• No results found

Enterprise architecture frameworks with semantic models as a foundation for complex networked operations

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Enterprise architecture frameworks with semantic models as a foundation for complex networked operations"

Copied!
61
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Semantic Days 2009, May 18

th

-20

th

,Stavanger, Norway

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Norway

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

Enterprise architecture frameworks with

semantic models as a foundation for

complex networked operations

(2)

Enterprise architecture frameworks

with semantic models as a foundation for

complex networked operations

ƒ

Enterprise architecture frameworks like Zachman, EIF (European Interoperability

Framework) DODAF/MODAF/NAF (Defense Architectural Frameworks), TOGAF and

others provide an important foundation for the understanding and planning of

business models and system models for complex networked operations both in

industry, eGovernment and crisis management/defense. This ensures both alignment

between business and IT, and also provides a better foundation for system

interoperability in networked systems. We will demonstrate the approach using ODM

(Ontology Definition Metamodel) with OWL for semantic modelling, BMM (Business

Motivation Model) and BPMN (Business Process Modeling Notation) and ARIS/EPC

(Event Process Chains) with a transformation so system and service specification in

SoaML (Service oriented architecture Modeling Language) with further realization in

heterogeneous service oriented architectures (SOA) including web services, Cloud

Computing/SaaS (Software as a Service), P2P/Grid and agents. We will show how

semantic annotations from existing system specification to an ontology can support

semantic interoperability. A basic understanding of business modelling or system

specification is an advantage, but experiences in enterprise architectures, semantic

models or any of the specific technologies that will be presented is not required

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Norway

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

(3)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Norway

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

3

Agenda

ƒ

(I) Enterprise Architecture, TOGAF, UPDM (Arne, Ulf, Dima)

ƒ

Zachman, TOGAF, MODAF/DODAF/NAF, MDA, UPDM - Arne

ƒ

Saarstahl SHAPE - Dima

ƒ

European ATM/SESAR - Ulf

ƒ

(II) INFORMATION and ONTOLOGY MODELING (UML/ER,

ODM/OWL with examples/tools) Arne (Ulf, Dima)

ƒ

Conceptual Modeling, Information Modeling, Ontologies - Ulf and Arne

ƒ

ODM with OWL for semantic modeling (WSMT) - Dima

ƒ

(III) PROCESS MODELING (EPC/BPMN with examples/tools)

(Dima)

ƒ

ARIS/EPC (Event-Driven Process Chains)

Dima

ƒ

BPMN (Business Process Modeling Notation)

Dima

ƒ

(IV) SERVICE MODELING and Interoperability (SoaML with

examples) (Arne)

ƒ

SoaML (Servic oriented architecture Modeling Language)

Arne

ƒ

Semantic annotations, SAWSDL, from existing system specifications to

(4)

Relevant OMG and other

modeling standards

ƒ

EA: Zahcman and TOGAF

ƒ

UPDM – (MODAF, DODAF, NAF), TOGAF

ƒ

UML 2.0 – updated for architecture modeling

ƒ

MDA – Model Driven Architecture

ƒ

BPMN – Business Process Modeling Notation

ƒ

BMM _ Business Motivation Model

ƒ

SysML – Systems Engineering Modeling Language

ƒ

ODM – Ontology Definition Metamodel

ƒ

OWL – Ontology Web Language

ƒ

SoaML – SOA Modeling Language

ƒ

SAWSDL – Semantic Annotation of WSDL/XML (W3C)

ƒ

4

See www.omg.org

(5)

5

Representations of Architecture

ARIS

ZACHMAN

GERAM

EN/ISO 19439

NIST

EKA

-POPS

EKA

-POPS

EKA

-POPS

Athena OEA

(6)

Selected standards

and technologies

ƒ

Zachman, TOGAF, DODAF/MODAF/NAF,

ARIS, EIF

ƒ

OWL, RDF, ODM, (UML, Topic Maps, ISO

15926, …)

ƒ

BPMN, EPC

ƒ

SysML and SoaML

ƒ

WS-*, SWS (OWL-S, WSMO), Agents,

P2P, Grid, Cloud, SaaS

ƒ

SAWSDL

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Norway

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

(7)

