Search

A fundamental challenge for system engineers is to capture a problem with an effective model or framework and then facilitate transferring the information of that captured problem to practical systems engineering tools and methods. The early problem definition phase requires an application of systems thinking with adequate modeling tools and methods. Then, the later problem definition phase and early system architecting phase requires transferring the captured problem to systems engineering tools and methods through emerging techniques such as model-based systems engineering (MBSE) using SysML (MBSE is the practice of using a modeling tools to capture systems engineering diagrams). This paper presents a method for capturing a problem through systemigrams and the Boardman soft systems methodology and then directly translating the systemigrams into SysML diagrams. With MBSE increasing in usage, this method could provide a time savings opportunity during model development along with the possibility of lowering information distortion or loss that can occur during transformation of systems thinking to systems engineering activities. This paper includes a case study which demonstrates how the proposed approach was applied on a problem being considered by the U.S. Army—Contingency Basing for Small Combat Units. Finally, this paper will provide the conclusion on the development of the method and describe future research directions that can allow systems thinking and MBSE to function in a congruent methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, a system maturity scale, i.e., system readiness level (SRL), was proposed to measure the maturity that a system achieves during development. However, this SRL assesses maturity for systems from only a single function and capability perspective, and is unable to assess maturity for multifunction multicapability (MFMC) systems. With ever increasing systems that provide multiple functions and capabilities, it is challenging for managers to properly allocate resources to ensure the achievement of critical capabilities and functions. In order to prioritize the allocation of resources for component development, it is common to perform importance analysis during system development and maintenance. Therefore, this paper first enhances the original SRL definition for maturity assessment at the capability, function, and system levels, and then, proposes the use of component importance analysis for the identification of the most important components for system development. This paper approaches component importance by introducing three important measures with respects to three main factors: technology readiness level/integration readiness level, developing cost, and developing effort. The paper uses an illustrative example of a MFMC system to show the proposed methodology and enhanced definitions and concludes with a discussion of the added value and future work. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The concept of resilience has been used among a diversity of fields with a myriad of definitions. A systems approach to discovering the essence of resilience could aid in understanding its concept and provide opportunities to distinguish its systemic characteristics that can be identified, planned, or analyzed regardless of the field in which it is considered. In order to begin executing such an approach, a comprehensive study of the literature on the topic and circumstances in which resilience has been used or referred to in several fields of studies is necessary. In this paper, the conceptual common denominator of resilience is identified based on the results of a literature survey and according to the way it has been used in different contexts. This basis leads to the objective of this effort, and that is to recognize the systemic characteristics of resilience and demonstrate the defining of a universally accepted definition. Using a soft systems methodology and a supporting systemic diagramming technique entitled Systemigrams, we present the formulation of defining resilience in maritime homeland security. In this effort, many stakeholders contributed their thoughts and concerns on the meaning and operational use of resilience through a repetitive process to formulate a definition of the term. The result of this methodic approach is a general definition of resilience that has been refined in a collaborative environment via the application the Boardman Soft Systems Methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to describe a methodology that enables systems engineers or program managers to formulate a system-wide optimal development plan in order to facilitate monitoring and evaluation of the development process in terms of the actual readiness of the system. It proposes the use of the System Readiness Level (SRL) scale to measure the maturity of a system composed of technological elements, which are being developed based on cost-driven strategies (as opposed to time-to-market-driven strategies). A constrained optimization model is used to identify which critical technology elements and integration links can be matured to which levels at a particular time such that the development costs are minimized while a targeted SRL value is attained on schedule. While the algorithm does not necessarily reduce the total cost of development, it is able to find the minimal amount of expenditures which will achieve the desired maturity level during the earlier part of the development process. Essentially, it shifts the rest of the expenditures towards the latter part of the development during which model-based integration and testing procedures which have been suggested by others can be applied to reduce costs and time further. This can be a useful option to have when there is substantial uncertainty with the system due to its high novelty and technological content. As a value added approach, the model gives the systems engineer the information needed to understand what a delay may mean to development, so a more informed decision can be made. The paper concludes by discussing the possible use of the optimal development plan to monitor and control the progress of systems under development. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The strategic objective of a test and evaluation (T&E) organization is to detect defects, which must be fixed prior to system deployment in order to meet the operational needs and achieve customer satisfaction. Numerous process improvement models have been developed and applied to address the issue of preventing “critical” defects getting to the field. However, the escalating costs of system deployment (especially in government programs), due to critical defects found in the field, continues to be a major quality issue affecting customer satisfaction. The failure of programs to meet quality and performance objectives has been shown to be related to inadequate planning and an ineffective program management strategy. Thus, for a T&E organization, the program management strategy can greatly influence overall performance goals. While current literature on T&E quality improvement focuses primarily on T&E technical tools, equipment, and processes, little to no attention has been paid to integrating program management into the T&E organization's strategy. We intend to demonstrate in this paper that taking a holistic view of both T&E and program management (PM) activities using the tools of systems thinking can provide new insights to understand and create a more effective T&E execution strategy. Using Boardman's Soft Systems Methodology and Systemigrams (systemic diagrams), we evaluate the unification of a Federal Aviation Administration's T&E program management into its T&E strategy. The resultant Systemigram model represents the alignment of T&E with program management. We conclude with recommendations on how other organizations may modify their T&E execution strategy to achieve better customer satisfaction. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will propose to do as von Bertalanffy once did, and that is to draw on the biological sciences, now hugely advanced beyond that ever imagined by von Bertalanffy and his peers, and use its findings, architectures, and emergent behaviors to argue for a biology of system of systems (SoS). We seek a science and approach that we believe will provide richer insight into SoS failure, "health"maintenance, repair, replication, growth, and mutation--all those features of the evolution of systems which constantly challenge us and which, thus far, we have only been able to explain via macrolevel models and tools. We propose to go deeper into the structure of these systems and to discover their "DNA" (building blocks), thus establishing a foundation to understand their behavior using biological analogies, which we believe will turn out to be more than metaphors. We assert that these systems have microstructures which will explain their individual life cycle and their communal ecology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to optimize the process of complex system integration, it is necessary to first improve the management of the process. This can be accomplished through the use of a generally understood metric. One such metric is Technology Readiness Level (TRL), which is used to determine technology maturity, but does not address integration maturity. Integration Maturity Metric (IMM) requirements are developed through review of aerospace and defense related literature. These requirements are applied to currently existing integration maturity metrics, and the proposed Integration Readiness Level (IRL). IRL is then refined to fully meet these requirements, and applied to three aerospace case studies, along with the other identified metrics, to compare and contrast the results obtained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Philosophers have studied paradoxes for millennia. The term paradox is appearing increasingly outside of philosophy, and researchers seek to understand them in common situations. By understanding these phenomena, systems engineers may develop better strategies to deal with them when encountered in business or projects. However, what is meant by the term systems paradox and are there different types? Towards this goal, this paper will present definitions of systems from systems science and paradox from philosophy in a quest to define systems paradox. A paradox that impacts some objective of a system is designated a systems paradox. Then a typology of systems paradoxes will be proposed and described using set theory. Various examples provide a demonstration of the typology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many U.S. government agencies and their contractors have subscribed to using the prescriptive metric of technology readiness level (TRL) as a measure of maturity of an individual technology, with a view toward operational use in a system context. A comprehensive set of concerns becomes relevant when this metric is abstracted from an individual technology to a system context, which may involve interplay among multiple technologies that are integrated through a system development life cycle. This paper proposes a system-focused approach for managing system development and making effective and efficient decisions during this life cycle. A system readiness level (SRL) index that incorporates both the current TRL scale and the concept of an integration readiness level is presented with methods for determining current and future readiness of a system. Using techniques in evolutionary algorithms, the SRL index is optimized based on resource