Common Language for Systems Practitioners: Why not!? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

common language for systems practitioners why not n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Common Language for Systems Practitioners: Why not!? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Common Language for Systems Practitioners: Why not!?

play fullscreen
1 / 62
Common Language for Systems Practitioners: Why not!?
87 Views
Download Presentation
keelia
Download Presentation

Common Language for Systems Practitioners: Why not!?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Common Language for Systems Practitioners: Why not!? Panel Moderator: Hillary Sillitto

  2. Panel Agenda and Cast • Hillary Sillitto, THALES, UK Setting the stage frame the problem with Jack Ring’s slides • Janet Singer, ISSS Systems Praxis Framework; • James Martin, Aerospace Corp, USA Four universal thought patterns – this is all you need! • Bud Lawson, Lawson Konsult, Sweden We need multiple paradigms, not just a “language” based upon a sterile ontology • Duane Hybertson, MITRE, USA Understand what is common and what is different – “models, patterns and views” • Richard Martin, Tinwisle Corp, USA As the problem space scales up, an increasing emphasis upon praxis derived from system sciences is needed to provide sufficient capability to effectively interoperate • Joe Kasser, National University of Singapore Get real, panelists – this is a waste of time and effort! Lessons learned from similar projects indicate that this effort will be about as effective as flogging a dead horse to get it to pull a cart. • Janet Singer, ISSS Initial considerations – shared models to bridge multiple incommensurable worldviews 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  3. Panel Agenda Setting the context Debate Q&A CONCLUSIONS 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  4. Panel Goals Discuss the following dilemmas: • the scope of “systems practice” is not agreed upon or even obvious • the many systems communities are “divided by a common language”: same words --- different concepts Present the “systems praxis framework” (SPF): a contribution to unification Expand the community that can benefit from this work and take it forward. NOTE: a paper on the Common Language for Systems Praxis project will be presented tomorrow: 10.00, Systems Thinking track 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  5. The chairman’s challenge (SPF): correct field of discourse? motivation to communicate > motivation to obfuscate? Is it feasible and useful to agree a finite set of terms to describe an infinitely complex set of subjects and situations?

  6. Common Language(s) for Systems Practitioners: Why not? Jack Ring IS2013Panelist in absentia Fellow, INCOSE June 24, 2013

  7. Why Bother? Extent , Variety , Ambiguity  6) Else – System of Systems? 1) SE Capacity Baby  Boomers 2) Market Demand 3) 10X higher - level unified SE language - diversity of participants 4) # participants < Starkermannlimit 5) Persistent system integrity assessment. NOW is the time.

  8. Praxis Framework Rationalizes 15288, SEH, SEBoK Does not express a praxis Does not unify language(s) Good start

  9. Language(s) Common Unified • 4 factor schema, e.g., • 50 kinds of process • ≈ 200 item formal ontology • Devised or adopted to express outcomes of thinking: i.e., linear, relational, lateral, Janusian, Hegelian, quantum, etc. • Devised or adopted to convey presence of emotions. • Convey the dynamics of emergence. • Examples: music, kinesics, natural (> 173), algebra, plots, directed graphs, video, pheromones. • Necessary, sufficient and efficient in Knowledge Exchange and Choice-making across human activity systems that initialize User systems: .

  10. Quo Vadis? PRAXIS Execution Engine System Engineering In Action Multi-level Meta-model Continuously co-evolving knowledge exchange and choice-making

  11. The Systems Praxis Framework The outcome of the collaboration that started at the Linz “Conversation”. Aims to: • map out the whole universe of discourse of systems practice, systems thinking and systems science; • show how theory could support practice and how practice can improve theory; • provide a properly grounded basis for a unifying set of concepts; • enable development of a common language for the systems community. 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  12. Janet Singer International Society for the Systems Sciences

  13. 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  14. 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  15. 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  16. 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  17. 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  18. James MartinAerospace Corporation, USA

  19. Information Transfer Unified Glossary of Terms ? Signs (eg, Words & Symbols) Signs (eg, Words & Symbols) Concepts Concepts

