Panels

• The Integration Process - An Unresolved Issue for Systems Engineers
  
  
• Is Systems Engineering for "Systems of Systems" Really Any Different?
  
  
• How Are Natural Disasters Events Similar or Dissimilar to Terrorist Attacks?
  
  
• Different Approaches to Realizing Net-Centric Solutions
  
  
• Myriad Multiplying Risk Management Standards: “Converging Toward Best Practice” or “A Confusing Maze of Docs to Trap Us?” - What's Up INCOSE?
  
  
• Graduate Education and Research Considerations for “System of Systems” Engineering – The Georgia Tech Air Force Long Range Strike Capability Project as an Example
  
  

Panel Details

• The Integration Process - An Unresolved Issue for Systems Engineers
  
  Moderator: Dr. Avigdor Zonnenshain of RAFAEL
  
  Panel Members:
  Mr. Eric Honour of Honourcode, Inc.
  Prof. Joseph Ben Asher of Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
  Mr. Jeffery Grady of Jog System Engineering
  Mr. Uzi Orion of El-Op Israel
  Mr. Jean Phillip Lerat of Sodius Corporation
  Dr. Joseph Kasser of University of South Australia
  
  Introduction
  One of the most often used words, yet most neglected notions in the application of system engineering process in projects, is the word INTEGRATION.
  The system integration is the art and science of connecting many separate solutions into a system solution. System integration is part of the system engineering process that unifies the product components and the process components into a whole. It assumes that the hardware, software, human and logistics support components will interact effectively to achieve the system goal or satisfy the customer's needs.
  Why is the integration process a difficult task?
  - It requires synthesis while most engineers are more capable and familiar with analysis.
  - It requires dealing with interfaces, which are the weakest links of the system.
  - In order to integrate the system, we need to integrate a multi-disciplinary team who should interact with common system language.
  - The integration process is full of surprises, and the project managers tend to claim that we cannot plan and control it.
  - An effective integration process should incorporate testing and evaluation which are ambitious missions in any project.
  - The integration work principally occurs on the tail-end or up-stroke of the project.
  Our panel will discuss these difficulties and how to resolve these issues with effective systems engineering.
  
  
• Is Systems Engineering for "Systems of Systems" Really Any Different?
  
  Moderator: Ms. Sarah Sheard of Third Millennium Systems LLC
  
  Panel Members
  Dr. Lawrence Pohlmann of Strategics Consulting
  Mr. James Long of Vitech Corporation
  Dr. Tim Ferris of University of South Australia
  Dr. Russ Abbot of Aerospace Corporation & Cal State U, LA
  Dr. Barry Boehm of University of Southern California
  
  “Systems of systems” has achieved the vaulted status of a buzzword lately, but is engineering a system of systems any different from engineering a system? This panel has five eminent speakers from the systems engineering world and from the complex systems research world discussing whether or not it really is different, and if it is, how. Certainly systems engineering principles apply, but do they apply differently? Does the emphasis change? How much of the science of complexity theory must an engineer learn, and how much of it is academic and irrelevant? The following arguments will be made and debated, along with some confounding issues such as those listed below.
  
  Pro Arguments (Systems of systems engineering really is different): The types of engineering that got us where we are today will not work as the complexity of the systems we are designing goes up and the time allowed to design them goes down. We have no choice but to take an agile approach to evolving builds on software-intensive systems, and everything is becoming a software intensive system of systems.
  
  Con Arguments (Systems of systems engineering fundamentally is systems engineering basic principles): We know plenty about the right ways to do things already; our problem is: we don’t do them. We will always have to build hardware based systems in a waterfall-fashion.
  
  Confounding Issues: We don’t fully understand how to build complex systems. What can one do to ensure, to the extent possible, that the overall system-level effect of the component interactions (often called emergent properties) are the desired ones? There are two fundamentally opposed views of systems of systems, one type for which standard systems engineering will work, and one for which it will not. The terminology is terribly tangled.
  
