Difference between pages "System Realization" and "Business or Mission Analysis"

From SEBoK
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Robot improving glossary links (fixes for not piped links))
 
(Tech and grammar edits as discussed with Bkcase)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Term|System Realization (glossary)|System realization}} activities are conducted to create and test versions of a system as specified by {{Term|System Definition (glossary)|system definition}}. The activities are grouped and described as generic processes that are performed iteratively and/or concurrently depending on the selected {{Term|Life Cycle Model (glossary)}}. These activities include those required to build a system ({{Term|Implementation (glossary)|system implementation}}), integrate disparate system elements ({{Term|Integration (glossary)|system integration}}), and ensure that the system meets both the needs of stakeholders ({{Term|Validation (glossary)|system validation}}) and aligns with the system requirements and architecture ({{Term|Verification (glossary)|system verification}}).  
+
The starting point of engineering any {{Term|System-of-Interest (glossary)|system-of-interest}} (SoI) is understanding the socio-economic and technological context in which potential problems or opportunities reside. Then, the enterprise strategic goals and {{Term|Stakeholder (glossary)|stakeholder}} needs, expectations, and requirements represent the problem or the opportunity from the viewpoint of business or enterprise decision makers while also taking into account the views of {{Term|User (glossary)|users}}, {{Term|Acquirer (glossary)|acquirers}}, and {{Term|Customer (glossary)|customers}}.  
  
These activities are not sequential, but are performed concurrently, iteratively and recursively depending on the selected [[Life Cycle Models|life cycle model]]. Figure 1 (see "Overview", below), also shows how these processes fit within the context of {{Term|System Definition (glossary)}} and [[System Deployment and Use]] KAs. See also [[Applying Life Cycle Processes]] for further discussion of the relationships between process and life cycle model.
+
Mission Analysis (MA) is part of the larger set of {{Term|Concept Definition (glossary)}} activities - the set of systems engineering activities in which the problem space and the needs of the business or enterprise and stakeholders are closely examined. This occurs before any formal definition of the (SoI) is developed but may need to be revisited through the life cycle. In fact, the activities of Concept Definition determine whether the enterprise strategic goals and business needs will be addressed by a new system, a change to an existing system, a service, an operational change or some other solution. The MA activity focuses on the identification of the primary purpose(s) of the solution (its "mission"), while [[Stakeholder Needs and Requirements]] activity explores what capabilities stakeholders desire in accomplishing the mission and may include some detail on the performance of certain aspects of the solution. MA is often performed iteratively with the [[Stakeholder Needs and Requirements]] activity to better understand the problem (or opportunity) space, as well as the solution space.
==Topics==
 
Each part of the SEBoK is divided into KAs, which are groupings of information with a related theme. The KAs in turn are divided into topics. This KA contains the following topics:
 
* [[System Implementation]]
 
* [[System Integration]]
 
* [[System Verification]]
 
* [[System Validation]]
 
See the article [[Matrix of Implementation Examples]] for a mapping of case studies and vignettes included in Part 7 to topics covered in Part 3.
 
  
==Overview==
+
== Purpose and Definition ==
Essentially, the outputs of {{Term|System Definition (glossary)|system definition}} are used during {{Term|Implementation (glossary)|system implementation}} to create {{Term|System Element (glossary)|system elements}} and during {{Term|Integration (glossary)|system integration}} to provide plans and criteria for combining these elements. The requirements are used to {{Term|Verification (glossary)|verify}} and {{Term|Validation (glossary)|validate}} system elements, systems, and the overall {{Term|System-of-Interest (glossary)|system-of-interest}} (SoI). These activities provide feedback into the system design, particularly when problems or challenges are identified.  
+
The purpose of MA is to understand a mission/market problem or opportunity, analyze the solution space, and initiate the life cycle of a potential solution that could address the problem or take advantage of an opportunity. MA is a type of strategic or operations analysis related to needs, capability gaps, or opportunities and solutions that can be applied to any organization that evolves its strategy for its business objectives.
  
Finally, when the system is considered, verified, and validated, it will then become an input to [[System Deployment and Use|system deployment and use]]. It is important to understand that there is overlap in these activities; they do not have to occur in sequence as demonstrated in Figure 1. Every life cycle model includes realization activities, principally, verification and validation activities. The way these activities are performed is dependent upon the life cycle model in use. (For additional information on life cycles, see the [[Life Cycle Models]] KA.)
+
MA, in some domains called {{Term|Market Analysis (glossary)|market analysis}} or business analysis, is the identification, characterization, and assessment of an operational problem or opportunity within an enterprise. The definition of a mission or business function in a problem space frames the solution, both in terms of the direct application to the mission or business function, and in terms of the context for the resulting solution.  
  
[[File:JS_Figure_1.png|thumb|600 px|center|'''Figure 1. System Realization.''' (SEBoK Original)]]
+
MA is used to define needed (or desired) operational actions, not hardware/software functions; that is, it is focused on defining the problem space, not the solution space. MA begins with the business vision and Concept of Operations (ConOps) (IEEE. 1998), and other organization strategic goals and objectives including the mission (or business function). The primary products of MA are Business or Mission Needs, which are supported by preliminary life-cycle concepts—including a preliminary acquisition concept, a preliminary operational concept (OpsCon), a preliminary deployment concept, a preliminary support concept, and a preliminary retirement concept. Business or Mission Needs are then elaborated and formalized into Business or Mission Requirements.  The preliminary operational concept includes the operational scenarios for the mission and the context in which the solution will exist. 
  
