Social,

economic, political and defence interactions.

•  National Wealth Creation, the Nation’s Engine. (Japan operates at this level)

•  Industrial Wealth Creation. Many Businesses make an industry

•  Corporate Wealth Creation. (The West operates at this level.)

•  Technology Artefacts. To some the only “real” systems engineering. Many Products (can) make a system

1

2

3

4

5


SE at Levels 4 & 5 •  Contemporary “SE” in US & UK aimed exclusively at Levels

1 & 2: –  Purpose: to engineer technological artefacts/systems –  Employs questionable heuristics –  Underwritten neither by theory nor science –  Wholly inappropriate for application at Levels 4 & 5

•  Levels 4 & 5 SE: –  Purpose: to conceive/design/ optimize/develop/create:

•  socio-technical systems, socio-political systems, organizational systems, national/global industries, pipeline systems, national/ international defence…

•  …and people systems—but not technological systems

•  Surprise 1: Level 1 & 2 engineering heuristics don’t work too well at Levels 3 & 4

•  Surprise 2: there is a scientific Systems Methodology (SM) that works at any level

• Let’s do some Systems Analysis


Partssupply

Conceive

Design

Develop

Prove

AssembleProduce

Partssupply Sales Market

Conceive

Design

Develop

Prove

AssembleProduce

First Tier Supplier Lead Business

Second Tier Supplier

ProjectSystemsEngineering

ProjectSystemsEngineering

ManufacturingSystems Engineering

ManufacturingSystems Engineering

Supply Chain Systems Engineering

Joint IPT

Market Systems Engineering

Sub-systems Engineering

Hydraulics, pneumatics, radar, communications, electrics, engines, weapons, avionics, instruments, information, cockpit…systems engineering

Inside Industry Systems Engineering

Dissatisfaction

Marketpull, money

Companypull, money

Supplierpull, money

Innovation

FailuresRepairs

Spares,skills,data

Marketpull, money

•!multi-sourcing•!reconfiguration

•!source and market!replacement•!multi-sourcing•!reconfiguration

Lean Volume Supply System

•  Material flows clockwise •  Money flows anticlockwise

Rate of innovation key to material and money flow rates

Japanese, Agile

Suppliers

Resources

Company

Market

Marketobsolescence

Scrapping

Recycling

Responseto demand

Parts ondemand

Resourceson demand

Extraction

•  Circle becomes progressively leaner, more efficient and more effective over time using Kaizen

Suppliers

Resources

Company

Scrapping

Recycling

Suppliers

Resources

Company

Market

Scrapping

RecyclingMarket

obsolescence

•  Competitive Evolution!•  Progressive quality improvement!•  Progressive cost reduction!

•  Constructive competition is between Supply Circles,

•  Not between Companies in a Supply Circle—that’s self-destructive!

Supply Chain Competition


Total System Acquisition (TSA) Closure •  To gain closure we must

include the consumer— rate of consumption determines the rate of supply by ALVSS

•  ALVSS needs to operate continuously, else collapse

•  Commercially, innovation renders goods obsolescent –  Creates market pull

•  Defence obliged to acquire like a commercial consumer, but of defence products

•  Defence no longer major customer c.f. commerce

•  …so, economy of scale may dictate combined commercial/defence ALVSS

Agile Lean Volume Supply System

DefenceMarket

CommercialMarket

Defence Operations

Recycling

Commercial operat ions

Continualinnovation

MarketPull

Recycling

Continualreplacement

ContinualInnovation

Defence market pull

Continualupgrade


Demand

InService

First TierSupplierFirst TierSupplier

RawMaterialsSupply

RawMaterialsSupply

SecondTier

Supplier

SecondTier

SupplierLead

Contractor

First TierSuppliers

SecondTier

Suppliers

DefenseMarket

Recycling

RawMaterialsSupply

Money

Material

Operation

Test &Evaluation

Obsolescence

Upgrades & Variants

Innovation

Lean Volume Supply SystemLean Volume Supply System

LeadContractor

Competing LVSS

Level 4 Defence SE— Total System Acquisition & Operation Continuum

The two circles synchronize Each drives the other Each supports and enables the other They form one, organismic system…


Level 5 Defence SE—Overview

Test

Buy "off the shelf"

Operational Use

UpgradeVariant

Replacement

Test

Buy "off the shelf"

Operational Use

UpgradeVariant

Replacement

Test

Buy "off the shelf"

Operational Use

UpgradeVariant

Replacement

UpgradeVariant

Replacement

• Wealth Creation in Europe • reduced public spending • reduced taxation • Socio-economic stability – within Europe + between customer countries • Balance to US industrial dominance • International Political Stability

Lead Company

Resources

Extraction

Recycler

Market


Second TierSupplierSecond TierSupplierSecond TierSupplier

Third TierSupplierThird TierSupplierThird TierSupplierThird TierSupplier

Lead Company

Resources

Extraction

Recycler

Lean, VolumeSupply Circle

Lean, VolumeSupply Circle Market


Second TierSupplierSecond Tier

SupplierSecond Tier

Supplier

Third TierSupplierThird TierSupplierThird TierSupplierThird TierSupplier

European Leads Global Enterprises Customer countries

Military CustomersMilitary Customers

Synchronized Spin Rates

Circles “mesh” like gears

Spin rates driven by defence spending


Smart Acquisition Vs. TSA Smart Acquisition Factor Total Systems Acquisition

Customer pays Development Cost Industry pays Customer Development Risk Industry

Trust paper promise Customer mode Try before buy Customer Financial Exposure Industry

Prevents supply circles Competition Between supply circles Phased, controlled, slow Development Cycle Commercial, fast, expert

