Addressing Systems Engineering Challenges Through Collaborative...

Addressing Systems Engineering Challenges Through Collaborative Research

June 2008

Dr. Donna H. Rhodes

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[email protected]

seari.mit.edu © 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2

Field of Systems Engineering


What is Systems Engineering?

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (Traditional) Systems engineering is the process of selecting and synthesizing

the application of the appropriate scientific and technical knowledge in order to translate system requirements into system design. (Chase)

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (Advanced)Systems engineering is a branch of engineering that

concentrates on design and application of the whole as distinct from the parts… looking at the problem in its entirety, taking into account all the facets and variables and relating the social to the technical aspects. (Ramo)


What is Systems Engineering?

Systems Engineering is an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful systems.

Systems Engineering integrates all the disciplines and specialty groups into a team effort forming a structured development process that proceeds from concept to production to operation.

Systems Engineering considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs.

International Council on Systems Engineering


Where is Systems Engineering Needed?

Products, Systems, Systems-of-Systems, Services


Systems engineering is evolving as a broader and more multi-faceted field, as the problems and challenges of this century are solved better by systems

approaches, rather than through application of

technology alone.

Systems engineering is essential to successfully design, develop, and sustain the highly complex systems of the 21st century.

(photo credit: INCOSE)


Changing Face

of Systems Engineering

TRADITIONAL SE

Transformation of customer requirements to design

Requirements clearly specified, frozen early

Emphasis on minimizing changes

Design to meet well specified set of requirements

Performance objectives specified at project start

Focus on reliability, maintainability, and availability

ADVANCED SE

Effective transformation of stakeholder needs to fielded (and sustainable) solution

Focus on product families and systems-of-systems

Complex interdependencies of system and enterprise

Growing importance of systems architecting

Designing to accommodate change

Emphasis on expanded set of “ilities” and designing in robustness, flexibility, adaptability in concept phase


Motivations for Research in Advanced Systems Engineering


DSB/AFSAB Report on Acquisition of National Security Space Programs

May 2003

Findings:

Cost has replaced mission success as the primary driver in managing space development programs

Unrealistic estimates lead to unrealistic budgets and unexecutable programs

Undisciplined definition and uncontrolled growth in system requirements increase cost and schedule delays

Government capabilities to lead and manage the acquisition process have seriously eroded

Industry has failed to implement proven practices on some programs


Critical Need for Systems Engineering for “Robustness”

Systems Engineering for robustness means developing systems/system-of-systems that are:

� Capable of adapting to changes in mission and requirements � Expandable/scalable� Designed to accommodate growth in capability� Able to reliably function given changes in threats and environment � Effectively/affordably sustainable over their lifecycle � Easily modified to leverage new technologies

Reference: Rhodes, D., Workshop Report – Air Force/LAI Workshop on Systems Engineering for Robustness, July 2004, http://lean.mit.edu

In a 2004 workshop, Dr. Marvin Sambur, (then) Assistant Secretary of the

AF for Acquisition, noted that average program is 36% overrun according

to recent studies -- which disrupts the overall portfolio of programs.

The primary reason cited in studies of problem programs state the

number one reason for programs going off track is systems engineering.


Today’s Failures Exhibit Global Engineering Complexities

October 8 2005 CryoSat Mission lost due to launch failure

Mr Yuri Bakhvalov, First Deputy Director General of the Khrunichev Space Centre on behalf of the Russian State Commission officially confirmed that the launch of CryoSat ended in a failure due to an anomaly in the launch sequence …. missing command from the onboard flight control system…

.

This loss means that

Europe and the worldwide

scientific community will

not be able to rely on such

data from the CryoSat

mission and will not be

able to improve their

knowledge of ice,

especially sea ice and its

impact on climate

change.

Will this event have an impact on ESA’s relationship with Russia?Space has always been a risky business. Failures can happen on each side.

From this end I do not expect any impact on relations with Russia. I wish to

underline that in this particular case we, ESA, were customers to Eurockot, the

launch service provider, which is a joint venture between EADS Space

Transportation (Germany) and Krunichev (Russia).


