1. Program Cost and Schedule Integrated with Systems Engineering Models
Charlie Stirk CostVision
Harold P. Frisch NASA GSFC emeritus
David Price Eurostep
NASA ESA Product Data Exchange Workshop, April 29-May 1, 2009

2. Problem Statements
How to exchange integrated cost, schedule, and systems engineering information?
How to predict cost and schedule based on systems engineering artifacts?
Architecture – structures and interfaces
Requirements – properties and constraints
Behavior – states and functions

3. Elements of a Solution
Model that represents cost, schedule, engineering entities, their relationships, and model management
STEP AP233 Systems Engineering
Mapping other formats with AP233
Reference Data Libraries for DoDAF, SysML, Earned Value Management, …
Creating neutral format for contracts
Data EXchange specification (DEX)

4. What Does AP233 Enable? Program management System modeling Issue
Activities
Approvals
Risk
Probability & Consequence
Source & Impact
Contingency plans
Project
Organizational structure
Project breakdown
Schedule
Work structure
Management information resources
System modeling
Decision support
Requirements management
Measures of effectiveness
Analysis interface
Verification & Analysis
Justification
System structure
Product data management
Breakdown
Interface
System behavior
Function based behavior
State based behavior

5. Slot
Document
239 Express-G
Requirement
Part
System
Breakdown
Functional
Breakdown
Interface
Contract
Project
handles
specifies
has
Task
Product _relation
Version_relation
View_relation
structure
related
related
related
relating
relating
relating
required_ product
Activity_method
Product
Product _version
Product _view_definition
utilizes
of_ product
view_of
in_context
Context
Product_individual
Scheme
method_used
observed_ product
Observation
structure
Location
storage
schedule
observed_state
actual_state
Activity
operates_on
Product _individual_
version
State
utilizes
expected_state
directive
start
Date_time
Planned_ Product
Realized_ Product
finish
start_state
end_state
in_response_to
observation_consequence
Work_order
Work_request
STEP AP239 Product Life Cycle Support (PLCS) and 233 share over 70% of their core modules

6. Mapping with Reference Data
Entities/relationships 233/239 are general
E.g. Product, Activity, Product_relation
Most things are subtypes of Product
Requirement, Part, Interface, …
Other subtyping is by classification assignment
Specialization of entities/relationships/attributes
External classes of reference data
E.g. INCOSE subtypes for requirement_version
Functional, Performance, Reference, Validation, …

7. OASIS DEX Architecture
Reference data in Web Ontology Language (OWL) tailors to domain
Templates are assembled into Data EXchange Specification (DEX)

8. Extension by Subtyping
draft
27/10/ :05:18
Extension by Subtyping
ISO Information Model
OASIS Taxonomy
Eurostep.ESUKPC v0.1 ©Copyright Eurostep Limited

9. OASIS Taxonomy ISO Information Model Solid box is an instance
draft
27/10/ :05:18
XML exchange
document
Solid box is an instance
of Activity named “Activity x”
Is validated against
Empty box is an instance
of Classification
XML Schema
Classification says “Activity x”
is classified as a “Repair”
Is generated from
OASIS Taxonomy
ISO Information Model
Eurostep.ESUKPC v0.1 ©Copyright Eurostep Limited

10. Exchange Scenario translate to AP233 translate from AP233 XML exchange
draft
27/10/ :05:18
Exchange Scenario
translate
to AP233
translate
from AP233
XML exchange
document
classification
System Engineering
Tool Vendor A
System Engineering
Tool Vendor B
Linked Taxonomy
Libraries
Eurostep.ESUKPC v0.1 ©Copyright Eurostep Limited

11. Reference Data Issues
Need expert knowledge of STEP information models to properly subtype with reference data
Many potential sources of reference data from different domains (need domain experts involved)
Basic set theory used to classify reference data
Potential for other uses of OWL e.g. semantic reasoning

12. DoDAF DoDAF - Department of Defense Architecture Framework
Views of systems engineering data
CADM - Core Architecture Data Model
Standardized database schema for DoDAF
DARS – DoD Architecture Repository System
Stores DoDAF artifacts for program analysis
UPDM – Unified (formerly UML) Profile for DoDAF and MoDAF
Support for SysML and UML

