1. 8:1 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted ES/SDOE 678 Reconfigurable Agile Systems and Enterprises Fundamentals of Analysis, Synthesis, and Performance ES/SDOE 678 Reconfigurable Agile Systems and Enterprises Fundamentals of Analysis, Synthesis, and Performance Session 8 – Operations: Closure and Integrity Management School of Systems and Enterprises Stevens Institute of Technology, USA

2. 8:2 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Advising Master’s Projects If I find your topic choice interesting, I will accept your request to be your 800 advisor, provided we can agree on a few things. Mutual agreement on the final abstract. Your personal intent to attack this problem as one you want to explore seriously for your own curiosity, and for its potential value to L3. This translates to full mental engagement. You will research, think, and write with a quality appropriate for critically-reviewed publication – even if in the end the result cannot be published external to L3. I am not suggesting academic scientific high-Journal publication rigor here, but rather logical arguments, a demonstration of respectable research on what the field already knows (or doesn’t), no unsupported claims, appropriate use of references and language, and knowledgeable recognition of what your “audience” knows, perceives, and values. Among other things you must have a model of your “audience” in mind, and what they are inclined to believe and object to, so that you can leverage the one and overcome the other with meaningful logic. You understand that this is not simply another version of the 678 term project. The objective is not to “demonstrate” useful understanding of the 678 concepts, but rather to apply those that are appropriate to guide a thoughtful system-design proposal or analysis. You will budget and apply ~120 hours for the effort. There will be multiple reviews of work-in-process. As your advisor I would help you understand and address any of the above that your are unclear on – if your heart and mind are engaged. I know that you can find other advisors that will not want as much. Please give careful consideration to your intended level of commitment. I am interested in projects that seek to make a difference in our understandings and options, and hopefully in what is considered seriously for action and implementation. And … a co-authored published paper is expected.

3. 8:3 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Current mental engagements The Art of Systems Engineering: Masterful Design and Architecture Agile Systems Engineering Life Cycle Model Fundamentals, 15288 Compatible Self organizing systems-of-systems … applied to system security, or anything. Applying agile concepts to real problems. Some Master’s topics that attract me: Apply/explore agile concepts to solve real L3 problems (e.g., QRC, aircraft refurb, project/program mgmnt, et al.) Explore agile development-infrastructure concepts for developing hardware systems – software generally employs an Object-oriented development platform. Agile Project Management – as a general concept applicable to some type(s) of problems at L3, with UURVE, RSA, RRS and Strategy map. Agile Program Management – good for prog mgrs and wanna be prog mgrs who are knowledgeable. Self-Organizing systems of UAVs Something that advances the self-organizing pattern project catalog: autocatalysis, fractals, etc.

4. 8:4 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Master’s Projects – SO-SoS Patterns – Class 2 Systems Craig Nichols 678 Project: Agile Integration Process Master’s Project: Self Org. Patterns INCOSE Paper: June 2011, Denver INSIGHT Essay: July 2011 SSTC Invited Presentation Jena Lugosky 678 Project: Boyd OODA/On Intelligence Master’s Project: Stigmergic Patterns INCOSE Paper: June 2011, Denver INSIGHT Essay: July 2011 Cognitive Research J. (invited, declined) www.parshift.com/s/110620ArchitecturalPatternsForSOSoS.pdf www.parshift.com/s/110701ArchitecturalPatternsForSOSoS-Essay.pdf www.parshift.com/s/110620AdversarialStigmergyPatterns.pdf www.parshift.com/s/110701AdversarialStigmergyPatterns-Essay.pdf Barry Papke:Last Planner Applied to Aircraft Structural Modification (IS13 Paper) Steve Anderson:Agile Aircraft Integration for QRC Programs (IS13 Paper) Jason Boss:Agile Aircraft Installation for QRC Environment (IS10 Paper) Art Brooks: On Adding a Fourth “Artificial” Simulation Environment Category to the Live-Virtual-Constructive Simulation Environments (ITEA Paper) Billy Crews:The Agile Contractor Kim Elliott:Real-Time Open Semantic Interoperability: A Network Centric Warfare Key Enabler John Goodman:Planning for unplanned work Tom Hadden:On Detecting Aberrant Behavior in Unmanned Autonomous Systems Using Peer Trajectory Monitoring Techniques David Schaab:Agile Development of Requirements and Capability Maturity Model Randy Wolf:Applying CMMI-DEV to Department of Defense Quick Reaction Capability Projects Master’s Projects – Class 1 Systems

