Large-scale Complex System and Systems of Systems

Dominique Luzeaux, Jean-René Ruault, Jean-Luc Wippler, Dominique Luzeaux, Jean-René Ruault, Jean-Luc Wippler

• Publisher: Wiley-ISTE
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781848212534
• eBook ISBN: 9781118601488
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Electrical Engineering & Telecommunications
• Index: Technology & Engineering

With the growing maturity of information and communication technologies, systems have been interconnected within growing networks, yielding new services through a combination of the system functionalities. This leads to an increasing complexity that has to be managed in order to take advantage of these system integrations. This book provides key answers as to how such systems of systems can be engineered and how their complexity can be mastered.

After reviewing some definitions on systems of systems engineering, the book focuses on concrete applications and offers a survey of the activities and techniques that allow engineering of complex systems and systems of systems. Case studies, ranging from emergency situations such as Hurricane Katrina and its crisis management or a generic scenario of a major traffic accident and its emergency response, to the establishment of a scientific basis in the Antarctic region illustrate key factors of success and traps to avoid in order to cope with such situations.

PART 1

Engineering Large-Scale Complex Systems and Emergency Situation Management

Chapter 1

Engineering Large-scale Complex Systems ¹

1.1. Introduction

The terms “systems science”, “systems of systems” and “systems engineering” have, for decades, been excluded from use in the field of “hard” sciences due to their “engineering” connotations. These gaps have been filled by the domains of control engineering and the theory of dynamical systems, apparently more “noble” due to their use of equations and theorems derived from applied mathematics. These terms have recently resurfaced to a great deal of media attention in light of recent events: the 2008 economic crisis and subsequent attempts to escape from the crisis, attempts to achieve stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the crisis provoked by the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud.

It is, moreover, interesting – even entertaining – to see how pseudo-specialist media publications, in the form of specialist editions produced by wide-distribution media or successful books by amateur economists, have made the notion of systems more fashionable in the context of the economic crisis. They insist on the heterogeneity of components, their relationships and interactions, and the complexity of these interactions in both temporal and spatial terms. Moving beyond this essential notion, the whole approach of systemics has become fashionable, with general favor accorded to a holistic approach, moving simultaneously from global to local and from specific to general aspects, to take account of all feedback loops at different levels in the system, etc. All of this comes from the same experts who previously spoke of microeconomic parameters and zealously promoted reductionism.

Systemics is once again (for the time being – we should not count on permanence in this age of consumption of icons, whether talking about sports stars, pop stars, TV stars or temporary disciples of a stream of thought) on the agenda in an attempt to provide explanations where previous analyses have failed. By considering the object of study from this angle of multiples, links and complexity (in the etymological sense of the term, “multi-stranded, braided”), we demonstrate the need for multiple perspectives, different approaches, and to avoid becoming trapped in a monolithic vision backed up solely by the knowledge inherent in a single given domain.

This is abundantly clear in a number of studies on the crisis in the Middle East, where it seems evident that, in order to escape the inevitable impasses created by difficult stabilization, a purely military, political or economic response is insufficient. It is clear that military intervention has been unsuccessful in establishing alternatives following the removal of old regimes; donor conferences have not succeeded in establishing bases for permanent economic and industrial reconstruction within the states in question, nor have the creation of constitutions and the establishment of elections been enough to create political stability and guarantee the creation of a viable state. It is, in fact, a conjunction of these actions, and many others, which is currently used in the secret hope that a suitable combination of these ingredients might be found rapidly using the resources already involved. Still, we should note that this “magic recipe” will not remain the same over time; military, political and economic approaches must be “dosed” appropriately to create and exploit margins for maneuver, allowing us to envisage progress in the stabilization process.

Once again, systemics provides the keys to explaining and modeling, from which it becomes possible to create action plans supporting trajectories towards desired objectives. However, this system analysis must be carried out without prejudice as to the importance of specific viewpoints: systemics is born of the richness and multiplicity of approaches to a problem, but is destroyed by overly hasty and excessively simplistic conclusions.

Let us return to the example of the stabilization problem in Afghanistan and Iraq. Insurgent action is directed towards neutralization of the conditions necessary for the establishment of a political-economical-judicial system or, in other words, a state that would guarantee the security, prosperity and well-being of the population that created it. This is an example of actions undertaken by insurgents to avoid the establishment of a “system”, “an integrated set of connected and interlinked elements (personnel, products and processes), which aim to satisfy one or more defined objectives” (ISO/IEC 15288). The strategies of this mode of combat have been used by T.E. Lawrence against the Turks, Mao Tse-Tung (China), Vo Nguyen Giap and Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam), the Sandinists (Nicaragua), the Intifada and the al-Aqsa Intifada (Israel/Palestine), and finally al-Qaeda. All use systemic reflections in their writings calling for insurrection, as discussed by [HAM 06], providing a posteriori justification for the use of systems science as an analytical tool to combat this type of situation.

