Networking the Cloud for IoT – Pt 3 Cloud Network Systems Engineering

June 17, 2016 / G C Network / Comments Off on Networking the Cloud for IoT – Pt 3 Cloud Network Systems Engineering

Cloud Migration Part 2: Classify your data

By G C Network | August 30, 2018

In my first post of this series, “Cloud migration part one: An overview,” I provided a high-level summary of how enterprises should migrate applications to the cloud. In this installment,…

Could Budget Sweeps Fix Your Cybersecurity Problem?

By G C Network | July 19, 2018

A recent roundtable discussion in Washington, DC with Federal IT and Cyber leaders focused on the business drivers, challenges and evolving strategies around cybersecurity in government.  After an opening presentation…

Cloud Migration Part 1: An Overview

By G C Network | July 17, 2018

Cloud Migration Part One: An Overview   Business is all about efficiency and effectiveness.  In today’s world, however, those twin goals almost always lead to cloud migration.  This anecdotal observation…

A Personal Technology for Good Redux: Call for Code

By G C Network | July 12, 2018

In 2013 I had the opportunity to manage a $2M demonstration of how cloud computing could be used to support natural disasters. In that NCOIC Geospatial Community Cloud (GCC) demonstration,…

A Path to Hybrid Cloud

By G C Network | May 31, 2018

Cloud computing is now an operational reality across every industry.  Organizations that fail to leverage this economic, operational and technology consumption model are merely consigning themselves to irrelevance.  The rapid…

Human-Led Collaboration with Machines

By G C Network | May 29, 2018

When charged with managing large and complex efforts, an overarching project management task is risk assessment. It involves documenting the current situation, comparing it to the past, and understanding the…

Sensomorphic

By G C Network | May 28, 2018

240 million results are returned in 1.06 seconds (as of May 28, 2018) when you search for cloud computing in a Google search. With that much information available, and that many…

Artificial Intelligence and the Project Manager

By G C Network | May 25, 2018

Organizations use teams to create wealth, market share, customer service, competitive advantage, and organizational success. Effective teams accomplish their assigned end goals by engaging in collaboration as a joint learning…

Building A Collaborative Team

By G C Network | May 18, 2018

Recently, Harvard Business Review cited some insightful research into team behavior at 15 multinational companies. It found that although these teams tended to be large, virtual, diverse, and composed of…

Welcome the New Project Manager!

By G C Network | May 18, 2018

According to CIO.com, the six traits of highly effective project managers are: Be a strategic business partner who can offer higher-level strategic leadership skills, not just technical management skills, provide…

Dwight Bues & Kevin Jackson

(This is Part 3 of a three part series that addresses the need for a systems engineering approach to IoT and cloud network design.  Networking the Cloud for IoT – Pt. 1: IoT and the Government , Networking the Cloud for IoT – Pt. 2 Stressing the Cloud )


The Case For Cloud Network Systems Engineering

IoT networking requirements are vastly different from those supported by today’s cloud network. The processing and transport levels are multiple orders of magnitude higher than ever seen before. More importantly though, societal economic and the safety ramifications of making mistakes during this transition are off the scale. This is why system engineering of the cloud computing network is now an immediate global imperative.

System engineering has many different aspects, but it all starts with the question, “What do I really want to know?” This is the beginning of the CONOPSdocument referenced earlier. This document captures User Needs which are formal statements of what the user wants from the system. This CONOPS leads to Derived Requirements which, through an iterative process, are analyzed against a Target Architecture. Once a project is underway, methods of Integration are planned in order to provide Validation(did we build the right system?) and Verification (did we build the system right?) of the requirements. Further considerations for SE include: how to conduct Peer Reviews of a design (either Systems, Hardware, or Software), studying Defects, and establishing processes to ensure the Qualityof the final product and Compliance with Standards.


