The MBASE* Life Cycle Architecture Package -and Relations to the Draft DoD 5000 Series. Barry Boehm, USC GSAW 2000 Keynote February 23, 2000

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The MBASE* Life Cycle Architecture Package -and Relations to the Draft DoD 5000 Series. Barry Boehm, USC GSAW 2000 Keynote February 23, 2000"

Janice Hudson
6 years ago
Views:

1 The MBAS* Life Cycle Architecture ackage -and Relations to the raft o 5000 Series Barry Boehm, USC GSAW 2000 Keynote February 23, 2000 boehm@sunset.usc.edu *Model Based (System) Architecting and Software ngineering

2 Outline raft o 5000 Series Highlights volutionary Acquisition Critical Success Factors Relation to MBAS Life Cycle Architecture ackage Summary; Relation of MBAS LCA ackage to raft o 5000 Series 2/23/00 USC-CS 2

3 raft o 5000 Series Highlights Rapid transition from technology to products Time- phased requirements Use of commercial products and technologies Rapid transition from acquisition to fielding volutionary acquisition (A) Integrated test and evaluation Interoperability Competition Commitment Criteria Mature technology, well-understood requirements, strong A plan covering factors above Integrated operational support Guidelines in oi , o R New decision milestones 2/23/00 USC-CS 3

4 A MOIFI ACQUISITION ROCSS Tec hnology Opportunities & User Chall enges! New milestone names to emphasize new a pproach! Multiple entry points po ssible d epe nd ing on techn ica l/ con cept maturity! Three bas ic options at e ach decision point: roce ed into ne xt pha se; do add itiona l work; termina te effort! MS X: Initiation of ex ploration phase including ana lysis of alternat ive s; refin ement of op erat iona l goa ls X Concept x ploration Advanced evelopment IR Syst em In teg rat ion Sy stem emo Risk Reduction & emonstration C Conti nuous communications with the user Maturation & L RI IOC roduction & Support IOC BLOCK II BLOCK I or Full Capability! MS : emonstration p ha se. ntry po int con tinuum and funding commit ment base d on te chn ica l/ con cept maturity; project s may e nter at any IOC of the ÒÓpoin ts; acqu isition strateg y in p lace XIT CRITRIA! MS C: Go-No Go ecision. Comm itm ent to rapid BLOCK III acq uisition (abb reviate d d eve lopmen t and/ or "emonstrated/commercial exp ed ited LRI ). Successfu l ACTs enter at this te chn olo gy point. xit criteria must b e satisfied. "Ap proved OR & certif ied interoperability volutionary! I Rs: I nterim progress rev iews. Held as "CA IV/affordab ility a ssessme nt ap prop riate in ph ase. ost-mileston e C I Rs development & fielding & the strongly preferred ind ica te LRI an d rate p rodu ction reviews. Be yon d "Strat egy in plac e (tran sition fielding the strongly plan, evo lution ary pat h, o pen LRI req uires OT& certifica tion of suitab ility and preferred approach approach syst ems, co mp etition, ef fect ive ne ss. su pp ortability c on cept, 2/23/00 USC-CS te stin g, produ ction read ines s) 4 IR IR IR

5 Some A Critical Success Factors Assurance that requirements are achievable Via architecture-based analysis and demonstration Assurance that architecture will scale to life-cycle Need to specify evolution requirements Assurance that cost, schedule targets can be met CAIV, SAIV, and architecture implications Replacements for waterfall contract milestones Clear milestone pass/fail criteria 2/23/00 USC-CS 5

6 Schedule As Independent Variable (SAIV) Build a core capability early rop additional features as necessary to meet schedule Need prioritized features ( requirements ). Need an architecture enabling easilydropped features. Need good estimates, planning and control. 2/23/00 USC-CS 6

7 Outline raft o 5000 Series Highlights volutionary Acquisition Critical Success Factors Relation to MBAS Life Cycle Architecture ackage Summary; Relation of MBAS LCA ackage to raft o 5000 Series 2/23/00 USC-CS 7

