Systems Engineering for Air Force C3I Systems

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

This paper describes an investigation of the effectiveness of mandatory training for a sub-population of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition workforce members. The target population includes those who have participated in the Systems Planning, Research, Development, and Engineering career field training per the direction of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA). An outcome-based competency model was used to develop training evaluation metrics; the model prescribes measuring training effectiveness across three tiers of systems engineering competencies: foundational, specialized, and leadership. A questionnaire was developed to measure the effectiveness of DAWIA training among a sample of the DoD systems engineering workforce. The results of the evaluation provide empirical evidence that the training does not effectively improve 17 systems engineering competencies, and is moderately effective at improving 11 systems engineering competencies among trainees. The evaluation metrics were demonstrated to be an effective tool for performing an evaluation of a sample of the trained workforce.

This paper describes the goals, methods, approaches, and preliminary results of a research task within the Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC). Evidence across the Services and industry has affirmed digital engineering is a critical practice necessary to support acquisition in an environment of increasing global challenges, dynamic threats, rapidly evolving technologies, and increasing life expectancy of our systems currently in operation. Digital engineering updates the systems engineering practices to take full advantage of computational technology, modeling, data analytics, and data sciences. The Department of Defense's vision for digital engineering is to modernize how the Department designs, develops, delivers, operates, and sustains systems, while continuing to practice systems engineering efficiently and effectively. Digital transformation is fundamentally changing the way acquisition and engineering are performed across a wide range of government agencies, industries, and academia. As the Department of Defense transitions to digital engineering, there is a need to develop and maintain an acquisition workforce and culture that is literate in model-based engineering, competent in digital engineering models, methods, tools, and understands digital artifacts across the acquisition lifecycle.This paper outlines the development of the Digital Engineering Competency Framework by the Systems Engineering Research Center. The purpose of the Digital Engineering Competency Framework is to provide clear guidance for the Department of Defense acquisition workforce, in particular the engineering acquisition workforce, through clearly defined competencies that illuminate the knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors required for digital engineering professionals. The approach taken to develop the Digital Engineering Competency Framework draws from existing competency models discovered during a literature search and from the practicing Digital Engineering community. The development process for the Digital Engineering Competency Framework relied initially on literature findings to develop a draft model that was reviewed by subject matter experts through a series of workshops. No existing competency models focused on digital engineering (or model-based systems engineering or model-based engineering) were found during the literature review. However, several related competency models were identified, and these informed the initial draft model. At appropriate points, the draft model(s) were assessed through community presentations and industry review and appropriate revisions were made.The Digital Engineering Competency Framework has currently completed several iterations of subject matter expert review and revisions and is approaching a finalized general structure. The overarching structure of the DECF will consist of competency areas, proficiency levels within the competency, and constituting knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors. The specific knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors that will be associated with each competency area are the primary elements still changing in current iterations. Once the model is finalized, it will be compared with the existing Defense Acquisition University curriculum to determine what elements of such existing curriculum already support these competencies. Gaps will be noted, and training recommendations will be developed. As with the development of the model itself, this will be an iterative process. Another critical use case for the Digital Engineering Competency Framework is to enable hiring for Digital Engineering Positions, given Competency models and frameworks are used by hiring managers to ensure that individuals have the required and appropriate skillsets to adequately perform their jobs.

Helix, which is focused on examining the “DNA” of the systems engineering workforce, is a project of the Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC). It is a multi‐year longitudinal study designed to build an understanding of the landscape of the systems engineering workforce, of what enables and inhibits the effectiveness of systems engineers, and of how organizations are attempting to improve their effectiveness. At the time of submission, the team has interviewed 112 individuals from 7 organizations. This paper outlines early findings based on these interviews. Insights include a characterization of the systems engineers in the study including career paths for senior systems engineers; the most important characteristics and competencies for systems engineers; what systems engineers believe their greatest contributions are; and what factors make systems engineers most and least effective.

: Public-public and public-private and partnerships (P4s) are time-proven effective solutions for delivering public services at reasonable costs when deployed and managed properly. Various U.S. agencies1 and international organizations all have longstanding successful P4 initiatives and projects. Recently, Department of Defense (DOD) leaders have expressed increased interest in implementing P4s throughout their organizations.2 As DOD is faced with evolving roles and missions in an unpredictable and complex world amid fiscal constraints, the expertise and involvement of the private sector and other public organizations will be essential. 3 P4s could be ideal tools intended to further policy objectives, enhance U.S. operational capabilities, reduce costs, gain access to nonmilitary expertise or assets, or build greater capacity in partners. 4 While the need for P4s is fairly well articulated, there are still serious hurdles to their implementation, with a general lack of explicit guidance, best practices, and frameworks for implementing P4s consistently, optimally, or at an enterprise level within and across DOD. P4s can be extremely diverse from one another in terms of formality, structure, objective, complexity, stakeholders, and scope of activity elements that make enterprise-level consistency difficult. This leaves P4 practitioners and organizations in a unique situation, one in which creativity, collaboration, and alternate approaches are expressly encouraged to achieve a variety of project objectives, while bound by legal, political, mission, and financial frameworks that have not yet been established, approved, or tested on an enterprise scale.

