Upload
clement-short
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Systems Engineering6 April 2004
SJ KAPURCHPEO SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
CODE D OCE HQ
Provide snapshot of state of Systems Engineering
NASA DOD Industry
Purpose
Outline
Background Overview SE NIAT SE Framework SE trends
DoD Industry
Summary
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Inspector General (W)
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel
NASA Advisory Council
Chief Financial Officer (B)
Equal OpportunityPrograms (E)
AA
Legislative Affairs (L)AA
External Relations (I) AA
Human Resources (F)AA
Public Affairs (P)AA
Security Management and
Safeguards (X)AA
Small & Disadvantaged
Business Utilization (K) AA
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
Institutional & Corporate
Management (O)AA
Safety and Mission Assurance (Q)
AA
Biological and Physical Research
(U) AA
Space Flight (M)AA
• Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
• John F. Kennedy Space Center• George C. Marshall
Space Flight Center• John C. Stennis Space Center
Earth Science (Y)AA
• Goddard Space Flight Center
Space Science (S)AA
• Jet Propulsion Laboratory *
* JPL is a contractor-operated facility.
• Ames Research Center
• Dryden Flight Research Center
• Langley Research Center
• John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field
Aeronautics (R)AA
Education (N)AA
Procurement (H)AA
General Counsel (G)Chief Engineer (D)
Chief Information Officer (V)
Health and MedicalSystems (Z)
Chief Health and Medical Officer
ExplorationSystems (T)
AA
Outline
Background NIAT
NASA SE Framework SE trends
DoD Industry
Summary
NASA Implementing Strategies
*Derived from the NASA FY2003 Strategic Plan, p. A-3
IS-3. Enhance NASA’s core engineering, management, and scientific capabilities and processes to ensure safety and mission success, increase performance, and reduce cost.
Implement collaborative engineering
capabilities and integrated design
solutions to reduce the life-cycle cost
and technical, cost, and schedule risk of major programs
Apply methods and technologies to ensure that designs are safe
and have a high likelihood for success
Improve our systems engineering
capability and ensure that all NASA
programs follow systems engineering
best practices throughout their life
cycles
Establish a process management
approach that can be tailored to the needs of all projects and programs based on
safety, scope, complexity, cost, and
acceptable risk
Use peer review to ensure that NASA’s scientific research is of the highest quality
Vision
Mission
Agency GoalsWhat we will achieveWhat we will achieve
ThemesOur structure to implement the GoalsOur structure to implement the Goals
ObjectivesHow we will achieve the GoalsHow we will achieve the Goals
Implementing StrategiesA foundation of sound planning and management
practices
NIAT Report
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE Formed to address Response to MARS, Shuttle
wiring, FBC and Other Mishap reports NASA WIDE SENIOR TEAM
Chaired OCE Program specific Root Cause and systemic NASA
issues Reviewed 165 recommendations
• 5 groups “Integrated System Solution”
Results many other FRB’s NIAT
NASA Integrated Action Team Report
Highlighted improvement efforts needed in the engineering workforce and engineering practice:- NIAT Theme I – Workforce - “The success of NASA depends on having
a knowledgeable and skilled workforce, armed with the right tools and supported by clearly understood processes and methodologies. … To respond to this need, NASA is initiating a focuses revitalization of its engineering capability with emphasis on systems engineering, through accelerated training, improved Agency-wide standards and the development of improved tools and methodologies.”- NIAT-3: Revitalizing Engineering Capability: “A third ingredient in
the assessment of the engineering capability is consistency in process and execution. … as we strive for greater integration, consistency and sharing of expertise among NASA Centers, industry and academia in collaborative environments, it appears that the Agency could benefit from appropriate Agency-wide standards in the systems engineering process.”
- NIAT Theme IV – Rigor and Discipline - “… to enable excellence in project management, excellence in engineering practice is a pre-requisite.
Engineering Excellence Initiative
Initiated in response to NIAT to stimulate and enable the development and advancement of a sound engineering capability.
• Vision: A premier systems engineering capability widely recognized for its leadership and expertise in the engineering of systems and subsystems to enable NASA to provide leading edge aerospace research, products and services
• Mission: Develop and implement the framework, and promote the environment for excellence and the revolutionary advancement of the system engineering capability to anticipate and meet the needs of NASA Programs and Projects.
• Goal: Stimulate and enable the development and advancement for success in fulfilling the challenging and ambitious goals of the NASA Strategic Plan.
Agency-wide framework does not exist to guide:
• The production and oversight of aerospace products and capabilities from a technical/systems engineering perspective
• Capability assessments as a basis for continuous measurable improvement
• Professional development
Problem Statement
Challenges
Systems engineering issues in programs have contributed to failures, schedule delays, and cost overruns.
Systems issues have resulted in findings in several reports. The exponential growth in technical complexity, and
resulting potential technical risk is expected to continue, challenging our ability to engineer systems effectively.
Centers technical policy has evolved independently Creating separate vocabularies, processes and
inconsistencies
SEWG CHARTER
The SEWG:
Is chartered ( by EMC), in support of Strategic Plan to develop and document a common framework for systems engineering in NASA
TERMS of REFERENCE
The The LicenseLicense. . .. . .
“… This Framework will describe the requirements for SE processes required to engineer aerospace products and capabilities …”
Need: Consistency in basic approach to systems engineering
Need: Common framework of recognized best practices that guides the systems engineering of aerospace program and project products and capabilities.
