1. JOGSE GRAND SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT TRAINING PROGRAM OVERVIEW
JOG SYSTEM ENGINEERING
GRAND SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT TRAINING PROGRAM
JOGSE GRAND SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT TRAINING PROGRAM OVERVIEW
c JOG System Engineering

2. c JOG System Engineering
Agenda
Introduction
Proposed program description
Systems management overview
Systems requirements overview
Systems synthesis overview
Systems verification overview
Discussion
c JOG System Engineering

3. c JOG System Engineering
Who Is Jeff Grady?
CURRENT POSITION
President, JOG System Engineering
System Engineering Assessment, Consulting, and Education Firm
PRIOR EXPERIENCE
U.S. Marines
General Precision, Librascope Div
Customer Training Instructor, SUBROC and ASROC ASW Systems
Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical
Field Engineer, AQM-34 Series Special Purpose Aircraft
Project Engineer, System Engineer, Unmanned Aircraft Systems
General Dynamics Convair Division
System Engineer, Cruise Missile, Advanced Cruise Missile
General Dynamics Space Systems Division
Engineering Manager, Systems Development Department
FORMAL EDUCATION
SDSU, BA Math; UCSD, System Engineering Certificate;
USC, MS Systems Management and Information Systems Certificate
INCOSE First Elected Secretary, Initial Journal Editor, Fellow, Founder, ESEP
AUTHOR System Requirements Analysis (2), System Integration, System
Validation and Verification, System Engineering Planning and
Enterprise Identity, System Engineering Deployment, System
Management, System Synthesis
Your instructor’s background has included 30 years of experience in industry working as an engineering manager, system engineer, project engineer, field engineer, and customer training instructor. The ten years he served in the Marines was primarily related to the logistics field involving radio maintenance in ground aviation and aircraft squadrons and training.
Currently, he operates a system engineering consulting and training firm.
The text material used in the program is based on the content of five books published by McGraw-Hill and CRC Press. This material is constantly evaluated and upgraded for program purposes.
c JOG System Engineering

4. c JOG System Engineering
JOGSE Client Base
c JOG System Engineering

5. c JOG System Engineering
System Life Cycle 2 3 4 1
c JOG System Engineering

6. c JOG System Engineering
The JOGSE Grand Systems Development Training Program Four-Course Certificate Program
Systems Management
Systems Requirements
Systems Synthesis
Systems Verification
Grand Systems = Each enterprise program integrating and optimizing at true system level (product and process) while the enterprise integrates and optimizes across the programs.
c JOG System Engineering

7. Possible Program Electives
Systems Sustainment
Systems Effectiveness 1 (Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability)
Systems Effectiveness 2 (Systems Safety and Human Engineering)
Systems Effectiveness 3 (Systems Security and Privacy)
Control Systems Theory
Operations Analysis
System Simulation
Universal Architecture Description Framework
Information Systems Development Using DoDAF
c JOG System Engineering

8. c JOG System Engineering
Program Documentation 1 3 4 2
JOG System Engineering
6015 Charae Street
San Diego, CA 92122
(858) 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Grand Systems Management
Grand Systems Requirements Elicitation and Analysis
Grand Systems Requirements Documentation and Management
Grand Systems Synthesis
Specialty Engineering Methods and Models
Grand Systems Verification
Grand Systems Requirements 58 59 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E
Grand Systems Sustainment
Systems Test and Evaluation
Systems Simulation
Computer Software Management
Computer Software Requirements
Computer Software Synthesis
Computer Software Verification
c JOG System Engineering

9. Recommended Program Cases
c JOG System Engineering

10. INCOSE Mapping Requirements Course to INCOSE SEM
c JOG System Engineering

11. Management Knowledge Grows & We Have Our Limitations
EXPANDING
KNOWLEDGE
SPECIALIZATION
EFFECTS
MAN'S
KNOWLEDGE
Many thousands of years ago there was a time when every human on Earth could master all of the knowledge that mankind had amassed but it was not very much - and it was all survival oriented.
Over time, man discovered that there were advantages if some members of their group concentrated on hunting and others doing farming work. Over a period of thousands of years, man has progressively accelerated this process of accumulating knowledge passing a point a very long time ago where the amount of knowledge available was greater than man’s individual capacity for knowledge because over this period of time man’s capacity for knowledge has not expanded significantly.
The universal solution to this problem has been that individual humans engage in specialization of the knowledge they master. The reality is that no one can master all of man’s knowledge now or ever in the future. It is unlikely that Congress or the UN will pass a law or rule that there shall be no new knowledge. Knowledge has economic value in that the more knowledge brought to a problem, generally, the better the solution. So long as competition is an element of business, the advantage of a more powerful problem solving capability will continue to encourage expanding knowledge.
IT WON'T
ALL FIT!
MAN'S
LIMITATIONS
c JOG System Engineering

