System architecture design and measure tracing method based on mission engineering

Abstract

The invention discloses a mission engineering-based system architecture design and measurement tracing method, and belongs to the technical field of space communication technologies and system architectures. Aiming at the construction problem and the measurement tracing problem of a constellation communication system architecture, the method of the invention performs mission engineering analysis on constellation communication, 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 of constellation communication from multiple perspectives, the traceability of measurement among different perspectives is realized, and complete traceability of parameters and forward design of a complex system architecture are realized.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the fields of space communication technology and system architecture design, and specifically to system architecture modeling for space communication, including a mission-based system architecture design, development of a unified architecture framework (UAF) architecture model, and traceability modeling of metrics. Background Technology

[0002] Architecture is a fundamental approach to designing complex systems and architectures. It addresses design problems of complex systems or architectures through multi-dimensional and multi-perspective analysis, and establishes standardized specifications for the systematic description of complex systems through an architecture framework.

[0003] In the 1990s, the U.S. military proposed the C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computing, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) architecture framework. C4ISR employs a "three-view" architecture—operational view, system view, and technology view—aiming to resolve the separation between the operational mission process logic in the operational view and the specific implementation of military system resources in the system view. As the legally mandated architecture description and design standard of the U.S. Department of Defense, DoDAF (DoD Architecture Framework) addresses the six core processes of the U.S. Department of Defense, unifying the concepts and models of these core processes into a unified description framework. It adopts a three-layer structure of perspectives, views, models, and data, defining eight perspectives and 52 views. MODAF (MOD Architecture Framework) defines a standardized approach to implementing enterprise architecture, supporting defense planning and change management activities through strategic, operational, system, procurement, technology, and global views. The Unified Extended Set of DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) is jointly published by members of INCOSE and OMG. UPDM provides a consistent, standardized method for describing the architectures of DoDAF and MODAF using SysML / UML-based tools, as well as a standard for exchange. Concepts defined in the System Modeling Language (SysML), such as parameters, blocks, complex ports, enhanced activity modeling, and cross-cutting construction, have improved the technical skills of systems engineers and architects.

[0004] The Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) evolved from UPDM version 2.1. UAF expands the scope of UPDM and extends it to be applicable to both commercial and military architectures, aiming to provide a standard representation for describing complex organizational architectures using model-based systems engineering (MBSE) methodologies. The UAF architecture model provides a development approach that understands the complex relationships between organizations, operations, systems, and services, and can analyze these relationships to ensure they meet the expectations of user groups. The UAF model describes systems from the concerns of a set of stakeholders through a predefined set of perspectives, enabling the modeling of strategic capabilities, operational scenarios, services, resources, personnel, security, projects, standards, metrics, and requirements.

[0005] Mission engineering focuses on achieving the desired effects of a mission by thoughtfully planning, analyzing, and integrating current and emerging operational and system capabilities. The mission hierarchy extends from strategic to tactical. Starting with the overall purpose of the scenario or specific scenarios defined in the mission definition, it requires detailed definition of metrics at each level to answer questions of interest to stakeholders. Metrics are quantitative assessments, typically used to evaluate, compare, and track the performance of a mission or system. Those implementing mission engineering need to identify an established set of metrics to evaluate the completeness and effectiveness of components supporting mission-enabling activities.

[0006] Although various system architectures exist internationally, there is currently no system architecture design and modeling methodology that combines mission engineering with UAF (User-Assisted Architecture) and measurement with mission architecture. This lack of quantitative and objective evaluation and verification of the measurement and effectiveness of complex system architecture design methods leads to incomplete and unreliable research. Constructing system architectures for complex systems through mission engineering and generating mission-level digital twins is a research objective. Constellation communication is a complex system, and how to use mission engineering to construct its system architecture is a problem that needs to be solved. Summary of the Invention

[0007] To address the challenges of constructing complex system architectures for constellation communication and the measurement and traceability issues in complex system modeling, this invention draws on mission engineering methods and adopts the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF). It innovatively proposes a mission engineering-based system architecture design and measurement and traceability method. By selecting four perspectives—strategy, operation, service, and resources—from UAF, as well as aspects such as motivation, classification, structure, state, and parameters, and through system modeling, it establishes the interdependencies between mission definition, scenarios, local scenarios, and mission measurement, enabling complete parameter traceability and forward design of complex system architectures.

[0008] This invention provides a system architecture design and measurement traceability method based on mission engineering. The complex system studied is constellation communication, and includes 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 success metric MOS, effectiveness metric MOE, and performance metric MOP within the mission architecture. Design the system architecture from four layers: strategy, operation, service, and resources. This includes: at the strategy layer, constructing mission tasks, capability combinations, task relationships, and task constraints in sequence; at the operation layer, constructing operation categories, operation structures, and operation parameters in sequence; at the service layer, constructing service categories, service structures, and service parameters in sequence; and at the resource layer, constructing resource categories, resource structures, and resource parameters in sequence.