Need: Common systems engineering terminology and definitions to enhance communication and collaboration among engineering teams across the Agency and with external partners and customers.
Need: Basis for assessing and continuously improving systems engineering capabilities.
Specific Needs
Expectations
The NASA SEWG represents the interests of the Agency, and not the parochial interests of a particular Center
Commitment to a product that we can be proud of Openness and honesty Willingness to take an introspective look at the
present state and dare to push the envelope for what it could be
Leadership within the SEWG and at the Centers for the vision to become reality
No attribution or retribution for the sharing of ideas
Enable and foster excellence in systems engineering capabilities to:
Formulate feasible program and project concepts. Deliver required products and services to NASA customers. Make timely acquisition of enabling products and critical technologies. Reduce risk in system development and deployment.
Enable more effective communications and collaboration within NASA and with external partners and customers.
Conduct effective assessment and improvement of systems engineering capabilities.
Develop strategic focus for advanced engineering environments.
Change the culture to represent the needs of one NASA, and not the unique needs of a particular Center.
Expected Benefits
Outline
Background NIAT
NASA SE Framework SE trends
DoD Industry
Summary
Engineering ExcellenceFramework for the Engineering of NASA
Systems Experienced, well trained engineers in
application of concepts, process, tools, methodology, and customer relation/interaction
Consistency in systems engineering
approach at all levels
Advanced tools and methods to
achieve greater efficiency,
and effectiveness in systems
engineering
Continuous improvement
through self assessment at the
personal and organizational
level
Knowledge& Skill of
Workforce
Concepts and Processes
Tools &Methodology
Capab
ility
Capab
ility
Engineering ExcellenceFramework for the Engineering of NASA
Systems Consistency in systems engineering
approach at all levels
Experienced, well trained engineers in application of concepts, process, tools, methodology, and customer relation/interaction
Advanced tools and methods to
achieve greater efficiency,
and effectiveness in systems
engineering
Continuous improvement
through self assessment at the
personal and organizational
level
Knowledge& Skill of
Workforce
Concepts and Processes
Tools &Methodology
Capab
ility
Capab
ility
Basic SE Process
RequirementsAnalysis
INPUTSINPUTS
FunctionalAnalysis/Allocation
DesignSynthesis
Analysis &ControlVerificationVerification
LoopLoop
RequirementsRequirementsLoopLoop
DesignDesignLoopLoop
OUTPUTSOUTPUTS
Systems Engineering “V”
Design E
ngineer
Define UserNeeds
Define UserNeeds
Define SystemRequirements
Define SystemRequirements
Allocate SystemFunctions toSubsystems
Allocate SystemFunctions toSubsystems
Detail Designof Components
Detail Designof Components
VerifyComponents
VerifyComponents
Verification ofSubsystems
Verification ofSubsystems
SystemPerformanceVerification
SystemPerformanceVerification
SystemOperationalVerification
SystemOperationalVerification
Deco
mp
ositio
n &
Defin
ition
Inte
gra
tio
n &
Ver
ific
atio
n
System
Engineer
SE Process - Lifecycle
IOC
ConceptRefinement
System Development& Demonstration
Production &Deployment
Operations &Support
FRP DecisionReview
FOC
LRIP/IOT&EDesign
ReadinessReview
TechnologyDevelopment
Initiation)
ConceptDecision
-
ConceptRefinement
System Development& Demonstration
Production &Deployment
Operations &Support
TechnologyDevelopment
Formulation Implementation
System Engineering- Decomposition and Definition
System Engineering Process
Model for Concepts and Processes
7120.4
7120.5NPG for NPG for SystemsSystems
EngineeringEngineering
NASA Body of Knowledge for
Systems Engineering
CenterDirectives
Center Guidefor Systems Engineering
Policy
The NPR is a high level NASA Policy The NPR is a high level NASA Policy document to support Program and document to support Program and Project Management. Project Management. Process orientedProcess oriented
““What to do” vice “how to”What to do” vice “how to” Technical input Technical input Flowdown to center directivesFlowdown to center directives
TailoringTailoring
Useable Agency wide. Allow flexibility to innovate and be tailored to unique project
needs while retaining adequate rigor and traceability. Establish links between Systems Engineering Framework
and existing NASA Policy (e.g. NPG 7120.5/Program Management) and requirements to ensure compatibility and consistency.
Don’t start from scratch: Select appropriate concepts and processes from established national and
international standards on systems engineering. Incorporate Center internal best practices where suitable for use Agency-
wide. Utilize publicly available and accepted assessment models to establish tools
for self assessment of capability consistent framework
Rules of Engagement
Purpose SE Related StandardsPurpose SE Related Standards
Mil-Std-499B (NOT PUBLISHED) This standard assists in defining, performing, managing, and evaluating systems
engineering efforts in defense system acquisitions and technology developments. EIA IS 632
This standard is for use by organizations accomplishing new system development, upgrades, modifications, technical efforts conducted to prepare responses to solicitations, and resolution of problems in fielded systems.
IEEE 1220 To provide a standard for managing a system from initial concept through
development, operations, and disposal.EIA/ANSI 632
This standard provides an integrated set of fundamental processes to aid a developer in the engineering or re-engineering of a system.
ISO/IEC 15288 To establish a common framework for describing the life cycle of systems created
by humans.
EIA IS 731 (assessment STD)
This Interim Standard supports the development and improvement of systems engineering capability. It provides both an appraisal model and an appraisal methodology.