8 Life Cycle Anchor oints Common System/Software stakeholder commitment points efined in concert with Government, industry affiliates Coordinated with Rational s Unified Software evelopment rocess Life Cycle Objectives (LCO) Stakeholders commitment to support system architecting Like getting engaged Life Cycle Architecture (LCA) Stakeholders commitment to support full life cycle Like getting married Initial Operational Capability (IOC) Stakeholders commitment to support operations Like having your first child 2/23/00 USC-CS 8

9 Win Win Spiral Anchor oints (Risk-driven level of detail for each element) Milestone lement Life Cycle Objectives (LCO) Life Cycle Architecture (LCA) efinition of Operational Concept System rototype(s) efinition of System Requirements efinition of System and Software Architecture Top-level system objectives and scope - System boundary - nvironment parameters and assumptions - volution parameters Operational concept - Operations and maintenance scenarios and parameters - Organizational life-cycle responsibilities (stakeholders) xercise key usage scenarios Resolve critical risks Top-level functions, interfaces, quality attribute levels, including: - Growth vectors and priorities - rototypes Stakeholders concurrence on essentials Top-level definition of at least one feasible architecture - hysical and logical elements and relationships - Choices of COTS and reusable software elements Identification of infeasible architecture options laboration of system objectives and scope of increment laboration of operational concept by increment xercise range of usage scenarios Resolve major outstanding risks laboration of functions, interfaces, quality attributes, and prototypes by increment - Identification of TB s( (to-be-determined items) Stakeholders concurrence on their priority concerns Choice of architecture and elaboration by increment - hysical and logical components, connectors, configurations, constraints - COTS, reuse choices - omain-architecture and architectural style choices Architecture evolution parameters efinition of Life- Cycle lan Identification of life-cycle stakeholders - Users, customers, developers, maintainers, interoperators, general public, others Identification of life-cycle process model - Top-level stages, increments Top-level WWWWWHH* by stage laboration of WWWWWHH* for Initial Operational Capability (IOC) - artial elaboration, identification of key TB s for later increments Feasibility Rationale Assurance of consistency among elements above - via analysis, measurement, prototyping, simulation, etc. - Business case analysis for requirements, feasible architectures Assurance of consistency among elements above All major risks resolved or covered by risk management plan *WWWWWHH: Why, What, When, Who, Where, How, How Much 2/23/00 USC-CS 9

10 Anchor oints and Rational rocess hases ngineering Stage Manufacturing Stage Inception laboration Construction Transition Feasibility Iterations LCO LCA IOC Architecture Usable Iterations Iterations roduct Releases R Q S I M R Q S I M R Q S I M R Q S I M Management Management Management Management RATIONAL S o f t w a r e C o r p o r a t i o n 9/1/99 10

11 MBAS lectronic rocess Guide (1) eveloped in collaboration with CMU-SI Using SI G tool 2/23/00 USC-CS 11

12 MBAS lectronic rocess Guide (2) 2/23/00 USC-CS 12

13 MBAS LCO and LCA ass/fail Criteria LCO and LCA Feasibility Rationale: If we build a system to the given architecture, it will Satisfy the requirements (including evolution) Be faithful to the prototype Support the operational concept Be buildable within the budget and schedule in the plan Satisfy a viable business case for the investment LCO: Satisfies criteria for at least one choice of architecture and COTS LCA: Satisfies criteria for specific detailed choice of architecture and COTS All major risks resolved or covered by risk management plan 2/23/00 USC-CS 13

14 Summary: Relation of MBAS LCA ackage to raft o 5000 Series MBAS LCO content and pass/fail criteria fit new o-5000 milestone MBAS LCA content and pass/fail criteria fit new o-5000 milestone C LCO and LCA milestones satisfy A critical success factors Assurance that requirements are achievable Assurance that architecture will scale to life-cycle needs Assurance that cost, schedule targets can be met Clear milestone pass/fail criteria 2/23/00 USC-CS 14

Model Driven Development Needs More Than Product Models

Model Driven Development Needs More Than Product Models Barry Boehm, USC USC-CSE Executive Workshop on MDA Mar. 16 th, 2005 3/16/2005 USC-CSE 1 Nature of Model Clashes Outline Among product, process, property,