5. 8:5 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted FEEDBACK REVIEW Unit 6 exercise: 10 RRS Principles and AAP Integrity Management Unit 7 exercise: Reality Factors and Strategic Activity ConOps Web

6. 8:6 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted EXERCISE Build your ConOps Web: use the “strategic objectives” from the operational story of your mid-term, and add the activities necessary to deliver the values Generate one slide with your name on it: Strategic Activity ConOps Web – red and yellow bubbles These slides get added to the end of the team’s growing group-exercise file, sequentially together as a group Individually for your chosen term project…

7. Term Project Guidance Download (fresh today) the Project Guide document www.Parshift.com/AgileSysAndEnt/ProjGuide/678ProjGuideCurrent.pdf Read This… and Ask Questions the morning of the last day (or sooner)

8. 8:8 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Who/What is Accountable Sustainability & Effectiveness Module Mix Evolution: Who (or what process) is responsible for ensuring that existing modules are upgraded, new modules are added, and inadequate modules are removed, in time to satisfy response needs? Module Readiness : Who (or what process) is responsible for ensuring that sufficient modules are ready for deployment at unpredictable times? System Assembly/Reconfiguration: Who (or what process) assembles new system configurations when new situations require something different in capability? Infrastructure Evolution: Who (or what process) is responsible for evolving the passive and active infrastructures as new rules and standards become appropriate to enable next generation capability. The “passive” parts of the infrastructure are the interoperability standards The “active” parts of the infrastructure

9. 8:9 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted System Integrity – On Concept and Semantics Words can have different meaning in different context – different system types provide a range of (dynamic) context, which determine how to interpret the (static) words used to indicate (three of) the four integrity responsibilities. Context: An agile system is always agile – not only at birth, not only sometimes, and not only after periodic scheduled refresh (e.g., annual update to the strategic plan). To accomplish this there are four responsibilities that are always active, ensuring that the system is always capable of on-demand response and always accomplishes on-demand response. The type of system provides the context for the four responsibilities. “Always” is relative – appropriate for the context. Module mix evolution responsibility: has a focus on the evolution of module pool types and all pool content. Maintaining the relevance of what “should be” available for on-demand usage. Here modules are defined, obtained, designed, constructed, trained, upgraded, and “catalogued” as approved for use. Here modules are also pronounced obsolete or no- longer-usable and removed from the catalog. On occasion whole module pools may come into or go out of approved-for-use “existence”. Module readiness responsibility: has a focus on access to and availability of modules ready- to-use on-demand. The context requires thoughtful and likely different interpretation for human modules, physical object modules, virtual data or program modules, and so forth. Modules are not out of stock. They are not on a higher priority job and unavailable. They are not in need of repair, or in need of new training. They are not inaccessible at-the-moment because the module-library system is down or delivery bandwidth isn’t sufficient; or its Sunday and they don’t work on Sunday. Infrastructure evolution responsibility is usually focused on passive-infrastructure module- interoperability rules and standards – that which enables drag-and-drop, plug-and-play. Infrastructure Evolution is also, however, responsible for ensuring that the active infrastructure (4 integrity responsibilities) evolves as necessary.

10. 8:10 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted MotorsGears/Pulleys Infrastructure evolution System assembly Module mix evolution Module readiness Infrastructure Helicopter Mobile RadarPlane Modules/Components Integrity Management Active Passive Product Manager Owner/Builder Product System Eng. Retail Distribution Process Wheels Structural Material Joiners, Axles, Small Parts Tools Agile Architecture Pattern (AAP) Notional Concept: System Response-Construction Kit Details in www.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part1&2.pdfwww.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part1&2.pdf Rules/Standards Radio Control Standards Control Protocol Parts Interconnect Standards Sockets Signals Security Safety Service (None) Harm-Proofing Standards Process Rules & ConOps

11. 8:11 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted CubeSat Agile Architectural Pattern Chassis Infrastructure evolution System assembly Module mix evolution Module readiness Infrastructure JHU/APL Integrity Management Active Passive Cal Poly SLO Satellite Builder COTS Developers & CPSLO COTS Suppliers Electronics Communications Auburn University Sensors Power Modules/Components Rules/Standards University of Colorado System Examples of Increasing Complexity and Chronological Order CP SLO: Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Dove, Rick and Ralph LaBarge. 2014. Fundamentals of Agile Systems Engineering – Part 1. International Council on Systems Engineering IS14, Los Angeles, CA, 30-Jun-03Jul. www.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part1.pdfwww.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part1.pdf Sockets Signals Security Safety Service