Systems Engineering Continues to Be Cited as a Source of Problems

DOD IG: Lack of systems engineering imperils missile system

Published on Mar. 20, 2006

A lack of systems engineering plans could derail a $30 billion effort to field an integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), the Defense Department’s inspector general said in a report released earlier this month.

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has not completed a systems engineering plan or developed a sustainment plan for BMDS, jeopardizing the development of an integrated BMDS, the DOD IG said.

The report emphasizes that DOD must practice strong systems engineering to effectively sustain weapons systems. That begins with design and development.


Evolution of Practice of Systems Engineering

Over the past five or six decades, the discipline known as “Systems Engineering” has evolved. At one time, many years ago, development of a capability was relatively simple to orchestrate.

The design and development of parts, engineering calculations, assembly, and testing was conducted by a small number of people. Those days are long gone.

Teams of people, sometimes numbering in the thousands are involved in the development of systems; and, what was previously only a development practice has evolved to become a science and engineering discipline.

Saunders, T., et al, System-of-Systems Engineering for Air Force Capability Development: Executive Summary and Annotated Brief, AF SAB TR -05-04, 2005


Contemporary Systems Engineering

Systems of systems

Extended enterprises

Network-centric paradigm

Delivering value to society

Sustainability of systems

Design for flexibility

Managing uncertainty

Predictability of systems

Spiral capable processes

Model-based engineering

… and more

This requires a

broader field of study

for future systems

leaders and enabling

changes in education

and research …


Engineering Systems as the Context Field for Systems Engineering


MIT is tackling the large-scale engineering challenges of the 21st century through a new organization….

The Engineering Systems Division (ESD) creates and shares interdisciplinary knowledge about complex engineering systems through initiatives in education, research, and industry partnerships.

– Cross-cutting academic unit including engineering, management, social sciences

– Broadens engineering practice to include context of challenges as well as consequences of technological advancement

– Dual mission: (1) evolve engineering systems as new field of study and (2) transform engineering education and practice

MIT Engineering Systems Division

Council of 40+ universities is collaborating on this goal (http://www.cesun.org)


ES versus SEWhat Is the Difference?

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (Traditional)

Systems engineering is the process of selecting and synthesizing the application of the appropriate scientific and technical knowledge in order to translate system requirements into system design. (Chase)

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (Advanced)

Systems engineering is a branch of engineering that concentrates on design and application of the whole as distinct from the parts…looking at the problem in its entirety, taking into account all the facets and variables and relating the social to the technical aspects. (Ramo)

ENGINEERING SYSTEMS

A field of study taking an integrative holistic view of large-scale, complex, technologically-enabled systems with significant enterprise level interactions and socio-technical interfaces.


ENGINEERING

SYSTEMS

PoliticalEconomy

Economics,Statistics

Systems Theory

OrganizationalTheory

Operations Research/Systems Analysis

System Architecture& Eng /ProductDevelopment

EngineeringManagement

Technology & Policy

Engineering Systems as a Field of Study


Engineering Systems RequiresFour Perspectives

1. A very broad interdisciplinary perspective, embracing technology, policy, management science, and social science.

2. An intensified incorporation of system properties (such as sustainability, safety and flexibility) in the design process.

– Note that these are lifecycle properties rather than first use properties. – These properties, often called “ilities” emphasize important intellectual

considerations associated with long term use of engineering systems.

3. Enterprise perspective, acknowledging interconnectedness of product system with enterprise system that develops and sustains it.

– This involves understanding, architecting and developing organizational structures, policy system, processes, knowledgebase, and enabling technologies as part of the overall engineering system.

4. A complex synthesis of stakeholder perspectives, of which there may be conflicting and competing needs which must be resolved toserve the highest order system (system-of-system) need.


