1. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 1 Systems Engineering of Complex Adaptive Systems Otto Jons National Defense Industrial Association 6 th Annual Systems Engineering Conference ( Oct. 2003 San Diego)

2. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 2 Preface A rigorous scientific basis for Complex Adaptive Systems: - Still in its infancy Popular science flavor of books by Gleick (“Chaos”) and Waldrop (“Complexity”): - Disdain (?) by some “serious” scientists and engineers Some advances by scientists: See Holland (“Hidden Order” and “Emergence”) However: Complex Adaptive System: - Profoundly important Some “lessons (-ready to be-) learned”

3. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 3 Outline Systems Engineering: – A Very Brief Review The Systems Spectrum Complex Adaptive Systems Developing (Elements of) CAS Summary and Conclusions

4. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 4 The Systems Engineering Process Requirements Analysis Analyze Missions & Environments Identify Functional Requirements Define/Refine Performance & Design Constraint Requirements Functional Analysis/Allocation Decompose to Lower-Level Functions Allocate Performance & Other Limiting Requirements to All Functional Levels Define/Refine Functional Interfaces (Internal/External) Define/Refine/Integrate Functional Architecture Synthesis Transform Architectures (Functional to Physical) Define Alternative System Concepts Configuration Items & System Elements Define/Refine Physical Interfaces (Internal/External) Define Alternative Product & Process Solutions Process Input Customer Needs/Objectives/Requirements Missions Measures of Effectiveness Environments Constraints Technology Bae Prior Output Program Decision Requirements Requirements From Tailored Specifications and Standards Specific Preferred Alternatives Trade-Off Studies Effectiveness Analysis Risk Management Configuration Management Interface Management Data Management Performance-Based Progress Measurement SEMS TPM Technical Reviews Systems Analysis & Control Requirements Loop Design Loop Verification PROCESS OUTPUT Decision Data Base Decision Support Data System Functional & Physical Architectures Specification & Baselines Balanced System Solutions Current doctrine has matured into a standard process, -a process applied to any system.

5. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 5 Naval System Hierarchies (Examples) Nation Government DoD/Navy Joint Force Battle/Task Group Ship Machinery System Propulsion System Engine Fuel Pump System Hierarchies: The Vertical Dimension How about the Horizontal Dimension ?? Are there different System Categories ??

6. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 6 Outline Systems Engineering – A Brief Review The Systems Spectrum: – Spectrum Samples – The Limits of Engineering

7. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 7 The Systems Spectrum From Newtonian Physics To “New Science” A Brief Tutorial

8. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 8 The Systems Spectrum Traditional Engineering Systems (TES) TES Current SE Doctrine focuses (- exclusively??) on TES: Development of an Optimal System for a Specified Need / Operation =Newtonian/Mechanistic: =”Action equals Reaction”, etc. =The Foundation of Technology

9. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 9 The Systems Spectrum Traditional Engineering Systems TES e.g., Double Pendulum; - seemingly simple, but….. DFS Dynamic Feedback Systems

10. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 10 The Systems Spectrum Traditional Engineering Systems Dynamic Feedback Systems e.g., Weather System; highly complex, also involving dynamic feed-back TES DFS CCS Complex “Chaotic” Systems

11. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 11 The Systems Spectrum Traditional Engineering Systems Dynamic Feedback Systems* Complex “Chaotic” Systems** TES - DFS & CCS obey the laws of physics, however: Prediction of long-term behavior not possible because of extreme sensitivity to initial conditions DFS CCS

12. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 12 The Systems Spectrum Traditional Engineering Systems Dynamic Feedback Systems* Complex “Chaotic” Systems** TES DFS CCS = Characterized by “Adaptive Agents” CAS Complex Adaptive Systems

13. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 13 The Systems Spectrum Traditional Engineering Systems Dynamic Feedback Systems* Complex “Chaotic” Systems** TES DFS CCS = Ecology; Natural systems, such as the Immune System; R-CAS Complex Adaptive Systems: Reactive CAS

14. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 14 The Systems Spectrum Traditional Engineering Systems Dynamic Feedback Systems* Complex “Chaotic” Systems** TES DFS CCS =Economies, Games, Conflicts, Warfare: Conscious decision-making by intelligent agents R-CAS Complex Adaptive Systems: Reactive CAS P-CAS Proactive CAS

15. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 15 The Systems Spectrum TES DFS CCS R-CAS P-CAS Engineering (-and Systems Engineering), to date: Focus almost exclusively on TES Traditional engineering encounters increasing limitations Warfare Systems are generally P-CAS They may be R-CAS if threat-based They may have TES - or R-CAS subsystems

16. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 16 Systems Spectrum - Implications Traditional Engineering Systems Proactive CAS Explore differences between TES & P-CAS: Use the Naval Ship System: TES DFS CCS R-CAS P-CAS Sheer Size & High Cost: ~ i.e., No Prototyping Long Life Span: ~ 40+ Years

17. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 17 Systems Spectrum - Implications TES DFS CCS R-CAS P-CAS The Naval Ship System: A Hybrid System The Hull: A Transportation System The Weapon Suit: A Warfare System (Often with a Transportation Subsystem) 40+ Years Lifespan (Generally: ) Mature Technology 2 to 10 Years Lifespan (Generally: ) Advanced Technology

18. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 18 Systems Spectrum - Implications TES DFS CCS R-CAS P-CAS The Naval Ship System: A Hybrid System In Part = A Transportation System In Part = (Part of ) a Warfare System (Often with a Transportation Subsystem) These Differences : Manifest themselves in the ways Effectiveness is established Warrant differing development approaches

19. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 19 (A Shuttle Ship: A pure Transportation System:) Effectiveness of a TES Payload (P) X Distance (D) Time (T) Effectiveness (E) = Note: - A Mathematical Relationship can be established between System Performance and Effectiveness. - The Objective is achieved largely by the System’s Output. E = P x D / (Tp + Ts) = P x D / (Tp + D / V) Where: Tp – Time in Port Ts – Time @ Sea V - Speed

20. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 20 Outline Systems Engineering – A Brief Review The Systems Spectrum: Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS): – Effectiveness of P-CAS – Adaptation / Implication for Warfare Systems

21. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 21 Mission Success / Effectiveness: Outcome (Not: Output) Systems Deployed (The “Means”) & Their Capability Strategies, Tactics, CONOPS (The “Ways”) The Environment/ its Effect on “Means” and “Ways” (“Ways” & “Means”: Both “Ours -” & Theirs -”) Mission Success : Planned Outcome < Actual Outcome Parameters: > Effectiveness of P-CAS Planned Outcome Actual Outcome

22. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 22 Effectiveness of PCAS (Cont.) The Goal: Accomplishing an Objective: = Winning a Battle = Succeeding in …..(Name it) = Winning a Game of ….. The Environment The “Ways” (Operations) The “Means” (System’s Capability) Effectiveness …Chess where: The “Environment” (Board) is fixed The “Means”: The Performance Capabilities of the pieces are defined and fixed Effectiveness (= Winning) is then solely a function of the players’ “Ways”: How they play, react to and anticipate the opponent’s moves (Ours & Theirs)

23. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 23 (Another Example:) The Mission: Winning a Football Game The “Environment”/Field is Fixed and Further Neutralized by Switching Sides at Halftime The “Means”: The Performance Capabilities of the Teams, as Units (Offensive -, Defensive – and Special Teams), Individuals, Their Natural Ability, Conditioning, Training, The “Ways” involve the Play-Book, the Plays Called and the Reaction of the Defense Effectiveness (= Winning) is a Function of “Ways” and “Means” Effectiveness of PCAS (Cont.) The Environment The “Ways” (Operations) The “Means” (System’s Capability) Effectiveness (Ours & Theirs)

24. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 24 Observations re. Warfare Proactive Adaptation in Warfare: - All about the Creation of Asymmetries (= greater strength at the point of contact) Asymmetries may be created - “Locally”; - in the same general physical environment (maneuver warfare) - In an entirely different environment Adaptation: More likely to be effective if it is not anticipated by the adversary Warfare: Need not be proactive- adaptive; May be re-active-adaptive Sun Tzu’s teachings: All about Proactive Adaptation, - with little emphasis on own “Means”

25. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 25 Proactive Adaptation in Warfare A C Warfare Examples Using Existing “Means”: Boyd’s OODA Loop: “Ways” (Speed & Quality) Salamis, Trafalgar: “Ways” & Environment Warfare Examples Using New “Ways” & “Means”: Scope of Adaptation : “Ways” - Speed (How Fast) - Quality (How Well) “Means” – Use of Existing Resources - Future System Development Environment (Choice) The Environment The “Ways” (Operations) The “Means” (System’s Capability) Effectiveness (Ours & Theirs) Phalanx / Alexander the Great: Minor modification of “Means” & “Ways”: Vastly improved Effectiveness

26. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 26 Effectiveness, Performance & Cost Success in warfare: - A function of effectiveness - A Measure of the outcome of the battle Effectiveness results from - The combination of “Ways” & “Means”, ours & theirs, in the environment of contact = Not (necessarily) from the performance capability of our systems (“Means”) However: Cost = f (Performance) Cost = f (Effectiveness) ( Inexpensive systems may be highly effective…….) Effectiveness is established: - In the “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Space; - Not: in the Performance & Cost Trade-Space

27. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 27 Improving Mission Effectiveness 1. Find Better ‘Ways” of Using Existing “Means” 2. Retain Current “Ways” but Develop Improved “Means” a. With Current Technology b. With New / Advanced Technology 3. Develop New “Ways” to Take Advantage of New “Means” New “Ways” Current “Ways” Current “Means” New “Means” 2a 2b 1 3 New Technology Current Technology Transformation The “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Space

28. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 28 Outline Systems Engineering – A Brief Review The Systems Spectrum: Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) Developing (Elements of) CAS – Systems “Engineering”(?) of CAS

29. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 29 Processes OperationsDevelopmentOperationsDevelopment PersonnelDevelopmentPersonnelDevelopment MaterialDevelopmentMaterialDevelopment Requirements (MNS, ORD) Manning Personnel ILS Material Support Material Support Personnel Support/ Dev’t Personnel Support/ Dev’t (ICD, CDD) The Acquisition System The Warfare System of Systems

30. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 30 Ship System Development System Cost $ Functional Allocation System of Systems Intended Use How Used Value Mission Effectiveness (MOE) Mission Analysis Performance Capability (MOP) Developing/Acquiring Systems Planned Use How Used Performance Capabilities/ Requirements

31. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 31 System Effectiveness Intended Use How Used Value Mission Effectiveness (MOE ) Mission Analysis 1. Input “Ways”) Cost $ Performance Capabilities/ Performance Capability (MOP) Developing/Acquiring Systems 2. Process 3. Output (“Means”) The Process is generally executed sequentially since: Rarely are CONOPS modified as the result of design results Requirements are “engineered” to respond to operational needs and perceived needs for precision Ship System Development - Today Requirements are to be met; - not to be negotiated !!

32. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 32 Systems Engineering Process for TES Requirements Analysis Analyze Missions & Environments Identify Functional Requirements Define/Refine Performance & Design Constraint Requirements Functional Analysis/Allocation Decompose to Lower-Level Functions Allocate Performance & Other Limiting Requirements to All Functional Levels Define/Refine Functional Interfaces (Internal/External) Define/Refine/Integrate Functional Architecture Synthesis Transform Architectures (Functional to Physical) Define Alternative System Concepts Configuration Items & System Elements Define/Refine Physical Interfaces (Internal/External) Define Alternative Product & Process Solutions Process Input Customer Needs/Objectives/Requirements Missions Measures of Effectiveness Environments Constraints Technology Bae Prior Output Program Decision Requirements Requirements From Tailored Specifications and Standards Specific Preferred Alternatives Trade-Off Studies Effectiveness Analysis Risk Management Configuration Management Interface Management Data Management Performance-Based Progress Measurement SEMS TPM Technical Reviews Systems Analysis & Control Requirements Loop Design Loop Verification PROCESS OUTPUT Decision Data Base Decision Support Data System Functional & Physical Architectures Specification & Baselines Balanced System Solutions 1. Input (“Ways”) 2. Systems Engineering Process 3. Output (“Means”)

33. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 33 SE Process for P-CAS Requirements Analysis Analyze Missions & Environments Identify Functional Requirements Define/Refine Performance & Design Constraint Requirements Functional Analysis/Allocation Decompose to Lower-Level Functions Allocate Performance & Other Limiting Requirements to All Functional Levels Define/Refine Functional Interfaces (Internal/External) Define/Refine/Integrate Functional Architecture Synthesis Transform Architectures (Functional to Physical) Define Alternative System Concepts Configuration Items & System Elements Define/Refine Physical Interfaces (Internal/External) Define Alternative Product & Process Solutions Process Input Customer Needs/Objectives/Requirements Missions Measures of Effectiveness Environments Constraints Technology Bae Prior Output Program Decision Requirements Requirements From Tailored Specifications and Standards Specific Preferred Alternatives Trade-Off Studies Effectiveness Analysis Risk Management Configuration Management Interface Management Data Management Performance-Based Progress Measurement SEMS TPM Technical Reviews Systems Analysis & Control Requirements Loop Design Loop Verification PROCESS OUTPUT Decision Data Base Decision Support Data System Functional & Physical Architectures Specification & Baselines Balanced System Solutions “Ways” Development “Means” Development “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Space Concurrent “Ways” & “Means” Development: The “Means” Solution

34. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 34 For P-CAS, in particular… : Both performance capability and cost are design-dependent, require some system definition because It is not possible to assess a system’s performance capability or even technical feasibility without a design definition It is rarely possible to develop reliable cost estimates for new systems solely on the basis of performance requirements. Valid performance predictions and cost estimates must be based on a Design Definition The “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Off is incomplete if only the Required Capability is identified Cost information is crucial to make prudent decisions regarding quality versus quantity A“Means” Solution must be defined !

35. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 35 Concept Formulation The “Means” Solution Solution – Based Acquisition The “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Off

36. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 36 Concept Formulation The “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Off Credits: NAVSHIPS 0900-060-0100, “Guide for Conducting Ship Concept Formulation”, Figure 2-4, page 2-16, 1969 A.D.

37. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 37 Summary Systems form a Spectrum ranging - from Traditional Engineering Systems (TES) - - to Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) CAS may be Reactive (R-CAS) or Proactive (P-CAS) P-CAS are of special interest to the Defense Industry This challenges the Sanctity of Performance Requirements TES display a strong link of System/”Means” Performance and Effectiveness In Proactive CAS, this link is often very weak: It is greatly diluted by – how and where we use systems (“Our Ways”) and – the adversary’s “Ways” and “Means”

38. CSC Proprietary 7/6/2016 8:25:54 AM 008_7271_OVW 38 Summary (For Proactive Complex Adaptive Systems, such as Warfare Systems, in particular…) Requirements must “float” until the Exploration of the “Ways” & “Means” Trade-Space has been completed Only the user can determine which combination of “Ways & Means” will be most effective Completion entails the selection of the “Means” Solution based on effectiveness, capability and cost This requires a design definition; Therefore: “Definition before Acquisition”; therefore: Solution-Based Acquisition