12. 8:12 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Infrastructure evolution Assembly in SIL Module mix evolution Module readiness Infrastructure Modules Rules/Standards Integrity Management Active Passive process engineer production system engineer material manager small upgrade tech refresh large re-fit QRC Device/Power/Cooling Installation Architecture boxes rackszones SILs aircraft hardware Sockets Signals Security Safety Service Physical interconnect standards Data/power/cooling transmission Personnel/Sil/supply-chain/et al. Weight/space/installation rules Agile system/process ConOps Boss, Jason and Rick Dove. 2010. Agile Aircraft Installation Architecture In a Quick Reaction Capability Environment. INCOSE International Symposium, Chicago, July 12-15. www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap100712IS10-AgileAircraftInstallationArchitecture.pdfwww.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap100712IS10-AgileAircraftInstallationArchitecture.pdf

13. 8:13 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Classic Scrum: an Agile Architecture Pattern (AAP) Structure suitable for agile SW development, but not for agile systems-engineering … Infrastructure evolution System assembly Module mix evolution Module readiness Infrastructure Sprint 2 Sprint nSprint 1 Modules/Components Rules/Standards Integrity Management Active Passive Product Owner (PO) Scrum Master PO with Team Collaboration Developers Product OwnersDevelopers Scrum Masters Stakeholders Retrospective Change Product Backlog Planning, I&I Sprint, Review Daily Scrum, Retrospective Full Info Transparency Scrum Master Process Rules & ConOps … because the RSA is different for an agile systems-engineering process, and the Scrum AAP strategy is inadequate for systems engineering Sockets Signals Security Safety Service Dove, Rick and Ralph LaBarge. 2014. Agile Systems Engineering – Part 2. International Council on Systems Engineering IS14 Conference, Los Angeles, CA, 30-Jun-03Jul. www.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part2.pdfwww.parshift.com/s/140630IS14-AgileSystemsEngineering-Part2.pdf

14. 8:14 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted If Time Permits… Case Study or Guest Speaker (appropriately chosen after first 3-day session)

15. 8:15 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted BREAK

16. 8:16 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted "What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail?" asks Regina Dugan, then director of DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. In this breathtaking talk she describes some of the extraordinary projects -- a robotic hummingbird, a prosthetic arm controlled by thought, and, well, the internet -- that her agency has created by not worrying that they might fail. (Followed by a Q&A with TED's Chris Anderson) Regina Dugan directs the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the DoD innovation engine responsible for creating and preventing strategic surprise. With a doctorate in mechanical engineering from Caltech and master's and bachelor's degrees from Virginia Tech, Dr. Dugan is a business woman, inventor, and technology developer who rolls up her sleeves and goes directly to a problem whether it's in the lab or in Afghanistan. She's been called a "technogeek" with a knack for inspiring creative thinking, an artist-engineer. Many credit Dugan as a scientific coach, mentor, cheerleader and taskmaster. As a 2010 New York Times article explained, there are four stages to an encounter with Regina Dugan - "being a little scared, really scared, frustrated and then enlightened.“ Vision alone is insufficient for Dugan. Rather, vision must be paired with the power of execution in order to make impossible things possible. “Since we took to the sky, we have wanted to fly faster and farther. And to do so, we've had to believe in impossible things and we've had to refuse to fear failure.” (Regina Dugan) Video and text above at: www.ted.com/talks/regina_dugan_from_mach_20_glider_to_humming_bird_drone.htmlwww.ted.com/talks/regina_dugan_from_mach_20_glider_to_humming_bird_drone.html Guest Speaker: Regina Dugan From mach-20 glider to humming bird drone (File20-25)File20-25

17. 8:17 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Agility Workshop General Motors West Mifflin, PA Situation: Many highly-agile unique processes and practices in this low-volume high-variety production environment. All were the design efforts of a few “naturals”, who cannot articulate to others how to continue this necessary practice after they retire.

18. 8:18 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted General Motors Workshop Analyzed: The JIT Assembly Line process. Analyzed: The Pittsburgh Universal Holding Device. Exercise: Core Competency Insight Diffusion…one of the most important problems facing all companies today: how to make good intuitive knowledge in a few employee-heads in one part of the company explicit, so that it can be taught to new employees and taken to other parts of the company. The workshop group included about 10 management and executive level participants from the plant. First they analyzed the two things above that they were very familiar with and respected highly – looking through the lens of the 10 RRS principles to identify how these were employed to enable agility. Then they were guided through an exercise that applied these principles to the design of a new process.