Research Landscape

A research landscape is the overall mental model under

which research is formulated, performed, and

transitioned to practice

1. Provides context for the research agenda, methods, and specific projects

2. Determines a community of interest for research impact

3. Opportunities for/constraints on funding sources and sponsors

4. Significantly influences research outcomes and impact

Engineering systems is a field of study taking an integrative holistic view of

large-scale, complex technologically enabled systems with significant

enterprise level interactions and socio-technical interfaces


Impact of Engineering Systems on Systems Engineering

ES can provide a broader landscape (context field) for SE

ES brings together a more diverse set of researchers and scholars

ES establishes a larger footprint in the university, driving a strong research focus and investment

The Engineering Systems Division provides the research venue for a new initiative on advanced systems engineering…


MIT ESD Systems Engineering

Advancement Research Initiative(SEAri)


Systems Engineering Advancement Research Initiative (SEAri)

Current Sponsors: US Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Singapore DSO, US Air Force, MIT Portugal Program, Draper Laboratory, Lean Advancement Initiative, US Government Agency

3 Cambridge Center

NE20 – 388/343

Mission

Advance the theories, methods, and effective practice

of systems engineering applied to complex socio-

technical systems through collaborative research


Advancing SE

Multiple heterogeneous stakeholder groups with divergent cost goals and measures of success

Single or homogenous stakeholder group with stable cost/funding profile and similar measures of success

Cost

Intense concept phase analysis followed by continuous anticipation, aided by ongoing experimentation

Concept phase activity to determine system needs

Anticipation of Needs

SoS component systems separately acquired, and continue to be managed and operated as independent systems

Centralized acquisition and management of the system

Acquisition and Management

Enhanced emphasis on “ilities” such as Flexibility, Adaptability, Composeability

Reliability, Maintainability, Availability are typical ilities

System “ilities”

Component systems can operate independently of SoS in a useful manner Protocols and standards essential to enable interoperable systems

Defines and implements specific interface requirements to integrate components in system

System Interoperability

Dynamic adaptation of architecture as needs change

System architecture established early in lifecycle; remains relatively stable

System Architecture

Evolving new system of systems capability by leveraging synergies of legacy systems

Development of single system to meet stakeholder requirements and defined performance

Purpose

Advanced

Systems Engineering

Traditional

Systems Engineering


Structured with four interacting “clusters” that undertake research in a portfolio of five topics:

1. Socio-Technical Decision Making

2. Designing for Value Robustness

3. Systems Engineering Economics

4. Systems Engineering in the Enterprise

5. Systems Engineering Strategic Guidance

SEAri Structure


Research Cluster-Portfolio Mapping

XSE Strategic Guidance

XSE in the Enterprise

XSE Economics

XDesigning for

Value Robustness

XXXXSocio-Tech

Decision Making

SE-SynthesisSE-FieldR-STARSV-STARS


Sponsor Engagement Models

1. Classical “basic research” sponsors

– Targeted topic toward broad scientific goals

2. Innovation grant sponsors

– Higher risk/higher payoff research

3. Contract research sponsors

– Toward solving sponsor problem

4. Consortium sponsors

– Pooled funds for shared research benefits

5. “Deep engagement” partnerships

– Symbiotic relationship


Underlying Research Structure

and Research PortfolioPrescriptive methods seek to advance state of the practice based on

sound principles and theories, as grounded in real limitations and

constraints

• Normative research: identify principles and theories -- “should be”

• Descriptive research: observe practice and identify limits/constraints

RESEARCH PORTFOLIO

1. Socio-Technical Decision Making

2. Designing for Value Robustness

3. Systems Engineering Economics

4. Systems Engineering in the Enterprise

5. Systems Engineering Strategic Guidance


Portfolio Projects Mapped to Research Structure

Exploratory Studies of SE PracticeGuidance based on Research Synthesis

Codified Successful Practices based on Empirical Studies

Tradespace Exploration Method Validated in Real World Cases


Research Portfolio (1)

SOCIO-TECHNICAL DECISION MAKING

This area of research is concerned with the context of socio-technical systems. Based on a multi-disciplinary approach, decision making techniques are developed through the exploration of:

– Studies of decision processes and effectiveness of techniques – Constructs for representing socio-technical systems to perform

impact analysis– Decision strategies for system of systems– Visualization of complex trade spaces and saliency of information