12. c JOG System Engineering
Management
We Are All Specialists
BREADTH OF KNOWLEDGE
DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE
ALL KNOWLEDGE
The editor of the McGraw-Hill “System Engineering Handbook” published in 1965, Robert Machol, said that man was T-shaped with respect to his knowledge. Through experience and education, a person masters some narrow but deep font of knowledge that they specialize in while also having broad knowledge that permits them to communicate with other persons. The latter commonly involves language, mathematics, and some science.
The problem here is that, since no one knows everything, us specialists must communicate amongst ourselves about problems that require knowledge more extensive than any one person can master.
Man has applied knowledge partitioning as a solution to the knowledge coverage problem which is only part of the whole solution. Anytime we apply partitioning or decomposition as part of a problem solving technique we are obligated to integrate and optimize to encourage that the whole comes together.
The unfortunate thing here is that man must use the worst interface in the world through which the integration process must take place. It is called human communication.
Note that the future will entail more thinner and deeper specialties requiring additional knowledge granularity.
GENERALIST KNOWLEDGE BASE
DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE BASE
SPECIALIST KNOWLEDGE BASE
c JOG System Engineering

13. Management Development In Reverse
S = P:(A* x E* x I*) F P F E* I* I* A*
c JOG System Engineering

14. Management We Seek To Forge Crowds Into Teams
A POWERFUL
UINIFYING FORCE
COMMON
VISION
c JOG System Engineering

15. Management Organizational RAS
ENTERPRISE PROCESS DEFINITION
DEFINE
PRODUCT
DEFINE
DESIGN
VERIFY
DESIGN
F4231
F4232
F4333
ENTERPRISE
FUNCTIONAL
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE
DEFINITION
MODEL ENTITY
MID
F4231
F4232
F4233
NAME
DEFINE PRODUCT
DEFINE DESIGN
VERIFY DESIGN
TASK ENTITY
DESCRIPTION
ORGANIZATIONAL ENTITY
DEPT
210
220
230
NAME
SYSTEMS
DESIGN
VERIFICATION
RAS
DEFINE
ALLOCATION OF FUNCTIONALITY
D200
VERIFICATION
SYSTEMS
DESIGN
D210
D220
D230
c JOG System Engineering

16. Organizing for Programs c JOG System Engineering
Management
Organizing for Programs
ENTERPRISE
FUNCTIONAL
ORGANIZATION
ENTERPRISE
GENERAL
MANAGER
ENTERPRISE
INTEGRATION
TEAM (EIT)
PROGRAM C
PROGRAM B
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
MANAGER
PROGRAM
INTEGRATION
PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
BUSINESS
TEAM
TEAM 1
TEAM 2
TEAM 3
TEAM
PRODUCTION
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
DIRECTOR
FUNCTION 1
FUNCTION 1
PIT
PDT 1
FUNCTION 1
FUNCTION 1
PDT 2
PDT 3
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
ENGINEERING
DIRECTOR
FUNCTION 2
FUNCTION 2
FUNCTION 2
PIT
PDT 2
PDT 3
LOGISTICS
PROGRAM A
DIRECTOR
FUNCTION 3
PDT 1
PROCUREMENT
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
DIRECTOR
FUNCTION 4
FUNCTION 4
FUNCTION 4
PIT
PDT 1
PDT 3
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
SCHEDULING
FUNCTION 5
FUNCTION 5
DIRECTOR
PIT
PDT 1
LEGAL
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
DIRECTOR
FUNCTION 6
FUNCTION 6
FUNCTION 6
FUNCTION 6
PIT
PDT 2
PDT 3
BUSINESS
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
QUALITY
FUNCTION 7
PROGRAM A
FUNCTION 7
DIRECTOR
FUNCTION 7
PIT
PDT 1
PDT 3
CONTRACTS
PROGRAM A
PROGRAM A
FUNCTION 8
FUNCTION 8
DIRECTOR
PIT
BUSINESS
FINANCE
PROGRAM A
DIRECTOR
FUNCTION 9
BUSINESS
c JOG System Engineering

