Composable Mission Space Environments Ms. Phil Zimmerman, Chris Turrell, Jim Heusmann, Doug Clark, Vic Dirienso, Kenn Atkinson 101 “As long as all things.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Trusted Computing in Government Networks May 16, 2007 Richard C. (Dick) Schaeffer, Jr. Information Assurance Director National Security Agency.
Advertisements

Open Architecture: A Small Business Perspective Defense Daily Open Architecture Summit November 2011 Thomas Conrad.
ERS Overview 5/15/12 | Page-1 Distribution Statement A – Cleared for public release by OSR, SR Case #s 12-S-0258, 0817, 1003, and 1854 apply. Affordable,
Systems Engineering in a System of Systems Context
XMSF and The Road Ahead CAPT Michael Lilienthal, MSC, USN Director Defense Modeling and Simulation Office XMSF Early Adopters’ Workshop.
Connecting People With Information DoD Net-Centric Services Strategy Frank Petroski October 31, 2006.
© 2006 Carnegie Mellon University Establishing a Network Centric Capability: Implications for Acquisition and Engineering Dennis Smith Complex System Symposium.
Federal Student Aid Technical Architecture Initiatives Sandy England
© 2006 IBM Corporation IBM Software Group Relevance of Service Orientated Architecture to an Academic Infrastructure Gareth Greenwood, e-learning Evangelist,
Azad Madni Professor Director, SAE Program Viterbi School of Engineering Platform-based Engineering: Rapid, Risk-mitigated Development.
DoD Systems and Software Engineering A Strategy for Enhanced Systems Engineering Kristen Baldwin Acting Director, Systems and Software Engineering Office.
R R R CSE870: Advanced Software Engineering (Cheng): Intro to Software Engineering1 Advanced Software Engineering Dr. Cheng Overview of Software Engineering.
ERS ASRR 5 Oct 2011 Page-1 Distribution Statement A – Cleared for public release by OSR on 04 October 2011, SR Case # 11-S-3813 applies Engineered Resilient.
Enterprise Architecture
Effective Methods for Software and Systems Integration
A Research Agenda for Accelerating Adoption of Emerging Technologies in Complex Edge-to-Enterprise Systems Jay Ramanathan Rajiv Ramnath Co-Directors,
Collaboration to Meet Future T&E Needs ITEA 14 September Mr. Mike Crisp Deputy Director, Air Warfare Operational Test and Evaluation.
Reuse Standards Dr. Carma McClure Extended Intelligence, Inc. Copyright (c) 1998 by Extended Intelligence, Inc.
Chapter 2 The process Process, Methods, and Tools
DoD Acquisition Domain (Sourcing) (DADS) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) E-Business/SPS Joint Users’ Conference November 15-19, 2004 Houston, TX.
UNCLASSIFIED Joint and Coalition Warfighting Mr. John Vinett March 2012 Technical Baseline Capability.
©Ian Sommerville 2000, Mejia-Alvarez 2009 Slide 1 Software Processes l Coherent sets of activities for specifying, designing, implementing and testing.
Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE)
ETICS2 All Hands Meeting VEGA GmbH INFSOM-RI Uwe Mueller-Wilm Palermo, Oct ETICS Service Management Framework Business Objectives and “Best.
Air University: The Intellectual and Leadership Center of the Air Force Aim High…Fly - Fight - Win The AFIT of Today is the Air Force of Tomorrow. Distribution.
High Level Architecture Overview and Rules Thanks to: Dr. Judith Dahmann, and others from: Defense Modeling and Simulation Office phone: (703)
Certification and Accreditation CS Phase-1: Definition Atif Sultanuddin Raja Chawat Raja Chawat.
Animated Butterfly CDR Dylan Schmorrow, MSC, USN Program Director, OSD HSCB Modeling Program Biosystems Assistant Director, Human Systems Staff Specialist.
Object-Oriented Software Engineering Practical Software Development using UML and Java Chapter 1: Software and Software Engineering.
XMSF and Command & Control - GIG, XBML/C4I Testbed, XDV, XMSF Profiles Dr. Andreas Tolk Old Dominion University (ODU) - Virginia Modeling Analysis and.
The High Level Architecture Introduction. Outline High Level Architecture (HLA): Background Rules Interface Specification –Overview –Class Based Subscription.
C4I Applications Utilizing Embedded Simulation Infrastructure February 7,2003 Dr. Gene Layman John Daly Naval Research Laboratory
Information Systems Engineering. Lecture Outline Information Systems Architecture Information System Architecture components Information Engineering Phases.
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) Dennis Schwarz November 21, 2008.
EPA Geospatial Segment United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Information Enterprise Architecture Program Segment Architecture.
Advances in Decision Modeling: The DMSO Vector Lt Col Eileen A. Bjorkman Chief, Concepts Application Division Zach Furness C4I Program Manager 31 July.
March 2004 At A Glance NASA’s GSFC GMSEC architecture provides a scalable, extensible ground and flight system approach for future missions. Benefits Simplifies.
EGovOS Panel Discussion CIO Council Architecture & Infrastructure Committee Subcommittee Co-Chairs March 15, 2004.
The DoD Information Enterprise Strategic Plan and Roadmap (SP&R)
Verification and Validation — An OSD Perspective — Fred Myers Deputy Director, Test Infrastructure Test Resource Management Center November 4, 2009.
The Future of Veterinary Services. VS is evolving to meet the needs of 21 st century animal health.
Partnership Definition and Principles The imprecise nature of the word "partnership" has created confusion in CARE and other organizations. “Partnering.
Align Business and Information Technology – with SOA Pradeep Nair Director – Software Group (IBM India/SA)
C4ISR for the Military: Development and Implementation Presentation to the Security Network’s C4ISR, Robot Platforms, and Sensor Conference Greg Collins,
Welcome! 11 th Annual MOVES Research and Education Summit On behalf of MOVES Faculty, Staff and Students CDR Joseph A. Sullivan, PhD USN
Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E)
Software Engineering Introduction.
Modelling the Process and Life Cycle. The Meaning of Process A process: a series of steps involving activities, constrains, and resources that produce.
JNTC Joint Management Office
SOFTWARE LIFECYCLE. What functions would ISEES perform?
1 Acquisition Automation – Challenges and Pitfalls Breakout Session # E11 Name: Jim Hargrove and Allen Edgar Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 Time: 2:30 pm-3:45.
LECTURE 5 Nangwonvuma M/ Byansi D. Components, interfaces and integration Infrastructure, Middleware and Platforms Techniques – Data warehouses, extending.
Fall ‘99 Simulation Interoperability Workshop RTI Interoperability Study Group Final Report Michael D. Myjak, Chair.
1 The XMSF Profile Overlay to the FEDEP Dr. Katherine L. Morse, SAIC Mr. Robert Lutz, JHU APL
Advanced Software Engineering Dr. Cheng
Summit 2017 Breakout Group 2: Data Management (DM)
The Systems Engineering Context
NDIA Architecture Analysis for System-of-System (SoS) Interoperability Assessment Karen L. Lauro, Ph.D Oct 21, 2003.
Program Executive Officer Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command
Improving Mission Effectiveness By Exploiting the Command’s Implementation Of the DoD Enterprise Services Management Framework - DESMF in the [name the.
Single Point of Entry (SPOE)
13 November 2018.
XMSF and Command & Control - GIG, XBML/C4I Testbed, XDV, XMSF Profiles
Digital Artifacts and the Need for Portability
Bush/Rumsfeld Defense Priorities/Objectives A Mandate For Change
Engineering Autonomy Mr. Robert Gold Director, Engineering Enterprise
Software Engineering I
Metadata The metadata contains
Steering Committee Brief to the DoD M&S Conference 2008
Perspectives on Transforming DT and OT Industry-Government Roundtable
Presentation transcript:

Composable Mission Space Environments Ms. Phil Zimmerman, Chris Turrell, Jim Heusmann, Doug Clark, Vic Dirienso, Kenn Atkinson 101 “As long as all things are created from scratch, growth can at most be linear”

FORCE STRUCTURE - READINESS - SUSTAINABILITY - MODERNIZATION FORCE STRUCTURE - READINESS - SUSTAINABILITY - MODERNIZATION DoD Mission Environment: Constrained Resources National Military Strategy Increased Requirements Major Theater Warfare Weapons Proliferation Information Security Weapons of Mass Destruction International Drug Trade MOOTW Asymmetric Threats Effects-Based Operations Network-Centric Warfare Transformation

Payoffs: Interoperability and reuse = capability and cost-effectiveness Stds Policy Processes Common Technical Framework Common Services Examples M&S: What Do We Have Now? DoD M&S Strategy: An Analogy to City Planning HLA SEDRIS KI/KE VV&A Models, Simulations, Tools, Live Systems We have the beginnings of a plan. We have the initial common technical framework. We have many of the essential common services. We still need to understand how to design the buildings and spaces.

Near Term Mid Term Far Term Current Static environments Standard architecture Hi-Level Processes IEEE 1516 standards Natural environment standardization Stovepipes Interoperable, composable synthetic mission- spaces Rapidly configurable, adaptive human representations Representations of the full spectrum of National Defense issues Full Cultural Shift Rapidly Composable and Scalable Models & Simulations Multi-resolution Model and Object Design Automated Capture of Reasoning / Context Flexible link of Decision Support Systems (DSS) and Simulations Training Experimentation Analysis Acquisition Readily Available, Operationally Valid Models & Simulations Modeling and Simulation Technology Roadmap Dynamic rather than static environments Robust consistency between live and simulated assets Validation down to algorithmic level

An M&S Application of Today Some game commonality across products Interchangeable partsSocial dimension Today’s Kids (tomorrow’s warfighters) will expect Similar rapidly composable, transparent capabilities in their warfighting systems! Different classes of experienced users Initial capability: commonality Product evolution creates user diversity

