A Strategy for Evolving a Whole System Modeling Capability

Jack RingInnovation Management

jring@amug.org

Prepared forIEEE Systems Conference 2009

Vancouver, BC, CanadaMarch 24, 2009

Agenda

1. Memes (terminology)

2. Process flow

3. Findings

4. Conclusions

1. Memes

A. Problematic Situation

B. Capability

C. Whole System

D. Modeling

E. Strategy

1A: Problematic Situation

Extent

Variety

Ambiguity

Low Med High

Extent: # of cognatesVariety: # of unique cognates, both temporal and semioticAmbiguity: fog, conflicting data, cognitive overload

‘Wicked’ Problems

1950 1980 2010

Whole SystemRealization

SoSE

Traditional SE

Situ

atio

n

1B: Capability

LanguageLevel

# Statements Normal-ized

Machine 320 80

Assembler 213 53

C 128 32

Fortran 77 105 28

COBOL 91 26

ADA 71 18

APL 32 8

O-O 29 7

Icon O-O 4 1

2005 2015

# WSE Practitioners < 100 > 100,000

Level of Modeling Language X 10X

Basis1 million practitioners• Expect net loss because

Baby Boom retirees > education replacement.

• Requires 10-fold increase in Productivity of practitioners and in ‘Learnativity’ of developers.

1.C: Whole System

* Lab, integration, acceptance, production, readiness, confidence

ProblemSuppression

System

Operational Availability System

Production Sys

OperatorPreparation

System

Test System(s)*

ProblemSystem

Problematic

Situation

Should be interpreted as “informs”Note:

1D: Model-based

Minimal Implicate Order

Relevant Emergence

The truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the truth.

InformaticsThermodynamics

TeleonomicsSocial Dynamics

EconomicsEcologics

As contrasted to Requirements-driven models!

1E: Strategy

Objective(Result)

ImpedimentImpediment

Impediment

Scenario of Resource Allocation intended to overcome Impediments to achieving an Objective

Resource Resource Resource

Resource Overcoming Impediment

2. Process Flow

Panelists11+Moderator

Nominate Impediments141

Each Pick Top 511 29

“IA aggravates IB”Y/N

ImpedimentsCategoryScores

10

Influence Map13 stages

Nominate Resources

9+2 91

Each Pick Top 58 32

Relative Readiness by Category

Likelihood: Resources > Impediments

Likelihood: Valid Objectives

Recommendations16

3. Findings

Impediments Influence MapStage 6 Stage 13

Models are not deliverables nor documents. (62B)

Failure to state the goals of the model before modeling (82D)

Lack of willingness to be responsible and accountable. (93D)

Insufficient shared language among modelers (30E)

Lack of temporal dynamics in models (100D)

Criteria for assessing meaning of the model output (67H)

V&V model quality and utility (113H)

Insufficient knowledge shared between modelers and intended model users.(31C)General lack

of modeling discipline (in the SE population) (74H)

Engineers have to quit arguing about this, and just "get 'er done" (90E)

To model or not - cost, risks, benefits (105H)

Defining scope of the model (system limits) (106H)

Should be interpreted as “significantly help reduce”jring@amug.org, 9/1/2007

Lack of integration between modeling tools (86G)

Intersection of Orthogonal Models: (53G)

Deciding Investment= f(Quality, Scope) (55E)

Modeling extra-system (non-designed) interactions to the system (112D)Inability to

control level of abstraction (when modeling) (78H)

Selection of assumptions, definitions, and evaluation criteria (108H)

Impediments Influence MapStage 1

Should be interpreted as “significantly help reduce”

Stage 6

Modern systems exhibit complex behavior (1A)

Preoccupation with Requirements Management obfuscates systems engineering. (115H)

Confusion of virtual reality and reality in simulation and modeling (125F)

Funding profile does not support early modeling (83B)

Lack of clarity of purpose of models (54B)

Practitioners stuck in an inadequate paradigm (99E)

The correct level(s) of detail for models (107B)

General desire to avoid precision (in the SE process) (75E)

Difficulty validating complex simulation outcomes (6G)

Reliance on intuition instead of reason for big-picture decisions. (119B)

Failure to state the goals of the model before modeling (82D)

Insufficient language regarding system attributes (29H)

jring@amug.org 9/1/2007

Impediments Influence MapStage 6 Stage 13

62B82D

93D

30E100D

67H

113H

31C

74H90E

105H

106H

Should be interpreted as “significantly help reduce”jring@amug.org, 9/1/2007

86G 53G

55E

112D

78H

108H

Impediments Influence MapStage 1

Should be interpreted as “significantly help reduce”

Stage 6

1A

115H

125F

83B

54B

9E

107B

75E

6G

119B

82D

29H

jring@amug.org 9/1/2007

(54B) Lack of clarity of purpose of models

(99E) Practitioners stuck in an inadequate paradigm (99E) Practitioners stuck in an inadequate paradigm

(107B) The correct level(s) of detail for models

(1A) Modern systems exhibit complex behavior

(6G) Difficulty validating complex simulation outcomes

(83B) Funding profile does not support early modeling

(119B) Reliance on intuition instead of reason for big-picture decisions.

