MBSE Workshop Out-brief Infusion Break-Out Session January 24-25, 2014 INCOSE International Workshop.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Implementing a Behavior Based Safety Process at Rockwell Automation
Advertisements

The Commitment Initial training will centre around short, foundation training in the theory and practice of sustainability as related to the Water Corporation.
Sustainability & Business Models Gill Joy – ESYS plc Oscar Struijve – Education for Change.
Intelligence Step 5 - Capacity Analysis Capacity Analysis Without capacity, the most innovative and brilliant interventions will not be implemented, wont.
HR Manager – HR Business Partners Role Description
© Sigma (Bookham) Ltd British Computer Society 19 March 2007 'Embedding Benefit Realisation Management – Friends Provident’s experiences Ann Watts – Head.
© 2011 IBM Corporation Improving Reliability and Making Things Cheaper to Run Tuesday 20th September James Linsell-Fraser, Senior Architect & Client Technical.
Introducing ARECCI Project Ethics Tools for the Development of Ethically Sound Quality Improvement and Evaluation Projects in Interior Health 2012-present.
Building a SOA roadmap for your enterprise Presented by Sanjeev Batta Architect, Cayzen Technologies.
Documenting a Software Architecture By Eng. Mohanned M. Dawoud.
Delivery Business Solutions April 29, Nashville PMI Symposium April 29, 2013 Stephanie Dedmon, PMP Director, Business Solutions Delivery Department.
Using UML, Patterns, and Java Object-Oriented Software Engineering Royce’s Methodology Chapter 16, Royce’ Methodology.
Sami Aly Issues in Telecommunications3 February 2002 Development Plan 1.Product & Releases, evolution (Time line) 2.Features roll out 3.System.
IT Governance Portfolio and Project Management in State Government Chris Cruz, Chief Information Officer, California Department of Food and Agriculture.
IS 214 Needs Assessment and Evaluation of Information Systems Managing Usability © Copyright 2001 Kevin McBride.
DoD Systems and Software Engineering A Strategy for Enhanced Systems Engineering Kristen Baldwin Acting Director, Systems and Software Engineering Office.
Thee-Framework for Education & Research The e-Framework for Education & Research an Overview TEN Competence, Jan 2007 Bill Olivier,
IE673Session 4 - Customer Relationships1 Customer Relationships (The Voice of the Customer)
Capability Maturity Model
Enterprise Architecture
Charting a course PROCESS.
Connecting Work and Academics: How Students and Employers Benefit.
Out of Office: A Toolkit for an Agile Future. The Research Survey 13 organisations in public and private sectors 1219 team members: 55% female and 45%
Using Six Sigma to Achieve CMMI Levels 4 and 5
Information Security Governance 25 th June 2007 Gordon Micallef Vice President – ISACA MALTA CHAPTER.
Delivering Business Value WebDirector. Personal Productivity Disconnected Business Processes Disconnected Information Disconnected People Forms LOB.
NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Local Data Sharing Partnership Case Study “ Data Sharing Enabled by Clinical Portal Technologies” George Lynch Information.
Managing Fast – Tracked Projects: A Review of ECI Report Dr
Attracting appropriate user funding in the context of declining public funding.
N By: Md Rezaul Huda Reza n
Objectives Presentation of Successes and Challenges to Contract Training at WITCC. Have a discussion concerning the Critical Elements needed for Successful.
Best Practices: Aligning Process, Culture and Tools Michael Jordan Senior Project Manager - Microsoft Consulting Services
