Systems of systems that manage health care or enable Albert’s “power to the edge” are expected to provide the flexibility to engage multiple enterprises in innovative, collaborative, ways to solve problems. This paper describes a systems engineering approach to engineer infrastructure that will support the restriction of systems of systems behavior at the time of use rather than at design time. We present a process for describing demands within their context of use, and how organizational variations in collaborative approaches (geometries-of-use) can be re-lated to variations in these demands-in-context (pragmat-ics), thus giving a way to engineer a systems-of-systems’ agility i.e. its ability to adapt to changing demands.

1. Systems of Systems Engineering and
the Pragmatics of Demand
Software Engineering Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Philip Boxer, Bernie Cohen, Bill Anderson, Ed Morris
9th April 2008
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 1

2. The focus of the talk
Q1: How do we analyse systems of systems that do not have pre-defined
boundaries?
Q2: How do (socio-technical) systems of systems align themsleves to changing
varieties of demand?
– Healthcare systems
– Edge-driven military systems
A (1 and 2): By understanding how the pragmatics of demand translate into
geometries-of-use
– Geometries-of-use are particular patterns of interoperation
– The agility of a SoS is a function of the variety of geometries it can support
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 2

3. The US DoD perception of the evolution of SoS
Source: US DoD Enterprise Architecture Technical Reference Model [v0.04 dated 20 August 2005,
http://www.defenselink.mil/cio-nii/docs/DOD_TRM_V0.4_10Aug.pdf]
Organizational
silos
Process
Chains
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 3

4. CHALLENGE
How are all these systems to interoperate?
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 4

5. Organisation affects semantics in unpredictable ways
Each represents the engineering of a meaning in terms of
the particular way it is implemented
Understanding the meaning
depends on understanding
exactly how it has been
implemented
layer 1: Machine Level Interoperability (lexis)
layer 4: Organizational Interoperability
(shared understanding of organizational processes)
layer 3: Semantic Interoperability
(shared understanding of meaning)
layer 2: Syntactic Interoperability
(language syntax)
Eg TCP/IP
protocol
Eg C++,
Java, XML
Often domain
specific
Key here is the way things
are understood to be
actionable
Standards try to base semantic
issues on syntax – if you say it
like this, then this is what you
must mean…
Standards are not enough
Source: Why standards are not enough to Guarantee End-to-End Interoperability, Lewis et al, 2008
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 5

6. The layers
read into
a
particular
context
Stratification layers
We have some missing layers…
1: Machine Level Interoperability
(lexis)
2: Syntactic Interoperability
(language syntax)
3: Semantic Interoperability
(shared understanding of meaning)
4: Organisational Interoperability
(shared understanding of organizational processes)
5: Situational Interoperability
(the way a situation is engaged with)
6: Effects Environment
(the contexts-of-use in which effects are created)
effect
decisive
moment
composite
capability
operational
capability
fielded
capability
equipment
capability
Engineering
constraints
‘supply-side’
pragmatic
constraints
‘demand-side’
The size of this overlap
depends on how over-
determining are the
engineering constraints
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 6

7. Modeling SoS Complexity in Context
 Visual PAN† Models—a layered, graphically
represented, relational model whose schema is
identified by the study team and which is populated by
subject matter experts in a workshop setting
Analysis is done in Three Stages:
† PAN (Projective ANalysis) is used with permission of BRL.
Defining this stratification involves modeling the forms of
interoperability defining a system of systems (SoS) involved in the
launch of a NATO modernization program....
…. Including the many ground and airborne systems and diverse
organizations (as virtual systems) required to operate and sustain
the NATO AWACS fleet.



 Interoperability Landscapes—3-D histograms,
derived by the study team from the PAN Matrices
considered as simplicial complexes, which are
the primary representation for reasoning back to
the stakeholder community
 Stratification Matrices—a stratified collection of
Boolean matrices, derived from the Visual PAN Models
by relational operators defined by the study team,
that relate the supply side and demand side structures
of the client's enterprise
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 7

8. a campaign plan
Decisive
Moments
6: Effects6
Composition to Achieve Effects
We can think of this
stratification as a stepped
series of matrices:
‘supply-
side’
‘demand-side’
Composite
Capabilitiesa mission
5
Synchronization
Operational
Capabilities
a geometry of
use
4
a force
elementFielded Capabilities
3
Customization
Orchestration
an activity
chain
Equipment
Capabilities
1
2
Value-chain
management
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 8

9. THE PRAGMATICS OF DEMAND
So how do we look more closely at the demand-side from which the ‘pull’ is
coming?
Analysing ‘geometries of use’
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 9

10. Demand – what are the effects being supported?
Problem
domain
Drivers of
situations
Situation 3
Situation 1
impacts
on
context-independent
demand
impacts
on
c-level
Knowledgedomain
The particular
mission
environment
mission
Uses composite
capabilities
Demand Situation A
(an overall threat situation)
Demand Situation B
(an overall threat situation)
Situation 4
Situation 2
context-independent
demand
Situation 5
mission
mission
mission
mission
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 10

