bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
4.1.2 Product Upgrades Based on Minimum Expected Quality Loss
Authors: Langford Gary
Published: November 2014

The need to maintain or sustain a product's usefulness to or beyond its initial lifecycle expectancy is often driven by investment costs, market share, sales revenues, new product release schedules, standardization, uninterruptable usage, or declining budgets. A question then arises as to how often to upgrade a product. Aside from these typically discussed rationales, the paper concludes that a viable approach is to consider the upgrade cycle that results in the minimum cost based on quality. A general quality loss function was developed to investigate the expected quality loss for quality characteristics such as nominal‐the‐best, smaller‐the‐best, and larger‐the‐better. It is shown that when a shape parameter is introduced into the loss function, product upgrade cycles can be managed to minimize the expected losses.
4.1.3 System Architecture Entropy
Authors: Cloutier Robert , Verma Dinesh , Bone Mary , Sommer Kim
Published: November 2014

This paper will introduce the concept of Architecture Entropy in the context of systems engineering and complex systems. Entropy has been explored and discussed in other domains, drawing an analogy to its origins in physics. In its original context, entropy describes the degree of randomness, or level of chaos, that occurs over time. The purpose of this research is to explore application of the concept of entropy for understanding the vitality of legacy system architectures. The discussion is supported by examples of current architecture challenges that may be attributed to architectural entropy. Specific examples are presented to better understand the applicability of architectural entropy.
5.1.3 Testing Solutions through SysML / UML
Authors: Richards Dave , Stuart Andrew , Hause Matthew
Published: November 2014

As systems become increasingly complex and the time to market decreases, systems engineers have to develop novel solutions to testing. The scenario is particularly acute when dealing within the safety critical domain. This paper will seek to highlight how UML and in particular, improvements introduced by SysML can aid the testing process in terms of verification, validation and simulation of software, firmware and mechanical systems. This paper will highlight how UML and SysML constructs can aid testing and is based on many years experience of building and testing systems as well as the experience gained by client companies during consultation. It will highlight on a practical basis how clients have integrated testing into their UML/SysML models to improve their processes and products.
5.3.3 A Method for Analyzing Fundamental Kinesiological Motions of Human Body by Applying Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)
Authors: Kayo Munehiro Michael , Ohkami Yoshiaki
Published: November 2014

The objective of this paper is to analyze interconnectedness of kinesiological motions by applying a well‐known systems modeling approach called the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). This approach is applied to the previously proposed Somatic Balance Restoration Therapy (SBRT), developed by one of the authors and offers a safe way in correcting imbalances and distortions that occur in the human body. The human body is a complex system composed of over 200 bones and 630 muscles that comprise the musculoskeletal system, which works not only as the frame for the human body, but as the engine of human kinetic motion as well. As a practitioner, one of the authors developed a visually identifiable diagnosis system through many years of accumulated therapy data. Although the authors attempted to find a more methodical approach to justify the SBRT by inventing the unique “Motion Diagram”, a more systematic approach was required for a more efficient and homogeneous treatment. In this paper, the fundamental patterns produced by the SBRT are mapped into an n‐square matrix of dimension 70, based on the Fundamental Body Motions and analyzed by the ISM. This will be followed by graphical representations and classification of the body motions into several categories based on the degree of interaction and activeness. The results has revealed a priority of the fundamental motion patterns which helps find the most effective motions to be used for identifying imbalanced or distorted parts from the larger dimension set.
6.1.1 A structured approach to planning and managing systems engineering capability evolution in a complex through‐life business space
Authors: Harding Alan , Mollett Jennifer , Touchin Malcolm
Published: November 2014

This paper presents ongoing work to structure how we transform systems engineering capabilities to address the how to engineer with a focus on operational capabilities rather than just systems. The paper is based on BAE Systems capability development work, informed by engagement with UK MOD as they move towards managing for capability outcomes.

The approach taken has been to construct a concept model and a management process:

Model – the priorities for the model are clarity and simplicity. The model describes a framework divided into cells in which to describe the systems engineering capabilities necessary to conceive, develop, support and operate systems to realise operational capability.

Process – the process covers both the early discovery stage, and the predicted longer term phase of capability evolution.

The paper discusses results to‐date and potential future work towards a more rigorous description and assessment tool, intended to have wide applicability.
6.1.2 Generating SysML Views from an OPM Model: Design and Evaluation
Authors: Grobshtein Yariv , Dori Dov
Published: November 2014

Conceptual modeling is key to Model‐Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approaches. OPM – Object‐Process Methodology and SysML – OMG Systems Modeling Language are two state‐of‐the‐art conceptual modeling languages. While both languages aim at the same purpose of providing a means for general‐purpose systems engineering, these languages take different approaches in realizing this goal. As each of the languages has its relative strengths and weaknesses, ways to create synergies between them are considered in this work. We propose combining advantages of each language through automatic generation of SysML views from an OPM model. To this end, we developed a new algorithm and software application for implementing the OPM‐to‐SysML views generation, and evaluated the results through an experiment conducted for this purpose. Our approach can benefit various stakeholders by promoting better system understanding, standardization, and improved interoperability.
6.1.3 Model‐based Technical Planning: An evaluation of description techniques
Authors: Huldt Tomas , Andersson Jonas
Published: November 2014

As model‐based systems engineering (MBSE) gains ground as a real alternative for complex industrial projects compared to the traditional plan or document‐driven systems engineering paradigm, several challenges remain to be dealt with. MBSE requires not only the technological system‐of‐interest to be included in the common model repository used for MBSE, but also other elements and structures that are used to describe vital aspects of a complex technical project. This paper elaborates on how the primary planning document, the Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) can be evolved from the document‐driven to the model‐driven paradigm, and how some SysML diagram types along with architecture framework viewpoints may be used to model the most common content of a SEP. The evaluation is based on industrial experiences using MBSE in real‐world industrial development and procurement projects. Several examples on how SysML may be used to represent SEP elements are presented along with suggestions on potential directions for further work.
6.1.4 Multi‐Method synergies empower complex capability development
Authors: Jakobsson Åse , Bulluss Gary , Watson Jamie
Published: November 2014

DSTO conducted a capability development exploratory activity for the Philippine Coast Watch South initiative. The purpose was to help the participants to understand, analyse and evaluate their user requirements and the current status of their capability design. We brought together three complementary methods to explore the problem space: an Engle‐Matrix Game, a C4ISR architecture workshop and a simulation‐based wargame. The approach was beneficial for all participants. It enhanced their understanding of operational complexity and capability development issues. It also equipped them with the ability to ask the right questions and tackle the challenges themselves. This paper describes the exploratory activity, the three methods, the synergies experienced in applying the methods and the effect experienced by the Philippine delegation and by DSTO.
6.2.2 Information visualization for the Structural Complexity Management Approach
Authors: Maurer Maik , Braun Thomas , Lindemann Udo
Published: November 2014

The handling of complexity poses an important challenge and a success factor for product design. A considerable percentage of complexity results from dependencies between system elements – as adaptations to single system elements can cause far‐reaching consequences. The Structural Complexity Management (SCM) approach provides a five‐step procedure that supports users in the identification, acquisition, analysis and optimization of system dependencies. The approach covers the handling of multiple domains (e.g. components, functions and people).Additionally the application of the SCM approach requires intensive support by information visualization, e.g. matrix and graph representations. However, one single technique does not satisfy all demands. Each phase of the SCM approach possesses individual requirements on the visual support. Whereas many specific techniques exist for visualizing systems and their dependencies (e.g. mind map or DSM), a suitable combination that supports the entire SCM approach is not available. For this reason, practical applications of the SCM approach are only restricted to small systems so far. In this contribution, we classify available techniques of information visualization and match them with the requirements of the SCM approach. Then we assemble a comprehensive model of visualization techniques which will provide the implementation basis for an appropriate software support.
9.1.1 Does Systems Engineering in Space Projects Pay?
Authors: Hamann R.J. , Zandbergen B.T.C. , Zijdemans P.J.
Published: November 2014

This paper attempts to answer the question whether it “pays” to apply Systems Engineering methods, tools and techniques within a space project. To this purpose a possible correlation has been investigated between the Systems Engineering effort applied within a number of space projects and the project result in terms of technical quality, cost and schedule.

Use has been made of historical data derived from the results of Systems Engineering audits of projects, some recent audits performed along the same lines and assessments of project results in terms of technical quality, cost and schedule by the systems engineers involved in the projects. Basis for the audits is a checklist addressing 93 different aspects of Systems Engineering in the field of requirements, concept design, design & development, verification and technical management. In total nine data sets related to six projects in the industrial and the academic world were used.

Although the data obtained are rather “noisy” there appears to be a clear positive correlation between the SE effort applied and the project result. It appears also that the positive effects mainly show up in the cost and schedule results of the project, the technical quality of the project result being generally of a rather satisfactory level.

Examining the results in detail the Systems Engineering effort in the field of requirements, design & development and technical management has the strongest correlation with the project result. The effort in the field of (concept) design and verification shows a less strong correlation.

The data have been “refined” by deleting the projects that were most strongly influencing the correlation in a positive sense. The overall results remained, however, the same.