Human Resource Management Lecture 27 MGT 350. Last Lecture What is change. why do we require change. You have to be comfortable with the change before.
A Project ’ s Tale: Transitioning From SW-CMM to CMMI-SE/SW Warren Scheinin Systems Engineer, NG Mission Systems CMMI Technology Conference & User Group.
Summary of the U.S. Task Force on United Way’s Economic Model & Growth.
Industry SDLCs and Business Climate. Justin Kalicharan Credentials Director and Senior Technology Officer Over 14 years of coding experience in various.
NDIA Systems Engineering Supportability & Interoperability Conference October 2003 Using Six Sigma to Improve Systems Engineering Rick Hefner, Ph.D.
Industry specific cover image Oracle | Agile PLM Implementation Best Practices Guillaume Vives, Sr. Practice Director Agile National Practice, Oracle consulting.
Effective Requirements Management – an overview Kristian Persson Field Product Manager, Telelogic Asia/Pacific.
Chapter © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall.
1 Dr. Ralph R. Young Director of Software Engineering PRC, Inc. (703) DOORS USER GROUP CONFERENCE Reston, VA September 17,
The Long Road between Small Towns: Barriers to Building Community Development Partnerships in Rural BC Laura Ryser and Greg Halseth.
Software Engineering - I
CMMI Case Study by Dan Fleck Reference: A CMMI Case Study: Process Engineering vs. Culture and Leadership by Jeffrey L. Dutton,Jacobs Sverdrup Reference:
ABET 2000 Preparation: the Final Stretch Carnegie Institute of Technology Department Heads Retreat July 29, 1999.
Catawba County Board of Commissioners Retreat June 11, 2007 It is a great time to be an innovator 2007 Technology Strategic Plan *
The Value Driven Approach
March 2004 At A Glance NASA’s GSFC GMSEC architecture provides a scalable, extensible ground and flight system approach for future missions. Benefits Simplifies.
International Workshop Jan 21– 24, 2012 Jacksonville, Fl USA Model-based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Initiative Slides by Henson Graves Presented by Matthew.
Lynn Schmidt, PhD ATD Puget Sound October 21, 2014.
CIS-74 Computer Software Quality Assurance Systematic Software Testing Chapter 11: Improving the Testing Process.
Robert Mahowald August 26, 2015 VP, Cloud Software, IDC
CS223: Software Engineering Lecture 2: Introduction to Software Engineering.
Chapter 10 Information Systems Development. Learning Objectives Upon successful completion of this chapter, you will be able to: Explain the overall process.
Impact Research 1 Enabling Decision Making Through Business Intelligence: Preview of Report.
Integrated Model-Centric Engineering: Infusing MBSE at JPL
International Workshop Jan 21– 24, 2012 Jacksonville, Fl USA INCOSE IW 2012 MBSE Requirement Flowdown Workshop - Outbrief - John C. Watson Principal Member.
Plan for Application Consolidation. Successful application consolidation relies on assessment of the application portfolio to determine the best candidates.
1 KM Track Overview & Gaining Value from Knowledge -- Knowledge Management (KM) and the Contracting Professional Breakout Session # 119 Name: Gaining.
The Denison Organizational Culture Model & Link to Performance
Identify the Risk of Not Doing BA
VP, Institutional Services
Harvard CRM Service Strategy
Deputy Director for Engineering, Tools & Environments
Clear Language and Organizational Change
INCOSE IW 2014 Town Hall January 27, 2014
Brian Robinson, Deputy HR Director
Presentation transcript:

MBSE Workshop Out-brief Infusion Break-Out Session January 24-25, 2014 INCOSE International Workshop

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Infusing MBSE into an Organization Objective Identify effective approaches for infusion of MBSE Survey different infusion approaches into organizations Identify enables and barriers 2 Jan 25-26, 2014MBSE Workshop: Infusion Break-Out Session

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Participants BREAKOUT LEADERS –Dave Nichols: Assistant Director for Science and Engineering, JPL –Chi Lin: Engineering Development Office, Systems Engineering and Formulation Division, JPL Key Participants –Ron Carson: Boeing –Eric Berg: Procter & Gamble –George Walley: Ford Motor Co. –Chris Oster: Lockheed Martin Corp. –Louise Guise: Raytheon Missile Systems –Dan Dvorak: Principal Engineer, JPL 3 Jan 25-26, 2014MBSE Workshop: Infusion Break-Out Session

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Pre-Defined Questions 1.How do you measure infusion progress? 2.What is the nature of the organization for which your are infusing MBSE?  E.g. size, function, discipline, product 3.What enablers & barriers exist in your environment? 4.What primary MBSE value do you communicate to for your stakeholders to obtain their involvement/commitment?  Do you try to measure this value? 4 Jan 25-26, 2014MBSE Workshop: Infusion Break-Out Session

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop How do you measure infusion progress? Counting metrics: # pilots, projects and programs # users, #capable practitioners, # teams trained # engagements and # deployments with programs, # licenses 4-step progress: –Initially by number of “one off” projects –Then by range of applications (product, process, …) –Then by acceptance across multiple orgs –Finally when MBSE becomes part of the formal work process Other: License usage patterns, duration, growth New review criteria for quality, format and completeness Time metric systems Adoption rate w.r.t. mandates – “50% of programs must be model-based” 5

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Nature of organization into which you are infusing MBSE Big organizations with big SE teams: Boeing, Ford, Lockheed Martin, JPL, Raytheon Matrix organizations: Line and Projects Institutional or Business Unit support as a MBSE initiative Automotive powertrain, electrical, chassis, IT Teams involved in electronics, controls, software (growing complexity) Commercial airplanes, defense, space, security and networks Big organizations with small SE teams: Procter & Gamble 100’s of engineers in product & process development for disposable consumer goods, but on many different projects; mostly mechanical, electrical, chemical engineers 6

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Enablers Corporate/Institutional Support: Top-level leadership support, strong management support Seed funding from corporate and BA and BU Corporate cross-BU collaboration and vendor relationship Having authority to change corporate processes and tools (Ford SE Council) Organizational commitment to follow-through Strategically embed MBSE-enabled engineers in projects, Forge close relationships with projects Success Stories: Culture and heritage of success Conduct pilots, small success stories, “build a little, deploy a little” Bite-sized but steady and pragmatic deployment … don’t forget still being able to do the basics Tools: Develop and deploy tooling for ease of usability Shared model repositories 7 People: Passionate practitioners Interested people (managers, engineers) New employees Customer excitement Team up young engineers with senior engineers; recruit early-career engineers User community / tech clubs for informal support Training: Tool-neutral and tool-specific process training Well-defined processes to address “now what do I do?” Codify know-how into formal repeatable methodologies Readily available and consistent training

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Barriers Barriers: “Not the way we do business”, “Show me the ROI” Conservative engineering philosophy Early negative experiences with immature tool sets Difficulty integrating with long-running legacy programs Need for “up front” funding with value realized late in the program Not invented here syndrome Scape goat syndrome (if something goes wrong, blame MBSE) Tools: Maturity of tools and their integration Tool interoperability and data exchange gaps Internal policies governing new tools Learning curve 8

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Main value communicated to stakeholders? Reduced rework, earlier visibility into risk and issues Reduced cycle time, reduce development cost, cost avoidance Better communication and more effective analysis Potential for increased re-use (product line reusability: engineering done once, reuse elsewhere) Ability to generate and regenerate current reports and work products Knowledge management (long-term and short-term) Single source of truth Competitiveness (our partners and competitors are doing it) Think about how much of an engineer’s time is spent on data management rather than critical thinking (Change that ratio! Shift the nature of my hours) 9

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Do you measure this value? We are trying, but no details yet Not trying to measure this value No attempt to measure this value, must take leap of faith No, it would be an invitation to a worthless debate Jan 25-26, 2014MBSE Workshop: Infusion Break-Out Session 10

Unedited Notes

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Discussion (1 of 2) - unedited Can’t sustain 6-9-month development cycle using the old ways; when you make this decision, here is who it impacts; “we have to innovate the way we innovate”; can’t have untraceable requirements Diaper production: 2/3 cost, 20% speedup, tradespace examined and decided How do you justify the substantial cost? P&G uses a methodology, not a particular tool; embedded into lifecycle management; “this requirement is met by this subsystem”; not detailed Measure quality improvement through defect rates Point of no return? There is always an off-ramp Analogy to CAD, when ME handed velum drawing to a CAD modeler; that’s where we’re at with MBSE Knowledge transfer is a big part of the value (moving from tribal knowledge to institutional knowledge) What about customers handing a model across the contract boundary as part of the spec? It will happen; it has happened already in some limited cases. 12