– Understanding and mitigating cognitive biases in decision processes

While organizational theorists have well developed theories of how organizations function and make decisions, this understanding needs to be integrated into the design phase in a quantifiable way….then it will be the case that apriori the effect of the enterprise organization on the engineering system will be predicted rather than being a surprise

Hastings, MIT ESD Symposium, 2004


Formal Modeling of System of Systems

Objective– To validate through a formal model

key heuristics related to the design and management of systems of systems (SoS)

Method– Synthesis of disparate case literature

on SoS into core practitioner recommended practices

– Agent-based model that captures the essential features of an SoS vs. systems in general

Anticipated Contributions– Conditions under which various SoS

practices are effective

– New potential heuristics focused on constituent behavior

Nirav B. Shah, Aero/Astro PhD Candidate, August 2008 (expected)

$ VC

$ VA

$ VBSOSValue

$ $ $

1010110

kg kg

kg

RVRV = = VV + + ff(SOSV)(SOSV)

RVRV = = VV + + gg(SOSV)(SOSV)

RVRV = = VV + + hh(SOSV)(SOSV)SOSV

SOSV

SOSV

A

C

A

D

A

B

A

C

A

D

Contexts

Tim

e

SoS value is gene-rated via interaction between constituent systems

Participation impact constituents

Constituents strug-gle to manage par-ticipation in multiple SoS over time and across contexts

GloballyNetworked

Environment

FasterOperationsTempo

Centralized, integrateduni-function systems

1960

2000

Flexible, multi-functionSystems of systems

(1)

(2)

Network technologies have transformed the nature of systems


A Methodology for Identification of System Hotspots for Embedded Flexibility

Objective– Demonstrate a proposed

methodology for identifying areas of interest, or “hotspots,” in a system which may provide opportunities to embed flexibility

Method– Surveys and Interviews– Construct Engineering Systems

Matrix (ESM)– Change Propagation Analysis &

Sensitivity DSMs to identify hotspots

Anticipated Contributions– Demonstration of analysis using ESM– Two case studies: detailed ESM and

high-level ESM – Recommendations for methodology

improvements

Jennifer Wilds, Aero/Astro and Technology & Policy Program SM, September 2008


Integrating Unmanned Aircraft into the National Airspace System: An Application of Value-Focused Thinking and

Enterprise Architecting

Objective– Create a viable AF/FAA airspace

integration enterprise

Method– Value-Focused Thinking

– Enterprise Architecting

– Design for Changeability

Anticipated Contributions– An applied analysis of value-

focused thinking to a real-world challenge using enterprise architecting principles to generate alternative approaches to maximize effectiveness/efficiency

Luke Cropsey, ESD & Sloan School of Management SDM, September 2008

Objective

State

“As-Is”

Effort

Architecting

Enterprise

Value



DESIGNING for VALUE ROBUSTNESS

This area of research seeks to develop methods for concept exploration,

architecting and design using a dynamic perspective for the purpose of

realizing systems, products, and services that deliver sustained value to

stakeholders in a changing world.

– Methods for dynamic multi-attribute trade space exploration

– Architecting principles and strategies for designing survivable systems

– Quantification of the changeability of a system design

– Techniques for the consideration of unarticulated and latent stakeholder value

– Taxonomy for enabling stakeholder dialogue on “itlies”

Value robustness is the ability of a system to continue to deliver stakeholder value

in the face of changing contexts and needs. Architecting value robust systems

requires new methods for exploring the concept tradespace, as well as for decision

making. Also needed are architecting principles and strategies, an approach for the

quantification of changeability, and an improved ability for architects and analysts

to classify value for purposes of dialogue and implementation

Ross and Rhodes, 2008


Dynamic Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration Method

Traditional trade studies insufficient for comprehensive conceptual design

Tradespace exploration adds computer-based parametric models and simulations enabling comparison of hundreds/ thousands of architectures

Can be applied to static case, but higher benefit through dynamic exploration

Design transition rules can be applied to consider if and how to transition from one design to another