An overview is given of those aspects generally receiving little attention in the Systems Engineering effort. Further analysis of these results will be the subject of a follow‐on study.
Schema Development for Integrating Environment of SE and EVM : Case Study
Authors: Kim Gyeonggeun , Lee Hyeonwoo , Park Jongsun , Park Youngwon
Published: November 2014

EVM(Earned Value Management) is applied to many large scale projects as one of project management techniques. But the measurements of the EV have been carried out by separated process with Systems Engineering processes, in separated tool environments. This separation caused the problem that EV does not show the exact value of the work accomplished. To overcome this separation and to solve the problems, this paper suggests an integrated computer aided tool environment and processes.

In this research, we defined data elements needed for systems engineering and project management. Those elements are WP(Work Package), WP_DETAILED_PLAN, WP_PROCEED_DPLAN and SYSTEM REQ. WP is the decomposition of the WBS element and the WP_DETAILED_PLAN contains PV information, the WP_PROCEED_DPLAN contains the AC information and the SYSTEM REQ contains the requirements which the WP should satisfy.

These elements were implemented using computer aided systems engineering tool(Cradle®). If this tool can be integrated with EVM tool, technical information related with EV can be traced efficiently. This paper describes the integration concept mentioned above and the implementation of the concept.
1.2.3 The Context and Why of Competence
Authors: Marshall MM , Blyth David
Published: November 2014

Competence with respect to systems engineering is a topical debate and research area. At the same time, there is a debate in human resource management on the exact definition of competence. It is imputed that a constructivist approach to defining the construct ‘competence’ may be of benefit to the work relating to competence and systems engineering in that it will assist in considering viable definitions of competence. The primary focus of this paper is on individual competence in the systems engineering discipline. The possible purpose of use of the construct competence and the various areas of use will be considered. In order to focus on the purpose and potential use of defining competence at an individual level, various factors of the specific context that influence this description are discussed. The paper proposes a framework for use in a constructivist approach to describe systems engineering competence.
1.3.3 Old Dog, New Tricks
Authors: Mollett Jennifer
Published: November 2014

Enterprises are increasingly adopting a capability based approach to optimise their effectiveness in achieving their outcomes and this paradigm is attracting significant interest amongst the Systems Engineering community. In the UK, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has adopted Through Life Capability Management (TLCM) as its acquisition model and is transforming itself to more effectively deliver affordable military capability. BAE Systems has been supporting the UK MOD in its implementation of TLCM and early work has identified the essential role of Systems Engineering in defining and addressing the challenges associated with effective capability management.
1.5.0 Systems Engineering the Supply Chain: Multiple Perspectives from Transportation
Authors: O'Neil Anne , James Aaron C. , Halliday Brian , Katzman Lori , Hulse Jon , McDonald Bruce
Published: November 2014

Transportation services and projects are delivered by multiple organizations and therefore effective systems engineering on these projects must traverse organizational boundaries. Each of the organizations across this complex supply chain faces different issues – and therefore needs to tailor its systems engineering to cope with difficult problems. However, to deliver effective transport services to customers, this systems engineering needs to be integrated.

So how do we systems engineer the supply chain to enable effective, cross‐organizational systems engineering? What roles should customers and suppliers take in the overall SE program? What are the key challenges we need to address to deliver the low cost, reliable, environmentally‐friendly, high capacity and safe transport services our customers want to use?

The panelists will explore these questions from different perspectives – from designing national transportation infrastructure to building trains. We'll hear from five perspectives:

For each perspective we'll explore: What are the primary systems challenges? Which aspects of systems engineering add most value? What aspects cause the greatest difficulty? What changes would make the supply chain more effective?

Audience discussion is sought to explore:

How does the experience of the transportation industry SE compare or contrast to other industries? Are the viewpoints of various contributors common? Are interdependencies being overlooked?

National government's transport administration ‐ focusing on keeping people moving in our major cities and getting a decent return from investment in major enhancements

Rail agency – focusing on integrating infrastructure, vehicles and command and control to deliver effective transport services

Major rail system upgrade program – focusing on delivering major enhancements with minimum cost and risk

Systems consultant – focusing on specifying the procurement of integrated systems to meet agency's business needs while navigating sub‐system supplier capabilities and systems integration risk

Sub‐system supplier – focusing on delivering vehicles, infrastructure or command and control solutions that meet the market and specific customers need
2.1.1 Putting Chaos under Control: on how Modeling should Support Design
Authors: Moneva Hristina , Hamberg Roelof , Punter Teade , Vissers John
Published: November 2014