allocation to provide a decision support approach that enhances managerial capabilities in the system's development life cycle. The optimization model for the SRL is then executed with a case example and resource constraints of 75%, 60%, 45%, 30%, and 15% to demonstrate how it can be used to make strategic planning decisions in the system's development life cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The designation System of Systems (SoS) applies to many types of system structures. We consider a collaborative SoS, which forms through the apparent voluntary decisions of its component systems. However, many collaborative SoS do not possess the intellectual capacity to make human-like decisions. To understand the formation of SoS better, properties are modeled mathematically. An agent-based model (ABM) simulation validates the model via a mock chemical reaction of atoms forming molecules. In the engineering and management of these systems, this information allows better decisions that support or deny SoS formation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Prescriptive metrics have been widely accepted and used in engineering management to assess the progress and success of engineering efforts. However, these types of metrics have two major challenges: human subjectivity and confidence in data estimates. In this paper we use a system-focused prescriptive metric entitled System Readiness Level (SRL) [a function of Technology and Integration Readiness Levels (TRL/IRL)], to propose a probabilistic approach to estimating the development maturity of a system of interest. In order to reduce the subjective impact, we propose a probabilistic method by assigning probability distributions to the estimated TRLs and IRLs to reflect the reality of evaluators' subjective estimates. Based on these probability distributions of TRLs and IRLs, a Monte-Carlo simulation methodology is used to assess the maturity status of the whole system and its components. An illustrative example is examined to show the proposed methodology and to investigate its implication to engineering management. The paper concludes with a discussion of the added value of this new methodology, its limitation, and future work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper demonstrates a method that can be used to analyze the degree to which an organization's systems engineering capabilities meet government-industry defined systems engineering needs. To demonstrate this process, using universities as the case study, we summarize secondary research completed for nine institutions from various countries that offer systems engineering graduate level programs in the space domain. Next, we select a Masters degree program from three universities, one from each country, and map their space-based systems engineering courses to the 37 systems engineering capabilities within the 10 systems engineering competencies. These capabilities represent the knowledge, skills, and behaviors that systems engineers are expected to possess and perform as a part of their job. We then review a process for a more detailed mapping of the curriculum to one of four levels of proficiency within each capability, using the Stevens Institute of Technology as the example. The result is a systems engineering competency-based approach that can be used by universities or companies to compare the “as is” state of their systems engineering capabilities development against a government-industry defined set of needs to identify and address gaps or opportunities in the curriculum, training, or experience of their students and/or employees. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on preliminary research of the experience of groups like the policy community, we believe that engineers, especially those developing systems of systems, may benefit from an appreciation of paradox. For example, the policy community embraces and leverages paradox to address problems that might otherwise prove intractable. We believe that policy makers will also benefit from systems thinking. We briefly review the definition of paradox, introduce its potential to generate "breakthrough" thinking for innovative solutions, and illustrate some contemporary engineering problems that contain paradoxes. We then recount several historical examples of successfully applied paradoxical thinking, illustrate the paradoxes inherent in two fundamental systems thinking constructs, and postulate a three-step approach to leveraging paradox in problem solving situations. We close by posing some key follow-on questions and a research program designed to support the development of paradox-related training in both systems engineering and policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on preliminary research of the experience of groups like the policy community, we believe that engineers, especially those developing systems of systems, may benefit from an appreciation of paradox. For example, the policy community embraces and leverages paradox to address problems that might otherwise prove intractable. We believe that policy makers will also benefit from systems thinking. We briefly review the definition of paradox, introduce its potential to generate "breakthrough" thinking for innovative solutions, and illustrate some contemporary engineering problems that contain paradoxes. We then recount several historical examples of successfully applied paradoxical thinking, illustrate the paradoxes inherent in two fundamental systems thinking constructs, and postulate a three-step approach to leveraging paradox in problem solving situations. We close by posing some key follow-on questions and a research program designed to support the development of paradox-related training in both systems engineering and policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]