System architecture design and measure tracing method based on mission engineering

Abstract

The invention discloses a mission engineering-based system architecture design and measure tracing method, and belongs to the technical field of system architectures. Aiming at the construction problem of a complex system architecture and the measurement tracing problem in complex system modeling, the method of the invention performs mission engineering analysis on a researched complex system, and designs the system architecture from four layers of perspectives of strategy, operation, service and resources based on a UAF; based on UAF, measurement tracing modeling of a strategic layer, an operation layer, a service layer and a resource layer is carried out, and measurement iteration in a mission-task-capability decomposition process is established through a systematic method by adopting measurement definition and measurement tracing relation in mission engineering. According to the method, a user is allowed to model a complex system from a plurality of view angles, the traceability of measurement among different view angles is realized, and complete traceability of parameters and forward design of a complex system architecture are realized.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention belongs to the field of system architecture design, and relates to system architecture design methods and system modeling, and specifically to a system architecture design based on mission engineering, unified architecture framework (UAF) architecture model development, and measurement traceability modeling. Background Art

[0002] The system architecture method is a basic method for the design of complex systems and complex systems. The system architecture method solves the design problems of complex systems or systems through multi-dimensional and multi-perspective analysis methods, and establishes standard specifications for the systematic description of complex systems through the system architecture framework.

[0003] In the 1990s, the U.S. military proposed the C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computing, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) architecture framework. C4ISR adopts the "three-view" architecture of operational view, system view and technical view, aiming to solve the separation between the logic of the operational mission process in the operational view and the specific implementation of military system resources in the system view. As a statutory system description and design standard of the U.S. Department of Defense, DoDAF (U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework) is oriented to the six core processes of the U.S. Department of Defense, unifies the concepts and models of the core processes hosted by the Department of Defense, forms an integrated description framework, adopts a three-layer structure of perspective, view, model and data, and defines 8 perspectives and 52 views. MODAF (Department of Defense Architecture Framework) defines a standardized way to implement enterprise architecture, and supports defense planning and change management activities through strategic view, operational view, system view, procurement view, technical view and global view. The Unified Extension Set (UPDM) of DoDAF and MODAF was jointly released by members of INCOSE and OMG. UPDM provides a consistent and standardized method to describe the architecture of DoDAF and MODAF and the standard of exchange in SysML / UML-based tools. Concepts defined in the Systems Modeling Language (SysML), such as parameters, blocks, complex ports, enhanced activity modeling, and cross-cutting constructs, advance the state of the art for systems engineers and architects.

[0004] The Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) evolved from UPDM version 2.1. UAF extends the scope of UPDM and generalizes it to be applicable to both commercial and military architectures, with the goal of providing a standard representation for describing complex organizational architectures using a model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach. The UAF architecture model provides a development approach that can understand the complex relationships that exist between organizations, operations, systems, and services, and can analyze these things to ensure that they meet the expectations of the user community. The UAF model describes the system from a set of stakeholder concerns through a set of predefined perspectives, and can model strategic capabilities, operational scenarios, services, resources, personnel, security, projects, standards, measurements, and requirements.

[0005] Mission Engineering focuses on the effects of achieving the intended mission, and conducts thoughtful planning, analysis, and organizational integration of current and emerging operational capabilities and system capabilities. The hierarchy of missions ranges from strategic to tactical. Starting with the overall purpose of the scenario or local scenario in the mission definition, it is necessary to define the measurements at each level in detail to answer questions of interest to stakeholders. Measurements are measured values ​​used for quantitative evaluation, and are typically used to evaluate, compare, and track the performance of missions or systems. Mission engineering practitioners need to identify a set of established measurements and use them to evaluate the integrity and effectiveness of components that support mission-enabling activities.

[0006] Although there are many architectures in the world, there is no architecture design and modeling method that combines mission engineering with UAF, or measurement with mission architecture. There is a lack of quantitative and objective evaluation and verification of the measurement and effects of complex architecture design methods, which leads to incomplete and unreliable research. Summary of the invention

[0007] Aiming at the problem of building a complex system architecture and the measurement traceability problem in complex system modeling, this paper draws on the mission engineering method, adopts the UAF unified architecture framework, and innovatively proposes a system architecture design and measurement traceability method based on mission engineering. It selects the four-layer perspectives of strategy, operation, service, and resource in UAF, as well as motivation, classification, structure, status, and parameters. Through system modeling, the establishment of interdependence between mission definition, scenario, local scenario, and mission measurement is realized, and the complete traceability of parameters and the forward design of complex system architecture are achieved.