The realization processes are performed to ensure that the system will be ready for transition and has the appropriate structure and behavior to enable the desired operation and functionality throughout the system’s life span. Both DAU and NASA include transition in realization, in addition to implementation, integration, verification, and validation (Prosnik 2010; NASA December 2007, 1-360).
+
MA may include mathematical analysis, modeling, simulation, visualization, and other analytical tools to characterize the intended mission and determine how to best achieve the needs/objectives. MA evaluates alternative approaches to determine which best supports the stakeholder needs (among both materiel and non-materiel solution alternatives, also known as product solutions and service/operational solutions). Thus, MA defines the problem space and analyzes the solution space alternatives using quality attribute constraints driven by the enterprise objectives.
  
==Fundamentals==
+
==Principles and Concepts==
 +
===Mission Analysis and Concept of Operations===
 +
MA and the terms ConOps and OpsCon are broadly used in U.S. and UK defense and aerospace organizations to analyze and define how a system is intended to operate, as well as how the major operations or operational scenarios are intended to be performed. They take into account the strategic, operational, and tactical aspects of the identified scenarios. ANSI/AIAA G-043A-2012 (ANSI 2012) identifies that the terms ‘concept of operations’ and ‘operational concept’ are often used interchangeably but notes that an important distinction exists because each has a separate purpose and is used to meet different ends. The ConOps is at an organizational level, prepared by enterprise management and refined by business management:
  
===Macro View of Realization Processes===
+
<blockquote>''The ConOps, at the organization level, addresses the leadership's intended way of operating the organization. It may refer to the use of one or more systems (as black boxes) to forward the organization's goals and objectives. The ConOps document describes the organization's assumptions or intent in regard to an overall operation or series of operations within the business in regards to the system to be developed, existing systems, and possible future systems. This document is frequently embodied in long-range strategic plans and annual operational plans. The ConOps document serves as a basis for the organization to direct the overall characteristics of future business and systems.'' (ISO/IEC 2011) </blockquote>
  
Figure 2 illustrates a macro view of generic outputs from realization activities when using a Vee life cycle model. The left side of the Vee represents various design activities 'going down' the system.
+
The ConOps informs the OpsCon, which is drafted by business management in the Mission Analysis activity and refined by stakeholders in the [[Stakeholder Needs and Requirements]] activity:
  
[[File:JS_Figure_2.png|thumb|600px|center|'''Figure 2. The Vee Activity Diagram (Prosnik 2010).''' Released by the Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).]]
+
<blockquote>''A system OpsCon document describes what the system will do (not how it will do it) and why (rationale). An OpsCon is a user-oriented document that describes system characteristics of the to-be-delivered system from the user's viewpoint. The OpsCon document is used to communicate overall quantitative and qualitative system characteristics to the acquirer, user, supplier and other organizational elements.'' (ISO/IEC 2011) </blockquote>
  
The left side of the Vee model demonstrates the development of system elements specifications and design descriptions. In this stage, verification and validation plans are developed, which are later used to determine whether realized system elements ({{Term|Product (glossary)|products}}, {{Term|Service (glossary)|services}}, or {{Term|Enterprise (glossary)|enterprises}}) are compliant with specifications and {{Term|Stakeholder Requirement (glossary)|stakeholder requirements}}. Also, during this stage initial specifications become flow-down requirements for lower-level system models. In terms of time frame, these activities take place early in the system’s life cycle. These activities are discussed further in the [[System Definition]] KA. However, it is important to understand that some of the system realization activities are initiated at the same time as system definition activities; this is the case with integration, verification and validation planning in particular.
+
It should be noted that the OpsCon has an operational focus and should be supported by the development of other concepts, including a deployment concept, a support concept, and a retirement concept.  
  
The right side of the Vee model, as illustrated in Figure 2, shows the system elements (products, services, or enterprises) are assembled according to the system model described on the left side of the Vee (integration). Verification and validation activities determine how well the realized system fulfills the stakeholder requirements, the system requirements, and {{Term|Design Property (glossary)|design properties}}. These activities should follow the plans developed on the left side of the Vee. Integration can be done continuously, incrementally and/or iteratively, supported by verification and validation (V&V) efforts. For example, integration typically starts at the bottom of the Vee and continues upwards to the top of the Vee.
+
In order to determine appropriate technical solutions for evolving enterprise capabilities, systems engineering (SE) leaders interact with enterprise leaders and operations analysts to understand:
 +
*the enterprise ConOps and future mission, business, and operational (MBO) objectives;
 +
*the characterization of the operational concept and objectives (i.e., constraints, mission or operational scenarios, tasks, resources, risks, assumptions, and related missions or operations); and
 +
*how specific missions or operations are currently conducted and what gaps exist in those areas.
  
The U.S. Defense Acquisition University (DAU) provides an overview of what occurs during system realization:
+
They then conceptually explore and select from alternative candidate solutions. This interaction ensures a full understanding of both the problem space and the solution space. The alternative candidate solutions can include a wide range of approaches to address the need, as well as variants for an approach to optimize specific characteristics (e.g., using a different distribution of satellite orbit parameters to maximize coverage or events while minimizing the number of satellites). Analysis, modeling and simulation, and trade studies are employed to select alternative approaches (NDIA 2010).
  
