bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
5.2.2 Addressing the System of Systems Challenge
Authors: Boardman John , Wilson Mark A. , Fairbairn Allen 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe top‐down systems engineering strategies that worked well in the 20th century do not adequately address the complexity and interdependencies of today's higher‐order systems that often must operate seamlessly with huge and disparate legacy systems. Soft management issues, such as organizational culture, also play a vital role in the organization's system of systems, often called the extended enterprise. Strategy must be formulated—and appropriate deployment mechanisms designed—for the system of systems level.System of Systems (SoS) has become a popular buzz word among systems engineering practitioners, but what does it really mean? Some professional literature traces the origins of SoS to problems with systems that “nobody owns,“1 while the U.S. Department of Defense has recognized that Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems must be seamlessly integrated with weapons systems in order to achieve optimal SoS effects. This paper offers an explanation of key SoS concepts and proposes some useful practices that the authors have found useful to address the complexities of large‐scale integration of SoS assets across the extended enterprise (EE).
6.1.1 Towards a Structure for Systems Engineering Research
Authors: Ferris Timothy L.J. , Cook Stephen C. , Honour Eric C. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper discusses the need for the development of a framework for Systems Engineering to facilitate recognition of Systems Engineering as a discipline and to provide a fundamental basis for advancing the practice of Systems Engineering. Systems Engineering concerns the development of systems that satisfy the real needs of those who call for the systems to be created. Such systems are not tangible things that can be analyzed as objects to be inspected and described, but rather these systems interact with their users and stakeholders in a complex manner, where the introduction of the system perturbs the pre‐existent situation, resulting in a need for sophisticated methodologies to analyze and predict outcomes of system creation and deployment. The paper exposes and discusses a range of research methodologies that are appropriate for contributing to the development of a coherent framework of research in Systems Engineering.
7.4.3 Integrated Communications Architecture for Homeland Security
Authors: Yeoh Lean Weng , Tan Kok Sin Stephen 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe fateful event of September 11 in the US and subsequent terrorist attacks in many countries had changed the world. We now live in a world of troubled peace, a far more dangerous world for many of us. A well‐networked security force will have comprehensive situation awareness to respond to unconventional threats like terrorism, low intensity conflict and even SARS. Conventional military communications has proven to be ineffective especially in urban environment where high‐rise buildings hinder the electromagnetic wave propagation of VHF and UHF communications. In Singapore, a well‐defined and integrated network centric based communications infrastructure is being put in place to link military and homeland security forces into an integrated force.
8.1.1 Systems engineering of socio‐technical systems
Authors: Ottens Maarten , Franssen Maarten , Kroes Peter , van de Poel Ibo 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIn this paper we discuss how the increasing importance of socio‐technical systems affects systems engineering. We start with a clarification of the notion of systems engineering by distinguishing two ways in which engineering design is involved with systems characteristics: in the object of design and in the design approach. Next we focus on system‐like objects of design of a special sort: socio‐technical systems. After presenting two examples, we indicate several tensions between the systems engineering design approach and the design of socio‐technical systems.
9.1.1 A Highly Automated CMMI‐Driven Self‐Organizing and Mapped (SOM) Document Library
Authors: Beshore David G. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractOver the past 10 years, systems engineering standards and process improvement models have matured to CMMI, IEEE/EIA 12207, and ISO 15288. A novel automated technique for rapidly capturing systems and software engineering specialty knowledge by ‘relevance’ algorithms while displaying the data in three‐dimensional Self Organizing Maps (SOMs) has been developed. Tools are based on the author's REALM© (Requirements Enabled Automated Learning Method) process that is used to categorize and rank any size document set to any baseline document set, including websites. The examples in this paper illustrate a document set that represents nearly 3000 pages of content (past maturity models, process implementation procedures, handbooks, books, websites and tools). The highest scoring process definition documents related to the CMMI are a Systems Engineering Process Manual (SEPM) and IEEE/EIA 12207. REALM© has other applications: systems and software handbooks, standards, contracts, appraisals, assessments, audits, proposal requests (RFPs), proposals, design reviews, test plans, statements of objectives (SOO), work statements (SOW), business plans, etc.
