bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
10.2 Architectural Framework For Complex Test Requirements Management
Authors: Ludwig Michael F. , Dagli Cihan 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThere are several systems engineering models available to provide guidance in transforming stakeholder requirements into comprehensive solutions. Though systems engineering processes are essential leading up to this point, the final adjustments will be determined during test and evaluation. This point is conveyed in the heuristic, “Regardless of what has gone before, the acceptance criteria determine what is actually built.”Establishing the acceptance criteria and compliance verification processes for a complex system is also a complex task. This task must start early and be accomplished in parallel with system architecture and design. In this way, quality can be designed into the product and relevant tests can be devised that match the needs and expectations of the stakeholder. This paper proposes a heuristics and model‐based architecture for establishing and managing complex test program requirements. In addition, statistics for a successful application of this architecture will be shared.
10.10 Simplifying the Organizational Paradigm to Improve Management of Complex Aviation Systems
Authors: Smith Lawrence R. , Hughes Timothy J. , Branson Ronald R. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper presents a case study of organizational change involving systems engineering management of complex aviation systems. The authors' premise is that management is more effective using simple tools and methods, even when dealing with very complex systems such as military helicopters operating in a network‐centric environment. Complexity of modern warfare systems requires systems engineers to think in complex and convoluted ways. At the same time, these projects can be effectively managed using basic management skills and tools. The complexity of military aviation systems is illustrated and management challenges are discussed in a context of business fundamentals. Useful tools and techniques show merit in simplifying the planning, communication and decision‐making processes of systems engineering.
1.1.1 Industry and Academia: Why Practitioners and Researchers are Disconnected
Authors: Muller Gerrit 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe industrial world and the academic world have grown far apart. The distance between the worlds primarily originates from different goals and different means of support. This is a problem in the areas of systems engineering and multi‐disciplinary design. These areas are relatively young, providing lots of opportunity for research. Education in this area is scarce. Publications are tangible examples of the gap between the two worlds.In this paper we discuss the needs of both communities with respect to publications, education, and research. The mutual understanding of each other's needs may help to bridge the gap between academics and industry.
1.1.3 The Core Competencies Of Systems Engineering
Authors: Cowper Douglas , Allen‐Shalless Richard , Barnwell Keith , Brown Samantha , Fatatry Ayman El , Hooper John , Hudson Sandra , Oliver Les , Smith Alan , Stoves Jocelyn 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper describes the work of an INCOSE UK Advisory Board working group set up to define the set of Core Competencies for Systems Engineering. The development of complex products (systems) demands a broad range of competencies from its system engineering resource. An agreed set of core competences would allow individuals and enterprises to establish an effective, transferable portfolio of skills, which can be deployed in systems projects. Such a set of core competences will also provide a framework for education/training and assessment. The working group recognized that in addition to core competencies, Supporting Techniques, Basic Skills and Behaviours and Domain Knowledge are important. This paper offers a set of core competencies for Systems Engineering and guidance on how to use them.
1.2.1 Engineering Information Assurance for Critical Infrastructures: The DITSCAP Automation Study
Authors: Lee Seok Won , Ahn Gail‐Joon , Gandhi Robin A. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractRecent advances in information technology have transformed the way in which mission‐critical services get delivered and are evaluated today. These services are heavily and increasingly relying on an interdependent crossed network of critical information infrastructures, spanning from private to government sectors. In order to enable such infrastructures to efficiently mitigate risks, optimize their security posture and evaluate their information assurance (IA) practices, we identify the need for a structured and comprehensive methodology for IA‐aware critical infrastructure protection. In this paper, we focus on the automation study of the Department of Defense Information Technology Security Certification and Accreditation Process (DITSCAP) that is a standard for certifying and accrediting the information networks that comprise of the Defense Information Infrastructure (DII). We attempt to generalize a course of actions in DITSCAP that motivate our design principles and modeling techniques, supported by their theoretical backgrounds and demonstrable prototype interfaces to establish their appropriateness.
2.1.3 Engineering Enterprises Using Complex‐System Engineering
Authors: Kuras M. L. , White B. E. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper summarizes a complex‐system engineering (cSE) regimen for the deliberate and accelerated management of the natural processes that shape the development of complex‐systems and proposes an approach for applying this regimen to enterprises. It also introduces a fundamental process of cSE, multiscale analysis—a departure from the traditional, uniscale, reductionist analysis that underpins traditional system engineering (TSE).