This paper describes the initial steps in the development of a brigade-sized wireless internet system for the Army of the Czech Republic (ACR). In co-operation with the ACR and its Military Technical Institute of Electronics (VTUE), the US Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) and the MITRE Corporation are providing advice on systems engineering and system architecture design for the ACR's Ground Forces Tactical Command and Control System (GF TCCS). The objective system will use a high proportion of commercial off-the-shelf networking software, and government off-the-shelf equipment, including military mobile radios and switches. The key constraints, mandated by VTUE, were as follows: the operating system (Windows NT), the net hardware (radios and switching systems), and NATO compatibility. The tasks on which the CECOM/MITRE team is advising are architectural consultation, systems design and engineering development, database design, user interface consultation, and interoperability analysis.

ABSTRACTSystem complexity continues to grow, creating many new challenges for engineers and decision makers. To maximize value delivery, “both” systems engineering and decision analysis are essential. The systems engineering profession has had a significant focus on improving systems engineering processes. While process plays an important role, the focus on process was often at the expense of foundational engineering axioms and their contribution to system value. As a consequence, systems engineers were viewed as process developers and managers versus technical leaders with a deep understanding of how system interactions are linked to stakeholder value. With the recent shift toward model‐based systems engineering (MBSE), systems engineering is “getting back to basics,” focusing on value delivery via first principles, using established laws of engineering and science. This paper describes how pattern‐based systems engineering (PBSE), as outlined within INCOSE's model‐based systems engineering (MBSE) initiative, explicates system value through modeling of first principles, re‐uniting systems engineering and decision analysis capabilities.

The recent Department of Defense (DoD) guidebook, Systems Engineering Guide for Systems of Systems , describes how traditional systems engineering activities have evolved to support systems engineering at the system of systems (SoS) level. Part of the research for this guidebook probed the application of modeling and simulation to support SoS systems engineering. The findings indicated that limited modeling and simulation are currently used, but that additional support would be useful if models could be quickly generated and used to support needed decision making. This paper presents an approach to using Systems Modeling Language (SysML) models to support these needs. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 16

This policy brief, authored in collaboration with the MITRE Corporation, provides a new perspective on the U.S. Department of Defense’s struggle to recruit and retain artificial intelligence talent. The authors find that the DOD already has a cadre of AI and related experts, but that this talent remains hidden. Better leveraging this talent could go a long way in meeting the DOD’s AI objectives. The authors argue that this can be done through policies that more effectively identify AI talent and assignment opportunities, processes that incentivize experimentation and changes in career paths, and investing in the necessary technological infrastructure.

The development of artificial intelligence will have a significant impact on international security and the use of a military instrument of power. One of the most important tasks for national security professionals and decision makers is thus to prepare for the repercussions of artificial intelligence development. In the development of military capabilities, artificial intelligence is integrated into intelligence, observation, control and reconnaissance applications, as well as into logistics, cyber operations, information operations, command and control systems, semi-autonomous and autonomous vehicles, and lethal autonomous weapon systems. The artificial intelligence revolution is not going to happen tomorrow. Therefore, pre-prepared policies and the knowledge shared by policy- and decision makers can help us manage the unknowns ahead. Ključne besede Artificial intelligence, national security, military instrument of power, military capabilities, decision-makers

A University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) is a highly valued engineering, research, and development resource to the federal government, largely within the US Department of Defense (DoD). Only 15 exist, all under special authority of the US Code. The Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC), established in 2008, was the first UARC established as a networked research center, gradually growing to include more than two dozen university members, each offering systems engineering research capabilities. This networked model for a UARC has found support within the DoD—exemplified by the newest UARC established recently by the US Air Force. A large diverse pool of faculty and student researchers arguably delivers the most consequential academic research in systems engineering anywhere in the world. In its first few years, the SERC had to overcome challenges that single‐university UARCs did not face in exchange for the advantages that such a sizable network of universities offers. This review paper explores those challenges, offering lessons for new network‐based UARCs and other network‐based university research centers. Systems engineering communities, globally, are exploring such constructs, and this reflective paper may offer useful insights.