  20. Unification through Frameworks Signs (eg, Words & Symbols) Signs (eg, Words & Symbols) Concepts Concepts Conceptual Frameworks

  21. Conceptual Frameworks (i.e. Universal Thought Patterns) • Better than a Universal “Language”… • PICARD Theory • 7 Samurai Framework • PMTE Paradigm • Knowledge Pyramid

  22. PICARD Theory of Systems Parts Interactions Context Actions Relationships Destiny Holistic Image of System = From the Point of View of an Observer

  23. Problem (P1) needs to understand Context System (S1) Realization System (S3) intended to address Intervention System (S2) may address Competing System (S7) becomes may need to develop or modify competes with Problem (P2) becomes Modified Context System (S1’) needs to understand Deployed System (S4) may cause Sustainment System (S6) collaborates with sustains Collaborating System (S5) The 7 Samurai

  24. PMTE Paradigm PROCESS supported by support METHODS supported by support TOOLS supported by supports ENVIRONMENT

  25. The Knowledge Pyramid Wisdom Ideals & Insights Knowledge Beliefs & Convictions Information Meanings & Messages Data …1001010011… Signals

  26. Bud LawsonLawsonKonsult, sweden

  27. Paradigms to UnifyThinking and Acting in Terms of Systems • ”a scientific revolution is defined by the appearance of new conceptual schemes or “paradigms.” These bring to the fore aspects which previously were not seen or perceived, or even suppressed in “normal” science, i.e., science generally accepted and practiced at the time.” – T.S. Kuhn -1962 • “personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning based upon systems thinking that are routes to improvement.” – Peter Senge – 1990 • “A Journey Through the Systems Landscape” provides paradigms in the form of models that can be and have been shared to improve thinking and acting. 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  28. System Coupling Diagram • A collectively guided, disciplined inquiry • exploring issues of social significance, • engaged by scholarly practitioners in self-organized teams, • who select a theme for their conversation, • initiated in the course of a preparation phase, • that leads to an intensive learning phase. • (Banathy, 1997) 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  29. OODA – PDCA –Foundation of Change • A collectively guided, disciplined inquiry • exploring issues of social significance, • engaged by scholarly practitioners in self-organized teams, • who select a theme for their conversation, • initiated in the course of a preparation phase, • that leads to an intensive learning phase. • (Banathy, 1997) 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  30. Generic Life Cycle Transformations • A collectively guided, disciplined inquiry • exploring issues of social significance, • engaged by scholarly practitioners in self-organized teams, • who select a theme for their conversation, • initiated in the course of a preparation phase, • that leads to an intensive learning phase. • (Banathy, 1997) 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  31. Common Data/Information Structure 23rd Annual INCOSE International Symposium - Philadelphia, PA – 24-27 June, 2013

  32. Duane Hybertson, MITRE

  33. Basic Position (Duane Hybertson, MITRE) Is language unification possible in the systems community? • If unification = a common language: No. • Systems praxis is fundamentally multi-language and multi-discipline • If unification = shared understanding of systems: ~Yes. • A substantial degree of shared understanding about systems can be achieved across the entire systems community, which is useful to the systems approaches to practice such as SE, and is based on foundations, theories, and representations of integrative systems science.

  34. How to work toward shared understanding? • What are the most useful aspects to understand? • Characteristics of processes of systems praxis? (e.g., steps to engineer a new system, or to conduct integrative systems science) • Characteristics of systems? (e.g., system categories, types, properties, performance, reliability, structure, behavior, functions) • Based on examination of other disciplines, it is more useful to understand characteristics of systems than processes of systems praxis

  35. How to share understanding of systems? • Focus on what is common among systems, and distinguish what varies across systems • Integrative Systems Science helps identify what is common, and dimensions or factors of variability • Commonality can be observed at the level of all systems, and within identified categories of systems • How do we express and share commonality and variability? • System models, patterns, views: Discovered and formulated by Integrative SS, applied/tailored by SE

  36. Example: System Composition Hierarchy • IEEE 1220 focuses on differences at each composition level • Holarchy model focuses on similarities across all levels • SE needs combination of both