2.4.1 A Case Study Example of the Role Matrix Technique
Authors: Callan Katie , Siemieniuch Carys , Sinclair Murray 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe paper outlines the Role Matrix Technique (RMT) ‐ a paper‐based method for resourcing processes with identified human roles. It was developed in use over a number of projects, where the aim was to explore alternative allocations of roles to processes in order to find the most appropriate configuration of roles, responsibilities, interactions, activities etc. All stakeholders in a given process can generate a common understanding of roles and responsibilities, along with the interactions between roles. The overall picture is generated graphically, by means of a bottom‐up approach. Once, trained in the basics of the method, it should be applied by stakeholders familiar with the process under scrutiny, and who also have an awareness of the critical interactions between the human roles involved. The paper provides an overall rationale for the method and then goes on to discuss the three main stages involved: modelling the process of interest; identification and allocation of the roles required to process activities; and the representation of these roles within the Role Matrix – this is where the key innovation lies. The paper finishes with an evaluation of the RMT.
2.4.3 Extreme Leadership for Systems Engineers
Authors: Fossnes Terje 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThere have been numerous attempts to identify and analyze the multiple factors that contributed to the “tragedy” on Mt. Everest in May 1996. As the leader of a challenging project some years ago, I recognized many of the same human behavioral patterns between my project and Mt. Everest events. This paper presents my observations as well as a mapping of how Project Management / Leadership (PM), Systems Engineering (SE) and Supportability/Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) are integrated for each of the 2 systems respectively, and how these complex systems and human behaviour mutually influence each other. In my experience, Systems Engineers leading a project share many of the challenges of a leader taking a group of mountaineers to the top of Mt. Everest – and visa versa. In my capacity as Technical Program Chair of INCOSE 2004 in Toulouse France, I was privileged to organize and conduct the special session called “Management under Extreme Conditions“. This paper is a continuation of the dialogue begun in that session.
3.3.2 The ABCs of AFs: Understanding Architecture Frameworks
Authors: Siegers Rolf 
Published: November 2014

AbstractNumerous architecture frameworks have emerged over the past decade, but the contents and purposes of these frameworks are quite diverse. A framework typically addresses topics such as methodology, product description, reference models, categorization, or classification, but no single framework fully covers all aspects of the architecting process. Many users mistakenly believe that these frameworks represent distinct alternatives to the architect and that they must identify a single one to facilitate or guide their architecting efforts. The reality is that architecture frameworks (or parts of frameworks) must be unified in order to provide a comprehensive architecting solution. The purpose of this paper and presentation is to provide an overview of several architecture frameworks in use today, along with recommendations on the unification of key elements of specific frameworks.
4.1.1 Bridging Systems Engineering Views with a Structuring Matrix
Authors: Battersby David , Holden Carren 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper describes how a single information representation based upon Design Structure Matrix (DSM) may be used to provide a unified information visualisation applicable across a range of key systems engineering domains. This supports both the planning and technical architecting of a system and as such may be valuable as a link between these areas and the more abstract lifecycle model. The ability to restructure the matrix through clustering and partitioning also supports systems engineering by providing an improved understanding of the whole system. This understanding is facilitated by the use of clearly defined attributes assigned to the links within the matrix.The use of any systems wide tool is dependent upon its facility to manage information coherently. In this paper methods enabling this management are proposed, and the implications for improving traceability across the wide range of different relationships that exist within a systems engineering project are explored.An example is provided based upon an automobile architecture, this example demonstrates the depiction of linked information using linking different attributes within a matrix representation. It is demonstrated how DSM can facilitate further hierarchical breakdown of the system, and the benefits of clustering and partitioning of the problem are explored. A range of areas within the systems engineering process where these methods are likely to be valuable including formal optimisation, planning and requirements management are highlighted throughout the paper. This flexibility reinforces the potential role of DSM as a fundamental shared visualisation method.
4.1.3 Evolving to Intelligent Systems Engineering – Findings of the IS2004 Panel –
Authors: Ring Jack 
Published: November 2014

AbstractOrganizers of INCOSE International Symposium 2004 posed six themes regarding the future of systems engineering. In response a panel, “Evolving to Intelligent Systems Engineering,” took a position on each theme based on ideas already being explored in the Intelligent Enterprises Working Group, IEWG. Four panelists supported, or not, 23 specific assertions regarding the six themes. During the ninety minute session vigorous interaction with the panel audience occurred. At the end, 67 attendees kindly completed a poll designed to gauge the degree of consensus with the 23 assertions. The poll results are reported and analyzed in this paper. Also included are responses to the same poll by a voluntary subset of 18 INCOSE Fellows prior to the panel session. These results highlight several possibilities regarding the future of systems engineering for consideration by SE practitioners and educators.