Dynamic Tradespace

Point designs in a

tradespace can be linked as

a network via transition

rules to assess

changeability


Dynamic Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration Method

Implications for Systems Engineering Practice 1. Ability to explore many design options and prevent too early

focus on single ‘point design’

2. Enables quantitative assessment of factors such as variability in technical performance and cost, and impacts in markets

3. Suitable to multiple domains and demonstrated to improve decision making

Vision: designers will have an enhanced ability to consider concept alternative in a rigorous way, not

only for present situation but also in considering futures where needs and

contexts have shifted


Quantification of Changeability of System Designs

Based on a networked tradespace, Ross (2006) defines filtered outdegree as quantification of subjective changeability

Outdegree of a design is the number of transition paths from the design to possible future state designs

Imposing a filter on the outdegree determines the only viable transition paths

Changeability differs across decision makers based on thresholds for acceptable transition cost

Filtered Outdegree

A measure of changeability of

a design as related to a

decision maker's subjective

threshold for acceptable

“cost” of change

State 1 State 2

“Cost”

A’

B’

C’

“Cost”

“Cost”

“Cost”1

2

A

Filtered OutdegreeState 1 State 2

“Cost”

A’

B’

C’

“Cost”

“Cost”

“Cost”1

2

A

Filtered Outdegree


What Strategies Can be Used

to Achieve Value Robustness?

Dr. Adam M. Ross, PhD 2006, [email protected]

RESEARCH SUGGESTS TWO STRATEGIES FOR VALUE ROBUSTNESS

1. Passive• Choose “clever” designs that remain high value• Quantifiable: Pareto Trace number

2. Active• Choose changeable designs that can deliver high

value when needed• Quantifiable: Filtered Outdegree

Value robust designs can deliver value in spite of inevitable context change

Active Passive

Utilit

yCost

State 1 State 2

U

Cost

DV2≠DV1

DV2=DV1

Utilit

y

0

Epoch 1 Epoch 2

S1,b S1,e S2,b S2,e

T1 T2

Time

New Context Drivers• External Constraints• Design Technologies• Value expectations


Application of MATE to a transportation engineering system

Objective

– Refine MATE so that it accounts for one or several of the following issues(*) found in transportation systems: different cost types, different stakeholder types, inheritance

Method

– Economic analysis

– Case studies on transportation systems

Anticipated Contributions

– Increase space and transp. professionals’awareness of domain biases to support cross-domain knowledge-sharing

– Provide framework to space system designers to consider issues (*) not typically made explicit

– Possibly provide MATE framework applicable to transportation design and planning

Julia Nickel, ESD SM, June 2009 (expected)

Concept factors Space Transportation

Understanding

of concept

Mainly physical Physical and operational

Inheritance Not adressed, ‘soft

inheritance’ plays

important role

Common issue,

addressed

Control over

system

Dispersed or central,

decision makers

negotiate and co-

design system

Central or dispersed at

various degrees, co-

design not always

possible

Compensation

for losers

Not an issue Common issue,

addressed

Types of cost Monetary Multiple types of cost

(monetary,

environmental, other)


Quantifying Flexibility in the Operationally Responsive Space Paradigm

Objective– Apply Dynamic Multi-Attribute

Tradespace Exploration on ORS case study to test flexibility evaluation.

Method– Identify ORS paradigm utility

curves– Develop models and transition

rules for flexibility– Run simulations

Anticipated Contributions– Provide a useful flexibility

metric for incorporating into ‘ility’ trades

Lauren Viscito, Aero/Astro SM, June 2009 (Expected)

Past performance as baseline for attribute expectations

Attribute

Utility

Example Increasing Utility

Curve

Prior

Performance

Baseline

Attribute

Utility

Example Decreasing Utility

Curve

Prior

Performance

Baseline

M1

M4M3

M2

M5

Utility = 0

Designs with

0< U(M) < 1

Optimal Design for M1

Mission with one design of U(M)>0

Optimal design has much more utility

Acceptable Transition path

Mx

Uncertain future mission

Value of flexibility emerges from an uncertain future


Tradespace Exploration of Systems of Systems (SoS)

