bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
MEASUREMENT AT THE SYSTEMS LEVEL: WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE OUGHT TO BE
Authors: Cruickshank R. , Gaffney J. , Werling R. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe primary purpose of a systematic measurement program is to provide quantitative information to support improved management and engineering decision making associated with system development and systems engineering activities. The measurement process includes the selection of metrics; the collection of data; and the integration, analysis, and reporting of quantitative information derived from the data. The Goal‐Question‐Metric (GQM) paradigm is the recommended approach for selecting metrics to provide the quantitative information for management and engineering purposes. The top‐down, information need‐based GQM paradigm has been used extensively to define metrics appropriate for software development and process improvement, and it can also be applied to system development and systems engineering.
The Lockheed Missiles & Space Company System Engineering Training Program
Authors: Khouri Jennifer , Morais Pam , Haskell Anita 
Published: November 2014

AbstractLockheed Missiles & Space Company's (LMSC's) Space Systems Division (SSD) has long felt a need to train system engineers, to continue to develop and improve the system engineering and integration skills which are our hallmark. As part of our commitment to system engineering training, our division established a formal System Engineering Training (SET) program, designed to provide intensive system engineering training to a small group of young engineers, who would then go throughout the division, working on different programs and sharing the knowledge they had gained. The following paper provides a more detailed description of the SET program.
SYSTEM ENGINEERING METRICS
Authors: Cabrera O. J. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to show the evolution of System Engineering (SE) metrics at Harris Government Communication Systems Division (GCSD). Beginning in the late 80s, the SE Department started to collect a number of metrics over the life cycle of our program execution process. An example will be shown and discussed. Working within the framework of our Total Quality Management (TQM) culture and in the spirit of continuous improvement (starting in FY 1991), other metrics were considered and reviewed for applicability. A list of these metrics will be shown. The main goals of this metric review process were to (1) improve our way of doing business and (2) maximize the impact of the metrics on our program execution process. To this end, a new metric baseline was adopted in mid‐1993. This new baseline and a definition of each metric will be explained. Examples of Technical Performance Measurements (TPMs), as defined in MIL‐STD‐499B, are shown. TPMs are an important SE tool to control the baseline and manage requirements.
APPLYING SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND ICON‐DRIVEN SIMULATION TECHNIQUES TO THE WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEM AT HANFORD, WA
Authors: Keizur Alan E. , Mar Brian W. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper provides a case study on the use of systems engineering to create the hierarchical description of a decision‐support model for the tank waste remediation program at Hanford, WA. A commercial, off‐the‐shelf (COTS) icon‐driven modeling package is used to sharply reduce the model development effort. A database‐driven information management tool, used to describe the model functions, requirements, architectures and tests, provides the traceability and editing power to document the development with little added effort.
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING APPLIED TO STRATEGIC PLANNING: THE LASE FOLLOW‐ON STUDY
Authors: Walters J. Milam 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe NASA Langley Research Center, Systems Engineering Office, has established a structured process for the application of systems engineering to in‐house projects. Concurrent with this process development, several pilot studies have been conducted to refine the application steps and better tailor them to existing Langley policies and procedures. One such study is the subject of this paper, the LIDAR Atmospheric Sensing Experiment (LASE) Follow‐On Study. The study was commissioned to utilize the LaRC systems engineering process for strategic planning, towards the overall goal of determining the best use of LASE hardware upon satisfaction of existing scientific objectives. This paper describes the process used, techniques employed, results obtained and lessons learned during application of the LaRC systems engineering process to the strategic resolution of the LASE experiment disposition.
RESULTS OF A SYSTEMS ENGINEERING DESIGN AUTOMATION LANDMARK STUDY AT TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
Authors: Kuhn Dorothy A. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractWithin Texas Instruments' defense business (DSEG), high‐level managers recognized the need to improve the productivity of the systems engineering staff, and tasked a group of experienced systems engineers to execute a Systems Engineering Design Automation Landmark Study. This study was built on an analytical understanding of our systems engineering process, and included a survey of the systems engineering staff, a systems engineerng market analysis, analysis of systems engineering automation requirements, and an implementation plan for systems engineering automation. This paper describes the study and its results.
A METHOD FOR STRUCTURING THE SPECIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMS ACROSS DISCIPLINES
Authors: McMullen Scott 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis writing describes a structured approach for product development called trans‐functional development. Trans‐functional development utilizes the physical system architecture to cohesively manage product development across disciplines. The technique has been adapted from the Hatley/Pirbhai method for real‐time system specification and was first implemented during a period from 1992 to 1993. This technique was developed in response to the needs of a company which had become overwhelmed with regulatory guidelines, CASE learning curves, slipping schedules, reliability problems, and lack of requirements. The trans‐functional development approach takes these factors into account as it attempts to simplify and organize systems engineering management in a commercial environment. The company, that used the approach from 1992 to 1993, indicated that it has been the most comprehensive and understandable approach that they have been exposed to, and they will use it again on their next project.
ADVANCING SYSTEM ENGINEERING WITH A REQUIREMENTS PROBLEM REPORTING PROCESS
Authors: Agarwal Naresh K. , Jones James H. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis How‐To paper is for those persons newer to the global perspective of systems engineering. It describes adapting the formal software change control process of DOD‐STD‐2167A for use in improving a deficient hardware process as part of increasing its maturity of capability. After minor procedures and forms revision, while using identical computer support and physical paper handling to that of Software Problem Report processing, Requirements Management was improved. The experiment resulted in “earlier” correct specification of system design requirements, interface requirements, and design verification requirements for hardware configuration items.
The Allegory of the Humidifier: A case study of Return on Investment in Systems Engineering
Authors: Sampson Mark E. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractFollowing is a case study of the down stream affects of short term decisions based solely upon short‐horizon cost savings. A case is made for “no decision is a island” and documents how a simple (<$10k) initial decision had million dollar impacts down stream. This allegory also points out the importance of getting our Systems Engineering right before launching into other productivity improvement programs–JIT, reengineering efforts, cycle time reduction, Continuous Improvement, and others‐all of which points out the key importance that Systems Engineering should be playing in our companies.
Landfill NIMBY and Systems Engineering: A Paradigm for Urban Planning
Authors: Lee G. Fred , Jones‐Lee Anne , Martin Frederick 
Published: November 2014