9.1.3 Modular Building Blocks for Manned Spacecraft: A Case Study for Moon and Mars Landing Systems
Authors: Hofstetter Wilfried , de Weck Olivier , Crawley Edward 
Published: November 2014

AbstractA method is presented for the selection of optimal modular building blocks for platforming of manned Moon and Mars landing systems employing modularity on the subsystem level; platforming shall here be defined as the reuse of designs across different systems. The motivation for platforming is the need to reduce overall Moon and Mars exploration architecture lifecycle cost by lowering spacecraft development, test, and fixed production cost, and to provide flexibility in system design to accommodate changes in the exploration architecture. The fundamental idea is to compute the surplus in functional attributes generated by using particular building block (module) sizes, then relate the surplus to a cost function, and finally select the building block sizes with minimal additional cost. Results are presented for modular crew compartments, propellant tanks, and engines. The proposed method is potentially helpful for platforming decision‐making, as well as subsystem technology selection in a broad class of engineering systems.
9.2.2 Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) Integrated with Systems Engineering Toolsets …Systems Engineering Quality Into Products
Authors: Gianacakes George , Sampson Mark E. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper describes an approach to merging statistical design techniques with allocation relationships in a systems engineering design environment; actually associating statistical distributions and transfer functions with those relationships. This allows users to apply Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) techniques early in product development where systems engineers can develop conceptual designs that are “robust” or insensitive to change/variation—effectively systems engineering quality into products.
10.3.3 10 Golden Questions for Concept Exploration and Development
Authors: Surber Dan C. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractProject engineers and development teams must be able to quickly understand the customer's need. There are many tools, methods, and processes suggested for conducting “Concept Exploration” and “Concept Development“. The author believes that there are “10 golden questions” which get the requirements elicitation done right. They apply to any Product (knowledge, good or service), system, or organizational structure. The “10 Questions” go a bit further than grammar school's: “who, what, where, when, why, and how.” Interaction with the customer/user illumines a key aspect of the system solution, “How does failure affect customer satisfaction?” Asking, “What if the product, (seen at its various levels of decomposition such as, “system/product/component”), FAILS to satisfy these ‘requirements‘?”, leads the designer to a better system solution. These answers take one to the next important discovery, answering, “How do we achieve mitigation and control of any critical failure modes and their effects on mission success, (through design, manufacturing, materials, and training).” This is the true purpose of the systems engineering lifecycle.
10.4.2 System Integration Frameworks
Authors: Simpson Joseph J. , Simpson Mary J. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractAn organizations ability to effectively create, deploy and use system integration frameworks is a discriminating technical capability which will continue to grow in importance for the design, development and deployment of future engineered systems. Engineering activities utilized in large‐scale systems integration processes are strongly associated with organized problem solving and complexity reduction. This paper outlines the relationships between systems, meta‐systems, and integration frameworks as well as complexity measures, reduction and management. The primary thesis of this paper relates to the design and use of integration frameworks as a fundamental means of complexity reduction. A system “abstraction frame” concept is presented and related to classical systems engineering mathematics and practices. A proposal for a systems engineering language completes the content of this paper. A formal systems engineering language will greatly reduce complexity in the practice of systems engineering, as well as facilitate the solution of even more complex problems.
10.4.3 Putting Leadership into Systems Engineering–A Model for Systems Engineering Leadership Development
Authors: Holzer Thomas H. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSystems Engineers, at all experience levels, need to be capable in more than the field of Systems Engineering. They require solid leadership competencies in order to gain essential support within an engineering or program team, properly influence the technical and programmatic direction, and achieve the best program outcome. Therefore, as a Systems Engineer advances (and in order to advance) in their career, the importance of being and demonstrating performance as an effective leader should increase. This paper is based on direct observations where weaknesses in leadership skills were noted in engineers. A structured leadership development program for systems engineers is providing the necessary competencies to perform in their work environment. The case study highlights the need for increased emphasis on systems engineering leadership training and provides a leadership development model. Survey results and findings provided validate the program's performance towards its objective.
11.3.3 Acknowledging Uncertainty in the Provision of Defence Capability: Insights from Literature
Authors: Rajabally Eshan , Snape Simon , Whittle Steve , Sen Pratyush 
Published: November 2014

AbstractUncertainty pervades the world we live in although its presence is not always acknowledged in systems engineering. Its influence on providing systems‐of‐systems defence capability is not only amplified by the aggregation of uncertainty through the systems hierarchy but also by the ambiguity in defining such capability. Worryingly, a failure to account for uncertainty can ultimately lead to a failure to satisfy the customer. Dealing with uncertainty must begin with acknowledging, understanding and synthesising the insight that literature has to offer on the topic. Such insight is summarised in this paper by reviewing the pertinent literature on the topic. A number of formalisms for expressing uncertainty exist and the pros and cons of each are surveyed. Traditional means of uncertainty analysis are also reviewed as a basis for dealing with uncertainty in defence capability. Despite the emphasis on the provision of defence capability, the topics presented in this paper are relevant to systems engineering in general.