[0010] Step 2: Conduct strategic-level measurement and tracing modeling based on UAF, including: determining the capabilities required to complete the mission based on driving forces and challenges, with capabilities divided into strategic capabilities and operational capabilities, and constructing a strategic motivation diagram for the mission; determining the operational capabilities required to achieve the top-level strategic capabilities, setting capability effectiveness measurement items in capability attributes, and constructing a strategic structure diagram of capability combinations; establishing the tracing relationship between capabilities and tasks, setting task success measurement items in task attributes, and constructing a strategic flowchart of task relationships; setting task constraints, which are represented in the form of equations, with parameters in the equations bound to attribute parameters in the analyzed tasks or capabilities, and constructing a task parameter diagram;

[0011] For constellation communications, in the strategic motivation diagram for constructing the mission, the strategic capability is the constellation communication capability, and the operational capabilities required for the strategic capability include network management capabilities and satellite operation and maintenance capabilities. In the strategic structure diagram for constructing capability combinations, effectiveness measurement items are set in the attributes of network management capabilities and satellite operation and maintenance capabilities. In the strategic flow diagram for constructing task relationships, the overall constellation communication deployment mission includes three sub-tasks: constellation networking, ground construction, and service activation. Each sub-task is associated with a corresponding capability: constellation networking is associated with satellite manufacturing and launch capabilities; ground construction is associated with network integration and testing capabilities; and service activation is associated with operation and service capabilities. Success measurement items are set in the task attributes, and effectiveness measurement items are set in the capability attributes. In the task parameter diagram of the overall mission and sub-tasks, parameterized constraints are set between the overall mission success measurement items and the sub-task success measurement items. In the sub-task parameter diagram, parameterized constraints are set between the task success measurement items and the effectiveness measurement items of the required capabilities.

[0012] Step 3: Perform runtime layer measurement traceability modeling based on UAF, including: establishing a runtime architecture for each task, analyzing the runtime nodes required to complete the task, and establishing a runtime classification graph; analyzing the runtime structure, defining runtime nodes for each runtime architecture, defining performance measurement items in the attributes of runtime nodes, setting validity measurement items that the runtime architecture inherits from the corresponding capabilities of the task, and establishing a runtime structure graph; establishing parameter management between the validity measurement items of the runtime architecture and the performance measurement items of the runtime nodes, and obtaining a runtime parameter graph;

[0013] For constellation communication, an operational architecture is established for each subtask, and the operational nodes required to complete the task are analyzed. The operational nodes provided by the constellation communication operational architecture include the satellite control center, ground gateway stations, and user terminals. In the operational structure diagram, parameter constraints are set between the subtask success measurement items and the performance measurement items of the required operational nodes.

[0014] Step 4: Perform service layer measurement and traceability modeling based on UAF, including: organizing service elements, determining the service architecture and service nodes used by the running activities, and establishing a service classification graph; determining the composition relationship between the service architecture and service nodes, associating the service architecture with the capabilities corresponding to the mapped running activities, setting the effectiveness measurement items of the capabilities inherited by the service architecture, defining the performance measurement items of the service nodes in the attributes of the service nodes, and establishing a service structure graph; establishing the parameter relationship between the effectiveness measurement items of the service architecture and the performance measurement items of the service nodes to obtain the service parameter graph;

[0015] The service nodes provided by the constellation communication service architecture include broadband access services, mobile communication services, and Internet of Things services. For constellation communication, the operational activities supported by the service architecture are data transmission activities. Data transmission activities realize constellation communication capabilities. In the service structure diagram, performance measurement items are set in the service node attributes to associate the service architecture with constellation communication capabilities. The attributes of constellation communication capabilities include effectiveness measurement items of its own capabilities and the required operational capabilities.

[0016] Step 5: Perform resource layer measurement and traceability modeling based on UAF, including: organizing system elements, determining the resource services and systems required by service nodes, and establishing a resource classification graph; establishing the composition relationship between resource services and systems, setting the performance measurement items inherited by resource services from corresponding service nodes, defining the performance measurement items of the system, and establishing a resource structure graph; establishing the parameter relationship between the performance measurement items of resource services and the performance measurement items of the system, and obtaining a resource parameter graph.

[0017] In constellation communication, the systems that provide resource services include space segment systems, ground segment systems, and user segment systems. Performance measurement items are defined in the attributes of space segment systems, ground segment systems, and user segment systems in the resource structure diagram. Service nodes and the resource service systems required by those service nodes are associated through resource services.

[0018] Steps 2-5 established the architecture of the complex constellation communication system and created a traceability relationship for the measurement.

[0019] Compared with existing methods, the system architecture design and measurement traceability method of the present invention have the following advantages and positive effects:

[0020] (1) The method of the present invention adopts the definition of measurement and the traceability relationship of measurement in mission engineering for the complex architecture of constellation communication. Through a systematic approach, it provides detailed guidance and framework for decomposing system capabilities and realizes the measurement iteration in the mission-task-capability decomposition process.

[0021] (2) The method of the present invention adopts UAF as the architecture design framework for the complex system architecture of constellation communication, trims the view and combines mission engineering methods to design a set of measurement traceability modeling method and process, allowing users to model the complex system from multiple perspectives and realize the traceability of measurement between different perspectives. Attached Figure Description

[0022] Figure 1 This describes the relationship between mission engineering and its measurements in embodiments of the present invention.

[0023] Figure 2 A schematic diagram of the architectural framework of the complex system designed for this invention;

[0024] Figure 3 This is an example diagram illustrating the mission and task analysis of the strategic layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0025] Figure 4 This is an example diagram of capability combination analysis at the strategic layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0026] Figure 5 This is an example diagram defining the task relationships at the strategic layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0027] Figure 6 This is an example diagram illustrating the parameterized constraints of the overall task and sub-tasks of the strategy layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0028] Figure 7 This is an example diagram illustrating the parameterized constraints for the success measurement and capability effectiveness measurement of the strategic layer in this embodiment of the invention.

