Visual modeling using projective analysis (pan)

Visual Modeling using projective analysis (PAN)

Philip Boxer April 20th 2007

Copyright © BRL 2007 1

The ‘double challenge’ space


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


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.


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


Revealing a Double Challenge

Supplier Alignment

Nature of Response to Demand

Physical (product-

driven)

Situat’nal (solution-

driven)


driven)

Single Task System


task systems)


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.


… 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


Physical (product-

driven)


driven)


driven)

Single Task System


task systems)


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


Where does the technology fit in?!


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


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


Physical (product-

driven)


driven)


driven)

Single Task System


task systems)


systems)

Integrating it

The hole-in-the-middle

The aim is to bridge the hole by developing risk mitigation strategies.


The ‘I’ position from which a PAN model is built


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:


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


The modelling framework


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.


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


Synchronisation

Trace Structure-Function Hierarchy

Demand

Combined Operational Space

PAN modelling

PAN modelling then fills in the relationships between these constituent elements


…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?


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?


The visual syntax


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


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?


Structure-Function-Trace


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


hierarchy trace

synchronisation demand

structure-function

composite

Wildfire middle-out


Why these symbols?


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


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


What is the stratification?


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


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


END


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


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


Visual PAN Syntax


The DLoDs/DoTMLPF

Command


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.


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)


EVENT(WHAT)

e.g. things done

EVENT(WHAT)

e.g. things done

COLLABORATIVE

MODEL(Pragmatic)

Governing

COLLABORATIVE

MODEL(Pragmatic)

Governing


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)


EVENT (WHAT)

e.g. things done

COLLABORATIVE

MODEL (Pragmatic)

Governing

The WHAT The WHY The WHO/M The HOW


Date post:	18-Jul-2015
Category:	Data & Analytics
Upload:	boxer-research-ltd
View:	40 times
Download:	1 times

Visual modeling using projective analysis (pan)

Data & Analytics