ANSI/EIA 632
Heritage of Standards for Systems Engineering
EIA / IS 632
ISO/IEC 15288
Mil-Std-499BMil-Std-
499A
1994
1994
1994
1998
2002
1974
(Not Released)Mil-Std-499
1969
(Trial Use)IEEE 1220
1998
(Full Std)
LegendLegendSupersedesSource for
1998
EIA/IS 731 SE CM
EIA/IS 731 SE CM
IEEE 1220
(Full Std)(Interim Standard)
2002
CMMIsm SE/SW/IPPD
CMMIsm SE/SW/IPPD
(Interim Standard)
(FDIS)
(Version 1.1)
ISO/IEC 19760
2003
(PDTR)
2002
ISO/IEC 15504
ISO/IEC 15504
(FDIS)
NPR Structure
TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures and Tables Preface P.1 PurposeP.2 Applicability and ScopeP.3 AuthorityP.4 ReferencesP.5 Cancellation CHAPTER 1. Overview 1.1 Introduction1.2 Framework1.3 Key Attributes1.4 Document Structure1.5 Force of Requirements
CHAPTER 2. NASA Systems Engineering 2.1 Systems Engineering Relationships
and Characteristics2.2 Systems Engineering Definitions2.3 Key Concepts2.4 Systems Life Cycle Model CHAPTER 3. Systems Engineering Processes 3.1 Definition Process3.2 Design Process3.3 Realization Process3.4 Technical Management Process3.5 Technical Evaluation Process
Engineering ExcellenceFramework for the Engineering of NASA
Systems Consistency in systems engineering
approach at all levels
Experienced, well trained engineers in application of concepts, process, tools, methodology, and customer relation/interaction
Advanced tools and methods to
achieve greater efficiency,
and effectiveness in systems
engineering
Continuous improvement
through self assessment at the
personal and organizational
level
Knowledge& Skill of
Workforce
Concepts and Processes
Tools &Methodology
Capab
ility
Capab
ility
Workforce
Key is well trained workforce Multi-tier approach
NET Crossman study
Emphasis is on Systems Approach Vice all Systems Engineers
Every System Exists In The Context of a Broader System
A System is a A System is a set of set of interrelated interrelated components, components, which interact which interact internally and internally and externally in externally in an organized an organized fashion fashion toward a toward a common common purposepurpose
End Product EnablingProducts
End Product EnablingProducts
Project
End Product EnablingProducts
Project
End Product EnablingProducts
Project
End Product EnablingProducts
Project
End Product EnablingProducts
Project
End Product EnablingProducts
Project
Subsystem Elements
Subsystem Elements
Programs
NASA Enterprise
Engineering ExcellenceFramework for the Engineering of NASA
Systems Consistency in systems engineering
approach at all levels
Experienced, well trained engineers in application of concepts, process, tools, methodology, and customer relation/interaction
Advanced tools and methods to
achieve greater efficiency,
and effectiveness in systems
engineering
Continuous improvement
through self assessment at the
personal and organizational
level
Knowledge& Skill of
Workforce
Concepts and Processes
Tools &Methodology
Capab
ility
Capab
ility
Pre-Assessment Plan for Systems Engineering
Background
The Systems Engineering Work Group (SEWG) proposed a pre-assessment program with both a short-term and longer-term set of goals. The major short-term goal of this program is to establish
the baseline for systems engineering process improvement at NASA. This would be accomplished by the following:
Completion of pre-assessments at selected NASA Centers. Use of the pre-assessments to identify and analyze gaps in the
systems engineering processes and practices at each of the NASA centers. This information will be used by the agency and each Center to establish systems engineering process improvement goals.
Development of a trained workforce. The result of the baseline would enable achievement of
the following longer-term goals: To establish a framework for development of a process
improvement strategy for the engineering of NASA systems. To achieve an engineering culture that fully embraces an
environment of continuous improvement.
Assessments Subgroup
The SEWG chartered a subgroup to perform the necessary trades on existing capability models and make a recommendation to the Chief Engineer.
Subgroup Mission To establish a systems engineering capability
assessment methodology that enables continuous process improvements in the engineering of systems Agency-wide, with validation and documentation through implementation.
Candidate Models Evaluated ISO 15504 – The international standard assessment methodology for systems
engineering
EIA/IS 731 – An Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) standard that brings together the EPIC Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE CMM) and the INCOSE Systems Engineering Capability Assessment Model (SECAM) into a single capability model to minimize confusion within the industry and to relate the resulting capability model to the EIA-632 Standard, Processes for Engineering a System.