<blockquote>''Once the products of all system models have been fully defined, Bottom-Up End Product Realization can be initiated. This begins by applying the Implementation Process to buy, build, code or reuse end products. These implemented end products are verified against their design descriptions and specifications, validated against Stakeholder Requirements and then transitioned to the next higher system model for integration. End products from the Integration Process are successively integrated upward, verified and validated, transitioned to the next acquisition phase or transitioned ultimately as the End Product to the user.'' (Prosnik 2010)</blockquote>
+
The notions of mission analysis, ConOps and OpsCon are also used in industrial sectors, such as aviation administrations and aeronautic transportation, health care systems, and space with adapted definitions and/or terms, such as operational concepts, usage concepts and/or technological concepts. For example, “mission analysis” is the term used to describe the mathematical analysis of satellite orbits performed to determine how best to achieve the objectives of a space mission (ESA 2008).
  
While the systems engineering (SE) technical processes are life cycle processes, the processes are concurrent, and the emphasis of the respective processes depends on the phase and maturity of the design. Figure 3 portrays (from left to right) a notional emphasis of the respective processes throughout the systems acquisition life cycle from the perspective of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). It is important to note that from this perspective, these processes do not follow a linear progression; instead, they are concurrent, with the amount of activity in a given area changing over the system’s life cycle. The red boxes indicate the topics that will be discussed as part of realization.
+
In commercial sectors, MA is often primarily performed as market analysis. Wikipedia defines market analysis as a process that:
  
[[File:JS_Figure_3.png|thumb|600px|center|'''Figure 3. Notional Emphasis of Systems Engineering Technical Processes and Program Life-Cycle Phases (DAU 2010).''' Released by the Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).]]
+
<blockquote>''. . . studies the attractiveness and the dynamics of a special market within a special industry. It is part of the industry analysis and this in turn of the global environmental analysis. Through all these analyses, the chances, strengths, weaknesses, and risks of a company can be identified. Finally, with the help of a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, adequate business strategies of a company will be defined. The market analysis is also known as a documented investigation of a market that is used to inform a firm's planning activities, particularly around decisions of inventory, purchase, work force expansion/contraction, facility expansion, purchases of capital equipment, promotional activities, and many other aspects of a company.'' (Wikipedia Contributors, 2012)</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
Anywhere these notions are used, it is evident that they are based on fundamental concepts, such as the {{Term|Operational Mode (glossary)|operational mode}} (or state of the system), {{Term|Scenario (glossary)|scenario}} (of actions), the enterprise level ConOps and the system level operational concepts, {{Term|Function (glossary)|functions}}, etc. For more explanations about the ConOps and operational concept, refer to ''Systems and Software Engineering - Requirements Engineering'' (ISO/IEC 2011); useful information can be found in Annex A, "System Operational Concept," and Annex B, "Concept of Operations" (ISO/IEC 2011).
 +
 
 +
===Mission Analysis as Part of Enterprise Strategy Development===
 +
Periodically, most enterprises re-evaluate their strategy with respect to their mission, vision, and positioning to accomplish their goals. Figure 1 shows the interactions of the enterprise strategy development and the concept definition, including the MA and [[Stakeholder Needs and Requirements]] activities that are involved in an iterative manner to fully develop the strategy and define future capabilities and solutions.
 +
 
 +
[[File:Enterprise_Strategy_and_Concept_Development.PNG|thumb|700px|center|'''Figure 1. Enterprise Strategy and Concept Development (Roedler 2012).''' Used with permission of Garry Roedler. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.]]
 +
 
 +
As the enterprise evolves the strategy, it is essential to conduct the supporting MA or strategic analysis for each element of the enterprise to determine readiness to achieve future objectives. This analysis examines the current state to identify any problems or opportunities related to the objective achievement and aids the enterprise in fully understanding and defining the problem space. The analysis examines the external environment and interfaces in search of impacts and trends, as well as the internal enterprise to gauge its capabilities and value stream gaps. Additionally, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis may be performed. As the problem space is defined, the stakeholder needs are defined and transformed into stakeholder requirements that define the solutions needed. These requirements include those that address customer and mission needs, the future state of core processes and capabilities of the enterprise, and the enablers to support performance of those processes and capabilities. Finally, MA is engaged again to examine the solution space. Candidate solutions that span the potential solution space are identified, from simple operational changes to various system developments or modifications. Various techniques are applied to analyze the candidates, understand their feasibility and value, and select the best alternative.
 +
 
 +
==Process Approach==
 +
===Activities of the Process===
 +
It is necessary to perform the following major activities and tasks during the MA process:
 +
#Review and understand the enterprise mission, vision, and ConOps.
 +
#Identify and define any gaps and opportunities related to future evolution of the strategy:
 +
##Examine the current state to identify any problems or opportunities related to the objective achievement, including any deficiencies of the existing system.
 +
##Analyze the context of the actual political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal (PESTAL) factors, while studying sensitive factors such as cost and effectiveness, security and safety improvement, performance improvement or lack of existing systems, market opportunities, regulation changes, users' dissatisfaction, etc. External, internal, and SWOT analysis should be included as well. For the technological considerations, an appropriate {{Term|Architecture Framework (glossary)|architecture framework}} representation, such as the U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) operations view (DoD 2010), the Zachman Framework (Rows 1 and 2) (Zachman 2008), and The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) Architecture Development Method (ADM) (The Open Group 2010) Phases A and B should be included within the concept definition when performing mission analysis and stakeholders needs and requirements.
 +
##Define the mission, business, and/or operational problem or opportunity, as well as its context, and any key parameters, without focusing on a solution.
 +
#Examine and evaluate the solution space:
 +
##Identify the main stakeholders (customers, users, administrations, regulations, etc.).
 +
##Identify high level operational modes or states, or potential use cases.
 +
##Identify candidate solutions that span the potential solution space, from simple operational changes to various system developments or modifications. 
 +
##Identify existing systems, products, and services that may address the need for operational or functional modifications.
 +
##Deduce what potential expected services may be needed. The SoI is a potential and not yet existing product, service or enterprise. Additionally, the solution could be an operational change or a change to an existing product or service.
 +
#Perform appropriate modeling, simulation, and analytical techniques to understand the feasibility and value of the alternative candidate solutions. Model or simulate operational scenarios from these services and use cases, and enrich them through reviews with stakeholders and subject matter experts.
 +
#Define basic operational concept or market strategy, and/or business models.
 +
##From previous modeled operational scenarios and operational modes, deduce and express the usage of operational concepts, or technical concepts.
 +
##Collect and enrich needs, expectations, scenarios, and constraints.
 +
##Validate the mission of any potential SoI in the context of any proposed market strategy or business model.
 +
#Evaluate the set of alternatives and select the best alternative.
 +
##Perform a trade study of the alternatives to discriminate between the alternatives.
 +
#Provide feedback on feasibility, market factors, and alternatives for use in completion of the enterprise strategy and further actions.
 +
#Define preliminary deployment concept, preliminary support concept, and preliminary retirement concept.
 +
 
