Conference Presentation at the Workshop on Systems and Concurrent Engineering for Space Applications, Geneva, October, 2010

1. →
Modelling Methodologies in
Support of Complex Systems of
Systems Design and Integration:
Example Applications
Daniele Gianni1, Joe Lewis-Bowen2, Niklas Lindman1, Joachim Fuchs1
1European Space Agency (NL)
2Vega Consulting (UK)
daniele.gianni@esa.int
ESA/TEC-SWM
http://www.esa.int/TEC/Modelling_and_simulation/

2. 2
Outline
• Background
– System of Systems
– Enterprise Architecting
• Types of problems
• ESA Architectural Framework
• Example Applications:
– Galileo-COSPAS/SARSAT Design and
Integration
– GMES

3. 3
Systems of Systems (SoS) (I)
A possible definition:
“Systems of systems are large scale integrated
systems that are heterogeneous and
independently operable on their own, but are
networked together for a common goal”
Ref: M. Jamshidi, Systems of Systems Engineering, Wiley, 2009

4. 4
SoS (II)
Some criteria are commonly used to define SoS and distinguish them from
large but monolithic systems:
- Operational Independence of Elements: if the SoS is disassembled
into its component systems, the component systems must be able to
usefully operate independently
- Managerial Independence of Elements: the component systems not
only can operate idependently, they do operate independently
- Evolutionary Development: the SoS does not appear fully formed, its
development and existence is evolutionary with functions and purposes
added, removed or modified
- Emergent Behaviour: the system performs and carries out purposes
that do not reside in any component system. The principal purposes of the
SoS are fulfilled by these behaviours
- Geographic Distribution: The geographic extent of the component
systems is large. The components can readily exchange only information

5. 5
SoS (III)
So a SoS is:
– An assembly of systems that are functioning together
• Even if they are not initially conceived to
• Integrating systems at different levels of evolution
(legacy and new ones)
• Hence the importance of the definition of
standards and interoperability criteria
– When functioning together, those systems can
implement capabilities that would not be available
otherwise

6. 6
Enterprise Architecting
A possible definition:
“The process of rigorously describe an enterprise
architecture to support decision making
throughout a system (or SoS) life cycle”
Including design, operation, maintenance and
governance

7. 7
Types of Problems
• In the design of new space-based services, we will more often rely on
available assets, systems, and SoS
• This will reduce the resources needed for the development of new space-
based services, but will considerably increase the design complexity. For
example, new design approaches will have to consider:
– Integration of systems that are independently managed and owned
(e.g. Identification of Open Interfaces between Galileo and COSPAS-
SARSAT)
– Governance of these systems, to guarantee operational status and
SLAs that we might sign with customers (e.g. Responsiveness and
Latency of Oil Spill Detection, Monitoring, and Forecasting in GMES)
– Reduce SoS configuration sensitivity from composing systems, while
reducing redundancies of capabilities implementations

8. 8
Introducing ESAAF
• We introduce ESAAF as modelling methodology for supporting the
decision making in SoS design and integration
• ESAAF is based on established methodologies, such as MODAF and
TOGAF, aiming to enhance on the following aspects:
– Adding space domain specific concepts
– Increasing detail of modelling, where/when needed
– Improving technical (and logical) consistency
– Enhancing model exploitation, including properties inference
– Reducing visible complexity of the generic methodology
– It is an on-going project – other details coming up soon

9. 9
ESAAF Levels of Definition
e.g. Meta-Modeller, Process
Modeller
e.g. Programme Architect
and Modeller
e.g. Project Manager,
Customer and Modeller

10. 10
Exploitation
• Exploitation Tool
– Enables stakeholders to access the
information represented in the model
– Allows model users to build scenarios of
elements
– Report against the scenario
– Report against the full model
– Web integration feasible in the future
• Browsing patterns (ca 20):
– Identified manual or automatic extraction
of model properties (e.g. identification of
open interfaces, etc.)
• including inference of SoS properties
using domain-specific knowledge

11. 11
Galileo
• Upcoming European GNSS
• Complex System (per se)
• A base system for the implementation and
provisioning of other Space-based services
• Galileo will join SoS configurations
• For example Galileo-COSPAS/SARSAT will be a
SoS configuration aiming to implement global
Search and Rescue (SAR) capabilities