17. Hierarchical Integration Teaming c JOG System Engineering
Management
Hierarchical Integration Teaming
CORPORATE
Integration Paths
SECTOR 1
Management Paths
Integration Agent
BUSINESS
AREA 11
PROGRAM 113
SEIT
PROJECT
PROJECT
PROJECT
1131
1132
1133
c JOG System Engineering

18. Management Typical Planning String GSD Approach
IMP PLANNING STRING
SOW
ENTERPRISE
F-STRINGS
P05-S01 -E03 -A12-F122-D262
ENTERPRISE
PROGRAM 05
PROGRAM
PHASE 01
FUNCTIONAL DEPARTMENT
SUPPLYING PERSONNEL
DOING PROGRAM WORK
(SEE EDD APPENDIX C)
PRODUCT WBS/ARCHITECTURE
ITEM A12
E00
E01
E02
E03
E04
E05
E06
CONTRACT AWARD
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS REVIEW
SYSTEM DESIGN REVIEW
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW
FUNCTIONAL CONFIGURATION AUDIT
PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION AUDIT
PROCESS (SEE EDD APPENDIX A)
c JOG System Engineering

19. Management Risk Index Values
c JOG System Engineering

20. Management Aggregate Program Risk Index Over Time
c JOG System Engineering

21. Management An Aggregate Assessment Metric
100
(100,100)
(13,97)
GOOD DOCUMENTATION
WELL IMPLEMENTED I M
AUDIT EVENT A P
IDENTIFICATION Q S L
POOR DOCUMENTATION S
YEAR T E U
WELL IMPLEMENTED E
EVENT 001 A M A L S 50
TASK 121 S E S
DEPT 877 K N I T M
PROG 001 T E A Y N
(38,29) T T I
POOR O
DOCUMENT-
(98,15) N
ATION
GOOD DOCUMENTATION
POORLY
POORLY IMPLEMENTED
IMPLEMENTED 50
100
PRACTICE DOCUMENTATION
QUALITY ASSESSMENT
c JOG System Engineering

22. c JOG System Engineering
Requirements How Does the System Engineer Approach Unprecedented Problem Space?
FUNCTIONAL
FACET
VISION
OBJECT
FACET
PROBLEM
SPACE
The problems we must deal with become more complex over time. We use models to gain insight into these problem spaces. All of these models are implemented in simple charts using directed lines and simple geometric figures (blocks, bubbles) representing one or more perspectives of the problem space. The analyst while creating these diagrams applies hand-eye coordination and the most powerful channel for entering ideas into the human mind, vision. Over time each facet is represented by a set of simple diagrams. The unresolved problem space disappears and is replaced by a clear understanding of the space in terms of the simple diagrams and corresponding ideas in the minds of the team members.
BEHAVIORAL
FACET
ANALYST
c JOG System Engineering

23. Requirements Specification Generator
TEMPLATE
MAP
METHODS
AND
DOMAINS TO
TEMPLATE
DOMAINS
PUBLISH
SPECIFI-
CATIONS
SPECIFI-
CATIONS
REQUIRE-
MENTS
ANALYSIS
(RAS &
DATABASE)
METHODS
We will look at the application of traditional structured analysis in order to develop the RAS-Complete ideas. But, the point is that any modeling approach can be used to feed the RAS-Complete.
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE REPORT
PREPARE
SAR
SAR TEMPLATE
c JOG System Engineering

24. Requirements RAS-Complete In Table Form
c JOG System Engineering

25. Synthesis Where Do System Engineers Play?
Knowledge Domains
The Sand Box
of the
System
Engineer
Product Domains
c JOG System Engineering

26. Synthesis Integration Skills
ELEMENT Yi
INTEGRATION
ELEMENT Xi
DOMAIN OF THE
SYSTEM ENGINEER
DOMAIN X
DOMAIN Y
c JOG System Engineering

