visual modeling using projective analysis (pan)
TRANSCRIPT
Visual Modeling using projective analysis (PAN)
Philip Boxer April 20th 2007
Copyright © BRL 2007 1
The ‘double challenge’ space
Copyright © BRL 2007 2
A Governance Framework Organizes Structural Issues
These correspond to different levels of supplier alignment… Multiple Enterprises: the activities related to the operation of a system of systems within the context of its uses and users. Single Enterprise: the activities related to the management of one agency in the context of other agencies. Single Task Systems: the technologies (and the technical activities to select and apply them) that create and maintain interoperable task systems.
… and to different agency relationships:
Between multiple agencies and their multiple task systems.
Within single agencies and their multiple task systems*.
Within single task systems
If we consider interoperability from the point of view of Wildland Fuels and Fire Management, we can stratify different levels of interoperability between suppliers within this environment:
Stratification of levels:
6. Effects environment
5. Mission environment
4. Deployed Force
3. Operationally ready capabilities
2. Field-able capabilities
1. Equipment and bought-in capabilities
* Depends on Deployed Force Command structure
Copyright © BRL 2007 3
Three Views Organize Demand Responses
Service-driven
Solution-driven
Driven by the anticipated longer term consequences-on-the-
ground
I - Physical View
How do we get the equipment and people with
all the relevant support in the right place at
the right time and keep it there?
How do we get all the services working together
in such a way that the right capabilities and
information can be put in front of the right
decision-makers at the right time?
II – Situational View*
* Note that ‘situation’ here is defined with respect to the fire manager with command authority, and is in support of their recognition of the present situation….
III – Effects-based View
How do we draw upon the other two views in
support of generating desired operational
effects.
Copyright © BRL 2007 4
A Grid Organizes Governance to Demand
View of Response to Demand
Physical (service-driven)
Situational (solution-
driven)
Effects-based (experience-
driven)
Supplier Alignment
Single Task System
Single Enterprise (containing multiple
task systems)
Multiple Enterprises (containing multiple task
systems)
The ‘comfort zone’ of a single agency facing
known demands
Disruption due to the challenge to supplier
alignment arising from the multi-agency context
Disruption due to
emergent demands
arising from dynamic
contexts-of-use
SoS Target
Copyright © BRL 2007 5
Revealing a Double Challenge
Supplier Alignment
Nature of Response to Demand
Physical (product-
driven)
Situat’nal (solution-
driven)
Effects-based (experience-
driven)
Single Task System
Single Enterprise (containing multiple
task systems)
Multiple Enterprises (containing multiple task
systems)
The second challenge: Building the agility to
respond to the wildland fire effects environment?
The first challenge: Synchronizing the governance framework across
a complex operational context.
Copyright © BRL 2007 6
… requiring us to address the whole space.
Hierarchy layer
Structure-function and
trace layers
Synchronisation layer
3 2 1
6 5 4
9 8 7
Demand layer
Supplier Alignment
Nature of Response to Demand
Physical (product-
driven)
Situat’nal (solution-
driven)
Effects-based (experience-
driven)
Single Task System
Single Enterprise (containing multiple
task systems)
Multiple Enterprises (containing multiple task
systems)
The way visual PAN models the relationships between a number of layers offers one
way of seeking to model this space as a whole
Copyright © BRL 2007 7
Where does the technology fit in?!
Copyright © BRL 2007 8
The role of the Models and Tools
Model ‘Push’
The models and tools are developed one-by-one around particular problems and challenges, with varying degrees of adoption and take-up.
The Systems-of-Systems double challenge involves approaching this problem from the point-of-view of effects ‘pull’
Effects ‘Pull’
Operational
Effects
Situational
Awareness
Materiel &
Technology
Organisational
learning,
Personnel &
Culture
Edge
Organisation
Leadership
& Education
Force
Recruitment
& Collective
Training
Facilities &
Infrastructure
Doctrine &
Concepts
‘Pull’
Operational
Effects
Situational
Awareness
Materiel &
Technology
Organisational
learning,
Personnel &
Culture
Edge
Organisation
Leadership
& Education
Force
Recruitment
& Collective
Training
Facilities &
Infrastructure
Doctrine &
Concepts
Copyright © BRL 2007 9
There tends to be a hole-in-the-middle between these two approaches.
