## 5 Discussion  
The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate the factors affecting systems engineering process performance in launch vehicle organizations in the US. A secondary goal of this study was to develop a model explaining the relationships among systems engineering support, systems engineering culture, and systems engineering process performance. The model developed in the study identified factors that influenced systems engineering performance. Because the model showed a good fit and allowed the hypotheses to be tested, both goals were achieved. The hypotheses that organizational commitment has a direct (H1) and an indirect (H8) effect on systems engineering process performance (H1) were supported by the data. Organizational commitment also directly affected systems engineering support (H5). Thus, the more committed employees are to the organization, the greater the systems engineering process is perceived to perform. In addition, the more committed employees are to an organization, the more support is provided to systems engineering. Several studies have shown that organizational commitment is critical to the culture of an organization, and organizational culture is the context for which the systems engineering process is executed. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that greater commitment among launch vehicle organization personnel is associated with greater support provided to the systems engineering process, thus resulting in better process performance. The hypothesis testing results did not support top management support directly influencing systems engineering process performance (H2). Indicating that top management support could not be used as a predictor for systems engineering process performance. However, the data confirmed that top management support directly affects systems engi \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l c c} \hline \hline
**Hypothesis** & **Description** & \(\beta\) & **t** & **Supported?** \\ \hline H1 & Organizational commitment has a direct effect on systems engineering process performance. & 0.162 & 2.572 * & Yes \\ H2 & Top management support has a direct effect on systems engineering process performance. & 0.067 & 1.583 & No \\ H3 & The value of systems engineering has a direct effect on systems engineering process performance. & 0.334 & 6.403 ** & Yes \\ H4 & Systems engineering support has a direct effect on systems engineering process performance. & 0.459 & 7.682 ** & Yes \\ H5 & Organizational commitment has a direct effect on systems engineering support. & 0.457 & 9.209 ** & Yes \\ H6 & Top management support has a direct effect on systems engineering support. & 0.466 & 9.374 ** & Yes \\ H7 & The value of systems engineering has a direct effect on systems engineering support. & 0.028 & 0.679 & No \\ H8 & between organizational commitment and systems engineering process performance. & & Partial Mediation & \\ H9 & Systems engineering support mediates the relationship between top management support and systems engineering process performance. & 0.186 & 2.889 * & Yes \\ H10 & Systems engineering support mediates the relationship between the value of systems engineering and systems engineering process performance. & No Mediation & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Hypothesis Testing Results. neering support (H6). The hypothesis testing also indicated that top management support has an indirect effect on systems engineering process performance (H9), as mediated by systems engineering support. Numerous studies have shown that top management support is a key factor in organizational culture and a critical success factor in many projects. Therefore, we conclude that as the recognition of senior management's support for systems engineering increases, the organization's support for systems engineering increases, thereby increasing the performance of the systems engineering process. The value of systems engineering was also identified as a factor affecting systems engineering.