Complex systems design faces the lack of seamless integration of model‐based methods and techniques. In this paper we propose a framework that enables designers and architects to track the design decisions throughout the design process. It provides a mechanism to deduce the impact of each design decision on the system under design. Furthermore, it supports model and result management while analyzing and experimenting with models throughout the entire design cycle.
2.4.2 A Blueprint to Effective Enterprise Risk Management
Authors: Kepchar Kenneth J
Published: November 2014

Traditional risk management models have typically focused on the acquisition and operational phases of a product life cycle, with the second dimension of these models being that they are also system‐centric. Modern transportation systems are defying the traditional system‐centric approach to design, development, and deployment and represent an unprecedented level of complexity to be factored into decision making. This level of complexity, both in the solution space and at the organizational level, demands a more robust approach to risk and opportunity management than has traditionally been considered. This paper discusses the factors that must be addressed in establishing a viable opportunity and risk management presence in a Systems of Systems (SoS) context.
3.2.2 Understanding the Complex System Dynamics of Managing Water Security
Authors: Sawah Sondoss El , McLucas Alan , Ryan Michael
Published: November 2014

In many parts of the world, assuring reliable supplies of potable water is a serious challenge. It is not simply a matter of imposing restrictions on supply, increasing water prices, and building new dams. Effective water security strategies can only be developed when the mechanisms of supply and demand and the interactions between are fully understood. A System Dynamics (SD) modeling approach is taken to collect, analyze and merge the views of both consumers and supply managers in order to develop conceptual models which then form the basis for building quantitative models to investigate the complex dynamics. The modeling process has led to a significant increase in the understanding of the management of water security. First, the process has reinforced a number of lessons learned by SD modelers over the years, and second, the process has exposed a significant number of mis‐perceptions about water security among supply managers and consumers.
3.3.1 A3 Architecture Overviews: Focusing architectural knowledge to support evolution of complex systems*
Authors: Borches P. Daniel , Bonnema G. Maarten
Published: November 2014

Creating complex systems from scratch is time consuming and costly, therefore a good development strategy often chosen by companies is to evolve existing systems. The understanding that a company has about the impact change has on the system determines its ability to cope with system evolution. Reuse of knowledge and experience becomes therefore, essential. Complex systems are usually the result of a multidisciplinary team, which means that an effective way to capture, organize and present this knowledge, in a fashion that can be used by different disciplines and departments is crucial. Typically, some of this knowledge is present in the form of text documents. However, much of that knowledge is usually lost or hidden, especially in long‐lived systems. This leads to unexpected problems that could be prevented if the company had reused the knowledge it already has.

In this paper system evolution barriers are discussed, and a method to cope with them is provided. Some companies such as Toyota have already identified the advantages of using an A3 approach2 to capture and share knowledge. We share this idea and take it several steps further. A method, based on the creation of ‘A3 Architecture Overviews’ is proposed to capture and share architectural knowledge. The method is the result of the work carried at Philips Healthcare MRI Group. We show that the proposed method to capture architectural knowledge provides an effective framework to support decision making when evolving complex systems.
4.2.2 Systems Integration Sandpit for Entrenching Innovative Systems Engineering Practice
Authors: Do Quoc , Campbell Peter , Cook Stephen , Samjeva Ishan , Solomon Daniel
Published: November 2014

This paper presents the Systems Integration Sandpit (SIS) established by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and University of South Australia. The paper commences by describing the first two stages of the SIS development and early achievements against the facility's primary goals: exploring systems integration issues, the formation of systems engineering competencies by providing experiential learning, and research infrastructure to support the evaluation of emerging systems engineering practices, such as into Model‐Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). From here, the paper discusses the ongoing research program for Stage Three that is focused on MBSE and systems engineering for evolving systems.
4.3.1 Effectiveness of Systems Engineering Techniques on New Product Development: Results from Interview Research at Corning Incorporated
Authors: Vanek Francis , Jackson Peter , Grzybowski Richard , Whiting Matthew
Published: November 2014

This paper reports on the findings from interview research conducted by a joint team from the Systems Engineering Directorate at Corning Incorporated and the Systems Engineering Program at Cornell University to test for systems engineering (SE) effectiveness in product development in a commercial setting. Between April 2008 and March 2009, the team conducted 19 interviews of systems engineers and project managers within Corning to evaluate the extent to which they used a range of systems engineering techniques, and the effectiveness of those techniques in improving project performance. Both quantitatively and anecdotally, the expectation of a correlation was met, with strongly performing projects having generally higher use of SE, and struggling projects having difficulties that could be traced back to shortcomings in the use of SE. Both the findings and the underlying methodology are discussed, with the aim of interesting others in the field in repeating this type of research within other enterprises.
4.5.3 Experience from Introducing SysML into a Large Project Organisation
Authors: Herzog Erik , Andersson Henric , Hallonquist Jessica
Published: November 2014

Introducing a model centric way of working in large organisations is difficult. At SAAB Aerosystems it has been tried over multiple years in many projects. Success has been limited.

In our latest attempt to introducing SysML as a tool for system design it was decided to change focus. Instead of trying to promote models as the new way of documentation it was decided to setup the tools with the objective to create consistent and readable document centric deliverables. Instead of giving the modellers the freedom to use the language at its extreme, it was decided to limit language use to an absolute minimum.

As a result there have been some quite drastic initial complaints from our some experienced modellers, but surprisingly strong acceptance of the new approach to modelling from the stakeholders responsible for quality control, but not directly involved in the core development team.
6.2.1 Toward Efficient and Effective Contracting Structures and Processes for Systems‐of‐Systems Acquisition
Authors: Rendon Rene G. , Huynh Thomas V. , Osmundson John S.
Published: November 2014

Acquisition of a system of systems can be an all new acquisition of multiple systems that are intended to operate together as a system‐of‐systems. Much more common in the DoD is acquisition of one or more new systems that are intended to interoperate with existing systems as a system of systems with new capabilities. In either case, successful acquisition of systems‐of‐systems (SoS) necessarily depends on effective contracting structures and processes for systems‐of‐systems acquisition. In this paper, a set of system‐of‐systems issues that need to be addressed in SoS acquisition are identified and the current findings in this on‐going research are discussed. The findings suggest sustainment of extensive systems engineering effort within the SoS acquisition and change to the existing contracting structures and process and organizational structures to maximize the probability of SoS acquisition success. The resulting changes will be applied to current and future DoD SoS acquisitions.
8.1.0 Self Organizing vs Standards‐Based System‐Security Strategy Conflict or Synergy
Authors: Dove Rick , White Brian , Baldwin Kristen , Kepchar Ken , Dove Rick
Published: November 2014

Self organizing systems‐of‐systems characterizes the operational architecture of the anti‐system adversarial community – from guerillas and terrorists to organized computer crime, high‐seas pirates, grass‐roots vigilantes and independent system hackers. These anti‐system communities are loosely coupled multi‐agent systems bound only by shared learning loops of tools, techniques and targets. Contemporary system security strategy is failing against this intelligent operational evolution. The need for next generation security strategies is fueling early action. One avenue is crafting new standards and new acquisition requirements – another avenue is probing security structures that mirror the adversarial architectures of self‐organizing systems‐of‐systems. The former sounds like a centralized approach, the later a decentralized approach. Is there conflict, compatibility or synergy between these two approaches?
8.2.2 Requirements and Dependability Obstacles That Must Be Overcome
Authors: Henrique Carlos , Lahoz Netto
Published: November 2014

This article presents a study on the identification of the main obstacles that must be overcome in the requirements engineering phase of critical computer systems in order to ensure that these activities will help improve the system's dependability. The idea is to present how technology, process and people can interact with software and system engineering as well as the whole organization in order to fulfill the system's mission with safety and success. Besides that, the intention is to contribute with the discussion about requirements practices in critical computer systems, particularly in the space domain, as well as helping us understand important system and software requirements engineering problems. This approach comes from the experience acquired during the development of the on‐board software for the Brazilian Satellite Launch Vehicle and the study of emerging technologies in software engineering.
8.4.2 A Voice of the Customer Process for Medical Device Development
Authors: Eubanks Fritz , Gibson Chad , Masters Melissa
Published: November 2014

Medical device developers are always looking for an optimized method to translate a clinical need or a problem into a device, service, or combination product. Established companies are searching for methods to improve this transition, and newer companies, in general, do not have this capability in any form. Using a Voice of the Customer (VOC) process on a new problem or just to improve on an existing product is a systematic and effective way to listen to the stakeholders and glean information that allows a team to be truly innovative in the solution and ultimately better meet the stakeholders' needs. Battelle's Medical Device Solutions (MDS) team has developed a standardized, scalable approach to performing VOC as part of our medical device design and development process.
11.2.2 Applying Systems Engineering in a Renewable Energy Research & Development Environment
Authors: Snyder Neil , Antkowiak Mark
Published: November 2014

Systems Engineering (SE) practice has largely developed around a few specific industries, especially aerospace/defense and IT. SE is well understood by, and remains associated with, these industries. The classical systems engineering process starts with conceptual development of a specific system that will ultimately be produced and deployed. In the renewable energy R&D environment, neither of these normal cases apply; the work is being conducted in a culture that is generally unfamiliar with systems engineering, and the R&D activities are mostly oriented toward technology development and refinement rather than toward development of a specific deployable system. Nevertheless, systems engineering principles can be applied to enhance the management of the Research & Development (R&D) process, but significant tailoring of SE processes is required, and enhanced modeling and simulation techniques must be applied to deal with all the unknowns at a very early part of the system lifecycle. The lessons learned from several years of experience in this unique environment at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, as well as a number of new ideas for future process enhancements, will be explored in this paper.
11.2.3 Piloting Model Based Engineering Techniques for Spacecraft Concepts in Early Formulation
Authors: Cole Bjorn , Delp Chris , Donahue Kenny
Published: November 2014

The JPL Integrated Model‐Centric Engineering (IMCE) project is tasked with bringing Model Based Engineering methods, tools and practices into use by systems engineers. Taking a Europa‐focused flagship concept proposal as an example of a system that is early in its engineering lifecycle, IMCE piloted architectural elements for an integrated modeling environment. These elements were used together both as a proof‐of‐concept and to guide development of the methods, tools and practices for flight projects as JPL transitions to model‐centric engineering. This paper presents both products of this effort and a variety of insights to guide the future of model‐centric engineering techniques. Also, recommendations are made regarding the strengths and weaknesses of existing information models and the Systems Modeling Language (SysML).
11.3.3 The Significance of Configuration Management in the Context of Systems Engineering
Authors: Watts Stephen , Kossmann Mario
Published: November 2014

Systems Engineering (SE) is widely recognised to be the key discipline to develop complex products in many industries. There is strong evidence that requirements related issues are at the heart of the majority of project failures, delays or budget overruns. Yet Requirements Engineering (RE) frequently does not seem to be sufficiently interfaced or integrated with other engineering disciplines such as design, manufacturing, finance, procurement and customer services. Configuration Management (CM) is widely accepted as a key discipline to establish this traceability and enable controlled baseline evolutions or iterations within the development process. However, the traditional scope of CM in the context of SE more often than not excludes requirements in the early phases of the development process. The present paper will give a brief introduction into the importance of RE in the SE context and the significance of CM to establish traceability between the requirements, design and product, before highlighting in more detail the potential contributions of the CM discipline with an emphasis on the early phases of the SE development life cycle.
The Use of Mini‐Case Studies to Illustrate Key Systems Engineering Principles
Authors: Weaver Jonathan , Vinarcik Michael J.
Published: November 2014

Robust systems architecture (SA) and systems engineering (SE) processes are necessary for the development of successful engineering systems. Many notable product failures can be traced to breakdowns in the architectural or systems engineering practices of the design team.

Despite the increased emphasis being placed on systems engineering, many systems engineering textbooks and references focus on specific tools (such as requirements or interface management systems). The few case studies included in these works are typically not exhaustive.

However, for individuals in a given working environment, developing expertise in a specific tool not used by one's workgroup adds little value. The presenters believe that it is more useful to help individuals cultivate an intuitive understanding of architectural and systems engineering issues. For that reason, they have augmented traditional SE textbooks and teaching resources with mini‐ and maxi‐case studies.

Using topics drawn from throughout human history (from ancient tombs and medieval cathedrals to the Airbus A380/Boeing 787 and NASA space missions), the presenters showcase both notable successes and failures. This enhances learning and retention of key topics and enables students to internalize key SA/SE principles.

Cases may be presented using a variety of media (including PowerPoint slides, audio‐visual presentations, or show‐and‐tell artifacts). They may be used as lead‐ins to a traditional classroom lecture or as the kernel of a roundtable discussion among peers in the workplace.

This tutorial will demonstrate the principles the presenters use to identify case study candidates, research methods used to develop the framework of the presentations, and techniques used to develop a holistic SE mindset. Several case studies will be interleaved with the presentation; one maxi‐case (intended to be the focus of an entire class period) will be presented as the capstone of the tutorial.
Systems Acquisition and Integration
Authors: Eisner Howard
Published: November 2014

Principles of systems acquisition and integration guide the system development process and hopefully contribute to the success of the process as well as resulting products. This tutorial examines acquisition guidelines in detail, especially those supported by the U. S. Department of Defense. It also explores integration notions, from those that are recommended to those that tend to lead to difficulties. Relationships between acquisition guidance and integration responses are presented. A summary stresses key principles to be considered by the practicing systems engineer and also the value of utilizing these principles. Selected topics include: the DoD 5000 series, the DAPA report, capability‐based acquisition, the “top five” systems and software issues, interoperability, and a “top dozen” integration list.
An Introduction to Knowledge Representation and Ontology Development for Systems Engineers
Authors: Kendell Elisa , Jenkins Steven
Published: November 2014

Effective communication requires a common vocabulary. An ontology provides a description of the terminology, concepts and relationships for a particular area of interest. An ontology may be viewed as a declarative encoding of the meaning of the domain vocabulary terms, thus making it a key to enabling communication. For systems that are used by people whose understanding of a domain is not necessarily consistent, an explicit description of the important terms can be extremely useful.

Many commercial companies have successfully deployed applications with increasing use of semantics such as taxonomy‐based search and navigation services. Rule‐based manufacturing, product configuration, and financial services systems have been relatively common in those industries for many years. Fewer organizations have successfully deployed semantically rich systems that incorporate ontology‐based metadata, sophisticated reasoning and explanation support. The technology has been around for decades, though its use for web‐based applications is relatively recent, and it remains difficult for some people to understand, let alone use effectively.

This tutorial provides an overview of the knowledge representation landscape and attempts to demystify some of the “black art” of ontology development. We will outline basic methodology steps developed from a combination of

Domain analysis methodology from software engineering

IDEF methods developed for the US Department of Defense

Best practices developed through extensive experience and lessons learned, with a focus on problems in software and systems engineering

Examples from systems engineering will be provided, with emphasis on ontology development in UML using the Ontology Definition Metamodel, applications that lend themselves to vocabulary development in the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and use of the these technologies together with models developed using the OMG's Systems Modeling Language (SysML).
Technology Development Roadmaps – A Systematic Approach to Maturing Needed Technologies
Authors: Collins John W. , Pincock Layne
Published: November 2014

Planning and decision making represent important challenges for all projects. This paper outlines the steps used to determine technical readiness and map the path forward to systematically advance readiness to support detailed design of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant. A Technology Readiness Assessment is used to evaluate the required systems, subsystems, and components (SSC) comprising the desired plant architecture and assess the SSCs against established Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). A validated TRL baseline is then established for the proposed physical design. Technology Development Roadmaps are generated to define the path forward and focus project engineering and research and development tasks on advancing the technologies to increasing levels of maturity. Tasks include modeling, testing, bench‐scale demonstrations, pilot‐scale demonstrations, and fully integrated prototype demonstrations. The roadmaps identify precise project objectives and requirements; create a consensus vision of project needs; provide a structured, defensible, decision‐based project plan; and minimize project costs and schedules.
Optimizing Delivery of Global Pharmaceutical Packaging Solutions, Using Systems Engineering Patterns
Authors: Bradley Jeffrey L. , Hughes Mark T. , Schindel William D.
Published: November 2014

The global pharmaceutical supply chain, a complex system, involves manufacturing, distribution, and commercial wholesale/retail processes. Products in this system‐of‐systems are critical to health, subject to regulation from a web of trans‐national, national, and state/provincial authorities, and subject to commercial manufacturing, marketing, and distribution practices of numerous enterprises. Introductions of change into this environment is a challenging undertaking, demanding awareness of the many forms of and constraints upon this system, while delivering at the brisk rate required by law and commerce. For example, in response to drug counterfeiting and grey markets, national and local governments are currently introducing (differing) legal requirements to uniquely label and track pharmaceutical products to the individual retail bottle/package level, as they move through distribution. This paper describes the response of a global pharmaceutical manufacturer, re‐engineering multiple global product and country‐unique pharmaceutical product packaging lines, using Systems Engineering Patterns to reduce impacts of variable requirement and design configurations.
DMP: a well‐founded decision‐making procedure
Authors: van der Pol R.W. , Wiesman F.J.
Published: November 2014

The article introduces DMP, a new Decision‐Making Procedure. It covers the entire decision process, is independent of the specific task type, and based on realistic insights on human cognition. Theoretically, it is more effective than known procedures. It is compiled from known procedures in various research areas and case‐studies. Next to eight main steps, such as gathering knowledge and setting goals with evaluation criteria, DMP has a separate control step for controlling iteration through the main steps. Surprisingly, the content of each step, including the control step, contains the use of (1) trial and error, (2) knowledge and reasoning, including knowledge from old cases (i.e., from experience) and recursion to a new instance of DMP – which makes DMP deep ‐ and (3) a combination thereof. DMP may serve as a core procedure for Systems Engineering, as well as for improved expert systems.
Systems Engineering and Project Management, an Ideal Partnership
Authors: Jones David J. , Masters Melissa T.
Published: November 2014