[0008] The present invention provides a system architecture design and measurement tracing method based on mission engineering, comprising the following steps:

[0009] Step 1: Conduct mission engineering analysis on the complex system under study and design the system architecture based on UAF; define the success measure MOS, effectiveness measure MOE and performance measure MOP in the mission architecture. Design the system architecture from the perspectives of strategy, operation, service and resources, including: constructing mission tasks, capability combinations, task relationships and task constraints in the strategic layer; constructing operation classification, operation structure and operation parameters in the operation layer; constructing service classification, service structure and service parameters in the service layer; constructing resource classification, resource structure and resource parameters in the resource layer;

[0010] Step 2: Conduct strategic layer measurement traceability modeling based on UAF, including: determine the capabilities required to complete the mission tasks based on driving forces and challenges, and divide the capabilities into strategic capabilities and operational capabilities, and build a strategic motivation diagram for the mission tasks; determine the operational capabilities required to achieve the top-level strategic capabilities, set the effectiveness measurement items of the capabilities in the capability attributes, and build a strategic structure diagram for the capability combination; establish a traceability relationship between capabilities and tasks, set the success measurement items of the tasks in the task attributes, and build a strategic flow chart for the task relationship; set task constraints, and the constraints are expressed in the form of equations. The parameters in the equations are bound to the attribute parameters in the analyzed tasks or capabilities, and a task parameter diagram is established;

[0011] Step 3: Perform operation layer measurement traceability modeling based on UAF, including: establishing an operation architecture for each task, analyzing the operation nodes required to complete the task, and establishing an operation classification diagram; analyzing the operation structure, defining operation nodes for each operation architecture, defining performance measurement items in the attributes of the operation nodes, setting the effectiveness measurement items of the operation architecture to inherit the corresponding capabilities of the tasks, and establishing an operation structure diagram; establishing parameter management between the effectiveness measurement items of the operation architecture and the performance measurement items of the operation nodes, and obtaining an operation parameter diagram;

[0012] Step 4: Perform service layer measurement traceability modeling based on UAF, including: sorting out service elements, determining the service architecture and service nodes used by the operation activities, and establishing a service classification diagram; determining the composition relationship between the service architecture and the service nodes, associating the service architecture with the capabilities corresponding to the mapped operation activities, setting the effectiveness measurement items of the capabilities associated with the service architecture inheritance, defining the performance measurement items of the service nodes in the attributes of the service nodes, and establishing a service structure diagram; establishing the parameter relationship between the effectiveness measurement items of the service architecture and the performance measurement items of the service nodes, and obtaining a service parameter diagram;

[0013] Step 5: Perform resource layer measurement traceability modeling based on UAF, including: organizing system elements, determining the resource services and systems required by service nodes, and establishing a resource classification diagram; establishing a composition relationship between resource services and systems, setting resource services to inherit the performance measurement items of corresponding service nodes, defining the performance measurement items of the system, and establishing a resource structure diagram; establishing a parameter relationship between the performance measurement items of resource services and the performance measurement items of the system to obtain a resource parameter diagram.

[0014] Through steps 2-5, the complex system architecture is implemented and the traceability relationship of the measurement is established.

[0015] Compared with the existing methods, the system architecture design and measurement tracing method of the present invention has the following advantages and positive effects:

[0016] (1) The method of the present invention adopts the definition of measurement and the traceability relationship of measurement in mission engineering. Through a systematic approach, it provides detailed guidance and framework for decomposing system capabilities and realizes measurement iteration in the process of mission-task-capability decomposition.