27. Benefits of Product Team Organization c JOG System Engineering
Synthesis
Benefits of Product Team Organization
WBS, SOW, IMP, IMS
Budget and schedule
Specifications
ORGANIZATION N-SQUARE DIAGRAM
IPT 1
IPT 2
Interface
Control
Working
Teams
Inter-team
Communication
Requirement
IPT 3
IPT 4
SEGMENT 1
The DD(X) Program has organized in a fashion encouraging the most effective control of interface development and management. The program employs product oriented cross functional team which are physically collocated as much as possible considering the program brings together resources across the country.
This method of organizing aligns the program organization with the product organization minimizing the management complexities and maximizing the accountability for cross organizational interfaces.
The segment teams cooperate through the ICWG to ensure that all interfaces are identified and characterized within program interface documentation.
Cross-
Organizational
Interface
Requirement
SEGMENT 2
Component
Teams
SEGMENT 3
SEGMENT 4
PRODUCT N-SQUARE DIAGRAM
c JOG System Engineering

28. Synthesis The Fundamental Problems in Interface Work
There is a one-to-one correspondence between teams and components. There is a one- to-two correspondence between teams and interfaces.
COMPONENT X
COMPONENT Y
We assign teams as the responsible development agents for items in a system such as the segments, elements, and components of the DD(X) so there is a one-to-one relationship between architecture entities and responsible teams. Interfaces exist between pairs of system entities so there is a one-to-two relationship between the interfaces and responsible teams.
c JOG System Engineering

29. Synthesis The Fundamental Problems in Interface Work
We tend to focus inwardly
COMPONENT X
COMPONENT Y
When we develop systems to satisfy very complex needs, it is necessary that we bring together many people because man’s knowledge base is tremendously large relative to the individual person’s knowledge capacity forcing us to specialize and on many teams because we must focus on the right level of granularity for ease of management. Unfortunately, people tend to look inwardly on these teams rather than leap across the line to see their interface from the other team’s perspective.
c JOG System Engineering

30. Synthesis The Fundamental Problems in Interface Work
We are dependent on the worst interface on planet Earth in the development of interfaces.
COMPONENT X
COMPONENT Y
Since members of two different teams must develop an interface, the members of these teams must communicate across the team boundary. Human communications is not commonly a strong bond so we have to consciously strive for precision, understanding, and completeness in our interface communications.
HUMAN
COMMUNICATIONS!!
c JOG System Engineering

31. V Model Encourages Good Requirements c JOG System Engineering
Verification
V Model Encourages Good Requirements
DELIVERY
NEED
VERIFICATION
PLANNING PLANE
SYSTEM
REQUIREMENTS
SYSTEM
TEST
END ITEM
REQUIREMENTS
END ITEM
TEST
SUBSYSTEM
REQUIREMENTS
SUBSYSTEM
TEST
VERIFICATION
REPORTING
PLANE
COMPONENT
REQUIREMENTS
COMPONENT
TEST
DEVELOPMENT
DOWNSTROKE
DEVELOPMENT
UPSTROKE
DESIGN &
INTEGRATION
c JOG System Engineering

32. Verification Verification Tracking Matrices
SPECIFICATION
VERIFICATION
TRACEABILITY
MATRICES
UNION OF
MATRICES
VERIFICATION
COMPLIANCE
MATRIX
TASK ONLY
SCREEN
INCLUDES EVERY VERIFICATION STRING
VERIFICATION
TASK TRACKING
MATRIX
VERIFICATION
ITEM TRACKING
MATRIX
INCLUDES EVERY VERIFICATION TASK
EACH OF WHICH IS COMPOSED OF
MULTIPLE STRINGS
ITEM ONLY
SCREEN
c JOG System Engineering

33. c JOG System Engineering
Verification
Documentation Stream
3.2.7
Table 4-1 Verification Traceability Matrix
SPECIFICATION LIBRARY
ITEM A1 ID A1
VTN
123 }
Table C-1 Verification Compliance Matrix
Table C-2 Verification Task Matrix
Table C-3 Verification Item Matrix
Table B-2 Verification Process Flow Diagram
Table B-1 Verification Schedule
INTEGRATED VERIFICATION
MANAGEMENT REPORT
INTEGRATED
VERIFICATION
PLAN (IVP)
TASK
REPORT (IVR)
SAME PATTERN FOR QUALIFICATION USING ITEM PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS SYSTEM USING SYSTEM SPECIFICATION ACCEPTANCE USING ITEM DETAIL SPECIFICAITONS
IMPLEMENTATION
ITEM A1 TASK 123
STATUS
INFORMATION
FCA
PCA
c JOG System Engineering