bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
9.6.2 Standard Approach to Trade Studies
Authors: Felix Arthur 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper describes the steps for performing and documenting a Trade Study (Trade‐Off Study), developing products for the Decision Making Authority, and guidelines in tailoring the study to meet the needs of the program. The purpose herein is to transform a subjective decision making process into a more objective decision making process. Within this process, standard terms and definitions are used, roles and responsibilities of the participants and decision makers are documented, and a suggested flow is illustrated. The significant developments introduced in this paper are identified in the paper where they appear.
Defining a Framework and Structure for seven often used Trade Study types
Removing Cost and Risk from the tradable Criteria list
Defining a Baseline/Optimum solution(s) to anchor Criteria Utility Curves.
Presenting Uncertainty (Lack of Confidence) considerations in criteria evaluation
Presenting the Cost‐Benefit Chart for use in final (Gate 3) evaluation
Presenting the Risk‐Benefit Chart for use in final (Gate 3) evaluation
This Trade Study process meets Level 3 Decision Analysis and Resolution requirements of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI®)1.
9.6.3 Systems Engineering in a COTS World
Authors: Sorensen Richard L. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractUsing traditional systems engineering practices to accommodate commercial off‐the‐shelf (COTS) components requires focusing on those steps within the design process that allow identification of the constraints imposed by COTS items early in the design process. Two traditional systems engineering processes are reviewed for their insights into the major tasks, the goals, and the dependencies. With this understanding, the focus moves to discussion of a proposed approach for applying systems engineering practices using a process that retains a requirements‐driven methodology while simultaneously adapting to the boundaries imposed by COTS items, thereby converging on a solution.
1.4.1 Governing Systems Engineering as an Enterprise Competence: A Benchmark Study with Pertinence to the US Department of Defense
Authors: Mullins William P , Wilson Mark A. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractDoD is reinvigorating SE capabilities so that “system of systems” structures can now be engineered. A benchmarking review reports approaches to the achievement of SE competence in a Research, Development and Engineering Center. For SE competence management most SE organizations contacted reflect tailoring to local and historical conditions more than the effects of integrated development. Current SE governance practices are analyzed here on a continuum between composite models termed the “Strong Form Model” and the “Methods Model.” Systems‐engineered Competence Development Plans appear to be in order to address growing dynamic complexity inherent in the “system of systems” environment.
1.4.2 Performance‐Based Earned Value®
Authors: Solomon Paul J. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractPerformance‐Based Earned Value (PBEV) is an enhancement to the Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) industry standard. PBEV supplements EVMS with principles and guidelines for true integration of project cost, schedule, and technical performance. It is derived from standards and capability and maturity models for systems engineering and project management.PBEV overcomes several shortcomings of EVMS. EVMS specifically excludes the measurement of product quality and is silent on risk management. In contrast, PBEV bases earned value on product quality requirements, technical performance, and technical maturity. It also incorporates the outcomes of risk management into revised plans and the Estimate at Completion (EAC).PBEV supports agile systems development because it is scalable to match the project risk and is responsive to changing product requirements. PBEV evolved from lessons learned in both the U.S. defense industry and the commercial software industry in India. It is also cost‐effective. The principles and guidelines of PBEV provide a framework for process improvement.
5.2.1 Architecting Ontological Systems
Authors: Terrill Alexander R. , Dagli Cihan 
Published: November 2014

AbstractRecent emerging technologies such as internetworking and the World Wide Web have significantly expanded the types, availability, and the volume of data accessible to information management systems. In this new world, there is less emphasis on isolated devices and greater emphasis on information exchange. This shift is making knowledge management and application integration key issues in computer technology. In order to stay competitive, a company is held hostage by how it understands, maintains and accesses its data. Data comes from many sources, containing a variety of types and formats. One possible way to tackle this complex data problem is to implement an ontology, a unifying framework that facilitates communication through a shared understanding and vocabulary of a system. It enables communication between systems that are independent of system technologies, information architectures and application domain. This paper describes the importance of ontologies in knowledge management and provides the basis on how to architect such an ontological system.
5.2.3 Obsolescence Management for System‐of‐System Hierarchies – A Technology‐based Approach
Authors: Herald Thomas E. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractMany systems face a similar obsolescence issue, which is that the desired system deployment life cycle is much longer than the life cycle of the constituent parts (hardware and software) that make up the physical architecture. Thus, the system baseline must evolve over its operational life cycle just to remain functionally viable. This problem is compounded as the size of the system grows toward network‐centric system‐of‐systems and as the use of commercial technologies and products increases. Thus, the challenge is to perform technology assessments that facilitate the forward planning of technology evolution on the system of interest. A corollary challenge is to perform this planning while simultaneously optimizing the life cycle affordability for the customer.This paper provides a methodology for taking current technology information and transforming it into a system evolution plan (the term system being used in the most general sense to encompass sub‐assemblies through system‐of‐systems) using affordability as the optimizing variable for technology change incorporation.
6.4.1 Adapting SEER Cost Estimating Tools to Evolutionary Acquisition
Authors: Stump Evin J. , Ferens Daniel V. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIn recent years, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has emphasized improvements in acquisition processes. We have found that most of these called for little or no change in our SEER cost models, but a current initiative does seem to call for significant changes. This initiative is called evolutionary acquisition.Evolutionary acquisition shares many features with conventional DoD acquisition methods of the late 20th century, but does introduce unique features that need to be accounted for in an up‐to‐date cost modeling system.This paper discusses some of the major changes in DoD acquisition practices that have recently been formalized in the DoD 5000 series documents, and how we are responding to them by experimenting with design changes in the SEER tools.
7.3.2 Enhanced Interoperability for Systems Engineering Data by a Transformation Report
Authors: Eckert Roland , Mansel Wolfgang , Specht  
Published: November 2014

AbstractIn industry, product data exchange via STEP ISO 10303, is an established method. In case of heterogeneous CASE Tools, e.g. in Systems Engineering applications, it is very often difficult to guarantee a defined level of data quality. This paper analyses the state of data transformation and exchange as well as offering a solution for schema mapping and integration by means of a transformation report which can be used in systems engineering. The report records individual transformation steps, during the exchange, between two different tools. It supports the understanding of the data exchange process and helps to rectify incomplete or incorrect transformed data. The proposed framework was validated using gateways between the Statemate and Teamwork CASE tools.
8.3.2 System Engineering Issues in the Transformation to Service Oriented Architecture
Authors: Halley Marc R. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe major problem facing enterprises today is the system engineering of large scale multi‐enterprise “systems of systems“. These initiatives integrate dozens of legacy applications into a “system of pre‐existing systems” that solves a new unexpected problem. A new paradigm called the Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) has been developed in hopes of managing the complexity and adaptability needed. By creating a macro system from loosely coupled modular components, SOA is a solution for the major roadblocks of large‐scale enterprise change: inflexible technology, cross‐organization initiatives, outdated strategic planning, and organizational inertia.However, transitioning to an SOA is a difficult task. Since these projects involve little new software development, the system engineering organization takes the central role. These complex transitions involve uncoupling pre‐existing systems, creating modular components, and loosely re‐coupling these components via common standards. Current widely used enterprise architecture models deal well with static state architectures, but are very limited in the description of transitions between architectures.This paper presents an overview of the issues facing systems engineers when transforming traditional enterprise architecture to a Service Oriented Architecture. The issues are collected together in a strategic issues framework which can be used to guide transformation planning and execution. The framework encompasses the seven transformation issues: a suitable business model, IT governance, enterprise SOA architecture, portfolio investment, risk management, change management, and technology management.
9.2.1 “….is he in heaven or is he in hell that illusive Systems Integrator?” – Who's Looking After Your Systems Integration?
Authors: Cowper Douglas , Emes Michael , Smith Alan 
Published: November 2014

AbstractChanges in supply chains, for example, due to increased competition, lower margins, and changes in customer enterprises, can cause enterprises to want to move up the ‘food chain’ and take on the role of systems integrator. This role comes with its own set of risks and implications for both customers and suppliers. This paper explores these issues. For example, being one step removed from component suppliers, what must an enterprise consider when deciding whether to move into the role of systems integrator or to pass this role along its supply chain? This will include identifying where the appropriate skills are within its organisations and establishing what its credibility would be in performing this new role.
9.3.2 Enhancing Commercial Systems Engineering with Design For Six Sigma
Authors: Creveling C.M. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe advent of Design For Six Sigma and its integration with a commercial Systems Engineering process has systematically improved rigor in risk management during product commercialization. Many companies suffer from a lack of discipline and rigor as they develop and integrate systems within their commercial phase‐gate process. DFSS is well known for helping “put the science and engineering back into product design” (Dr. Joseph Sullivan, VP Quality, Carrier Corp.). It is also recognized as “a shift from a deterministic to a probabilistic approach to product design” (DFSS: 15 Lessons Learned; Treichler, Charmichael, Kusmanoff, Lewis & Berthiez; Quality Progress, January 2002).Organizations that focus on systems architecting, engineering, integration and assessment applied within their commercialization process, are recognized as having a more disciplined and comprehensive approach to improve cycle time, cost and quality. This paper defines DFSS and presents the integration of DFSS and Systems Engineering. The goal is to demonstrate that a DFSS enabled Systems Engineering organization can measurably improve rigor and discipline in delivering critical parameter data for risk management and decision making during product commercialization.
10.2.2 Proposition of a methodology and tools for the management of innovative design projects
Authors: Baron Claude , Rochet Samuel , Gutierrez Citlalih 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper deals about the development of new methods and tools to support the management of projects dealing with the design of innovative systems. Currently, there are only few methods and virtually no tool making possible to ensure in a formal way of the design choices coherence with those of project management. This involves risks of incoherencies which can have technical and economical consequences (low quality, wrong deadlines, higher costs…). It is to fill this gap that we currently develop tools, in collaboration with academics and industrials partners, based on a specific representation integrating both technological and organizational data, which will help the designers and the project leader in their respective tasks. In this paper, we present a methodology which, thanks to the interaction of various tools, will lead to establish this project representation and assist the actors of the project in their choices of design and management and so reduces project costs, delays and risks.
11.4.1 From Waterfall to Evolutionary Development (Evo): How we rapidly created faster, more user‐friendly, and more productive software products for a competitive multi‐national market
Authors: Johansen Trond , Gilb Tom 
Published: November 2014

AbstractEvolutionary development (Evo) focuses on early delivery of high value to stakeholders, and on obtaining and utilizing feedback from stakeholders. This paper describes from a project manager's viewpoint, the positive experiences that one organization rapidly achieved on switching from using the Waterfall method to Evo. Major benefit came from paying greater attention to the quality requirements as opposed to the previous practice of concentrating solely on the required functionality.
12.1 Design Evaluation: Estimating Multiple Critical Performance and Cost Impacts of Designs
Authors: Gilb Tom 
Published: November 2014

AbstractHow should we evaluate someone's design suggestion? Is gut feel and experience enough for most cases? Is anything more substantial and systematic possible? This paper outlines a process for design evaluation, which assesses the impacts of designs towards meeting quantified requirements. The design evaluation process is viewed as consisting of a series of design filters.
12.3 Project Failure Prevention: 10 Principles for Project Control
Authors: Gilb Tom 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIt is now well‐known and well‐documented that far too many projects fail totally or partially, both in engineering generally (Morris 1998) and software engineering (Neill and Laplante 2003). I think everybody has some opinions about this. I do too, and in this paper I offer some of my opinions, and I hope to lend some originality to the discussion. As an international consultant for decades, involved in a wide range of projects, and involved in saving many ‘almost failed’ projects, my basic premises in this paper are as follows:

We specify our requirements unclearly;
We do not focus enough on ensuring that the system design meets the requirements.
4.4.3 Extending Platforming to the Sequential Development of System Families
Authors: Boas Ryan C. , Crawley Edward F. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractCreating system designs that efficiently satisfy an evolving set of needs is critical for improving program lifecycle properties such as cost, development time, and risk; properties that are often in conflict with near‐term system requirements. This paper proposes that system evolution can be viewed as a family of sequentially developed systems and that existing work in the platforming domain serves as a useful foundation. An overview of related work is provided with emphasis on the platforming literature in an attempt to strengthen the connection between the systems engineering and product platforming communities. A classification scheme is proposed for multi‐system design strategies. Preliminary cost model work is presented, with the ultimate goal being a model that provides program managers with a clear understanding of the economic trades associated with sequential platform development and alternative strategies.
7.2.1 The FAR Approach – Functional Analysis/Allocation and Requirements Flowdown Using Use Case Realizations
Authors: Eriksson Magnus , Borg Kjell , Börstler Jürgen 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper describes a use case driven approach for functional analysis/allocation and requirements flowdown. The approach utilizes use cases and use case realizations for functional architecture modeling, which in turn form the basis for design synthesis and requirements flowdown. We refer to this approach as the FAR (FunctionalArchitecture by use caseRealizations) approach. The FAR approach is currently applied in several large‐scale defense projects within BAE Systems Hägglunds AB and the experience so far is quite positive. The approach is illustrated throughout the paper using the well known Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) example.
11.3.3 Integration Challenges of Complex Systems
Authors: Haskins Bill , Striegel Jack 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIntegration of complex systems normally requires many different components, subsystems and systems. Commonly referred to as system of systems (SoS), these many different systems are too complex for any one company to develop. Current examples are the international space station and network centric operation programs. Since complex systems require many different companies, challenges arise in effective communications and understanding of requirements, interfaces, validation and verification of integrated systems. This paper addresses the foundation of integration, which is a clear understanding of validation and verification activities at all levels of development, including the key interfaces between systems, subsystems and components. Equally as important is the ability to work key issues during the development process. Attention to detail in both of these aspects is the key to having a successful integration of complex systems.
1.1.0 Panel 1.1.0: Can We Have Systems Resilient to Natural Disaster Events and/or to Terrorist Attacks? A Debate on the Issues
Authors: Mackey W. , Carl J. , Jackson S. , Long J. , Nolte J. , Sutton S. , Tulodieski C. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractDuring the past few years, natural disasters including the major earthquakes in Pakistan, the Tsunami floods of Indonesia, and the hurricanes and destruction in New Orleans, LA and the Gulf Coast region of the United States have caused major loss of life, injury and significant loss of property.During the same period, insurgent attacks in Iraq, subway bombings in London, fire attacks on the city of Paris, and continued threats of terrorists throughout the world have placed life at risk.Terrorism is the systematic use of violence and force as a means of coercion through fear and intimidation. As we have seen since World War II and experienced first hand since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the calculated murder of political personalities has given way to the random killing of innocent people and civilian populations. Natural disasters are perhaps even more threatening. Are the systems under development and already built resilient these kinds of events? How can the discipline of systems engineering assist in preparing for, responding to, recovering from and mitigate against the risks of natural disasters and terrorist events.Since September 11, 2001, INCOSE through its Anti‐Terrorism International Working Group (ATIWG) has focused the principles, techniques, and practices of systems engineering on how to reduce and eradicate international terrorism. We are taking this opportunity to expand emergency preparedness efforts to natural disasters as well.Through the ATIWG sponsoring of panels at previous INCOSE symposia (2002‐2006), writing papers for publication (2003), a tutorial (2004), and working group activities, the systems engineering community has discussed the application of collaborative engineering environments, simulation and modeling, religion, system solutions to defend against terrorism, psychology, and root causes of terrorism to address the vulnerabilities of systems as well as the attack responses to threats. This panel continues the INCOSE application of systems engineering to these international problems by discussing the recovery and resiliency of society and the systems it builds to natural disaster events and terrorist attacks.
1.6.2 Practical Process Implementation: Using SE Methods to Develop SE Processes
Authors: Nolte Jerome T. , Newbern David W. , Vanghel Pamela S. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractAt our company, process development and process implementation is taking a new direction. We have completed and revised a robust set of corporate core processes, based on the Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) that address our primary business areas of systems engineering and system development. However, as our business evolves, we are finding new areas of related activities that are not effectively represented by our current corporate process descriptions. In this paper we present an approach for using SE methods to prepare processes for repeated reuse, in specialized areas. Our preliminary results have already been used to support marketing and business development, showing other current customers our capability and the potential to assist them in a new way. The preliminary results have also been used effectively by staff and project managers to improve management processes on existing programs.
2.4.1 Decision Analysis for Design Trades for A Combined Scientific‐Technological Mission Orbit on Venμs Micro Satellite
Authors: Herscovitz Jacob , Barnett Danna Linn 
Published: November 2014

ABSTRACTThe scope of the VENμS Technological Mission is to evaluate and qualify the IHET (Israeli Hall Effect Thruster) performance in space and to use the IHET for mission enhancement. IHET will be used to demonstrate space missions that require high V and are hardly achievable using traditional chemical propulsion in microsatellties.During the satellite's third mission phase (VM3) the VENμS satellite will fly in a high drag environment. The IHET will be used for autonomous orbit maintenance to enable continuation of the scientific mission, which is vegetation monitoring.This paper describes the selection of VM3 orbit. Different orbit candidate alternatives were compared according to pre‐determined criteria and weighted accordingly, using the NGT technique. After all candidate alternatives were analyzed, they were compared using a Decision Analysis for Design Trades method. Based on the analysis, the final orbit was chosen.
3.1.3 Exploring Intelligent Entreprise System Limitations
Authors: Palmer Kent D. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIn this paper we will consider the implications of Meta‐systems Engineering for Intelligent Enterprises. We may think of this as the dark side of intelligent enterprise systems. Our essay is a search for light at the end of this tunnel by employing the theory of Special Systems and the Emergent Meta‐system. This work brings together advanced theories in order to redefine the nature of the Intelligent Enterprise and Enterprise in general.