[0017] (2) The method of the present invention adopts UAF as the system architecture design framework, cuts the views and designs a set of measurement traceability modeling methods and processes by combining mission engineering methods, allowing users to model complex systems from multiple perspectives and achieve traceability of measurements between different perspectives. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0018] Figure 1 The relationship between the mission project and the measurements therein in the embodiment of the present invention;

[0019] Figure 2 A schematic diagram of the architecture framework of the complex system designed for the present invention;

[0020] Figure 3 This is an example diagram of mission and task analysis at the strategic level in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0021] Figure 4 This is an example diagram of capability combination analysis at the strategic layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0022] Figure 5 This is an example diagram of task relationship definition at the strategic level in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0023] Figure 6 This is an example diagram of parameterized constraints of the overall tasks and subtasks of the strategic layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0024] Figure 7 This is an example diagram of parameterized constraints for success measurement and capability effectiveness measurement at the strategic level in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0025] Figure 8 This is an example diagram of the classification of operation elements of the operation layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0026] Fig. 9 This is an example diagram of the operation structure analysis of the operation layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0027] Fig.10 This is an example diagram of the operation efficiency analysis of the operation layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0028] Fig.11 An example diagram of the service elements of the service layer in the embodiment of the present invention is provided;

[0029] Fig.12 This is an example diagram of service composition analysis of the service layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0030] Fig.13 This is an example diagram of service performance analysis of the service layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0031] Fig.14 An example diagram of the arrangement of system elements of the resource layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0032] Fig.15 This is an example diagram of resource composition analysis of the resource layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0033] Fig.16 This is an example diagram of service performance analysis of the resource layer in an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0034] The present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0035] The architecture design and measurement traceability method based on mission engineering provided by the present invention can be implemented in hardware or dedicated circuits, software, firmware, logic, or any combination thereof. Certain aspects of the embodiments disclosed in the present invention can be implemented in hardware, while other aspects can be implemented in firmware or software executed by a controller, microprocessor or other computing device.

[0036] The system architecture design and measurement tracing method based on mission engineering in an embodiment of the present invention includes the following five steps.

[0037] Step 1: Design an architecture framework for complex systems by drawing on mission engineering methods and unified architecture framework.

[0038] This step starts from the needs of stakeholders, decomposes the capabilities of the complex system under study, analyzes the specific task operation process, defines the required services, and analyzes the required system resources based on the services provided. By combining the mission engineering method with the unified architecture framework, a general system architecture design method and process are designed to carry out modeling work for complex systems. The present invention selects a four-layer architecture of "strategic architecture", "operation architecture", "service architecture" and "resource architecture", and on the basis of following the UAF design method, forms a general design method and process for complex systems that measure traceability.

[0039] Step 1.1) Conduct a mission engineering analysis.

[0040] Mission engineering is a top-down approach to guide development, prototyping, experimentation, and system building to achieve the proposed mission and close the mission's capability gaps. Mission architecture represents the detailed structure of mission execution and is the core product of mission engineering. It provides a comprehensive and methodical approach to define operations, systems, and data flows within scenario constraints, generally including operational, system, and / or technical perspectives. Mission engineering uses an analytical and data-driven approach to identify measurable trade-offs and draw conclusions by decomposing and analyzing the components of the mission. Measures are measured values ​​used for quantitative assessment, usually used to evaluate, compare, and track the performance of missions or systems. Mission engineering practitioners need to identify a set of established measures that are used to evaluate the completeness and effectiveness of components that support mission-enabling activities. Mission measures represent the criteria used to evaluate each alternative method of executing the mission. Measures such as success measures, effectiveness measures, and performance measures are defined in mission engineering. Measures of success (MOS) indicate the measurable attributes of the expected effects of achieving the mission task. Measures of effectiveness (MOE) indicate the measurable attributes and target values ​​of the capabilities required for the success of the entire mission. A measure of performance (MOP) indicates the performance characteristics of a single system used to accomplish its mission.

[0041] The mission architecture is divided into mission tasks, operational scenarios / local scenarios, mission clues, mission engineering clues, and equipment systems from abstract to specific levels. A sub-element of the mission architecture is the mission clue, which contains the end-to-end tasks or activities required to complete the mission in a scenario or local scenario, including tasks to be performed to perform the mission to meet the determined purpose. Figure 1As shown, the measure of success, i.e., the measure of success MOS, is defined at the mission clue stage. As detailed information related to specific systems, technologies, or personnel continues to increase, the general mission clue becomes the mission engineering clue, which includes the relevant systems and / or capabilities to perform the end-to-end mission. The definition of the effectiveness measure MOE is carried out at this stage. The tasks to be performed are further decomposed into activities and systems to achieve the mission objectives, and the performance measure MOP is defined to describe the characteristics of the capabilities / performance of specific systems to help measure the completion status of the system tasks.