The adoption of a system representation then allows us to identify the different parts of a puzzle, the causes and consequences involved, the strengths and weaknesses of dependencies, the nature of interactions, to understand how all this information contributes to a common goal, and what precedence certain elements may take over others at specific moments in attaining objectives. Based on this analysis, it becomes possible to imagine certain consequences that would arise from working on specific components, and it becomes possible to see, for example through simulation, the possible effects of specific counter-actions on a previous disturbance. This phase of synthesizing a set of actions with the aim of recreating an acceptable level of goal fulfillment when faced with non-mastered disturbances is the main aim when applying a systemic approach to a problem.

Let us now look at the recent crisis generated by the cloud of volcanic ash emitted from a volcano in Iceland, a major event in the second half of April 2010 that led to the complete closure of the airspace of a number of European countries over several days. This disrupted international flights, which were forced to take detours around Europe, and prevented travel for tens of thousands of people, a problem aggravated by the fact that the incident occurred during the school holiday period in a number of countries. Beyond the problems of individual travelers, who were obliged to delay or cancel their vacations or bear the unexpected expense of several days’ accommodation while waiting for return flights, these repatriation problems rapidly took on a political aspect.

In France, for example, airlines and travel companies turned to the government to repatriate travelers and have military air bases opened, in the strongest tradition of the all-powerful Welfare State. To illustrate the fact that this was not as straightforward as it may seem, consider how responsibility would have been attributed if an airplane had failed to land safely. Without immediately assuming the worst, how would insurance companies deal with the damage to luggage created by an accident of this kind?

The political dimension is accompanied by a social aspect: the French government requested that certain social groups within the rail workers’ network suspend strike action in order to transport passengers diverted to an airport other than their planned destination. Here, we gain a transparent vision of the interconnections between various transport systems, including the air and rail networks, when dealing with a traveler who did not choose the combination of these options.

On top of this interaction between transport systems, we should also note the links between reservation systems: those travelers directly affected by air travel redirections were added to the “normal” passenger load. This produced a problem with two distinct aspects, covering both the reestablishment and maintenance of traffic.

Another dimension to consider, in addition to the evident economic considerations resulting from a suspension of air traffic over several days in a heavily-used zone, is the diplomatic dimension: this air traffic crisis prevented a certain number of heads of state from attending the funeral of the Polish president, who was killed just a few days before… in an air accident.

Additionally, we must not forget the technical aspect: at the outset, the crisis was caused by the interaction between microscopic dust particles and an aircraft engine. Volcanic residue is particularly hard and can damage fins, leading to temperature increases on a scale that causes serious damage to an aircraft engine. This, at least, is the situation predicted by one of the simulation codes used in aeronautics.

In summary, a digital model with a pre-defined domain of validity that sets out the level of trustworthiness of its predictions led to a flight ban in independentlymanaged airspaces that are spatially correlated by necessity, with economic, political, diplomatic and social consequences. This demonstrated the relationships and interdependencies of several systems, including air transport, the rail network, tour transport, travel reservation systems, air traffic control, weather forecasting, political systems, insurance systems etc. In short, we are faced with the obvious existence of a system of systems.

Faced with these complex systems and systems of systems, or at the very least with these representations generated by a systemic vision, it is useful and often necessary to have access to potentially multidisciplinary methods and tools to design, create, produce, maintain and develop the systems under study. This is the domain of systems engineering (formalized in a number of standards, from MILSTD- 499B to the more recent ISO/IEC 15288, the latest standard (issued in 2008), via EIA/IS-632, ISO-12207, SE-CMM and ISO 9000:2000).

In what follows, we shall go into detail on a number of points that are key to the success and mastery of the complexity of large systems encountered in the domains of banking, healthcare, transportation, space travel, aeronautics and defense, for which it is no longer conceivable to create an ad hoc system each time new needs are expressed or new technologies become available. We must, therefore, move from a focus on separate, stove-piped or compartmentalized systems towards a capability approach oriented towards operational needs, expressed in a more or less formal manner, most often as desirable performance characteristics of a service, and that develop to adapt to the environment and context of use. This situation is reinforced by the fact that the growing maturity of new information and communications technologies encourages the creation of networked systems, with physical and operational interconnections, allowing us to generate new services by coupling the functionalities of individual systems.

In this section, we shall not go into detail on a certain number of points already covered in [LUZ 08a], [LUZ 08b] and [CAN 09]; the current work builds on the contents of these previous publications, and readers interested in these ideas will find full details in the bibliography. We shall concentrate on several questions that have become important in relation to mastering complexity in large systems in recent times. Thus, we shall begin by considering the notion of service, which is becoming increasingly dominant in systems of systems and large sociotechnical systems, and which is applicable to a number of interesting themes that still lack necessary responses in terms of tools: the problem of architecture in systems of this kind and the issue of resilience. We shall then look at the development of relationships between the various parties involved directly or indirectly with these systems, and the contractual setups we might encounter and that should enter into general practice. Finally, we shall return to the problem of complexity in systems and the ways in which systems engineering can, and should, account for this factor.

1.2. The notion of service in large complex systems

Over the past three decades, the word “service” has been somewhat overused, and is...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Author Biographies
• Introduction
• PART 1: ENGINEERING LARGE-SCALE COMPLEX SYSTEMS AND EMERGENCY SITUATION MANAGEMENT
• PART 2: CASE STUDY: ANTARCTICA LIFE SUPPORT FACILITY
• Conclusion
• List of Authors
• Index