SE-CMM – The Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) Software Engineering Institute (SEI) capability maturity model for systems engineering
CMMI v1.1 SE/SW – This is the latest CMU/SEI capability maturity model that integrates systems engineering and software engineering
FAA-iCMM, v2.0 – FAA’s own CMMI-based model
21-Jan-03 Assessment Model EvaluationEvaluation by: XXXXXXXX
Criteria Value ISO 15504 EIA/IS 731 SE-CMM CMMI v1.1 SE/SW FAA-iCMM v 2.01.0 Compatibility with ISO9001-2000
1.1 Covers some but not all process elements
3
1.2 Existing ISO procedures are adaptable to the model
6
1.3 Covers all process elements of ISO 9001-2000
10
2.0 Availability of outside assessors
2.1 Core group(s) of certif ied assessors exist
3
2.2 Is it feasible to convert to inhouse assessors
6
2.3 Is it practical to use an agency-w ide contract for assessment
10
3.0 Likelihood of long-term 3rd party support
3.1 Organization(s) exist that w ill support
3
3.2 Documentation is suff icient and updated regularly
6
3.3 Product line exists and is stable 10
Assessment Criteria Matrix
4.0 Perceived cost to implement
4.1 Cost data is available from some application
3
4.2 Can share or leverage costs w ith others
6
4.3 Sustaining cost is minimal 10
5.0 Training availability5.1 Several training sources are available
3
5.2 Training is certif ied by issuing organization
6
5.3 Training exists for assessors as w ell as implementers
10
6.0 Acceptability as a national/international model
6.1 Issued by a national/international organization
3
6.2 Evidence of use internationally 6
6.3 Evidence of use nationally 10
7.0 Tailorability 7.1 Perceived ease of tailoring to NASA
3
7.2 Examples of tailoring exist 6
7.3 Guidelines for tailoring exist 10
8.0 History of successful application and availability of lessons learned from those applications
8.1 Documented use by industry 3
8.2 Experience w ith use at NASA 6
8.3 Available Lessons learned are relevant to NASA
10
Total Scores:
Assessment Criteria Matrix (continued)
Summary of Assessment Subgroup Model Evaluations
ISO 15504 EIA/IS 731 SE-CMM CMMI v1.1 SE/SW FAA-iCMM v 2.016 27 39 72 4211 5 24 53 3212 19 44 66 4216 15 0 68 916 9 45 72 15
Averages 14.2 15 30.4 66.2 28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5
System Engineering Working Group Results
For NASA’s purposes CMMI v1.1 SE/SW was evaluated as the best appraisal methodology for systems engineering
Scope of plan is to address pre-assessments only.
Some Concerns with Pre-Assessments
• Cost
• Disrupts some projects with yet another assessment
Perception = Truth
Advantages of Pre-Assessments
• Provides information in response to EMB action item, “What problem are we trying to solve?”
• Multiple reports have indicated SE problems.• Enables establishment of a current NASA-wide baseline for
systems engineering processes• Enables identification of gaps that exist in NASA-wide
systems engineering terminologies, definitions, concepts and processes
• Identifies training deficiencies• Enables justification of the NASA-wide standardization of
processes• Enables content improvement and identifies emphasis areas
for the SE NPR
Implementation Roadmap
Conduct Pre-Assessments
Minor Concerns
Center Conducts Improvements
Major Concerns
Review Results
CapabilityImprovement
ActivityPer CMMI
Center Conducts Self-assessments
Formal AssessmentsPer CMMI
Continuous Improvement
Continuous Improvement
NoConcerns
Revisit in 3 – 5 Years
Pilot
Proposed Approach
• One pre-assessment per center.
• Two to three projects assessed per center.
• Four day period for each pre-assessment.
• Three external assessors and two NASA assessors.
• Same five assessors conduct each pre-assessment.
• One center representative participates in their center’s pre-assessment and provides liaison support.
• Code AE contractor to monitor consistency, provide progress reports and complete the integrated final report.
• Use a tailored CMMI-SE as the assessment tool.
Results from a quick-look systems engineering assessment conducted at GSFC during 2002 indicate the value and feasibility of using a tailored CMMI-SE approach
Pilot Objective
Specifically answers to the following questions were sought: Will a CMMI based pre-assessment provide the desired
baseline information? How much effort is required for PIID preparation? What were the major issues encountered? How were the encountered issues resolved? Was the initial PIID training received sufficient? What is the impact on the projects that participated in discovery
activities? Was the level of CMMI practices selected (level 3) appropriate? Are the CMMI model and the approaches used by pilot
recommended for the conduct of pre-assessments at other selected NASA Centers?
Proposed Tailoring of CMMI (Assess against a Subset of the Process Areas)
• Engineering Process Areas (6 of 6)– Requirements Development– Technical Solutions– Product Integration– Verification– Validation– Requirements Management
• Project Management Process Areas (3 of 8)– Engineering Planning– Engineering Monitoring and Control– Engineering Risk management
• Support Process Areas (3 of 6)– Engineering Measurement and Analysis– Engineering Configuration Management– Engineering Decision Analysis and Resolution
• Process Management Process Areas (1 of 5)– Organizational Training (for Engineering)
Pilot Quick Look
There is a need for upfront planning in sufficient time before pre-assessment go-ahead to identify and make available the right people as PIID preparation team members and for obtaining the appropriate training courses for key project personnel and PIID team members.
There is a need for PIID team members to have a good understanding of generic practices and how they are used in conjunction with specific practices to complete PIID preparation.
There is a desire for a single library in which project documentation and other materials are captured and made available to PIID preparation team members.
There is a need for more time during initial training to give PIID preparers more exposure to and hands on experience with using the CMMI model.
Engineering ExcellenceFramework for the Engineering of NASA
Systems Consistency in systems engineering
approach at all levels
Experienced, well trained engineers in application of concepts, process, tools, methodology, and customer relation/interaction
Advanced tools and methods to
achieve greater efficiency,
and effectiveness in systems
engineering
Continuous improvement
through self assessment at the
personal and organizational
level
Knowledge& Skill of
Workforce
Concepts and Processes
Tools &Methodology
Capab
ility
Capab
ility
NASA Implementing Strategies
*Derived from the NASA FY2003 Strategic Plan, p. A-3
IS-3. Enhance NASA’s core engineering, management, and scientific capabilities and processes to ensure safety and mission success, increase performance, and reduce cost.
