A Process Description for a New Paradigm in Systems Engineering

This paper investigates the oversimplification of the inherently complex systems engineering process in space life support. The standard systems engineering process steps are described. The International Space Station (ISS) life support system is explained with its goals and performance criteria. Although it is not usually emphasized, the essential function of developing a hierarchy of systems and subsystems is to simplify the design process. The System Complexity Metric (SCM) shows how this divide‐and‐conquer approach also reduces the system complexity. The complete systems engineering process has many detailed steps. It is often simplified because of the effort required and the human limitations on working memory and decision span. Systems analysis demands slow, logical, and focused thinking but is often bypassed in favor of quick, intuitive, subconscious “gut feel.” A study of 100 system designs found examples of 12 specific mental mistakes, such as ignoring stakeholder needs, and these mistakes are essentially oversimplifications of the systems engineering process. An analysis of space life support goals, options, criteria, and processes found 11 examples of oversimplifications in systems engineering, such as neglecting safety and cost. All these 11 oversimplifications could be traced to one or more of the 12 previously identified mental mistakes or other well‐known ones, such as ignoring sunk costs. Oversimplification of the systems engineering process is rarely noticed but is a common and harmful problem. A study of failures in 50 different space systems found that problems in systems engineering caused failures and often led to errors in design, development, and test that further contributed to failure. It seems that more diligent systems engineering could prevent many project problems and failures, but projects seem to be more guided by “gut feel” based on tradition, authority, and consensus than on the logical, rational systems engineering approach.

Completing its final development and early deployment on the Navy's multi-role aircraft, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, the SHAred Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) provides the war fighter with the latest digital tactical reconnaissance (TAC Recce) Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) sensor system. The SHARP program is an evolutionary acquisition that used a spiral development process across a prototype development phase tightly coupled into overlapping Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) and Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phases. Under a tight budget environment with a highly compressed schedule, SHARP challenged traditional acquisition strategies and systems engineering (SE) processes. Adopting tailored state-of-the-art systems engineering process models allowd the SHARP program to overcome the technical knowledge transition challenges imposed by a compressed program schedule. The program's original goal was the deployment of digital TAC Recce mission capabilities to the fleet customer by summer of 2003. Hardware and software integration technical challenges resulted from requirements definition and analysis activities performed across a government-industry led Integrated Product Team (IPT) involving Navy engineering and test sites, Boeing, and RTSC-EPS (with its subcontracted hardware and government furnished equipment vendors). Requirements development from a bottoms-up approach was adopted using an electronic requirements capture environment to clarify and establish the SHARP EMD product baseline specifications as relevant technical data became available. Applying Earned-Value Management (EVM) against an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) resulted in efficiently managing SE task assignments and product deliveries in a dynamically evolving customer requirements environment. Application of Six Sigma improvement methodologies resulted in the uncovering of root causes of errors in wiring interconnectivity drawings, pod manufacturing processes, and avionics requirements specifications. Utilizing the draft NAVAIR SE guideline handbook and the ANSI/EIA-632 standard: Processes for Engineering a System, a systems engineering tailored process approach was adopted for the accelerated SHARP EMD prgram. Tailoring SE processes in this accelerated product delivery environment provided unique opportunities to be technically creative in the establishment of a product performance baseline. This paper provides an historical overview of the systems engineering activities spanning the prototype phase through the EMD SHARP program phase, the performance requirement capture activities and refinement process challenges, and what SE process improvements can be applied to future SHARP-like programs adopting a compressed, evolutionary spiral development acquisition paradigm.

This is an era which the ELT telescopes define 'the new science' for astronomy. Thus, to make optimal contribution (i.e. valuable scientific output in an efficient, sustainable manner), a mid class telescope such as DAG 4m, must have a carefully designed Systems Architecture, which, in our opinion, could only be possible by means of a proper Systems Engineering (SE) process. From a Platonic perspective, the SE work must be started well before (at least conceptually), even the 'idea' of erecting an observatory. As can be seen from the experiences, this, however, never happens, and also it did not happen in our case. Regarding the facts given above, a SE process for DAG observatory has been initiated soon. As a bunch of constraints had already been formed, the work primarily focuses on the scientific instrumentation. This paper demonstrates various phases of the SE process carried until now. We will also discuss the methodologies/techniques that are planned to be used in the future.