[0029] Figure 8 This is an example diagram illustrating the classification of runtime elements in the runtime layer according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0030] Figure 9 This is an example diagram illustrating the operational structure analysis of the operational layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0031] Figure 10 This is an example diagram illustrating the performance analysis of the runtime layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0032] Figure 11 This is an example diagram showing the organization of service elements in the service layer of this invention.

[0033] Figure 12 This is an example diagram illustrating the service composition analysis of the service layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0034] Figure 13 This is an example diagram illustrating the service performance analysis of the service layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0035] Figure 14 This is an example diagram showing the organization of system elements in the resource layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0036] Figure 15 This is an example diagram of resource composition analysis of the resource layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0037] Figure 16 This is an example diagram illustrating the service performance analysis of the resource layer in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0038] Figure 17 This is an example diagram illustrating the mission and task analysis of the strategic layer in Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0039] Figure 18 This is an example diagram of capability combination analysis at the strategic layer in Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0040] Figure 19 This is an example diagram defining the task relationships at the strategic layer in Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0041] Figure 20 This is an example diagram illustrating the parameterized constraints of the overall task and sub-tasks of the strategic layer in Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0042] Figure 21 This is an example diagram of the parameterized constraints for the success measurement and capability effectiveness measurement of the strategic layer in Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0043] Figure 22 This is an example diagram illustrating the classification of runtime elements in the runtime layer according to Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0044] Figure 23 This is an example diagram of the runtime structure of the runtime layer in Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0045] Figure 24 This is an example diagram of the runtime architecture parameters of the runtime layer in Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0046] Figure 25 This is an example diagram of service classification in the service layer of Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0047] Figure 26 This is an example diagram of the service structure of the service layer in Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0048] Figure 27 This is an example diagram of service parameters for the service layer in Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0049] Figure 28 This is an example diagram of resource classification in the resource layer of Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0050] Figure 29 This is an example diagram of resource composition analysis in the resource layer of Embodiment 1 of the present invention;

[0051] Figure 30 This is an example diagram illustrating the service performance analysis of the resource layer in Embodiment 1 of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0052] The present invention will now be described in further detail with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0053] The mission-engineering-based architecture design and measurement traceability method provided by this invention can be implemented in hardware or dedicated circuits, software, firmware, logic, and any combination thereof. Some aspects of the embodiments disclosed in this 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.

[0054] The mission engineering-based system architecture design and measurement traceability method of this invention includes the following five steps.

[0055] Step 1: Drawing on mission engineering methods and a unified architecture framework, design an architecture framework for complex systems.

[0056] This step starts with stakeholder needs, 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 provided services. By combining mission engineering methods with a unified architecture framework, a general system architecture design method and process are designed for modeling complex systems. This invention selects a four-layer architecture: "strategic architecture," "operational architecture," "service architecture," and "resource architecture," and, based on the UAF design method, forms a general design method and process for measuring traceability in complex systems.

[0057] Step 1.1) Perform mission engineering analysis.

[0058] Mission engineering is a top-down approach used to guide development, prototyping, experimentation, and system building to achieve the stated mission and close the capability gap. Mission architecture represents the detailed structure of mission execution and is the core output of mission engineering. It provides a comprehensive and structured approach to defining operations, systems, and data flows within scenario constraints, typically including operational, system, and / or technical perspectives. Mission engineering employs an analytical and data-driven approach, identifying measurable trade-offs and drawing conclusions by decomposing and analyzing the components of the mission. Metrics are quantitative evaluation values, typically used to assess, compare, and track the performance of a mission or system. Mission engineering implementers need to identify a set of established metrics to evaluate the completeness and effectiveness of components supporting mission enabling activities. Mission metrics represent criteria used to evaluate each alternative approach to executing the mission. Metrics such as success metrics, effectiveness metrics, and performance metrics are defined in mission engineering. Success metrics (MOS) indicate measurable attributes for achieving the expected results of the mission. Effectiveness metrics (MOE) indicate measurable attributes and target values ​​of the capabilities required for the overall success of the mission. Performance metrics (MOP) indicate the performance characteristics of a single system used to perform a mission.

[0059] The mission architecture, from abstract to concrete, is divided into layers such as mission tasks, operational scenarios / local scenarios, mission threads, mission engineering threads, and equipment systems. A sub-element of the mission architecture is the mission thread, which contains the end-to-end tasks or activities required to complete the mission within a scenario or local scenario. This includes tasks to be performed to execute the mission and meet a defined objective. For example... Figure 1 As shown, the success metric, MOS, is defined at the mission thread stage. As more detailed information about specific systems, technologies, or personnel is added, the general mission thread becomes the mission engineering thread, encompassing the relevant systems and / or capabilities for executing the end-to-end mission. At this stage, the effectiveness metric, MOE, is defined. The tasks to be performed are further broken down into activities and systems that achieve the mission objectives, and the performance metric, MOP, is defined to describe the capabilities / performance characteristics of a specific system, helping to measure the completion status of system tasks.

[0060] Step 1.2) Architecture design based on UAF.