Objective– Apply Dynamic Tradespace Exploration

method to SoS

Method– Identify challenges arising in SoS design

and analysis of alternatives

– Extend Dynamic Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration method to address SoS-specific considerations

Anticipated Contributions– Validate Dynamic MATE as a framework

for SoS tradespace exploration

– Provide a framework for testing SoS design heuristics suggested in literature

Debarati Chattopadhyay, Aero/Astro SM, June 2009 (expected)

Characterizing Time-Dependent SoS Value

Delivery and Design Options

componentsystem

componentsystem

componentsystem

SoS

local

stakeholders

local

stakeholders

local

stakeholders

global stakeholders

Local and Global SoS Stakeholder Groups

Va

lue

SoSA

SoSB

SoSCSoSD

.....

...

SoSA SoSB SoSN

TimeDynamic Strategy To Maintain SoS

Value Delivery

Switching Cost

Switching Costs

component systems

Chattopadhyay, D., Ross, A.M., and Rhodes, D.H., “A

Framework for Tradespace Exploration of Systems of

Systems”, 6th Conference on Systems Engineering Research,

Los Angeles, CA, April 2008.


Architecting for Survivability

Objective– To develop and test a methodology for the

conceptual design of survivable aerospace systems

Method– Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration

– Epoch-Era Analysis

Anticipated Contributions– Dynamic, value-centric conceptualization of

survivability

– Set of general design principles for survivability

– Extensions of dynamic tradespace exploration to accommodate hostile and natural disturbances

– Evaluation of performance, cost, and survivability of alternative operationally-responsive space capabilities

Matthew Richards, ESD PhD Candidate, June 2009 (Expected)

Ability of a system to minimize the impact of a finite disturbance on value delivery through either (I) the reduction of the likelihood or magnitude of a disturbance or (II) the satisfaction

of a minimally acceptable level of value delivery during and after a finite disturbance

time

value

Epoch 1a Epoch 2

original state

disturbance

reco

very

Epoch:

Time period with a fixed context; characterized by static constraints, design concepts, available technologies, and articulated attributes (Ross 2006)

emergency value threshold

required value threshold

permitted recovery time

Vx

Ve

Tr

Epoch 1b

V(t)

disturbance duration

Td

Type I Survivability

Type II Survivabilitydegra

datio

n

1.1 prevention 2.1 hardness

1.4 deterrence

1.3 concealment

1.2 mobility

2.2 redundancy

2.10 replacement

2.11 repair

2.8 evolution

active

passive

1.5

preemption

2.6 failure mode reduction

2.4 heterogeneity

2.3 margin

2.7 fail-safe

2.9 containment

2.5 distribution

1.6 avoidance

Definition of Survivability

Design Principles of Survivability


Epoch-Era Analysis for Evaluating System Timelines in Uncertain Futures

Objective– Apply Epoch-Era Analysis to large

space system of a US Government Agency

Method– Enumerate future needs and contexts

(incl. technology, policy, etc.)

– Develop models

– Run simulations

Anticipated Contributions– Validate dynamic analysis technique

for evaluating system performance under large number of future contexts and needs

– Develop metric for representing dynamic system success across changing futures: “utopia trajectory”

Adam M. Ross, PhD and Donna H. Rhodes, PhD – Government Agency Sponsored Project

Changing Futures Impact on System

Dynamic Strategies for Systems

Two aspects to an Epoch:

1. Needs (expectations)

2. Context (constraints, etc.)

Epoch ≡



SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ECONOMICS

This research area aims at developing a new paradigm that encompasses an economics view of systems engineering to achieve measurable and predictable outcomes while delivering value to stakeholders.