Where Do We Need to Go? From Buildings To Building Blocks From Childhood Reality To Warfighter Reality AND AT THE SAME TIME

And Just How are WE Supposed to Do ALL That? CMSE –Take the best of what’s available in: M&S Related disciplines –Build only what is necessary –Marry theory with current practice –When possible, develop broad solutions to specific needs –Support composability with applicable policy –BE DOMAIN INDEPENDENT

Composable Mission Space Environments Use current service M&S efforts as testbeds to determine applicability of current M&S technologies, ways to improve them, and areas where M&S technology needs to be fostered Partner with related efforts to provide common tools and services for THEIR M&S domain application: Joint Synthetic Battlespace Joint Virtual Battlespace JFCOM Continuous Experimentation Environment Etc. Policies Goal: Flexibility and Rapid Composability Facilitate M&S composability through: Industry, DoD, National, International Stds Best practices Community consensus ProcessesTechnologies Requirements Implementations Theory Practice Allow Services and commands to do what they do best, and concentrate on hiding the seams when the different mission space environments are brought together Reusability Responsiveness Interoperability Look to Services for applicability, missing and modifiable components Uses By Participating in Service Efforts to Determine: And Still Satisfy the M&S Community’s Desire For: Some pieces already exist: HLA SEDRIS FDMS MSRR Use the best of what is available; build only what is needed Building Mission Space Environments Through Development of:

CMSE at a Glance Program Objectives 1. Determine common needs and applicable technologies for creating flexible synthetic battlespaces for CMSE from warfighter requirements 2.Determine state of the art in software and hardware composability, and if principles from other disciplines can be applied to composing modular battlespaces from basic components. 3.Provide missing tools and procedures to assure fitness for use of CMSE components 4.Establish relationships without establishing dependencies (will allow for provision of near term successes – for JSB, JVB, etc.) 5.Establish/use commercial standards Multi-resolution and composable simulation environments Link to C4I systems (with reach back) Faster, less costly database development Standardized (reusable) components Reduced Overhead Warfighter M&S Needs Assessment of the Unified Commands and Selected Supporting Commands Final Report -17 November 2000 Revalidated – February 2002 How do we know this is the right thing to do?

CRITICAL: Common Understanding Lexical –Common vocabulary, data types SEDRIS, UOB, FDMS Syntactic –Common structures, data delivery RTI, STF Semantic –Shared understanding OMT, FOM, SOM – just the beginning –Key to rapidly composable systems – Aided by readily accessed data True Interoperability demands all three levels + delivery

CMSE: Determining Direction Where do we start? –CMSE Thread: Formal Specification What is currently important to the Services and Commands? –CMSE Thread: Experimental Environments How do we enable the collaboration within a mission space development? –CMSE Thread: Advanced Distributed Collaborative Environments What is missing from the CMSE tool package? –Underlying Technical Challenges REMEMBER: CMSE is NOT an end in itself – it is an interrelated collection of enabling M&S technologies, tools, and procedures…

CMSE “Component” Objectives Formal Specification Experimental Environments Distributed Collaborative Environments Underlying Technical Challenges Insight on the hypothesis that composability will make reuse, assembling, creating, selecting, recombining, and managing simulations easier Define & bound the problem – establish legitimacy through formal definitions, developed standards and formalisms Establish feasibility and identify implementation issues, technology leverage Use the Services as willing victims by inserting component technologies into existing battlespace efforts Systematically build CMSE capabilities using short term needs to keep the community interest, and allow real-time valid course correction Demonstrate near-term successes; but with components that are viable in the future Ensure CEE components and M&S components are easily integratable Develop CEE standards that enable real-time project collaboration in a distributed environment Evaluate use of SW agent to embed application into the CEE to run applications that are not available to the user locally Develop a standard for the coding of “self- describing simulation components/modules” Add the ability to utilize integrated component contracts for verifying composition integrity Enable the coupling and integration of M&S and live systems

CMSE FY03 Program Formal Specification Experimental Environments Distributed Collaborative Environments Underlying Technical Challenges Initiate independent study of CMSE to identify, bound and bin the problem Conduct workshops on current state of the art of composability, to gain community consensus on definitions and applicable technologies Develop formalisms which address critical aspects of composability, in order to build higher order tools on them (leverage ONR investment) Build common products to satisfy immediate needs in current M&S “synthetic battlespace” efforts Complete work on current “common” components (e.g. IEEE 1516 acceptance, Sim-ADL formal process for linkage) Establish a first look at using CEE to enable lifecycle reuse of M&S tools and data Develop CEE standards that enable real-time project collaboration in a distributed environment, to include cost and process modeling, and scheduling Design and initiate development of a functional decomposition and specification of composable M&S environments Demonstrate a before and after look at a modified component framework illustrating the use and benefit of automated composability from contracts

Composable Mission Space Environments QUESTIONS? 101 “As long as all things are created from scratch, growth can at most be linear”