[0061] UAF provides a standard representation of complex organizational architectures using a model-based systems engineering approach. UAF models describe systems from the concerns of a set of stakeholders through a predefined set of perspectives. Developed models can also reflect custom perspectives, or users can develop more formal extensions for new perspectives. UAF v1.2 supports modeling a wide range of complex system architectures, which may include hardware, software, data, people, and facilities elements; provides consistent architectural modeling from the System of Systems (SoS) down to lower-level design and implementation; supports the 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, metrics, and requirements; it supports best practices through concern separation and abstraction; and it describes the definitions of various perspectives. UAF provides a complete set of stakeholder perspectives as the foundation for defining various necessary architectural views of complex organizational systems, adjusting and tailoring perspectives according to the concerns of different stakeholders and the application domain. This invention, using a four-layer perspective (strategy, operation, service, and resources) and corresponding model elements as examples, achieves forward design and measurement traceability of the system architecture. Furthermore, to ensure the integrity and consistency of analysis at each level, UAF subdivides the analysis process at different levels into four aspects: motivation, classification, structure, and parameters. Figure 2 The multiple views shown illustrate the modeling process of complex systems in this embodiment of the invention, designing the system architecture from four layers: strategy, operation, service, and resources. The detailed system modeling process will be explained step by step in subsequent steps. Figure 2 As shown, the embodiments of the present invention design a modeling process for each view layer. For example, in the strategy layer, mission tasks (St-Mv, i.e., strategic motivation), capability combinations (St-Sr), task relationships (St-Pr), and task constraints (Par) are constructed sequentially; in the operation layer, operation classification (Op-Tx), operation structure (Op-Sr), and operation parameters (Op-Pm) are constructed sequentially; in the service layer, service classification (Sv-Tx), service structure (Sv-Sr), and service parameters (Sv-Pm) are constructed sequentially; and in the resource layer, resource classification (Rs-Tx), resource structure (Rs-Sr), and resource parameters (Rs-Pm) are constructed sequentially. Figure 2 Solid arrows in the diagram represent the direction of the process, while dashed arrows represent relationships between elements in different views, such as the relationship between capability combinations in the strategy layer and operational categories in the operation layer.

[0062] Step 2: Based on the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF), conduct strategic-level measurement traceability modeling. To achieve strategic-perspective measurement traceability, it is necessary to identify the things that drive the complex system to perform its operations, and the related challenges encountered in addressing these drivers. By framing challenges and opportunities, the drivers and effects are identified as the foundation of capabilities within the architecture. During the strategic-perspective modeling process, capability classifications, capability combinations, and dependencies between capabilities are obtained. The mapping relationship between actual mission tasks and capabilities is analyzed, and a traceability relationship is established between the Mission Success Measure (MOS) and the Capability Effectiveness Measure (MOE).

[0063] Step 2.1) Mission and Task Analysis: Establish a strategic motivation map for the mission and tasks. The purpose of mission and task analysis is to analyze the driving forces and challenges, and identify the capabilities needed to complete the mission. This step uses a strategic motivation map (St-Mv) from a UAF strategic perspective to analyze the system's driving factors, challenges, opportunities, purposes, and objectives, as well as the capabilities required to achieve the system's current objectives.

[0064] Strategic motivation diagrams for establishing mission tasks, for example Figure 3 As shown, capabilities are divided into strategic capabilities and operational capabilities. Among them, challenges are presented by driving forces (presented by), opportunities are motivated by challenges and driving forces (motivated by), capabilities are affected by opportunities (impacted by), and opportunities enable the objectives of complex organizational systems to be achieved (enables).

[0065] Step 2.2) Capability Portfolio Analysis: Establish a strategic structure diagram of the capability portfolio. The capability portfolio defines capabilities, describing their components, classifications, sub-capability divisions, and hierarchical relationships. This can be represented as a structure where the root node is a capability, and branch or leaf nodes are sub-capabilities. Analyzing the capability portfolio helps identify and organize the specific capabilities required for the top-level capability concept, forming a structured capability list. Capability portfolio management uses a St-Sr view from a UAF strategic perspective to display the composition of capabilities. Within the capability attributes, the MOE (Mean Effectiveness) measure is defined, along with its measure value and value attribute.

[0066] A strategic structure diagram for building a capability portfolio, for example. 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.

[0067] Step 2.3) Define task relationships and establish a strategic flowchart for task relationships. The task relationship definition establishes a traceability relationship between capabilities and support at actual strategic stages / tasks. The task relationship definition adopts a strategic process (St-Pr) view from a UAF strategic perspective. In the task attributes, it defines the task success metric (MOS) to establish the association between tasks and capabilities, enabling traceability between the overall task success metric (MOS) and sub-task success metric (MOS), and between the success metric (MOS) and capability effectiveness metric (MOE).

[0068] Strategic process diagram for establishing task relationships, for example Figure 5 As shown, the task relationship definition achieves task hierarchical structure through composition relationships. Each subtask is associated with its corresponding capability. Tasks have success measures (MOS) and capabilities have several effectiveness measures (MOE).

[0069] Step 2.4) Setting task parameter constraints and establishing a task parameter graph. Task parameter constraints constrain the system's properties through a parameterized model. The constraints are represented 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, SysML parameter graphs (Par) are used to implement parameter calculation.

[0070] The overall task parameter diagram is shown below. Figure 6 As shown, the parameter relationship between the overall task and subtasks is defined, and parameterized constraints are implemented between the overall task success metric (MOS) and the subtask success metric (MOS). The established subtask parameter diagram is shown below. 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 implemented, and the constraint equations are defined through constraint blocks.

[0071] Step 3: Based on the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF), perform runtime-level metric traceability modeling. To achieve runtime-level metric traceability, it is necessary to define the runtime behaviors and structures required to support capabilities, define the mapping from activities to capabilities, and realize the allocation of activities to capabilities. A parameterized model is built for the runtime activity performance metric (MOP) to achieve performance index analysis, and ultimately, a traceability relationship with the capability effectiveness metric (MOE) is established.