7

Based on work by

John A. Zachman

VA Enterprise

Architecture

DATA

What

FUNCTION

How

NETWORK

Where

PEOPLE

Who

TIME

When

MOTIVATION

Why

DATA

What

FUNCTION

How

NETWORK

Where

PEOPLE

Who

TIME

When

MOTIVATION

Why

SCOPE

(CONTEXTUAL)

Planner

ENTERPRISE

MODEL

(CONCEPTU AL)

Owner

SYSTEM MODEL

(LOGICAL)

Designer

TECHNOLOGY

MODEL

(PHYSICAL)

Builder

DETAILED

REPRESENTATIONS

(OUT-OF-CONTEXT)

Sub-Contractor

FUNCTIONING

ENTERPRISE

SCOPE

(CONTEXTUAL)

Planner

ENTERPRISE

MODEL

(CONCEPTU AL)

Owner

SYSTEM MODEL

(LOGICAL)

Designer

TECHNOLOGY

MODEL

(PHYSICAL)

Builder

DETAILED

REPRESENTATIONS

(OUT-OF-CONTEXT)

Sub-Contractor

FUNCTIONING

ENTERPRISE

Things Important to the Business Entity = Class of Business Thing Processes Performed Function = Class of Business Process Semantic Model

Ent = Business Entity Rel = Business Relationship

Business Process Model

Proc = Business Process I/O = Business Resources

Business Logistics System

Node = Business Location Link = Business Linkage

Work Flow Model

People = Organization Unit Work = Work Product

Master Schedule

Time = Business Event Cycle = Business Cycle

Business Plan

End = Business Objectiv e Means = Business Strategy Important Organizations People = Major Organizations Business locations Node = Major Business Locations Ev ents Significant to the Business Time = Major Business Event Business Goals and Strategy Ends/Means = Major Business Goals

Logical Data Model

Ent = Data Entity Rel = Data Relationship

Application Architecture

Proc = Application Function I/O = User Views

Distributed System Architecture

Node = IS Function Link = Line Characteristics

Human Interface Architecture

People = Role Work = Deliv erable

Processing Structure

Time = System Event Cycle = Processing Cycle

Business Rule Model

End = Structural Assertion Means = Action Assertion Physical Data Model Ent = Segment/Table Rel = Pointer/Key System Design

Proc = Computer Function I/O = Data Elements/Sets

Technology Architecture

Node = Hardware/Softw are Link = Line Specifications

Presentation Architecture

People = User Work = Screen Format

Control Structure

Time = Ex ecute Cycle = Component Cycle

Rule Design End = Condition Means = Action Data Definition Ent = Field Rel = Address Program

Proc = Language Statement I/O = Control Block

Netw ork Architecture Node = Addresses Link = Protocols Security Architecture People = Identity Work = Job Timing Definition Time = Interrupt Cycle = Machine Cycle

Rule Design End = Sub-Condition Means = Step Data Ent = Rel = Function Proc = I/O = Netw ork Node = Link = Organization People = Work = Schedule Time = Cycle = Strategy End = Means =

Based on work by

John A. Zachman

VA Enterprise

Architecture

DATA

What

FUNCTION

How

NETWORK

Where

PEOPLE

Who

TIME

When

MOTIVATION

Why

DATA

What

FUNCTION

How

NETWORK

Where

PEOPLE

Who

TIME

When

MOTIVATION

Why

SCOPE

(CONTEXTUAL)

Planner

ENTERPRISE

MODEL

(CONCEPTU AL)

Owner

SYSTEM MODEL

(LOGICAL)

Designer

TECHNOLOGY

MODEL

(PHYSICAL)

Builder

DETAILED

REPRESENTATIONS

(OUT-OF-CONTEXT)

Sub-Contractor

FUNCTIONING

ENTERPRISE

SCOPE

(CONTEXTUAL)

Planner

ENTERPRISE

MODEL

(CONCEPTU AL)

Owner

SYSTEM MODEL

(LOGICAL)

Designer

TECHNOLOGY

MODEL

(PHYSICAL)

Builder

DETAILED

REPRESENTATIONS

(OUT-OF-CONTEXT)

Sub-Contractor

FUNCTIONING

ENTERPRISE

Things Important to the Business Entity = Class of Business Thing Processes Performed Function = Class of Business Process Semantic Model

