UAST * and Evolving Systems of Systems in the Age of the Black Swan Part 1: Class 1 and Class 2...

[email protected], attributed copies permitted 1

UAST * and Evolving Systems of Systems in the Age of the Black Swan

Part 1: Class 1 and Class 2 Agile System Concepts

Excerpts from a presentation at

UAST Tutorial Session, ITEA LVC Conference,

12 Jan 2009, El Paso, TX.

* UAST: Unmanned Autonomous Systems Test

“The overall concept of operations for UAST must […be] an evolutionary model that takes into account the rapid advancement of technology development in UAS. In aggregate, the UAS technology sector advantage is manifesting on a time scale of 2-4 months for next generational improvements. DoDI 5000.2 E 12.7 states, ‘Program managers shall employ a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) to design for affordable change, enable evolutionary acquisition, and rapidly field affordable systems that are interoperable in the joint battle space.’

BAA UAST0002, A-4 UAST Concept of Operations, p 54.


A Note on Black Swans

The Black Swan metaphor is used currently to signify a low probability but catastrophic event. Popular usage emphasizes this low probability.

What is ignored in many examples of recent black swan eventsis that they have been enabled by situational evolution, and

will occur with increasing frequency.

It is accurate to see them as unprecedented…having rarely if ever occurred before.

It is inaccurate, in many cases,to think they are equally unlikely to occur again.

Contributing elements of situational evolution:Globalism, ubiquitous networks, technological literacy, empowered individuals,

4th and 5th generation warfare, complex interconnected systems, …

read: Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan, Random House, 2007see: www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9713


Unmanned (Autonomous) Systems


0.4 gram camera and transmitter of the

DelFly micro

Weight 3 grams.10 cm tip-to-tip.Speed 5 m/sec.Flies 3 mins on 1 gram battery.

Dragonfly-likeMicro Air Vehicle(MAV)

www.delfly.nl/?site=DIII&menu=media&lang=nlJuly 2008


World's Largest Truck Goes Robotic

Nov. 6, 2008 -- The largest truck in the world is about to become the largest robotic vehicle in the world. Computer scientists from Carnegie Mellon University have teamed up with engineers from Caterpillar to automate the 700-ton trucks, which are made to haul loads up to 240 tons from mines.That's nearly two million pounds of metal, fuel and stone powered by a 3,550-horsepower, 24-valve engine moving at up to 42 miles per hour, with software and a robot at the wheel.

Fully automated mining trucks promise to reduce maintenance costs while

increasing productivity. By running at peak capacity 24 hours a day, seven

days a week, the trucks could be up to 100 percent more productive

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/06/monster-robot-truck.html

(Hack these and send an army of themon your own mission – a James Bond plot?)


Problems to Address in UAS TestSituation…• UAS technology advancement is accelerating on a broadening front.• UAS technology is becoming truly autonomous.• Impatient demand for replacing the human in harm’s way.

Testing must deal with…• Behaviors of lethal UAS that interact with their environment.• Groups that will cooperate on joint missions (swarms/teams/etc).• Groups composed of different types/technologies/ages .• Very large groups.• Ensuring safety of testers and test facilities.• Ensuring safety of surrounding communities and properties.• Expected emergent behaviors – these are necessary and hopefully good.• Expected unintended consequences – these are inevitable and may be good.• Completion in 60 days or less, or the warfighter will use it untested.


capabilitycomplexity

systemgeneration

nover designed

initially

Time

systemgeneration

n+1never

quite goodenough

requirementsestablishedfor gen n+1

develop

cut-over

requirementsestablishedfor gen n+2

effectivenessgap

situationcomplexity

sysgenn+2

ROIfailure

Increasing Gap BetweenNeed and Capability


Defining Agility and MigrationUsing the term as intended in the 1991 OSD

funded Lehigh study and subsequent research:Agility is effective response

under conditions of uncertainty

There are at least three components to agility:situational awareness,decisive choice making andthe ability to respondThe latter aspect is what we deal with here

Migration is the crossing of a changein basic infrastructure, be it technical, organizational or strategic.


Contemporary Context

Next-generation challenges are demandingnew architectures… Force Transformation is the U.S. military’s

response to next-generation warfareService Oriented Architectures is Enterprise

response to next-generation competition

Significant in both is the objective of a change that enables future change

Instead of perpetuating the scrap and replace cycle, an architecture is envisioned that facilitates migration through successive next generations


Response requirements categories (4 reactive and 4 proactive elements):Reactive: correction, variation, expansion,

reconfigurationProactive: creation, improvement, migration,

modification

Response performance metrics (4 elements):Response: cost, time, quality, scope

Response-enabling design principles (10 elements):Encapsulation, Compatibility, Reusability, Redundancy/Diversity, Scalability,

Distributed, Loose, Deferred Commitment, Self-Organizing, Evolving Standards

Design quality principles (3 elements):Requisite Variety, Parsimony, Harmony

An overarching architectural philosophy (3 elements):Reusable modules Reconfigurable in a Scalable architecture (RRS)

System integrity responsibilities (4 elements):Module Inventory, System Re-configurationModule Evolution/Mix, Infrastructure Evolution

An architectural conceptual pattern:Drag-and drop modules in a plug-and-play infrastructure

RAP – 7 Thought-Guiding Frameworks

*RAP: Response Ability Principles

*


Response requirements categories (4 reactive and 4 proactive elements):Reactive: correction, variation, expansion,

reconfigurationProactive: creation, improvement, migration,

modification

Response performance metrics (4 elements):Response: cost, time, quality, scope

Response-enabling design principles (10 elements):Encapsulation, Compatibility, Reusability, Redundancy/Diversity, Scalability,

Distributed, Loose, Deferred Commitment, Self-Organizing, Evolving Standards

Design quality principles (3 elements):Requisite Variety, Parsimony, Harmony

An overarching architectural philosophy (3 elements):Reusable modules Reconfigurable in a Scalable architecture (RRS)

System integrity responsibilities (4 elements):Module Inventory, System Re-configurationModule Evolution, Infrastructure Evolution

An architectural conceptual pattern:Drag-and drop modules in a plug-and-play infrastructure

current focus

RAP – 7 Thought-Guiding Frameworks


Proactive Response CategoriesPr

oact

ive

Domain Definition and General Issues

Proactive changes are generally triggered internally by the application of new knowledge to generate new value. They are still proactive changes even if the values generated are not positive and even if the knowledge applied is not new – self initiation is the distinguishing feature here. A proactive change is usually one that has effect rather than mere potential; thus, it is an application of knowledge rather than the invention or possession of unapplied knowledge. Proactive change proficiency is the wellspring of leadership and innovative activity.

Make or eliminate something. Issues are generally involved with the development of something new where nothing was before, or the elimination of something in use.

Incremental improvement. Issues are generally involved with competencies and performance factors, and are often the focus of continual, open-ended campaigns.

Foreseen, eventual, and fundamental change. Issues are generally associated with changes to supporting infrastructure, or transitions to next generation replacements.

General Characteristics

Addition or subtraction of unique capability. Issues are generally involved with the inclusion of something unlike anything already present, or the removal of something unique.

Creation(and

Elimination)

Improvement

Modification(Add/Sub

Capability)

Migration

From: Response Ability – The Language, Structure, and Culture of Agile Enterprise


4 Integrity Responsibility ElementsThe “active” parts of the infrastructure

1. System assembly: Assembly of modules into on-demand system configurations suitable for addressing unique response needs (unit tests, UAS swarm tests, heterogeneous UASoS tests).

2. Module inventory: Maintaining ready-for-use sufficient inventory of modules (testing people, test procedures, test monitors, reusable test suites, etc)

3. Module evolution/mix: New module addition and upgrade as new capabilities are needed (new tester skills, new test modules, new test procedures, new test equipment, etc)

4. Infrastructure evolution: improvements to existing rules and standards, new rules and standards, elimination of obsolete rules and standards, etc.