Model ‘Push’
Effects ‘Pull’
basic capability
keeping it working
deploying it
insufficient demand leverage
insufficient governance
leverage
doing the business
maintaining operational
effectiveness
through-life sustainment
The hole-in-the-middle
Supplier Alignment
Nature of Response to Demand
Physical (product-
driven)
Situat’nal (solution-
driven)
Effects-based (experience-
driven)
Single Task System
Single Enterprise (containing multiple
task systems)
Multiple Enterprises (containing multiple task
systems)
Integrating it
The hole-in-the-middle
The aim is to bridge the hole by developing risk mitigation strategies.
Copyright © BRL 2007 10
The ‘I’ position from which a PAN model is built
Copyright © BRL 2007 11
The domain of interest
White:
how we must
do what we do
Blue:
what we do
Internal External
Red:
particular
demands
Black:
the contexts
from which the
demands
emerge
The way
things
work
What
determines
shape
The ‘who for whom’:
Whose demands are we
satisfying?
The ‘why’:
Will we produce the effect
that we intend?
The ‘what’:
How do things work?
The ‘how’:
How are they
organised?
Identifying key actors and influences
The goal is to establish who the key actors are, and how they influence each other in determining the performance of the whole:
Copyright © BRL 2007 12
Moving from Influence Mapping into Projective ANalysis
B: (influence maps) hierarchy layer
C1: (actor-centric PAN) +
synchronisation, structure-function & trace layers
C2: (demand-centric PAN) + demand layer
D: (zones of interoperability) landscapes & risk identification
E: (zone metrics) +
behavior/deontics
Actors, world views x ontologies (4-colours), issues, time-lines
Any currently available material on how the organisation works
Scenarios, ladders, event sequences, orchestration/composition
Stratification, slicing, landscapes and risk identification
e.g. the interface to other M&S approaches
Process itself
A: consulting team’s pre-work
These layers can all be
described as topologies
These require the addition
of behaviours/ deontics to
the topologies
Copyright © BRL 2007 13
The modelling framework
Copyright © BRL 2007 14
Modelling Interoperability
The approach to modeling interoperability is Projective ANalysis (PAN), designed to describe the technology within its contexts-of-use. This is done in terms of 5 layers of analysis:
– Structure/Function: The physical structure and functioning of resources and capabilities. – Trace: The digital processes and software that interact with the physical processes. – Hierarchy: The formal hierarchies under which the uses made of both the physical and
the digital are held accountable. – Synchronization: The lateral relations of synchronisation and coordination within and
between Agencies and the services they provide ‘on the ground’. – Demand: the nature of the environment giving rise to demands on the way the
operations are organised to deliver effective and timely services.
These 5 layers combine to form a model of the operational space as a whole, within which Systems of Systems interoperate in relation to particular forms of demand.
Copyright © BRL 2007 15
Identifying what underlies the relationships
The actors influencing different aspects of the whole are influencing the interoperation of the constituent elements.
Hierarchy: The formal
hierarchies under which the
uses made of both the physical
and digital are held
accountable.
Demand: the nature of the
environment giving rise to demands
on the way the operations are
organised to deliver effective and
timely services.
Synchronisation: The lateral relations of
synchronisation and coordination within and
between Agencies and the services they
provide ‘on the ground’.
Structure/Function: The
physical structure and
functioning of resources and
capabilities.
Trace: The digital
processes and software that
interact with the physical
processes.