  
• How Are Natural Disasters Events Similar or Dissimilar to Terrorist Attacks?
  
  Moderator: Dr. William Mackie of CSC and Univ. of MD Univ. College
  
  Panel Members
  Mr. Stephen Sutton of Northrop Grumman TASC
  Dr. George Loup of University of New Orleans
  Mr. James Long, President of Vitech Inc.
  Dr. Joseph Carl, President, Mosaic Renaissance International
  
  During the past year, natural disasters including the major earthquakes in Pakistan, the Tsunami floods of Indonesia, and the hurricanes and destruction in New Orleans, LA and the Gulf Coast region of the United States have caused major loss of life, injury and significant loss of property.
  
  During the same period, insurgent attacks in Iraq, subway bombings in London, fire attacks on the city of Paris, and continued threats of terrorists throughout the world have placed life at risk.
  
  Terrorism is the systematic use of violence and force as a means of coercion through fear and intimidation. As we have seen since World War II and experienced first hand since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the calculated murder of political personalities has given way to the random killing of innocent people and civilian populations. Natural disasters are perhaps even more threatening. How are these two kinds of events similar and dissimilar? How can the discipline of systems engineering assist in preparing for, responding to, recovering from and mitigating against the risks of natural disasters and terrorist events.
  
  Since September 11, 2001, INCOSE through its Anti-Terrorism International Working Group (ATIWG) has focused the principles, techniques, and practices of systems engineering on how to reduce and eradicate international terrorism. We are taking this opportunity to expand emergency preparedness efforts to natural disasters as well.
  
  Through the ATIWG sponsoring of panels at previous INCOSE symposia (2002-2004), writing papers for publication (2003), a tutorial (2004), and working group activities, the systems engineering community has discussed the application of collaborative engineering environments, simulation and modeling, religion, system solutions to defend against terrorism, psychology, and root causes of terrorism to address the vulnerabilities of systems as well as the attack responses to threats. This panel continues the INCOSE application of systems engineering to these international problems by discussing the similarities and dissimilarities of natural disaster events and terrorist attacks.
  
  
• Different Approaches to Realizing Net-Centric Solutions
  
  Moderator: Mr. Duncan Kemp of UK MOD
  
  Panel Members
  Mr. Karl Geist of US Naval Air System Command
  Mr. John Hsu of The Boeing Company
  Mr. Staffan Stroembaeck of Swedish Defence Material Agency, FMV
  Mr. Cihan Dagli of University of Missouri-Rolla
  
  This panel will compare the different approaches to systems engineering net-centric systems. Based upon the taxonomy developed by the Net-Centric Operations Working Group (NCOWG), and published in the paper ‘Systems Engineering Net-Centric solutions – an analysis of different perspectives’, the panelists will present different approaches being adopted by different organisations to realising net-centric operations.
  
  The INCOSE NCOWG was established in 2005 to develop an understanding of the specific systems engineering challenges associated with implementing net-centric solutions. The NCOWG has identified several different assumptions as the nature, purpose and boundary of the systems engineering function.
  
  The panel will compare several different perspectives on implementing net-centric solutions including:
  • The performance-centric approach being adopted by UK MOD for network enabled capability and possibly commercial fields, such as Rail Transportation and Air Traffic Control sectors, etc.
  • The architecture-centric approach being adopted by the Swedish FMV and commercial fields, such as, civil mobile communications, etc.
  • The information-centric approach being adopted by the US DoD and commercial fields, such as, e- business/extended enterprise world, etc.
  
  Finally the panel will establish a lively dialogue on the applicability, strengths, weaknesses and coverage of the different approaches.
  
  
• Myriad Multiplying Risk Management Standards: “Converging Toward Best Practice” or “A Confusing Maze of Docs to Trap Us?” - What's Up INCOSE?
  
  Moderator: Mr. Jack A. Stein of Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Corp.
  