[0072] Step 3.1) Run element classification and establish a run classification diagram. The run element classification displays the main elements in the architecture scheme, such as the run architecture, run nodes, and the hierarchical relationships between them. This modeling activity uses the run classification view (Op-Tx) from the UAF run perspective. Through this view, a corresponding run architecture is established for each task, and the run nodes required to complete the run task are analyzed.

[0073] The established operational classification diagram is as follows: Figure 8As shown, the operational architecture is associated with the corresponding tasks, and the operational nodes contained in the architecture are modeled. Since the tasks have been associated with capabilities in step 2, the association between the operational architecture and capabilities is also established.

[0074] Step 3.2) Run structure analysis and establish the run structure diagram. Run structure analysis decomposes the run architecture under different tasks. Generally, the relationship between the run architecture and run nodes is a directed combination relationship. This modeling activity uses the run structure view (Op-Sr) from the UAF run perspective, and the established run structure diagram is as follows: Figure 9 As shown, the run nodes or run architectures appearing in the run structure diagram originate from the run nodes or run architectures already created in the run category view. This view defines run nodes for each run architecture. Within the run node attributes, the performance metric MOP is defined, along with its metric value and value attributes. Run architectures inherit the effectiveness metric MOE for the capabilities corresponding to their associated tasks. Ultimately, this achieves the traceability between run architectures and the run nodes (required to map them to run activities).

[0075] Step 3.3) Operational performance analysis to obtain the operational parameter graph. Operational performance analysis establishes the parametric relationship between the operational architecture (operational capability) effectiveness measure MOE and the operational node performance measure MOP. This modeling activity uses the operational parameter view (Op-Pm) from the UAF operational perspective. The established operational parameter graph is shown below. Figure 10 As shown, the runtime parameter diagram provides a computational means to define the runtime constraints of the entire system or a specific runtime environment. By defining constraint equations in the constraint block, parameter constraints are established between the runtime architecture effectiveness measure MOE and the runtime node performance measure MOP.

[0076] Step 4: Based on the UAF unified architecture framework, perform service layer measurement and traceability modeling. To achieve service-perspective measurement and traceability, 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 to capture the type and category of services to ensure completeness; capture the service structure, showing the service composition and how services demonstrate capabilities or support operational activities; the service architecture realizes the traceability relationship between the service architecture MOE and the service node MOP by inheriting the capability MOE mapped by the operational activity.

[0077] Step 4.1) Service element organization and establishment of a service classification diagram. Service element organization identifies the services that the operational activities will use, supporting the operational needs for information or resources, by identifying the operational activities, related executors, operational exchanges, measures, and their operational context within the operational process. This modeling activity uses a Service Classification View (Sv-Tx) from a UAF service perspective. For example, the service classification diagram established in this embodiment of the invention... Figure 11 As shown, this view outlines the service architecture and services required to run tasks, establishes a traceability relationship between the service architecture and running activities, and inherits the MOE measurement items of the capabilities mapped to running activities. The running structure diagram established in step 3.2 establishes the traceability of the running architecture, running capabilities, and running nodes required for running activities. This step establishes the traceability relationship between running activities and the service architecture, and further establishes the mapping between the service architecture and running capabilities.

[0078] Step 4.2) Service composition analysis and establishment of service structure diagram. Service composition management defines the compositional relationships between service architecture and service nodes. This modeling activity uses the service structure view (Sv-Sr) from the perspective of UAF services. For example, the service structure diagram established in this embodiment of the invention... Figure 12 As shown, the service node attributes define the service node's performance metric, MOP. This is achieved by associating the service architecture with the capabilities required by its mapped runtime activities, thus enabling the service architecture to inherit capabilities from the MOE. The service architectures appearing in the service structure diagram are derived from those already created in the service classification diagram.

[0079] Step 4.3) Service performance analysis and establishment of a service parameter graph. Service performance analysis establishes the parameter relationships between the service architecture (operational capacity) MOE and service nodes MOP. This modeling activity uses a service parameter view (Sv-Pm) from the UAF service perspective. For example, the service parameter graph established in this embodiment of the invention... Figure 13 As shown, the service parameter graph provides a calculation method for defining service constraints in the entire system or a specific operating environment. The constraint equation is defined by the constraint block to establish the parameter constraints between the service architecture effectiveness measure MOE and the service performance measure MOP in the service phase.

[0080] 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 to the service based on the resource architecture specifications. Resource perspective modeling mainly includes defining resource composition categories and relationships between resource architectures; sorting out the systems undertaken by each resource service architecture; and realizing the traceability relationship between the resource architecture MOP and the resource system MOP by inheriting the service mapping capability MOE of the resource service architecture.

[0081] Step 5.1) System Element Organization and Resource Classification Diagram. The purpose of system element organization is to identify the main resources in the resource architecture scheme, such as resource architecture, resource artifacts, systems, and organizations, and to define the services that resource services can implement. This modeling activity uses the UAF resource perspective resource classification view (Sv-Tx), and a resource classification diagram is as follows: Figure 14As shown, this view organizes the resource services and systems required to implement each service node, and establishes a traceability relationship between the resource service architecture and the resource system.

[0082] Step 5.2) Resource composition analysis and creation of a resource structure diagram. Resource composition analysis captures the compositional relationships between resource services and resource systems. Generally, the relationship between resource services and resource systems is a directional compositional relationship. This modeling activity uses the resource structure view (Rs-Sr) from the UAF resource perspective, such as... Figure 15 As shown, by defining the relationship between resource services and the service nodes (required by the mapped runtime activities), the inheritance of MOP metrics from service nodes by resource services is achieved. The resource system's performance metrics, MOP metrics, are defined in the resource system's properties.