[0042] Step 1.2) Design the architecture based on UAF.

[0043] UAF provides a standard representation for describing complex organizational architectures using a model-based systems engineering approach. UAF models describe systems from a set of stakeholder concerns through a set of predefined perspectives. Models can also be developed to reflect custom perspectives, or users can develop more formal extensions for new perspectives. UAF v1.2 supports modeling of a wide range of complex system architectures, which may include hardware, software, data, people, and facilities elements; consistent architectural modeling from the system of systems (SoS) down to low-level design and implementation; supports analysis, specification, design, and verification of complex systems; and improves the ability to exchange architectural information between related SysML-based tools. UAF can model strategic capabilities, operational scenarios, services, resources, people, security, projects, standards, measures, and requirements; it supports best practices through separation of concerns and abstraction; and describes the definition of each perspective. UAF provides a complete set of stakeholder perspectives as the basis for defining the various necessary architectural views of complex organizational systems, and adjusts and tailors the perspectives according to the issues that stakeholders need to focus on from different perspectives and to adapt to the application domain. The embodiment of the present invention takes the four-layer perspectives of strategy, operation, service, and resource and the corresponding model elements as examples to realize the forward design and measurement traceability of the system architecture. At the same time, in order to ensure the integrity and consistency of the analysis at each level, UAF subdivides the analysis process at different levels into four aspects including motivation, classification, structure, and parameters, such as Figure 2 The multiple views shown implement the modeling process of the complex system in the embodiment of the present invention, designing the system architecture from the perspectives of strategy, operation, service and resources. The detailed system modeling process will be described one by one in the subsequent steps. Figure 2As shown, the embodiment of the present invention designs a modeling process in each layer of view. For example, in the strategic layer, mission tasks (St-Mv, i.e., strategic motivation), capability combinations (St-Sr), task relationships (St-Pr) and task constraints (Par) are constructed in sequence; in the operation layer, operation classifications (Op-Tx), operation structures (Op-Sr) and operation parameters (Op-Pm) are constructed in sequence; in the service layer, service classifications (Sv-Tx), service structures (Sv-Sr) and service parameters (Sv-Pm) are constructed in sequence; in the resource layer, resource classifications (Rs-Tx), resource structures (Rs-Sr) and resource parameters (Rs-Pm) are constructed in sequence. Figure 2 The solid arrows in the figure represent the process direction, and the dotted arrows represent the relationship between elements in the views, such as the relationship between the capability combination at the strategic level and the operation classification at the operation level.

[0044] Step 2: Based on the unified architecture framework UAF, conduct strategic level measurement traceability modeling. To achieve measurement traceability from a strategic perspective, it is necessary to identify the things that drive the complex system to perform its operations and the related challenges that encounter difficulties in dealing with these driving forces. By framing challenges and opportunities, drivers and effects are identified as the basis of capabilities in the architecture. In the process of strategic perspective modeling, capability classification, capability combination, and dependency between capabilities are obtained, the mapping relationship between actual mission tasks and capabilities is analyzed, and the traceability relationship between mission success measurement MOS and capability effectiveness measurement MOE is established.

[0045] Step 2.1) Mission analysis, establish a strategic motivation map for the mission. The purpose of mission analysis is to analyze the drivers and challenges and identify the capabilities that need to be developed to complete the mission. This step uses the UAF strategic perspective strategic motivation map (St-Mv) to analyze the system's drivers, challenges, opportunities, goals and objectives, and the capabilities required to achieve the system's current goals.

[0046] Create a strategic motivation diagram for the mission, e.g. Figure 3 As shown in Figure 1, capabilities are divided into strategic capabilities and operational capabilities. Among them, challenges are presented by driving forces (presented by…, PresentedBy), opportunities are motivated by challenges and driving forces (motivated by…, MotivatedBy), capabilities are affected by opportunities (impactedBy), and opportunities enable the purpose of complex organizational systems to be achieved (enables).

