bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
3 Standards: A Perspective and Some Future Directions for the Systems Engineering Community
Authors: Velman J. R. , Widmann E. R. , Hudak G. J. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper gives an overview and introduction to the area of standards and standardization with the intent of providing a basic understanding useful to people involved in systems engineering. Some examples of the use of standards are provided from both the past and present. The paper concentrates specifically on those aspects of standards of importance to systems engineering. The definition, content, style and other characteristics of formally developed consensus standards are examined in some detail. Product standards, technical process standards, and management process standards are defined and contrasted. Some fundamental issues relating to management process standards in general, and to systems engineering process standards in particular, are discussed; potential remedies are suggested. Directions proposed for INCOSE by the INCOSE Standards Task Force are reviewed. This paper expands upon some of the material in a previous paper by Velman and Widmann published in the Proceedings of the 1998 INCOSE Symposium.
1 Developing an Over‐Arching Systems Engineering Process
Authors: Davies John K 
Published: November 2014

AbstractEngineering on projects is a complex activity in which traditional systems engineering plays a pivotal role. However, systems engineering is not separate but part of the overall engineering process that includes all disciplines.Producing an over‐arching systems engineering process, in which traditional systems engineering activities, such as ‘Capture User Needs’ and ‘System Design’, and development engineering, such as ‘Software’ and ‘Hardware Development’, form sub‐processes, allows optimisation of the overall process and reveals overlaps, gaps and conflicts between the constituent sub‐processes. Producing such a process is not easy. Different views of engineering need to be captured, defined and related. Issues, such as what to include and exclude, level of detail, and representation, have to be agreed. Compromises are needed to achieve the greatest overall benefit.When such a process has been defined, it forms the repository of engineering process knowledge, the source of best practice to be applied to all projects, and forms a major asset of the company.
3 Airbus System Engineering Policy
Authors: Jeffroy Alain , Nogué Jean‐Michel , Cambet M , Ashpole Ron , Gonzalez Jesus , Heller P , Nevelling T 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIn the field of aeronautics, among all types of requirements, safety requirements are those which have the greater impact on defining approaches to manage orderly the development of any element composing the aircraft. The increased complexity of aircraft systems led the aeronautic community to define suitable requirements for safety and certification. This resulted in the production of ARP 4754 “Certification Considerations for Highly‐Integrated or Complex Aircraft Systems” developed by the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) and EUROCAE (The European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment). These recommended practices have then been analysed by Airbus Industries in order to revise the current domestic directives used for System development. A new set of directives have been developed, this paper presents the main characteristics of these new Airbus Standards.
1 Systems Engineering Training Architecture for the U.S. Department of Energy
Authors: Plowman Catherine 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper describes an architecture for developing and maintaining a Systems Engineering capability for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). This architecture is being implemented at DOE's Idaho National Engineering & Environmental (INEEL) and reflects significant lessons learned in bringing Systems Engineering to an environment in which it had not existed before as a recognized and disciplined practice. A similar approach may be beneficial to other organizations seeking to add or enhance their Systems Engineering capabilities.
3 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING EDUCATION ‐ ACADEMIC OR VOCATIONAL?
Authors: Grange Gordon W. , Dynamics Matra BAe 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSystems Engineering is developing rapidly as a discipline and there is a growing number of academic courses aiming to provide education in Systems Engineering. In the past, Systems Engineers have tended to learn, on the job and this experienced based education is still essential. The challenge facing organisations which apply Systems Engineering in conducting their business is to be clear what they want from Systems Engineering and what Systems Engineering means in their application. The organisation's educational needs for Systems Engineering can then be derived and the sources identified. In effect, taking a Systems Engineering approach to delivering Systems Engineering Education. The paper outlines a framework of Systems Engineering roles in which Systems Engineers are developed and points to suitable type and sources of education.
1 Models, Proofs and the Engineering of Computer‐Based Systems: A Reality Check
Authors: Lann Gérard Le 
Published: November 2014

ABSTRACTThe need for drastic reductions in budgeting and durations of projects that involve computer‐based systems, as well as the increasing pressure to field systems that function satisfactorily, have fostered the need for more rigorous system engineering methods. Via case studies, we report on why models and proofs, which are at the core of emerging methods, are indeed instrumental in slashing costs, by avoiding project setbacks, operational mishaps or failures, and by permitting correct diagnoses when necessary. The perspectives offered by such methods help to understand better what is missing with existing COTS products, as well as what is the borderline between software engineering and system engineering.