4.2.1 Introducing the Role of Process Architecting
Authors: Kasser Joseph E. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe work done in the development of systems is currently split between the three interdependent and apparently overlapping organisational roles of systems architecting, systems engineering, and project management, which interdependently produce a product to (the correct) specifications within the constraints of resources, budget and schedule. This paper first identifies a reason for the overlapping roles, and then attempts to resolve the difficulties in defining the roles of systems engineering, systems architecting, and project management, and the difficulty in defining the body of knowledge for systems engineering by identifying a gap in the functions performed by the three organisational roles, when viewed from the perspective of planning and implementing the development of a system, via the Roles Rectangle. A gap, which when filled by the new defined role of process architecting, has the potential to bring some order into the current chaos and resolve many if not all of the current difficulties.
5.1.2 An Approach to Developing R&D Standard Processes
Authors: Hwang Young Ha , Park Jong‐Geun 
Published: November 2014

AbstractWith the increase of complexity of man‐made systems and software and the enlargement of the expected quality level for R&D outcomes in today's R&D environment, it has become increasingly necessary to effectively define the R&D standard processes tailored for our organization and projects. To meet these needs, we defined the R&D standard processes based on the international standards for systems and software engineering and on our traditional work methods and applied them to our ongoing projects. We will improve our defined R&D standard processes continuously by monitoring our processes and products and checking feedback from application results. In this paper, we introduce the R&D standard processes developed by our organization, the E Research Institute in Korea, and define the requirements and approaches used for their development. We compare our defined R&D standard processes with ISO/IEC 15288 which is the international standards for systems engineering.
5.4.3 Real Requirements: How to find out what the requirements really are
Authors: Gilb Tom 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper gives advice to help you find the requirements that really matter to your stakeholders. It focuses on stakeholder value delivery as the appropriate level, rather than the technical solutions that so many specify as their requirements. It suggests several specific methods for determining what the real requirements are. This includes some technology unique to this author, such as the Impact Estimation method.
6.1.2 Systems Engineering Degree Programs in the United States
Authors: Fabrycky Wolter J. , McCrae Elizabeth A. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe authors have observed a widespread need for general information regarding the availability and characteristics of Systems Engineering (SE) academic degree programs. This paper provides a compilation of SE degree programs in the United States, giving insight regarding academic content, administrative structure, accreditation status, and establishes a benchmark for the continued advancement of these degree programs. Description and analysis is offered by the authors to set a baseline that may be utilized to assess the future of existing and developing degree programs. The model for description and analysis utilized in this paper will be extended to the international domain in the near future.
6.2.3 Modeling ISO/IEC 15288 & Tailoring Enterprise Systems Engineering Processes for an Organization's Success
Authors: Walker Loren Mark 
Published: November 2014

AbstractTailored and integrated organizational processes are fundamental drivers for organizations to achieve efficiency and success. The organization's processes represent the means to achieve the organization's business objectives in terms of communications, functionality and systems related products. Developing the organization's processes architecture model must integrate both managerial and technical systems development efforts to produce efficient tasks and products.This document addresses the complexity of capturing the ISO/IEC 15288 “Systems engineering‐System life cycle processes” systems management and engineering processes and their outcomes in an integrated architecture model. Several significant issues and concerns are identified that relate both to the standard's contents and to tailoring the standard to an organization's processes. Assumptions for tailoring the model are identified, in addition to topics that developers of integrated and organizational processes need to consider prior to development of their integrated and tailored processes.The four topics addressed are:

Systems Engineering Standards and ISO/IEC 15288's unique perspective
The importance of modeling a standard and an organization's processes
The modeling of ISO/IEC 15288 including tailored perspectives
Modeling an organization's integrated processes to meet a customer's objectives
6.4.2 Capability Engineering Process within Canadian Defence: Some Engineering Issues
Authors: Couture Mario , Lizotte Michel , Dussault Geneviève , Mokhtari Marielle , Bernier François , Lam Sylvia , Lalancette Claire 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSome managerial and technical problems related to the transition of the Canadian military acquisition from the Threat‐Based Planning to the Capability‐Based Planning are identified in this paper. A simplified example of military acquisition illustrates recommendations that were made in the Collaborative Capability Definition Engineering and Management (CapDEM) project to guide the work surrounding the conception of a new Capability Engineering Process. Some elements of solution for the support of such a process are also presented.