– Measurement of productivity and quantifying SE ROI – Advanced methods for reuse, cost modeling, and risk modeling – Application of real options in systems and enterprises – Leading indicators for systems engineering effectiveness

In a 2004 Air Force/MIT workshop, Dr. Marvin Sambur, (then) Assistant Secretary

of the AF for Acquisition, noted that the average program is 36% overrun

according to recent studies – disrupting the overall portfolio of programs


Models, Measures, and Leading Indicators for Project SuccessThrough Better Execution of Systems Engineering

Cost and schedule modelingProject Risk Assessment

Leading Indicators for Performance Systems Engineering ROI

Person Months Risk

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

0 25000 50000 75000 100000

Person Months

Risk (= Prob. That Actual Person Months

Will Exceed Indicated, X-Axis, Figure)

Person Months Confidence (Cumulative Probability)

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

100%

0 25000 50000 75000 100000

Person Months

Cumulative Probability of Person

Months


Research Portfolio (4)SYSTEMS ENGINEERING in the ENTERPRISE

This research area involves empirical studies and case based research for the purpose of understanding how to achieve more effective systems engineering practice in context of the nature of the system being developed, external context, and the characteristics of the associated enterprise.

– Engineering systems thinking in individuals and teams

– Collaborative, distributed systems engineering practices

– Social contexts of enterprise systems engineering

– Alignment of enterprise culture and processes

– Socio-technical systems studies and models

The understanding of the organizational and technical interactions in our

systems, emphatically including the human beings who are a part of them,

is the present-day frontier of both engineering education and practice.

Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, NASA, 2007 Boeing Lecture, Purdue University


Collaborative Distributed Systems Engineering

Utter (2007) performed empirical case studies to identify successful practices and lessons learned

Social and technical factors studied: collaboration scenarios, tools, knowledge and decision management, culture, motivations, others

Can not be achieved without first overcoming possible barriers and issues

Preliminary set of success factors identified

Success Factor: Invest in Up-front Planning Activities Spending more time on the

front- end activities and gaining

team consensus shortens the

implementation cycle. It avoids

pitfalls as related to team mistrust,

conflict, and mistakes that surface

during implementation.


Collaborative Systems Thinking

It is not enough to understand systems thinking in individuals but also how it emerges in groups and enterprises

Lamb (2008) performing empirical studies - focus on interaction of process and culture

Research seeks to identify promising patterns that can lead to larger cross-cutting studies

Pilot interviews have provided insights to inform the study

Factors in Collaborative Systems Thinking:

These traits are not necessarily of

one individual but emerge

through interactions of a group of

individuals as influenced by

culture, team norms,

environment, and processes


An Integrated Approach to Real Options Analysis in Socio-Technical Enterprises

Objective– How can real options be used for

holistic decision making and architecting of enterprises under uncertainty?

Method– Model enterprise views

– Identify potential mechanisms and types of options that encompass enterprise views

– Use real options valuation toolbox

Anticipated Contributions– Framework for systematic exploration

and valuation of mechanisms and types of real options that deal with enterprise level uncertainties, enabled through holistic modeling of enterprise dependencies.

Tsoline Mikaelian, Aero/Astro PhD Candidate, June 2009 (expected)

Enterprise views Enterprise views



SYSTEMS ENGINEERING STRATEGIC GUIDANCE

This research area involves synthesis of theory with empirical and case based research for the purpose of developing prescriptive strategic guidance to inform the development of policies and procedures for systems engineering in practice.

– Systems Engineering research guidelines

– Participation in focus groups and pilot-phase reviews

– Position papers on proposed policies

– Recommendations for integrating SE research into curriculum

– Identification of SE research gaps and opportunities

The full impact of systems engineering research can only be achieved through synthesis of research outcomes


Influencing Proposed Policy

• As a first step toward a prescriptive model, the Department of Defense (DoD) is developing a Guide to System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) based on best present state knowledge – The guide provides 16 DoD technical and management processes to

help sponsors, program managers, and chief engineers address theunique considerations for DoD SoS

• SEAri participated as an academic review body in the pilot phase of the development of the guide

• A recent position paper by SEAri researchers included recommendations for how a normative, descriptive and prescriptive framework can be used to contribute to evolving SoSE guidance