3 Simultaneously Considering Life‐Cycle Cost And Effectiveness For System Design Evaluation
Authors: Fabrycky Wolter J. , Blanchard Benjamin S. , Verma Dinesh 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSystems seek to satisfy identified needs and/or defined objectives. Effectiveness is the degree to which these needs or objectives are met. But need satisfaction incurs an aggregate cost to the user over the life cycle of the system. Therefore, both cost and effectiveness should be considered simultaneously during system design and development.In this paper, emphasis is placed on life‐cycle cost analysis within the context of system effectiveness, both driven by Design Dependent Parameters. Our aim is to provide insight into the essential concepts and the process for considering both cost and effectiveness simultaneously, with a unique Design Evaluation Display as the centrepiece. development.There are many technical and managerial decisions and actions taken throughout the system life cycle. Most actions, particularly those in the early life‐cycle phases, have significant implications and greatly affect life‐cycle cost and system effectiveness. Accordingly, Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis should be employed in the evaluation of alternative system design concepts and configurations, alternative production schemes, alternative logistic support policies, alternative disposal plans, etc. This analysis process is iterative in nature and can be applied to any phase of the system life cycle.The basic concepts inherent in Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis are being applied to a broad range of problems in both the defence and the civilian sectors of public activities. More recently, CEA is finding a place in the design and development of systems for commercial and business applications worldwide. In all applications, the simultaneous consideration of life‐cycle cost and effectiveness is an essential element in system design evaluation.
1 Systems Engineering Across Commercial and Public Interest Domains
Authors: Jackson Scott 
Published: November 2014

AbstractA study of the practice of systems engineering across commercial and public interest domains shows that the basic principles of systems engineering are present in all domains, but that each domain brings with it unique aspects. Domains studied include commercial aircraft, facilities, telecommunications, highway transportation, resource management, plutonium disposal, facilities, high‐technology transit buses, motor vehicles, design for environment, and the legal system. Aspects examined are the system life cycle, the system functions, the system architecture, and the requirements drivers. This analysis finds that commercial and public interest domains are dominated by one or more of the following considerations: competitive market price pressures, diverse governmental and public input, existing and developing certification and regulatory standards, the introduction of new technology, and the requirement to serve multiple users.
3 Application of System Engineering Principles in the Development of the Advanced Photo System
Authors: Mason Gregory A. , McGrath William E. , Rutter Christine K. , Sherwood W. Brian , Silva Fernando G. , Spence John P. , Tsao How J. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe work leading to the introduction of the Advanced Photo System was extremely complex and required Eastman Kodak Company to manage this work through the application of systems engineering principles. This paper will discuss the complexity of the situation, the principles that were applied and specific methodologies that Eastman Kodak used during system development.The definition of a system provided in MIL‐STD‐499B, “Systems Engineering”, May, 1991 Draft“: A system is a composite of people, products, and processes that provide a capability to satisfy stated needs. A complete system includes the facilities, equipment (hardware and software), material, service, data, skilled personnel, and techniques required to achieve, provide and sustain system effectiveness.” The Advanced Photo System, including all of these attributes, as well as the additional interactions involved in joint development, required Kodak to actively implement system engineering principles.These principles can be defined as the application of scientific and engineering effort to transform an operational need into a defined system configuration using a top‐down, iterative process of requirements definition, functional analysis and allocation, synthesis, optimization, design, test, and evaluation as defined by Blanchard and Fabrycky.This paper will describe the four major accomplishments of this effort:
Providing an overall process for development and verification of system requirements, using a top‐down approach that views the system as a whole and provides an orientation towards the life‐cycle of the system
Integrating existing development management processes by emphasizing the system environment that these processes exist within
Integrating widely scattered technology, design, manufacturing and management efforts using “front‐end” analysis of contributions to system performance
Providing a framework for managing system level negotiations with our joint development partners and internal organizations
3 Systems engineering and Statoil natural gas transport operations
Authors: Dahl Hans Jørgen 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper reviews the conceptual theory of systems engineering (SE). It concludes that SE offers an appropriate approach to considering existing and future needs and challenges related to Statoil's natural gas transport operations. It suggests that SE, including related methods and tools, be introduced into future strategic management planning and decision making processes.The strength of the conceptual approach lies in its ability to handle large numbers of different parameters. This is quite useful, since decision‐making in this industry often involves many multidisciplinary characteristics. These parameters derive typically from technical, commercial, political, organisational and legislative needs and challenges. A particularly important challenge involves industry compliance with the forthcoming process of market liberalisation introduced by the new European Union (EU) directive on natural gas.The paper identifies and applies major conceptual SE building blocks, such as defining hardware, bioware and software, pinpointing needs and system requirements and trade‐off analyses. It concludes that SE is an appropriate approach in decision‐making processes related to topics such as gas and oil field resource management, development of transport tariff regimes and sales contracts, gas blending, storage and line packing procedures as well as organisational development. The paper is an extract from and synthesis of the author's working reports on SE and related subjects.
