bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
3.2.1 Systems Engineering Decision Making May Be More Emotional Than Rational!
Authors: White B E. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractMany subscribe to the hypothesis or generally accepted premise that professionals, e.g., systems engineers, make work‐related decisions rationally, considering all the facts, while being objective, impersonal, and unemotional. A contrarian view would be that many, if not most, of our professional decisions are based primarily on emotion rather than reason, i.e., gut instincts about what would be best considering our own self‐interests. The results of a simple survey are presented and discussed in an attempt to shed light on this issue. Despite the author's hypothesis and the thrust of the paper's title, the conclusion (based upon the five dozen responses received) is that most work‐related decisions are indeed made rationally but many are made more emotionally than otherwise might be surmised.
3.2.2 Enhancing the System Development Process Performance: a Value‐Based Approach
Authors: Mastrofini Manuel , Cantone Giovanni , Seaman Carolyn , Shull Forrest , Diep Madeline , Falessi Davide 
Published: November 2014

AbstractWhen planning or controlling the system development process, a project leader needs to make decisions which take into account a number of aspects, including: availability of assets and competences, previously enacted processes in the organization, certifications the system is required to obtain, standards to comply with, interactions among process activities, contextual factors and constraints, and allocated budget and schedule.In this paper we propose a value‐based approach for supporting decision making. The aim is to provide supportive information for decisions related to the system verification process. This would in turn enhance the performance of system development process by supporting the decision making process for complex systems. We report both academic and industrial empirical evaluations, which demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of our proposal, and thus prompt us to refine and extend our approach to sub‐processes other than verification.
4.2.2 Application of Systems Engineering to Improve Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) Therapy
Authors: Pihera L. Drew , Ender Tommer , Taylor Brian , Bollweg Nick R , Lopez Andrew , Paden Matthew L. , King Scott 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThough able to boost survival rates from below 25% to nearly 75% in patients that qualify for treatment, the complexity of the currently implemented Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) system of systems keeps it from being used across an even wider range of patients. Representatives from the Children's Healthcare of Atlanta asked a team from the Georgia Tech Professional Masters in Applied Systems Engineering for assistance in reducing the complexity of the current implementation as well as help provide a way forward for future improvement to the therapy. This paper examines the application of systems engineering methodologies as performed by the team, including Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), gap analysis of the system architecture and data visualization prototyping. Additionally the paper describes how the selection of tools and models fostered dialog between two groups of distinctly different backgrounds and provides a proposed roadmap for robust system design, development and future work.
4.2.3 A Systems Approach to Medical Device Compliance with IEC 60601–1:2005
Authors: Gibson Chad , Eubanks Fritz , Hobson Felicia 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe development of electrical medical devices requires compliance with a host of regulations and standards to help ensure their safety and effectiveness. One of the most notable additions in recent years is the 3rd Edition of IEC 60601‐1 (IEC 60601–1, 2005), “Medical electrical equipment – General requirements for basic safety and essential performance.” Medical devices sold to the European Community and Canada must comply with the standard in 2012, and devices in the U.S. and other countries must follow shortly thereafter. This standard represents a sea change in the way medical devices are typically developed, and includes a heavy reliance on safety risk management and usability engineering processes. This paper presents the systems engineer as the ideal candidate to lead these activities and facilitate device development; the standard impacts many areas (e.g., engineering, regulatory, human factors, and project management) and requires a methodical approach to implement in a cost‐effective manner while ensuring safety and effectiveness of the device. This paper details techniques developed to efficiently comply with the standard, leveraging existing systems engineering practices and emerging methods such as Model Based Systems Engineering.
4.3.1 The Barriers to Systems Thinking
Authors: Beasley Richard 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSystem Thinking is a pre‐requisite to effective Systems Engineering, and is one of the hardest elements to recognize, develop and use. This paper argues that this is because Systems Thinking is hard, and actually unnatural. There are barriers in the way the human brain is pre‐disposed to act, and the current state of engineering can also be a barrier to Systems Thinking. To deliver the value promised by Systems Engineering recognizing these difficulties, and overcoming them is essential.Based on experience implementing effective and explicit Systems Engineering into Rolls‐Royce plc the author suggests some ideas on overcoming the barriers. Systems Engineering's greatest value comes from effective pre‐work in the early stages of projects. But the most effective place to learn the approach and quickly see the benefits is solving the problems (rework) created by its initial absence, as the scope is reduced. Systems Thinking needs to be integrated into the processes, the knowledge and the roles within the organisation. Effective leadership setting the expectation that Systems Thinking will be done is equally vital.
