Addressing Interoperability in Military System-of-Systems Architectures

Transcription

1 Addressing Interoperability in Military SystemofSystems Architectures Elizabeth (Annie) Jones Wyatt Aerospace Systems Design Lab, Georgia Tech Presented at IEEE Syscon, March 1822,

2 Outline Introduction to Interoperability Conceptual example Motivation ARCHITECT Existing Measures of Interoperability Addressing Interoperability in ARCHITECT Assessment of Existing Methods Future Work 2

3 What is interoperability? Originally a software engineering term Many types of interoperability now exist Consumer electronics (Apple vs. PCs, etc) Information Technology (IT) and Information Systems (IS) Includes military and national security systems (NSS) Health care (electronic medical records, etc.) Emergency response services (police, EMTs, firefighters) General IEEE definition: Ability of a system or a product to work with other systems or products without special effort on the part of the customer. Interoperability is made possible by the implementation of standards. [1] The ability to exchange a resource and to use the resource that has been exchanged Can interoperability be defined for a single, standalone system? Not by this definition Can a resource be exchanged? How well is that resource exchanged? Need metrics of effectiveness [1] IEEE Standards Glossary, 3

4 Example: How can I share a document with my coworker? 4

5 Which method is most interoperable? Is the information transferred? Is the document digitally editable? Can I share it without leaving my desk? Can the file be edited by multiple people? 5

6 Interoperability in a military context The ability to operate in synergy in the execution of assigned tasks [1] The condition achieved among communicationselectronics systems when information or services can be exchanged directly and satisfactorily between them and/or their users. The degree of interoperability should be defined when referring to specific cases [1] What does satisfactorily mean? How is degree of interoperability measured? Since 2002, DoD policy has been that IT and NSS employed by U.S. Forces shall interoperate with existing and planned, systems and equipment, of joint, combined and coalition forces. Interoperability needs should be derived using integrated architectures, Should be updated throughout the system s life, and Shall be capabilityfocused and effectsbased. [1] Department of Defense Joint Publication 102, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Washington DC:GPO, [2] Department of Defense Directive , Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology (IT) and National Security Systems (NSS), Washington DC: ASD(NII),

7 ARCHITECT for capabilitybased acquisition decision making DoD Directive: existing and planned systems capabilityfocused using integrated architectures All DoD acquisitions go through the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process Consists of several milestones Premilestone A is where the most design flexibility is available and least is known about the design problem The Architecturebased Technology Evaluation and Capability Tradeoff (ARCHITECT) methodology has been developed by Griendling et al. at ASDL [1] Generates and evaluates systemofsystems architectures Matches operational processes with highlevel architecture metrics to compare potential architectures Currently, interoperability is addressed using ARCNET, developed by Domerçant [2] [1] K. Griendling, The Architecturebased Technology Evaluation and Capability Tradeoff Method, Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Aerosp. Eng., Georgia Inst. of Tech., Atlanta, GA, [2] J.C. Domerçant, ARCVM: An Architecture Real Options ComplexityBased Valuation Methodology for Miltary Systemsofsystems Acquisitions, Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Aerosp. Eng., Georgia Inst. of Tech., Atlanta, GA,

8 ARCHITECT alternative generation 8

9 Existing Measures of Interoperability Spectrum of Interoperability Measurement (SoIM) Quantification of Interoperability Model (QoIM) Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI) Organizational Interoperability Model (OIM) Stoplight Interoperability Levels of Coalition Interoperability (LCI) System of Systems Interoperability (SoSI) NonTechnical Interoperability Model (NTI) Ford s Interoperability Measurement ARCNET 9

10 The 1980s: SoIM and QoIM Spectrum of Interoperability Quantification of Interoperability 1980, DoD Defense Communications Engineering Center First to define interoperability as levels Interoperability cannot be defined by technological sophistication alone It is important to minimize the number of interoperability modes 1989, MITRE Defined 7 components of interoperability alongside a set of MOEs and MOPs Media, Languages, Environment, Requirements, Human Factors, Procedures, Standards Conducted an exercise with USN to measure 4 of the 7 components based on the success or failure of communications in 3 hypothetical scenarios Interoperability determined by the ratio of successful communications to total communications 10

11 DoD s Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI) 1998, DoD C4ISR Architecture Working Group Maturity model evaluates the interactions of system pairs based on the sophistication of their ability to exchange information 5 levels of interoperability across 4 attributes Procedures, Applications, Infrastructures, Data Each system in a defined architecture has an interoperability profile System developers fill out a project questionnaire Level 2c 11

12 General IOL Specific IOL Expected IOL 12

13 Meets operational requirements? No Yes Additional models explored different types of interoperability Models comprised of two types Extensions and modifications to LISI (maturity models) Nonleveling methods Organisational Maturity Model (OIM), levels of interoperability, 4 attributes Preparation, Understanding, Command, Coordination Interoperability is not limited to technical systems Meets acquisition requirements? Yes No Stoplight model, 2002 Nonleveling method Assesses whether a C4ISR legacy system meets requirements 13