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Discussion (2 of 2) - unedited Did you have to change review process? We still generate documents from models; we mapped M-B process into our standard process; still a mixed mode; challenge is to present the right views to them. Systems work on a project is same number of engineers, but do it MB Challenges grasping notion of system model? Yes, absolutely, mostly people see stuff done in system model as something they have to redo in another tool No formal plan for training, more grass-roots Cater to first-followers more than early adopters Systems/software integration? State machines in system model, but now down to level of software components 13

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Enablers – unedited Corporate/Institutional Support: Top-level leadership support, strong management support Seed funding from corporate and BA and BU Corporate cross-BU collaboration and vendor relationship Training: Training! Tool-neutral and tool-specific process training People: Passionate practitioners Peer pressure: our partners and competitors are doing it Need to make lean orgs more productive, and the intuitive nature of MBSE over “ad hoc requirements management” Conduct pilots, small success stories, “build a little, deploy a little” Form specialized working groups Forge close relationships with projects Develop and deploy tooling for ease of usability Codify know-how into formal repeatable methodologies Culture and heritage of success Metrics/trends Customer excitement (NASA customer) Interested people (managers, engineers) Having authority for architecture decisions across programs and platforms Having authority to change corporate processes and tools (Ford SE Council) Bite-sized but steady and pragmatic deployment … don’t forget still being able o do the basics (FMEAs, boundary diagrams, interface matrices, etc) First-follower focus – encourage and protect first adopters New employees Frustrated but passionate employees Shared model repositories User community / tech clubs for informal support Readily available and consistent training Well-defined processes to address “now what do I do?” Organizational commitment to follow-through Team up young engineers with senior engineers; recruit early-career engineers Partner with other institutional activities Partner with universities, industry and professional socienties Innovative engineers Long development cycles Organizational combo of systems and software engineering Work with line organizations to take ownership Strategically embed MBSE-enabled engineers in projects 14

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Barriers – unedited “Not the way we do business”, “show me the ROI”, early experiences with immature tool sets, lack of modeling competencies, difficulty integrating with long-running legacy programs, need for “up front” funding with value realized late in the program, difficulty in reusing modeled resources from one discipline or activity in next steps Not invented here syndrome Scape goat syndrome Incremental headcount is off the table (cannot hire SE staff) Discussion: Perception that cost of getting to the benefit is too great People forget that modeling already is more precise, without even looking farther down the road Don’t ask for too much money initially, for pilot activities Never ask a PM if he/she want MBSE; all our infusion is through systems engineers who can show better efficiency Organizational structure Legacy data, people and past failed/perceived failed attempts Too much other modeling experience Functions as a starting point for physical parts and assemblies Lack of granularity, traceability, or documented existence of requirements and architectural decisions for existing system Mix of in-house and supplier-delivered solutions How much of an engineer’s time spent on data management rather than critical thinking (change that ratio! Shift the nature of my hours) People barriers Conservative engineering philosophy due to unforgiving nature of space missions Large learning curve 15

INCOSE IW MBSE Workshop Main value communicated to stakeholders? Unedited notes: Reduced cycle time, reduce development cost Reduced rework due to early identification of errors and disconnects due to better communication and more effective analysis Potential for increased re-use Productivity, reducing waste and rework, rate of innovation and transparency Cost reductions /cost avoidance Quality improvement Customer buy-in Increased Pwin Being able to quickly generate and regenerate current reports and work products Able to generate and seed known values into these work products progressively New views/reports previously too hard or slow to be valuable Improved feature compatibility assessments earlier in development to spend time testing functionality not basic integration compatibility (without simply having to talk to everyone you can find) Reduced rework, earlier visibility into risk and issues Product line reusability: engineering done once, reuse elsewhere Knowledge management (long-term and short-term) Single source of truth Improved ability to communicate design Easier to find defects Competitiveness (our partners and competitors are doing it) 16