AF Center for Systems Engineering TSPG Engineering Forum Mike Ucchino Chief, App/Dev Division AFIT/SYA 21 Jul 04

SECAF Direction Develop Plan to strengthen Air Force’s systems engineering capabilities “Create an Institute for Systems Engineering” AFMC SE Forum SE process not broken – inconsistent application of the process causing the problems

AFIT Organization - New Reorganization AFMC AFMC AFSPC AFSPC AETC Commander AETC Commander Gen Cook Gen Cook Systems Engineering Air Univ Commander Air Univ Commander Senior Council Senior Council Lt Gen Lamontagne Lt Gen Regni AU Board of Visitors AU Board of Visitors AFIT SE Subcommittee AFIT SE Subcommittee AFIT Commandant AFIT Commandant Brig Gen ( Brig Gen ( Sel Sel ) Eidsaune ) Eidsaune Center for Systems Center for Systems Communications & Info Services Major Trautmann Civil Engineer & School of Systems School of Systems Provost Engineering Engineering Services School and Logistics and Logistics Interim Director Director - Mr. Wilson - Mr. Wilson - Dean - - Col Astin Dean Dean - - Col Knapp Col Knapp Acting Dr Calico Advocacy Advocacy Collaboration Collaboration Consultation Consultation SE Ed & Training SE Ed & Training - New Reorganization

CSE Goals Influence and institutionalize systems engineering process Policy, process, practices, tools Collaboration with government, industry & academia Advocacy / consultation Rotational program Educate the workforce Academic programs Graduate programs – MS, PhD & certificate Seminars, workshops, short courses Provide accessibility at key DoD locations Case studies SYA SYE

Systems Engineering …an interdisciplinary approach encompassing the entire set of scientific, technical, and managerial efforts needed to evolve, verify, deploy (or field), and support an integrated and life-cycle balanced set of system solutions that satisfy customer needs. Needs -Many societies have their own definition; this is an AF/AFIT agreed definition Interdisciplinary – meaning that we have more than engineers involvement…this includes logisticians, contracting and finance personnel, program and item managers, safety, environmental, maintainers/Users, etc. Scientific, technical and managerial efforts – meaning that effort are not to be solely from a functional straw Integrated and life cycle balanced – meaning that this is not done at the beginning of the program, but it goes all the way from concept to disposal Satisfy the customer – All systems must have a customer in mind. It is imperative to understand who is the customer, what is the intended use of the systems/solution, and have the customer as a member of the integrated product solution/team -The overall point is… To do SE correctly requires everyone’s support and involvement Solution SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 9/19/2018 12:52 PM DRAFT

} { Systems Engineering Connection Required Capability Solutions Process Weapon Systems Eng Data TOs Spares Support Equip Training Facilities Capability Requirements Documents Operational Missions MODs Connection

Process vs Organization LIFE CYCLE Program Management Process (Systems Engineering Process) AQ / XR IL / LG Development Production Maintenance Depot Supply Modifications Acquisition Logistics

OSD / NDIA Oct 03: Systems Engineering Summit Government, industry, and academia participated Brainstormed 38 potential SE action items Developing guides Requiring a systems engineering plan Making policy/regulation/process changes Developing contractual incentives Refining educational/training template requirements Looking at consolidating as many as possible Some already addressed through other efforts Identifying short/long term efforts

SEP Guide USD(AT&L) policy memo, dated 30 Mar 04 SE processes – what standards, CMM, etc will be used Technical baseline – how is it developed, managed, and controlled Technical reviews Assess program technical maturity Assess program technical risk Support program decisions Integrate SE into program’s IPTs Describe integration/coordination across IPTs Describe IPT organization Identify SE tools employed CSE developing further guidance for program offices

SAF/AQ Main Objectives Establish program environment founded on robust development principles Promised capabilities delivered on schedule & within budget Scalable/expandable solutions to meet future needs Desensitized to manufacturing & operational variations Key SE elements given principle consideration Solicitation, award, and execution processes Proactive SE leading indicators utilized Mapped to incentive strategies Measurable Minimize surprises Change government and contractor emphasis as needed

SAF/AQ Actions Issued Increment 2 Systems Engineering policy memorandum Issued guide for Robust Engineering Methodologies Leveraging Lean Aircraft Initiative tenants/processes that can improve SE application Will develop training and impose minimum qualification requirements for critical positions, e.g., SPD/PM, Chief Engr, IPT Leads Increment 3 Systems Engineering policy will focus on workforce development

Robust Engineering Guide “Robust engineering” guidance Disciplined systems engineering Robust product design Contractual guidance Section M Section L Incentives Technical management leading indicator examples Pro-active measures of SE process effectiveness Flag potential problem areas in time to fix Available on CSE website (http://cse.afit.edu)

Robust Engineering Guide Robust product designs try to anticipate: Technology advancements Commercial product utilization DoD imposed constraints Obsolescence Future requirements New operational missions and roles Interoperability Network-centric applications etc

Robust Engineering Guide Factors to consider when assessing contractor technical capabilities and performance Uses disciplined systems engineering processes Requirements analysis and allocation Robust design principles Trade studies/analyses Risk management Configuration management Mfg/QA processes Technical reviews Verification/validation etc Qualified, trained staff assigned to program SE tools effectively and efficiently used M&S CMMI Subcontractors employ same processes and principles

Robust Engineering Guide Six critical systems engineering areas drive most cost/schedule/performance risks Requirements definition Design maturation Subcontractor management Test and evaluation / verification and validation Manufacturing Sustainment

Robust Engineering Guide Some leading indicator examples Change activities vs time Specifications approved vs planned Subcontracts signed vs planned Engineering manpower vs planned Design documentation vs planned Actual TPMs vs planned Deficiency/trouble reports vs expectations Verification activities approved vs planned Actual schedule vs planned Design review AIs closed vs scheduled Applicable to subcontract management as well

CSE Website Educational Opportunities Available Resources Curriculum (Degree / Certificate / Continuing Education) Available Resources Case Studies Tools Best Practices Guidance Documents Ongoing Research Consultation Services Internet Links Policy / Stakeholders Significant Upcoming SE Events Business Portal Interface Target IOC: Summer 04

Questions ?