 +
===Mission Analysis Artifacts===
 +
 
 +
This process may create several artifacts, such as:
 +
*recommendations for revisions to the enterprise ConOps;
 +
*preliminary operational concept document or inputs;
 +
*mission analysis and definition reports (perhaps with recommendations for revisions of the mission);
 +
*a set of business needs;
 +
*preliminary life-cycle concepts (preliminary operational concept, preliminary deployment concept, preliminary support concept, and preliminary retirement concept;
 +
*[[System Analysis|system analysis]] artifacts (e.g., use case diagrams, context diagrams, sequence/activity diagrams, functional flow block diagrams);
 +
*trade study results (alternatives analysis);
 +
*market study/analysis reports; and
 +
*a set of business (or mission) requirements (often captured in a business requirement specification).
 +
 
 +
===Methods and Modeling Techniques===
 +
 
 +
MA uses several techniques, such as:
 +
 +
*use case analysis;
 +
*operational analysis;
 +
*functional analysis;
 +
*technical documentation review;
 +
*trade studies;
 +
*modeling;
 +
*simulation;
 +
*prototyping;
 +
*workshops, interviews, and questionnaires;
 +
*market competitive assessments;
 +
*benchmarking; and
 +
*organizational analysis techniques (e.g., strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT analysis), and product portfolios).
 +
 
 +
==Practical Considerations==
 +
Major pitfalls encountered with mission analysis and marketing analysis are presented in Table 1.
 +
 
 +
<center>
 +
{|
 +
|+'''Table 1. Major Pitfalls for Mission Analysis.''' (SEBoK Original)
 +
!Pitfall
 +
!Description
 +
|-
 +
|Wrong level of system addressed
 +
|When delineating the boundaries of the SoI and defining the mission and purpose of the system at the very beginning of systems engineering, a classic mistake is to place the system-of-interest at the wrong level of abstraction. The level of abstraction can be too high or too low (sitting respectively in the upper-system or in a sub-system). This is the consequence of the principle stating that a system is always included in a larger system and of confusing the purpose and the mission of the SoI.
 +
|-
 +
|Operational modes or scenarios missing
 +
|In commercial products or systems, the lack or insufficient description of operational modes and scenarios (how the SoI will be used, in which situations, etc.) is often encountered.
 +
|}
 +
</center>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Proven practices with mission analysis and marketing analysis are presented in Table 2.
 +
 
 +
<center>
 +
{|
 +
|+'''Table 2. Mission Analysis Proven Practices.''' (SEBoK Original)
 +
!Practice
 +
!Description
 +
|-
 +
|Models of operational scenarios
 +
|Using modeling techniques as indicated in sections above for operational scenarios in any kind of SoI (including commercial systems).
 +
|-
 +
|Models of the context
 +
|Consider the context of use as a system and force oneself to use modeling techniques for main aspects of the context (functional, behavioral, physical, etc.).
 +
|}
 +
</center>
  
 
==References==  
 
==References==  
  
 
===Works Cited===
 
===Works Cited===
 +
ANSI/AIAA G-043-2012e, Guide to the Preparation of Operational Concept Documents.
 +
 +
DoD. 2010. ''DoD Architecture Framework'', version 2.02. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/DODAF/DoDAF_v2-02_web.pdf.
 +
 +
ESA. 2008. ''Mission Analysis: Towards a European Harmonization.'' Paris, France: European Space Agency. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin134/bul134b_schoenmaekers.pdf.
 +
 +
IEEE. 1998. ''Guide for Information Technology – System Definition – Concept of Operations (ConOps) Document''. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE 1362:1998.
  
DAU. 2010. ''Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG)''. Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). February 19, 2010.
+
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. ''Systems and Software Engineering - Life Cycle Processes - Requirements Engineering.'' Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission/ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011.
+
 
Prosnik, G. 2010. Materials from "Systems 101: Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Planning, Research, Development, and Engineering". DAU distance learning program. eds. J. Snoderly, B. Zimmerman. Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
+
NDIA. 2010. “Mission Analysis Committee Charter”. Website of the National Defense Industrial Association, Systems Engineering Division, Mission Analysis Committee. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Documents/Committees/Mission%20Analysis%20Committee/Mission%20Analysis%20Committee%20Charter.pdf.
 +
 
 +
The Open Group. 2011. ''TOGAF'', version 9.1. Hogeweg, The Netherlands: Van Haren Publishing. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/jsp/publications/PublicationDetails.jsp?catalogno=g116.
 +
 
 +
Wikipedia contributors, "Market analysis," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_analysis&oldid=508583878 (accessed August 29, 2012).
 +
 
 +
Zachman, J. 2008. "John Zachman's Concise Definition of The Zachman Framework™." Zachman International Enterprise Architecture. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework.
  