12. 12
Galileo-COSPAS/SARSAT Open Interfaces
Identification
• Objective: to identify responsibilities in the
definition and provisioning of interfaces
• Process:
– High level description of operational SAR
scenario
– Identification of roles and information
exchange
– Mapping of roles onto actual systems and SoS
– Identification of systems interacting across
stakeholder boundaries

13. 13
Galileo-COSPAS/SARSAT Operational Scenario
Galileo-specific Return Link
Objective: to identify
responsibilities in the
definition and
provisioning of interfaces

14. 14
Operational Scenario: Roles Identification
Galileo-specific Return Link
Identification of
operational roles within
the scenario

15. 15
High Level Interactions amongst Roles
Identification of roles and their information exchange in a SAR operation

16. 16
Detailed Interactions amongst Roles
(SAR Activation)
Exploded diagram of roles, identification of sub-roles, information exchange, and operational activities, in a SAR Activation Phase

17. 17
Detailed Interactions amongst Roles
(SAR Operation)
Exploded diagram of roles, identification of sub-roles, information exchanges, and operational activities, in a SAR Operation Phase

18. 18
Open Interfaces Identification
(SAR Activation)
Identification of Systems and SoS Configurations (aka Capability Configurations) implementing the sub-roles, in a SAR
Activation Phase. Open interfaces are determined by interactions between two independently managed or owned systems.

19. 19
Open Interfaces Identification
(SAR Operation)
Identification of Systems and SoS Configurations (aka Capability Configurations) implementing the sub-roles, in a SAR
Operation Phase. Open interfaces are determined by interactions between two independently managed or owned systems.

20. 20
GMES
• European programme
for the establishment of
a European capacity for
Earth Observation
• Inherently a SoS, as it
relies on the integration
of available assets,
systems, SoS

21. 21
GMES Model
(Some) Objectives:
• Identify dependency chains in the GMES
governance
• Support the evaluation of average latency
time for Oil Spill Detection Service
• Support the evaluation of average response
time for Oil Spill Forecasting Service

22. 22
Governance for Oil Spill Detection Service

23. 23
Governance for Oil Spill Detection Service

24. 24
Oil Spill Detection Response Time

25. 25
Exploitation Tool: PDF Report
Oil Spill Detection

26. 26
Exploitation Tool: PDF Report
Detection and Monitoring
Oil Spill Forecasting

27. 27
Conclusions
• Supporting decision making for SoS design and
integration is necessary to minimise the risk the
SoS will perform unexpectedly
• ESAAF is a new modelling methodology tailored to
space SoS design and integration
• Example application to Galileo-COSPAS/SARSAT
and GMES
– Overview of some model segments
– Model exploitation
• Ongoing: using ESAAF to support upcoming
European Space Situational Awareness, with
emphasis on data policy and governance
• Upcoming future: design of ESAAF v2

28. 28
Q/A?
Further questions:
Daniele Gianni
daniele.gianni@esa.int
ESA/TEC-SWM
http://www.esa.int/TEC/Modelling_and_simulation/

29. 29
Extra Slides

30. 30
ESAAF Process
• ESAAF defines a methodology for
– the specification of the
methods, rationale,
assumptions and principles of
the analysis and design
activities
– the definition of the ESAAF
governance (i.e. roles, actors,
and actions needed to
manage the ESAAF
infrastructure)

31. 31
Strategic View
ESAAF Metamodel
Systems View
Standards View
Operational View
The Systems View describes and interrelates
systems and their interconnections and
performance to the operational view.
The Standards View describes the minimal set
of rules governing the arrangement, interaction
and interdependence of system parts or
elements.
The Operational View describes and
interrelates the operational elements, tasks
and activities and information flows required to
accomplish mission operations
The Strategic package contains the concepts
and relationships needed for modelling the
highest level aspects of an enterprise. In
particular, it supports the description of the
enterprise's vision and goals, and the
capabilities that are needed to deliver this
vision.
Financial, Agreements,
Risk, Availability,
Programme,
Technology Views

32. 32
Modelling
• Currently based on ESAAF
MagicDraw plugin
• The governance tools can generate
the plugin from ESAAF metamodel
• Some of these tools base on
standard metamodelling
environments
• If required, other plug-ins could be
generated for other modelling tools,
such as System Architect