Executable architectures in executable context enabling fit-for-purpose and portfolio assessment

Abstract

Systems engineering (SE) addresses the six interrogatives who, what, where, when, why, and how. Architecture artifacts provide static descriptions addressing the first three interrogatives: who, what, and where. Executable architectures add the interrogative when, allowing for a dynamic evaluation of system performance. We propose an approach that takes the evaluation process further by addressing the final interrogatives why and how: embedding executable system architectures into an executable context (EC), creating a scenario in which to evaluate the system in the operational role and evaluate mission effectiveness. Combining existing contributions into an executable context simulation framework allows for a holistic evaluation of systems that are models based on engineering specifications in operationally relevant contexts. We have successfully implemented a prototype to demonstrate feasibility and usefulness of this recommended new approach.

Concepts and Methodologies for Modeling and Simulation

“…As such, a recent interest has been shown by the modeling and simulation (M&S) community (Ö ren 2009; Kewley and Tolk 2009;Ö zhan and Oguztüzün 2013;Garcia and Tolk 2013;Bocciarelli et al 2012). However, accounts of the nuts and bolts of the practical MDE application are missing.…”

“…However, accounts of the nuts and bolts of the practical MDE application are missing. Usually, transformations are applied between narrow domains, avoiding realistic concerns and practical difficulties (Maoz and Harel 2006), and they are single-step source models to target model transformations (Garcia and Tolk 2013). Also, some transformations are achieved either within the same domain (mostly operating on a single model) or between two highly similar, tightly coupled domains.…”

Multi-objective optimization using parallel simulation for space situational awareness

“…12 The refinement of this methodology increased the efficiency of the generation and evaluation of executable architectures. 13 These enhancements facilitated an expansion of the previous design space, shown in Figure 2, which contains 10 22 possible combinations of architectural elements. The toolset includes Python and Linux scripting, AGI's Systems Tool Kit (STK) Engine (Analytical Graphics, Inc (AGI), Exton, PA), an open source MOGA implementation, and a Department of Defense (DoD) Supercomputing Resource Center (DSRC) high-performance computer (HPC).…”

Dynamically reconfigurable command and control structure for network-centric warfare

“…8 The Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) provides a broad level of specification related to operational, system, and technical views, but leaves open a formal algorithmically enabled process to support such integration. 9 While large-scale system engineering like context-driven architecture 10 has been developed, it lacks the theoretical guarantees that mathematical models provide. C2 frameworks based on mathematical models ensure consistency, conciseness, and completeness of missions while avoiding bottlenecks and deadlocks in resource allocation.…”