  37. Richard Martin Tinwisle Corporation

  38. entity Princeton University "About WordNet." WordNet. Princeton University. 2010. <http://wordnet.princeton.edu> synset links from WordNet Search 3.1 physical entity abstract entity relation psychological feature thing attribute object matter state location part of whole cognition (noesis) quality part unit natural object situation region artifact ability discourse content environment body a system for everyone know-how regularity idea geographic area context instrumentation group body part live body orderliness structure method plan environment system

  39. entity Princeton University "About WordNet." WordNet. Princeton University. 2010. <http://wordnet.princeton.edu> synset links from WordNet Search 3.1 physical entity abstract entity relation psychological feature thing attribute object matter state location part of whole cognition (noesis) quality part unit natural object situation region artifact ability discourse content environment body SS system for many know-how regularity idea geographic area context instrumentation group body part live body orderliness structure method plan environment system

  40. entity Princeton University "About WordNet." WordNet. Princeton University. 2010. <http://wordnet.princeton.edu> synset links from WordNet Search 3.1 physical entity abstract entity relation psychological feature thing attribute object matter state location part of whole cognition (noesis) quality part unit natural object situation region artifact ability discourse content environment body SE system for many know-how regularity idea geographic area context instrumentation group body part live body orderliness structure method plan environment system

  41. entity Princeton University "About WordNet." WordNet. Princeton University. 2010. <http://wordnet.princeton.edu> synset links from WordNet Search 3.1 physical entity abstract entity relation psychological feature thing attribute object matter state location part of whole cognition (noesis) quality part unit natural object situation region artifact ability discourse content environment body SE system for everyone know-how regularity idea geographic area context instrumentation group body part live body orderliness structure method plan environment system

  42. entity Princeton University "About WordNet." WordNet. Princeton University. 2010. <http://wordnet.princeton.edu> synset links from WordNet Search 3.1 physical entity abstract entity relation psychological feature thing attribute object matter state location part of whole cognition (noesis) quality part unit natural object situation region artifact ability discourse content environment body SS system for everyone know-how regularity idea geographic area context instrumentation group body part live body orderliness structure method plan environment system

  43. Integration – common model for information exchange • Formally correct by construction • Established protocols, e.g. STEP, IEEE 802.x • Same syntax and semantics for each party • Strict controls and model adherence in implementation – i’s dotted, t’s crossed, commas, quotes and brackets correctly placed • Unification – common meta-model (language) • Reference for mapping existing model syntax and semantics • Depends upon notions of semantic equivalence • Often use heuristics rather than formality • Information loss resulting from different extensions or instantiations • Federation – no common model or meta-model • Different terminology and methodology • Use a priori knowledge and negotiating agents • Inconsistencies resolved by manual intervention • Business as usual – try it, break it, fix it Interoperation mechanisms

  44. Little in common a priori - agent discovery, manual intervention, error prone federation unification integration  limit of ?? Common meta-model - mapping of syntax & semantics interoperation approach  limit of unification Common model & terms Scaling up interoperation  limit of integration simple complicated complex problematic situation

  45. Little in common a priori - agent discovery, manual intervention, error prone federation unification integration Common meta-model - mapping of syntax & semantics interoperation approach Common model & terms Scaling up interoperation simple complicated complex problematic situation

  46. Standardization, no way!Are you sure? Joseph Kasser National University of Singapore

  47. Problem-solving: Temporal perspective Undesirable situation (t2) Undesirable situation (t0) Yes or partial Still undesirable? Future conceptual feasible desirable situation (t0) No End Remedial action (problem solving) Solution Actual situation (t1) Problem

  48. Situation • Undesirable situation • Terminology exists but is ignored • New terms invented for almost identical existing terms • Humpty Dumpty • Partitioning is different in different publications • Desirable situation • A common language using well defined terms

  49. The Hitchins-Kasser-Massie Framework (HKMF) for understanding systems engineering* * Kasser and Massie, 2001

  50. Implementation strategy • Who has similar problems of defining new words • Hebrew, French, etc. • IEEE-610 software standard for terminology • Solution • Build on Systems Engineering Glossary project (SECOE) at UniSA • Create INCOSE Terminology of Systems Engineering Rationalization working group