[0047] Step 2.2) Capability portfolio analysis, establish a strategic structure diagram of the capability portfolio. Capability portfolio defines capabilities, describes capability composition, classification, sub-capability division and subordinate relationship description, which can be represented as a structure with root node as capability and branch node or leaf node as sub-capability. Analyze capability portfolio to obtain and organize specific capabilities required for top-level capability conception to form a structured capability list. Capability portfolio management uses the strategic structure (St-Sr) view of the UAF strategic perspective to display the composition of capabilities. In capability attributes, define the MOE measurement item of the effectiveness measure of the capability, and define the measurement value and value attribute of the MOE measurement item.

[0048] A strategic structure diagram for building a portfolio of capabilities, e.g. Figure 4 As shown, the capability composition is analyzed, including a top-level capability, namely strategic capability, and corresponding sub-capabilities, namely operational capability 1 and operational capability 2, which are connected by a combination relationship.

[0049] Step 2.3) Task relationship definition, establish a strategic flow chart of task relationship. Task relationship definition establishes the traceability relationship between capabilities and the actual strategic phases / tasks supported. Task relationship definition adopts the strategic process (St-Pr) view of the UAF strategic perspective. In the task attributes, define the task success measure MOS measurement items, establish the association relationship between tasks and capabilities, and achieve traceability between the total task success measure MOS and the subtask success measure MOS, and the success measure MOS and the capability effectiveness measure MOE.

[0050] Strategic process diagrams for establishing task relationships, e.g. Figure 5 As shown, the task relationship definition realizes task stratification through combination relationship. Each subtask is associated with its corresponding capability. The task has a success measurement MOS measurement item, and the capability has several effectiveness measurement MOE measurement items.

[0051] Step 2.4) Task parameter constraint setting, establish task parameter diagram. Task parameter constraint constrains the properties of the system through parameterized models. The constraints are expressed in the form of equations, and the parameters in the equations are bound to the system properties being analyzed. Since the strategic layer does not provide a modeling method for parameter calculation, the SysML parameter diagram (Par) is used to implement parameter calculation.

[0052] The overall mission parameter diagram established is as follows Figure 6 As shown in the figure, the parameter relationship between the total task and the subtask is defined to realize the parameterized constraint between the total task success measure MOS and the subtask success measure MOS. Figure 7 As shown, the parameter relationship between subtasks and capabilities is defined, the parameterized constraints between the success measure MOS and the capability effectiveness measure MOE are realized, and the constraint equations are defined through the constraint blocks.

[0053] Step 3: Based on the unified architecture framework UAF, conduct operation layer measurement traceability modeling. To achieve measurement traceability from the operation perspective, it is necessary to define the operation behavior and structure required to support capabilities, define the mapping from activities to capabilities, and implement the allocation of activities to capabilities. Build a parameterized model for the operation activity performance measurement MOP to implement performance indicator analysis, and finally achieve a traceability relationship with the capability effectiveness measurement MOE.

[0054] Step 3.1) Classify the operational elements and establish the operational classification diagram. The operational element classification shows the hierarchical relationship between the main elements in the architecture solution, such as the operational architecture and operational nodes. This modeling activity uses the operational classification view (Op-Tx) of the UAF operational perspective to establish the corresponding operational architecture for each task and analyze the operational nodes required to complete the operational task.

[0055] The established operation classification diagram is as follows: Figure 8 As shown, an association relationship is established between the running architecture and the corresponding tasks, and the running nodes contained in the architecture are modeled. The tasks have been associated with the capabilities in step 2, so the association relationship between the running architecture and the capabilities is also established.

[0056] Step 3.2) Run structure analysis and establish the run structure diagram. Run structure analysis realizes the decomposition of the run architecture under different tasks. Generally, the relationship between the run architecture and the run node is a directed combination relationship. This modeling activity uses the run structure view (Op-Sr) of the UAF run perspective. The run structure diagram established is as follows: Fig. 9 As shown in the figure, the operation nodes or operation architectures that appear in the operation structure diagram come from the operation nodes or operation architectures that have been created in the operation classification view. Through this view, the operation nodes are defined for each operation architecture. In the operation node attributes, the performance measurement MOP measurement items are defined, and the measurement values ​​and value attributes of the measurement items are defined; the operation architecture inherits the effectiveness measurement MOE measurement items of the capabilities corresponding to the associated tasks. Finally, the operation architecture and the operation nodes (required by the operation activities mapped to them) are traced.

