1. SysML Assessment & Roadmap Approach SE DSIG Meeting Reston March 25, 2014 Yves Bernard Sanford Friedenthal

2. Purpose &Background  Purpose –Establish an approach to continue to assess SysML and develop a SysML roadmap in support of evolving MBSE needs Scope includes more than SysML specification updates, but can include tool integration, ….  Background –Previous Roadmap discussion at Reston, March 2012 (refer to minutes-syseng-2012-03-02, and roadmap presentation-syseng-2012-03-07) –Action item from Yves Bernard Roadmap presentation at Santa Clara SE DSIG in Dec 2013 to distill inputs and refine approach (refer to SE DSIG minutes-syseng/2013-12-01) –Working Group Established To Formulate Approach 2

3. Topics  MBSE Directions  Proposed Assessment Approach  Starting Point for Assessment  Building the Roadmap  Next Steps 3

4. MBSE Directions 4

5. MBSE Definition 5 formalized application of modeling “Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is the formalized application of modeling to support system requirements, design, analysis, verification and validation activities beginning in the conceptual design phase and continuing throughout development and later life cycle phases.” INCOSE SE Vision 2020 (INCOSE-TP-2004-004-02), Sept 2007 MBSE is SE

6. MBE Enhances Affordability, Shortens Delivery and Reduces Risk Across the Acquisition Life Cycle MBE To-Be State Configuration Management Program Management Test Manufacturing Hardware Systems Customer Logistics Software  Needs  Current Capabilities  Budget/Schedule Hardware Models Q QSET CLR S R System Models Component Models  G(s)U(s) Analysis Models Operational Models System Models Operational Models Component Models System Models  G(s)U(s) Analysis Models Operational Models Source: NDIA MBE Final Report dated February 2011

7. SE Vision 2020 INCOSE-TP-2004-004-02 September, 2007  Domain-specific modeling languages and visualization that enable the systems engineer to focus on modeling of the user domain  Modeling standards based on a firm mathematical foundation that support high fidelity simulation and real- world representations  Extensive reuse of model libraries, taxonomies and design patterns  Standards that support integration and management across a distributed model repository  Highly reliable and secure data exchange via published interfaces 6/8/20167

8. INCOSE MBSE Roadmap 201020202025 Maturity MBSE Capability Ad Hoc MBSE Document Centric 2010 Well Defined MBSE Institutionalized MBSE across Academia/Industry Reduced cycle times Design optimization across broad trade space Cross domain effects based analysis System of systems interoperability Extending Maturity and Capability Distributed & secure model repositories crossing multiple domains Defined MBSE theory, ontology, and formalisms Emerging MBSE standards Matured MBSE methods and metrics, Integrated System/HW/SW models Architecture model integrated with Simulation, Analysis, and Visualization Planning & Support Research Standards Development Processes, Practices, & Methods Tools & Technology Enhancements Outreach, Training & Education Refer to activities in the following areas:

9. Proposed Assessment Approach 9

10. Continuing SysML Assessment & Roadmap Approach  UML for SE RFP  SysML RFI (2009)  SysML RTF Priorities  SE DSIG Inputs  MBSE Adoption Issues  MBSE Use Cases  MBSE Usability  MB Engr Environment  Other 10

11. UML for SE RFP: evaluation criteria (p44-46 )  Ease of use  Unambiguous –The language should be based on well-defined semantics. –specified well-formedness rules.  Precise –The language should specify the semantics, which can be translated into a formal mathematical based  Complete –The language support system specification, design, analysis, and verification.  Scalable –The language should provide support for modeling abstractions, elaborations, and refinements of complex systems.  Adaptable to different domains –The language should provide the capability to extend the semantics and notation of model elements to support specific domains (e.g., aerospace, telecom, automotive). 11

12. UML for SE RFP: evaluation criteria (p44-46)  Evolvable –The language should be designed for change, and support backward compatibility with previous versions.  Capable of model interchange –support mapping to both an XMI schema and to the AP-233 neutral data exchange format (technical scope only) to exchange semantic information between tools. This is also intended to include the exchange of model version control information.  Capable of diagram interchange  Process and method independent –The language should be capable of supporting industry standard systems engineering technical processes, including EIA 632 and ISO 15288 and not overly constrain the choice of a specific process or method.  Compliant with the UML metamodel –The language should be consistent with the approved UML specification and should base the customization of UML for SE on extension mechanisms that UML defines.  Verifiable –Against RFP requirements 12