  Panel Members
  Dr. Robert N. Charrette of ITABHI Corp.
  Mr. Mark A. Powell of Stevens Institute of Technology and Futron Corp.
  Dr. Alfred M. Dolan of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and The University of Toronto
  Mr. Raymond C. Williams of Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute (SEI)
  Mr. Richard W. Kitterman of Northrop Grumman
  Mr. Garry J. Roedler of Lockheed Martin Engineering Process Improvement Center
  
  “I’ve had it! These %#@&$# committees can’t even agree on the definition of risk let alone how to do risk management.” Steaming, Joe Average, Senior Systems Engineer and project leader slams his fist down on a foot-high stack of standards. “I’m so confused I think I’m gonna explode!”
  
  Jane, Joe’s boss, is sympathetic. “I understand your frustration Joe. I wish it were simpler too. But risk management is required and I know from experience that risk management works. Why don’t you take the rest of the week off? Maybe you can spend some time reading through all those documents.”
  
  In the past decade we have seen a mushrooming of risk management-related standards – ISO/IEC 16085 alone lists over 40. Quite frankly, many of us are struggling just to keep up with the new risk concepts and changing terminology.
  
  Panel members in this session are (a) directly involved in leading the development of our most important risk management standards and (b) experienced with day-to-day application of risk management. As a group, the panel includes:
  
  • The Chairs for ISO/IEC 16085 and ISO 14971
  • INCOSE liaison to ISO and WG participation on ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207, ISO/IEC 15288, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7/WG7, ISO/IEC 15939 and IEEE 1540
  • Authorship of CMMI RSKM Process Area and SEI’s Continuous Risk Mgmt. Guidebook
  • VP of Administration for PMI RiskSIG
  • Chair and Vice-Chair for the INCOSE RMWG
  
  Among the tough questions and issues to be discussed are:
  
  • Is our standards development process in control?
  • With a plethora of standards and guides in the space, aircraft, military, medical device, electronics, software, nuclear, systems engineering and project management industries and domains; do we know what is working and isn’t?
  • Are there any major gaps or inconsistencies between standards and/or in application?
  • What actions should or shouldn’t INCOSE work groups and members take?
  
  
  
• Graduate Education and Research Considerations for “System of Systems” Engineering – The Georgia Tech Air Force Long Range Strike Capability Project as an Example
  
  Moderator: Dr. Daniel Schrage of The Georgia Institute of Technology
  
  Panel Members
  Dr. Dimitri Mavris of The Georgia Institute of Technology
  Mr. Dave Brown of the U.S. Airforce Research Laboratory
  Mr. Carl Weiss of Pratt and Whitney
  Mr. Bob Nelson of Raytheon
  Mr. Pat Cassidy of Boeing
  
  “System-of-systems” has achieved more than the vaulted status of a buzzword. The Air Force Space & Missile Systems Center’s “Systems Engineering Primer and Handbook”, 15 January 2004 provides the following explanation:
  
  “Most modern systems operate in the context of a broader system of interrelated systems. Each system must not only operate individually to provide the needed capability but must interface with or be interoperable with a number of other systems. To achieve interoperability such systems must be engineered and evaluated in the family-of-systems context. When the individual systems become interdependent on one another to provide even a minimal capability that is needed, they become a system of systems. Managers of system-of –systems, depend on the advice of their systems engineers, set policies regarding capability objectives and constraints and may also address the cost applicable to each individual system. In general, such capabilities and constraints either define or lead to technical requirements and constraints that each system must meet. Accordingly, managers for a system-of-systems may have oversight authority over the design and operational decisions for each system”
  
  Georgia Tech, in its Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory (ASDL) and graduate program in Aerospace Systems Design has an active research and education program with the U.S. Air Force and industry to develop and apply a system-of-systems approach for Long Range Strike Capability. This Panel will bring together representatives of the industry, government and university participants on the Long Range Strike Capability Project to address graduate education and research issues and present the approach being implemented.