GridWise® Architecture Council

Smart Grid Interoperability Maturity Model (SG IMM) Overview and Progress Connectivity Week 2010

ConnectivityWeek 2010

GWAC SGIMM Team • • • • • • • • • •

Steve Widergren, PNNL Alex Levinson, Lockheed Martin James Mater, QualityLogic Rik Drummond, Drummond Group Austin Montgomery, CMU SEI Andreas Tolk, Old Dominion University Terry Oliver, BPA Wayne Longcore, Consumers Energy Mark Knight, KEMA Tony Giroti, Bridge Energy Group

ConnectivityWeek 20102

Agenda • IMM Purpose • IMM Objectives • IMM Requirements • Heritage • Progress • Next Steps ConnectivityWeek 20103

Smart Grid IMM Purpose • Electric utility business has grown up with one-of-a-kind (custom) applications • IT effectiveness and efficiencies depend on standardized, interoperable technologies that can be implemented quickly at lower costs (plug and play) • Understanding the roadmap from custom to plug and play is essential to progress! • The IMM provides a tool to help.

ConnectivityWeek 20104

Response:

IMM Objectives • Offer help and guidance for improving interoperability at the community or national level • Provide a means for measuring interoperability progress in the smart grid community • Encourage an interoperability-aware culture with individual and shared roadmaps for improvement. • Be both descriptive and prescriptive • Address DOE SG Demonstration Project requirement

ConnectivityWeek 20105

IMM Heritage • GWAC Interoperability Context-setting Framework • Patterned after product lifecycle process improvement – SEI Capability Maturity Model for Integration (CMMI) – http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/general/index.html

• NEHTA* proposed Interop Maturity Model – See Interoperability Maturity Model v1.0 at http://www.nehta.gov.au/connecting-australia/ehealthinteroperability –

* Australia National E-Health Transition Authority Ltd, 2007

ConnectivityWeek 20106

Requirements • •

Community-oriented – utilities, vendors, regulators, legislators, endusers Focus on the interfaces between – systems, – system components, – organizations (both intra-department and inter-organizational)

• •

Process/system improvement, not product or organization rating Leverage context-setting framework (GWAC Stack) – Use framework structure to organize goals and maturity metrics

•

Borrow from others where it works – Leverage accepted ideas, lend credibility for adoption – NEHTA, SGMM, CMMI, Decision-Makers Checklist, etc

•

Address evolutionary forces – IMM recognizes changing landscape, flexible for users – IMM can change to adapt to specific community needs

•

Keep it simple! – usable & useful

ConnectivityWeek 20107

Use Interop Framework – e.g.

Organizational

Informational

Technical

Sec uri t Saf y & ety

General Goals for each issue

General Goals for each cat.

Categories

Co nfi g & E urati o vo lut n ion Op era tio n

Interop Framework

Issues

XYZ Interface Specification

Area Goals

Interop Area

ConnectivityWeek 20108

CMMI and SGIMM Models Level

Title

Description

5

Optimizing (Plug and Play)

Continually improve processes based on quantitative understanding of the causes of variation. Exchange specifications in an interoperability area are based on standards with planned upgrade processes driven by quantitative feedback from implementations and needs of the community. All components based on open interoperability standards and certified. Little or no integration engineering required.

4

Quantitatively Managed (Certified, with Integration Efforts)

Quantitative objectives for performance measurement and management. Projects are implemented mostly on plan with requisite interoperability quality. Most components conform to adopted or de facto standards and are certified conformant and interoperable. Processes for appraising the effectiveness of the specifications and standards used in an interoperability area are in place and supported by the community. Successes and deficiencies are noted. Most goals achieved.

3

Defined (Emerging Interoperability)

Quantitative objectives for performance measurement and management. Moderate integration effort to interface different systems/organizations. Interoperability exchange specifications are defined and used by the community. Interoperability verification regimes are in place. Participants claim standards compliance but interoperability issues may exist.