Actors
The actors within the circle are
identified with the interoperating
constituent elements outside the circle
Constituent Elements of PAN
Model
White:
how we must
do what we do
Blue:
what we do
Internal External
Red:
particular
demands
Black:
the contexts
from which the
demands
emerge
The way
things
work
What
determines
shape
Copyright © BRL 2007 16
Synchronisation
Trace Structure-Function Hierarchy
Demand
Combined Operational Space
PAN modelling
PAN modelling then fills in the relationships between these constituent elements
Copyright © BRL 2007 17
…which describes the underlying models from which composite capabilities are generated, represented in the form of a stratification.
1
0
1b
2 2b 1c
3b
4b
3
4 5
6
5b
sfo
How are ‘complex objects’ formed?
Copyright © BRL 2007 18
The Outputs
Stratification analyses the different levels of interoperability* from the point of view of the demands being placed on the system of systems by the environment.
— It enables the constructive risks associated with constituent systems to be separated out from the interoperability risks arising from their orchestration and composition.
Landscape
— The outputs of the analysis provide a way of identifying
o the root causes of interoperability risks and the means of their mitigation.
o The succession logics of the underlying models
sup
ply
-sid
e co
nst
ruct
ive
ri
sks
dem
and
-sid
e in
tero
pe
rab
ility
ri
sks
6. Effects environment 5. Mission environment 4. Deployed Force 3. Operationally ready capabilities 2. Field-able capabilities 1. Equipment and bought-in capabilities
* Stratification:
— It enables topological characteristics of the system of systems to be represented in the form of landscapes, describing interoperability ‘hotspots’ (peaks) as well as risks (gaps between peaks).
Why do gaps matter?
Copyright © BRL 2007 19
The visual syntax
Copyright © BRL 2007 20
Symbols
syncn/dsyncn
unit
outcome
hierarchy/ synchronisation layers
demand-side stakeholder
demand situation
driver
customer situation
demand layer
supplies
dsupplies
determines
ddetermines
frames
dframes
controls
satisfies
drives
contains
capy/system
event/trace
khow/design
process/dprocess
structure-function/ trace layers
Copyright © BRL 2007 21
The visual PAN syntax Structure-
Function
capabil
ity
kno
w-
how
event
process
outcom
e
A physical process
A capability determining the
behaviour of another capability
or of a process
An event generated by a
process
An outcome generated by a
process, and capable of being
contained by a customer
situation or party to the
satisfaction of a customer
situation.
Know-how that can alter the
way in which other know-how
and capabilities determine
behaviour. Can be party to
satisfying customer situations.
Trace
system
trace
dproces
s
desi
gn
A digital process i.e. a software
process
A digital system that can
determine the behaviour of
another system, a digital process
or a physical process
Design that can alter the way in
which other designs and systems
determine behaviour. Can be
party to satisfying customer
situations.
A digital event created by a
process or a digital process
Hierarchy
unit
A unit of vertical
accountability over all the
entities it controls. (Also
represents their state).
Synchronisation
order
The framing of a horizontal
synchronisation of the
entities it includes
dorder
The digital framing of a
horizontal synchronisation
of the events and traces it
includes
Demand
customer
situation
problem domain
demand
situation
driver
The place from which the
‘I’ of the client system is
formulating its demands
A particular context-of-use
A particular customer
situation within a context-
of-use representing a
particular formulation of a
demand within that
context. (Also represents
the state of the demand).
A driver determining the
nature of the satisfaction
demanded by a customer
situation
How are legal relations defined?
Copyright © BRL 2007 22
Structure-Function-Trace
Copyright © BRL 2007 23
activity/ trace chains
contains
contains
contains
drives
demand organisation
Relations between symbols
determines
determines
determines
controls controls
controls
contains
controls
ddetermines
ddetermines
ddetermines
frames
determines
supplies
Used to represent the sourcing of infrastructure & know-how
dsupplies
state data
dframes dframes
controls
situational data
dsupplies
dsupplies
dsupplies
dsupplies
frames
satisfies
An outcome that can satisfy must be
accompanied by know-how
The super-ordinate unit is a supply-side actor
supplies supplies
supplies
Copyright © BRL 2007 24
hierarchy trace
synchronisation demand
structure-function
composite
Wildfire middle-out
Copyright © BRL 2007 25
Why these symbols?
Copyright © BRL 2007 26
What the modeller models
boundary perimeter
3rd order
2nd order
deterministic
structure-determined reactive*
structure-determined passive*
Process*
edge
deterministic
structure-determining*
organisation-determined reactive
organisation-determined passive
non-deterministic
deterministic
organisation-determining
governance-determined reactive
non-deterministic
stakeholder governance-determining
driver
non-deterministic
On the supply-side, the stakeholder is represented as the top of a hierarchy
clo
sure
s
1st order
Modeller’s model of the system-of-interest:
How does this relate to DoDAF?
stakeholder
Copyright © BRL 2007 27
The visual PAN layers
structure-determined reactive
structure-determined passive
structure-determining
process
structure-function/ trace layers
demand-side stakeholder
governance-determining
driver
governance-determined reactive
demand layer hierarchy/ synchronisation layers
organisation-determining
organisation-determined reactive
organisation-determined passive
supply-side stakeholders implicit in the ‘top’ of the hierarchy
Projective Analysis
Reflective Analysis
Copyright © BRL 2007 28
What is the stratification?
Copyright © BRL 2007 29
1c
super-
structure
e.g.
it wing
Contexts-of-use
5b
5
composition of
orchestrated
constituent
capabilities Underlying
infrastructures
Stratification is not independent of context-of-use
Composition with
context-of-use
Self-Synchronisation of
orchestrated services
with demands arising
from context-of-use
constituent
capabilities
e.g. comms
interoperability
3b
3
7 drivers
e.g. joint ops
7b
problem
domains
e.g.
out-of-area
operations
6 demand situations e.g.
crisis response
mission
situations
e.g. aew
capability
1b
direct
organisation
e.g. ops
wing, data
management
0 processes e.g. change
notifications, iff
events
e.g. nav
output,
identity
tracks
1 services e.g. display consoles,
mission planning
know-how e.g.
programmers, test design
What is the relationship to DoTMLPF?
Effects
Ladders
2b 2 outcomes e.g. certified
mods, on station
Design control over
customisation of
constituent services
orchestrations of constituent
capabilities e.g. of datalink, esm 4b 4
6b data platforms
e.g. mission record
Activity
Chains
Governance of
constituent capabilities
Situational data fusion
Copyright © BRL 2007 30
Transaction and Governance costs
7 7b
6
5b
5 4b 4
2b
3b
2 3
1c 1b
0
1
6b Governance
Output Transactions
Operational
Capability
Force
package
Mission
Environment
1
2
3
Equip
ment
to
requirem
ent
2
3
4
Equip
ment
availa
bili
ty
3
4
5
Capabili
ty
availa
bili
ty
4
5
6
Mis
sio
n
availa
bili
ty
Effects
Environment
Equipment
Fielded
equipment
5
6
Join
t O
ps
availa
bili
ty
1
2
Supply
to
specific
ation
‘smart’ ‘TLAM’ TLCM TLCM+Trad’l
Collaboration 4-5 TLCM
Supply chain management
2-3 SCM
Market inputs 0-1 COTS
Production 1-2
Synchronization 5-6 TLCM+
Costs 5 Synchronization 4 Collaboration
Economies of alignment (3rd)
Customization 3-4 TLAM
Transaction cost approach
Economies of scale (1st)
1 Production 0 Market inputs
Economies of scope (2nd)
3 Customization 2 SCM
Relating the asymmetries, colours etc
Copyright © BRL 2007 31
END
Copyright © BRL 2007 32
order/B
(designkhow)/Z csitn/Y
unit/A outcome/X
Complex object - Unit_orchn
Which units have a demand-side relationship to customer situations?
satisfies
synchronises synchronises
controls
controls
determining
Copyright © BRL 2007 33
Overlapping
constituent parts
Why do ‘Gaps’ matter?
a ‘gap’ = lack of overlapping
parts enabling
synchronisation across
services in a way that relates
to the demand as a whole
service four
service one
‘traffic’ around the
gap as each service
tries to solve what it
can
a whole
demand A ‘whole’ demand
service one
service two
service three
service four
service five
service six
Services needing to be
involved
‘service’ could be at the
level of (e.g.) an
organisational unit or at the
level of a software object.
