bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
4.2.2 LARGE SCALE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING OF HOUSING IN SINGAPORE
Authors: CHIA Eng Seng 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper examines how the Housing Development Board (HDB) of Singapore provides low cost housing in addition to achieving other social, economic and political goals. It uses the large‐scale systems engineering framework to analyze these goals, the boundaries HDB has to maintain or overcome and the continuous improvements it had achieved. Finally it examines some of the lessons learnt and the challenges that HDB faces in the future. The human dimension of such an undertaking is especially important and will be highlighted throughout the paper.
4.3.1 Research on Creativity Education Incorporating Systems Engineering—An Example with “Intelligent Taiwan”
Authors: Peng Willy Y.S. , Hsu Victoria 
Published: November 2014

AbstractUpon the arrival of the era of science and technology and information, pluralism and diversification become important trend of industrial development. Facing the rapid industrial revolution and information explosion, human being's creativity has attracted attention; a lot of studies have been done on creativity, resulting in many theories, which have been applied in various areas in recent years.This research focuses on Taiwan's current technology policy, known as “Intelligent Taiwan”, and discusses the possible future Intelligence systems and issues related to continuous development of humanism. We also propose a Three‐Dimensional systems engineering framework (5‐layer extendable mode), which is adaptable to the future blue print and full of creativity. According to the introduction of the multi‐layer value of human, nature, and esthetics, which is developed as the structure of the proposed Three‐Dimensional framework, we further discuss the different value perspectives, life‐style, and future influence, of systems engineering thinking. In addition, in this paper we also recommend a new thinking of the systems engineering education to link the creativity education. Hence we can expect that the talents trained in the educational way would develop more mew methods, new conceptions, and new theories in the intelligent systems. In this case, our society can become more wholesome, have more excellent engineering creativities, develop continuous new innovations, and finally achieve the intelligent life – Sustainable Humanity and Nature Symbiosis.
4.3.3 Enabling Collaborative Decision Making: A Process for Integrating Novel Systems Engineering Tools and Methods for Renewable Energy Portfolio Analysis
Authors: Ender Tommer R. , Haynes Comas , Murphy Jonathan , McDermott Tom 
Published: November 2014

AbstractIncreasingly complex problems drive systems engineers to develop novel decision making processes. The breadth of complex problems demands the interaction of various groups, each focusing on specific areas but all addressing a higher level common cause. The process brought forth in this paper integrates a series of methods, some widely accepted and others which are novel in nature. Quality Function Deployment is used to capture customer desires and focus engineering level requirements. Multi‐Attribute Decision Making is used to identify system configurations when multiple and competing objectives exist, which is a situation where traditional optimization struggles. The process of surrogate modeling is introduced to rapidly access elements of modeling and simulation, a necessary step to analyze system options. The very integration of these methods enables collaborative decision making. A proof of concept is presented where each of these methods is applied to aid in the portfolio analysis of renewable energy system options for a remote off‐grid site.
7.1.2 Architecting as a Means of Bounding Risk in the Future
Authors: Kepchar Kenneth J 
Published: November 2014

AbstractTraditional architecture development efforts have deferred most risk considerations until after the functional architecture has been established and the imbedded concepts are being turned into operational solutions. This paper discusses a framework that moves Risk Management “upstream” and integrates it into the architecture development process. Including risk management at the architectural development stage provides early insight into the delicate balancing act between the benefits anticipated vs. risks incurred in selecting (or not selecting) features of candidate architectures to address stakeholder needs driving the scope and context of the architectural choices. Thus, application of risk management during architectural development provides a proper balance between risk and opportunity, avoids potential unacceptable risks where appropriate, and takes a proactive and well‐planned role in anticipating and responding to risks prior to implementation.
8.3.1 How to Achieve the Most Important Requirement
Authors: Malotaux Niels 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe most important requirement for most projects is time ‐ time for completion. Still, most projects are late. Isn't it weird that projects apparently judge all other requirements more important than the requirement of time while time is one of the most important requirements? Both Project Management (responsible for the project) and Systems Engineering (responsible for the product) are responsible for the consequences of ignoring this important requirement. This paper describes why it is important to be on time, what measures we can take to make sure we are on time (and which often applied intuitive measures don't work!), and how we can use Evolutionary Planning techniques to make sure that we will be on time, or, if that is simply impossible, to take the consequence. These techniques allow us in the early stages of our project to predict and to optimize what will be ready at a certain time.
10.1.4 Application of a Global Systems Engineering Competency Framework
Authors: Arnold Eileen 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper was written to provide a competency model implementation example, emphasizing a usable competency framework as a continuation of the well‐received International Council on Systems Engineering International Symposium 2008 paper entitled, “Global Systems Engineering Competencies: A Business Advantage (Arnold, 2008). The framework addresses activities in the form of a case study for implementing a global East Meets West, 3‐D Systems Engineering competency model at a hypothetical company, Global Avionics Proactive Systems (GAPS). The motivations for the development of this framework are based on the author's perceived business need for visualization of the lean, rapid creation and deployment of a 3‐D competency framework usable at several layers of a global enterprise, applicable to a wide range of industry, government, and academic situations.
An Optimization‐based Composite Indicators Approach to Performance Assessment
Authors: ZHOU Peng , ZHOU Dequn , POH Kim Leng 
Published: November 2014

AbstractComposite indicators (CIs) approach has been widely accepted as a useful tool for assessing system performance at macro level. Several recent studies have shown that the weighted product (WP) method, a multiple criteria decision analysis method, may be a good choice in constructing CIs. However, a problem in its application is the subjectivity in determining the weights for sub‐indicators. This paper extends the WP method and proposes an optimization‐based approach to constructing CIs. The proposed approach requires no prior knowledge of the weights for sub‐indicators. The weights used can be generated by solving a series of multiplicative DEA type models that can be transformed into equivalent linear programs. Additional information on the weights can be easily incorporated into the proposed models. A case study on assessing the performance of APEC economies towards sustainable energy development is finally presented to illustrate the use of the approach.
1.3.1 Design principles for Ultra‐Large‐Scale (ULS) Systems
Authors: Sillitto Hillary G 
Published: November 2014

AbstractUltra‐Large‐scale Systems (ULSS)1 are a major new challenge for systems and software engineering. Current engineering practice is ahead of the science — we are building systems we do not know how to characterise or analyse, and whose behaviour we cannot fully predict. ULS are characterised by complexity, dominated by emergence, and exist in a state of constant reconfiguration and evolution; all of which make untenable a reductionist approach to engineering and a “closed system” approach to specification and certification.This paper recommends ten design principles and five design practices for ULS systems, drawing on known systems engineering practice and an understanding of how complexity science is applied in other domains. The paper offers practitioners a strategy and a practical approach to deal with ULS systems — or indeed any system that is larger scale and more complex than those they are accustomed to dealing with—and shows academics some possible routes to addressing the research challenges set out in the SEI report on ULS systems.
1.4.1 Reducing Risk for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
Authors: Beck John M. , Opare Emmanuel O. , Heydt Harold J. , Oswald Kyle B. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project, managed by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), is directed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to research, develop, design, construct, and operate a prototype forth generation nuclear reactor to meet the needs of the 21st Century. As with all large projects developing and deploying new technologies, the NGNP has numerous risks that need to be identified, tracked, mitigated, and reduced in order for successful project completion.A Risk Management Plan (RMP) was created to outline the process the INL is using to manage the risks and reduction strategies for the NGNP Project. Integral to the RMP is the development and use of a Risk Management System (RMS). The RMS is a tool that supports management and monitoring of the project risks. The RMS does not only contain a risk register, but other functionality that allows decision makers, engineering staff, and technology researchers to review and monitor the risks as the project matures.
3.4.1 So what is “in service systems engineering”?
Authors: Kemp Duncan 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper has been produced to help the INCOSE UK In‐Service Systems working group understand the different perspectives of in service systems engineering. It describes four related perspectives of systems engineering in service systems, specifically:The paper concludes that that it is considerable benefit to considering all four perspectives, as:
Managing the system through life to ensure it remains safe and delivers the required performance by monitoring the material state of the system against its design intent and commissioning update, upkeep and upgrade as necessary.
Improving the system performance by upgrading and updating the system to meet a new/existing requirement.
Using the system to deliver operational services by defining the services to be delivered, designing and implementing them and continuously improving them
Reducing the cost of the system and managing obsolescence by optimising the system's supply network

They increase the range of options to improve system effectiveness and reduce cost of ownership
They highlight some of the reasons why in‐service systems are so difficult to change
The show some of the cultural misunderstandings that can occur between the systems engineering and in‐service support communities.
Finally this paper has confirmed the benefits of Checkland's soft systems in clarifying a complex situation.
3.4.2 An Initiative to Strengthen Guidance on the Systems Engineering of Systems which are Already in Service: First Progress Report
Authors: Elliott Bruce , Panter Glenn 
Published: November 2014

AbstractA number of INCOSE members believe that, while the principles underpinning SE remain the same across the lifecycle, some of the issues concerned with sustaining existing systems are more problematic than when realising new systems, and the existing SE Body of Knowledge is not as strong in these areas as it could be.A working group within the UK Chapter of INCOSE has been working for two years to strengthen SE guidance to serve better the large number of systems engineers who are working on systems that have entered service. An international working group has been formed to take the work further. It is timely to provide a report on the work to date so that the emerging conclusions can be scrutinised, challenged and improved upon and this paper provides just such a report.
4.3.2 Requirements Engineering for Trusted Embedded Systems
Authors: Fernández José L. , Alonso Rubén , Gómez Francisco , Jouvray Christophe , Rouxel Yann , Pérez Antonio 
Published: November 2014

AbstractTrusted computing is a complex and multidimensional issue, and its application to embedded systems has some particularities not found in business and desktop computing. Trust for embedded systems differs from traditional trust because these systems have physical accessibility, resource constraints and real‐time requirements.In this paper, we describe the approach followed to specify trust requirements for the ITEA2 project TECOM (Trusted Embedded Computing)1. Using these requirements, the project partners developed embedded systems in diverse areas such as home control, video surveillance, digital content delivery, automotive, and communications gateways for remote maintenance.The approach for the engineering of trust requirements presented here is based on two principles: a common conceptual model to identify the trust concepts for embedded systems and their relationships, and a well‐defined process to elicit and specify embedded systems requirements.
4.4.1 Dimensions of Understanding of Systems Engineering
Authors: Ferris Timothy L.J. , Peng Willy Y.S. , Hsu Victoria 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper continues work begun by Hitchins with the development of the 5‐layer model of systems engineering. Hitchins' work was later extended to form the Hitchins‐Kasser‐Massie representation of systems engineering, HKM Framework, which adds a time dimension related to the stages of a project. The HKM Framework describes the layers of concern and the stages and types of projects at which they are dominant interests. In this paper we introduce a solid space concept to the HKM Framework based on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Palmer's Modes of Being. The additional dimensions are useful to guide thinking about the purpose of the product system which is the focus of the project and the kind of existence which it has at the various stages of development. These additional dimensions are expected to be useful in the development of a framework for developing processes to guide the development through an appropriate path to achieve the desired outcome.
4.5.1 Requirements Analysis and Modeling Process (RAMP) for the Development of Complex Systems
Authors: Fanmuy Gauthier , Salinesi Camille , Hammami Omar , Roussel Jean‐Claude , Dauron Alain , Szczepaniak Richard , Picci Laurence 
Published: November 2014

AbstractRequirement Analysis and Modeling Process (RAMP) is a new project born recently in France from a joint initiative between 3 major industrial companies belonging to different domains (Aerospace, Automotive, Energy), 2 SMEs (Service consulting, Tool supplier) and 3 Research Lab & Universities in order to improve the efficiency and quality of requirements expressed in natural language during the development of complex systems. Starting from a common view of the problem from industrial partners and the state of art in Requirement Engineering and Modelling, this project intends to deliver short & mid term solutions based on existing tool as well as promising research tracks in this field though a singular partnership organisation under the umbrella of AFIS (French Chapter of INCOSE).
5.2.1 Effecting Quality of Service Across Systems of Systems
Authors: Naga Vinod D. , Grimaila Michael R. , Colombi John , Hopkinson Kenneth 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThe ability for diverse communication networks to adapt to changing mission characteristics, such as priority, have been a recognized challenge across Systems of Systems. Within the Department of Defense, mechanisms do not exist to extract dynamic mission features for use in defining Service Level Agreements (SLA) and for use within Quality of Service (QoS) provisioning. These mechanisms, were they to exist, would also serve a wide range of non‐defense enterprises. This paper provides background on QoS and SLAs within the current military context. We then offer a research approach to improve on the network‐focused, QoS mechanics. Using OpNet, early simulations reproduce the competing cross‐mission information environment and serve as the foundation for continued “mission‐aware” QoS research.
5.4.1 Simulation and Verification of [Dys]functional Behavior Models: Model Checking for SE
Authors: Seidner Charlotte , Lerat Jean‐Philippe , Roux Olivier H. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractVerification is a key process in the dependability engineering of complex systems. As we have shown in earlier works, formal verification techniques such as model checking can be efficiently used in a Systems Engineering (SE) context, despite their inherent complexity. Considering the widely used Enhanced Function Flow Block Diagrams (EFFBDs), we have indeed developed a formal simulation and verification tool for these functional behavior models. Moreover, great care has been taken to conceal the processing complexity from the tool end‐user.In this paper, we present our latest developments as well as an extension of both method and tool to the case of dysfunctional models, to take into account failures affecting the model elements. By addressing both fault removal and fault forecasting problems with formal methods, we thus hope to improve the dependability analysis practice in SE.
5.5.2 Three Reasons why Document‐based SE (usually) works better than (most of) MBSE
Authors: LERAT Jean‐Philippe 
Published: November 2014