The “passive” parts of the infrastructureare the interoperability standards


Agile System: Class 1Reconfigurable

Drag-and-DropReusableComponents

architectural concept pattern: drag-and-drop, plug-and-play

(UAST)

personnel DoD rangesequipmentsensorstests



Examples of TypicalReconfigurable/ScalableSystem Configurations


(UAST)

Variety/Time/Maturity/Range/Increments/Migrations/Evolutions/etc

personnel equipmentsensorstests DoD ranges





Plug-and-Play EvolvingPassive InfrastructureRules/Standards/Principles


(UAST)



Security StdsTraining Stds

High Level Arch

Safety Stds







Plug-and-Play Evolving Active InfrastructureResponsible-Party Designation

System assembly: Who?


(UAST)



High Level Arch

Safety Stds










(UAST)

Component inventory: Who?



High Level Arch

Safety Stds










(UAST)

Component inventory: Who?Component mix: Who?



High Level Arch

Safety Stds








Infrastructure evolution: Who?System assembly: Who?

Component mix: Who?Component inventory: Who?


(UAST)

personnel sensorstests equipment DoD ranges


High Level Arch

VR Immersion StdsSafety Stds



Plug-and-Play Evolving Active InfrastructureSystemic Regulation

Plug-and-Play EvolvingInterOp Passive InfrastructureRules/Standards/Principles

Infrastructure evolution: What?System assembly: What?

Component mix: What?Component inventory: What?




Agile System: Class 2Reconfiguring

(UASoS)

UAS mission coordination sensorstasks

Ethical Stds

Behavior StdsCooperation StdsEngagement Stds

Comm Stds



UAST Program ManagerTest ManagerRange Master

indicative configurations of test varieties

Multi-Range UAS Testing System(highly stylized architectural concept pattern)

From: Embedding Agile Security in Systems Architecture, 2008. INSIGHT 12(2):14-17, INCOSEwww.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap090701Incose-EmbeddingAgileSecurityInSystemArchitecture.pdf

sensors test equip ranges

UAS policy/stdssafety stds

full system testsub-sys test swarm system test

UAST Program Manager12

34

5

test config stdsHLA interop stds

security policy

Four active responsibilities, each with embedded security

personnel as integrated collaborative team members.

As an emergent propertysecurity does not come in a separate box, e.g., personnel are security trained, equipment is self-secure.

Test system assembly is constrained by test configuration standards informed by security policy.

Security policy informs allother passive infrastructure standards, and evolves simultaneously with each.

activ

e

pass

ive

personneltestsprocedures …et al.

INFR

AST

RU

CTU

RE

Security is embedded in architecture at points 1-5. Additionally, encapsulated components have internal security distrustful of other components in general.

component mix:

infrastructure evolution:test sys assembly:

component inventory:


amplifiers playback units(tape, CD, DVD) )

speakers video displays(TV, computer)

content sources(TIVO,P2P)

Infrastructure evolution:

System assembly:

Component mix:

Component inventory:

Power Analog interconnect Physical connection

Infrastructure

Video media Net in/outAudio tape

Modules

IntegrityManagement

Active

Passive

‘90s

Industry Assocs

User/Owner

MfgrsStores

Video/Surround Digital/Internet

‘40s/’50s ‘00sroughly…

signal tuners

Crossing Next-Generation Life Cycle Boundaries for Home Entertainment Technology Migration

“On How Agile Systems Gracefully Migrate Across Next-Generation Life Cycle Boundaries” www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap080614GloGift08-LifeCycleMigration.pdf

Rules/Standards


routers DNS Serversswitches end points,NICs, NOMs

appliances(eg, xml)

Infrastructure evolution:

System assembly:

Component mix:

Component inventory:

Wire standards NCP

InfrastructureIPv6era

Modules

Rules/Standards

IntegrityManagement

Active

Passive

’80s/’90s

IETF

Subnet Owners

Vendor CommunityVendor Community

TCP/IPv4

’70s ’00/’10srough operational start…

filters(eg IDS, Firewall)

Optical stds

IPv4era

NCPera

Wireless stds

Crossing Next-Generation Life Cycle Boundariesfor Internet Protocol Migration

“On How Agile Systems Gracefully Migrate Across Next-Generation Life Cycle Boundaries” www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap080614GloGift08-LifeCycleMigration.pdf

IPv6


Lessons from Home Entertainment and Internet Migration

Both employ strict capabilities-based encapsulation. This is necessary, and facilitates migration by enabling functional swap-out, upgrade, and retirement independently and asynchronously.