7.1.3 Accelerating the Development of Senior Systems Engineers
Authors: Davidz Heidi L. , Nightingale Deborah J. , Rhodes Donna H. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractAs more senior systems engineers are needed to handle the increasing complexity of contemporary systems, there is an increasing need to accelerate the development of these senior professionals. However, the process of efficiently developing a senior systems engineer is not well‐understood. To compact this problem, the skill set needed by senior systems engineers continues to broaden as system complexity increases and as system boundaries expand. In order to better understand the mechanisms that most effectively and efficiently develop these individuals, this article discusses enablers, barriers, and precursors to this development process. In addition to reviewing related literature, specific interventions currently used to accelerate systems thinking development are discussed. Findings from ongoing research related to this topic provide preliminary information about current understanding and practice. Better understanding of systems thinking development provides a foundation for educational interventions and employee development in systems thinking for engineering professionals across industry, government, and academia.
7.4.1 Methodology Selection for the Engineering of Defence Systems
Authors: Vencel Les , Cook Stephen 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe nature of problems encountered in the system engineering domain has over the past thirty years grown in complexity. The integration of technology with human activity systems to produce complex capabilities has required a continual change in our definition and application of systems engineering. This paper examines the typology of problems associated with the development of modern complex systems and combines the ideas of system engineering and cognitive problem solving to propose a set of attributes that may be used to characterise system engineering problems. It is proposed that this set of attributes is sufficient to enable the selection of methods, tools and techniques necessary to solve the problem.
8.2.1 Agile Specification Quality Control: Shifting emphasis from cleanup to sampling defects
Authors: Gilb Tom 
Published: November 2014

AbstractTraditional Inspection is often uneconomic and ties up valuable staff resources. Shifting the emphasis from cleanup (that is, from identifying defects and then removing them), to merely sampling the defect level of specifications, produces significant benefits. It enables the quality level of specifications to be determined more rapidly. Consequently, the QC can be carried out more frequently. Systems and software engineers rapidly learn, through SQC feedback, to take standards seriously, which in turn reduces defect injection. Further, by analyzing where/how the defects occur continuous process improvement can be supported.
8.2.3 International Standards for System Integration
Authors: Martin Richard A. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractMissing from the repertoire of mechanisms for systems integration presented at past INCOSE symposia are the International Standards for process component integration being developed in the context of industrial automation. To improve the efficiency of beneficially constructed interactions between systems and system components, the international community is adopting a wide range of standards through formal development and review processes. For this presentation, the focus is on the standards efforts for industrial automation conducted by ISO TC184 SC5 working groups. The work products range from shop floor communication structures through enterprise level system concept management – all with a process centric orientation. Of particular interest are the enablers of interoperable supply chain components and support for systems throughout their lifetime.
8.3.3 Renovate WBS Planning with Technology Roadmap for New Product Development
Authors: Lee Hei‐Kuang , Liu Chih‐Ming , Lee Meng‐Hua 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe new product development (NPD) project has been considered a challenging task in the management practice. In project planning, the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is one of the fundamental tools, but the terms “product” and “activity” are frequently confused and results in inefficiency in the support of project management tasks. By clarifying the nature of project planning and execution, an integrated method for WBS planning has been developed in this research. It includes the product‐oriented WBS (P‐WBS), the activity‐oriented WBS (A‐WBS), and the contract‐out WBS (C‐WBS). The technology roadmap is used to transform the P‐WBS into the A‐WBS. Using the proposed integrated WBS planning method as the basis, an integrated methodology for new product development has been given to align strategic management to project management. Finally, the successful application of this methodology to develop a project for the re‐host of a full scope training simulator of a nuclear power plant in Taiwan is illustrated.
8.4.2 Exploring Engineering Governance
Authors: Nendick J.V. , Callan K. , Ng G.A.L. , Siemieniuch C.E. , Sinclair M.A. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractOver recent years a lot of effort has gone into improving corporate governance within public companies. But what about engineering governance? Companies which are involved in complex, systems engineering‐based projects face a lot of risk. This risk should be minimised as much as possible through the implementation of Good Engineering Governance (GEG). Improved engineering governance would assure the numerous stakeholders involved in large projects that controls are in place to effectively manage the engineering function.The GEG project at Loughborough University is looking at the stages needed to introduce an engineering governance framework into a large defence systems integration business. This paper looks at the initial findings of the GEG project and what is involved in the next stage.