SMOE

Choice of a project delivery system for a

system of systems
How would my management style differ in a system of systems project compared with a
traditional project?

K.Povenesan B.Eng(Hons)(Mal), MPM (Adel)

9/14/2010

1|Page
Discuss choice of a project delivery system for a system of systems. How would your management style
differ in a system of systems project compared with a traditional project?

A project delivery system is, simply the contractual structure (exclusive of the financial arrangements)
for how the final project is produced and provided, i.e. delivered to the owner.
The various type of SoS project delivery systems are often consolidated to two basic approaches:
 Incremental
 Evolutionary (now the term evolutionary is generally used to describe both) (Sage &
Cuppan; 2001)
Large distributed systems are delivered and constructed incrementally. Incremental development is a
rework scheduling strategy in which time is set a side to revise and improve parts of the SoS (Sage &
Cuppan; 2001). The functionality of the initial deployment of a SoS may suggest other applications that
were not anticipated in the initial design. Users frequently exploit SoS in unanticipated ways that improve
the business processes but that may also stress the operation of components that were not designed for
the new usage (Robert & John; 2008).
Incremental development will be a scheduling and staging strategy in which the various parts of the
system are developed at different times or rates, and integrated as they are completed.
Key steps in the process were to start with a simple implementation of a subset of the SoS
requirements and iteratively enhance the evolving sequence of versions until the full SoS implemented.
This characteristic captures the often incremental discover emergent requirements and solutions via
methods such as prototyping, operational exercises, and use of early system capabilities. Requirements
and commitment cannot be monolithic or fully pre-specifiable for complex systems; increasingly detailed
understanding, trust, definition and commitment is achieved through an evolutionary process (Boehm &
Lane ; 2007).
In later increments, change driven rework and rebase lining of next-increment requirements, solutions
and plans occurs concurrently with stabilized development of current system increment. This allows early
fielding of core capabilities, continual adaptation to change, and timely growth of complex systems without
waiting for every requirement and systems to be defined (Boehm & Lane ; 2007).
The attributes of the incremental approach include well defined, low to moderate volatility requirements,
multiple development cycles, any size and possibly unprecedented system (Lapham;2006).

2
 Figure 1: Incremental Commitment Model Activity Categories and level of Effort.
The main intent of this view is to emphasize the necessary concurrency of the primary success-critical
activities shown as rows. Thus, in interpreting the Exploration column, although SoS scoping is the primary
objective of the exploration phase, doing it well involves a considerable amount of activity in understanding
need, envisioning properties, identifying and reconciling stakeholder goals and objectives, architecting
solutions, life-cycle planning, evaluating alternatives, and negotiating stakeholder commitments (Boehm &
Lane ; 2007).

In a word, incremental development helps project reduce errors and speed up construction. It allows
project team to identify architectural problems sooner rather than later because of constant building and
checking. It benefits not only project members but also clients. Using this strategy, it’s easier to control
project progress and reduce project risks.

3
 Evolutionary development is similar in approach to its incremental complement; however future
changes are not necessarily pre-planned (Ireland, 2009). Evolutionary development approaches can be
very effective in cases where user requirements are expected to shift dramatically all over time, and where
emerging and innovative technologies allow for major improvements.
It is a ‘new’ way to get control over project results. The basic principle of evolutionary delivery is simple:
“Plan Do Study Act” cycle. This method is not necessary for predictable, low risk, low turbulence
situations. It presumes that any SoS projects can be systematically divided into a series of smaller mini-
projects, each of which delivers some useful measurable result to the end users. Small steps are merely
one possible strategy for reducing the risk and cost of failure. When large step in terms of resources are
necessary, then alternatives strategies for controlling risk are to use conservative known technology,
contract out to risk to others, or use insurance (Gilb;1999).

This is not same as incremental; evolutionary way develops a system in builds, but differs in allowing
that the user need is not fully understood and all requirements cannot be defined up front. In this strategy,
user needs and SoS requirements are partially defined up front, then are refined in each succeeding build.