Ent = Business Entity Rel = Business Relationship

Business Process Model

Proc = Business Process I/O = Business Resources

Business Logistics System

Node = Business Location Link = Business Linkage

Work Flow Model

People = Organization Unit Work = Work Product

Master Schedule

Time = Business Event Cycle = Business Cycle

Business Plan

End = Business Objectiv e Means = Business Strategy Important Organizations People = Major Organizations Business locations Node = Major Business Locations Ev ents Significant to the Business Time = Major Business Event Business Goals and Strategy Ends/Means = Major Business Goals

Logical Data Model

Ent = Data Entity Rel = Data Relationship

Application Architecture

Proc = Application Function I/O = User Views

Distributed System Architecture

Node = IS Function Link = Line Characteristics

Human Interface Architecture

People = Role Work = Deliv erable

Processing Structure

Time = System Event Cycle = Processing Cycle

Business Rule Model

End = Structural Assertion Means = Action Assertion Physical Data Model Ent = Segment/Table Rel = Pointer/Key System Design

Proc = Computer Function I/O = Data Elements/Sets

Technology Architecture

Node = Hardware/Softw are Link = Line Specifications

Presentation Architecture

People = User Work = Screen Format

Control Structure

Time = Ex ecute Cycle = Component Cycle

Rule Design End = Condition Means = Action Data Definition Ent = Field Rel = Address Program

Proc = Language Statement I/O = Control Block

Netw ork Architecture Node = Addresses Link = Protocols Security Architecture People = Identity Work = Job Timing Definition Time = Interrupt Cycle = Machine Cycle

Rule Design End = Sub-Condition Means = Step Data Ent = Rel = Function Proc = I/O = Netw ork Node = Link = Organization People = Work = Schedule Time = Cycle = Strategy End = Means =

Zachman Framework –

for Enterprise

Architecture

(8)

Open Group TOGAF 9.0

(9)

Open Group

TOGAF ADM

Architecture

Development

Method

9

(10)

ARIS House

(11)

11

Three Views in

(12)

Business Motivation Model (BMM)

with MeansRealizations

(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)

17

OMG Model-Driven Architecture (MDA)

(18)

18

PIM

CIM

BPDM, SBVR,

EDOC,UPMS,

PIM4SOA, ODM

ATL

PSM

MOFScript

BPMN

, POP*, ARIS,

ArchiMate,

GERAM, GRAI, Zachman,

UEML, B.Rules

BPEL, WSDL, XML, XPDL,

OWL-S, WSML, WSDL-S

ADM

ADM

UML profiles and

metamodels for

Java JEE, BPEL,

WSDL, XML, XPDL,

OWL-S, WSML, WSDL-S

Code, Java JEE,

….

Platform

Independent

Model

Computational

Independent

Model

Platform

Specific

Model/Code

MDA

CIM, PIM

and

PSM/Code

(19)

SHAPE project partners and roles

19

See

www.shape-project.eu

UPMS

UPMS

SoaML

(20)

20

1st Review, Brussels, February 6th 2009

(21)

21

1st Review, Brussels, February 6th 2009

CIM-PIM-PSM

Adopted to SoaML

SoaML

Core

Service Variability

PIM4

WS-A

PIM4

SWS

PIM4

Agents

P2P/Grid/

Components

SoaML-SHA

WSDL, WSMO, OWL

-S, JACK, JADE, JXTA, OGSA, J2EE, CORBA

J2EE, NetWeaver, .Net, …

BPMN

BPDM

BMM

EPC

PIMs for different

Architectural Styles

Realization Technologies

PSM

Implementation Models

CIM

Business Models

PIM

System Models

(22)

June

2006

Sept 2005

Feb 2005

DoDAF v 1.0

(2004)

OMG Kickoff

RFP

issued

MODAF

v 1.0

March

2007

Three Initial

Submissions

Raytheon + Team

Telelogic

IBM + Team

DoDAF v 1.5

Draft Inputs

Unified

Submission

June

2007

OMG

Adopts

UPDM

Nov

2006

Team 1 (IBM) &

Alpha Merge

UST (Raytheon +)

and Telelogic Merge

As Team Alpha

Two Revised

Submissions

Dec

2006

March

2008

UPDM

FTF

Voted Down

DoDAF v 2.0

Draft for review

Nov 2008 ?