10-20 years Time to market 12-48 months Excluded due to long cycle? COTS Products Included

Customer suppressed! Innovation Industry inspired High (low throughput) Production Cost Low, getting lower (Kaizen) Outmoded at delivery Design currency Contemporary

Periodic, take out of service? Upgrades Continual, by industry in-service Tight, software intensive Systems coupling Loose for continual upgrade

Periodically improved in service Performance Continually improved in service Moderate; 10-20 years Lifetime Long; c.30-60 years

Integrated Project Team IPT Integrated Product Team 30/500 IPT Size 5/6

Control design & manufacture IPT Purpose Serve customer, better, faster, cheaper


Defence Capability Acquisition …moving up one hierarchy level… …make the capability bespoke…

…with the platforms being COTS… Now, that would be Smart…


Procuring Defence Capabilities •  Procuring complete defence capabilities:

–  Allows whole capability to be one system… –  …essential with network centric/enabled solutions

•  Allows correct synthesis under overarching CONOPS and architecture for capability –  this opens door wide to COTS –  avoids “bottom-up” disasters

•  Operational networks enable cooperation: capability becomes organismic = unified whole

•  …and procuring a whole capability to address a whole problem is holistic

•  Consistent with fundamental systems engineering principles

Acquiring Capability

Set Goal Defence Capabilities

Synthesize Alternative Force Structures Synthesize Alternative Force Structures Synthesize Alternative Force Structures

Establish Doctrine, Strategies, and CONOPS

Select “Optimal” Force Structure

Foreign policy National security

Defence capability goal

Force representations - current

- potential Structure options

Target structure

Formal policies Socio-political analysis

Effectiveness criteria

Identify Suitable Components in Market Identify Suitable Components in Market Identify Suitable Components in Market Components options Market intelligence

Select Optimal Components Target components Contribution criteria

Test & Evaluate Contribution to Capability Component contribution Component shortlist

Integrate into Structure Achieved capability

Buy “off shelf” Funding Acquisitions

PROCESS INPUT OUTPUT


SM Example: Doctrine, Strategy & CONOPS

Command

LoadAircraft

Launch Arrive in Area

InsertForce

Alert

Formatewith Cadre

Cadre defends

Locate incursors

Identifyincursors

Reconnoitre

Engage

• UAVs• satellite

• psy-ops• non-lethal• anti-armour• lethal

Neutralize

Repair,replenish

ReservesInsertresources/

collect returnsBase repair

BaseLogistics

Intelligence

UN

Extract Force

• cadre remains

•  Global capability, US MLF 2010, open plains, desert and tundra… •  Note continuity of operations: once started, continues until all “incursors” neutralized •  This CLM may be simulated, using a non-linear dynamic modelling tool, to investigate:

•  Time delays • logistics • Effects of operations on reserves, maintenance, and vice versa •  Results of simulation may invoke changes to CONOPS •  Final CONOPS defines functional capabilities and architectures for whole force…


SM: Network-enabled CONOPS

PatrolDeploy raptors

Reconnoitre

Detect

Locate

Raptors deploy

Dragonflies

Gather Intel

Examine

Report

Identify

Decide action Allocatetargets

Form RASP

Deploy armedraptors

Engage

Dragonfliesobserve, report

Neutralizetargets

Raptors deploy

Dragonflies

Refuel

Rearm

Rejoin

CONOPS presumes that the group, or SWARM, employs network-centric cooperative tactics, with mutually-shared Recognized Air and Surface Picture, plus cooperative automatic target detection, identification, assessment, and target allocation.

Air Transport deploys LTEs LTEs deploy raptors Raptors deploy dragonflies…


Design Optimization •  Designs may be optimized

using cumulative selection •  The diagram shows a

method of optimization called “ratcheting”

•  First the design in right hand part is frozen

•  Design in the left creates offspring, each slightly dissimilar to the parent

•  The best performing offspring then breeds

•  The two sides swap, and the process repeats…

OffspringFighter

Generation

OffspringFighter

Generation

Offspringfighter

generation

"Seed"fighter

Many-on-manycombat

simulation

Selectedfighter

Enemythreat

Stable?

Current fighter

Stable?

Selectedenemythreat

Many-on-manycombat

simulation

"Seed"threat

OffspringFighter

Generation

OffspringFighter

Generation

Offspringthreat

generation


SM: Exploring Dynamic Interchanges •  Two systems engaged in an operational environment •  Each is supported, and its behavior influenced, by

supporting functions…

Form

Behavior

MissionManagement

ResourceManagement

ViabilityManagement

Environment

LogisticsSystem

ProcurementSystemSuppliers

Form Behavior

MissionManagement

ResourceManagement

ViabilityManagement

LogisticsSystem

ProcurementSystem

SuppliersMaintenance

Maintenance


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


Conclusions 1.  Design whole defence acquisition system along commercial lines - using

provable, science-based Systems Methodology 2.  Establish a transitional program to move from present bureaucratized

approach towards target acquisition system design… 3.  Trial commercial-style acquisition of just one full defence capability:

•  free industry to conceive, design, develop, construct, deliver and… •  support in service…

4.  For trial, customer-user states only: •  requisite capability, CONOPS, architecture, timescales, budget—not solution

5.  Industry keeps 50% of any price undercuts, but pays for any overprice… 6.  …and payments happen after 1 year of successful capability deployment •  Customer-user has nothing to do with any requirements, build standards,

COTS or bespoke, progress control, management - nothing! •  Customer-user has everything to do with post delivery operational tests,

trials and validations—i.e., thorough “try-before-buy” •  That way, we might just achieve really Smart Acquisition…

optimizing the total system · 2016. 1. 15. · joint ipt! market systems! engineering! sub-systems...

Documents