 
===Primary References===
 
===Primary References===
INCOSE. 2011. ''[[INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook]]: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities''. Version 3.2.1. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.1.
+
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015. ''Systems and Software Engineering -- System Life Cycle Processes''. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardisation / International Electrotechnical Commissions / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
+
 
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015.''[[ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288|Systems and Software Engineering - System Life Cycle Processes]].''Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.[[ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288]]:2015.
+
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. ''[[ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148|Systems and Software Engineering - Requirements Engineering]]''. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission/ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), (IEC), [[ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148]].
  
Martin, J.N. 1997. ''[[Systems Engineering Guidebook]]: A process for developing systems and products,'' 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
+
INCOSE. 2015. '[[INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook|Systems Engineering Handbook]]: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities', version 4.0. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, ISBN: 978-1-118-99940-0.
  
NASA. 2007. ''[[NASA Systems Engineering Handbook|Systems Engineering Handbook]].'' Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), NASA/SP-2007-6105.
+
Lamsweerde, A. van. 2009. ''[[Requirements Engineering]]: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications''. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
  
 
===Additional References===
 
===Additional References===
 +
Center for Quality Management. 1993. "Special Issue on Kano's Methods for Understanding Customer Defined Quality." ''Center for Quality Management Journal.'' 2(4) (Fall 1993).
  
DAU. 2010. ''Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG)''. Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). February 19, 2010.
+
Faisandier, A. 2012. ''Systems Opportunities and Requirements''. Belberaud, France: Sinergy'Com.
  
DAU. ''Your Acquisition Policy and Discretionary Best Practices Guide.'' In Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) [database online]. Ft Belvoir, VA, USA. Available at: https://dag.dau.mil/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed 2010).
+
Freeman, R. "Chapter 27: Achieving Strategic Aims: Moving Toward a Process Based Military Enterprise," in ''Handbook of Military Industrial Engineering.'' A.B. Badiru and M.U. Thomas (eds). Boca Raton, FL, USA: Taylor & Francis Group, CRC Press.
  
ECSS. 2009. ''Systems Engineering General Requirements''. Noordwijk, Netherlands: Requirements and Standards Division, European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS), 6 March 2009.  ECSS-E-ST-10C.
+
IEEE. 1998. ''Guide for Information Technology – System Definition – Concept of Operations (ConOps) Document''. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE 1362:1998.
  
IEEE. 2012. "Standard for System and Software Verification and Validation". Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE-1012.
+
Hull, M.E.C., K. Jackson, A.J.J. Dick. 2010. ''Systems Engineering.'' 3rd ed. London, UK: Springer.
 +
 
 +
Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton. 2008. “Developing the Strategy: Vision, Value Gaps, and Analysis,” Balanced Scorecard Report. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Publishing, Jan-Feb 2008.
 +
 
 +
Kano, N. 1984. "Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality." ''Quality JSQC.'' 14(2) (October 1984).
 +
 
 +
Kohda, T., M. Wada, and K. Inoue. 1994. "A Simple Method for Phased Mission Analysis." ''Reliability Engineering & System Safety.'' 45(3): 299-309.
 +
 
 +
Marca, D. A. and C. L. McGowan. 1987. "SADT: Structured analysis and design techniques." ''Software Engineering''. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
 +
 
 +
MITRE. 2011. "Concept Development."  ''Systems Engineering Guide.'' Accessed 9 March 2012 at [http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/concept_development/ http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/concept_development/].
 +
 
 +
MITRE. 2011. "Requirements Engineering." ''Systems Engineering Guide.'' Accessed 9 March 2012 at [http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/requirements_engineering/ http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/requirements_engineering/].
 +
 
 +
MITRE. 2011. "Stakeholder Assessment and Management." ''Systems Engineering Guide.'' Accessed 9 March 2012 at [http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/enterprise_engineering/transformation_planning_org_change/stakeholder_assessment_management.html/ http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/enterprise_engineering/transformation_planning_org_change/stakeholder_assessment_management.html/].
 +
 
 +
Shupp, J.K. 2003. “The Mission Analysis Discipline: Bringing focus to the fuzziness about Attaining Good Architectures.” Proceedings of INCOSE 13th International Symposium, July 2003.
 
----
 
----
<center>[[System Analysis|< Previous Article]] | [[Systems Engineering and Management|Parent Article]] | [[System Implementation|Next Article >]]</center>
+
<center>[[Concept Definition|< Previous Article]] | [[Concept Definition|Parent Article]] | [[Stakeholder Needs and Requirements|Next Article >]]</center>
  
 +
[[Category: Part 3]][[Category:Topic]]
 +
[[Category:Concept Definition]]
 
<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.0, released 1 June 2019'''</center>
 
<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.0, released 1 June 2019'''</center>
 
[[Category:Part 3]][[Category:Knowledge Area]]
 

Revision as of 03:24, 19 October 2019

The starting point of engineering any system-of-interestsystem-of-interest (SoI) is understanding the socio-economic and technological context in which potential problems or opportunities reside. Then, the enterprise strategic goals and stakeholderstakeholder needs, expectations, and requirements represent the problem or the opportunity from the viewpoint of business or enterprise decision makers while also taking into account the views of usersusers, acquirersacquirers, and customerscustomers.