UPDM

RFC

Interim

MODAF

v 1.1

MODAF

v 1.2

June

2008

UPDM

RFC

Formed

UPDM

RFC

Submission

Sep

2008

OMG

Vote to

Adopt

Dec

2008

UPDM

FTF2

March

2009

UPDM History

(23)

UPDM: Context –

Introduction

UPDM: Context –

Introduction

ƒ

Context

ƒ

Stakeholders

ƒ

US DoD

ƒ

UK MOD

ƒ

NATO

ƒ

Canada/Australia

ƒ

OMG, INCOSE

ƒ

OMG

ƒ

XMI, UML, SysML

ƒ

BPMN

ƒ

UPMS, BMM

ƒ

End Users

ƒ

Aerospace

ƒ

Commercial

ƒ

Tool Vendors

ƒ

Software

ƒ

Systems

ƒ

Enterprise

UPDM Domain Meta Model

UPDM Profile Meta Model

UPDM Profile

&

Library

UML4SysML

SysML

External References

Transformations

CADM

IDEF

XMI

AP233

BPMN

UPMS

NAF Meta Model

CADM 1.5

DoDAF 2.0 Ontology

UML

SysML Extensions

UPMS, BMM, SBVr

Extensions

<<import/merge>>

MODAF Meta Model

DoDAF 1.5 Concepts

SSDD

UJTL

etc.

CDD

SF List

CONOPS

Products --

Reports --

Simulations

BMM

(24)
(25)

How: UPDM Compliance Levels

SysML

UML

UPDM L0

(26)

SysML diagrams

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Norway

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

(27)

Service Oriented View (SOV)

How: Information Flow into

SysML and UML

All View (AV)

Strategic View (StV)

Operational View (OV)

Systems View (SV)

Technical View (TV)

Acquisition

View

(AcV)

UPDM System Development

Systems Development with SysML and UML

Hardware

System

Software

System

Procedural

System

Mechanical

System

Chemical

System

Reuse

(28)

UPDM RFC -

Domain Meta Model

ƒ

Package structure organizes stereotypes by viewpoint

(29)

EA Tool support

ƒ

EPC – ARIS

ƒ

UPDM – MagicDraw, Enterprise Architect

ƒ

Troux

ƒ

BPMN: 50+ tools

ƒ

SHAPE project: CIMFlex, Objecteering

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Norway

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

(30)

Semantic Days 2009, May 18

th

-20

th

,Stavanger, Norway

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

Enterprise architecture frameworks with

semantic models as a foundation for

complex networked operations

Enterprise Architecture:

Problem areas

(31)

Example –

StatoilHydro

ƒ

Ongoing activity in the SHAPE project

ƒ

Ref. Presentation by Einar Landre on

Wednesday

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Norway

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

(32)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

32

Agenda

ƒ

Saarstahl Example

ƒ

Problem Domain

ƒ

Use Case “Coordination between rolling mills and steel works”

(33)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

33

Problem

Domain

ƒ

Saarstahl – German steel manufacturing company with

global presence on the steel production market.

ƒ

Saarstahl – recognized for a high level of competence in

the field of steel production and further processing.

ƒ

Saarstahl – one of the most important manufacturers of

long products (i.e. bars or rods) in the world.

ƒ

Saarstahl – important preliminary products for the

automotive, construction, the aerospace industry,

general mechanical and power industry engineering, and

other steel processing branches.

(34)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

34

Steel

Production

ƒ

Steel production – first phase of most Supply Chains in

different areas

ƒ

Steel manufacturing companies are strongly affected by

bull whip effect:

ƒ

Irregular nature of incoming orders

ƒ

Frequently changing customer requirements on accepted orders

ƒ

Therefore → it is important to improve operational

efficiency

ƒ

Needed: flexible planning and scheduling systems

handling considerable amounts of data

(35)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

35

Planning Efforts

ƒ

Existing systems:

ƒ

Commonly centralized decision making approaches

ƒ

Mostly data driven

ƒ

Often not modeling the business processes conveniently

ƒ

Saarstahl made great efforts to deal with the planning

and scheduling problems along its production chain:

ƒ

Steel production is a disassembling, continuous process and

resulting in a vast number of different products

ƒ

Time restrictions are more important than in other production

chains, since certain processes cannot be interrupted

ƒ

For instance, hot metal leaving the blast furnace factory must be

transformed and casted into steel billets within a certain time

(36)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

36

Supply Chain of Saarstahl

Blast Furnace

Dillingen

Rolling mills

Burbach

Rolling mills

Neunkirchen

Steel works

Völklingen

Rolling mills

Nauweiler

customers

customers

customers

.