4.3.2 Integrating Systems Science, Systems Thinking, and Systems Engineering: understanding the differences and exploiting the synergies
Authors: Sillitto Hillary 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThere is a need to properly define the “intellectual foundations of systems engineering”; and we need to look beyond systems engineering to do this. This paper presents a new framework for understanding and integrating the distinct and complementary contributions of systems science, systems thinking, and systems engineering to create an “integrated systems approach”. The key step is to properly separate out and understand the relationship between the triad of: systems science as an objective “science of systems”; systems thinking as concerned with “understanding systems in a human context”; and systems engineering as “creating, adjusting and configuring systems for a purpose”. None of these is a subset of another; all have to be considered as distinct though interdependent subjects. A key conclusion of the paper is that the “correct” choice of system boundary for a particular purpose depends on the property of interest. The insights necessary to inform this choice belong in the domain of “systems thinking”, which thus provides a key input to “systems engineering”. In many systems businesses, the role of “systems architect” or “systems engineer” integrates the skills of systems science, systems thinking and systems engineering ‐ which are therefore all essential competencies for the role.
4.5.1 Systems Modeling with SysML – an experience report
Authors: Herzog Erik , Hallonquist Jessica , Naeser Johan 
Published: November 2014

AbstractModel Based Systems Engineering has been presented as the future way of working for quite some time now. In this paper the practice of Model based systems engineering with SysML within SAAB Aeronautics is presented. Three different cases of different ambition and complexity are presented along with an analysis of the results. A number of modification proposals to SysML based on the experience made are also presented.
4.5.2 Model‐based automatic generation and selection of safe architectures
Authors: CONDAT Hélène , HEIN Andreas , STROBEL Carsten 
Published: November 2014

AbstractModern avionics systems are characterized by their increasing complexity and demanding safety requirements. The fulfillment of safety constraints is often only tested after the design of the systems, which leads to costly and time‐consuming design iterations. The complexity of avionics systems is still managed through a number of predominantly manual, paper‐based procedures.Relying on systems engineering and operations research methods and tools, a methodology was developed to support the design process. This methodology should reduce the design duration through an earlier consideration of safety constraints. It should also contribute to the overall improvement of the design, through an automated approach of its complexity.A generic meta‐model is created, suitable for various kinds of avionics systems, which contains requirements ‐ including safety requirements ‐ and design goals. From these formal requirements and goals an algorithm creates corresponding mathematical constraints and optimization criteria. All valid architectures fulfilling these constraints are automatically generated. Sets of efficient and diverse architectures among the generated solutions are selected by an algorithm.
4.5.3 Model‐Based Systems Engineering in an Integrated Environment
Authors: Pagnanelli Christi A. Gau , Carson Ronald S. , Palmer John R. , Crow Michael E. , Sheeley Barbara J. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractModel‐based system engineering (MBSE) can be accomplished in a variety of ways to develop high quality integrated systems. Certain organizational and system development characteristics render different approaches to MBSE attractive when compared with using SysML. The paper outlines the key characteristics that contribute to successful MBSE project development, and uses those characteristics to contrast approaches based on (a) traditional methods without integrated modeling, (b) SysML using a UML tool such as IBM® Rational® Rhapsody®, and (c) traditional methods using an integrated data environment such as provided by Siemens Teamcenter® for System Engineering (TcSE). An integrated environment provides the opportunity to document the system definition consistently and aid in performing trades and analyses throughout the product lifecycle, starting with abstract ideas and concepts and continuing until detailed physical architecture elements are determined and verified. Such an approach enables consistency between left‐side‐of‐the‐V activities and right‐side‐of the‐V efforts, and also enables measuring the consistency and completeness of the data.
5.2.1 The Facility Location for Emergency Response –A Multi‐objective Approach
Authors: Hernandez Ivan , Ramirez‐Marquez Jose 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIn the event of a bio‐hazard break out in a city, response agencies will open Temporary Emergency Units (TEUs) in every affected neighborhood to vaccinate the population. Through evolutionary algorithms, this research shows how response agencies can choose the best locations for setting up TEUs when a set of competing objectives are considered. Based on the proposed approach, response agencies can obtain trade‐off solutions with respect to: a) setting up few TEUs, but with the drawback that processing the entire population might take a long time, or b) processing the entire population in time, by setting up a large number of facilities.