[0083] Step 5.3) System performance analysis and establishment of resource parameter diagrams. System performance index analysis established the parameter relationships between the resource system MOP and the resource service MOP. This modeling activity used the resource parameter view (Rs-Pm) from the UAF resource perspective. A resource parameter diagram is shown below. Figure 16 As shown, the resource parameter graph provides a computational means for defining resource constraints in the entire system or a specific resource environment. By defining constraint equations through constraint blocks, it realizes the parameterized constraints between the resource service performance measure MOP and the resource system performance measure MOP at the resource stage.

[0084] Through steps 2-5 above, this invention realizes the complex system architecture designed in step 1, and achieves traceability from success measurement to effectiveness measurement and from effectiveness measurement to performance measurement, thus completing the effective traceability of the design and measurement of the complex system architecture.

[0085] Example 1: Constellation communication is a space communication system based on satellite constellations. The following example, using the construction and measurement / tracing of this complex system as an illustration, along with accompanying figures, demonstrates the specific implementation of the method of this invention. Mission engineering analysis is performed on constellation communication, and the system architecture is designed based on UAF (Universal Application Flight). The system architecture is designed from four perspectives: strategy, operation, service, and resources, and measurement / tracing modeling is performed for each.

[0086] At the strategic level, mission objectives, capability combinations, mission relationships, and mission constraints are constructed sequentially. An example of the strategic motivation for establishing mission objectives in this embodiment is as follows: Figure 17As shown, strategic capabilities are proposed in the corresponding system strategic architecture modeling, and operational capabilities are proposed in the corresponding system operational architecture modeling. The challenge (technological complexity) is proposed by the driving force (global connectivity requirements). The mission is to meet the global connectivity requirements of the satellite constellation. Based on the current market opportunities of 5G / 6G convergence, to achieve the commercial goal of providing services to tens of millions of users and the operational goal of achieving global coverage by 2030, strategic capabilities are proposed in the corresponding system strategic architecture modeling. In this example, the strategic capability for achieving the operational goal is constellation communication capability. Constellation communication capability requires two operational capabilities: network management capability and satellite operation and maintenance capability. An example of a strategic structure for establishing a constellation communication capability combination is shown below. Figure 18 As shown, the capability composition is analyzed, including a top-level capability, namely constellation communication capability, and corresponding sub-capabilities, namely network management capability and satellite operation and maintenance capability, connected by a combination relationship. In this example, the effectiveness measures set in the attributes of network management capability include time and bandwidth, while the effectiveness measures set in the attributes of satellite operation and maintenance capability include task execution accuracy and the number of service units. An example of the strategic process for establishing constellation communication task relationships is shown below. Figure 19 As shown, the task relationship definition achieves task layering through composition relationships. Each sub-task—constellation networking, ground construction, and service activation—is associated with its corresponding capability. Specifically, constellation networking is associated with satellite manufacturing and launch capabilities; ground construction with network integration and testing capabilities; and service activation with operation and service capabilities. Tasks have success metrics (MOS) and capabilities have several effectiveness metrics (MOE). An example of the established total task parameters is shown below. Figure 20 As shown, the parameter relationships between the overall task and each sub-task (service activation, ground construction, and constellation networking) are defined, implementing parameterized constraints between the overall task success metric (MOS) and the sub-task success metric (MOS). An example of the parameters for the established constellation networking sub-tasks is shown below. Figure 21 As shown, the parameter relationship between constellation network subtasks and capabilities is defined, and parameterized constraints are implemented between the success measure MOS and the required capability effectiveness measure MOE. Constraint equations are defined through constraint blocks.

[0087] In the runtime layer, runtime categories, runtime structures, and runtime parameters are constructed sequentially. An example of a runtime category established in this embodiment is shown below. Figure 22 As shown, an operational architecture is established for the service activation task. The operational architecture of the integrated constellation architecture is linked to the service activation process, and the operational nodes included in this architecture are modeled. Since the task is already associated with capabilities, the association between the operational architecture and capabilities is also established. The operational nodes in constellation communication include the satellite control center, ground gateway stations, and user terminals; the service activation task requires these three types of operational nodes. An example of the established operational structure is shown below. Figure 23As shown, the operational nodes or operational architectures appearing in the operational structure diagram originate from operational nodes already created in the operational classification diagram, such as space segment nodes, network control centers, user segment nodes, and ground segment nodes, or operational architectures, i.e., constellation-integrated architectures. This view defines operational nodes for each operational architecture, and defines performance metrics (MOP) in the operational node attributes. The operational architecture inherits the effectiveness metrics (MOE) of the capabilities corresponding to the associated tasks. An example of established operational parameters is shown below. Figure 24 As shown in the figure, this example illustrates the constraint construction of constellation networking subtasks. The constraint block defines constraint equations and establishes parameter constraints between the runtime architecture effectiveness measure (MOE) and the runtime node performance measure (MOP) during the runtime phase. Figure 24 For the constellation networking subtask, the constraint block includes: data rate constraints set by user terminals, data processing capability constraints of ground station nodes, signal power constraints on satellite nodes, and communication index constraints representing the constellation's communication capabilities.