This paper describes and expands upon the proposed System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) Process Framework for the Air Force Materiel Command first outlined in IEEE SoSE 2011. Through repeated uses, it became quickly understood that systems-of-systems processes were foundationally similar to but different from basic systems engineering processes. The SoSE Process Framework, supporting processes, and products provide a context to integrate across modern complex systems-of-systems. In defining the SoSE Process Framework we tailor existing systems engineering processes and add a minimal amount of SoS-level engineering to it. The four core SoSE processes, Architecture and Analysis, Test and Evaluation, Management and Governance together can help to successfully deliver integrated capabilities at the SoS and Enterprise level within the U.S. Air Force. The key concept introduced is the alignment of analysis and engineering efforts across the Enterprise System Engineering and Architecting realm, and the synchronization of decision making within the SoSE components. The paper concludes by discussing implications of the SoSE Process Framework, as well as recommendations for actions, products, key stakeholder decisions and future challenges.

Simultaneous and collaborative development of satellites and Information Systems to support their lifecycle processes

The systems engineering process, applied across a typical system life‐cycle model, features design, or synthesis, as a core element. Creativity and innovation are required, to varying degrees, in all successful synthesis activities in systems engineering. The process of creativity and innovation in systems engineering is, however, poorly understood and is not adequately fostered. Educational institutions also place little emphasis on creativity and innovation in undergraduate teaching. This deficiency results in an engineering culture that is frequently resistant to the factors which promote creativity and innovation. This paper presents a phase‐model of creativity which maps onto the process of synthesis in the systems engineering life‐cycle. The paper serves as a framework for fostering creativity and innovation in systems engineers, at all levels, as well as for embedding a creativity culture in the systems engineering process.

Thirty Years of International Symposia on Process Systems Engineering

As that of coordination and ISO 15288, discipline system engineering and software engineering processes, methods have a lot in common, and concerns. In most of the system software interest, now offers an important function, more and more is the most significant factors determine the non-functional attributes. In the implementation of the system collection and failure are often attributed to the system and/or software engineering recovery. Need to use systems engineering software design and development, and need to incorporate software engineering concepts into system engineering, suggests that the decision of the two disciplines the close relationship between is appropriate. This article describes a definite theory integrating the two disciplines, defines a framework on establishing a vocabulary integration, and gives the use of this framework preliminary results to describe the system and software integration of defense plans.

Patterns, frameworks, meta‐models: the utility of these tools for many systems architects and engineers is to avoid “heavy lifting”. Others will say that they use meta‐models to keep from “reinventing wheels.” Builders and structural engineers have utilized patterns, frameworks and meta‐models which include building codes and construction standards for thousands of years. In the realm of defense systems engineering, the “Mystical Land of DoDAF,” systems engineers have been slow to realize the full potential of meta‐ model applications. Instead, functional analysis teams performing work prescribed by the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) end up doing that “heavy lifting” in the course of developing JCIDS functional area, needs and solutions analyses. Analysis teams performing JCIDS Functional Area Analysis (FAA) assess hundreds of activities listed in the Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) for relevance to their functional domain. This paper does not intend to discount the importance of the review of the tasks and activities required in the FAA, yet it is highly desirable to utilize the precedent foundations provided by those functional area analysts who blazed the trail for predecessor systems currently operating within their operational domain. A systems engineering meta‐model provides such a foundation for a living engineering model from operational needs analysis through production and deployment. The framework described below, the “Big Navy” Meta‐model, is an example of one pattern that can be applied to facilitate the development of complex defense‐related systems. Systems models derived from Big Navy can be further refined over its life cycle to include requirements capture, functional analysis, architecture development, concept and engineering design and design validation which includes modeling and simulation.

: TARDEC's mission is to conduct full service life cycle engineering support to the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command and the Program Executive Offices associated with it, for all DoD ground vehicle system acquisition and life cycle management. The TARDEC Systems Engineering Group is constantly looking for systems engineering methods, tools and procedures (MPT) to support this mission. TARDEC has found that many systems engineers from the automobile industry have significant experience in systems engineering (SE), but lack experience in some of the competencies deemed critical to systems engineering in the DoD workforce. This research will identify the differences between education needs of system engineers in both industry and the DoD workforce, and develop methods, processes and tools to address the shortfalls in educating SEs in the DoD workforce.