(125F) Confusion of virtual reality and reality in simulation and modeling

Most Influential Impediments

2. Process Flow

Panelists11+Moderator

Nominate Impediments141

Each Pick Top 511 29

“IA aggravates IB”Y/N

ImpedimentsCategoryScores

10

Influence Map13 stages

Nominate Resources

9+2 91

Each Pick Top 58 32

Relative Readiness by Category

Likelihood: Resources > Impediments

Likelihood: Valid Objectives

Recommendations16

Impediment Category Scores

CI Category

100 B-Worth (perception by stakeholders/sponsors of Value = Worth – Cost of a system model and a modeling activity)

47 G-Technologies for modeling and simulation

37 A-Challenge (degree of extent, variety, ambiguity, complexity inherent in the situation)

34 E-Capacity of SE Workforce to satisfy world-wide demand

24 F-Liability for inadequate, inaccurate, misleading models.

22 D-Producing Results (modeler methods, styles, proficiencies)

-16 H-BoK, access to an adequate, accurate and timely Body of Knowledge regarding whole system modeling.

-18 C-Communicating (gaps and issues in ensuring that beneficiaries comprehend a system model)

2. Process Flow

Panelists11+Moderator

Nominate Impediments141

Each Pick Top 511 29

“IA aggravates IB”Y/N

ImpedimentsCategoryScores

10

Influence Map13 stages

Nominate Resources

9+2 91

Each Pick Top 58 32

Relative Readiness by Category

Likelihood: Resources > Impediments

Likelihood: Valid Objectives

Recommendations16

Relative Readiness Scores

CI OR Category

47 100 G-Technologies for modeling and simulation

100 88 B-Worth (perception by stakeholders/sponsors of Value = Worth – Cost of a system model and a modeling activity)

34 81 E-Capacity of SE Workforce to satisfy world-wide demand

37 41 A-Challenge (degree of extent, variety, ambiguity, complexity inherent in the situation)

-16 31 H-BoK, access to an adequate, accurate and timely Body of Knowledge regarding whole system modeling.

-18 28 C-Communicating (gaps and issues in ensuring that beneficiaries comprehend a system model)

22 6 D-Producing Results (modeler methods, styles, proficiencies)

24 0 F-Liability for inadequate, inaccurate, misleading models.

Reconciling Different Scales

Impediments Resources

e.g. Fahrenheit e.g. Celsius

2. Process Flow

Panelists11+Moderator

Nominate Impediments141

Each Pick Top 511 29

“IA aggravates IB”Y/N

ImpedimentsCategoryScores

10

Influence Map13 stages

Nominate Resources

9+2 91

Each Pick Top 58 32

Relative Readiness by Category

Likelihood: Resources > Impediments

Likelihood: Valid Objectives

Recommendations16

Likelihood of Achieving Objective?

CI OR Category FS %

100 88 B-Worth (perception by stakeholders/sponsors of Value = Worth – Cost of a system model and a modeling activity)

2.8 H

34 81 E-Capacity of SE Workforce to satisfy world-wide demand

2.3 H

37 41 A-Challenge (degree of extent, variety, ambiguity, complexity inherent in the situation)

2.1 M

-18 28 C-Communicating (gaps and issues in ensuring that beneficiaries comprehend a system model)

2.1 M

22 6 D-Producing Results (modeler methods, styles, proficiencies)

1.7 M

-16 31 H-BoK, access to an adequate, accurate and timely Body of Knowledge regarding whole system modeling.

1.2 L

24 0 F-Liability for inadequate, inaccurate, misleading models. 1.1 H

47 100 G-Technologies for modeling and simulation 1 M

Fused Score key: 1 = greatly insufficient, 2 = insufficient, 3 = sufficient

Validity of Presumed Objective

Objectives Degree of Need

Concurrence Level

Whole System Models Necessary 75% (fairly high)

By year 2015 Too late 75% (fairly high)

100,000 practitioners About right 59% (fairly low)

10X better About right 59% (fairly low)

Highlights of 16 Conclusions

1. The systems engineering community is not ready to meet the presumed societal need.

2. Our estimate of probable error in our findings indicates that a more comprehensive and thorough study be conducted.

3. The strategic objectives of 100,000 practitioners at 10X productivity by 2015 should be confirmed or revised.

4. Meanwhile, the systems engineering community should conduct a real project to demonstrate the worth of whole systems modeling

Else?

See Also ---

http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/ieeetw/issues/2009-02-23/4.html

--- first IEEE Conference in Serious Games and Virtual Worlds, 24-25 March, 2009

There’s no better way to prepare for the rigors of the systems world than locking yourself in a room and playing a video game.

AND

http://blog.wolfram.com/2009/03/05/wolframalpha-is-coming/

For a forthcoming MBSE tool.

Questions?

Thank You!