AbstractA solid waste management crisis exists in many parts of the US as a result of the inability to site new landfills to replace the consumed capacity of existing landfills. Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills can, and usually do, have a significant adverse impact on the individuals who own property in, reside in, or otherwise use, areas near the landfill. This leads those who stand to be adversely affected by a landfill to take a justifiable “NIMBY” (Not in My Back Yard) position against it. In the past and even today the approach that is used for siting landfills is to select one or more specifically rural areas as candidate sites and then through a contrived process, force one or more of those sites on those who own or use nearby properties. If those in the potential sphere of influence of the landfill, which is often several miles from its location, are sufficiently politically powerful or have sufficient financial resources to actively oppose the siting of the landfill in their region, they can usually be successful in stopping the landfill from being sited in their area.Some jurisdictions purport to involve the public in the site‐selection process by appointing a “citizens advisory committee” (CAC). The CAC is then “allowed” to select and rank the parameters of concern with respect to the landfill. Based on an arbitrarily developed numeric scoring system, various potential candidate sites are ranked and those with the highest ranking are selected as the “best available sites. ” While the site‐selection process and the design of the landfill should be coordinated and concurrent activities, they are typically pursued sequentially which contributes to the unreliability of the process. While this process appears superficially to have a technical aura about it, and public participation components in it, it is highly arbitrary and frequently capricious in its implementation. Rarely does this process lead to “the best available site” that would enable the development of a particular landfill at the particular location without a significant adverse impact on the current owners and users of nearby lands, future generations who may own or use those lands, and those who would use groundwaters hydraulically connected to the area at some time in the future.There is need to take a significantly different approach to landfill siting than is being used today. Systems engineering provides a potential methodology for rigorous incorporation of the various factors that need to be considered in developing solid waste management capacity for a region. This paper reviews the issues of site selection for MSW management, legitimate NIMBY concerns, and how systems engineering could be used to more appropriately select a site/method for MSW management for a region.
A LARGE‐SCALE SIMULATION MODEL OF A MAP PRODUCTION SYSTEM
Authors: Revesman Mark E. , Gambhir Sukhdeep S. 
Published: November 2014

