2015 10 20 Omega Group mtg Bham

Discussion about the development of the MBSE 6W Guide
julianfej
Workstream Lead
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 7:59 am
Contact:

2015 10 20 Omega Group mtg Bham

Postby julianfej » Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:12 am

WG mtg 2015 10 20 Bham
1 Apologies

1.1 Mike Brownsword - Atkins
1.2 Jan Rapacz - 3ds
2 Actions
2.1 JJ notes to meeting
2.2 AS propose presentation to ASEC for MBSE WG
3 attendees
3.1 Julian Johnson - Holistem
3.2 Alex Stevenson - Objektum
3.3 Ian Clark - MBDA
3.4 Robin Nickless - AWE
3.5 Ali Parandeh - Atkins
3.6 Goncalo Esteves - JLR (from 14:00hrs)
4 Meeting notes
4.1 Discussion of what discussed at previous meetings
The group referred to notes of previous meetings to remind themselves of the previous discussion, especially the concept of having 'the guide' potentially enabling an individual to move up-right in a competency map (MBSE competency vs SE competency.
4.2 What captured in notes from previous meetings
4.3 Challenges of selling MBSE, esp to Programme Managers
The topic of selling MBSE approaches cf doc-based approaches was raised multiple times.
4.4 JJ Two key stakeholders: Sys Engineers, Functional Managers
This arose from Use Case approach.
4.5 Seeing the Guide as a one or two page entrance into a larger body of information
4.6 Current Z9 focussed on 'what is...?' /
GE noted that the Z9 not going down well with seniors (primarily because of the diag and SysML terminology).
4.7 Potential structure: Why / when / where / who / how
The primary outcome from the meeting was to look at a 6-questions template as a way of connecting to the key questions the two major stakeholders may have, when considering / or being tasked to adopt MBSE.
Two tables were anticipated, for:
Sys Eng Manager
Systems Engineer.
RN noted that a Learn Do Evangelise approach may represent nuances to these roles.


4.8 ASEC WG mtg:
ASEC MBSE WG mtg is an opportunity to sound out attendees to our thoughts on Omega Guide + additional info.
4.9 Flip chart table of 6 W's, for Engineering Manager
Separate word document.
4.10 RN Tangible vs non-tangible benefits, and when...
4.11 Discussion about 2 or 3 nuances of Sys Eng Manager
The headings in the table (word doc) illustrate the different roles that Systems Eng Managers may play, in supporting adoption of MBSE within an organisation:
Either for whole organisation or department;
For a single project;
Or for an Engineering Manager actually supporting role-out, as a Practitioner.
There was some discussion as to whether all three roles were actually discernable, or whether only the first two were identifiable.
4.12 RN Just done systems eng capability assessment
4.13 RN Potential n x n matrix as index into collatoral of more info behind guide
4.14 RN RLI Review Learn Improve
4.15 Flip chart table for Systems Engineer
Separate word document.
4.16 JJ presented initial fragment of MBSE vs ISO 15288 outcomes
As an AOB item on the agenda, JJ presented the outcome of an initial investigate into how the ISO15288 SE activities are typically discharged when either a document-based SE or a MBSE approach is adopted. He showed a spreadsheet, folded from the top level 4 Process Areas of ISO 15288, to then be opened to the individual activities, and then to individual outcomes for each activity.
For each outcome, he had produced a one or few sentence summary to how that outcome was represented in either conventional (doc, spreadsheet) materials, or if in a model-based artefact.
He had not yet looked at the activity explanations for a few activities, again in the two SE styles.
This work potentially showed what level of detail may exist at some point below the Guide.
4.17 Primary meeting outcomes
The framework represented by the two 6-Ws tables it was felt formed a significant output from this meeting for two reasons:
- it gave a top level framework that it was felt would be useful to anticipated audiences of stakeholders contemplating MBSE adoption and
- it potentially would act as an architecture [for the guide], (especially when the nuances of stakeholders was included) against which the whole MBSE WG could be prompted to contribute.
4.18 Meeting close

julianfej
Workstream Lead
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 7:59 am
Contact:

Re: 2015 10 20 Omega Group mtg Bham

Postby julianfej » Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:43 am

I see there is potentially an Attachments capability. I intended to add:

• Pdf of my mindmap notes to the meeting
• Word version of the same notes, which has the elaboration notes that are not visible in the mindmap; (Also uploaded to Forum)
• A word version of the two tables form the flipcharts (I’ve also taken photos of the originals)
• A screen capture of part of the Outcomes mappings I showed at the end of the meeting.

Unfortunately, I cannot see how to add these files, so will send out directly, once Alex has OKed or elaborated the notes.

[JJ Update: 3 jpgs - pictures of originla flipcharts, and the Outcomes mappings - now attached]

Julian.
Attachments
Omega grp Mapping 15288 outcomes to doc-based SE and MBSE artefacts.JPG
Omega grp Mapping 15288 outcomes to doc-based SE and MBSE artefacts.JPG (285.51 KiB) Viewed 1608 times
20151021_093524.jpg
20151021_093524.jpg (1.83 MiB) Viewed 1608 times
20151021_093452.jpg
20151021_093452.jpg (1.6 MiB) Viewed 1608 times
Last edited by julianfej on Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

Ian Clark
Workstream Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 7:09 am
Location: Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire

Re: 2015 10 20 Omega Group mtg Bham

Postby Ian Clark » Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:21 am

Thanks for these Julian.