11. Matrix 6: An effects ladder
(Isolate the Battlefield)
(Deny Access)
Destroy
Fuel
Reserve
Destroy
Bridge 1
Destroy
Bridge 2
Reverse
River
Crossing
Halt
Second
EchelonDestroy
Enemy
Will
Win the War
Traffic Density Units in BivouacAcceleration of
Straggler Count
River Clear
DMPI 1 DMPI 2
Carpet
Bomb
Drop
Leaflets
Objective
Indicator
Effect Desired
• direct effect
• indirect effect
• complex effect
• cumulative effect
Effects Based
Operations Terms
Task/Activity
(Mechanism)
Source: M. McCrabb, “Effects-based Operations: An Overview” Available: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/af/ebo.ppt.
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 11

12. Enemycrossesboarder
Enemyreachesriver
Enemycrossesriver
Recceapproachesenemy
Reccecomnesintocontactwithenemy
Enemyreachesmeetingengagementlocation
Metingengagement
Enemydefeated
Enemyfollow-onforcesadvance
Composite Capabilities
X X X X X X X X Support Recce
X X Identify enemy routes
X X X X Report state
X X X Identify crossing
X X X Continuous observation
X X X X Detect and Track
X X X X X Cue strike
X X X X Bda
X X X Monitor
X X X X Identify tragets
X X X Identify patrols
X X X X Support deception
X X X X X X X X X Report movement
Decisive Moments
Reverse
River
Crossing
Synchronisation Matrix 5
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 12

13. Forceelement1
Forceelement2
Forceelement3
Forceelement4
Forceelement5
Forceelement6
Forceelement7
Forceelement8
Forceelement9
Forceelement10
Forceelement11
Forceelement12
Forceelement13
Forceelement14
Composite Capabilities
x x x x x x Support Recce
x x x x x x x x Identify enemy routes
x x x x x x x Report state
x x x x x x x x x Identify crossing
x x x x x x Continuous observation
x x x x x x x Detect and Track
x x x x x x Cue strike
x x x x x x x x x x Bda
x x x x x x x x x x Monitor
x x x x x x x Identify tragets
x x x x x Identify patrols
x x x x Support deception
x x x x x x x x Report movement
Operational Capability
Geometries-of-use Matrix 4
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 13

14. Geometry-of-use Landscape
The more jagged the landscape, the greater the variety of geometries
These two geometries are placed next to each other because
there share common force elements, and are also different
to their neighbours
This is a specialised geometry that
has limited elements in common
with other geometries
‘q’ measures the
extent of shared
force elements
n
‘n’ measures the
number of other
geometries with that
level of shared force
elements
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 14

15. TO CONCLUDE
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 15

16. To Conclude
An effects ladder can be analysed in terms of the geometries needed to
support the sequences of events generating its decisive moments.
The variety of geometries across an appropriate number of effects ladders
defines the degree of agility required of the supporting systems of systems.
This requisite variety can then be used to define the granularity of the
functionality that the supporting systems need to provide.
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 16

17. END
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 17

18. Enemy
crosses
border
Enemy
reaches
river
Enemy
crosses
river
Recce
approaches
enemy
Recce
contacts
enemy
Enemy
reaches
location
Meeting
engage-
ment
Enemy
defeated
Event Sequence contained within Decisive Moment
Reverse
River
Crossing
The Sequence of Events contained in the
Decisive Moment
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 18

19. The limitations of ‘Whole Product’ Thinking
The supplier cannot anticipate all the ways in which their product will be
used.
“In marketing, a whole product is a generic
product augmented by everything that is needed
for the customer to have a compelling reason to
buy. The generic product is what is usually
shipped to the customer. The whole product
typically augments the generic product with
training and support, manuals, cables, additional
software or hardware, installation instructions,
professional services, etc.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_product
‘Push’
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 19

20. The shift from ‘push’ to ‘pull’ logics
A (socio-technical)
system of systems must
support a wide variety
of operational effects
– Healthcare
– Edge-driven
responses to
threats
‘Pull’
Orchestration &
Synchronisation
Materiel &
Technology
Leadership &
Education
Facilities &
Infrastructure
Doctrine &
Concepts
Shared
Culture
&Trust
Situational
Awareness
Force
Cohesion &
Training
Edge
Organisation
Operational
Effects
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 20

21. How do we move from a ‘push’ to a ‘pull’
perspective?
We need a way of thinking through how the ‘push’ perspective can be
aligned to the other ‘pull’ perspective.
Model ‘Push’
Operational
Effects
Orchestration &
Synchronisation
Situational
Awareness
Doctrine &
Concepts
Materiel &
Technology
Shared
Culture
&Trust
Edge
Organisation
Leadership
& Education
‘Pull’
Force
Cohesion &
Training
Facilities &
Infrastructure
Copyright © Philip Boxer 2008 21