1 Ensuring Medical Device Industry Quality System Standards Compliance
Authors: McCay Brian M. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSuccess in the highly competitive medical device industry demands developing the right device first, on time and within budget. International and country‐specific quality standards must be met to sell Class II (e.g. an external monitoring device) and III devices (e.g., a long‐term implantable device), devices containing software, as well as selected Class I devices (e.g., surgeon's gloves). This paper discusses how proven requirements management practices such as traceability, change management, user definable views into project data, simultaneous access to information and the use of electronic records can save time and money, while ensuring compliance as a side benefit. Focus is on quality standards having the greatest impact on the medical device commercial marketplace: FDA's Quality System Regulation, ISO 13485 Quality System Standard and the CE Mark for the European Economic Community.
4 Modeling of Integrated Product Development Processes
Authors: Negele Herbert , Fricke Ernst , Schrepfer Lutz , Härtlein Nicole 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe development process has to be modeled and documented for its reengineering and continuous improvement. A development process model is the basis for how a system will be designed. Due to the special nature of integrated product development processes, a method for process modeling has to be able to support and easily map the high interconnectivity between processes of different engineering disciplines over all hierarchies. The dominant elements in a model of integrated product development processes are the informational relations and flows.The analysis of models and textual documentation of the engineering processes in an automotive company revealed the special need for modeling concurrent engineering processes. Existing methods didn't support these needs sufficiently. Therefore, a single method for mapping and interconnecting the processes of all different engineering disciplines was agreed upon, which describes inputs and outputs (e.g. informational objects) for every process.The paper describes the reasons for an engineering process driven modeling method, the method itself and its application. Also, lessons learned from this approach are described.
4 The Impact of Systems Engineering Capability Maturity on Innovation
Authors: Walden David D. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper analyzes the impact that increased Systems Engineering process maturity has on innovation. The 19 Functional Areas (FAs) of the EIA/IS‐731.1 Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM) standard were each individually assessed for their quantitative impact against six key characteristics associated with innovation.The results of this analysis suggest that, on balance, increasing one's Systems Engineering maturity has a positive effect on one's ability to innovate. Most FAs are either neutral to or have a positive influence on innovation. A few FAs have a negative influence on innovation. The paper also includes recommendations for standard setting bodies to consider for both process definition and capability assessment.
2 Infrastructure Operations Technical Baseline Development at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Using Systems Engineering
Authors: Caliva Robert M. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is a Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratory that has been performing environmental cleanup and stabilization, which was accelerated upon the end of the cold war. In fact, the INEEL currently receives two‐thirds of its scope to perform these functions. These activities can only be successful, however, if infrastructure operations are adequate and appropriately tailored. Several of the systems engineers supporting a group called Environmental Management Integration (EMI) were given the charter to develop the technical baseline for all INEEL infrastructure operations. This paper will discuss the systems engineering process developed in order to capture the driving requirements and identify the necessary functions that must exist in order to successfully support environmental cleanup and stabilization.
