4.3.3 Capability Engineering within Canadian Defence: Experimentation and Lessons Learned

2017

This paper is concerned with the principles for successful System of Systems Engineering practice and their use. The paper opens with a description of the need for System‐of‐Systems Engineering (SoSE) within the Australian Defense context and the research underway to support its introduction. An overview of previous work by the authors follows describing the three‐layer framework used to hold the SoSE principles (Pratt & Cook, 2017) to provide context. This framework comprises an articulation of the worldview which makes SoSE meaningful, the concepts that drive SoSE methodology design and use (descriptive heuristics), and implementation principles (prescriptive heuristics). The paper discusses the need for substantiation of these principles and the framework, the methods by which this being conducted and some the initial work assessing coverage and applicability. Finally, the paper provides suggestions for how this framework and associated principles can be employed for its stated purpose (utility), with specific regards for different stakeholders and their varied roles and responsibilities.

Section: Worldviewmentioning

confidence: 80%

Using the SoSE Principles Framework

Pratt

2017

“…The discipline that tackles ICR is internationally known as SoS Engineering (SoSE) (or alternatively Systems Engineering for SoS or capability systems engineering). SoSE approaches have been widely applied (OSD, 2008;Camm & Fitchett, 2011;Lalancette et al, 2008;Anteroinen, 2012;Norman and Kuras, 2006) and are designed to cope without a single 'owner' able to co-ordinate the entire effort and with independent management and funding of constituent systems.…”

Section: Review Of Approaches Suitable For Icrmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Capability Engineering Lifecycle Framework Based on Insights from Australian Defence

Unewisse

2020

The Australian Department of Defence is actively pursuing initiatives to improve the integration and interoperability of the defence force and this paper reports on research findings produced in support of this effort. The paper opens with a description of the Australian Defence capability development context together with recent initiatives to provide greater military capability for the available budget. Within this context, the problem the researchers set out to address is how best to co‐ordinate the ongoing force Integration and Interoperability (I2) activities that evolve and deliver defence capabilities so that these capabilities can be integrated together at short notice and deployed. System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) approaches have been found to be effective for this class of problem and the paper provides a short review of the most promising candidates. The methodology needs analysis that follows concludes that a range of different SoS approaches will be needed to cover the different stages of the capability lifecycle and the paper then proceeds to describe an initial framework that provides a new way of looking at the defence Integrated Capability Realisation (ICR) SoSE challenge across two dimensions. The first dimension is the time horizon of the planned capability increment: from the present to around four years; four to eight years; eight to twelve years; and longer than twelve years. The second dimension covers the types of activities that are traditionally performed to evolve defence forces such as future force planning, program co‐ordination and planning, project capability definition, acquisition, and force generation. The paper describes how this framework provides a simple method to identify which SoSE approaches are the most applicable to given ICR subtasks and also proposes an overall approach to self‐organise overall Defence ICR efforts

“…This is often called System of Systems (SoS) Integration. In other countries, defence capability integration is being achieved through the application of systems engineering tailored to reflect the SoS context: there usually is no single owner of a SoS and independent, concurrent management and funding at both the constituent system level and at the SoS level is the norm (Maier, 1998;Chen and Clothier, 2003;Valerdi et al, 2008;OSD 2008;Lalancette et al, 2008;Camm & Fitchett, 2011;Anteroinen, 2012;Norman and Kuras, 2006). In order to achieve effective SoS integration it becomes necessary for key players to influence other parties (in particular independent project offices) on the basis of perspective, breadth of knowledge, and analysis rather than from a position of authority (Oxenham and Swales, 2010).…”

Section: Capability Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A SoS Approach for Engineering Capability Programs

Unewisse

2017

The Australian Defence Organisation is undergoing the most significant change in 40 years to deliver a more effective and agile defence force. One of the key changes is the introduction of a new capability life cycle that seeks to take a more holistic perspective on defence capability. This has included the introduction of Programs that are to be managed in a coordinated way to optimize capability outcomes across a group of Products and Projects. The paper opens by discussing the context in which Programs will be implemented and identifies the needs for their management and systems engineering. The needs analysis concluded that a system‐of‐systems engineering (SoSE) approach is needed and that this should be tested and refined using an initial test case. Building on recent review material of SoSE approaches, a modified wave model was selected for the test case as the preferred approach for Program SoSE. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations on how the initial test case should be implemented to provide a foundation for broader implementation across Programs.