1.1.3 Part Count and Design of Robust Systems
Authors: Frey Daniel , Palladino Joseph , Sullivan John , Atherton Malvern 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSystems engineering efforts are frequently undertaken to reduce part count with the goal of cutting costs, enhancing performance, or improving reliability. This paper examines the engineering practices related to part count, applying different theories – the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), Axiomatic Design, and Highly Optimized Tolerance. Case studies from the jet engine industry are used to illustrate the complicated trades‐offs involved in real‐world part count reduction efforts. It is shown that no current theory fully accounts for the realities of system design, but that part consolidation at the component level generally proceeds consistent with the TRIZ ideality principle and that system part count and coupling are generally increasing driven by escalating demands for system performance and robustness.
1.2.1 A Requirements Guide For All (REGAL)
Authors: Dick Jeremy , Fanmuy Gauthier , Thevenet Laure‐Hélène 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper describes an INCOSE initiative to collect from the systems engineering community information about good practice in requirements engineering, management and development. This initiative is the brainchild of the INCOSE Requirements Working Group, and is intended to provide a living requirements “Book of Knowledge” accessible in electronic form on the web, through which practitioners can contribute, evaluate and debate good requirements practice.
1.2.3 Role of Flow‐Down Approach and Orthogonal Arrays in System Design and Testing
Authors: Jugulum Rajesh , Singh Jagmeet 
Published: November 2014

AbstractDesign of systems to perform their intended functions is a creative and challenging activity because many requirements need to be satisfied under all customer usage conditions. In order to perform their intended functions over wide range of usage conditions, the systems must be designed in robust manner with a systematic flow‐down of requirements at various levels of the design process. After completing the design they must be tested in various usage conditions and studying all possible main effects and interactions. This type of testing enables customers to have a robust product, which will avoid incidences of functional failures. In this paper we used axiomatic design's zig‐zag approach for requirements flow‐down and orthogonal arrays for testing the system's performance. Since software design is a good example of system design, we describe use of these techniques in system design by considering software design as an example.
1.2.4 How do we win this game when the rules keep changing?
Authors: Mackertich Neal , Cleotelis Dave 
Published: November 2014

AbstractWe all know the goal of the game: “Develop increasingly complex systems with smaller performance margins that meet the user's requirements in the shortest time, with high reliability, open and adaptable, and at the lowest cost”. The environment we are working in continues to push Systems Engineering challenges to the next level. As Systems Engineers, we all want to win the game i.e. beat our competitors, satisfy our customers, develop unprecedented systems to address political and economic challenges. We have a proven process and a common set of tools, which we use and refine. Yet as we begin to participate in the game, we find that not only do we have huge challenges, but the rules keep changing. The customer/user requirements change, the conceptual design needs modification, the analysis reveals design challenges, budgets are reallocated. So how do we win this game? This paper presents a case for the increased application of a suite of enablers, processes, and practices referred to as Design for Six Sigma at appropriate integration points during the Systems Engineering process lifecycle.
1.3.1 Quantifying the benefit of introducing Systems Engineering Processes ‐ Myth or Reality?
Authors: Knippel Erwin , Schulz Armin 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIn the past years the automotive industry had to face, especially in the field of electric/ electronic, an increase in complexity. To be able to keep highest quality standards BMW Group had to restructure its existing processes within electric/electronic development according to these new challenges. A Change Program was set up to shift those development processes towards a system orientated development.For commercial driven companies an evaluation of cost vs. benefits is a prerequisite for approval and execution of such a change program. Therefore a business case was necessary. At the beginning of the change program a statement of anticipated likely impacts had to be made. At the end of the change program predicted impacts had to be validated. The approach taken was based on an aggregation of evaluations performed by the different subprojects of the change program. This paper is illustrating – based on the experiences of a subproject (Configuration Management) – the approach taken to model and evaluate a business case at the beginning and the end of the change program. An example using neutralized data from BMW Group is demonstrating the approach. Lessons learned and success factors implementing the approach are discussed. Evaluating or even quantifying the value of Systems Engineering Processes within product development is discussed within the SE community for quite a while, with very different positions. This paper aims at making a contribution to this discussion.