13. Starting Point For Assessment 13

14. SysML v1.4 14

15. Update evaluation criteria and prioritize 1.Update/refine/clarify UML for SE RFP Criteria 2.Prioritize and weight the criteria 3.Use as reference for building the roadmap 15

16. UML for SE RFP Traceability Matrix Summary  Traceability matrix developed for original UML for SE RFP  Updated to reflect SysML v1.4  Use to identify potential gaps 16

17. UML for SE RFP Traceability Matrix Example 17

18. SysML RFI Summary (2009)  Web based survey – Used SurveyMonkey.com web survey service  RFI Survey was open to any practitioner –RFI Survey advertised using Introduced at INCOSE International Symposium MBSE sessions in Singapore Posted on two SysML forums (Yahoo, Google) Posted on two UML forums Several of the LinkedIn groups Large number of INCOSE members, including the MBSE list SE Domain Special Interest Group (SE DSIG) SysML Revision Task Force (RTF) OMG SysML Discussion Group  Survey consisted of two parts –Part I – questions on SysML language Language effectiveness, issues, recommendations –Part II – questions on how SysML is used to support a model-based systems engineering approach Methods, tools, training, metrics  Contact information obfuscated to protect individuals and companies

19. SysML RFI Example Result Key Finding #11: BDD and IBD Diagrams  Block Definition Diagrams (BDD’s) and Internal Block Diagrams (IBD’s): –Used the most –Valued the most –Hardest for stakeholders to understand Confusion on the use of ports and interfaces.

20. SysML v1.4 RTF Priorities 20

21. Previous SysML 1.4 RTF Priorities TopicStatusComments XVariant modelingOut of scopeThe RTF declines to add specialized notation for variants ~SysML FormalizationSysML annex in the PSCS proposal ~Allocation concept (13840)Some improvements made Semantic issue still pending. Might implies an UML enhancement ~Instance modelingInstance specification added in 1.3Some remaining issue about specification of individuals 0Property-Based requirementNo noticeable progressControversing 0SysML/MARTE convergenceNo noticeable progressWG no more active 0Timing DiagramNo work reported 0Conceptual Model of SysMLNo work reported ~Simplifying Parametrics DiagramsPrametrics improved in 1.4No clear requirement regarding « simplification » XPort/Parameter relationResolved in 1.4 XReference nested property (14055)Resolved in 1.4 XElement Group (13928)Resolved in 1.4 0Parsing Text in Requirements (13939)No work reported ~View/Viewpoint alignment with ISO 42010Veiw/viewpoint improvement in 1.4To be re-evaluated against the capabilities added 0Additional UML construct in UML4SysMLNo work reported 0Item flows on sequence diagramsNo work reported XAlign SysML with QUDVResolved in 1.4 XModel lib for ISO80000 partsResolved in 1.4 XAmbiguous block hierarchy (14447)Resolved in 1.4 ~Easily disposed issuesImprovments in 1.4No precise set defined 0Concepts from AUTOSAR (tech arch)No work reported 0Alignment with UML Testing profileNo work reported 0HSUV example in SysML toolNo work reported 0Requirements interchange issue (13177)No work reported 0Automatic test case generationNo work reported 0Datasets (13219)No work reported XStandard alignment (URL, etc..)Resolved in 1.4 (TBC)Missing references to issues, if any ~Production issuesSVN availableDocument production remains problematic XConstraining decomposition hierarchyResolved in 1.4 0Profile constraintNo noticeable progress 21 Priority Higher Lower - Legend - 0: not started/stopped~: in progressX: doneX: aborted - Legend - 0: not started/stopped~: in progressX: doneX: aborted

22. Systems Modeling Directions & Needs  Rich diagrammatic syntax with standard symbol libraries for domain specific applications (e.g. Visio libraries)  Extensive viewing capability to query the model and present the results. (e.g., similar to building architecture layers)  Extensive modeling checking and analysis capability to reason about the system model and confirm its integrity  Extensive reuse libraries Source: Derived from SE DSIG Minutes Dec 2011 Presented at SE DSIG Dec 2012 as part of Roadmap Discussion