: TARDEC's mission is to conduct full service life cycle engineering support to the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command and the Program Executive Offices associated with it, for all DoD ground vehicle system acquisition and life cycle management. The TARDEC Systems Engineering Group is constantly looking for systems engineering methods, tools and procedures (MPT) to support this mission. TARDEC has found that many systems engineers from the automobile industry have significant experience in systems engineering (SE), but lack experience in some of the competencies deemed critical to systems engineering in the DoD workforce. This research will identify the differences between education needs of system engineers in both industry and the DoD workforce, and develop methods, processes and tools to address the shortfalls in educating SEs in the DoD workforce. This report summarizes the work done in second phase of the project.

Due to accelerating technological progress any engineered system eventually becomes obsolete and the question arises as to its modernization. Disciplines such as change and configuration management propose methods to maintain system at operational level by incorporating relatively small changes. When major rebuild is required to the system, existing literature proposes to follow the same System Engineering processes as during new system design and development. Systems Engineering, traditionally focused on design and development of new systems, paying limited attention to modernization of existing ones and its processes need to be specially tailored to the modernization of existing system. In the case of straightforward application of Systems Engineering processes, the step of new system formulation is often neglected and considered as something already granted. This paper gives an overview of approaches and methods in the field of system modernization. It proposes a metrics for classification of different types of system modernization. To facilitate system modernization this work introduces a framework based on proposed metrics, Design Structure Matrixes and functional analysis. The framework consists of decomposition and synthesis phases and aims to define new (modified) system, by providing a set of alternatives. The proposed framework anticipates application of traditional System Engineering approach. The paper is illustrated with an example in the field of car retrofitting.

Systems engineering is a transdisciplinary scientific and applied direction that combines the principles of a systems approach, methods, tools and standards that provide an integrated methodology and relevant technologies for the design and development of complex systems, their comprehensive analysis and verification, efficient and safe use. The modern approach to systems engineering is characterized by an accentuated modeling of systems throughout their life cycle with the ultimate goal of creating their digital twins. It is called model-based systems engineering (MBSE). Consistent integration of MBSE with software engineering leads to the formation of the MBSSE (Model-Based Systems and Software Engineering) direction. This textbook is devoted to this area, the main objective of which is to study the conceptual and scientific-methodological foundations of MBSE and MBSSE, models and methods of life cycle management of systems and software, basic standards of systems engineering, study and mastery of the UML and SysML systems modeling languages and the corresponding modeling tools, study of requirements engineering methods and development of a description of the system architecture, familiarization with the concept of digital twins and their role in MBSE, study of the MBSSE reference model and its relationship with the process standards of systems engineering, study of the methodological aspects of the system and software integration process. The final chapter of the textbook is devoted to the study of the mathematical foundations of systems engineering. The main aspects of the mathematical theory of systems by A. Wayne Wymore, which became an important stimulus for the development of the model-oriented approach in systems engineering, and modern research, including the apparatus of finite automata by David Harel, the formalism of modeling of discrete systems DEVS, research into category theory as a formal mathematical basis for model-based system design are considered. The authors recommend this course as a basic course for training IT professionals.

Application of Systems Engineering to USAF Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)

The infusion of engineering (CogE) methods and tools into traditional systems engineering processes and practices is becoming an important priority as the systems engineering community begins to tackle system of systems (SoS) problems. As one illustration, the military is interested in creating cognitively-inspired systems (as small as a PDA and as large as a weapon platform) that maximally exploit human potential while also accelerating both human supported and automated decision making. To date, engineering has been successfully applied to the planning and requirements definition phases of systems engineering (also known as front-end analysis) but has yet to be infused into the remaining phases of systems engineering. To span the full systems engineering lifecycle, it is important, first and foremost, to communicate the return-on-investment to the various stakeholders to get their buy in. The second question that needs to be answered is whether or not cognitive engineering is ready for primetime. This paper presents promising technical and management strategies to overcome the challenges in introducing engineering into system-of-systems engineering (SOSE). Specifically, it presents a representative set of engineering methods and tools to span the full SoS life-cycle as well as engineering awareness initiatives to penetrate both the DoD acquisition community and commercial industry.