Mission Analysis (MA) is part of the larger set of concept definitionconcept definition activities - the set of systems engineering activities in which the problem space and the needs of the business or enterprise and stakeholders are closely examined. This occurs before any formal definition of the (SoI) is developed but may need to be revisited through the life cycle. In fact, the activities of Concept Definition determine whether the enterprise strategic goals and business needs will be addressed by a new system, a change to an existing system, a service, an operational change or some other solution. The MA activity focuses on the identification of the primary purpose(s) of the solution (its "mission"), while Stakeholder Needs and Requirements activity explores what capabilities stakeholders desire in accomplishing the mission and may include some detail on the performance of certain aspects of the solution. MA is often performed iteratively with the Stakeholder Needs and Requirements activity to better understand the problem (or opportunity) space, as well as the solution space.

Purpose and Definition

The purpose of MA is to understand a mission/market problem or opportunity, analyze the solution space, and initiate the life cycle of a potential solution that could address the problem or take advantage of an opportunity. MA is a type of strategic or operations analysis related to needs, capability gaps, or opportunities and solutions that can be applied to any organization that evolves its strategy for its business objectives.

MA, in some domains called market analysismarket analysis or business analysis, is the identification, characterization, and assessment of an operational problem or opportunity within an enterprise. The definition of a mission or business function in a problem space frames the solution, both in terms of the direct application to the mission or business function, and in terms of the context for the resulting solution.

MA is used to define needed (or desired) operational actions, not hardware/software functions; that is, it is focused on defining the problem space, not the solution space. MA begins with the business vision and Concept of Operations (ConOps) (IEEE. 1998), and other organization strategic goals and objectives including the mission (or business function). The primary products of MA are Business or Mission Needs, which are supported by preliminary life-cycle concepts—including a preliminary acquisition concept, a preliminary operational concept (OpsCon), a preliminary deployment concept, a preliminary support concept, and a preliminary retirement concept. Business or Mission Needs are then elaborated and formalized into Business or Mission Requirements. The preliminary operational concept includes the operational scenarios for the mission and the context in which the solution will exist.

MA may include mathematical analysis, modeling, simulation, visualization, and other analytical tools to characterize the intended mission and determine how to best achieve the needs/objectives. MA evaluates alternative approaches to determine which best supports the stakeholder needs (among both materiel and non-materiel solution alternatives, also known as product solutions and service/operational solutions). Thus, MA defines the problem space and analyzes the solution space alternatives using quality attribute constraints driven by the enterprise objectives.

Principles and Concepts

Mission Analysis and Concept of Operations

MA and the terms ConOps and OpsCon are broadly used in U.S. and UK defense and aerospace organizations to analyze and define how a system is intended to operate, as well as how the major operations or operational scenarios are intended to be performed. They take into account the strategic, operational, and tactical aspects of the identified scenarios. ANSI/AIAA G-043A-2012 (ANSI 2012) identifies that the terms ‘concept of operations’ and ‘operational concept’ are often used interchangeably but notes that an important distinction exists because each has a separate purpose and is used to meet different ends. The ConOps is at an organizational level, prepared by enterprise management and refined by business management:

The ConOps, at the organization level, addresses the leadership's intended way of operating the organization. It may refer to the use of one or more systems (as black boxes) to forward the organization's goals and objectives. The ConOps document describes the organization's assumptions or intent in regard to an overall operation or series of operations within the business in regards to the system to be developed, existing systems, and possible future systems. This document is frequently embodied in long-range strategic plans and annual operational plans. The ConOps document serves as a basis for the organization to direct the overall characteristics of future business and systems. (ISO/IEC 2011)

The ConOps informs the OpsCon, which is drafted by business management in the Mission Analysis activity and refined by stakeholders in the Stakeholder Needs and Requirements activity:

A system OpsCon document describes what the system will do (not how it will do it) and why (rationale). An OpsCon is a user-oriented document that describes system characteristics of the to-be-delivered system from the user's viewpoint. The OpsCon document is used to communicate overall quantitative and qualitative system characteristics to the acquirer, user, supplier and other organizational elements. (ISO/IEC 2011)

It should be noted that the OpsCon has an operational focus and should be supported by the development of other concepts, including a deployment concept, a support concept, and a retirement concept.

In order to determine appropriate technical solutions for evolving enterprise capabilities, systems engineering (SE) leaders interact with enterprise leaders and operations analysts to understand:

  • the enterprise ConOps and future mission, business, and operational (MBO) objectives;
  • the characterization of the operational concept and objectives (i.e., constraints, mission or operational scenarios, tasks, resources, risks, assumptions, and related missions or operations); and
  • how specific missions or operations are currently conducted and what gaps exist in those areas.

They then conceptually explore and select from alternative candidate solutions. This interaction ensures a full understanding of both the problem space and the solution space. The alternative candidate solutions can include a wide range of approaches to address the need, as well as variants for an approach to optimize specific characteristics (e.g., using a different distribution of satellite orbit parameters to maximize coverage or events while minimizing the number of satellites). Analysis, modeling and simulation, and trade studies are employed to select alternative approaches (NDIA 2010).

The notions of mission analysis, ConOps and OpsCon are also used in industrial sectors, such as aviation administrations and aeronautic transportation, health care systems, and space with adapted definitions and/or terms, such as operational concepts, usage concepts and/or technological concepts. For example, “mission analysis” is the term used to describe the mathematical analysis of satellite orbits performed to determine how best to achieve the objectives of a space mission (ESA 2008).