Implement collaborative engineering
capabilities and integrated design
solutions to reduce the life-cycle cost
and technical, cost, and schedule risk of major programs
Apply methods and technologies to ensure that designs are safe
and have a high likelihood for success
Improve our systems engineering
capability and ensure that all NASA
programs follow systems engineering
best practices throughout their life
cycles
Establish a process management
approach that can be tailored to the needs of all projects and programs based on
safety, scope, complexity, cost, and
acceptable risk
Use peer review to ensure that NASA’s scientific research is of the highest quality
Vision
Mission
Agency GoalsWhat we will achieveWhat we will achieve
ThemesOur structure to implement the GoalsOur structure to implement the Goals
ObjectivesHow we will achieve the GoalsHow we will achieve the Goals
Implementing StrategiesA foundation of sound planning and management
practices
Advanced Engineering EnvironmentsAdvanced Engineering Environments
Executive Summary
Agency AEE VISIONProvide a collaborative, integrated environment to enable distributed, consistent
and informed engineering, science and management decision-making processes across the Agency
Definition of AEEA connected set of methods and tools supporting Systems Engineering, analysis, Product Data Management, collaboration, simulation and modeling
which enable such concepts as Simulation Based Acquisition
Overarching Vision
One NASA community using a strategic engineering capability to enable sustained processes, products and mission success
We Must Invest in Our Infrastructure’s Human, Model, and Data Environments to Enable our Future Programs
We Must Invest in Our Infrastructure’s Human, Model, and Data Environments to Enable our Future Programs
AEE Enables
Better development Optimize development, acquisition, and operations business
processes Minimize the time required to translate an operational
requirement into a validated and verified operational capability and a deployed mission system
Understand and anticipate User needs and translate those needs into product specifications that meet operational requirements
Infrastructure necessary to provide cost effective mission systems early in the lifecycle phase
Predict system behavior (cost, performance, schedule, risk) Support deterministic analysis Facilitate/enable integrated and probabilistic analysis of the
system designs in a traceable manner Anticipate total system operation prior to deployment
Strategy for AEE Implementation
Develop and deploy a NASA-wide AEE capability to continuously improve our engineering community, processes, and capabilities Establish a OneNASA strategy on AEE activities across the
agency Establish a structure for AEE capabilities within NASA and with
external partners in other agencies and institutions Provide the Agency’s focus for connecting, leveraging and
deploying existing and emerging tools and capabilities Establish protocols to add and evaluate capabilities within the
NASA AEE structure
Strategy for AEE Implementation (cont.)
Create and deploy a comprehensive NASA-wide portfolio of state-of-the-art engineering tools and capabilities Aligned with user needs and requirements Leverage existing tools and capabilities Develop and/or integrate capabilities which fill the gaps
Strategy is User/Project driven Access to the AEE portfolio for effective sharing of tools and
knowledge across NASA and beyond Systematic means to ensure widespread knowledge and use
of the portfolio Mechanisms to ensure easy access to all portfolio capabilities
Agency’s Engineering Infrastructure Challenge Is to Ensure Our Workforce Has the Tools & Capabilities to Achieve NASA’s
Vision/Mission to Secure Our Future
Agency’s Engineering Infrastructure Challenge Is to Ensure Our Workforce Has the Tools & Capabilities to Achieve NASA’s
Vision/Mission to Secure Our Future
What Are the Challenges?
Today, NASA Centers do not have the resources or infrastructure to adequately maintain the state-of-the-art in Engineering practices Little room for investments to advance our state-of-the-art.
Future engineering adaptations such as Collaboration and Simulation Based Acquisition (SBA) require fundamental upgrades
We must continually improve our ability to perform engineering work to implement the Enterprises’ programs & initiatives Significant technological challenges
NASA’s role is to be a leader- advancing state-of-the-art Our future depends upon it NASA is behind the State-of-Practice
AEE Analogs Outside of NASA
OSD IDE Summary
• The digital environment is here to stay• The extent to which is interoperable will determine its
ultimate effectiveness• The way we communicate data requirements will
determine the achievable levels of interoperability• Numerous efforts underway to harness the power of
standards for commercial data / meta-data / data interface– CIDS– Pilots (Multiview, LEAPS)– Trading Partner Agreement
• OSD IDE WG working to develop OSD policy related to standards and their role in the defense enterprise IDE
10/2/2002 1
Integrated Shipbuilding Environment
Ronald Wood, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems
L ML M -- I E PI E PP r o j e c t O v e r v i e wP r o j e c t O v e r v i e wO c t o b e r 2 0 0 2O c t o b e r 2 0 0 2
Corporate Intra-Collaboration
AF Joint Synthesis Battlespace
JSF
Future Combat System
Chrysler Intrepid
ASN (RDA)CHIEF ENGINEER
ASN (RDA)CHIEF ENGINEER
Naval Collaborative Engineering Environment Overview
Naval Collaborative Engineering Environment Overview
Outline
Background NIAT
NASA SE Framework SE trends
DoD Industry
Summary
DOD Systems Engineering
Revitalization
USD(AT&L) Imperatives
“Provide a context within which I can make decisions about individual programs.”
“Achieve credibility and effectiveness in the acquisition and logistics support processes.”
“Help drive good systems engineering practice back into the way we do business.”
SE Revitalization Drivers
Lack of coherent SE policy
Lack of effective SE implementation - no “forcing function” for PM or contractor SE activities
Program teams incentivized by cost and schedule, not execution of disciplined SE
Products and processes not in balance (emphasis on speed; fix it in the next spiral)
Inconsistent focus across life-cycle, particularly prior to Milestone B
SE inadequately considered in program life cycle decisions
No single definition or agreement on the scope of SE Lack of common understanding of how SE is implemented on
programs Is SE done by the systems engineer? Does the systems engineer lead the SE effort?