ABSTRACTThis paper describes a hybrid discrete‐event/continuous model of a Map Production System, encompassing all phases of the production process. The model was developed using an interactive prototyping methodology with Extend™, a commercially available simulation package for the Apple Macintosh. The modeling approach used a central hierarchical “Simulation Manager,” which distributed events and data to the appropriate submodels. The output of the model was validated using historical data and found to be generalizable for future system modernization. This modeling approach provides system engineers with information to aid in prediction and optimized design of future systems.
ProSimTM: A KNOWLEDGE‐BASED SIMULATION MODEL DESIGN TOOL
Authors: Benjamin Perakath C. , Mayer Richard J. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper summarizes the goals, results, and benefits of a research project focused on developing intelligent software support for simulation model design1. Our research approach uses qualitative reasoning techniques to provide intelligent support for designing simulation models starting from structured system descriptions. The main product of this project is PROSIMTM, a knowledge‐based simulation model design tool that automatically generates WITNESSTM simulation models from IDEF3‐based process models2. The functionality provided by PROSIMTM is briefly described, and the potential benefits of the technology are outlined. An inventory system example is described to demonstrate the utility of the PROSIMTM technology described in the paper. We expect the results of this research to have a significant impact on the use of simulation technology for systems analysis and design.
IMPROVING THE COMPUTER WORKSTATION INTERFACE FOR ENGINEERING AND A PROPOSAL FOR USER INTERFACE STANDARDIZATION
Authors: Sachs Humberto W. 
Published: November 2014

ABSTRACTToday's product development environment needs to use many Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) tools to reduce programs technical risk and reduce product life‐cycle‐cost. The tools should also provide a basis for implementation of non‐recurring cost effective engineering processes and practices. Twenty years of research across many companies compiled data that indicates current state‐of‐the‐art CAE is not cost effective. These findings have been validated by recent financial reports. While there are many causes for such burden, the user interlace with the CAE system was determined to be a significant productivity issue. This obstacle to productivity can be removed by the implementation of a User Interface Standardization (UIS).Improvements to achieve a common user interface has fallen short of optimum results because of the lack of system engineering practices in the standardization methodology. This paper proposes the UIS and establishes the needed methodology for its success.
Benchmarking the Systems Engineering Process
Authors: Fisher Gerard H. , Dobry Michael , Jones Kenneth 
Published: November 2014

AbstractBenchmarking, the search for the best of the best, is mandated by all quality assessment models. It answers the question: How do you know you are performing well unless you know what “well” is? In addition, “the best” is a moving target. Your competitors are always looking for ways to improve. This paper describes an initiative of the Washington Metropolitan Area NCOSE Chapter to benchmark some key systems engineering subprocesses and to make the resulting data available to the general NCOSE membership. The benchmarking activity represents an unique partnership of NCOSE, academia and industry in the measurement of corporate performance while still protecting the privacy of corporate data. This effort was supported financially by Loral Federal Systems, Manassas, VA.
An Interim Model for the Capability Assessment of Systems Engineering and Associated Supporting Documents
Authors: Widmann E. R. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe Capability Assessment Working Group (CAWG) is one of four working groups that comprise the Measurement Technical Committee of the Technical Board of the National Council On Systems Engineering (NCOSE). This paper is a forward or descriptive introduction to an Interim Model for Capability Assessment of Systems Engineering and its associated supporting documents, which were developed by the CAWG over the past year. The Interim Model is a preliminary or draft attempt to assess systems engineering capability with respect to a subset of the requirements defined by the CAWG for this purpose. The Interim Model can be viewed as filling a void, since the CAWG believes that a complete Capability Assessment Model for Systems Engineering that satisfies all requirements defined by the CAWG currently does not exist. The paper also presents a background leading up to the development of the Interim Model and a description of the planned activities focused on both improving and offering a degree of validation to the Interim Model and its supporting documents. A key feature of the improvement/validation activity is a series of CAWG facilitated Systems Engineering Process Assessments (SEPAs) at selected companies.
Systems Engineering and Integration for Doe Environmental Management
Authors: Power Gloria , Wiersholm Otto 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe estimated Environmental Management cost for the Department of Energy (DOE) complex, “the cold war mortgage”, exceeds the projected DOE budget. DOE awarded the Lockheed Martin Corporation the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) Management and Operations (M&O) Contract, and Lockheed Martin emphasizes Systems Engineering (SE) as a method to operate a DOE National Laboratory more cost effectively. Lockheed Martin (SE) methods and experience were mainly developed as an aerospace, space, and defense contractor. This paper describes how Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies (LMIT) applied SE principles to the INEL Environmental Management program within six months of taking over the INEL contract. LMIT transferred and applied SE methods and experience from an industry driven by laws of physics and hardware, to an industry driven by environmental regulations, risk and shrinking budgets.
MINED GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL SYSTEM CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS
Authors: Rindskopf M. Sam 
Published: November 2014