In commercial sectors, MA is often primarily performed as market analysis. Wikipedia defines market analysis as a process that:

. . . studies the attractiveness and the dynamics of a special market within a special industry. It is part of the industry analysis and this in turn of the global environmental analysis. Through all these analyses, the chances, strengths, weaknesses, and risks of a company can be identified. Finally, with the help of a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, adequate business strategies of a company will be defined. The market analysis is also known as a documented investigation of a market that is used to inform a firm's planning activities, particularly around decisions of inventory, purchase, work force expansion/contraction, facility expansion, purchases of capital equipment, promotional activities, and many other aspects of a company. (Wikipedia Contributors, 2012)

Anywhere these notions are used, it is evident that they are based on fundamental concepts, such as the operational modeoperational mode (or state of the system), scenarioscenario (of actions), the enterprise level ConOps and the system level operational concepts, functionsfunctions, etc. For more explanations about the ConOps and operational concept, refer to Systems and Software Engineering - Requirements Engineering (ISO/IEC 2011); useful information can be found in Annex A, "System Operational Concept," and Annex B, "Concept of Operations" (ISO/IEC 2011).

Mission Analysis as Part of Enterprise Strategy Development

Periodically, most enterprises re-evaluate their strategy with respect to their mission, vision, and positioning to accomplish their goals. Figure 1 shows the interactions of the enterprise strategy development and the concept definition, including the MA and Stakeholder Needs and Requirements activities that are involved in an iterative manner to fully develop the strategy and define future capabilities and solutions.

Figure 1. Enterprise Strategy and Concept Development (Roedler 2012). Used with permission of Garry Roedler. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.

As the enterprise evolves the strategy, it is essential to conduct the supporting MA or strategic analysis for each element of the enterprise to determine readiness to achieve future objectives. This analysis examines the current state to identify any problems or opportunities related to the objective achievement and aids the enterprise in fully understanding and defining the problem space. The analysis examines the external environment and interfaces in search of impacts and trends, as well as the internal enterprise to gauge its capabilities and value stream gaps. Additionally, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis may be performed. As the problem space is defined, the stakeholder needs are defined and transformed into stakeholder requirements that define the solutions needed. These requirements include those that address customer and mission needs, the future state of core processes and capabilities of the enterprise, and the enablers to support performance of those processes and capabilities. Finally, MA is engaged again to examine the solution space. Candidate solutions that span the potential solution space are identified, from simple operational changes to various system developments or modifications. Various techniques are applied to analyze the candidates, understand their feasibility and value, and select the best alternative.

Process Approach

Activities of the Process

It is necessary to perform the following major activities and tasks during the MA process:

  1. Review and understand the enterprise mission, vision, and ConOps.
  2. Identify and define any gaps and opportunities related to future evolution of the strategy:
    1. Examine the current state to identify any problems or opportunities related to the objective achievement, including any deficiencies of the existing system.
    2. Analyze the context of the actual political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal (PESTAL) factors, while studying sensitive factors such as cost and effectiveness, security and safety improvement, performance improvement or lack of existing systems, market opportunities, regulation changes, users' dissatisfaction, etc. External, internal, and SWOT analysis should be included as well. For the technological considerations, an appropriate architecture frameworkarchitecture framework representation, such as the U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) operations view (DoD 2010), the Zachman Framework (Rows 1 and 2) (Zachman 2008), and The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) Architecture Development Method (ADM) (The Open Group 2010) Phases A and B should be included within the concept definition when performing mission analysis and stakeholders needs and requirements.
    3. Define the mission, business, and/or operational problem or opportunity, as well as its context, and any key parameters, without focusing on a solution.
  3. Examine and evaluate the solution space:
    1. Identify the main stakeholders (customers, users, administrations, regulations, etc.).
    2. Identify high level operational modes or states, or potential use cases.
    3. Identify candidate solutions that span the potential solution space, from simple operational changes to various system developments or modifications.
    4. Identify existing systems, products, and services that may address the need for operational or functional modifications.
    5. Deduce what potential expected services may be needed. The SoI is a potential and not yet existing product, service or enterprise. Additionally, the solution could be an operational change or a change to an existing product or service.
  4. Perform appropriate modeling, simulation, and analytical techniques to understand the feasibility and value of the alternative candidate solutions. Model or simulate operational scenarios from these services and use cases, and enrich them through reviews with stakeholders and subject matter experts.
  5. Define basic operational concept or market strategy, and/or business models.
    1. From previous modeled operational scenarios and operational modes, deduce and express the usage of operational concepts, or technical concepts.
    2. Collect and enrich needs, expectations, scenarios, and constraints.
    3. Validate the mission of any potential SoI in the context of any proposed market strategy or business model.
  6. Evaluate the set of alternatives and select the best alternative.
    1. Perform a trade study of the alternatives to discriminate between the alternatives.
  7. Provide feedback on feasibility, market factors, and alternatives for use in completion of the enterprise strategy and further actions.
  8. Define preliminary deployment concept, preliminary support concept, and preliminary retirement concept.

Mission Analysis Artifacts

This process may create several artifacts, such as:

  • recommendations for revisions to the enterprise ConOps;
  • preliminary operational concept document or inputs;
  • mission analysis and definition reports (perhaps with recommendations for revisions of the mission);
  • a set of business needs;
  • preliminary life-cycle concepts (preliminary operational concept, preliminary deployment concept, preliminary support concept, and preliminary retirement concept;
  • system analysis artifacts (e.g., use case diagrams, context diagrams, sequence/activity diagrams, functional flow block diagrams);
  • trade study results (alternatives analysis);
  • market study/analysis reports; and
  • a set of business (or mission) requirements (often captured in a business requirement specification).