All, a thought I had on the train back last night was the opportunity we have to address Gonçalo's comment about the current Z9 Guide - maybe it addresses only one perspective of the 'What ?' question, the Systems Engineer's perspective. The Omega Guide is the opportunity to capture and address other perspectives for the 'What ?' question for the other Stakeholders, to include those that Gonçalo struggled with trying to communicate the current Z9 guide.

Maybe this is a lesson for INCOSE UK and the other Z9 guides? Clarifying the Z Guide stakeholder(s) to ensure better understanding and buy-in.

Just a thought.

User avatar
Alex Stevenson
Site Admin
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:32 pm
Location: London

Re: 2015 10 20 Omega Group mtg Bham

Postby Alex Stevenson » Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:55 pm

Julian has sent me his files from Tuesday from which I'll write up a summary and post here.
A few minutes of elaboration now could prevent hours of deliberation later.

RobinNickless
Workstream Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:31 pm

Re: 2015 10 20 Omega Group mtg Bham

Postby RobinNickless » Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:03 am

I have been thinking of a couple of things that came out of Tuesday:-

Goncalo's comment about value.

Ian made the observation about knowledge - maybe we need to emphasize that modelling and analysis sit hand in hand. it is easy to forget that the ability to pass forward existing product also adds the possibility of quickly re -baseline and re-running any analysis by a fresh team.
I am lucky in that I have finally established an acceptance of longer term intangible benefits rather than a focus on short term financial gain. Many around us will focus on the latter - we may need a detailed piece to explain this space.

Ians thought on a train.
In the z9 guide maybe we have missed the multi perspective aspect - our proposal for the current construct of the omega will give us an opportunity to address this . Maybe Ali and Goncalo are best placed for initial thoughts on what is missing?

On a general note - we all seem to refrain from pointing to the PM role in making MBSE effective and an integral part of any programme . Maybe we need to be more explicit? The issue of RACI comes up regularly as well, as a key element in getting MBSE recognisedagain we should explore work being undertaken by other groups?

Ian Clark
Workstream Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 7:09 am
Location: Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire

Re: 2015 10 20 Omega Group mtg Bham

Postby Ian Clark » Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:40 am

I am reminded that post publication of the updated Z9 guide, I used my MBSE community here at MBDA to provide their feedback - which I collected and supplied back to the MBSE Working Group. My hope was that others in the Working Group would do the same and we could see and get a feel for the value of the Z9 guide.

Some feedback is specific and detailed, other, is high level.

It doesn't look as if I can attach the feedback (pdf file) to this thread. If interested to see please email me (ian.clark@mbda-systems.com.) and I will send a copy through.

User avatar
james towers
Group Chair
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 4:28 pm
Location: Brighton
Contact:

Re: 2015 10 20 Omega Group mtg Bham

Postby james towers » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:37 am

A couple of things from my perspective:

I initially thought about posting the feedback from MBDA about Z9 on the wiki, but decided not to as while all the members of this group are able to read it and evaluate it at face value I'm a little concerned that less experiences SEs or SEs new to MBSE will see it as noise or worse evidence for why MBSE doesn't work. I hope to incorporate it into a Z9 v3 at some point though and it should influence our other publications.

I agree that Z9 has a limited perspective, this was always going to be the case, in my mind the focus of the question is wrong. Z9 is what it is and it can't be "all things to all (wo)men", so the question should be "what supporting information do we need and have we got this?" Initially the second part of that question is almost always going to be answered with a "no". Perhaps then there is a need for another publication which focuses on benefits and challenges from different perspectives?

Ian Clark
Workstream Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 7:09 am
Location: Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire

Re: 2015 10 20 Omega Group mtg Bham

Postby Ian Clark » Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:08 am

Cheers James.

We should use the get together at ASEC, when we brief members of the Working Group that are able to attend on progress with the Omega Guide and our intent, to pose (some of) these questions for us all to come back to at the subsequent full Working Group meeting?

I am hoping the briefing at ASEC will give us a warm feeling about the work to date with the Omega guide, that we are perceived as making advances and that we are pushing most peoples buttons - don't expect all.

User avatar
Alex Stevenson
Site Admin
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:32 pm
Location: London

Re: 2015 10 20 Omega Group mtg Bham

Postby Alex Stevenson » Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:34 am

Apologies all for not redrafting the minutes that Julian prepared as promised. At the moment I have no free time during the week until November 9th which is cutting things a bit close as ASEC is on the 17th and we need to agree what we intend to present. In order to move things along I thought I'd post a summary of the outcome of the meeting as well as the vision for moving forward for everyone to agree so that I can use it as the basis for a presentation at the ASEC meeting.

I'll make time this weekend to draft the summary so that you guys can look it over and give comments next week. Once you guys give me the OK I'll aim to put together a short presentation by about Nov 9th/10th so that there's still time for you to glance over it and make any final comments.

Is that OK with everyone?
A few minutes of elaboration now could prevent hours of deliberation later.

RobinNickless
Workstream Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:31 pm

Re: 2015 10 20 Omega Group mtg Bham

Postby RobinNickless » Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:46 pm

fine with me
wrt time - work manic but will find time at weekend to put thoughts for poster
has anyone else thought how we wish to present the new construct for the guide?


Return to “6W Guide”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron