bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
4.6.2 Specifying Affordability
Authors: Tuttle Paul , Bobinis Joseph 
Published: November 2014

AbstractImproving design methods for affordability has become a necessity in the DOD. The concept of affordability can seem straightforward. The difficulty arises when an attempt is made to specify and quantify the affordability of a system. This is significant when writing a specification or when comparing two affordable solutions to conduct an affordability trade study or award a contract based on affordability. This paper examines affordability, its contextual dependence and suggests a method for specifying affordability.We start from a Department of Defense (DoD) perspective because of the large amount of effort expended by DoD and its support contractors in trying to resolve these problems. All of the DoD affordability activities performed during system development have direct analogues in non‐DoD environments. The foundation for this paper is the DoD and commercial definitions of affordability, as well as, the Dr. Ashton Carter's, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (ATL), affordability directives which formed the basis for the DoD thrust into this area. Using this as a basis, it is shown that: 1) affordability is dependent on the context in which it is evaluated with a distinction being made between Program and System affordability; and 2) affordability must be evaluated over the entire life cycle of the System of Interest (i.e., both the Primary System and the Enabling System). From this foundation a method of specifying affordability is derived and a specification resulting from this method is shown to: 1) support affordability comparisons between two systems; and 2) fit affordability trades into the standard trade study framework. Thus, it is demonstrated that affordability is not just an abstract concept but has real applicability in the development and life of systems and must be incorporated into Systems Engineering.
6.3.2 Value‐oriented concept selection in aero‐engine sub‐systems design: the EVOKE approach
Authors: Bertoni Marco , Bertoni Alessandro , Isaksson Ola , Amnell Henrik , Johansson Christian 
Published: November 2014

AbstractValue Driven Design methodologies extend the Requirements Management and Systems Engineering processes to reduce time and costs needed to identify the right solution direction to be pursued in detailed design. Emerging from the findings of an EU FP7 research project, the paper describes an approach, named EVOKE, that uses value as a basis for preliminary concept selection in the design of system components. EVOKE takes as input a list of value dimensions and drivers communicated by the system integrators, together with information about the high‐level engineering characteristics of a candidate design, to enable early stage value analysis to be executed the by sub‐system manufacturers. The approach and its technological enablers are described in detail through the use of a case study related to the design of new intermediate compressor case for turbofan engines.
6.1.2 Portfolio Management Overview
Authors: Schellenberg Thomas , Weghorst Kristen , Cahill Phil 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper describes a holistic systems engineering perspective of Portfolio Management engagements. These perspectives are derived from leveraging insights of The SI Organization, Inc.'s (the SI) 40+ year heritage providing systems engineering support to customer enterprises which consist of complex, tightly coupled web of information systems and information collection platforms. The six step Portfolio Management (PfM) process described in this paper provides a rational, repeatable approach to make programmatic and technical decisions justified by solid systems engineering discipline. The SI's approach to PfM involves partitioning complex problems into workable solutions by applying decision governance and Commercial Off‐the‐Shelf (COTS) based information infrastructure that are both tailored to a customer's unique cultural environment. This customized decision and information environment can then be used to ingest programmatic and technical data needed to inform and justify PfM decisions.
Getting students hooked on systems engineering!
Authors: Haskins Cecilia , Dahl Hans Jørgen 
Published: November 2014

AbstractDuring IS2012 a report was made about initiatives in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology to help students learn about systems engineering by doing systems engineering. In this paper, the authors address the question, “lacking a degree program in the university dedicated to systems engineering, what is the best way to give students a taste that makes them want more?” The success of the efforts to date has been indicated by the rapid employment in Norway of students who demonstrate an awareness of and willingness to learn more about systems engineering.The paper describes three initiatives: results from two courses – a PhD level course that has run for 12 years and a master level course on Industrial Design‐Systems Engineering that is in its fourth year – and a university project that has experienced recent success attributed to the inclusion of a systems engineer on the project team since 2011.The conclusion is that letting students ‘try out’ systems engineering practices in a laboratory/project classroom environment offers them learning experiences that clearly demonstrate the value of systems engineering practices and theory to both the students and potential employers.
Taking Advantage of the Model: Application of the Quantity, Units, Dimension, and Values Standard in Concurrent Spacecraft Engineering
Authors: Schaus Volker , Fischer Philipp M. , Gerndt Andreas 
Published: November 2014

AbstractDesigning a spacecraft involves many experts from different domains. In the early design phases they are brought together to discuss the spacecraft in a short period of time. The elements and building blocks the individual engineers want to use are stored and described in a shared system model provided by a software framework. A lot of features like the masses or dimensions are described using parameters. Due to the various domains and individual preference, many different units are used, leading to mistakes, distraction and misunderstandings caused by unit conversions. Our paper describes a pragmatic approach how the QUDV is integrated into an existing system model. This allows taking advantage of it by automatically analyzing the unit consistency as well as performing automatic conversions. The presented work shows that with a profound integration into the existing software framework, the engineers can overcome the error‐prone task of unit checks and conversion problems.
10.2.2 Mathematical Models of Emergence in Complex Systems‐of‐systems
Authors: Baldwin W. Clifton , Hostetler Stephanie , Felder Wilson N. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper presents an analysis of five mathematical models of systems‐of‐systems (SoS) illustrating the potential for emergent behavior. Each case is examined to determine whether or not the resulting system behavior meets the challenge of “essential unpredictability” which would serve as a critical factor in defining the SoS as complex. We conclude that three of the cases provide examples of systems which meet all the criteria for System‐of‐system definition, but do not exhibit emergent behavior, while at least one, and perhaps two, of the cases lead to emergent behavior meeting the “essential unpredictability” test, thereby demonstrating the difference between complicated systems‐of‐systems and complex ones. Further examination of this relationship is proposed, and further questions for study are defined.
5.1.2 A Framework for Visualizing Systems Engineering Research Coverage
Authors: Cook Stephen C. , Ferris Timothy L.J. , Nowakowski Stan 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper describes the evolution of a framework suitable for categorizing and displaying systems engineering (SE) research topics. The paper follows the journey traversed in the evolution of the framework and its progressive evaluation. It also provides the key influences and the rationale for each iteration. The framework was synthesised and refined in three stages. Firstly, the research team gathered a number of research‐oriented SE taxonomies and compared and contrasted these with a SoSE capabilities framework that was an outcome from earlier research. This resulted in a new synthesis that was then evaluated for coverage against a set of SE research agendas. The evaluation informed further refinements that reorganised some of the categories and broadened the elements of SE capability somewhat. The final step was to validate and hone the framework though a process of mapping a representative sample of papers from the Systems Engineering journal onto the framework. The resulting mapping gave confidence that the framework is sufficiently comprehensive for its intended purpose.
A Model‐Based Approach to Unifying Disparate Project Management Tools for Project Classification and Customized Management
Authors: Orhof Ori , Shenhar Aaron , Dori Dov 
Published: November 2014

AbstractModern project managers are aware that different types of projects need different styles of project management. A construction project is very different from a high‐tech research program in several ways, including how each is managed. The NTCP “Diamond” framework (Novelty‐Technology‐Complexity‐Pace) suggests classifying complex projects according to four dimensions such that the values attributed to each of these dimensions indicate a recommended style of management for increasing the likelihood of the project's success. It may be difficult to attribute values to these four dimensions in a large and complex project, which calls for systematic analysis of the project as part of its planning phase. The object‐process methodology (OPM) caters to such systematic step‐by‐step analysis by decomposing a project into its fundamental building blocks – objects, possibly with states, and processes that transform the objects. This paper suggests that the confluence of OPM and NTCP can improve the project planning phase and improve the project's overall chances of success.
Agent‐Based Modeling for Systems of Systems
Authors: Mour Ankur , Kenley C. Robert , Davendralingam Navindran , DeLaurentis Daniel 
Published: November 2014

AbstractAgent‐based modeling is an important tool for the engineering of systems of systems. This paper briefly reviews the historical development of agent‐based modeling and system of systems concepts, compares agent‐based modeling to other approaches, and describes the Purdue Discrete Agent Framework for agent‐based modeling. An application of the Discrete Agent Framework to a system of systems is described and illustrates the ability of agent‐based modeling to capture non‐intuitive behaviors that may arise due to the complex dynamics that occur in interconnected systems of agents that follow a behavioral set of rules. The paper concludes by looking back to the past to understand the potential for applying agent‐based modeling to support the ongoing engineering and operations of an evolving system of systems.
The Agile Enterprise: Systems Engineering Agility at the Enterprise Level
Authors: Brown Don E. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractAgility is all the rage. Across the landscape, businesses request agility as a deliverable, make claims that they are agile, and (some) go so far as to assert they can provide agility to other corporate entities outside of their own sphere of influence. The challenge before us as a Systems Engineering Community is that (Enterprise) Agility, although well documented throughout engineering literature since the early 1990s, is often misinterpreted. Agility means many things to many people, and heretofore, has been used as a synonym for rapid development and delivery. Although speed is a byproduct of agility, speed in and of itself is not robust enough to encompass all that agility provides an organization, its customers, and partners. The goals of this paper are to shed light on agility in context to businesses, especially with Enterprises engaged in Systems Engineering, and provide guidance as to how agility is best achieved regardless of the Enterprise's business or mission objectives.
8.2.2 Cloud Effectiveness Model
Authors: Feehs Richard J. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractCloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on‐demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is composed of five essential characteristics: On‐Demand Self‐Service, Broad Network Access, Resource Pooling, Rapid Elasticity and Measured Service. Although deemed “essential,” not all cloud provider solutions exhibit these characteristics to the same level. This white paper describes a new framework, the Cloud Effectiveness Model (CLEF‐M), which can be used to evaluate:
How effectively a cloud provider's offering meets the “essential characteristics”
The levels to which consumers need and/or value these same characteristics, and
The maturity of a cloud offering and its progress toward a desired end‐state
5.5.2 Efficient and Effective Systems Integration and Verification Planning Using a Model‐Centric Environment
Authors: Salado Alejandro 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThere is an increasing interest in Model‐Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) practices in academia and industry. The majority of research and adoption in industry is relevant to the early phases of the system life‐cycle, where model‐based design is expected to provide improved results during system development. However, little attention has been paid to the application of such methodology to later phases of the development, and in particular to system integration and verification of the actual manufactured system, which continues to be done in the traditional document‐centric environment. This paper proposes a model‐centric environment for system integration and verification activities at the end of the development cycle and presents benefits in effectiveness and efficiency in planning system integration and verification activities for a system under a model‐centric environment.
2.1.1 Defining a System of Systems Engineering and Integration Approach to Address the Navy's Information Technology Technical Authority
Authors: Vaneman Warren K. , Budka Richard 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe United States Navy's focus on Information Dominance as a warfare enabler requires an integrated and coordinated System of Systems (SoS) for mission success. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) has been designated the Information Technology Technical Authority (IT TA) to address the challenges posed by this unprecedented interoperability among Navy systems. To address these engineering and planning challenges, SPAWAR has adopted a System of Systems Engineering and Integration (SoSE&I) methodology. SoSE&I is the planning, analyzing, and integrating constituent systems into an SoS capability greater than the sum of those systems. This paper defines the SoSE&I “Vee” process model, and discusses how it is used to engineer the SoS throughout its life‐cycle, and how it can be used by decision‐makers to increase systems integration and interoperability to directly impact the operational effectiveness of the Navy's networks and weapons.
6.5.1 I5: A Model‐Based Framework for Architecting System‐of‐Systems Interoperability, Interconnectivity, Interfacing, Integration, and Interaction
Authors: Mordecai Yaniv , Dori Dov 
Published: November 2014

AbstractWe present I5 — Interoperability, Interconnectivity, Interfacing, Integration, and Interaction — a Model‐Based Framework for Architecting Systems‐of‐Systems. Interoperability programs deliver end‐to‐end cooperation and collaboration capabilities and services among organizations, users, systems, and infrastructures, on top of a set of existing systems. Each system has its own programmatic and technical constraints and issues. System‐level stakeholders usually prefer core functionality over integration, and expect the interconnectivity infrastructure to be transparent and simple, regardless of its actual cost, complexity, or criticality. Hence, coordinating and aligning the multiple system and team efforts in order to reach a synergetic effect is a challenge that many integration professionals in the cyber, energy, manufacturing, and traffic domains are familiar with. Traditional system‐centered design methods fail to capture interconnectivity and collaboration aspects and issues, and they are of little interest to the individual systems' stakeholders. The framework we propose is based on Object–Process Methodology, an emerging ISO standard (ISO 19450) for modeling and design of complex, dynamic, and multidisciplinary systems. Our framework facilitates a smooth transition from a set of disparate system‐centered views to a consolidated, integrated model, which accounts for integration aspects, interface and payload structure and behavior, interconnectivity processes and services, and eventually emergent interoperability capabilities.
8.4.1 A Systems Perspective to Commuter Cycling in Urban Mobility
Authors: Kumar Ashwani , Teo Kwong Meng 
Published: November 2014

AbstractTaking a systems perspective is essential in solving complex problems such as urban mobility. Hence this paper adopts a systems approach to address the issue of commuter cycling in urban mobility. Applying systems thinking, we develop a new, simple approach to assess the potential of commuter cycling in different urban contexts. Furthermore, we use causal loop based reasoning to figure out the key policy levers. Using this knowledge we suggest effective policy interventions requiring minimal resources. We also evaluate and classify these policies based on the common constraints of budget and implementation difficulty. This paper demonstrates practical use of systems thinking to a complex ***policymaking situation. Apart from addressing the commuter cycling policies, this paper also showcases an interesting methodology for introducing systems thinking in making public policies.
5.5.1 System Design Selection Guidance through Model Execution
Authors: Scott William , Do Quoc 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe use of modeling languages as the primary means to capture and convey system information presents opportunities to improve the project outcomes. At present, however, such models are constrained by the static and textual nature of the formal requirements capture and model representation. This paper describes research into how such requirements and behavioral models captured in SysML may be executed. This allows quantitative and comparative assessment of the behavior of the designed system options against a set of informal requirements, thereby informing design decisions. The simulation exercises the behavior model of the proposed system in a simulated environment to ascertain how the system will perform against the formal requirements. The activity simulation is captured and displayed as a 3D animation to aid understanding of the system's expected performance.
4.6.3 Affordable Systems: Balancing the Capability, Schedule, Flexibility, and Technical Debt Tradespace
Authors: Lane Jo Ann , Koolmanojwong Supannika , Boehm Barry 
Published: November 2014

AbstractWith the increasing demands for affordable system capabilities that can be provided quickly to the user community, developers must explore a variety of options for identifying “satisficing” solutions. The system capability affordability tradespace must balance expedited systems engineering to reduce schedule and cost, encourage flexibility in architecture decisions to support future evolution of the system, and minimize technical debt that either results in later rework or adversely impacts future options. This paper shows how the University of Southern California (USC) Center for Systems and Software Engineering (CSSE) software and systems engineering cost models can be used in the analysis of this tradespace to show the range of options and the resulting consequences.
5.4.2 Applying Systems Engineering to Transit Facilities: Advancing Beyond “Building Commissioning”
Authors: Gleckler William , O'Neil Anne 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe demand for increased energy efficiency and sustainable facility designs is significantly increasing the complexity of buildings. With the evolution of higher yielding energy efficient performance for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, integration of new sustainable energy technologies and other sustainable green building systems, there is a growing need to ensure that proper systems techniques are implemented across the lifecycle of new transit facility projects.Today there continues to be advances in building automation, energy management and fire alarm/control systems for the monitoring and control of the facility subsystems and systems, which correspondingly adds to the complexity for defining the subsystems interfaces, the required level of integration, and how these interfaces and systems are verified during the construction phase of the project. As a result of this advancing complexity for many facility systems the Building industry developed the “Commissioning process”.This paper describes the evolution of the Commissioning process currently used to deploy facility systems, with a focus on the process application and its deficiencies when compared to a systems engineering approach. Case studies will be provided from New York City Transit's (NYCT) tailored implementation experience and efforts to attain more successful results by further tailoring this Commissioning process to apply systems engineering principles and activities.
7.2.2 Design Reviews: A Process Perspective for Improved Efficiency and Effectiveness
Authors: Young Madalein 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper documents and analyzes a typical design review process in the South African defense industry with the aim of improving the effectiveness and efficiency associated with design reviews. Process steps are scrutinized to identify behavioral and procedural actions that negatively impact on concluding successful design reviews. Poor design review culture and a few bad design review habits are highlighted with the aim that the lessons learnt will be of value to any organization in any environment conducting design reviews. The paper then goes on to suggest enhancements to ensure an improved design review process, as well as initiatives to foster a culture conducive to constructive reviews.
Identification of Lanes of Acquisition from Military Rapid Development Programs
Authors: Lepore Debra Facktor , Colombi John , Wade Jon 
Published: November 2014

AbstractResearch conducted in the Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) examined military rapid capability and urgent needs programs and identified a framework for rapid development. Discussions with organizations engaged in rapid development indicated a number of different definitions of “rapid”, a wide range of specific practices that were implemented to achieve rapid development, and various domains of product categories that aligned to what the rapid organization aimed to achieve. It was observed that various organizations appeared to focus and operate within lanes of acquisition, which could be analogous to lines of business in the commercial sector and also analogous to other taxonomies of acquisition used in other U.S. government organizations. This paper outlines these observations.