1.4.2 An Approach to Simulation Effectivenes
Authors: Gonçalves Duarte 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSimulation is an important aspect of engineering complex systems. In the real world, numerous problems can prevent the effective use of simulation. This paper looks at the tough question: When is a simulation effective? How would we know? The context and purpose of simulation are important in answering the question.If the simulation is viewed as a system, it follows that it has stakeholders and requirements originating from the creating system. An important result is that measures of simulation effectiveness include fidelity, time‐to‐answer, and resource usage. The importance of a referent (codified knowledge) in defining fidelity and related pitfalls are discussed. Simulation effectiveness assessment enables simulation designers to trade simulation effectiveness against cost and risk subject to constraints. A brief overview of how abstraction and simulation method selection can be used for this trade‐off is given. The impact of simulation effectiveness on risk is discussed. The benefits are balanced simulations with risk that is better matched to the problem at hand.
2.1.1 Feelings and Physics: Emotional, Psychological, and Other Soft Human Requirements, by Model‐Based Systems Engineering
Authors: Schindel William D. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractTraditionally, engineering encourages requirements statements that are objective, testable, quantitative, atomic descriptions of system technical behavior. But what about “soft” requirements? When products deliver psychologically or emotionally‐based human experiences, subjective descriptions may frustrate engineers. This challenge is important for products appealing to senses of style, enjoyment, fulfillment, stimulation, power, safety, awareness, comfort, or similar emotional or psychological factors. Automobiles, buildings, consumer products, packaging, graphic user interfaces, airline passenger compartments and flight decks, and hospital equipment provide typical examples. This paper shows how Model‐Based Systems Engineering helps solve three related problems: (1) integrating models of “soft” human experience with hard technical product requirements; (2) describing how to score traditional “hard” technology products in terms of “fuzzier” business and competitive marketplace issues; and (3) coordinating marketing communication and promotion with the design process. The resulting framework integrates the diverse perspectives of engineers, stylists, industrial designers, human factors experts, and marketing professionals.
2.2.1 Test time reduction by optimal test sequencing1
Authors: Boumen R. , de Jong I.S.M. , van de Mortel‐Fronczak J.M. , Rooda J.E. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractTesting complex manufacturing systems, like ASML lithographic machines (ASML 2005), can take up to 45% of the total development time of a system. This test time can be reduced by choosing wisely which test cases must be performed in which sequence, without making investments in test cases or the system. With the test sequencing method, developed by (Boumen 2005, 2006), it is possible to make these decisions such that a time, cost and/or quality optimal test sequence can be constructed. This paper shows with two case studies that test time can be reduced up to 20% without loss of quality with this method. The first case study is related to the test phase during the manufacturing of a lithographic machine. The second case study is related to the reliability testing of a first of a kind lithographic machine.
2.2.2 Integration and test strategies for semiconductor manufacturing equipment1
Authors: de Jong I.S.M. , Boumen R. , van de Mortel‐Fronczak J.M. , Rooda J.E. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe complexity of semiconductor manufacturing equipment is growing. This growth results in a complexity increase of the integration and test phase of these systems. Simply adding more test resources is not possible anymore, because of the cost involved. A better design of an integration and test strategy can help to optimize this hectic phase. However, methods to design and evaluate integration and test strategies for multi‐disciplinary systems are hardly available. In this paper, we present a method to design and compare integration and test strategies. Following this method, an optimal integration and test strategy can be chosen from a set of possible strategies. A case has been performed where a system is integrated and tested using three different integration and test strategies: a time‐to‐market‐driven strategy, a quality‐driven strategy and a combined quality and time‐to‐market strategy.
2.3.1 A Practical Program of Research to Measure Systems Engineering Return on Investment (SE‐ROI)
Authors: Honour Eric C. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractPast analysis has shown that there is a quantifiable correlation between the amount, types and quality of systems engineering efforts used during a program and the success of the program. For any given program, an amount, type and quality of systems engineering effort can be selected from the quantified correlations. The optimal nature of these selections, however, has not yet been explored. An ongoing project, Systems Engineering Return on Investment (SE‐ROI), aims to quantify the correlations by gathering data on current and completed programs. This paper describes the practical program of research being used in the SE‐ROI project and the current state of that development. The research program involves defining categorization sufficient to explore the correlations, implementing that categorization onto data sheets, gathering data from real programs through a personal interview process with the program leaders, and then performing statistical work to reveal the correlations. The project expects to achieve practical results in the form of (a) statistical correlation of SE methods with project success, to understand how much of each SE method is appropriate under what conditions, (b) leading indicators that can be used during a project to assess the project's expected future success and risks, and (c) identification of good SE practices that are appropriate to generate success under different conditions.1