[0057] Step 3.3) Operational performance analysis, obtain the operation parameter diagram. Operational performance analysis establishes the parameter relationship between the operation architecture (operational capability) effectiveness measure MOE and the operation node performance measure MOP. This modeling activity uses the operation parameter view (Op-Pm) of the UAF operation perspective. The established operation parameter diagram is as follows: Fig.10 As shown, the operation parameter diagram provides a calculation method for defining the operation restrictions in the entire system or a specific operation environment. By defining constraint equations in the constraint block, parameter constraints between the MOE measurement items of the operation architecture effectiveness measure in the operation phase and the MOP measurement items of the operation node performance measure are established.

[0058] Step 4: Based on the UAF unified architecture framework, perform service layer measurement and traceability modeling. To achieve measurement and traceability from the service perspective, it is necessary to define the services required and provided to demonstrate capabilities and support operational activities. The main content of service perspective modeling is used to capture the types and categories of services to ensure completeness; capture the service structure, show the composition of services and how services demonstrate capabilities or support operational activities; the service architecture inherits the capability MOE mapped by the operational activities to achieve the traceability relationship between the service architecture MOE and the service node MOP.

[0059] Step 4.1) Arrange service elements and establish a service classification diagram. Service element arrangement determines the services that will be used by the operation activities proposed in the operation process and the related executors, operation exchanges, measurements and their operation backgrounds to support the operation needs for information or resources. This modeling activity uses the service classification view (Sv-Tx) from the UAF service perspective. The service classification diagram established by the embodiment of the present invention is as follows: Fig.11 As shown, this view sorts out the service architecture and services required to implement the operation task, establishes the traceability relationship between the service architecture and the operation activity, and inherits the MOE measurement items of the capability mapped by the operation activity. In the operation structure diagram established in step 3.2, the traceability of the operation architecture, operation capability, and operation nodes required for the operation activity is established. This step establishes the traceability relationship between the operation activity and the service architecture, and then establishes the mapping of the service architecture and the operation capability.

[0060] Step 4.2) Service composition analysis, establish service structure diagram. Service portfolio management defines the composition relationship between service architecture and service nodes. This modeling activity uses the service structure view (Sv-Sr) from the UAF service perspective. The service structure diagram established by the embodiment of the present invention is as follows: Fig.12 As shown in the figure, in the service node attributes, the performance measurement MOP of the service node is defined, and the inheritance of the service architecture to the capability MOE is realized by associating the service architecture with the capability required by the operation activities mapped to it. The service architecture that appears in the service structure diagram comes from the service architecture that has been created in the service classification diagram.

[0061] Step 4.3) Service performance analysis, establish a service parameter diagram. Service performance analysis establishes the parameter relationship between the service architecture (operation capability) MOE and the service node MOP. This modeling activity uses the service parameter view (Sv-Pm) from the UAF service perspective. The service parameter diagram established by the embodiment of the present invention is as follows: Fig.13 As shown, the service parameter diagram provides a calculation method for defining service restrictions in the entire system or a specific operating environment, and the constraint equation is defined through the constraint block to establish the parameter constraints between the MOE measurement items of the service architecture effectiveness measure and the MOP measurement items of the service performance measure in the service stage.

[0062] Step 5: Based on the UAF unified architecture framework, perform resource layer measurement and traceability modeling. To achieve measurement and traceability from a resource perspective, it is necessary to determine the resource functions that the service will use, as well as the information or resources that can be provided for the service needs based on the resource architecture specification. Resource perspective modeling mainly includes defining resource composition classification and the relationship between resource architectures; sorting out the systems undertaken by each resource service architecture; and the resource service architecture implements the traceability relationship between the resource architecture MOP and the resource system MOP by inheriting the capability MOE of the service mapping.