19. 8:19 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Core Competency Diffusion Strategy Solve Real Problems Students Renew Knowledge Package as Metaphor Models Analyze External Case for Ideas Analyze Local Case for Principles Rotate Student/Mentor Roles Establish Personal Values Base on Fundamental Principles FacilitateInsight Review and Select for Quality Focus on Response Issue/Value Design a Business Practice - Strategic Themes/Values - Functional Activities

20. 8:20 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Core Competency Insight Diffusion Drag & Drop Modules: Mentors Students Case Models (Knowledge) Local Rules (Knowledge) Outside Cases (Knowledge) Application Exercises Personal Value Examples Plug & Play Framework: Fundamental-Principle Based Solve Real Problem Students Renew Knowledge Change Issue/Value Focus Insight Facilitation Operational/Integrity Management Knowledge Mgnt Committee: Framework/Process. HR/OD: Students, Mentors, IDG formation. QA Committee: Rules/Problems/Models. Students: Outside Cases, Value Examples. Change Proficiency Key Proactive Issues: Creation: Tacit Knowledge Capture Student Interest/Value Improvement: Knowledge Accuracy Knowledge Effectiveness Migration: Knowledge Focus Addition/Subtraction: Student Types Fresh Outside Knowledge Key Reactive Issues: Correction: Incorrect Knowledge Poor Value Knowledge Variation: Flexible Student Schedule Expansion: Any Size Group Reconfiguration: Rules«–»Applications Sample Insight Development Groups (IDGs) x x x Case Models Students Outside Cases Application Exercises Mentors Local Rules x x x Value Examples New Hires Existing Employee Group

21. 8:21 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Activities (Functions) Establish personal values1 Analyze external case for ideas2 Analyze local case for principles3 Design a business practice4 Package as response ability models5 Rotate student / mentor roles6 Review and select for quality7 Self Contained Units Plug Compatibility Facilitated Re-Use Flat Interaction Deferred Commitment Distributed Control & Info Self Organization Elastic Capacity Redundancy & Diversity Evolving Standards Principle-Based Activities, and Issues Served ReactiveProactive Issues (Requirements) RRS Principles Capturing hidden tacit knowledge 3567353565733763337 Creating student interest and value 1241111212412411 Improving knowledge accuracy 36763376337 Improving knowledge effectiveness 1245 452454511252 Migrating the knowledge focus 247274247247447 Accommodating different student types (all)2563472123451172 Injecting fresh outside knowledge 262626262 Finding and fixing incorrect knowledge 36777336337 Excising poor value knowledge 2357773322335257 Allowing flexible student schedules 34343434 Accommodating any size group 2345234523422534234 Reinterpret rules for new applications 23457 275235723457 Details: http://www.parshift.com/Essays/essay039.htmhttp://www.parshift.com/Essays/essay039.htm (Case: An Insight Development System) Closure Matrix – Where Deep Design Begins

22. 8:22 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Creating Conceptual Design Closure The closure tool is where design thought gets deep. Here the preliminary issues, principles, and activities are sifted for relevance and related for synergy. The tool is first used to specify which activities will address which issues, and why; and to verify (in the mind of the designer) that the set of issues and the set of activities are necessary and sufficient. It is a time to step back from the preliminary, somewhat brainstormed, formulation of the problem and the solution- architecture, and do a sanity check before specifying design-principle employment. Not explored further here, Chapter 7 of the text book can assist. The real work with the closure tool is generally on the employment and purpose of principles - the ones that would compromise potential if they are not employed as design elements. This we will explore further here. Issue-Focused, Principle-Based Design - The General Process 1) Pick an activity, and describe its general process sequence. 2) Focusing on one issue: sequentially think if/how each of the ten principles might be employed by the activity to address the issue meaningfully. Then write a paragraph that describes the key principles and what they achieve. 3) Loop through all issues for item 2. 4) Loop through all activities for item 1. Note for term project: Do 1-2-3 as exemplified in the following slides and in Chapter 7 of the text book (mainly in final section headed “Principle-Based design”) … as a minimum.

