GOROD et al.: SoSE MANAGEMENT: A REVIEW OF MODERN HISTORY AND A PATH FORWARD 487
Fig. 2. Modern history of SoS.
In 1995, Holland proposed to study SoS as an artificial com-
plex adaptive system that persistently changes through self or-
ganization with the assistance of local governing rules to adapt
to increasing complexities [45], [46]. Also, in 1995, Admiral
W.A. Owens was the first one to introduce the concept of SoS
and highlight the importance of its development in the military
[47].
In 1996, Manthorpe, Jr. proposed to link command, control,
computers, communication, and information (C4I) with intelli-
gence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to join the SoS in
order to achieve “dominant battlespace awareness” [6].
Also, in 1996, Maier, who is still considered to be one of
the most influential contributors to the study of the SoS field,
proposed for the first time to use the characterization approach
to distinguish “monolithic” systems from SoS. These charac-
teristics include “operational independence of the elements,
managerial independence of the elements, evolutionary devel-
opment, emergent behavior, and geographical distribution” [8].
In 1997, Kotov provided one of the most precise definitions of
the SoS in the application of information technology. Also, he
was one of the first scientists to attempt to model and synthesize
SoS [5].
In 1998, Maier published an updated version of his 1996 “Ar-
chitecting Principles of Systems-of-Systems,” where he offered
a new definition of SoS: “A system-of-systems is an assemblage
of components which individually may be regarded as systems,
and which possesses two additional properties: Operational In-
dependence of the Components (and)
Managerial Indepen-
dence of the Components
.” [14].
Also, in 1998, Luskasik attempted to apply SoS approach in
the educational context [7].
In 2000, Pei introduced a new concept of “system-of-systems
integration” (SOSI) which gave the ability “to pursue develop-
ment, integration, interoperability, and optimization of systems”
to reach better results in “future battlefield scenarios” [48].
In 2001, four major contributors published their respective
works to address SoS development. They included Sage and
Cupan; Cook; Carlock and Fenton; and Shenhar. Sage and
Cupan proposed to use principles of “new federalism” to
provide a framework for the SoSE [4]. Cook examined SoS
and described a distinction between “monolithic” systems and
SoS based on “system attributes and acquisition approaches”
[49]. He showed that constituent systems of SoS are acquired
through separate processes [49]. Carlock and Fenton suggested
on joining “traditional systems engineering activities with en-
terprise activities of strategic planning and investment analysis”
[50]. They called this type of engineering “enterprise Systems
of Systems engineering” [50]. Finally, Shenhar continued to
expand the concept of “array” from his previous work published
in 1994 [51].
In 2003, Keating, et al., presented a significant comparative
study of SE and SoSE and provided guidelines for several key
phases such as design, deployment, operation, and transforma-
tion of SoS [3]. Also in 2003, Chen and Clothier [52] published
work addressing the need for a SoSE framework. They sug-
gested advancing SE practices beyond traditional project level
to focus on “organizational context” [52].
Another major contribution came from Bar-Yam and his
study group in 2004. He examined applications of SoS in
different fields and suggested adding characteristics as opposed
to definitions to provide a more comprehensive view of SoS [9].
In 2005, there were numerous papers published on the topic
of SoS, but we believe that the most significant inputs were
produced by Jamshidi; Lane and Valerdi; and DeLaurentis.
Jamshidi applied a definitional approach to SoS by collecting
different definitions from various fields [53]. Lane and Valerdi