SYSTEM INTEGRATION Systems Engineering

ETS Feedback

General comments Overall, the quality of the papers was good. In most cases, at least one of the tools were applied in depth and in a way such that meaningful information could be drawn from them. Often a lot of words were spent describing the application of the tools and an opportunity was missed to used these words more effectively by discussing the outcome of using the tool. In general, papers flowed quite well, although many did not build to a convincing conclusion, which was an opportunity missed. Sources of research were included but often not referenced in text. Despite some papers not making many design decisions from their analysis, the application generally gave an in depth description of the system to be used in later systems analysis.

Indicative comments against the criteria LO1: adapt the methodologies to describe your project design or system Excellent-Outstanding

- Applied and discussed at least 2 of the weeks concepts, being: Functional Allocation, Subsystem Interface and/or Requirements Mapping.

- The description of the system drew meaning which was not necessarily obvious from the introduction to the system, or the information gained from other peoples papers (using the tool brought out surprising outcomes)

- The application of the concepts gave insight into the system in some way. Adequate-Good

- Correct and in-depth application of tools to the project; however, did not use the application to learn or demonstrate a better understanding of the system.

- In many cases, the way in which the tools were applied to the project was described, rather than describing/discussing what the application suggested about the system.

Poor-Adequate - At least one of concepts were applied to the system. - In some cases, figures such as the functional allocation were not completed in

enough detail to draw meaning from them, or key principles were missing from the application, such as the system boundary in the subsystem interface diagram.

- In some cases, the application was in a large amount of detail, but the tool was used incorrectly and ineffectively, suggesting that the author lacked understanding.

LO2: provide evidence or rationales for design decisions and trade-offs Excellent-Outstanding

- Multiple decisions were made using the application of the concepts. Example decisions include:

- Because subsystem X, Y and Z rely on subsystem A, the reliability of subsystem A is the most important, as failure to it will cause failure to the

entire system. Excellent papers went on to describe what this would mean in terms of finer details, such as material choice.

- When decisions were not clear, trade-offs were discussed to the application of concept to the project or design choices. Trade-offs included resource allocation, time, weight, user requirements and functional success.

Adequate-Good - Only one of design decisions or trade-offs were discussed. - In some papers, decisions about the project were made and discussed but they did

not directly relate to/come from the application of the subsystem integration analysis. - Discussion of trade-offs were not clear, or did not stem from the analysis

Poor-Adequate - If included, design decisions were not justified or clear - Trade-offs were often not discussed. If they were, it was at a very high level. - Trade-offs were sometimes discussed at the beginning of the paper but not in relation

to the system. LO3: use technical knowledge alongside systems approaches to improve outcomes Excellent-Outstanding

- Interfaces were described and discussed using technical knowledge of the system. - Units were assigned to the subsystem interactions or the flow of material, information,

energy etc. was discussed. - A technical knowledge of the system was used to discuss the feasibility of design

choices. - Function Allocation was completed to a technical level showing an in-depth

understanding of the type of technology required in the system. Adequate-Good

- Technical aspect of systems were mentioned but not discussed in any detail. - The type of flow was assigned but not assigned units or a measurable quantity. - Function Allocation was kept at a basic level such that the technical aspects were

ambiguous. Poor-Adequate

- Technical aspects of systems were not mentioned and/or incorrect assumptions were made showing a lack of understanding of the system.

- Functional allocations did not flow correctly based on the technology required, or were at a very high level such that technology could not be included.

LO4: construct clear and insightful arguments and analysis for your design Excellent-Outstanding

- A paper flowed in a logical manner such that it built to a strong conclusion. - All figures and tables were labelled appropriately, were of appropriate scale and were

discussed in the text - Section headings were useful in understanding the structure of the argument

Adequate-Good - All figures and tables were labelled and used correctly, but some factors were unclear - Headings were used, but not necessarily helpful or meaningful - The paper flowed in a logical manner, but more effort was required to form a strong

argument Poor-Adequate

- Headings were incorrectly used or not included - Figures and tables were not useful in supporting discussion. - Some arguments were present in the paper, but did not lead to a conclusion.

LO5: research and defend arguments about your project design or system Excellent-Outstanding

- Discussion of tools were referenced using Harvard in text referencing and a correctly formatted bibliography.

- Any technical knowledge included in the paper was referenced. - The references were from reputable sources - In some cases, a case study was sources to support reason for analysis.

Adequate-Good - Various ideas throughout the paper were referenced. - References were mostly used to support the concepts, rather than decision making. - Some sources were reputable, but most were web resources.

Poor-Adequate - A bibliography was present but the articles were not references in the paper. - References were not of appropriate standard (eg. Wikipedia, Yahoo Answers). - The only paper references was Chris Brownes lecture notes (not an appropriate

source to demonstrate research about the topic - listen to Chris advice in the week three lecture)