14 Additional models explored different types of interoperability Layers of Coalition Interoperability (LCI), layers of interoperability Bridges technical and operational interoperability Increasing awareness leads from 1: physical interoperability to 9: shared political objectives Intended to be layered with other interoperability models SystemsofSystems Interoperability Model (SoSI), components: Operational, Constructional, Programmatic Activities associated with each component No associated metrics NonTechnical Interoperability Framework (NTI), 2004 Social, personal, and organizational interoperability are relevant to multinational forces cooperation Reference OIM, reuses 4 core attributes Interoperability is not restricted to information systems or the exchange of communication. Similar methods (e.g. leveling) can be used to describe different types of interoperability. 14

15 Ford s Quantitative Interoperability Measurement Set of systems S = {S 1, S 2,, S n } Characters to define S, X = {x 1, x 2,, x m } Characters have states, e.g. {0,1} or real value {0,c} (for instance, levels) All states must have the same range System instantiation for each system σ 1 = {x 1 (s 1 ),x 2 (s 2 ),,x m (s n )} Build a matrix of system instantiations, n by m Define a score of interoperability based on the similarity of system instantiations Uses modified Minkowski Similarity Function Normalizes from 0 to 1 Defines 8 modes of interoperability E.g. collaborative, confrontational, timevariant Multiple modes can apply to a system For more detail, see [1] [1] T. Ford, Interoperability Measurement, Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Sys. and Eng. Mgmt., Air Force Inst. of Tech., WrightPatterson AFB, OH,

16 ARCNET: Addressing interoperability within ARCHITECT Developed by Domerçant at GT [1] Combination of a simplified engagement model and collaboration model Examines the impact of varying levels of collaboration on engagement outcomes Early results indicate increasing interoperability only yields improvement in performance to a certain point 1.0 P success Increasing IOL [1] J.C. Domerçant, ARCVM: An Architecture Real Options ComplexityBased Valuation Methodology for Miltary Systemsofsystems Acquisitions, Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Aerosp. Eng., Georgia Inst. of Tech., Atlanta, GA,

17 Assessing existing models Are they qualitative or quantitative? Do they model the interoperability of a system, a system pair, or include complex effects due to a SoS? If they include nonmateriel solutions, how do they do it? Is the measurement standalone or does it have an associated purpose (e.g. operational processes)? 17

18 Models Suitability for ARCHITECT Model Quantitative? System, Pair, or SoS? Specific or General? Associated operation? SoIM System Pair Specific QoIM System General LISI System Pair Specific SoSI SoS General Ford System Pair General ARCNET System Pair Specific 18

19 LISI for SoS? Published in 1998 Does not conform to DoDAF V2.0, other recent DoD directives, policy Qualitative Although numbers are assigned, they are assigned based on conformity to a fixed, predefined definition Defined for individual systems and system pairs Emergent behavior could affect interoperability of systems in a SoS Functional interoperability could depend on physical interfaces Limited to information systems Ideally could consider nonmateriel interoperability Not associated with an operational process Need additional models to understand how interoperability affects SoS performance in a mission/scenario

20 Ford for SoS? 1 st attempt to have real quantitative measurement for general interoperability (nonmilitary, nonmateriel, collaborative and confrontational, etc.) Requires a purpose for measuring interoperability Ford acknowledges that only system pairs confrontational interoperability can be determined (not SoS as a whole) Success of a mission is almost never dependent on a single interaction Calculation of interoperability score makes several assumptions Assumes/requires that ranges of all interoperability states be the same (all binary, all from 0 to 5, etc.) Value of interoperability of a system pair can change depending on whether the system pair is isolated or studied within the context of other system pairs

21 Ford for SoS? Overall: flexible, quantitative, has associated mission Recommends two areas of future research: Indirect interoperability (how one system pair affects another elsewhere in a SoS) Linking changes in collaborative interoperability with changes in operational effectiveness P success Increasing Interoperability 21

22 ARCNET for SoS? Still qualitative 6level scale; numbers assigned to system pairs based on definitions Weakest link in current method? Overall network collaboration calculated using information entropy theory (quantitative) Final output is not interoperability measurement An understanding of both the benefits and drawbacks of networking military SoS for increased situational awareness Does have a specific operational process Engagement model; has to be redesigned for every new mission Also attempts to determine negative impact on combat effectiveness due to increasingly complex architectures Still in the process of being integrated with ARCHITECT Additional flexibility is desired 22

23 Closing Thoughts and Future Work What do we know now? Many different models exist None of them fit the SoS problem exactly What do we need to know? What metrics are relevant and measurable during conceptual design of a SoS? Choose metrics: That provide useful information That can be measured for a system portfolio with associated interfaces and force structure, performing an operational scenario Can we quantitatively evaluate the interoperability of a SoS beyond system pairs? And can we determine the interoperability of system pairs without just assigning an integer value? Will the additional knowledge we gain help decisionmakers? Benefit of increased interoperability vs. cost of information overload, network traffic, vulnerability to attacks on the network, etc. 23

24 Thank you! Questions? 24