No uniform understanding of what makes a good systems engineer No consistent set of metrics/measures to quantify the value of SE Cost and schedule estimation and risk management processes
inconsistently aligned with SE processes
SE Revitalization Drivers(cont’d)
System Complexity – A Major SE Challenge
System complexity is ever increasing – Family of Systems/System of Systems interdependencies
Integrated systems vice platforms Network centric, spiral development, extension
of system applications are driving higher levels of integration
Task is made more difficult because multiple practitioner communities not aligned Hardware, Software, Information Systems
Validation
SE Education and Training Summit Industry feedback
NDIA, GEIA, AIA Component initiatives Assessment results
DoD Service GAO
DoD Acquisition Policy
DoDD 5000.1:
“Acquisition programs shall be managed through the application of a systems engineering approach that optimizes total system performance and minimizes total ownership costs. A modular, open-systems approach shall be employed.”
DoD SE Revitalization : Relationship
Policy & Guidance• Policy Memo• 5000.2 Enclosure• Acq Guidebook
Assessment• Assessment Guide• Pilot Programs• Team Training
Training & Education• SPRDE Courses• Allied Courses• CL and Short Courses
Memo: Policy for Systems Engrg in DoD
• All programs, regardless of ACAT shall • Apply an SE approach
• Develop a Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)• Describe technical approach, including processes, resources, and metrics• Detail timing and conduct of SE technical reviews
• Director, DS tasked to• Provide SEP guidance for DODI 5000.2
• Recommend changes in Defense SE
• Establish a senior-level SE forum
• Assess SEP and program readiness to proceed before each DAB and other USD(AT&L)-led acquisition reviews
PolicyDODI 5000.2 E 10, “Systems Engineering”
• SE in each acquisition phase• SE strategy integrated with other program strategies (Acquisition, T&E, etc.)• SE leadership• SE planning• Technical reviews
• Integrated (program team and subject matter experts)
• Event driven• Independent, technical chair
• In-service SE
GuidanceDoD Acquisition Guidebook
• DoD Acquisition Guide (formerly DoD 5000.2-R)
• Best practice for “applied SE”• SE guide for each acquisition phase• Technical reviews as basis for program decisions• Linkage of SE products/process to acquisition
objectives• Tailorable
Education and Training
• Review SPRDE Career Field• Position Category Descriptions• Certification requirements• Course elements and content (including terminal learning objectives)• Continuous learning courses
• Develop focused continuous learning and short courses, emphasizing latest SE policies
• Review and assess associated acquisition career fields versus SE revitalization thrusts:
ACQ, PM, LOG, BCEFM, CONT, SAM, T&E, PQM, STM, IT
• Review Academic Curriculums
• Universities, NDU
Assessments and Support
• Develop comprehensive, phased assessment methodology
• Provide in-depth training to assessment teams• Apply methodology to pilot programs and recoup
lessons learned
ARMY
Presented By: Jeff DyerUS Army RDECOM ARDECSystem Engineering, Integration and Analysis Director
ARDEC SE Initiative
ARDEC Re-organization: A main pillar - “built around ensuring System Engineering principles are embedded in the conduct of all ARDEC programs” – ARDEC TD Process Oriented
SEIA Organization: Mission: The Systems Engineering, Integration and Analysis
Competency Directorate will develop and continuously improve the Systems Engineering, System Integration and System Analysis competency areas for ARDEC and will execute these tasks for all ARDEC programs.
Vision: Develop and implement a systematic and disciplined system engineering process, with emphasis on Simulation and Modeling for Acquisition, Requirements and Training (SMART) principals, for the development of ARDEC personnel and products.
USAF Systems Engineering Update
Mr. Mike UcchinoTechnical Director
AF Center for Systems Engineering22 March 04
AFIT Organization
Communications& Info Services
Major Trautmann
Civil Engineer & Services School
Dean-Col Astin
Systems EngineeringSenior Council
AFIT CommandantBrig Gen (Sel) Eidsaune
Air Univ CommanderLt Gen Lamontagne
Center for Systems Engineering
Interim Director -Mr. Wilson
SE Ed & Training
School of Systemsand Logistics
Dean-Col Knapp
AETC CommanderGen Cook
AU Board of VisitorsAFIT SE Subcommittee
AFMC AFSPC
AdvocacyCollaborationConsultation
-
AFIT CommandantBrig Gen (Sel) Eidsaune
Air Univ CommanderLt Gen Lamontagne
Center for Systems Engineering
Director - Mr. Wilson
SE Ed & Training
School of Systemsand Logistics
Dean-Col Knapp Acting - Dr Calico
AETC CommanderGen Cook
AU Board of VisitorsAFIT SE Subcommittee
AFMC AFSPC
AdvocacyCollaborationConsultation
- New Reorganization
Provost
CSE Perspective
Systems Engineering is the umbrella process Applies across the entire life cycle Other engineering disciplines support the process
Chief / Lead Engineers are the Systems Engineers on programs Requires technical as well as process knowledge / experience Matrixed organizations can have functional (home office) systems
engineer
All engineers should apply/use systems engineering principles and processes
Systems engineering process defined by “world’s greatest PAT” Driven by formation of AFMC Basis for MIL-STD-499B
CSE Goals
Influence and institutionalize systems engineering process Process, practices, and tools
Collaboration with government, industry and academia Consultation Rotational program
Educate the workforce Academic programs
Graduate programs – MS, PhD, and certificate Seminars, workshops, short courses (continuing education) Provide accessibility at key DoD locations
Case studies
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AT
NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND
GEIA
09 SEPTEMBER 2003
Systems Engineering
at NAVAIR
PEOPLE
• Leadership
• Knowledge Management
• Training
• Certification/ Empowerment
• Subject Matter Expertise
PROCESSES
• SEMP
• Technical/Design Reviews
• Risk Assessment
• Verification & Validation
• Strategic Development
TOOLS
• Requirements Management
• Systems Integration
• Laboratories
• Modeling / Simulation
PROGRAMS
• Acquisition Plan
• Contract Work Statement
• Specifications
• Resources
• Facilities
“Systems Engineering is the overarching, ‘integrated sum’ of people, processes, tools, and programs which ensures validated satisfaction of program requirements from design and operations, through training and support.”
