SSE Meeting 32

Attendees

John Davies, Iain Cardow, Sarwar Ahmad.

Overview

• What techniques we have and what service/systems can they apply to?
• Can we better handle Services within an enterprise architecture?
• Early life-cycle - how is the decision made to develop/deploy a service ?

What Process, Techniques, Models do we have? Which are useful when?

Paper for ASEC2018 NCS ILS, how to/where to split providers? Apply Simon’s techniques/process to Bus Service - good Health Care – poor Apply SOA model to Norway NCS ILS – doesn’t add/help Apply NECTISE Model NCS ILS – OK Apply NECTISE model to Health Care, University - OK

Providing a better framework

Considering MoDAF as an example Architecture

we could modify.  

Start of lifecycle

- using Services to make money.

Way Forward

The format and content of the ASEC paper was seen as a good way forward for general work.

Further work on 'What happened before, during and after the work in the paper will be useful in mapping out the process/lifecycle for development and use of services.

The Systems Engineering Handbook, SeBOK and ISO/IEC 15288 were considered for their contribution, but found to cover services as a way of maintaining a system in service, rather than providing a service.

Work on the Service-Centric and Product-Centric views of the system need to be extended and tested against various Case Studies to see where they are useful and where they are not.

Methodology

Work from last meeting is seen as a good basis for further work.

• Four different white-board briefs of our contribution were produced and discussed. It was agreed that considering two views of the system - one service oriented and one system oriented could be used to cover the four different briefs, and provide strong message.
• It was agreed that the major contribution to be expressed in this paper is for the analysis of Services in terms of Context Diagrams, Stakeholder Analysis, Behaviour Analysis, Context Analysis and Structure Analysis are different if you take Service-Centric views against what you get if you take a System-Centric views.
• The difference compared to Architecture Frameworks, that include Service views such as MoDAF, is that AFs are looking at services as system components, whereas we are looking at the enterprise or business from two views - one Service-Centric and one System-Centric.
• Hence for example a Service-Centric Stakeholder Analysis will be similar (and use the same or similar methods) to a System-Centric Stakeholder Analysis but focus on the Service aspects and provide a richer set of outputs.
• Comparison was made with Product Service Systems (Tukker) which deals with a range of Services from Pure Service to Pure Product.
• It was noted that the standard Service Oriented Architecture relating Business Model to Services provided by System Components fits into our wider

Dissemination

• How to get our finding intooo the wider community was discussed. Favoured oprios are:

• Presentation to Bristol Local Group (and to other groups if they meet))
• Paper to IS (and ASEC if the current paper is accepted)
• Guidance Document
• Z Guide
• Omega Guide

Actions

• SW – to extend vehicle service to link into earlier and later activities related to service and also to product development.
• NT to test ideas in work related to his day job.
• JD to test ideas on other Case Studies
• AF to look at how the INCOSE UK In-service Systems engineering work was disseminated and how successful the different methods were..

• AC is hoping to take early retirement and may not be able to contribute further.

Next Meeting

tbd November 2018, 10-30 to 14-30, Rolls Royce, Filton, Bristol.