[0088] Service categories, service structures, and service parameters are constructed sequentially at the service layer. An example of the service categories established in this embodiment is shown below. Figure 25 As shown, the service architecture and services required to implement the operational tasks are outlined, establishing a traceability relationship between the service architecture and operational activities. The operational activities that enable constellation communication capabilities are data transmission activities. The services provided by the service architecture include broadband access services, mobile communication services, and IoT services. Since the operational structure diagram establishes a traceability of the operational architecture, operational capabilities, and required operational nodes for each activity, and the service classification diagram establishes a traceability relationship between operational activities and the service architecture, a mapping between service architecture and operational capabilities can be established. An example of the established service structure is shown below. Figure 26 As shown, this example defines a performance metric (MOP) for mobile communication services, including communication rate, service throughput, and service latency. By associating the service delivery architecture with the constellation communication capabilities required by the mapped operational activities, it achieves the inheritance of capabilities (MOE) by the service delivery architecture. The attributes of the constellation communication capabilities corresponding to the operational activities in this example include validity measures for network management and satellite operation and maintenance capabilities, as well as its own validity measures. An example of the established service parameters is shown below. Figure 27 As shown, constraint blocks are used to restrict service constraints and define constraint equations. The constraint blocks defined in this example include: coverage constraints and signal strength constraints for mobile communication services, bandwidth constraints for broadband access services, and service delivery architecture constraints, which consist of the above three types of constraints.

[0089] Resource classification, resource structure, and resource parameters are constructed sequentially at the resource layer. An example of establishing resource classification for mobile communication services in this embodiment of the invention is as follows: Figure 28As shown, the resource services and systems required to implement each service node are outlined. In this example, the resource service systems (nodes) required for the mobile communication service include the space segment system, the ground segment system, and the user segment system. An example of the established resource structure for the mobile communication service is shown below. Figure 29 As shown, mobile communication services and the resource service systems required by them are associated through resource services. Performance metrics (MOPs) are defined in the attributes of each resource service system. For example, for the ground segment system, MOPs include gateway capacity and processing latency, thus enabling resource services to inherit MOPs from resource service nodes / systems. An example of establishing resource parameters for mobile communication services is shown below. Figure 30 As shown, resource parameter constraints and constraint equations are defined through constraint blocks. In this example, the constraint blocks include the satellite's G / T (gain-to-noise-temperature ratio) value and transmit power constraints, the ground station's bandwidth and spectrum constraints, and the mobile communication service availability and signal strength constraints of the terminal equipment. Constraint equations are established between the terminal equipment's resource parameters and the resource parameters of both the satellite and the ground station. The parameterized constraints between resource service performance measures and resource system performance measures (such as transmit power, bandwidth, and spectrum) are achieved through the resource parameter graph.

[0090] Except for the technical features described in the specification, all other technologies are known to those skilled in the art. Descriptions of well-known components and technologies are omitted in this invention to avoid redundancy and unnecessary limitation. The embodiments described above do not represent all embodiments consistent with this application. Various modifications or variations that can be made by those skilled in the art without creative effort based on the technical solutions of this invention are still within the protection scope of this invention.