Effective and Suitable Fielded System
A Total System’s Approach
NAVAIR S.E. GUIDE
NAVAIR Systems
Engineering Guide
Covered Covered Explicitly Explicitly
by the Mil-by the Mil-Std 499BStd 499B
Adapted from ASI/EIA-632
EIA-632/MIL STD 499B
Acquisition and Supply Supply Process Acquisition Process
Technical Management Planning Process Assessment Process Control ProcessControl Process
System Design Requirements Definition ProcessRequirements Definition Process Solution Definition ProcessSolution Definition Process
Product Realization Implementation Process Transition to Use Process
Technical Evaluation Systems Analysis ProcessSystems Analysis Process Requirements Validation Process System Verification Process End Products Validation Process
NAVAIR SE GUIDEFOUNDATION FOR FUTURE GOVERNMENT / INDUSTRY PROCESS
• INCOSE/NDIA/GEIA
– ADOPTED THE S.E. GUIDE AS A FOUNDATION DOCUMENT FOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES
– PROVIDED COPIES OF THE S.E. GUIDE TO ALL MAJOR AIRCRAFT COMPANIES FOR COMMENT
• Navy’s System Engineering Stakeholders Group (SESG)
– BASELINE DOCUMENT FOR THE NAVY’S VIRTUAL SYSTEMS COMMAND S.E. GUIDE
– PLAN TO COMPLETE FEB 04
Outline
Background NIAT
NASA SE Framework SE trends
DoD Industry
Summary
BoeingSystem of Systems
Engineering (SoSE) Process
BoeingSystem of Systems
Engineering (SoSE) Process
Copyright ©2003 The Boeing Company
RequirementsAnalysis
RequirementsAnalysis
Functional Analysis
Functional Analysis
4+1 Views for each System Design Level are Populated with SoSE Process Products
4+1 Views are incrementally developed across the SoSE Activities
Requirements Definition
Functional Architecture
Physical Architecture
SoS Process DerivedSystem Element Needs
SoS Process DerivedSystem Element NeedsStakeholder Needs
Derived Item Requirements for theNext Level of Decomposition
SynthesisSynthesis
Architecture Models and Specificationsfor each Design Level
Use Case View, Logical View, Process View
Use Case View, Logical View, Process View
Use Case View, Logical View, Physical View
ProcessProducts
ProcessProducts
ProcessProducts
Architecture Models and Specificationsfor each Design Level
Architecture Models and Specificationsfor each Design Level
LM-IEPLM-IEPA Progress Report A Progress Report 9 September 2003 9 September 2003
LM-IEP A Product Suite Approach
LM Process LM Process Asset LibraryAsset Library
(LM-PAL)(LM-PAL)
LM Process LM Process Asset LibraryAsset Library
(LM-PAL)(LM-PAL)
Common Common Methods and Methods and
Work ProductsWork Products
Common Common Methods and Methods and
Work ProductsWork Products
Assessment Assessment Method (CAM)Method (CAM)
Assessment Assessment Method (CAM)Method (CAM)
LM-IEPLM-IEPStandard Standard
LM-IEPLM-IEPStandard Standard
Integrated Integrated Measurement & Measurement &
Risk ManagementRisk Management
Integrated Integrated Measurement & Measurement &
Risk ManagementRisk Management
TrainingTrainingTrainingTraining
ARISARISProcessProcessModelModel
ARISARISProcessProcessModelModel
Integrated Process Improvement
LM-IEPLM-IEPStandardStandard
CMMI Level 3+CMMI Level 3+AppraisalAppraisal
IntegratedIntegratedMeasurementMeasurement
GuideGuide
RiskRiskMeasurementMeasurement
GuideGuide
Common Source Standards
ANSI/EIA-632ANSI/EIA-632
ISO 9001:2000ISO 9001:2000
IEEE 1220IEEE 1220
LM–HWLCPSLM–HWLCPS
ISO/IEC-12207ISO/IEC-12207
CMMI V1.1CMMI V1.1
ISO/IEC-15288ISO/IEC-15288
ProjectProjectDefinedDefinedProcessProcess
ProjectProjectDefinedDefinedProcessProcess
ProjectProjectDefinedDefinedProcessProcess
LM Business Units
Other BestOther BestPracticesPractices
LM-PALLM-PAL
IntegratedIntegratedMethodsMethods
OrganizationalOrganizationalStandard Standard
Process(es)Process(es)
Industry Associations
NDIA Top 5 Lack of awareness of the importance and value …..SE on programs
ROI SE should not be an option.