Both employ a stable passive infrastructure of form-and-content interconnect standards, which is structured to facilitate open-ended augmentation over time with both additional and alternate-option standards. This is necessary, and facilitates migration enabling capability and capacity additions.

Both employ an active infrastructure of stable responsibilities for the evolution of both components and passive infrastructure. This is necessary, and facilitates migration by sustaining controlled evolution.


Relating Home Entertainment and Internet Agile Migration toForce Transformation and SOA Initiatives

The difference between a Class 1 and Class 2 RAP-based agile system is centrally-controlled sustainment vs. self organizing sustainment. In Class 1 systems specific people with centralized sustainment responsibilities can be named, in Class 2 systems sustainment is caused by the equilibrium-seeking self-reorganization of decentralized interactions among autonomous agents. Home Entertainment fits more a Class 1 profile – the owner that configures systems very centrally controls the system configuration, and has little effect or influence on owners of other Home Entertainment systems.Internet Protocol fits more a Class 2 profile – there is a greater degree of coupling between the migration-deciding agents. As subnets opt for IPv6 profiles, other interconnected subnets may become shunned for services of lesser security or less optimal interaction.SOA and Home Entertainment environments share a characteristic that may be useful in guiding SOA adoption plans. Both occur in relative isolation to their greater communities, and resemble a Class 1 agile system. Force Transformation, on the other hand, has an environmental profile more like the Internet Protocol model. Both have sizable sub-groups with interdependent couplings – looking somewhat like an ecological system in the large.

(demonstrating domain independence of principles)


Force Transformation

Force Transformation is a massive undertaking, on many functional fronts within each military force as well as across the many independent but interdependent military forces of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.

Force Transformation is predicated on developing far more intimate interoperability than currently exists.

The magnitude of the effort necessarily requires an asynchronous adoption for economic, cultural and technological reasons as a minimum – without any disruption of capability.

The military has a tradition of controlled mandated actions that may not serve well in either the initial adoption or the subsequent continual evolution intended.

The model of Internet Protocol migration that relies on pulling self-organized adoption with enticing benefit, rather than forcing a change that may be incompatible with the reality of the status quo, might well provide both economic and speed-of-adoption advantages.

(demonstrating domain transference of principles)


SOA Adoption

Adoption and subsequent migratory evolution of SOA within an enterprise is largely a local (enterprise) decision, with little interdependence on when and what other enterprises choose to do.

Though enterprises are increasingly networked to each other electronically as well as strategically, SOA is largely an internal infrastructure for enterprise IT support of business practices. Perimeter gateways of various types are standard methods for reconciling inter company transactions.

The nature of the SOA infrastructure nevertheless must conform to greater community common/universal standards if maximum and sustainable access to component services of benefit are to be realized.

This raises a cautionary flag on brand-unique infrastructure employment, as well as enterprise- or brand-unique service interfaces.

(demonstrating domain transferrence of principles)


Systems in Context

Class 1testing

system(s)

Class 2systems

under test

Class 2(federated?)

testingenterprise

environment(an ecology)

PoliticsTechnology

Govt ProceduresMil proceduresMilitary realityCompetitors

EnemiesUAST UASoS

Domain Independent Principles Can Inform UAST ConOpssystem

systems

systems


DeliveryTime

Development

PerceivedEffectiveness100%

Gen 2 OperationGen 1 Operation

agile system

InfrastructureMigration

Module MixModifications

DeliveryTime

Development

PerceivedEffectiveness

life-cycle end

Agile system would continue ROI,but does age, and can suffer

strategy-lapse integrity failure

100%

In-agile system

OperationDevelopment

Relating Agile Development to Agile Operations www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap080404Cser2008DevOpsMigration.pdf

Agile Systems Gracefully Migrate Across Next-Generation Boundaries www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap080614GloGift08-LifeCycleMigration.pdf

UAST * and Evolving Systems of Systems in the Age of the Black Swan Part 1: Class 1 and Class 2...

Documents

Transcript of UAST * and Evolving Systems of Systems in the Age of the Black Swan Part 1: Class 1 and Class 2...