5.3.1 Emergence: All in the Minds
Authors: McConnell George R. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractModel Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) rightly attracts much attention. However, when we start to consider models that are ‘beyond’ UML (or any similar language) we encounter one of the major challenges of systems thinking – that is that we each have different perspectives ‐ or models ‐ on what reality is. No two people approach a situation with exactly the same background, knowledge and objectives ‐ there will always therefore be differences between their personal understanding and view of the situation. Reconciling these differences ‐ indeed even recognising these differences ‐ presents a major challenge related to MBSE.
5.4.1 An Experimental Methodology to Evaluate Concept Generation Procedures Based on Quantitative Lifecycle Performance
Authors: Cardin Michel‐Alexandre , Kolfschoten Gwendolyn L. , Frey Daniel D. , de Neufville Richard , de Weck Olivier L. , Geltner David M. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis study presents an experimental methodology to measure how concept generation procedures can affect the anticipated lifecycle performance of engineering systems design concepts. The methodology is based on objective and quantitative measurements of anticipated lifecycle performance of the design concepts. It merges cognitive and computer‐aided techniques from the fields of collaboration engineering, creativity, and engineering design. It complements the body of existing techniques relying on subjective expert assessments, and other objective metrics not explicitly measuring anticipated lifecycle performance (e.g. development time and cost). Application of the methodology is demonstrated through evaluation of design procedures generating flexibility in engineering systems design. Experiments had ninety participants generate creative design alternatives to a simplified real estate development design problem. Thirty‐two teams of two to three participants performed the collaborative design exercise. An online Group‐Support System interface enabled efficient data collection and analysis. A computationally efficient mid‐fidelity model was used to evaluate flexible design concepts quantitatively based on real options analysis techniques.
7.2.1 UK Railway System Reliability ‐ Modelling the Future – a Case Study
Authors: Best Nigel , Hyland Bradley , Waters Suzanne 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIn the 15 years since privatisation, the British railway has undergone a major transformation: investment has increased 60% since 1996/97; ridership has increased by 60%; and reliability has grown to over 90% ‐ all this on one of the most complex and congested mixed traffic railways in the world.Building on this success, the railway is now being challenged further to become even more reliable and to provide better value for money for both taxpayers and passengers. In response to this challenge, the national cross industry Technical Strategy Leadership Group has set strategic targets for doubling capacity, halving costs and carbon emissions and significantly improving the passenger experience over the next thirty years.Capacity, Reliability and Cost in the railway are interrelated and represent the principal pressure factors in the UK Railways. It may be relatively easy to improve two, at the expense of the third, however improving all three factors at the same time is a major challenge.This paper presents the results of a study whose main objective was to understand the implications of doubling capacity on the existing infrastructure. Whole system level modelling has been applied in order to study the relationship between capacity and reliability and thus further assist the research into practical solutions for the future railway development.TRAIL, a system level modelling tool, has been used to simulate the southern end of the West Coast Main Line (WCML), one of the most congested parts of the GB rail network. The study comprises two phases:
Building the base case for the future railway – a double capacity railway with current operating approaches and asset reliabilities. This is a full network model that replicates the actual railway operation, including the signalling control logic.
Simulating a range of different incident prevention, control and mitigation measures to enable identification of ‘optimum’ asset reliability requirements beyond which any further asset reliability improvement ceases to have a significant impact on rail service performance
The results show significant deterioration from current performance levels with the implementation of the high capacity future timetable. System performance can be returned to an acceptable level if infrastructure and rolling stock reliability improvements, identified in the study were to be realised. The study also identifies several mitigation measures related to the operation of an ‘on‐time’ railway including boundary presentation, sub‐threshold lateness and timetable recovery.A number of overall conclusions are drawn relating to the use of systems models generic to the analysis of performance within any industry characterised by the presence of a large volume of legacy assets and performance monitoring arrangements.
7.4.2 What's fundamentally wrong? Improving our approach towards capturing value in requirements specification
Authors: GILB TOM , BRODIE LINDSEY 
Published: November 2014

AbstractWe are all aware that many of our IT projects fail and disappoint: the poor state of requirements practice is frequently stated as a contributing factor. This article proposes a fundamental cause is that we think like programmers, not engineers and managers. We fail to concentrate on value delivery, and instead focus on functions, on use‐cases and on code delivery. Our requirements specification practices fail to adequately address capturing value‐related information. Compounding this problem, senior management is not taking its responsibility to make things better: managers are not effectively communicating about value and demanding value delivery. This article outlines some practical suggestions aimed at tackling these problems and improving the quality of requirements specification.
