Systems

Engineering
ESI 6551
Dr. Gulsah
Hancerliogullari
Koksalmis

Chapter 2 -
Bringing Systems
Into Being
University of Central Florida 1 Page 1
Failure is inevitable…
• I’ve failed classes and had to re-take them again

• I’ve been rejected after multiple rounds of job

interviews

• I’ve had to re-write and then re-write again entire

chapters of my dissertation

University of Central Florida Page 2

How to minimize failures

• Proper planning

• Effective design

• Cross-functional collaboration / communication

• Evaluation and re-evaluation

• Holistic understanding of the customer needs

• Complete documentation at every step

• Comprehensive testing

University of Central Florida Page 3

How to minimize failures

• Proper planning

• Effective design

• Cross-functional collaboration / communication

• Evaluation and re-evaluation

• Holistic understanding of the customer needs

• Complete documentation at every step

• Comprehensive testing

University of Central Florida Page 4

 What is a Customer ‘Need’?

University of Central Florida Page 5

University of Central Florida Page 6
A Customer Need Must …

• Be based on a system of value measurement that is universally accepted by customers

• Be relevant now and in the future

• Not be left open to interpretation

• Not confound the way it or other need statements are prioritized

University of Central Florida Page 7

A Customer Need Must …

• Be based on a system of value measurement that is universally accepted by customers

• Be relevant now and in the future System of

Measurement

• Not be left open to interpretation

• Not confound the way it or other need statements are prioritized

University of Central Florida Page 8

A Customer Need Must …

• Be based on a system of value measurement that is universally accepted by customers

• Be relevant now and in the future System of

Measurement

• Not be left open to interpretation

• Not confound the way it or other need statements are prioritized

Structure, Content
and Format

University of Central Florida Page 9

How Do Customers Measure Value?
• Customers buy products and services to help them get Job

functional and emotional “jobs” done, e.g., tasks, goals or Outcomes

activities, etc. 1
2
• Customers use “metrics” to define the successful execution of
3

Importance
a specific job – these are their desired outcomes. 4

• Desired outcomes ARE the customer’s needs and are the

ultimate input into the innovation process
n
Satisfaction

n = 50 to 150

For any job there may be 50 to 150 outcomes

University of Central Florida Page 10

The Job is the Primary Unit of Analysis

• Products come and go – the job is the stable,

long-term focal point around which value
creation must be centered

• The job’s perfect execution reflects the

customer’s true definition of value

• Requirements are not captured on the product

– they are captured on the job the product or
service is intended to perform

University of Central Florida Page 11

A Desired Outcome Statement

Direction of
Improvement Unit of Measure Object of Control

Minimize … the time it takes … to verify the accuracy of a desired outcome

with a customer, … e.g., its meaning, completeness, exactness, etc.

Contextual Clarifier Example of Object of Control

• The statement’s structure, content and format have been optimized so as to limit variability

• Rules have been developed to ensure the statement prompts a course of action, is not open to
interpretation and does not confound the way it or other statements are prioritized

University of Central Florida Page 12

A Desired Outcome Statement

Direction of
Improvement Unit of Measure Object of Control

Minimize … the time it takes … to verify the accuracy of a desired outcome

with a customer, … e.g., its meaning, completeness, exactness, etc.

Contextual Clarifier Example of Object of Control

• The statement’s structure, content and format have been optimized so as to limit variability

• Rules have been developed to ensure the statement prompts a course of action, is not open to
interpretation and does not confound the way it or other statements are prioritized

University of Central Florida Page 13

 Specific Questions Reveal Outcomes
For each step of the job as defined in the value model, ask …

What makes [step x] What makes [step x] What makes [step x]

time consuming, unstable, unreliable, error prone, costly,
slow, difficult to unpredictable, go off wasteful, limit its
execute, complex, etc. track, etc. output, inefficient, etc.