‘overlap’ could be defined
as (e.g.) liaison people at
one level or as shared data
at another.
collaborative SoS
service one
service two
service three
service four
service five
service six
‘horizontal’ process of
collaboration in response
to the whole demand.
The challenge:
The
problem: Solutions:
service one
service two
service three
service four
service five
service six
directed SoS
‘vertical’ separation of
the whole demand into
deconflicted parts
Copyright © BRL 2007 34
Visual PAN Syntax
Copyright © BRL 2007 35
The DLoDs/DoTMLPF
Command
Copyright © BRL 2007 36
Mapping the different schemas
6-level
stratification 1st
2nd
3rd
WHO/M
WHY
HOW
WHAT
Four colours/
causes
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
8-level
stratification
The Three Asymmetries: the three forms of
asymmetry forming the basis of competitive
advantage –
3rd – the demand is not the experience,
2nd – the business is not the solution, and
1st – the technology is not the product.
Copyright © BRL 2007 37
modelling
contexts
contexts-of-
governance
contexts-
of-use
modalities
of reality
The Zachman Connection
SCOPE(Competitive context)
Planning
BUSINESS
MODEL(Conceptual)
Owning
SYSTEM
MODEL(Logical)
Designing
TECHNOLOGY
MODEL(Physical)
Building
DETAILED
REPRESENTATIONS(out-of-modelling-context)
Subcontracting
DATA(WHAT)
e.g. data
MOTIVATION(WHY)
e.g. strategy
TIME(WHEN)
e.g. schedule
PEOPLE(WHO)
e.g. organisation
NETWORK(WHERE)
e.g. network
FUNCTION(HOW)
e.g. function
SCOPE(Competitive context)
Planning
BUSINESS
MODEL(Conceptual)
Owning
SYSTEM
MODEL(Logical)
Designing
TECHNOLOGY
MODEL(Physical)
Building
DETAILED
REPRESENTATIONS(out-of-modelling-context)
Subcontracting
DATA(WHAT)
e.g. data
MOTIVATION(WHY)
e.g. strategy
TIME(WHEN)
e.g. schedule
PEOPLE(WHO)
e.g. organisation
NETWORK(WHERE)
e.g. network
FUNCTION(HOW)
e.g. function
USE CONTEXT(WHO for WHOM)
e.g. particular client
USE CONTEXT(WHO for WHOM)
e.g. particular client
EVENT(WHAT)
e.g. things done
EVENT(WHAT)
e.g. things done
COLLABORATIVE
MODEL(Pragmatic)
Governing
COLLABORATIVE
MODEL(Pragmatic)
Governing
Copyright © BRL 2007 38
Source of coloured squares: Zachman
Framework, www.zifa.com
SCOPE (Competitive context)
Planning
BUSINESS MODEL (Conceptual)
Owning
SYSTEM
MODEL (Logical)
Designing
TECHNOLOGY
MODEL (Physical)
Building
DETAILED
REPRESENTATIONS (out-of-modelling-context)
Subcontracting
DATA (WHAT)
e.g. data
MOTIVATION (WHY)
e.g. strategy
TIME (WHEN)
e.g. schedule
PEOPLE (WHO)
e.g. organisation
NETWORK (WHERE)
e.g. network
FUNCTION (HOW)
e.g. function
USE CONTEXT (WHO for WHOM)
e.g. particular client
EVENT (WHAT)
e.g. things done
COLLABORATIVE
MODEL (Pragmatic)
Governing
The WHAT The WHY The WHO/M The HOW
Copyright © BRL 2007 39