AbstractA Concept of Operations was developed for the disposal of high‐level radioactive waste in the potential geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, located 90 miles north of Las Vegas, Nevada. The Concept of Operations documents a common understanding of how the repository is envisioned to be operated. Based on the repository functional analysis and the repository architecture as identified in the Initial Summary Report for Repository/Waste Package Advanced Conceptual Design, the Concept of Operations describes the operation of the repository from the initial receipt of waste through repository closure. The development of a Concept of Operations has enabled project participants involved in development activities to have a common understanding of how the total system is envisioned to operate.
INTRODUCING SYSTEMS ENGINEERING INTO A TRADITIONALLY COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATION
Authors: Jackson Scott 
Published: November 2014

AbstractMany organizations are endeavoring to apply systems engineering (SE) to the development of commercial products. However, the challenge of doing this in a traditionally commercial organization (TCO) is very different from doing it in a traditionally government‐oriented organization (TGO). This paper provides a set of guidelines based on the experiences of the author in both types of organizations. Among the tenets espoused are the respect for the tribal knowledge of the commercial organization, the preservation of useful processes, the recognition that much SE is already practiced in the organization, the insistence on content rather than form in the SE process, the respect for traditional commercial terminology where it may apply, the importance of training, the importance of an internal “champion,” and the use of Integrated Product Development (IPD). The paper also cautions against the disease of arrogance and implores the reader to be grateful for incremental progress. Most important are the complete buy‐in from top management in the organization and the necessity to stand firm on the principles of systems engineering.
THE BRIAR PATCH: FROM DOD TO COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
Authors: Hale Pat 
Published: November 2014

AbstractMost of us are familiar from childhood with the Uncle Remus story where Br'er Rabbit escapes being the main dinner course by imploring his captor to “Throw me in that briar patch!”. Following defense secretary Perry's initiative to move DoD toward commercial standards and best practices, many DoD systems engineers have wondered what distinguishes commercial systems engineering from traditional aerospace processes and practices. This paper describes the experiences and observations from a DoD systems engineer's transition into a pure commercial product development environment. Topics include: What is ‘commercial’ systems engineering? What practices from DoD provide the highest added value in the commercial world? What are the unique challenges to application of systems engineering in the commercial world? What lessons can DoD learn from commercial industry? And, finally, is this commercial ‘briar patch’ a viable future address for you as an aerospace‐trained systems engineer?
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN A MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS (M&O) ENVIRONMENT
Authors: Flowers Shirlee J. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe nuclear waste management community has opted to use process flows to depict the activities and goals necessary to meet the enormous challenge of nuclear/chemical waste environmental clean‐up. The process flow methodology leads to decomposition of functions much the same as functional flows; however, the methodology to ensure integration of the processes differs from standard Department of Defense (DOD) systems engineering. Examples of other functions necessary to complete the life cycle of the system are described, including the rationale for potential inclusion into the FRAT method. The discussion that follows is a comparison of process flows and functional flows with examples of each method. Recommended changes to the systems engineering environment in an M&O program follow the discussion of methods.
A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO FAILURE MODE, EFFECTS AND CRITICALITY ANALYSIS (FMECA) FOR COMPUTING SYSTEMS
Authors: Becker James Carlin , Flick Glenn 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper presents an approach developed and used for Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) of a distributed computing system for air traffic control. The concepts, benefits, failure mode classifications, and FMECA process are summarized. The concept of failure mode criticality and its assessment for system safety is also addressed.
A Method for the Selection of Systems Engineering Automated Tools
Authors: van Gaasbeek James R 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe use of software tools to automate some or all of the systems engineering process holds great promise. Computer‐based tools have provided significant improvements in other disciplinary areas, most notably structural design (CAD), structural analysis (FEM) and software development (CASE). A vendor base has begun to supply tools for the systems engineering discipline and industry has begun to acquire and deploy such tools.However, the tools are expensive, sophisticated, and require significant effort to integrate their use into the system engineers' daily activities. A mechanism is needed for the selection and acquisition of the right tools, and a mechanism for introducing the tools into the systems engineering culture with minimum disruption and expense. This paper addresses the tool selection activity. The paper addresses the selection of a single tool, but the author believes that the method described can be generalized to selection of a tool suite or a tool integration framework.
LESSONS LEARNED IN THE SELECTION OF A COMPANY STANDARD REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT TOOL
Authors: Acaba Ralph H. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractAs systems engineering automation tools become more mature, and systems become more complex, companies are realizing that they must make use of these tools in order to remain competitive. One of the issues that is commonly debated is whether to select and implement a company standard tool, or allow individual projects to select their own tool. This paper describes the benefits and penalties of selecting standard tools and the rationale behind Hughes Aircraft Company's decision to select a standard Requirements Management tool. The process followed by Hughes to make the selection of a standard tool is described as are lessons learned during the implementation of the selection process.