[0063] Step 5.1) Arrange system elements and create a resource classification diagram. The purpose of system element arrangement is to sort out the main resources in the resource architecture solution, such as resource architecture, resource artifacts, systems, and organizations, and define the services that resource services can achieve. This modeling activity uses the resource classification view (Sv-Tx) of the UAF resource perspective. A resource classification diagram such as Fig.14 As shown, this view is used to sort out the resource services and systems required to implement each service node, and establish a traceability relationship between the resource service architecture and the resource system.

[0064] Step 5.2) Resource composition analysis, establish resource structure diagram. Resource composition analysis captures the composition relationship between resource services and resource systems. Generally, the relationship between resource services and resource systems is a directed composition relationship. This modeling activity uses the resource structure view (Rs-Sr) of the UAF resource perspective, such as Fig.15 As shown, by defining the relationship between resource services and service nodes (required by the running activities mapped to them), the inheritance of the MOP measurement items of the service nodes by the resource services is realized. In the properties of the resource system, the performance measurement MOP measurement items of the resource system are defined.

[0065] Step 5.3) System performance analysis, establish resource parameter diagram. System performance indicator analysis establishes the parameter relationship between resource system MOP and resource service MOP. This modeling activity uses the resource parameter view (Rs-Pm) of the UAF resource perspective. A resource parameter diagram is as follows: Fig.16 As shown, the resource parameter graph provides a calculation method for defining resource constraints in the entire system or a specific resource environment, and defines constraint equations through constraint blocks to realize parameterized constraints between the resource service performance measurement MOP and the resource system performance measurement MOP in the resource stage.

[0066] Through the above steps 2-5, the present invention realizes the complex system architecture designed in step 1, and realizes the tracing from successful measurement to effectiveness measurement, and from effectiveness measurement to performance measurement, thereby completing the effective tracing of the design and measurement of the complex system architecture.