.

.

.

Arrangement

Pickling

Annealing

Saw Cutting

Arrangement

Pickling

Annealing

Saw Cutting

(37)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

37

Agenda

ƒ

Saarstahl Example

ƒ

Problem domain

ƒ

Use Case “Coordination between rolling mills and steel works”

(38)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

38

Use Cases Overview

ƒ

Coordination between Rolling Mills and Steelworks

ƒ

Capacity planning of Annealing Furnaces

ƒ

Creation and Optimization of Heats and Sequences

ƒ

Cross-plant order coordination from steel works’ point of

view

(39)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

39

Coordination Use Case

Steel works

Völklingen

Rolling mills

Burbach

Rolling mills

Neunkirchen

Rolling mills

Nauweiler

Sales Department

Semi-finished

product inventory

Tech. Inspection

(40)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

40

Saarstahl Pilot Case

ƒ

Specification of business models and requirements:

ƒ

Formalize business models (CIM-level) using EPCs

(event-driven process chains) or BPMN (business process modeling

notation).

ƒ

Ensure the business models will contain information wrt.

involved organizational units, provided functionalities, and

exchanged data and resources.

ƒ

Model transformations from CIM to the SoaML/ShaML.

ƒ

Model transformations from the SoaML/ShaML to

(41)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

41

Use Case Challenges

ƒ

How to simplify the choreography of the 4 rolling mills

and the steelmaking plant?

ƒ

Which kind of service interaction patterns should be

used (e.g. multiagent systems)?

ƒ

How to formulate business requirements on the

CIM-level that can then be easily translated into a running

system?

(42)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

42

Agenda

ƒ

Saarstahl Example

ƒ

Problem domain

ƒ

Use Case “Coordination between rolling mills and steel works”

(43)

18.05.2009

Arne Jørgen Berre, SINTEF, Norway

Ulf Larsson, LFV, Sweden

Dima Panfilenko, DFKI IWi, Germany

43

Modeling

(44)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

44

European Air Traffic Management

Ulf Larsson

LFV

(45)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

45

Single European Sky ATM Research,

SESAR

ƒ

Why started European Commission SESAR?

Reduction of Cost, automation and rationalisation of ATM!

ƒ

Budget 22 billion Euros (2 billion used within the

DP-phase –2006 to 2008)

ƒ

A new approach SESAR addresses the entire ATM?

airports, ANSPs, Air Space Users (airlines), MIL, others

ƒ

A common joint development - SESAR Joint Undertaking

(SJU)

ƒ

2009 till 2013 IP1

ƒ

2013 till 2017 IP2

ƒ

2017 till 2020 IP3

(46)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

46

(47)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

47

SESAR Definition Phase

(start 2006 end March 2008)

WorkProgramme

for

2008-2013

WorkProgramme

for

2008-2013

D1

D1

D2

D2

D3

D3

D4

D4

D5

D5

D6

D6

24 months including

CONOPS

Analyse

air

transport

value and

role of

ATM

Analyse

air

transport

value and

role of

ATM

ATM

Target

Concept

selection

ATM

Target

Concept

selection

Deploymen

t sequence

analysis

Deploymen

t sequence

analysis

Build the

ATM

Master

Plan

Build the

ATM

Master

Plan

Define

organisatio

n &

work-programme

2008-2013

Define

organisatio

n &

work-programme

2008-2013

The Market

Its

Requirements

The

Top Product

Performance

Requirement

s

Performance

Requirement

s

How

to

Build

it

Action

Plan

Go!