23. 8:23 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted The Activity Analyze Local Case for Principles (strong similarities to the GM workshop process that designed this activity) This is the primary mechanism for capturing core-competency knowledge, and uses the students to analyze and describe the features and underlying principles of an existing highly adaptable system. Typically the original designers of these existing systems employ techniques that they are unable to articulate to others sufficient for duplicating the expertise. The purpose of this analysis is twofold: first, it turns tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, and second, it is a warm-up exercise for the group which subsequently employs what they have learned to solve the workshop application problem. Students choose the subject for analysis from candidates suggested by mentors. Mentors provide process guidance, aiming the group toward the eventual descriptive requirements for consistent knowledge representation. 1a) Describe the activity and …

24. 8:24 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Activity Process Sequence Described (Analyze Local Case For Principles) 1.Explain in presentation/tour the case under analysis. 2.Full group Q&A and discussion. 3.Breakout sub-groups identify issues and values. 4.Full group discussion on sub-group results. 5.Breakouts build activity diagram and identify framework, modules, and system responsibilities. 6.Full group discussion on sub-group results. 7.Breakouts build closure matrix with RRS examples. 8.Full group discussion on sub-group results. 9.Mentors lead consensus-making among sub-group differences where possible – as a transition into the next activity: Metaphor Model Packaging. 1b) … its process sequence

25. 8:25 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Issue: Capture Hidden Tacit Knowledge Employing the flat interaction principle we encourage the sub-groups to independently question and probe the people involved in designing or operating the system under analysis without restricting this to a full group discussion and Q&A activity. Importantly, deferred commitment is at work by first examining issues and activities before identifying the underlying principles that are important - which tends to broaden the perspective while focusing it on priorities at the same time. Unit redundancy is employed by purposely having multiple sub-groups go after the same analysis independently so that if one gets in a hole another will surly succeed. By the same token, we let these sub-groups exercise a high degree of self-organization as to how they will schedule their analysis activity, how they will interpret the principles, what libraried cases they will study for guidance, and how they will arrive at a self-contained unit conclusion - requiring no dependence on other sub-groups. Of course their conclusion is going to be plug compatible with the full group because the analysis structure is a given: the metaphor model is the template. This independent work by multiple groups will develop a broader and deeper set of alternative views, guard against single-view dogma, and generally make progress even if some of the people in the group are confused and lost. Finally, evolving standards will modify our understandings of the principles and their usage, and the change issue/value focus to keep up with new learnings and perspectives. 2) Pick an issue, write a paragraph showing RRS-principle usage

26. 8:26 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Issue: Improving Knowledge Accuracy Redundant sub-groups and even duplicate analyses by whole groups refines the knowledge. Self organization of the sub-groups and allowing direct flat interaction between teams and sources increases the likelihood that some teams will uncover knowledge overlooked by others who approach the process differently. As before, deferring the close look at principles focuses the priorities; and allowing direct team/source interaction broadens the total perspective. Issue: Improving Knowledge Effectiveness Chartering each sub-group as a self-contained unit means that they must build a complete stand-alone analysis, and not split up the effort with another – meaning they will learn a full system with all its checks and balances and not simply a few odds and ends about something that appears to work. 2-loop) Pick another issue, write a paragraph showing RRS-principle usage

27. 8:27 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Issue: Different Student types The issue of different student types is accommodated by deferring the selection of the local case until the participant profile is known - and at the same time letting the group self-decide what the case shall be from among their own candidates as well as those offered by mentors. Issue: Finding and Fixing Incorrect Knowledge Issue: Excising Poor Value Knowledge Though they are two distinct issues, finding and fixing incorrect knowledge and excising poor value knowledge are both achieved identically in our case here - and in a similar manner to improving knowledge accuracy. Redundant sub-groups and even duplicate analyses by whole groups is bound to produce differing points of view and even expose a sacred cow now and then. Self organization of the sub-groups and flat interaction increases the likelihood that some teams will look at things differently than others. Finally, deferring the close look at principles until a sound set of issues and values is developed is likely to ferret out bad assumptions 2-loop) Pick another issue, write a paragraph showing RRS-principle usage

28. 8:28 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Issue: Flexible Student Schedules The issue of flexible student schedules is enabled by self-organizing sub-groups that stand-alone as self-contained teams and are able to interact peer-to-peer (flat interaction) in their analysis work. Though there are some times when an entire workshop group must meet together, the bulk of the time consuming work is spread over weeks and can occur asynchronously Issue: Accommodating Any Size Analysis Group The issue of accommodating any size analysis group, from a few new hires to a large retraining class, relies on the flexible capacity afforded by splitting a total group into any number of sub-group teams, chartering these teams as independent self-contained units that work to a common plug-compatible process structure, and having them all work redundantly on the same objectives. Issue: Reinterpret Rules for New Applications Technology, applications, and corporate strategy change with time. By distributing control of this total process to the points of maximum knowledge we vest evolving standards responsibility in the hands of the knowledge management committee, for they have the current strategies and future goals of the organization in sight. 2-loop) Pick another issue, write a paragraph showing RRS-principle usage