7.5.1 An incremental hybridisation of heterogeneous case studies to develop an ontology for capability engineering
Authors: Dogan Huseyin , de C. Henshaw Michael J , Johnson Julian 
Published: November 2014

AbstractAn analysis of perspectives for “capability engineering” has been conducted by the INCOSE UK Capability Working Group (CWG). This paper is a continuation of this study led by the CWG ontology work stream that aims to develop a single shared ontology for the concept of capability engineering to enable semantic interoperability and to support a formal and explicit specification of a shared conceptualisation. Case study material from the different domains of rail, defence and information services was used. The ontology development was executed in three phases; (1) pre‐analysis, (2) ontology modelling and (3) post‐analysis. The pre‐analysis involved literature reviews, requirements specification, systems engineering process utilisation; and resource identification i.e. examination of the case study material. The ontology modelling phase comprised information extraction and classification in addition to modelling and code representation using a mark‐up tool, MS Excel and Protégé. The post‐analysis involved validation workshops through using expert focus groups.
8.4.2 Measuring the Value of Adaptability of Fractionated Spacecrafts
Authors: Nilchiani Roshanak , Efatmaneshnik Mahmoud , Dalili Kia 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIn this paper, we introduce a new framework for quantitatively measuring the value of Adaptability in systems. A short review of literature is presented followed by the Adaptability Measurement Framework. Various stages of the Adaptability Framework including identifying system boundaries, various types of uncertainties and options analysis and modeling tools are discussed. The Framework is then applied to the case of measuring the value of adaptability of fractionated spacecrafts for several types of uncertain events and a brief discussion of results will follow.
8.7.2 On the Complexity of Requirements Flow‐down Structures
Authors: Dick Jeremy , Jones Brendan 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe process of systematically decomposing and tracing requirements results in graphs in which the tracing diverges and converges as the requirements are re‐factored through the layers of design. This paper reports in work in progress to assess measures for the complexity of requirements decomposition graphs, including the use of the standard definition of cyclomatic complexity. It discusses what the complexity of requirements flow‐down means intuitively, and establishes some informal assessment criteria. A number of measures are motivated and defined, and then assessed against the criteria. Finally, the paper discusses the use of such measures as viable tools for assisting in the review of requirements development, and the future directions the on‐going work should take.
9.5.2 Aging Aircraft Fleet Viability
Authors: Bullard Randall C. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSystems engineering in the US Air Force looks at the entire life cycle of a weapon system. While a primary focus has been on accomplishing proper SE early on at concept development, it is equally important when the system reaches the end of its planned lifetime. When deciding whether to modernize or retire a particular fleet, the Air Force looks to the Fleet Viability Board to perform an assessment.
9.6.2 Developing Systems Engineering Competencies in Undergraduate Students for Industrial Placements
Authors: Hubbard Ella‐Mae 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper reports on a project investigating the impact of industrial placements on the development of Systems Engineering competencies. It is widely acknowledged that engineering students can develop valuable transferable skills during industrial experience. This paper goes on to identify a set of Systems Engineering specific and transferable soft skills which students should develop before any industrial experience, in order to make the best out of the opportunities provided to them and also to improve return for the industrial organizations involved.
10.4.2 Enterprise Integration: A Framework for Connecting the Dots
Authors: Stroup Ronald L , Kepchar Kenneth J 
Published: November 2014

AbstractAir Traffic Management (ATM) in the United States is handled by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) using the National Airspace System (NAS), which is part of the U.S. government critical infrastructure. It is comprised of systems that are ground‐based, airborne‐based, and space‐based. It is an interwoven group of systems that effectively work together to provide the navigation, communications, and surveillance necessary to safely and efficiently transit our airspace.For more than 50 years, the FAA has been upgrading and modernizing the components and capabilities of the NAS, with activities ranging from simple updates to large‐scale replacement. The United States, as have other parts of the world, has embarked on an ambitious modernization of the Air traffic Management System – called NextGen (Next Generation Air Transportation System). We are introducing new technologies, policies, procedures, and systems to increase the capacity, effectiveness, and safety of the NAS in response to changing demands in air transportation. Development of NextGen, however, represents a marked increase in scope and complexity from these activities and, therefore, in the risk associated with the NextGen undertaking. Significant changes in the technologies employed, as well as consequent changes to air traffic procedures add to the potential for a many‐fold increase in both the number of risks to be encountered and the cost of encountering each risk, as well as an increasing possibility of actually missing the existence of some risks. These technology and procedure changes also add to the potential for new opportunities.This paper discusses the NextGen integrated framework that has been developed as part of a broader Strategic Integration Environment to address the integration challenges that must be addressed to establish a viable Systems of Systems (SoS) management approach that satisfies the needs of a diverse aviation community involved in collaborating to develop, sponsor, operate, or use NextGen.