Systems are becoming more complex while engineering of these systems is facing challenges in cost reduction and shortened schedules due to the fact that technologies emerge and quickly became obsolete. “Do more for less” is a new reality for the U.S. defense industry. As a result, large defense corporations have shifted their cost control effort from business to project management and systems engineering organizations. The realization of affordability in major weapon systems development programs may not be at a tipping point; however, the biggest customer of these weapon developers, that is, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), will drive affordability through contract estimation and performance on a firm fixed contract method. This becomes game changing in the defense contract industry, which will drive affordability from offices and manufacturing floors to supplier warehouses. For every complex system development program, the cost to design such system is estimated or predicted before the systems development and demonstration contract is awarded. The transformation of the estimated cost figure is evolving as systems engineering efforts taking place throughout the design life cycle. Thus, without understanding the cost figures during this time, the evolution of cost overrun is inevitable. This paper describes a method to assess the affordability maturity level associated with the systems engineering tasks defined by ISO/IEC 15288 and the Defense Acquisition Strategy, DODI 5000.02. The paper focuses on developing a methodology to insert and assess the maturity of systems engineering efforts and the integration of performance and cost measurement from concept definition through systems design and development. The method is called affordability maturity assessment methodology.

This is an excellent time for engineering design research. Not only is the National Science Foundation continuing its strong support for fundamental research in design but also the Department of Defense is pulling together a major new program in Engineered Resilient Systems at a level of funding that can completely change the field, and NASA's Langley Research Center is considering a new research thrust in complex engineered systems. Also, the Department of Defense sponsored Systems Engineering Research Center, a consortium of about two dozen universities, led by the Stevens Institute of Technology is conducting a substantial number of high quality research programs in systems engineering and continues to receive robust funding. And the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Adaptive Vehicle Make program is committing hundreds of millions of dollars to demonstrate a radically new approach to design and development of complex systems.The impetus for all this funding is a crying need for more effective design. Research from my group at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, to be presented at this year's Conference on Systems Engineering Research, shows that the Department of Defense loses about $200 million per day in major weapon system cost overruns, program delays, and program reductions or cancellations. Experiences at NASA and Boeing, and at similar organizations outside the United States are essentially the same, although the Pentagon's programs are larger, more numerous, and better documented in the open literature (which is why we study them). I believe that the problems experienced by these programs are due to ineffective methods, processes, and tools.It is fair to ask how this can be, when the pages of this Journal are mainly devoted to disseminating the discovery and construction of design methods, processes, and tools. I see two reasons why our work to date has failed to stanch the bleeding of our largest engineering efforts. First, we do not have a way to measure the quality of methods, processes, and tools against a rigorous, widely accepted theory of design—in fact, we do not have such a theory. For large design projects performed within big organizations, we have hardly any theory useful for validating or comparing design methods. Second, the design theories we have do not sufficiently recognize the human, social, and organizational aspects of creating large systems.These two reasons are not problems for our research community. Instead, they are opportunities. We now have some nascent design theories circulating in our community with rigorous, sound foundations. The work is far from complete, but I think we have shown that we are up to it. And, we are making steady progress integrating learning from the social sciences into our design research. In fact, social-science based or linked design research is not at all new, but I believe it will become much more pervasive in the next few years.This is a new dawn in engineering design. Our field is on the verge of rapid growth into many deeply interesting areas. Hold your hats.Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this piece are the author's alone. They do not necessarily reflect any positions of the National Science Foundation.

The success of systems engineering (SE) efforts to solve development issues benefit from the mutually advantageous relationship between academia and practice. This relationship can be threatened by lag in adoption and differences in focus between the two worlds. In an effort to help maintain alignment between SE research and practice, a 2‐day workshop was held at the University of Alabama in Huntsville on research needs in SE. The workshop was attended by individuals from academia, the Department of Defense, NASA, and the aerospace industry. This paper presents summaries of the discussions that took place, as well as possible research questions informed by the results of the workshop. The workshop consisted of an introductory roundtable and three breakouts sessions focusing on requirements, verification, and validation; configuration and data management; and systems acquisition and design. Several topics emerged as important concepts for future research, and research questions were developed relating to model‐based systems engineering (MBSE), requirements, modeling, sociotechnical issues, and education.

The formal Systems Engineering process was developed by the Department of Defense and its contractors in the late 1950s, during the development of the first ballistic missile systems, and was first documented as a standard process in 1969 in MIL-STD 499, Engineering Management. The process is intended to provide an overall framework for managing the development and acquisition of complex defense systems, describing an orderly sequence and supporting documentation to be implemented by both the government customers and development contractors. During the definition of systems engineering, defense and aerospace systems clearly represented the most complex products undertaken by the U.S. scientific, engineering, and industrial communities. As commercial products, particularly those spanning many technical disciplines, began to exhibit the same degree of complexity, the companies responsible for these commercial products have started adapting the DoD systems engineering process and practices for use in commercial product development projects.