23. Systems Modeling Directions & Needs  Cross domain model integration through transformation technology and interchange standards  Scalable model management part of PLM to include configuration control, change management & workflow  Built in modeling metrics to effectively estimate productivity, quality, and risk Source: Derived from SE DSIG Minutes Dec 2011 Presented at SE DSIG Dec 2012 as part of Roadmap Discussion

24. MBSE Use Cases  Incrementally develop MBSE use cases based on accepted SE Processes –(refer to SEBoK and ISO 15288 as top level framework)  Assess how well SysML supports each use case 24

25. SE Domain Integration and Information Layers (Derived from SEBoK)  Each SE Domain; –Contributes domain specific information –Has Responsibility for their information content –Information content can include content from other domains –Iterates solution with other Domains –Has one or more views to information content –Defines and manages Requirements –Measures impact of their changes in their domain and across other domains –Conducts Reviews –Produces Deliverables System Architecture Definition Domain Safety Engineering Domain Security Engineering Domain RMA Management Domain Infrastructure Engineering Domain SWaP Management Domain Performance Analysis Domain Mission Analysis Domain Verification and Validation Domain Human Systems Integration Domain Environmental Engineering Domain Development Management Domain Source: John Watson

26. Product Support Software Models Mechanical & Electrical Models Q Q SET CLR S R Verification Models Performance, RMA, SWaP, Cost, etc.  G(s)U(s) Analytical Models Manufacturing Program Management System Architectural Model Test Plan Analysi s Spec System Engineering Development Environment To measure SysML effectiveness we need to understand the context of how it is used Customer © 2014 Lockheed Martin Corporation. All Rights Reserved. MBSE Use Cases Source: John Watson

27. Perform System Security Engineering UC Create a domain specific profile that includes concepts and iconic representations compatible with SysML Create and share validated reference libraries View external reference documents 1.Define and Organize Requirements 2.Create Activities 1.Define and Organize UCs 2.Create Activities to expose vulnerabilities 3.Integration with threat analysis tools Verify requirements are satisfied with test cases 1.Assessing change impacts 2.Include and overlay impacted domain views 3.Remove un-impacted domain views 1.Define and Organize Requirements 2.Add domain attributes to Interfaces Update Structure and interface definitions 1.Define a document structure and content 2.Publish document Execute defined behavior Source: John Watson

28. MBSE Adoption Issues  More focus on mechanical engineering  Provide more examples/guidance  Availability of libraries of reusable models  Availability of patterns  Language stability  Increased analysis capabilities  A clear value assessment from using SysML  Model consistency  Domain specific icons  Support for continuum of models that support early concepts and more detailed formal models 28

29. MBSE Adoption Issues (cont.)  Agility of modeling  Dynamic (i.e. simulation) and static analysis capabilities  Capture of trade studies  Reduce the number of ways things can be modeled. This is a source of confusion to modelers  Ability to represent model in textual form  Better handling of large number of requirements  FMEA capabilities  Consider industries which are not highly regulated  Consider how to model humans  Make the model invisible (transparent) to support other discipline engineers  MDA for SysML 29

30. Building the Roadmap 30

31. Synthesizing the Assessment Results  Prioritize assessment results based on evaluation criteria  Develop roadmap strategies based on results from above  Roadmap scope can extend beyond SysML specification updates and include –Model libraries –Tool integration –Modeling tool capabilities –Document generation capabilities –Other related modeling standards (OSLC) –Domain specific profiles –… 31

32. How to organize the contributions? 32 Means Topics RTF regular work RTF specific WG SysML/MARTE Convergence WG SysML/UTP Convergence WG Specific RFCs/RFPs SysML document production X SysML conceptual model X Simplification X Formalization of the constraints X Time support ?X Precise Semantics (xSysML) XX Helpers for metrics X System/HW/SW integration X Test domain integration X Cross domains integration X Domain specific concrete syntax X Standard Model Libraries X Viewing capability (language aspects only) X Priority Higher Lower contributions

33. Next Steps  Initiate Working Group  Identify lead for each data source –UML for SE Requirements Traceability Matrix Gaps –SysML RTF Issues –SysML RFI Findings –MBSE Adoption Issues –MBSE Use Cases  Perform assessment  Review findings  Synthesize and prioritize findings  Develop preliminary roadmap 33