29. 8:29 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty, but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller “Quality is practical, and factories and airlines and hospital labs must be practical. But it is also moral and aesthetic. And it is also perceptual and subjective.” -- Tom Peters Projected Operational Story Architectural Concept & Integrity Response Situation Analysis RRS Principles Synthesis ConOps Objectives & Activities Reality Factors Identified Closure Matrix Design Quality Evaluation RAP Tools & Process

30. 8:30 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted In-Class Tool Applications Class Warm-upsTeam TrialsTeam Project Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10 ConOps: Objectives Reactive/Proactive RS Analysis Framework/Modules RRS + Integrity RS Analysis RRS Analysis Reality Factors: Case RS Analysis: Case RRS Analysis: Case Reality + Activities IntegrityClosure AAP Analysis: Case

31. 8:31 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted EXERCISE Process to follow… A - Chose an activity B - Describe the steps of that activity (Slide 1) C - Identify which issues are addressed by that activity (Put activity # next to the appropriate issues in closure matrix) D - Identify which principles are employed for each issue addressed (Put activity # at intersection cell in closure matrix) F – Choose one issue with lots of intersections and explain in prose how principles apply Generate three slides (like the examples on next 3 slides): 1:Pick one activity and describe its process steps in a paragraph 2:Closure Matrix – Show all Issue/Principle hits for that Activity (use template) 3:Choose one or more Issues and explain how the principles are employed to address the issue in the activity you chose – perhaps a sentence each

32. 8:32 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Analyze Local Case For Principles Process Steps in This (our chosen) Activity 1.Explain in presentation/tour the case under analysis. 2.Full group Q&A and discussion. 3.Breakout sub-groups identify issues and values. 4.Full group discussion on sub-group results. 5.Breakouts build activity diagram and identify framework, modules, and system responsibilities. 6.Full group discussion on sub-group results. 7.Breakouts build closure matrix with RRS examples. 8.Full group discussion on sub-group results. 9.Mentors lead consensus-making among sub-group differences where possible - as a transition into the next activity: Metaphor Model Packaging. Slide 1 “GM Example”

33. 8:33 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Closure Matrix Activities (Functions) Establish personal values1 Analyze external case for ideas2 Analyze local case for principles3 Design a business practice4 Package as response ability models5 Rotate student / mentor roles6 Review and select for quality7 Self Contained Units Plug Compatibility Facilitated Re-Use Flat Interaction Deferred Commitment Distributed Control & Info Self Organization Elastic Capacity Redundancy & Diversity Evolving Standards Principle-Based Activities, and Issues Served ReactiveProactive Issues (Requirements) RRS Principles Capturing hidden tacit knowledge 33333333 Creating student interest and value Improving knowledge accuracy 33333 Improving knowledge effectiveness Migrating the knowledge focus Accommodating different student types (all)33 Injecting fresh outside knowledge Finding and fixing incorrect knowledge 33333 Excising poor value knowledge 33333 Allowing flexible student schedules 3333 Accommodating any size group 33333 Reinterpret rules for new applications 333 Case: An Insight Development System Slide 2 “GM Example” **Use Excel Form**

34. 8:34 rick.dove@stevens.edurick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted Issue: Capture Hidden Tacit Knowledge Employing the flat interaction principle we encourage the sub-groups to independently question and probe the people involved in designing or operating the system under analysis without restricting this to a full group discussion and Q&A activity. Importantly, deferred commitment is at work by first examining issues and activities before identifying the underlying principles that are important - which tends to broaden the perspective while focusing it on priorities at the same time. Unit redundancy is employed by purposely having multiple sub-groups go after the same analysis independently so that if one gets in a hole another will surly succeed. By the same token, we let these sub-groups exercise a high degree of self-organization as to how they will schedule their analysis activity, how they will interpret the principles, what libraried cases they will study for guidance, and how they will arrive at a self-contained unit conclusion - requiring no dependence on other sub-groups. Of course their conclusion is going to be plug compatible with the full group because the analysis structure is a given: the metaphor model is the template. This independent work by multiple groups will develop a broader and deeper set of alternative views, guard against single-view dogma, and generally make progress even if some of the people in the group are confused and lost. Finally, evolving standards will modify our understandings of the principles and their usage, and the change issue/value focus to keep up with new learnings and perspectives. Slide 3 “GM Example”