Valerdi, R., Ross, A., and Rhodes, D., A Framework for Evolving System of Systems Engineering”, Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 2007


Collaborative ResearchImperatives and Example Projects


ImperativeEngineering research while still

dependent upon individual contributors must evolve to be more synergistic

Our society is faced with large scale problems demanding a multi-faceted and interdisciplinary systems approach

Requires researchers from diverse disciplines to collaboratively work on problems using shared data sets and aligning around harmonized research threads

Need to understand how to synthesize individual research efforts, with good mechanisms for research succession planning and transition ofresearch to practice

We strive for research leading to sustainable engineering systems meeting broad societal needs … we are challenged by current policies, funding approach, and traditional university/research stovepipes


ImperativeEngineering education and research

must be a collaborative endeavor of government, industry, and academia

Complex engineering research can not take place solely in a laboratory within university walls but rather real world enterprises must be our “learning laboratories”

Expanded view of who an “educator” is -- faculty, researchers, practitioners, policy makers, peers

Additionally, we need more cross cutting experiences for educators and practitioners alike

Faculty have a very urgent need for case studies for use in the classroom … without practitioner involvement these will lack depth to have educational impact

Engineering education and research can not be just a cooperation;must be a true collaboration


Guide to SE Leading Indicators

June 2007

Guide to SE

Leading Indicators(December 2005)

BETA

AF/DOD

SE Revitalization Policies

AF/LAI Workshop on Systems Engineering

June 2004

SE LI Working Group

With SSCI and PSM

+

Pilot Programs(several companies)

Masters Thesis(1 case study)

Validation Survey(>100 responses/ one corporation)

SE LI Working Group

With SSCI and PSM

+

+

V. 1.0

Knowledge Exchange

Event

Tutorial on SE Leading Indicators(many companies)(1) January 2007

(2) November 2007

Practical Software & Systems Measurement Workshops

(1) July 2005

(2) July 2007

(3) July 2008

Applications

IBM® Rational Method Composer – RUP Measurement Plug-in

Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Initiative

Collaboration of LAI, INCOSE, SEAri, PSM

The leading indicators project is an excellent example of how academic, government, and

industry experts can work together to perform collaborative research

that has real impact on engineering practice

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEER MAGAZINEMarch 2007


Draper /MIT Research Dynamic Tradespace Exploration

Applied to System of SystemsExtending Research to Enhance Practice

New research launched in July 2007 (first Draper project with MIT ESD) to extend work of Ross (2006)

University research project coupled to related in-house IR&D project

Leverage geographic co-location for highly interactive research engagement

Mutual benefit

– Enhance Draper capabilities and processes

– Further validate and extend MIT methodology

– Collaborative learning


Knowledge Sharing


Access to Research

Websites are important

mechanisms for sharing knowledge and also emerging

as powerful collaboration

venues

http://seari.mit.edu


Sharing Research Outcomes

SEARI Research Bulletin Published at End of Each Semester2007

SEAri Research Summit

October 16

MIT Faculty Club

2008

SEAri Research Summit

October 21


Summary


SEAri Seeks To Impact Theory, Methods, And Practice

MIT Engineering Systems Division (ESD) provides an interdisciplinary research venue

Strategic collaboration with other MIT education and research centers (e.g., LAI, SDM)

Hybrid research model for collaboration

Single sponsor research projects

Consortium research

Realization of research goals is predicated on deep collaboration with industry and government


ESD Website

http://esd.mit.edu/

ESD Research Centers

http://esd.mit.edu/research_industry.html

ESD Working Papers

http://esd.mit.edu/WPS/

ESD Symposium Monographs and Papers

http://esd.mit.edu/symposium/monograph/

http://esd.mit.edu/symposium/agenda_day3.htm

Lean Advancement Initiative

http://lean.mit.edu

Refer to websites for additional information and working papers related to systems engineering at MIT

Additional References

QUESTIONS?

http://seari.mit.edu

[email protected]

Addressing Systems Engineering Challenges Through Collaborative...

Documents

Transcript of Addressing Systems Engineering Challenges Through Collaborative...