This yields outcomes This yields outcomes This yields outcomes

related to SPEED – related to STABILITY – related to OUTPUT –
getting the job done eliminating variability: cutting waste, loss,
faster: downtime, etc.:

yield

University of Central Florida Page 14

 When is a need ‘unmet’?

University of Central Florida Page 15

Companies Struggle to Place the Big Bets

▪ Companies devise solutions

to address all uncovered
needs
▪ Resources are spread thin,
slowing time to market
▪ Success rates are low
▪ Big opportunities can be
missed

… many initiatives – high costs – few successes

University of Central Florida Page 16

When Is a Need Unmet?

• If a desired outcome is both important and unsatisfied, it is unmet

• The more important and less satisfied an outcome is (the more unmet it is) the greater it represents
an opportunity for value creation

• Outcomes are prioritized based on their attractiveness as opportunities for value creation

University of Central Florida Page 17

How Do We Identify-Prioritize Opportunities?

• Administer a survey (web, phone) to a significant population

• Determine the importance of each outcome

• Determine the degree to which each is satisfied, given the solution(s) they are using today

• Use the Opportunity Algorithm to identify opportunities

University of Central Florida Page 18

What is the Opportunity Algorithm?

• If 90% of the respondents rate an outcome a 4

or 5 for importance, the Importance value
entered into the algorithm is a 9.0.

• If 30% of the respondents rate an outcome a 4

or a 5 for satisfaction, the Satisfaction value
entered into the algorithm is a 3.0

Opportunity = Importance + max (Importance – Satisfaction, 0)

University of Central Florida Page 19

Visualizing the Opportunity Landscape
10
Opportunity = Importance + max (Importance – Satisfaction, 0)
9

Over-Served
8 Table Limited
Stakes Opportunity
7
Satisfaction

Ripe for
6 Disruption Opp >10
Solid Opportunity

5
Opp >12
4 Potential for High Opportunity
Disruption Sustaining or
Breakthrough
3
Innovation
2
Opp >15
Extreme
1 Opportunity
Appropriately Served Under-Served

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
University of Central Florida Page 20
Importance
Visualizing the Opportunity Landscape
10
Opportunity = Importance + max (Importance – Satisfaction, 0)
9

Over-Served
8 Table Limited
Stakes Opportunity
7
Satisfaction

Ripe for
6 Disruption Opp >10
Solid Opportunity

5
Opp >12
4 Potential for High Opportunity
Disruption Disruption,
Cost
3
Reduction
2
Opp >15
Extreme
1 Opportunity
Appropriately Served Under-Served

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
University of Central Florida Page 21
Importance
Visualizing the Opportunity Landscape
10
Opportunity = Importance + max (Importance – Satisfaction, 0)
9

Over-Served
8 Table Limited
Stakes Opportunity
7
Satisfaction

Ripe for
6 Disruption Opp >10
Solid Opportunity

5
Opp >12
4 Potential for High Opportunity
Disruption Address
Adjacent
3
Markets
2
Opp >15
Extreme
1 Opportunity
Appropriately Served Under-Served

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
University of Central Florida Page 22
Importance
 Can we create a need?

University of Central Florida Page 23

 “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” – Henry Ford

University of Central Florida Page 24

iPhone - Did Apple create a need?

University of Central Florida Page 25

iPhone - Did Apple create a need?

• NO!

University of Central Florida Page 26

iPhone - Did Apple create a need?

• NO!
• They created demand!

University of Central Florida Page 27

iPhone - Did Apple create a need?

University of Central Florida Page 28

iPhone - Did Apple create a need?

Two very important concepts:

The Touchscreen The App Store

University of Central Florida Page 29

iPhone - Did Apple create a need?

Two very important concepts:

The Touchscreen The App Store

• Ease of use
• Stylus-free
• Responsiveness
• Accessibility
• Picture Clarity

University of Central Florida Page 30

iPhone - Did Apple create a need?

Two very important concepts:

The Touchscreen The App Store

• Ease of use • Utility
• Stylus-free • Connectivity
• Responsiveness • Entertainment
• Accessibility • Developer community
• Picture Clarity • Ecosystem

University of Central Florida Page 31

 Systems Engineering
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.

INCOSE International Council on Systems Engineering

University of Central Florida Page 32

 Systems Point of View

Big Picture, Holistic, Gestalt to include the surrounding

environment, Top down
System – a group of components that work together for a
specified purpose. (service, product, process)

Airport – planes, pilots, mechanics, ticket agents, runways,

concourses (service)
Automobile assembly (product)
Refinery – change crude oil into gasoline (process)
Also note that very detailed and specific work must be done

University of Central Florida Page 33

Engineering For Product Competitiveness

• Emphasis of Engineering under systems age

1. Considering the overall system hierarchy and interactions between various levels.

2. Organizing and integrating the necessary engineering and related disciplines into the main systems engineering
effort in a timely and concurrent manner.

3. Establishing a disciplined approach with appropriate Review, Evaluation and Feedback from the initial need
identification through phase-out.

• Product is only a part of a system

University of Central Florida Page 34

Product Life Cycle

N
E Conceptual Preliminary Detailed Production/
E Design Design Design Construction
D
ACQUISITION PHASE (Producer activities)

Product Use Phase Out Disposal

UTILIZATION PHASE
(Customer activities)
University of Central Florida Page 35
System Life Cycle in DoD

User Needs & ⚫ Process entry at Milestones A, B, or C

Technology Opportunities ⚫ Entrance criteria met before entering phase
⚫ Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full
Capability

(Program
A B Initiation) C IOC FOC

Concept Technology System Development Production & Operations &

Refinement Development & Demonstration Deployment Support
Concept Design FRP
Decision Readiness LRIP/IOT&E Decision
Review Review

Pre-Systems Acquisition Systems Acquisition Sustainment

University of Central Florida Page 36
System Life Cycle in DoD

• Simultaneously responsive to
– Customer needs
– Life cycle outcomes
• Producibility
• Reliability
• Maintainability
• Supportability/Serviceability
• Disposability
• Performance, effectiveness and affordability
University of Central Florida Page 37
Concurring Engineering Concepts

Acquisition Phase Utilization Phase

N
E Conceptual- Detail Design Production Product Use,
E Preliminary And And/or Phaseout and
D Design Development Construction Disposal

Manufacturing Manufacturing
Configuration Design Operations

Product Support Configuration Product Support

Design and Development
and maintenance

University of Central Florida Page 38

Systems Engineering Characteristics

• A top-down approach that views the system as a whole.

• A life-cycle orientation that addresses all phases

• A better and more complete effort than traditional design that requires the
initial definition of system requirements and their relation to specific
design criteria and follow-on analysis efforts to ensure the effectiveness of
early decision making in the design process.

• An interdisciplinary or team approach throughout the system design and

development process
University of Central Florida Page 39
Systems Engineering Characteristics
based on “DoD Integrated Product and Process Development
Handbook”

• Customer Focus

• Concurrent Development of Products and Processes

• Early and Continuous Life-Cycle Planning

• Proactive Identification and Management of Risk

• Maximum Flexibility for Optimization and Use of Contractor

Approaches

University of Central Florida Page 40

Systems Engineering Process
Life-cycle process phases

Conceptual Preliminary Detailed

Design Design Design

Steps

1. Needs Identification 5. Trade-off studies – Detailed Design

– Detailed Synthesis
2. Requirement analysis 6. Synthesis
– Evaluation
3. Functional analysis 7. Evaluation – Design Reviews
4. Requirement allocation 8. Design review

University of Central Florida Page 41

Systems Engineering Process
Life-cycle process phases

Production/ Operational Use

Construction and System Support
Steps:

1. Proposed Design Modification

2. Synthesis of Modification

3. Prototype Modification

4. Test and Evaluation

5. Incorporation of Modification

6. Configuration Item Review/Field Assessment

University of Central Florida Page 42

Systems Engineering Process - high level

Objective : What should be done

Technology
What can be done Concept
How can it be done

Evaluation
How well has it been done
Recommendations

University of Central Florida Page 43

Systems Engineering Process - effort by time

Objective

Concept

Technology

Evaluation

Recommendation

Time
University of Central Florida Page 44
Systems Engineering Process
Feedback Compare Test
Data With
Define the Requirements Actual
Test the
System And Characteristics
System
Requirements Objectives
Identified Interface
Need Control
Measured
Characteristics

Understand Consider Choose Accomplish

Design the
The Alternative The Best System
System
Objectives Configurations Configuration Integration

Update Developed
System Physical
Characteristics System
University of Central Florida And Data Page 45
Systems Engineering Process

• Bottom-up
– From a set of known element
– Create a product
• Top-Down
– From requirements
– Through function analysis
– Refinement
– Verified by synthesizing
• Other Models
– Water Fall - Spiral Process - “Vee” shape
University of Central Florida Page 46
Systems Engineering Process

• Bottom-up
– From a set of known element
– Create a product
• Top-Down
– From requirements
– Through function analysis
– Refinement
– Verified by synthesizing
• Other Models
– Water Fall - Spiral Process - “Vee” shape
University of Central Florida Page 47
Systems Engineering Process
“Vee” Process Model:
• This model starts with user needs on
the upper left and ends with a user-
validation system on the upper right.
• At each level of testing, the
originating specifications and
requirements documents are
consulted to ensure that component
/subsystems/system meet the
specifications.

University of Central Florida Page 48

Systems Design Evaluation

Establish
baseline from EVALUATION
requirement
analysis

ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS

University of Central Florida Page 49

Systems Design Evaluation
Synthesis is the process
whereby the Functional
Establish Architectures and their
associated requirements are
baseline from EVALUATION translated into physical
architectures and one or more
requirement physical sets of hardware,
software, and personnel
analysis solutions.

ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS

University of Central Florida Page 50

Some System Design Considerations

University of Central Florida Page 51

Decomposition of Design Criteria
Need Subsystem
System Level
Definition Level
Requirements Analysis Requirements Analysis
• Feasibility Analysis • functional analysis and
• Operational Requirements allocation
• Maintenance and Support Concept • Measures of
• Measures of Effectiveness (TPM) Effectiveness

Design and Evaluation Design and Evaluation

• Identification of design • Identification of (DDPs)
dependent parameters (DDPs)
• Analysis and trade-off
• Analysis and trade-off studies
studies
• Synthesis and evaluation
• Synthesis and evaluation
University of Central Florida Page 52
 Design Evaluation

• Measures of effectiveness (MOE)

• System size, capacity, range and accuracy and so on
• Weight indicating importance level for multiple factors
• A top-down breakout of requirements
• Criteria and the associated design-dependent parameters
(DDP) may be established early

University of Central Florida Page 53

Few Definitions

• Design-dependent parameters (DDP)

– Attributes and/or characteristics inherent in the design for which predicted or
estimated measures are required or desired
– Design life, weight, reliability, producibility, maintainability etc.
• Design-independent parameters (DIP)
- factors external to the design that must be estimated and/or forecasted for use
during design evaluation
- These depend upon the production and operating environment for the system
- fuel cost per pound, labor rates, interest rates etc.

University of Central Florida Page 54

Few Definitions

• Technical performance measures (TPM)

• Predicted and/or estimated values for DDP’s. They also include values for higher
level (derived) performance considerations

• Ex: Availability, flexibility, cost, and supportability.