Claims

1. A system architecture design and measurement traceability method based on mission engineering, wherein the complex system studied is constellation communication, characterized in that, The method includes the following steps: Step 1: Perform mission engineering analysis on constellation communication and design the architecture based on UAF; define the success metric MOS, effectiveness metric MOE, and performance metric MOP in the mission architecture; in UAF stands for Unified Architecture Framework; The system architecture is designed from four perspectives: strategy, operation, service, and resources. This includes: at the strategy level, constructing mission tasks, capability combinations, task relationships, and task constraints in sequence; at the operation level, constructing operation categories, operation structures, and operation parameters in sequence; at the service level, constructing service categories, service structures, and service parameters in sequence; and at the resource level, constructing resource categories, resource structures, and resource parameters in sequence. Step 2: Conduct strategic-level measurement and tracing modeling based on UAF, including: determining the capabilities required to complete the mission based on driving forces and challenges, with capabilities divided into strategic capabilities and operational capabilities, and constructing a strategic motivation diagram for the mission; determining the operational capabilities required to achieve the top-level strategic capabilities, setting capability effectiveness measurement items in capability attributes, and constructing a strategic structure diagram of capability combinations; establishing the tracing relationship between capabilities and tasks, setting task success measurement items in task attributes, and constructing a strategic flowchart of task relationships; setting task constraints, which are represented in the form of equations, with parameters in the equations bound to attribute parameters in the analyzed tasks or capabilities, and constructing a task parameter diagram; For constellation communications, in the strategic motivation diagram for constructing the mission, the strategic capability is the constellation communication capability, and the operational capabilities required for the strategic capability include network management capabilities and satellite operation and maintenance capabilities. In the strategic structure diagram for constructing capability combinations, effectiveness measurement items are set in the attributes of network management capabilities and satellite operation and maintenance capabilities. In the strategic flow diagram for constructing task relationships, the overall constellation communication deployment mission includes three sub-tasks: constellation networking, ground construction, and service activation. Each sub-task is associated with a corresponding capability: constellation networking is associated with satellite manufacturing and launch capabilities; ground construction is associated with network integration and testing capabilities; and service activation is associated with operation and service capabilities. Success measurement items are set in the task attributes, and effectiveness measurement items are set in the capability attributes. In the task parameter diagram of the overall mission and sub-tasks, parameterized constraints are set between the overall mission success measurement items and the sub-task success measurement items. In the sub-task parameter diagram, parameterized constraints are set between the task success measurement items and the effectiveness measurement items of the required capabilities. Step 3: Perform runtime layer measurement traceability modeling based on UAF, including: establishing a runtime architecture for each task, analyzing the runtime nodes required to complete the task, and establishing a runtime classification graph; analyzing the runtime structure, defining runtime nodes for each runtime architecture, defining performance measurement items in the attributes of runtime nodes, setting validity measurement items that the runtime architecture inherits from the corresponding capabilities of the task, and establishing a runtime structure graph; establishing parameter management between the validity measurement items of the runtime architecture and the performance measurement items of the runtime nodes, and obtaining a runtime parameter graph; For constellation communication, an operational architecture is established for each subtask, and the operational nodes required to complete the task are analyzed. The operational nodes provided by the constellation communication operational architecture include the satellite control center, ground gateway stations, and user terminals. In the operational structure diagram, parameter constraints are set between the subtask success measurement items and the performance measurement items of the required operational nodes. Step 4: Perform service layer measurement and traceability modeling based on UAF, including: organizing service elements, determining the service architecture and service nodes used by the running activities, and establishing a service classification graph; determining the composition relationship between the service architecture and service nodes, associating the service architecture with the capabilities corresponding to the mapped running activities, setting the effectiveness measurement items of the capabilities inherited by the service architecture, defining the performance measurement items of the service nodes in the attributes of the service nodes, and establishing a service structure graph; establishing the parameter relationship between the effectiveness measurement items of the service architecture and the performance measurement items of the service nodes to obtain the service parameter graph; The service nodes provided by the constellation communication service architecture include broadband access services, mobile communication services, and Internet of Things services. For constellation communication, the operational activities supported by the service architecture are data transmission activities. Data transmission activities realize constellation communication capabilities. In the service structure diagram, performance measurement items are set in the service node attributes to associate the service architecture with constellation communication capabilities. The attributes of constellation communication capabilities include effectiveness measurement items of its own capabilities and the required operational capabilities. Step 5: Perform resource layer measurement and 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 the composition relationship between resource services and systems, setting the performance measurement items inherited by resource services from 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 resource services and the performance measurement items of the system, and obtaining a resource parameter diagram; In constellation communication, the systems that provide resource services include space segment systems, ground segment systems, and user segment systems. Performance measurement items are defined in the attributes of space segment systems, ground segment systems, and user segment systems in the resource structure diagram. Service nodes and the resource service systems required by those service nodes are associated through resource services. Steps 2-5 implemented the constellation communication architecture and established the metric traceability relationship.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step 1, during mission engineering analysis, the success measure MOS, effectiveness measure MOE, and performance measure MOP are defined. MOS is defined in the mission causality phase to indicate the attributes that measure the expected effects of achieving the mission. MOE is defined in the mission engineering causality phase to indicate the attributes that measure the systems and / or capabilities required to perform the mission. MOP is used to indicate the performance characteristics of a single system or capability for carrying out the mission.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step 2 includes the following steps: Step 2.1: Analyze the mission and tasks, identify the driving forces, challenges, opportunities, purposes and objectives, and identify the capabilities required to complete the mission and tasks; among them, challenges are proposed by the driving forces, opportunities are motivated by challenges and driving forces, capabilities are influenced by opportunities, and opportunities enable the purpose to be achieved; Step 2.2: Analyze the capability portfolio to determine the operational capabilities required for the organization's top-level strategic capabilities, forming a structured capability list; define the MOE measurement items for capabilities in the capability attributes, including measurement values ​​and value attributes; Step 2.3: Define task relationships, hierarchically classify tasks through combination relationships, and associate each subtask with its corresponding capability; define MOS measurement items in task attributes; realize traceability between overall task success measurement and subtask success measurement, and between task success measurement and capability effectiveness measurement; Step 2.4: Set task parameter constraints to constrain the system's attributes. Constraints are represented in the form of equations, and the parameters in the equations are bound to the attribute parameters in the analyzed task or capability. Set parameterized constraints between the success measures of the overall task and subtasks, and set parameterized constraints between the success measures of subtasks and the effectiveness measures of capabilities. Define constraint equations through constraint blocks.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step 3 includes the following steps: Step 3.1: Classify the running elements, including: establishing a running architecture for each task, analyzing the running nodes required to complete the task, establishing a relationship between the running architecture and the corresponding task, modeling the running nodes contained in the running architecture, and establishing a relationship between the running architecture and the capability based on the relationship between the task and capability in Step 2. Step 3.2: Analyze the runtime structure and define MOP measurement items in the attributes of the runtime nodes, including measure values ​​and value attributes; Step 3.3: Analyze operational performance, including: defining constraint equations through constraint blocks to establish constraints on the parameters between the MOE measurement items of the operational architecture and the MOP of the operational nodes.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step 4 includes: When organizing service elements, the task's operational activities are obtained through the operation process, the service architecture and service nodes required to implement the task are determined, and the traceability relationship between the service architecture and operational activities is established; MOE measurement items are set to determine the ability of service organizations to inherit operational activity mappings. When analyzing service performance, constraint equations are defined using constraint blocks to establish constraints on the parameters between the MOE measurement items of the service architecture and the MOP measurement items of the service nodes.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step 5 includes: When organizing system elements, sort out the resources in the resource architecture plan, including resource architecture, resource artifacts, system and organizational definitions, and define the services implemented by resource services; When analyzing system performance, constraint equations are defined using constraint blocks to establish constraints on the parameters between the MOP measurement items of resource services and the MOP measurement items of the system.

Images