2

Managed (Initial Interoperability)

Planned & executed in accordance to policy . Exchange specifications and testing processes exist in an interface area on a project basis, but are not defined for the community. Some standards referenced or emerging, but may not be consistently applied.

1

Initial (Custom)

Ad hoc & chaotic . Unique, custom-developed systems or products. Require significant custom engineering to integrate with other components. No agreed upon standards between parties. Interoperability is difficult to achieve and very expensive to maintain.

ConnectivityWeek 20109

Goals Are Key • GWAC Context Setting Framework has explicit and implicit goals – Goals for both Categories (1-8) and Cross-Cutting Issues – Gets more specific looking at the cross section of categories and issues

• Goals lead to data collection requirements to assess Maturity level at each “node” – i.e., applicable Category and Cross-Cutting Issues intersections. – Provide framework for Maturity Assessment

10 ConnectivityWeek 2010

General Goals Example •

Interoperability Categories –

Organizational •

• •

–

•

–

• •

–

Reliable physical connection between systems or system components Reliable transfer of data between systems Use of syntax for proper decoding of message structure into data

Configuration & Evolution • • • • •

–

Understand the data transferred between systems Information conforms to more general information model

Technical •

Cross-Cutting Issues

Process the data transferred to affect a business process across interacting parties Business process fits the shared business objectives of interacting parties Business objectives of the interacting parties work within and are supported by economic policy and regulations

Informational •

•

Operation • • • •

–

Shared meaning of the information exchange content Unambiguous identification of specific objects (people, place, or thing) Ability to register and discover those registered Ability to update Ability to scale to ever larger numbers Reliable transfer of data Maintains data exchange state Sequence maintained to degree needed Time maintained to degree needed

Security & Safety • • •

Protected information identified Identified security information protected Failure scenarios move to safe operation of the system

11 ConnectivityWeek 2010

Area Goals Example Organizational

Config & Evolution

Operation

Security & Safety

• Business processes change through upgrade procedures

• Business process aligns with message delivery performance expectations

• Regulation specifies privacy protection policy for exchanged data

• Object identification policy supported by community

Informational

• Information model is extensible and supports backward compatibility

• Attributes of a class of information consistent with the accuracy achievable

• Log content conforms to agreed upon semantics

• Object identifiers scale to very large numbers

• Information transfer supports the performance demands

• Protocols upgradeable to new versions without stopping the entire system

• Messages exchanged in sequence

• Parties move to safe operating state in event of loss of communication

• Semantics support identifiers and identification management

Technical

• Retention policy for logs specified

12 ConnectivityWeek 2010

IMM Model Example: Semantic Goals Category 4: Semantic Goals

Characteristics

Metrics

Rating

Interpretation of message information for action

Common definitions used by each partner

Conformance to industry accepted semantic definitions

Highest where all definitions industry std

Coordinated updates and changes to definitions

Industry repository or other mechanism for coordination of changes Support for any relevant industry standard

Lag in adopting updates

Highest where robust update process exists

Comparison of relevant adopted standards to supported ones Activity and contributions to SDO/SSOs

Highest where all applicable standards adhered to Highest where outstanding contributions being made

Interpretation of multiple standard semantic definitions Support for development of specific industry standards

Active in relevant SDO/SSOs

13 ConnectivityWeek 2010

Next Steps • •

Complete Goals work Develop initial interoperability measures and methodology to gather metrics – – The SGIMM Pilot Methodology

• • • •

Pilot with one or more DOE Regional SG Demonstration Projects (Battelle PNW, AEP, ?) Evaluate methodology and make improvements Complete V1 of SGIMM Methodology Apply to DOE Regional Demonstration Projects – Battelle PNW – Others interested

•

Document results and methodology – SGIMM V1 Methodology

•

Make available to other DOE Demonstration Projects and community at large

14 ConnectivityWeek 2010