Open Systems Engineering Effectiveness Measurement

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman W. Kowalski ◽  
James T. Oblinger ◽  
Peresta Jr. ◽  
William J.
Keyword(s):  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
Effectiveness Measurement

Towards a Conceptual Framework for Open Systems Developments

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Cowling ◽  
Christopher V. Morgan ◽  
Robert Cloutier
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
System Development ◽  
Systems Development ◽  
Software Projects ◽  
Engineering Discipline ◽  
Development Approach

The systems engineering discipline has made great strides in developing a manageable approach to system development. This is predicated on thoroughly articulating the stakeholder requirements. However, in some engineering environments, requirements are changing faster than they can be captured and realized, making this ‘traditional' form of systems engineering less tenable. An iterative system refinement approach, characterized by open systems developments, may be a more appropriate and timely response for fast-changing needs. The open systems development approach has been utilized in a number of domains including open source software, Wikipedia®, and open innovation in manufacturing. However, open systems development appears difficult to recreate successfully, and while domain tradecraft advice is often available, no engineering management methodology has emerged to improve the likelihood of success. The authors discuss the essential features of openness in these three domains and use them to propose a conceptual framework for the further exploration of the effect of governance in determining success in such open endeavors. It is the authors' hope that further research to apply this conceptual framework to open source software projects may reveal some rudimentary elements of a management methodology for environments where requirements are highly uncertain, volatile, or ‘traditional' systems engineering is otherwise sub-optimal.

scholarly journals Using Agent-Based Methodologies in Healthcare Information Systems

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reem Abdalla ◽  
Alok Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
Health Information System ◽  
Multi Agent Systems ◽  
Health Care Information ◽  
Systems Methodology ◽  
Agent Based ◽  
Agent Systems ◽  
Multi Agent

Abstract This paper carries out a comparative analysis to determine the advantages and the stages of two agent-based methodologies: Multi-agent Systems Engineering (MaSE) methodology, which is designed specifically for an agent-based and complete lifecycle approach, while also being appropriate for understanding and developing complex open systems; Agent Systems Methodology (ASEME) suggests a modular Multi-Agent System (MAS) development approach and uses the concept of intra-agent control. We also examine the strengths and weaknesses of these methodologies and the dependencies between their models and their processes. Both methodologies are applied to develop The Guardian Angle: Patient-Centered Health Information System (GA: PCHIS), which is an example of agent-based applications used to improve health care information systems.

Open Systems and the Systems Engineering Process

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Hanratty ◽  
Robert H. Lightsey ◽  
Arvid G. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
Engineering Process

Towards a Conceptual Framework for Open Systems Developments

2015 ◽  
pp. 87-100
Author(s):  
James A. Cowling ◽  
Christopher V. Morgan ◽  
Robert Cloutier
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
System Development ◽  
Systems Development ◽  
Software Projects ◽  
Engineering Discipline ◽  
Development Approach

The systems engineering discipline has made great strides in developing a manageable approach to system development. This is predicated on thoroughly articulating the stakeholder requirements. However, in some engineering environments, requirements are changing faster than they can be captured and realized, making this ‘traditional' form of systems engineering less tenable. An iterative system refinement approach, characterized by open systems developments, may be a more appropriate and timely response for fast-changing needs. The open systems development approach has been utilized in a number of domains including open source software, Wikipedia®, and open innovation in manufacturing. However, open systems development appears difficult to recreate successfully, and while domain tradecraft advice is often available, no engineering management methodology has emerged to improve the likelihood of success. The authors discuss the essential features of openness in these three domains and use them to propose a conceptual framework for the further exploration of the effect of governance in determining success in such open endeavors. It is the authors' hope that further research to apply this conceptual framework to open source software projects may reveal some rudimentary elements of a management methodology for environments where requirements are highly uncertain, volatile, or ‘traditional' systems engineering is otherwise sub-optimal.