University of Central Florida Page 55

Design Consideration First-Order
Hierarchy SYSTEM VALUE
Consideration

ECONOMIC FACTORS TECHNICAL FACTORS

Second-Order
LIFE-CYCLE
REVENUES SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS Considerations
COST

• Performance
• Research and Development Cost • Operation Availability
• Production Investment Cost • Dependability Third-Order
• Operation/Utilization Cost • Productivity Considerations
• Maintenance and Support Cost • Supportability
• Retirement and Disposal Cost • Disposability
• Others

University of Central Florida Page 56

Design Consideration
Hierarchy
• Research Cost • Size, Weight, and Shape
• Design Cost • Speed of Performance
• Data Cost • Reliability
Fourth-Order
• Contractor Cost • Maintainability
• Manufacturing Cost • Ergonomics Considerations
• Test and Evaluation Cost • Safety
• Operating Cost • Flexibility (Adaptability)
• Maintenance Cost • Polutability
• Recycle Cost • Others

• Accessibility • Mounting
• Aesthetics • Packaging •Inventory Levels
Fifth-Order
• Control and Displays • Personnel Skills • Labeling
• Energy Consumption • Security • Logistics Pipeline Considerations
• Facilities • Serviceability • Transportability
• Handling • Shelf Life/Storage • Utilities
• Interchangeability • Testability • Others
University of Central Florida Page 57
Morphology for design synthesis,
analysis, and evaluation
0 R
C Need, Functions, and Systems Requirements T E
S
E E
U 1
Top-
C A
2 Down R
S Design Design Approach H C
H
Design Team Synthesis
T Decision
N A
N
Candidate Design O
O Schema 4 3
D

Design Estimation/ L D
M Evaluation
DDP’s
Prediction O E
V

E DIP’s
Bottom- G E
L

Preferred 5 Up I O
R Candidate Physical and Economical Databases Approach
P
M
E E
N
Existing Components, S T

Parts, and Subsystems

University of Central Florida Page 58
Morphology for design synthesis, Linking applied research and technology
analysis, and evaluation to customer needs.

0 R
C Need, Functions, and Systems Requirements T E
S
E E
U 1
Top-
C A
2 Down R
S Design Design Approach H C
H
Design Team Synthesis
T Decision
N A
N
Candidate Design O
O Schema 4 3
D

Design Estimation/ L D
M Evaluation
DDP’s
Prediction O E
V

E DIP’s
Bottom- G E
L

Preferred 5 Up I O
R Candidate Physical and Economical Databases Approach
P
M
E E
N
Existing Components, S T

Parts, and Subsystems

University of Central Florida Page 59
System Engineering
Implementation
Commitment to Technology,
% Configuration, Performance, Cost, etc.
100

75 Cost Incurred

50
System-Specific Knowledge

25
Ease of Change

N
E Conceptual- Detail Construction System Use,
E Preliminary Design and And/or Phase out, and Disposal
D Design Development Production

Commitment, System-Specific Knowledge, and Cost

University of Central Florida Page 60
Cost Comparison Between System Engineering
and Traditional Engineering
High High

Number of Design Changes

Dollars
Low Low
CE and PDRR EMD PFDOS and DD
TIME

IPPD Approach
Serial Approach
Cost of Change

Phase 0: Concept Exploration (CE)

Phase I: Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PDRR)
Phase II: Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD)
Phase III: Production, Fielding/Deployment, and Operational Support (PFDOS)
University of Central Florida Demilitarization and Disposal (DD) Page 61
Applications of System Engineering

• Large-scale systems with many components.

• Small-scale systems with relatively few components.

• Manufacturing systems.

• Systems with a great deal of new design.

• System that are highly equipment, software, facilities, or data intensive.

• Systems having several suppliers.

University of Central Florida Page 62
Management of Systems Engineering

University of Central Florida Page 63

Management of Systems Engineering
Conceptual
System Design
Preliminary
System Design
Detail Design and
Development
Production and/or
Construction
System Operation
And Support

Retirement
And Phase out

University of Central Florida Application of Technology and Management Activities to System Engineering Page 64
 Q&A

University of Central Florida Page 65