Figure 2: The evolutionary delivery process cycle is a process control cycle (PDCA)

All this implies a framework of activities to be pursued during the course of a project, a view of
what project milestones and deliverable means.
Traditional project management theory assumes that;

4
 Rigid procedures are needed to regulate change
 Hierarchical organizational structures are means of establishing order
 Increased control results in increased order
 Employees are interchangeable “parts” in the organizational “machine”
 Organizations must be rigid, static hierarchies
 Problems are solved primarily through reductionist task breakdown and allocation
 Projects and risk are adequately predictable to be managed through complex up-front
planning

Indeed, the traditional project paradigm is one of ‘plan-then-execute’, but for SoS projects
managers (PM) are aware that in modern, turbulent business environments, often the plan may
cease to be effective at precisely the time when one tries to execute it.

Rather than set of rigid instruction, the PM shall become adaptive leader – setting the direction,
establishing the simple, generative rules of the SoS, and encouraging constant feedback from
each system, adaptation and collaboration.

1. Establish a guiding vision for the SoS projects and continuously reinforce it
As stated by Margaret Wheatley (1999), when a project vision is translated into a
statement of the greater purpose and dreams of the organization, and communicated to all
members of team. It can permeate the project environment and influence team behaviour
from all systems in extremely positive ways. The vision needs to become a guiding force
that helps the team make consistent decisions, rather than embody an elusive end state
on a piece of paper.

2. Facilitate collaboration and teamwork through relationships and community

Recognizing individual team members as intelligent, skilled professional agents and
placing a value on their autonomy is fundamental to all other practices. Self-organization
and emergent order are due in part to rich interactions between agents in a SoS. These
phenomena are explained by expressing the sum of the interactions of a SoS as a gestalt
connectivity with each agent working in alignment with other agents ().

3. Establish and support the team’s set of guiding practices

In a SoS, agents follow simple rules, but their interactions result in complex behaviour
emerging from the bottom-up over time. For example, birds in a flock flow simple ruiles
such as avoiding objects, keeping pace and staying close to other birds. By following these
simple rules, flocks of birds exhibit complex, collective behaviour by flying in formation for
long distances and adapting to changing conditions along the way. The gestalt order that
emerges is a result of following these simple rules.
By setting up simple generative rules that are just enough to provide clear boundaries, but
not so much as to restrict the autonomy and creativity of team.

4. Open information – Provide open access to information

In a SoS, information is the lifeblood of change and adaption. Interactions between agents
involve the exchange of information. The richness of the interactions between agents
therefore, depends in large part on the openness of the information. Traditional managers

5
 have long prevented this openness and freedom because of a fear that it will result in
chaos. In SoS projects, information is need to be freed to leverage its power.
5. Light Touch – Apply just enough control to foster emergent order
As traditional managers, we had come to believe that more control would give us more
order. Unfortunately, this conventional view doesn’t really help us in the uncertain real
world because life is characterized by probabilities, not certainties. By applying “just
enough” control, which is a delicate mix of emergent and imposed order. To impose order,
it’ll be done with some control and light touch. With a progressive light touch mindset, lay
out project plans at a high enough level to give the team room for innovation, creativity and
rapid response to dynamic. Ensure those project plans are synchronized with PM guiding
vision, and that they are based on functionality to be delivered and not tasks.

References:

Andrew.P.Sage., 2005, System of Systems: Architecture Based Systems design and Integration,
IEEE 2005 International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, October 10-12, Hawaaii,
USA. Slide 25.

Boehm, Barry and Lane.Jo.Ann ,., 2007, Using the incremental Commitment Model to Integrate
System Acquisition System & Systems Engineering, CROSSTALK, The Journal of Defense
Software Engineering, Oct 2007.

Robert J. Ellison, John Goodenough, Charles Weinstock, Carol Woody ., 2008, Survivability
Assurance for System of Systems, TECHNICAL REPORT:CMU/SEI-2009-TR-008, May 2008,
http://www.sei.cmu.edu , Accessed 2009-10-12

Mary Ann Laphamm., 2006, Specifying Initial Design Review (IDR) and Final Design Review (FDR),
TECHNICAL REPORT:CMU/SEI-2006-TN-023, June 2006, http://www.sei.cmu.edu , Accessed
2009-10-12

Wheatley, Margaret., 1999, Leadership anf the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers

Jamshidi, M., 2009, SoS Architecting, System of Systems Engineering, 4(3): 80 - 98.

Sanjiv Augustine., Susan Woodcock., 2003, Agile Project Management, http://www.ccpace.com ,

Accessed 2009-10-12