bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
6.1.2 Generating SysML Views from an OPM Model: Design and Evaluation
Authors: Grobshtein Yariv , Dori Dov 
Published: November 2014

AbstractConceptual modeling is key to Model‐Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approaches. OPM – Object‐Process Methodology and SysML – OMG Systems Modeling Language are two state‐of‐the‐art conceptual modeling languages. While both languages aim at the same purpose of providing a means for general‐purpose systems engineering, these languages take different approaches in realizing this goal. As each of the languages has its relative strengths and weaknesses, ways to create synergies between them are considered in this work. We propose combining advantages of each language through automatic generation of SysML views from an OPM model. To this end, we developed a new algorithm and software application for implementing the OPM‐to‐SysML views generation, and evaluated the results through an experiment conducted for this purpose. Our approach can benefit various stakeholders by promoting better system understanding, standardization, and improved interoperability.
6.1.3 Model‐based Technical Planning: An evaluation of description techniques
Authors: Huldt Tomas , Andersson Jonas 
Published: November 2014

AbstractAs model‐based systems engineering (MBSE) gains ground as a real alternative for complex industrial projects compared to the traditional plan or document‐driven systems engineering paradigm, several challenges remain to be dealt with. MBSE requires not only the technological system‐of‐interest to be included in the common model repository used for MBSE, but also other elements and structures that are used to describe vital aspects of a complex technical project. This paper elaborates on how the primary planning document, the Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) can be evolved from the document‐driven to the model‐driven paradigm, and how some SysML diagram types along with architecture framework viewpoints may be used to model the most common content of a SEP. The evaluation is based on industrial experiences using MBSE in real‐world industrial development and procurement projects. Several examples on how SysML may be used to represent SEP elements are presented along with suggestions on potential directions for further work.
6.1.4 Multi‐Method synergies empower complex capability development
Authors: Jakobsson Åse , Bulluss Gary , Watson Jamie 
Published: November 2014

AbstractDSTO conducted a capability development exploratory activity for the Philippine Coast Watch South initiative. The purpose was to help the participants to understand, analyse and evaluate their user requirements and the current status of their capability design. We brought together three complementary methods to explore the problem space: an Engle‐Matrix Game, a C4ISR architecture workshop and a simulation‐based wargame. The approach was beneficial for all participants. It enhanced their understanding of operational complexity and capability development issues. It also equipped them with the ability to ask the right questions and tackle the challenges themselves. This paper describes the exploratory activity, the three methods, the synergies experienced in applying the methods and the effect experienced by the Philippine delegation and by DSTO.
6.2.2 Information visualization for the Structural Complexity Management Approach
Authors: Maurer Maik , Braun Thomas , Lindemann Udo 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe handling of complexity poses an important challenge and a success factor for product design. A considerable percentage of complexity results from dependencies between system elements – as adaptations to single system elements can cause far‐reaching consequences. The Structural Complexity Management (SCM) approach provides a five‐step procedure that supports users in the identification, acquisition, analysis and optimization of system dependencies. The approach covers the handling of multiple domains (e.g. components, functions and people).Additionally the application of the SCM approach requires intensive support by information visualization, e.g. matrix and graph representations. However, one single technique does not satisfy all demands. Each phase of the SCM approach possesses individual requirements on the visual support. Whereas many specific techniques exist for visualizing systems and their dependencies (e.g. mind map or DSM), a suitable combination that supports the entire SCM approach is not available. For this reason, practical applications of the SCM approach are only restricted to small systems so far. In this contribution, we classify available techniques of information visualization and match them with the requirements of the SCM approach. Then we assemble a comprehensive model of visualization techniques which will provide the implementation basis for an appropriate software support.
9.1.1 Does Systems Engineering in Space Projects Pay?
Authors: Hamann R.J. , Zandbergen B.T.C. , Zijdemans P.J. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper attempts to answer the question whether it “pays” to apply Systems Engineering methods, tools and techniques within a space project. To this purpose a possible correlation has been investigated between the Systems Engineering effort applied within a number of space projects and the project result in terms of technical quality, cost and schedule.Use has been made of historical data derived from the results of Systems Engineering audits of projects, some recent audits performed along the same lines and assessments of project results in terms of technical quality, cost and schedule by the systems engineers involved in the projects. Basis for the audits is a checklist addressing 93 different aspects of Systems Engineering in the field of requirements, concept design, design & development, verification and technical management. In total nine data sets related to six projects in the industrial and the academic world were used.Although the data obtained are rather “noisy” there appears to be a clear positive correlation between the SE effort applied and the project result. It appears also that the positive effects mainly show up in the cost and schedule results of the project, the technical quality of the project result being generally of a rather satisfactory level.Examining the results in detail the Systems Engineering effort in the field of requirements, design & development and technical management has the strongest correlation with the project result. The effort in the field of (concept) design and verification shows a less strong correlation.The data have been “refined” by deleting the projects that were most strongly influencing the correlation in a positive sense. The overall results remained, however, the same.An overview is given of those aspects generally receiving little attention in the Systems Engineering effort. Further analysis of these results will be the subject of a follow‐on study.
Schema Development for Integrating Environment of SE and EVM : Case Study
Authors: Kim Gyeonggeun , Lee Hyeonwoo , Park Jongsun , Park Youngwon 
Published: November 2014

AbstractEVM(Earned Value Management) is applied to many large scale projects as one of project management techniques. But the measurements of the EV have been carried out by separated process with Systems Engineering processes, in separated tool environments. This separation caused the problem that EV does not show the exact value of the work accomplished. To overcome this separation and to solve the problems, this paper suggests an integrated computer aided tool environment and processes.In this research, we defined data elements needed for systems engineering and project management. Those elements are WP(Work Package), WP_DETAILED_PLAN, WP_PROCEED_DPLAN and SYSTEM REQ. WP is the decomposition of the WBS element and the WP_DETAILED_PLAN contains PV information, the WP_PROCEED_DPLAN contains the AC information and the SYSTEM REQ contains the requirements which the WP should satisfy.These elements were implemented using computer aided systems engineering tool(Cradle®). If this tool can be integrated with EVM tool, technical information related with EV can be traced efficiently. This paper describes the integration concept mentioned above and the implementation of the concept.
1.2.3 The Context and Why of Competence
Authors: Marshall MM , Blyth David 
Published: November 2014

AbstractCompetence with respect to systems engineering is a topical debate and research area. At the same time, there is a debate in human resource management on the exact definition of competence. It is imputed that a constructivist approach to defining the construct ‘competence’ may be of benefit to the work relating to competence and systems engineering in that it will assist in considering viable definitions of competence. The primary focus of this paper is on individual competence in the systems engineering discipline. The possible purpose of use of the construct competence and the various areas of use will be considered. In order to focus on the purpose and potential use of defining competence at an individual level, various factors of the specific context that influence this description are discussed. The paper proposes a framework for use in a constructivist approach to describe systems engineering competence.
1.3.3 Old Dog, New Tricks
Authors: Mollett Jennifer 
Published: November 2014

AbstractEnterprises are increasingly adopting a capability based approach to optimise their effectiveness in achieving their outcomes and this paradigm is attracting significant interest amongst the Systems Engineering community. In the UK, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has adopted Through Life Capability Management (TLCM) as its acquisition model and is transforming itself to more effectively deliver affordable military capability. BAE Systems has been supporting the UK MOD in its implementation of TLCM and early work has identified the essential role of Systems Engineering in defining and addressing the challenges associated with effective capability management.
1.5.0 Systems Engineering the Supply Chain: Multiple Perspectives from Transportation
Authors: O'Neil Anne , James Aaron C. , Halliday Brian , Katzman Lori , Hulse Jon , McDonald Bruce 
Published: November 2014

AbstractTransportation services and projects are delivered by multiple organizations and therefore effective systems engineering on these projects must traverse organizational boundaries. Each of the organizations across this complex supply chain faces different issues – and therefore needs to tailor its systems engineering to cope with difficult problems. However, to deliver effective transport services to customers, this systems engineering needs to be integrated.So how do we systems engineer the supply chain to enable effective, cross‐organizational systems engineering? What roles should customers and suppliers take in the overall SE program? What are the key challenges we need to address to deliver the low cost, reliable, environmentally‐friendly, high capacity and safe transport services our customers want to use?The panelists will explore these questions from different perspectives – from designing national transportation infrastructure to building trains. We'll hear from five perspectives:For each perspective we'll explore: What are the primary systems challenges? Which aspects of systems engineering add most value? What aspects cause the greatest difficulty? What changes would make the supply chain more effective?Audience discussion is sought to explore:How does the experience of the transportation industry SE compare or contrast to other industries? Are the viewpoints of various contributors common? Are interdependencies being overlooked?
National government's transport administration ‐ focusing on keeping people moving in our major cities and getting a decent return from investment in major enhancements
Rail agency – focusing on integrating infrastructure, vehicles and command and control to deliver effective transport services
Major rail system upgrade program – focusing on delivering major enhancements with minimum cost and risk
Systems consultant – focusing on specifying the procurement of integrated systems to meet agency's business needs while navigating sub‐system supplier capabilities and systems integration risk
Sub‐system supplier – focusing on delivering vehicles, infrastructure or command and control solutions that meet the market and specific customers need
2.1.1 Putting Chaos under Control: on how Modeling should Support Design
Authors: Moneva Hristina , Hamberg Roelof , Punter Teade , Vissers John 
Published: November 2014

AbstractComplex systems design faces the lack of seamless integration of model‐based methods and techniques. In this paper we propose a framework that enables designers and architects to track the design decisions throughout the design process. It provides a mechanism to deduce the impact of each design decision on the system under design. Furthermore, it supports model and result management while analyzing and experimenting with models throughout the entire design cycle.
2.4.2 A Blueprint to Effective Enterprise Risk Management
Authors: Kepchar Kenneth J 
Published: November 2014

AbstractTraditional risk management models have typically focused on the acquisition and operational phases of a product life cycle, with the second dimension of these models being that they are also system‐centric. Modern transportation systems are defying the traditional system‐centric approach to design, development, and deployment and represent an unprecedented level of complexity to be factored into decision making. This level of complexity, both in the solution space and at the organizational level, demands a more robust approach to risk and opportunity management than has traditionally been considered. This paper discusses the factors that must be addressed in establishing a viable opportunity and risk management presence in a Systems of Systems (SoS) context.
3.2.2 Understanding the Complex System Dynamics of Managing Water Security
Authors: Sawah Sondoss El , McLucas Alan , Ryan Michael 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIn many parts of the world, assuring reliable supplies of potable water is a serious challenge. It is not simply a matter of imposing restrictions on supply, increasing water prices, and building new dams. Effective water security strategies can only be developed when the mechanisms of supply and demand and the interactions between are fully understood. A System Dynamics (SD) modeling approach is taken to collect, analyze and merge the views of both consumers and supply managers in order to develop conceptual models which then form the basis for building quantitative models to investigate the complex dynamics. The modeling process has led to a significant increase in the understanding of the management of water security. First, the process has reinforced a number of lessons learned by SD modelers over the years, and second, the process has exposed a significant number of mis‐perceptions about water security among supply managers and consumers.
3.3.1 A3 Architecture Overviews: Focusing architectural knowledge to support evolution of complex systems*
Authors: Borches P. Daniel , Bonnema G. Maarten 
Published: November 2014

