Typology dimensions for classifying SoSE problem spaces

Cook, Stephen; Pratt, Jaci M.

doi:10.1109/sysose.2016.7542962

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As part of broader studies on SoSE (Cook & Pratt, 2016& 2020Pratt & Cook, 2018), the authors have been working to improve the conceptual, theoretical, and practical basis for SoS measurement and assessment. An initial literature review of measurement and assessment directly tailored to SoS from across the systems engineering field identified limited coverage.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi‐Disciplinary Insights into Measurement and Assessment for SoS

Pratt

Cook

2022

INCOSE International Symp

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assessment of performance and quality is essential to the engineering and evolution of Systems of Systems (SoS); however, there has been limited discussion of SoS measurement and evaluation in the literature. This paper reviews the measurement and assessment literature across multiple disciplines to address this gap and applies constructive research to design principles and concepts for SoS evaluation. Relevant challenges and best practice elements are identified within each discipline for comparison against the nature and characteristics of Systems of Systems. These elements are then synthesized into three key areas necessary for SoS evaluation: measure development, determination of good metrics, and assessment. While further work has been identified and initiated on methods for the generation of such metrics, this study provides practitioners with the core practices and principles necessary to enable tailored and enhanced SoS assessment.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi‐Disciplinary Insights into Measurement and Assessment for SoS

Pratt

Cook

2022

INCOSE International Symp

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the context of SoS engineering, opaque “authorities” and managerial and operational independence of constituent systems, create a compounding confusion on the perspective challenge identified here 26,34,58 . Again, clear‐cut distinctions between different perspective on SoS complexity are difficult to maintain, exemplified in the overlapping “classifying dimensions” that discriminates between the “Complexity,” “Dynamicity,” and “Connectivity” of an SoS but which are, in reality, interrelated terms 59 …”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the complexity of engineered systems: A framework informed by a user case study

Potts

Johnson

Bullock

2020

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating the complexity of an engineered system is challenging for any organization, even more so when operating in a System‐of‐Systems (SoS) context. Here, we analyze one particular decision support tool as an illustratory case study. This tool has been used for several years by Thales Group to evaluate system complexity across a variety of industrial engineering projects. The case study is informed by analysis of semistructured interviews with systems engineering experts within the Thales Group. This analysis reveals a number of positive and negative aspects of (i) the tool itself and (ii) the way in which the tool is embedded operationally within the wider organization. While the first set of issues may be solved by making improvements to the tool itself, informed by further comparative analysis and growing literature on complexity evaluation, the second “embedding challenge” is distinct, seemingly receiving less attention in the literature. In this paper, we focus on addressing this embedding challenge, by introducing a complexity evaluation framework, designed according to a set of principles derived from the case study analysis; namely that any effective complexity evaluation activity should feature collaborative effort toward building an evaluation informed by a shared understanding of contextually relevant complexity factors, iterative (re‐)evaluation over the course of a project, and progressive refinement of the complexity evaluation tools and processes themselves through linking project evaluations to project outcomes via a wider organizational learning cycle. The paper concludes by considering next steps including the challenge of assuring that such a framework is being implemented effectively.

show abstract

“…This work is motivated by the desire to provide some structure and traceability in the process of designing SoSE methodologies. Initial typology work (Cook & Pratt, 2016) has been published in the 2016 IEEE SoSE Conference and the more detailed principles hierarchy (Pratt & Cook, 2017) at the Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER) 2017. This paper provides follow-on work that describes the proposed process to validate the principles and how the principles can be utilized by practitioners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the SoSE Principles Framework

Pratt

Cook

2017

INCOSE International Symp

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Typology dimensions for classifying SoSE problem spaces

Cited by 9 publications

References 12 publications

Multi‐Disciplinary Insights into Measurement and Assessment for SoS

Multi‐Disciplinary Insights into Measurement and Assessment for SoS

Evaluating the complexity of engineered systems: A framework informed by a user case study

Using the SoSE Principles Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About