[0067] Except for the technical features described in the specification, all of them are known technologies to those skilled in the art. The present invention omits the description of known components and known technologies to avoid redundancy and unnecessary limitation of the present invention. The implementation methods described in the above embodiments do not represent all implementation methods consistent with the present application. On the basis of the technical solution of the present invention, various modifications or variations that can be made by those skilled in the art without creative labor are still within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A system architecture design and measurement traceability method based on mission engineering, characterized in that: include: Step 1: Conduct mission engineering analysis on the complex system under study and design the system architecture based on UAF; Define the success measure MOS, effectiveness measure MOE and performance measure MOP in the mission framework; in UAF stands for Unified Architecture Framework; Design the system architecture from the perspectives of strategy, operation, service and resources, including: constructing mission tasks, capability combinations, task relationships and task constraints in the strategy layer; constructing operation classification, operation structure and operation parameters in the operation layer; constructing service classification, service structure and service parameters in the service layer; constructing resource classification, resource structure and resource parameters in the resource layer; Step 2: Conduct strategic layer measurement traceability modeling based on UAF, including: determine the capabilities required to complete the mission tasks based on driving forces and challenges, and divide the capabilities into strategic capabilities and operational capabilities, and build a strategic motivation diagram for the mission tasks; determine the operational capabilities required to achieve the top-level strategic capabilities, set the effectiveness measurement items of the capabilities in the capability attributes, and build a strategic structure diagram for the capability combination; establish a traceability relationship between capabilities and tasks, set the success measurement items of the tasks in the task attributes, and build a strategic flow chart for the task relationship; set task constraints, and the constraints are expressed in the form of equations. The parameters in the equations are bound to the attribute parameters in the analyzed tasks or capabilities, and a task parameter diagram is established; Step 3: Perform operation layer measurement traceability modeling based on UAF, including: establishing an operation architecture for each task, analyzing the operation nodes required to complete the task, and establishing an operation classification diagram; analyzing the operation structure, defining operation nodes for each operation architecture, defining performance measurement items in the attributes of the operation nodes, setting the effectiveness measurement items of the operation architecture to inherit the corresponding capabilities of the tasks, and establishing an operation structure diagram; establishing parameter management between the effectiveness measurement items of the operation architecture and the performance measurement items of the operation nodes, and obtaining an operation parameter diagram; Step 4: Perform service layer measurement traceability modeling based on UAF, including: sorting out service elements, determining the service architecture and service nodes used by the operation activities, and establishing a service classification diagram; determining the composition relationship between the service architecture and the service nodes, associating the service architecture with the capabilities corresponding to the mapped operation activities, setting the effectiveness measurement items of the capabilities associated with the service architecture inheritance, defining the performance measurement items of the service nodes in the attributes of the service nodes, and establishing a service structure diagram; establishing the parameter relationship between the effectiveness measurement items of the service architecture and the performance measurement items of the service nodes, and obtaining a service parameter diagram; Step 5: Perform resource layer measurement traceability modeling based on UAF, including: sorting out system elements, determining the resource services and systems required by the service nodes, and establishing a resource classification diagram; establishing the composition relationship between resource services and systems, setting resource services to inherit the performance measurement items of the corresponding service nodes, defining the performance measurement items of the system, and establishing a resource structure diagram; establishing the parameter relationship between the performance measurement items of the resource services and the performance measurement items of the system, and obtaining a resource parameter diagram; Through steps 2-5, the complex system architecture is implemented and the traceability relationship of the measurement is established.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that In the step 1, during the mission engineering analysis, the success measure MOS, effectiveness measure MOE and performance measure MOP are defined; MOS is defined in the mission clue stage and is used to indicate the properties of the measurement of the expected effect of achieving the mission task; MOE is defined in the mission engineering clue stage and is used to indicate the properties of the measurement of the system and / or capability required to perform the mission task; MOP is used to indicate the performance characteristics of a single system or capability to carry out the mission.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The step 2 comprises the following steps: Step 2.1: Analyze the mission, determine the drivers, challenges, opportunities, goals and objectives, and identify the capabilities required to complete the mission; challenges are presented by drivers, opportunities are motivated by challenges and drivers, capabilities are influenced by opportunities, and opportunities enable the objectives to be achieved; Step 2.2: Analyze the capability portfolio, determine the operational capabilities required for the top-level strategic capabilities of the organization, and form a structured capability list; define the MOE measurement items of the capability in the capability attributes, including the measurement value and value attribute; Step 2.3: Define task relationships, hierarchize tasks through combination relationships, and associate each subtask with the corresponding capability; define MOS measurement items in task attributes; achieve traceability between the overall task success measurement and the subtask success measurement, and between the task success measurement and the capability effectiveness measurement; Step 2.4: Set task parameter constraints to constrain the properties of the system. The constraints are expressed in the form of equations, and the parameters in the equations are bound to the attribute parameters in the analyzed tasks or capabilities; set parameterized constraints between the success measures of the overall task and subtasks, set parameterized constraints between the success measures of subtasks and the effectiveness measures of capabilities, and define constraint equations through constraint blocks.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The step 3 comprises the following steps: Step 3.1: Classify the operation elements, including: establishing an operation architecture for each task, analyzing the operation nodes required to complete the task, establishing an association between the operation architecture and the corresponding task, modeling the operation nodes included in the operation architecture, and establishing an association between the operation architecture and the capability based on the association between the task and the capability in step 2; Step 3.2: Analyze the operation structure and define the MOP measurement items in the attributes of the operation node, including the measurement value and value attribute; Step 3.3: Analyze the operation performance, including: defining constraint equations through constraint blocks, and establishing constraints on parameters between MOE measurement items of the operation architecture and MOPs of the operation nodes.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The step 4 comprises: When arranging service elements, obtain the operation activities of the task through the operation process, determine the service architecture and service nodes required to implement the task, and establish the traceability relationship between the service architecture and the operation activities; set the MOE measurement item of the service organization's ability to inherit the operation activity mapping; When analyzing service performance, constraint equations are defined through constraint blocks to establish parameter constraints between MOE measurement items of the service architecture and MOP measurement items of the service nodes.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The step 5 comprises: When organizing system elements, sort out the resources in the resource architecture solution, including resource architecture, resource artifacts, system and organization definitions, and define the services implemented by resource services; When analyzing system performance, constraint equations are defined through constraint blocks to establish parameter constraints between the MOP measurement items of resource services and the MOP measurement items of the system.

Images