Adequate, qualified resources… Short supply of experienced and trained workforce.
Insufficient SE tools and environments to effectively execute SE on programs. Lack comprehensive, common and consistent tools, guidance and
standards which leads to stovepipes and inadequate data transfer. Requirements definition, development and mangement is not applied
consistently and effectively. Poor initial program formulation practices put success at risk
Emphasize SE process in the initial stages Adoption of maturity models such as CMMI
Heritage of SE and SW Standards
EIA/IS-632
1980
Instructions/Handbooks/
Manuals/Guides
IEEE 12201994
DIDs
ANSI/EIA-632
ISO/IEC15288
IEEE/EIA12207
EIA/IS-731
EIA/IEEEJ-STD-016
IEEE 12201998
MIL-STD-499A
MIL-STD-499
SystemsEngineering
ISO/IEC12207
MIL-STD-498
DOD-STD-2167
DOD-STD-2167A
DOD-STD-1703
DOD-STD-7935A
IEEE 1498/EIA 640
DIDs
MIL-STD-1679A
1985
1998 1994
1998 1994
1974 1969
1999-2002
1999
Oct 2002
1994
1987
1988
1988
1994 1996
1995 1998
1997
2002+
(Interim)(Draft)
(Trial Use)
(Interim)
(Full Std)
(NotReleased)
Sec PerryLetterJan 1994
SoftwareEngineering
1968-
Data Item Descriptions
MIL-Std-499B
ISO/IEC1528812207
Harmon
200X
MIL-STD-1679
1968-
Guide
Mid-2003
(Data)
CMMI(SE-CM)
Summary
SE Revitalization : Relationship
Policy &Guidance
• Policy Memo• 5000.2 Enclosure• Acq Guidebook
Assessment• Assessment Guide• Pilot Programs• Team Training
Training &Education
• SPRDE Courses• Allied Courses• CL and Short
Courses
Systems Engineering
at NAVAIR
PEOPLE
• Leadership
• Knowledge Management
• Training
• Certification/ Empowerment
• Subject Matter Expertise
PROCESSES
• SEMP
• Technical/Design Reviews
• Risk Assessment
• Verification & Validation
• Strategic Development
TOOLS
• Requirements Management
• Systems Integration
• Laboratories
• Modeling / Simulation
PROGRAMS
• Acquisition Plan
• Contract Work Statement
• Specifications
• Resources
• Facilities
“Systems Engineering is the overarching, ‘integrated sum’of people, processes, tools, and programs which ensures validated satisfaction of program requirements from design and operations, through training and support.”
Effective and Suitable Fielded System
A Total System’s Approach
Heritage of SE and SW Standards
EIA/IS-632
1980
Instructions/Handbooks/
Manuals/Guides
IEEE 12201994
DIDs
ANSI/EIA-632
ISO/IEC15288
IEEE/EIA12207
EIA/IS-731
EIA/IEEEJ-STD-016
IEEE 12201998
MIL-STD-499A
MIL-STD-499
SystemsEngineering
ISO/IEC12207
MIL-STD-498
DOD-STD-2167
DOD-STD-2167A
DOD-STD-1703
DOD-STD-7935A
IEEE 1498/EIA 640
DIDs
MIL-STD-1679A
1985
1998 1994
1998 1994
1974 1969
1999-2002
1999
Oct 2002
1994
1987
1988
1988
1994 1996
1995 1998
1997
2002+
(Interim)(Draft)
(Trial Use)
(Interim)
(Full Std)
(NotReleased)
Sec PerryLetterJan 1994
SoftwareEngineering
1968-
Data Item Descriptions
MIL-Std-499B
ISO/IEC1528812207
Harmon
200X
MIL-STD-1679
1968-
Guide
Mid-2003
(Data)
CMMI(SE-CM)
Engineering ExcellenceFramework for the Engineering of NASA
Systems Experienced, well trained engineers
in application of concepts, process, tools, methodology, and customer relation/interaction
Consistency in systems engineering
approach at all levels
Advanced tools and methods to
achieve greater efficiency,
and effectiveness in systems
engineering
Continuous improvement
through self assessment at the
personal and organizational
level
Knowledge& Skill of
Workforce
Concepts and Processes
Tools &Methodology
Capab
ility
Capab
ility
Questions?
BACKUP
IEEE 1220 Application & Management of the SE Process
Lev
el o
f D
etai
l
Breadth of Scope
ScopeSE Related Standards
ISO/IEC 15288System Life Cycle Processes
Envisioned NASA NPGEnvisioned NASA NPG
MIL-STD-499B & EIA IS 632Systems Engineering
ANSI/EIA 632 Processes for Engineering a System
Lockheed Martin EIP – includes SW engineering
Mil-Std-499B
1994
(Not Released)
Mil-Std-499
1969
Gov’t
Mil-Std-499A
1974
ISO- 15288
2002
International
EIA/IS 632
CMMI®ANSI/ EIA- 632
(Updates)
IEEE Trial Use Std-
1220
(Updates)
IEEE Std 1220
ANSI/EIA-632-1998
EIA/IS-731 SE Capability
IEEE Std 1220-1998
1994
20022004+
1994
2004+
1999 1999 1999
INCOSE SECAM
EPIC SE-CMM
1994
Commercial
EIA-731 SE Capability
2002
Heritage of Systems Engineering Standards
Slide courtesy of Richard HarwellINCOSE Fellow