Methods and Modeling Techniques

MA uses several techniques, such as:

  • use case analysis;
  • operational analysis;
  • functional analysis;
  • technical documentation review;
  • trade studies;
  • modeling;
  • simulation;
  • prototyping;
  • workshops, interviews, and questionnaires;
  • market competitive assessments;
  • benchmarking; and
  • organizational analysis techniques (e.g., strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT analysis), and product portfolios).

Practical Considerations

Major pitfalls encountered with mission analysis and marketing analysis are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Major Pitfalls for Mission Analysis. (SEBoK Original)
Pitfall Description
Wrong level of system addressed When delineating the boundaries of the SoI and defining the mission and purpose of the system at the very beginning of systems engineering, a classic mistake is to place the system-of-interest at the wrong level of abstraction. The level of abstraction can be too high or too low (sitting respectively in the upper-system or in a sub-system). This is the consequence of the principle stating that a system is always included in a larger system and of confusing the purpose and the mission of the SoI.
Operational modes or scenarios missing In commercial products or systems, the lack or insufficient description of operational modes and scenarios (how the SoI will be used, in which situations, etc.) is often encountered.


Proven practices with mission analysis and marketing analysis are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Mission Analysis Proven Practices. (SEBoK Original)
Practice Description
Models of operational scenarios Using modeling techniques as indicated in sections above for operational scenarios in any kind of SoI (including commercial systems).
Models of the context Consider the context of use as a system and force oneself to use modeling techniques for main aspects of the context (functional, behavioral, physical, etc.).

References

Works Cited

ANSI/AIAA G-043-2012e, Guide to the Preparation of Operational Concept Documents.

DoD. 2010. DoD Architecture Framework, version 2.02. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/DODAF/DoDAF_v2-02_web.pdf.

ESA. 2008. Mission Analysis: Towards a European Harmonization. Paris, France: European Space Agency. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin134/bul134b_schoenmaekers.pdf.

IEEE. 1998. Guide for Information Technology – System Definition – Concept of Operations (ConOps) Document. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE 1362:1998.

ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and Software Engineering - Life Cycle Processes - Requirements Engineering. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission/ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011.

NDIA. 2010. “Mission Analysis Committee Charter”. Website of the National Defense Industrial Association, Systems Engineering Division, Mission Analysis Committee. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Documents/Committees/Mission%20Analysis%20Committee/Mission%20Analysis%20Committee%20Charter.pdf.

The Open Group. 2011. TOGAF, version 9.1. Hogeweg, The Netherlands: Van Haren Publishing. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/jsp/publications/PublicationDetails.jsp?catalogno=g116.

Wikipedia contributors, "Market analysis," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_analysis&oldid=508583878 (accessed August 29, 2012).

Zachman, J. 2008. "John Zachman's Concise Definition of The Zachman Framework™." Zachman International Enterprise Architecture. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework.

Primary References

ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015. Systems and Software Engineering -- System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardisation / International Electrotechnical Commissions / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.

ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. Systems and Software Engineering - Requirements Engineering. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission/ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), (IEC), ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148.

INCOSE. 2015. 'Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities', version 4.0. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, ISBN: 978-1-118-99940-0.

Lamsweerde, A. van. 2009. Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.

Additional References

Center for Quality Management. 1993. "Special Issue on Kano's Methods for Understanding Customer Defined Quality." Center for Quality Management Journal. 2(4) (Fall 1993).

Faisandier, A. 2012. Systems Opportunities and Requirements. Belberaud, France: Sinergy'Com.

Freeman, R. "Chapter 27: Achieving Strategic Aims: Moving Toward a Process Based Military Enterprise," in Handbook of Military Industrial Engineering. A.B. Badiru and M.U. Thomas (eds). Boca Raton, FL, USA: Taylor & Francis Group, CRC Press.

IEEE. 1998. Guide for Information Technology – System Definition – Concept of Operations (ConOps) Document. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE 1362:1998.

Hull, M.E.C., K. Jackson, A.J.J. Dick. 2010. Systems Engineering. 3rd ed. London, UK: Springer.

Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton. 2008. “Developing the Strategy: Vision, Value Gaps, and Analysis,” Balanced Scorecard Report. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Publishing, Jan-Feb 2008.

Kano, N. 1984. "Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality." Quality JSQC. 14(2) (October 1984).

Kohda, T., M. Wada, and K. Inoue. 1994. "A Simple Method for Phased Mission Analysis." Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 45(3): 299-309.

Marca, D. A. and C. L. McGowan. 1987. "SADT: Structured analysis and design techniques." Software Engineering. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

MITRE. 2011. "Concept Development." Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed 9 March 2012 at http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/concept_development/.

MITRE. 2011. "Requirements Engineering." Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed 9 March 2012 at http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/requirements_engineering/.

MITRE. 2011. "Stakeholder Assessment and Management." Systems Engineering Guide. Accessed 9 March 2012 at http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/enterprise_engineering/transformation_planning_org_change/stakeholder_assessment_management.html/.

Shupp, J.K. 2003. “The Mission Analysis Discipline: Bringing focus to the fuzziness about Attaining Good Architectures.” Proceedings of INCOSE 13th International Symposium, July 2003.


< Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article >
SEBoK v. 2.0, released 1 June 2019