3 WORKPRODUCT SYNCRONIZATION USING THE SYNCHRO‐X™ LIFECYCLE MODEL AND OBJECT TECHNOLOGY
Authors: Beshore David G. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSystems Engineering (SE) requires computer‐based information capture, synthesis, and rework to complete on‐time, quality SE documents – also known as SE workproducts. Product development lifecycle application is often challenged early, in the formative stages, when customer commitment and client resourcefulness are undefined. Goal‐directed effort can only be performed if the SE work products and product development lifecycle model are coordinated ‐ an example is shown in this paper by the new Synchro‐X™ lifecycle model along with implemention of object oriented techniques and workflow practices.This new lifecycle model requires an understanding of Object Technology (OT) (Ambler 1998, Cantor 1998, Goldberg 1995, IBM 1997, Jacobson 1992, Meyer 1995, Taylor 1998) for the development, co‐ordination and completion of work products during a program's process execution and product development. Current systems engineering standards and capability maturity models (SE‐CMM 1995) are used as the foundation for these lifecycle models and practices.This paper examines:
the application of object technology to systems engineering,
the use of Synchro‐X™ lifecycle model which integrates process and product development,
how work can be synchronized at the practice, process and product class levels,
the need to focus on Process to minimize rework, and
how workflow technology can reduce the risk of product development.
4 Design and Implementation of a System Engineering Standard Process for Satellite Development
Authors: Rudolph M. , Hartmann R. , Fricke E. , Negele H. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper describes a european approach to standardize the satellite development process. The results of the standardization efforts of the “European Cooperation for Space Standardisation” (ECSS) have been used as a basis. As a generic model to structure the current processes the four‐dimensional model (ZOPH) is applied. The subsequent implementation of the proposed model into the engineering data management system METAPHASE™ is presented.
2 Systems Engineering, Systems Thinking, System Dynamics: Complementary Viewpoints
Authors: Brezinski Lawrence J. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSystems Engineering is one of several disciplines that deal with the development and operation of complex systems. Systems Thinking and System Dynamics have different origins than Systems Engineering, and have been successful in providing methods for understanding complex systems. Comparing the definitions of these disciplines indicates there is common ground in the problems‐solving approaches used by each. Systems Thinking and System Dynamics are examined to identify practices and methods that could be useful to Systems Engineers in understanding complex technical systems and evaluating changes to improve system performance.
A Systems Engineering Process for Systems of Systems
Authors: Roe Charles L. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper discusses a systems engineering process to develop complex military systems of systems. The steps—from the mission need through requirements definition, functional identification and decomposition, subsystem development, integration, test, and deployment—are described. The difficulties associated with incorporating legacy equipment and providing seamless and synergistic integration of new elements are discussed. The integration and test of these systems of systems also requires new dimensions and measurement systems to assess performance. Finally, the need for new doctrine, rules, and procedures that link these systems of systems to expert control systems when deployed is discussed.
Improving Systems Engineering Processes Step by Step
Authors: Cattan Denise , Lerchundi Ramón 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe SW‐CMM, which has been used to assess software engineering development processes within Thomson‐CSF, has demonstrated the suitability of staged models for assisting in the development of improvement action plans following an appraisal.Existing system engineering models are based upon a continuous architecture, which has been found to be less adept at focusing improvement activities following appraisals. For this reason, a Thomson‐CSF project has developed a system engineering model based upon the SE‐CMM but incorporating a set of improvement stages aligned to the levels in the SW‐CMM.The paper presents this ‘staged model’, which is a contribution to the European System and Software Initiative (ESSI) for Process Improvement Experiment (PIE Project 23983).The Process Oriented System Engineering (POSE) project has been developed with partial European Commission funding and with the help of the European Software Institute.
Tool Support for Implementation and Analysis of Traceability Structures
Authors: Riddle Steve , Saeed Amer 
Published: November 2014

AbstractTraceability has become established as a key subject of requirements engineering research. Our research has resulted in the proposal of information structures to record information in support of the early stages of the software development process, and the establishment of a traceability procedure for the development and assessment of safety critical systems. For this procedure to be feasible for large‐scale systems, there is a need to represent, structure and analyse the consistency and completeness of large amounts of disparate information. It is thus essential to provide adequate tool support. In this paper we address automation of the basic activities of the procedure, and investigate some candidate tools which can provide some or all of the features required by automation.
Avoiding CMM® Appraisal Test Anxiety
Authors: Armstrong James R. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractExtreme pressure to get a rating has caused problems in many process improvement efforts. The reaction of employees that have gone through strongly audit oriented appraisals is quite similar to what educators call “test anxiety”. The impact on process improvement can be as negative as in the classroom. There is an alternative. This paper looks at a new method of achieving the process improvement objectives of an appraisal in a different manner.