13. DoDAF Views Systems Technical Operational
Operational Concept Description (OV-1)
Node Connectivity Description (OV-2) X Y Z
Systems Interface
Description (SV-1)
Operational Activity Model (OV-5)
Information Exchange Matrix (OV-3)
Activity to System Function (SV-5)
System Functionality Description (SV-4)
Organizational Relationships Chart (OV-4)
Systems Data Exchange Matrix (SV-6)
Operational Activity Sequence and Timing Description (OV-6 a/b/c)
Systems Communications Description (SV-2)
System - System Matrix (SV-3)
Systems Technology Forecast (SV-9)
Standards Technology Forecast (TV-2)
Technical Architecture Profile (TV-1)
Systems Performance Parameters Matrix (SV-7)
• .....
Logical Data Model (OV-7)
Systems Functionality Sequence and Timing Description (SV-10 a/b/c)
Systems Evolution Description (SV-8)
Physical Schema
SV-11 A B C T1 T2 T3
NODES
TIME

14. DoDAF Issues Undergoing continuous improvement
Next revision to 2.0
Multiple formats (CADM and UPDM)
Required early on for programs
Not connected with later system engineering activities
Not updated as programs evolve

15. DoDAF and AP233
There exists a CADM-AP233 OWL representation (
Used AP233 WD2 version with fixes, CADM 1.02
Need to update to current version of AP233 and newer versions of CADM (1.5)
Need to map UPDM with AP233
Current version and future versions

16. SysML – Systems Modeling Language
Graphical language sponsored by INCOSE/OMG

17. 4 Pillars of SysML – ABS Example

18. SysML Issues XMI – XML Metadata Interchange
For UML and others expressed in OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF)
Vendor implementations incompatible
OMG Model Interchange Working Group to improve interoperability
SysML currently suited for model presentation, not exchange
Model configuration and other management is out of scope, and some provided by tool vendors

19. SysML and AP233 SysML to AP233 mapping underway 233 enhances SysML by
Both based on INCOSE concept model
Creating reference data for SysML
SysML info a subset/subtype of AP233
233 enhances SysML by
Management and representation of
Risk, Analysis, Configuration, Program/Project …
Linking to downstream CAD, CAE, CAM, PLCS
EXPRESS meta-model now in MOF
233 first test case of bringing STEP AP into OMG MDA

20. Context Diagram for Architecture & Systems Engineering Standards
Implemented
by Tools
Modeling Methods
SADT HP
OOSE
Other
Interchange Standards
MOF/XMI
STEP/AP-233
Architecture Frameworks
FEAF
Zachman FW
DoDAF
MoDAF
Modeling & Simulation
Standards
UML/SysML
UPDM
HLA
Modeling
Simulation
Process
EIA 632
CMMI *
ISO 15288
IEEE 1220
DoDAF
UML/SysML
STEP/AP-233
CADM
Repository

21. Earned Value Management
Government contract cost and schedule performance reporting
Standards for EVM Systems
ANSI/EIA-748-A EVMS Guidelines
XML Schema based on ANSI X & 839
NDIA Program Management Systems Committee XML Working Group
Defense Contract Management Agency

22. Standard Reports Integrated Master Plan (IMP)
Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)
Contract Performance Report (CPR)
Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR)

23. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
MIL-HDBK-881 standard 3-level for weapon systems
E.g. Missile System/Air Vehicle/Propulsion
Allows trade-space
Contractor tailors to deeper levels for program
Some contractors standardizing lower WBS levels
New Operations & Support WBS

24. Breakdowns & Cost Accounts

25. WBS Integration Requirements and specifications by WBS
IMS uses WBS to code tasks in SOW
Contracts report task cost by WBS

26. EVM Status EVM Central Repository Mapping EVM into 233
Required for major programs
Used for analysis
PM software vendors support
Mapping EVM into 233
OWL Reference Data
Need to map EVM Schema and 233-based Schema
Maintains upward compatibility

27. 233 Pulls it All Together
STEP AP233 can integrate cost, schedule and systems engineering
Models can be managed, inter-related, and linked to specialty engineering domains

28. Analysis from Repositories
Regression of Cost Estimating Relationships (CER) from past programs
Early work shows that the number of DoDAF interfaces correlated to cost & schedule (and growth)
Need to automate extraction and expand to other metrics and SysML
Causal Activity Based Cost Models (ABC, a.k.a. detailed engineering, bottoms-up)
Driven from requirements, system structure, behavior
Linked to IMS

29. Summary STEP AP233 Systems Engineering can
Input and integrate cost, schedule, and engineering models
Manage models through changes, lifecycle, and supply chain
Provide a basis for program baseline, reporting, and analysis