Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Practical application of Systems Engineering fundamentals to aircraft design – What should our TC do?. Armand J. Chaput Adjunct Professor, Unmanned Air System (UAS) Design, University of Texas at Austin Emeritus, Senior Tech Fellow, LM Aero 15 April 2011. Armand J. Chaput 2011. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Practical application of Systems Engineering fundamentals to aircraft design – What should our TC do?
Armand J. Chaput- Adjunct Professor, Unmanned Air System
(UAS) Design, University of Texas at Austin- Emeritus, Senior Tech Fellow, LM Aero
15 April 2011 Armand J. Chaput 2011
Somewhere around mid-career I finally got it - System Engineering had value for design engineers
I started carrying Mil-Std 499 around in my design notebook and advocated SE as something that my design engineers needed to know
Armand J. Chaput 2011
Somewhere south of mid-career Systems Engineering took off in another direction
The MIL-STD 499 focus on engineering principles drifted off into territory that had more in common with program and business
principles – hard-nosed engineering lost focus at the system level
Basic System Engineering Process Descriptions(selected publications)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Year
Doc
umen
t pag
es
Mil STD 499Mil STD 499AMil STD 499B (draft)INCOSE SE HandbookDoD AF Product Descriptions VII.1.0DoD AF Product Descriptions VII.1.5all
Expon. (all)
Armand J. Chaput 2011
About the same time Aerospace and Defense (A&D) program performance started going south
US DoD System Acquisition Report (SAR) Cost
0
300000
600000
900000
1200000
1500000
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
Acq
uisi
tion
Prog
ram
Cos
t ($M
)
Initial estimate
Projected actual
And we have to at least consider the possibility that loss of engineering discipline at the system level was a contributor
Armand J. Chaput 2011
Because we are a well-documented contributor to the problem
Causal Factors - US DoD SAR Cost Growth
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
2010200820062002199819931988
Year
Acq
uisi
tion
Prog
ram
Cos
t Inc
reas
e ($
M)Other
Cost estimatingEngineeringSchedule
And Aerospace Engineering does not get an exemption
Armand J. Chaput 2011
A systems engineering perspective1
Systems engineering (SE) enhances PSuccess but PFailure remains uncomfortably high
1 From Figure 1: Project Performance Versus Systems Engineering Capability, Executive Summary, A Survey of Systems Engineering Effectiveness - Initial Results, SPECIAL REPORT, Revision 1, CMU/SEI-2007-SR-014 November 2007
Armand J. Chaput 2011
More data behind the Issue
From Figure 59: Relationship Between Overall Systems Engineering Capability and Project Performance (Perf Versus SEC) controlled by Project Challenge (PC), Executive Summary, A Survey of Systems Engineering Effectiveness - Initial Results, SPECIAL REPORT, Revision 1, CMU/SEI-2007-SR-014 November 2007
Too many “High Challenge” aerospace and defense (A&D) projects perform poorly and the cause is not SE capability
Armand J. Chaput 2011
Systemic issuesMost assessments focus on programmatic issues, e.g.2
–Move Forward Without Proper Knowledge of Requirements, Technology, Design, and Manufacturing Processes
–Don’t Match Product Requirements with Resources–Move into System Demonstration and Production without Achieving
Design Stability–Enter Production without Demonstrating Acceptable Manufacturing
Processes and Weapon System Performance–Absence of Disciplined Systems Engineering Practices –Unexecutable Business Cases, etc.
I think there is something else – an educational deficiency–Too many Design Engineers don’t understand SE–Too many SEs don’t understand Design Engineering–Too many design engineers lack multi-discipline knowledge
2 Michael J. Sullivan, Director Acquisition and Sourcing Management, GAO, April 2008
Armand J. Chaput 2011
If so and if we don’t bridge the educational gaps, A&D “Project Performance” will stay in the cellar
Personal assessment – Most AE graduates are clueless about Systems Engineering
Not part of most curricula- Most professors don’t teach it - Most professors don’t understand it
AE undergraduates get top-level exposure - Pictures (SE “V”, etc.) and buzzwords - Little substance - like how you technically deal with and
manage requirements; the difference between “Test and Evaluation” and the euphoria of first flight
AE graduate programs aren’t much better- Most leave with little more understanding of SE than they
had as undergraduates When graduates report to work, many go straight to projects
- The days when entry level engineers went to functional groups to learn the ropes are gone (from my experience)
- What they used to learn about SE from Engineering Chiefs and mentors is now packaged as compliance training
Armand J. Chaput 2011
Example – SE integrated with air vehicle design(2 semester approach)
Systems Engineering fundamentals (basic knowledge) - Requirements - development, documentation and management- System integration - Configuration control, Interface definition, Trade
studies, Risk assessment- Test and Evaluation - Flight test planning, flight testing and data
analysis- Technical management - Program planning, task/schedule
assignment and tracking, budget management and tracking, technical decision making
Air Vehicle Design fundamentals (deeper knowledge) - Vehicle requirements- Parametric design/analysis- Aero- Propulsion- Mass properties- Airframe structures
Armand J. Chaput 2011
- Stability and control - Configuration design and integration- Vehicle performance- Trade studies and vehicle optimization
Example – SE integrated with air vehicle design
System Design fundamentals (basic knowledge)- System requirements- Overall system architecture- Mission design and analysis
- Sortie rate assessment - Sensor sizing and performance- Communication sizing and performance- Air vehicle integration (from system perspective)- Trade studies and system optimization- Reliability (requirements) and Maintainability (e.g. MMH/FH)- Overall system performance (Psuccess)Other
?
Armand J. Chaput 2011
- How would you (or your organization) rate the importance of in these subjects for entry level AEs?
- What’s missing
What could TC members do?
Work academia (advisory boards, design review feedback, etc)- What industry and government thinks AE graduates should know
about SE before they graduate- Academia is a supplier of one of your most important products, a
well-educated future workforceWork evaluators (ABET)- Their evaluations include a laundry list of things students are
expected to know about system design but no mention of SEWork your employers- What they should expect to be included in today’s list of required
“engineering fundamentals”- Encourage them to push back if they aren’t getting the skills
needed for a competitive future workforce Work other AIAA TCs- What could/should be done to include knowledge of fundamental
SE principles in design competitions (DBF, etc)
Armand J. Chaput 2011
What else TC members could do
Support DDRE/UT Initiative on Systems Engineering Design – An Educational Imperative for Development of the Future Aerospace and Defense Workforce - A comprehensive educational initiative for teaching the
basic principles of SE as a part of capstone design- Starts with Aerospace with plans to expand across
engineering disciplinesWill include surveys and critical reviews of proposed approaches
Armand J. Chaput 2011