While multiple sources indicate that the business world is investing heavily in the IoT, there are no indication that these investments are addressing the question of what does society really want to know in the IoT world. To ensure success, design formality is necessary, lest “IoT” become the latest retired buzzword. Dr. Juran, in Juran on Leadership for Quality, makes the point that quality improvement programs failed because leadership assigned vague goals and responsibilities, while failing to commit resources to staff projects and reward achievements. This caused TQM, 6 Sigma, and the like to be relegated to the “dustbin” of quality programs. Is it wise to relive this error in our transition to IoT?

Ten Steps of Design Rigor

Jay Thomas in the Embedded Magazine article “Software Standards 101: Tracing Code to Requirements,” opined that the embedded industry standard for making systems safe or secure include:

  • Performing a safety or security assessment;
  • Determining a target system failure rate;
  • Using the target system failure rate to determine the appropriate level of development rigor;
  • Using a formal requirements capture process;
  • Creating software that adheres to an appropriate coding standard;
  • Tracing all code back to their source requirements;
  • Developing all software and system test cases based on requirements;
  • Tracing test cases to requirements;
  • Using coverage analysis to test completeness against both requirements and code; and
  • For certification, collect and collate the process artifacts required to demonstrate that an appropriate level of rigor has been maintained.”


    Using this model, security issues must be addressed through a multi-layered approach.  From a system engineering point of view, users must be forced to implement complex passwords and Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certifications must be a minimum requirement for operating across the IoT network. The article, “How to protect Wearable Devices Against Cyberattacks,” in IEEE Roundup online magazine, postulated that, where there are devices with limited functionality, they can be linked to the user’s smartphone, which can act as a conduit for the device’s information, thus securing it from the outside world.  Most importantly of all, though, is ensuring that the proper amount of Systems Engineering design rigor has been exercised in the development process. This makes defects easier to find and much less costly than a multimillion-dollar security breach.

    Although it would be simply impossible to implement this type of rigor globally across the cloud and its underlying network, embedded systems tenets could be applied to individual IoT projects. Since embedded systems also have a history of low development overhead, minimal memory or storage per unit, and cost-driven development cycles, a more rigorous IoT design process may save society from seeing a collapse of the cloud. In the past, this type of design rigor has paid off in successful, maintainable designs. Let’s therefore use what we’ve learned from the past to avoid a future that none of us want to see.
     

    　

    Dwight Bues, of Engility Corp., is a Georgia Tech Computer Engineer with 30+ years’ experience in computer hardware, software, and systems and interface design. He has worked in Power Generation, Communications, RF, Command/Control, and Test Systems. Dwight is a Certified Scrum Master and teaches courses in Architecture, Requirements, and IVV&T. He is also a certified Boating Safety instructor with the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States Power Squadrons. He is currently working several STEM projects, sponsoring teams for competitions in the Aerospace Industries Association’s (AIA) Team America Rocketry Challenge (TARC) and the Robotics Education and Competition Foundation’s, Vex Skyrise Robotics Challenge.

    Kevin L. Jackson is a globally recognized cloud computing expert, a cloud computing and cybersecurity Thought Leader for Dell and IBM and Founder/Author of the award winning “Cloud Musings” blog. Mr. Jackson has also been recognized as a “Top 100 Cybersecurity Influencer and Brand” by Onalytica (2015), a Huffington Post “Top 100 Cloud Computing Experts on Twitter” (2013), a “Top 50 Cloud Computing Blogger for IT Integrators” by CRN (2015) and a “Top 5 Must Read Cloud Blog” by BMC Software (2015). His first book, “GovCloud: Cloud Computing for the Business of Government” was published by Government Training Inc. and released in March 2011. His next publication, “Practical Cloud Security: A Cross Industry View”, will be released by Taylor & Francis in the spring of 2016

    ( This content is being syndicated through multiple channels. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of GovCloud Network, GovCloud Network Partners or any other corporation or organization.)

    Cloud Musings

    ( Thank you. If you enjoyed this article, get free updates by email or RSS – © Copyright Kevin L. Jackson 2015)

    Follow me at https://Twitter.com/Kevin_Jackson
    Posted in

    G C Network

    Cloud Computing

    Cybersecurity