An effective partnership of the Systems Engineer and the Project Manager on a project will greatly enhance the likelihood that the system will be delivered on schedule and on budget while meeting the needs of the end user. This is a partnership where project leadership is combined, playing to the strengths of each. Systems Engineering and Project Management represent two disciplines fundamental to the underlying success or failure of developing and deploying a complex system. Each of these disciplines has a systematic view of the system, offering each a perspective not afforded to the other development stakeholders. This partnership is paramount on a project of any complexity, how could it be over‐looked? Even if these elements alone are brilliant in their own execution, the end result could be a disaster if there is not an alignment and cohesive execution of the two disciplines.
1.2.3 Challenges Based Risk Management
Authors: Zonnenshain Avigdor , Shabtay Michal
Published: November 2014

Every systems engineer encounters challenges to plan and execute effective systems engineering activities during system design and development and throughout the project management. Most organizations provide standards, processes and procedures for applying systems engineering. We claim that each project is different, and project management policy & style should varies from one project to the other‐ “one size does not fit all”. We conducted a research that was based on the NTCP‐ Diamond approach for adaptive project management (Shenhar & Dvir 2004). The model claims that project management needs to be based on the strategic goals and the dimensions of the systems design including Novelty (How new the product is to its markets/customers/users?), Complexity (What is the scope of the project/product design?), Technology Uncertainty (How new the technology applied for the system is for the developers?) and Pace (How critical is your time frame?). We studied 18 projects & how the projects managers dealt with the above challenges. We found that the adaptive project management approach contributes to project success.

Each project includes risks which are managed during the project life cycle. The traditional risks management process focus on technological, economical, marketing and organizational risks. We offer a Challenges Based Risk Management approach which is complement to the traditional approach. This approach is based on two risks elements:

Project challenge level‐ calculated by summing up the project challenges levels in each dimension (Novelty, Technology Uncertainty, Pace, Complexity).

Deviation from the adaptive management model.

This approach can be useful in managing project portfolio, and managing the project risk through its challenges.

We offer a methodology of managing projects according to its challenges, and offer a way to minimize the project risks by minimizing the deviation from the adaptive model.
1.4.3 Applying Systems Engineering Modeling Language (SysML) to System Effort Estimation Utilizing Use Case Points
Authors: Bone Mary Alice , Cloutier Robert
Published: November 2014

This paper proposes that as model based systems engineering begins to play a larger role in system development it may be utilized in estimating systems effort, making model based systems engineering more valuable to system engineering. This paper proposes to extend the Use Case Points (UCP) estimating approach, used by some software engineers, to SysML for estimating the systems engineering effort. The paper reviews literature that encourages the notion of a UCP method for Systems Engineering (UCPSE). Finally the paper maps out the research plan to develop and validate the UCPSE method.
Architecture Panel
Authors: Dickerson Charles , Mavris Dimitri , Griendling Kelly
Published: November 2014

The Architecture Panel will offer three presentations that provide an overview of model based approaches and an introduction to a new viewpoint on Architecture and Systems Engineering:

A Brief History of Models and Model Based/Model Driven Approaches

A Relational Orientation on Architecture and Systems Engineering

ROSETTA: a Relational Oriented Systems Engineering and Technology Tradeoff

Environment

Time will be allowed time for questions and discussion after each presentation.

The first presentation will provide a brief review of the foundational work of Tarski and Robinson on model theory and proceed quickly through the model based approaches of Wymore, Klir, Yin, and others then move through the INCOSE and OMG related initiatives on MBSE and MDA.

The second presentation will introduce a new viewpoint on Systems Engineering based on mathematical relationships that is concordant with and expressive of the definition of ‘system’ specified by INCOSE and the IEEE, and the definition of ‘system architecture’ proposed by the ISO working group JTC1/SC7/WG42. This viewpoint will be referred to as Relational Oriented Systems Engineering (ROSE). In this viewpoint, relational models and their transformations are the means for abstracting systems and their engineering and design concepts. The concept of ‘definition and decomposition’ in Systems Engineering can be expressed more precisely as the formalism of ‘model specification and relational transformation’ in ROSE.

The closing presentation builds on the Rosetta stone that provided a means to translate between the Greek, Hieroglyphics, and Egyptian demotic languages by exploiting a decree that provided a common text repeated in all three languages. In the same way, the ROSE Technology Tradeoff Analysis environment (ROSETTA) provides a means to translate between theoretical mathematics, subject‐matter expert driven analysis, and modeling and simulation by representing single problems using all three types of analysis while highlighting the commonalities and differences between the three different approaches to the problem. ROSETTA leverages ROSE to create a direct mapping between the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) methodology and standard quantitative conceptual design space exploration techniques leveraged in technology forecasting and trade studies.