AbstractUnder this provocative title, this paper warns the reader against a common belief: MBSE is the key to success. This statement is not wrong but terribly reductionist since the success of MBSE requires good SE practices to begin with. However in real life, most of MBSE efforts are just reflecting the bad SE practices that it pretends to correct. This mirroring does not help to solve the problems nor to implement better SE practices. In general, it just bastardizes what was already hardly working, based on document exchanges.As a way to support this demonstration, the paper highlights a number of problems that, if not addressed, ruins any MBSE implementation.Successful implementation of MBSE is a crucial factor of survivability for most of companies and agencies in today's world. This silver‐bullet is, in many cases, the last ammunition of the projet managers: that's why it is worth to pay a bit of attention to the target, before shooting.
7.3.1 A Complexity Typology for Systems Engineering
Authors: Sheard Sarah A. , Mostashari Ali 
Published: November 2014

AbstractThis paper shows how the literature on complexity is related to complex systems and to systems engineering. A framework for types of complexity is proposed that includes three types of structural complexity (size, connectivity, and architecture), two types of dynamic complexity (short‐term and long‐term), and one additional type, socio‐political complexity. These types cover most of the characteristics of complexity mentioned in the reviewed literature; omissions are noted.It would be advantageous to identify specific measures of complexity so that the complexity of systems or development programs could be compared and tracked, and risks could be identified and mitigated. To this end an overview of systems engineering measurement is provided, followed by a discussion of how complexity types might be able to be measured. At this point, however, a composite measurement of the six types of complexity is not recommended.
7.3.3 Preliminary Validation of Scenario‐based Design for Amorphous Systems
Authors: Kim Sun K. , Haruyama Shinichiro , Maeno Takashi , Toma Tetsuya , Ohkami Yoshiaki 
Published: November 2014

AbstractDesigning amorphous systems is challenging because of the broad scope of the task. The design team must integrate various solution elements, such as hardware, software, service, and infrastructure, while resolving the communication challenges among different domain‐experts. Scenario‐based Design for Amorphous Systems enables design teams to effectively deal with ambiguity and to communicate their ideas among team members and managers, as well as with customers through a common language. We validated its effectiveness in both academia and industry. This paper describes the process and the preliminary results of the validation based on three approaches: Statistical, voting and interviews.
9.2.2 Everything you wanted to know about interfaces, but were afraid to ask
Authors: Wheatcraft Louis S. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractSome of the biggest problems in developing a system are at an interface. Some of the most critical requirements for every system that we build are interface requirements. Interface requirements cannot be written in a vacuum, both sides must participate. Yet how to write interface requirements is barely covered in the literature – and what is in the literature is not consistent. This paper will address some things you can do to get better interface requirements. Topics covered include: Understanding what constitutes an interface, how to identify interfaces, how to define and document interface definitions, what constitutes a good interface requirement, and where and how to document interface requirements.
9.3.1 A Vector Approach to Assessing Modularity
Authors: Stryker Amie C. , Jacques David R. , Long David S. 
Published: November 2014

AbstractA method to assess product modularity using a vector approach is presented and demonstrated using two precision guided munitions. Modularity has several fundamental benefits agreed upon by industry including reusability, flexibility, reconfigurability and extensibility. Current modularity measures focus on interfaces within or between modules in provide/depend relationships. A new method that assesses the module interfaces as well as captures and addresses each of the recognized modularity benefits is presented in a Vector Modularity Measure (VMM). Components of the VMM include terms for degree of coupling, reusability, and flexibility. Flexibility is assessed in terms of reconfigurability and extensibility. The overall evaluation method is then summarized, followed by an application using two similar precision guided munitions in the U.S. Air Force inventory: the Guided Bomb Unit‐24 (GBU‐24), referred to as the laser guided bomb (LGB); and the Guided Bomb Unit‐31 (GBU‐31), referred to as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).
9.3.2 Agile Aircraft Installation Architecture In a Quick Reaction Capability Environment
Authors: Boss Jason , Dove Rick 
Published: November 2014

AbstractMilitary mission systems are continuously upgrading equipment to keep pace with rapidly changing technology refresh rates and evolving global threats. Many of the programs that demand extensive changes are also demanding quick reaction capability, or QRC. It is increasingly challenging to quickly accommodate a mix of equipment without standardized physical interfaces, a wide range of cooling needs, and multiple power types. This paper focuses on a combined architecture for secondary power distribution, structural support, and environmental control that directly supports a mission system installation in a military acquisition context. An aircraft installation architecture that has the flexibility to rapidly adjust to changing power, weight, heat load, and space allocations could lower modification cost, reduce schedule, and lower risk.