Open Systems and the Systems Engineering Process

1999 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1343-1348
Author(s):  
J. Michael Hanratty ◽  
Robert H. Lightsey ◽  
Arvid G. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
Engineering Process

scholarly journals Cyberspace: A Digital Ecosystem

Systems ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Kari J. Lippert ◽  
Robert Cloutier
Keyword(s):  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
Model Systems ◽  
Cyber Warfare ◽  
Predator Prey ◽  
Network Applications ◽  
Predator Prey Model ◽  
Self Organized ◽  
Digital Ecosystem ◽  
New Frontier

Cyberspace is a new frontier, not just for hackers, but for engineers. It is a digital ecosystem, the next generation of Internet and network applications, promising a whole new world of distributed and open systems that can interact, self-organize, evolve, and adapt. These ecosystems transcend traditional collaborative environments, such as client-server, peer-to-peer, or hybrid models (e.g., web services), to become a self-organized, evolving, interactive environment. Understanding cyberspace as a system is critical if we are to properly design systems to exist within it. Considering it to be a digital ecosystem, where systems can adapt and evolve, will enable systems engineering to become more effective in the future of networks and the Internet. While most systems engineers have only anecdotal experience with large segments of this ecosystem, in today’s world all of them must come to understand it. Engineering any system, or portion of a system, begins with an understanding of the system. This paper presents two interrelated yet distinct foundational models of the ecosystem of cyberspace: a Systemigram to narrate the cyclical nature of cyber warfare, and a modified predator–prey model, as a mathematical model. Systems engineers can utilize these models to design digital “species” that function and adapt within this ecosystem.

Developing a Framework and an Instrument for Measuring System Openness

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 55-96
Author(s):  
Tope Omitola ◽  
Gary Wills
Keyword(s):  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
Initial Study ◽  
Measuring System ◽  
Open Architecture ◽  
Pertinent Literature ◽  
System Architectures ◽  
Goal Question Metric ◽  
Selection Of

This article describes the process of developing a framework and an instrument for measuring and ascertaining the openness of a system applicable to system architectures and their implementations. Our process includes an in-depth review of pertinent literature in the areas of Open Systems and Open Architecture, followed by a selection of the appropriate methodology to use. We chose the Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) methodology to allow us to select relevant goals, factors and metric that can be used to measure a system's level of openness. The article details these goals, factors and metrics. We carried out studies of these factors with fourteen experts in open systems engineering: an initial study with seven of these experts helping us refine the selected goals, factors and metrics, with a second confirmatory study performed in conjunction with the remaining seven experts. The goals, questions and metrics are detailed in the appendices.

Considerations and examples of a modular open systems approach in defense systems

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 373-388
Author(s):  
Philomena Zimmerman ◽  
Monique Ofori ◽  
Donald Barrett ◽  
Joseph Soler ◽  
Anthony Harriman
Keyword(s):  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
National Defense ◽  
Written Responses ◽  
Loosely Coupled ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
The Military

This paper provides an overview of modular open systems approach (MOSA) design principles and open business practices in Department of Defense (DoD) programs, as well as selected examples of MOSA implementations by the Military Departments. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Public Law 114-328) Section 805(a) requires DoD to implement MOSA, and an increasing body of evidence indicates MOSA can enable outcomes that merit consideration and advancement. Most DoD programs had already incorporated MOSA to some extent before the NDAA required it, but the formal acknowledgment in law further emphasizes the currency of the approach. MOSA has multiple, similar definitions. For the purposes of this paper, MOSA is defined as a method to design systems with highly cohesive, loosely coupled, and severable modules that DoD can compete separately and acquire from independent vendors. MOSA is an approach rather than a technical or warfighting requirement. The approach allows the Department to flexibly acquire full capabilities and individual components – including systems, subsystems, and software – and create end item systems and services that can respond to changing threats and missions, allow for technology advances, upgrade and sustain when necessary, and maintain appropriate security assurances. Through this paper, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering (ODASD(SE)) discusses considerations for implementing MOSA, provides three examples of specific implementations by the Air Force, Army, and Navy, and discusses the vision for the future of MOSA application in DoD. The information is based on a literature review of published DoD reports and public documents, interviews with DoD Services discussing lessons, the Services’ written responses to the authors’ requests of exemplars, and review and comments from stakeholders across DoD. The authors concluded that the DoD Services and Agencies’ initiatives contribute to the MOSA body of knowledge and practice.

Abstraction: An alternative neurocognitive account of recognition, prediction, and decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie F. Reyna ◽  
David A. Broniatowski
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Software Engineering ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Trace Theory ◽  
Fuzzy Trace Theory ◽  
Abstract Representations ◽  
Technical Systems

Abstract Gilead et al. offer a thoughtful and much-needed treatment of abstraction. However, it fails to build on an extensive literature on abstraction, representational diversity, neurocognition, and psychopathology that provides important constraints and alternative evidence-based conceptions. We draw on conceptions in software engineering, socio-technical systems engineering, and a neurocognitive theory with abstract representations of gist at its core, fuzzy-trace theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document