AbstractCreating complex systems from scratch is time consuming and costly, therefore a good development strategy often chosen by companies is to evolve existing systems. The understanding that a company has about the impact change has on the system determines its ability to cope with system evolution. Reuse of knowledge and experience becomes therefore, essential. Complex systems are usually the result of a multidisciplinary team, which means that an effective way to capture, organize and present this knowledge, in a fashion that can be used by different disciplines and departments is crucial. Typically, some of this knowledge is present in the form of text documents. However, much of that knowledge is usually lost or hidden, especially in long‐lived systems. This leads to unexpected problems that could be prevented if the company had reused the knowledge it already has.In this paper system evolution barriers are discussed, and a method to cope with them is provided. Some companies such as Toyota have already identified the advantages of using an A3 approach2 to capture and share knowledge. We share this idea and take it several steps further. A method, based on the creation of ‘A3 Architecture Overviews’ is proposed to capture and share architectural knowledge. The method is the result of the work carried at Philips Healthcare MRI Group. We show that the proposed method to capture architectural knowledge provides an effective framework to support decision making when evolving complex systems.
4.2.2 Systems Integration Sandpit for Entrenching Innovative Systems Engineering Practice
Authors: Do Quoc , Campbell Peter , Cook Stephen , Samjeva Ishan , Solomon Daniel 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper presents the Systems Integration Sandpit (SIS) established by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and University of South Australia. The paper commences by describing the first two stages of the SIS development and early achievements against the facility's primary goals: exploring systems integration issues, the formation of systems engineering competencies by providing experiential learning, and research infrastructure to support the evaluation of emerging systems engineering practices, such as into Model‐Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). From here, the paper discusses the ongoing research program for Stage Three that is focused on MBSE and systems engineering for evolving systems.
4.3.1 Effectiveness of Systems Engineering Techniques on New Product Development: Results from Interview Research at Corning Incorporated
Authors: Vanek Francis , Jackson Peter , Grzybowski Richard , Whiting Matthew 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper reports on the findings from interview research conducted by a joint team from the Systems Engineering Directorate at Corning Incorporated and the Systems Engineering Program at Cornell University to test for systems engineering (SE) effectiveness in product development in a commercial setting. Between April 2008 and March 2009, the team conducted 19 interviews of systems engineers and project managers within Corning to evaluate the extent to which they used a range of systems engineering techniques, and the effectiveness of those techniques in improving project performance. Both quantitatively and anecdotally, the expectation of a correlation was met, with strongly performing projects having generally higher use of SE, and struggling projects having difficulties that could be traced back to shortcomings in the use of SE. Both the findings and the underlying methodology are discussed, with the aim of interesting others in the field in repeating this type of research within other enterprises.
4.5.3 Experience from Introducing SysML into a Large Project Organisation
Authors: Herzog Erik , Andersson Henric , Hallonquist Jessica 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIntroducing a model centric way of working in large organisations is difficult. At SAAB Aerosystems it has been tried over multiple years in many projects. Success has been limited.In our latest attempt to introducing SysML as a tool for system design it was decided to change focus. Instead of trying to promote models as the new way of documentation it was decided to setup the tools with the objective to create consistent and readable document centric deliverables. Instead of giving the modellers the freedom to use the language at its extreme, it was decided to limit language use to an absolute minimum.As a result there have been some quite drastic initial complaints from our some experienced modellers, but surprisingly strong acceptance of the new approach to modelling from the stakeholders responsible for quality control, but not directly involved in the core development team.
6.2.1 Toward Efficient and Effective Contracting Structures and Processes for Systems‐of‐Systems Acquisition
Authors: Rendon Rene G. , Huynh Thomas V. , Osmundson John S. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractAcquisition of a system of systems can be an all new acquisition of multiple systems that are intended to operate together as a system‐of‐systems. Much more common in the DoD is acquisition of one or more new systems that are intended to interoperate with existing systems as a system of systems with new capabilities. In either case, successful acquisition of systems‐of‐systems (SoS) necessarily depends on effective contracting structures and processes for systems‐of‐systems acquisition. In this paper, a set of system‐of‐systems issues that need to be addressed in SoS acquisition are identified and the current findings in this on‐going research are discussed. The findings suggest sustainment of extensive systems engineering effort within the SoS acquisition and change to the existing contracting structures and process and organizational structures to maximize the probability of SoS acquisition success. The resulting changes will be applied to current and future DoD SoS acquisitions.
8.1.0 Self Organizing vs Standards‐Based System‐Security Strategy Conflict or Synergy
Authors: Dove Rick , White Brian , Baldwin Kristen , Kepchar Ken , Dove Rick 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSelf organizing systems‐of‐systems characterizes the operational architecture of the anti‐system adversarial community – from guerillas and terrorists to organized computer crime, high‐seas pirates, grass‐roots vigilantes and independent system hackers. These anti‐system communities are loosely coupled multi‐agent systems bound only by shared learning loops of tools, techniques and targets. Contemporary system security strategy is failing against this intelligent operational evolution. The need for next generation security strategies is fueling early action. One avenue is crafting new standards and new acquisition requirements – another avenue is probing security structures that mirror the adversarial architectures of self‐organizing systems‐of‐systems. The former sounds like a centralized approach, the later a decentralized approach. Is there conflict, compatibility or synergy between these two approaches?
8.4.2 A Voice of the Customer Process for Medical Device Development
Authors: Eubanks Fritz , Gibson Chad , Masters Melissa 
Published: November 2014

AbstractMedical device developers are always looking for an optimized method to translate a clinical need or a problem into a device, service, or combination product. Established companies are searching for methods to improve this transition, and newer companies, in general, do not have this capability in any form. Using a Voice of the Customer (VOC) process on a new problem or just to improve on an existing product is a systematic and effective way to listen to the stakeholders and glean information that allows a team to be truly innovative in the solution and ultimately better meet the stakeholders' needs. Battelle's Medical Device Solutions (MDS) team has developed a standardized, scalable approach to performing VOC as part of our medical device design and development process.