CO

M

PL

ET

ED

CO

M

PL

ET

ED

CO

M

PL

ET

ED

CO

M

PL

ET

ED

CO

M

PL

ET

ED

CO

M

PL

ET

ED

(48)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

48

SWIM Infrastructure …

Information Management addresses both Air-Ground and Ground-

Ground Data and ATM Service Exchange

Information Management is supported by a set of architectural

elements (the SWIM infrastructure) underpinned by a communication

Network – opposed to closely coupled interfaces

European ATM

Enterprise

Other ATM

Enterprises

(49)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

49

Objectives and activities

Capacity: 3 fold increase (represents 73% on 2004 traffic for 2020)

Safety

: Increase by a factor of 10 (ensure no negative safety

impact on 2020 traffic)

Environment

: 10% reduction by flights (applicable 2020)

(50)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

50

Main Gaps!

Missing the Enterprise level

of Architecture

Formal Business

Process models

Formal Information

Models

Formal Operational

Goals

Formal Service Model

Framework

The Development is not

driven from Business

Perspective

Missing Service Oriented

mindset, too much focus on

Systems

(51)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

51

The future ATM architecture –

its focus!

It is about BPM and Service and less

about systems and functions!

Systems will be system-objects in a larger ATM

architecture, and within LFV an architecture

(52)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

52

Transition ..a cooperative effort forward!

Revolution

Evolution

Previous vision

Platform-centric,

service embedded,

large conflict,

well established C2

New vision

Network-centric,

interoperable,

joint, integrated,

flexible

Future structure

(53)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

53

What is the goal/objectives more

than reducing the costs?

• It is about building seamless and interoperable distributed

information systems within ATM;

Reuse of information and components (soft-ware components),

Share on-line operational information e.g. concerning flights and

information that may affect a flight etcetera

In a flexible way make new demand/requirements possible

(opposed to system flexibility)

The development requires new methods, tools, architecture

(description) frameworks and formal description languages

(54)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

54

Concept Description

Enterprise Architecture Framework

Fragmentation

Existing systems

Development projects

Interoperability

Operational usage

Alignment

Commonality

Consistency

Coherence

Interchange

Standardisation

Increased cost/benefit

Implement

framework

European ATM architecture

P

rojec

t A

P

rojec

t D

P

rojec

t C

P

rojec

t B

(55)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

55

Concept Description

Enterprise Architecture Framework

ƒ

Each View represents a specific

Perspective of the Architecture

ƒ

Each View contains subviews

(56)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

56

Concept Description

Enterprise Architecture Framework

A framework Meta-model describes the content and relationships between

views

(57)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

57

(58)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

58

What is on-going concerning

architecture frameworks?

A global standardisation

activity UPDM!

(59)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

59

The outcome of SESAR DP

!

ƒ

SESAR DP documented;

ƒ

Performance Based Approach, 11 KPAs are

described to guide decision makers in order

to reach the Vision (Cost / Effectiveness,

Capacity, Interoperability etc.)

EAEA perspectives

SOA vs Service-Orientation

(SoS, FoS)

Enterprise Architecture Framework

MDA (Modelling Driven Architecture)

NetCentric (”Intranet of ATM”)

ATM Europe has started changing the suit and it is a comprehensive

paradigm shift which affect all levels within ATM (”requires a change in

mind set”).

(60)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

60

(61)

Flygtrafiktjänsten

61

Key Performance Areas (ICAO, SESAR)

class Concept Model Iteration 1

Safety

Perfor mance

Access_and_Equity

Cost_effe ctiv eness

Efficiency

Env ironmental_sustainability

Flexibility

Interoperability

Partici pation

Predictability

Security

«ATM Business Concept»

Gov er nance

Capacity

Operational_ performance

Societal _outcome

Performanc e_enablers

Stan dard

Oblig ation

Law _pre cedence

+global_standards_uniform_principles_to_ensure_technical_and_operational_interoperability

+airspace_users_access_to_atm_resources

+uniform_safety_standards_risk_assessments_and management

+environmental_atm_system_performance

+air_space_users_ability_to_modify_requirements_dynamically

+assessing_operational_performance

+atm_changes_identification

risk_prevention_occurence_of_unlawful_interferences

+price_of_the_air_traffic_services

+the_operational_and_economic_cost_effectiveness_of_flight_operations

+root_entity_criteria_and_physical_capacity

+business_concept-performance_measurement

+control_monitor

+fundamentals_for_the_governance

societal_and_political

business_trajecto ry_planning_stage

References

Related documents