Register for Insight 2013 Webinar Series

Although we will miss the opportunity to meet and connect with you in person, we have decided to transform the Insight 2013 User Conference into a virtual series of free webinars and online video content.

This exclusive virtual series will be presented by the conference presenters and features some of the same topics found in the Insight 2013 agenda. With so many of you from across the community constrained by the current travel restrictions, our virtual presentation series will give you instant access to wonderful systems engineering, MBSE, and Vitech-specific content.

Click on the Webinar titles to learn more.

Introducing GENESYS 2.0 : Operate at Think Speed


Presented by:

Vitech Corporation

Sign up for one of these dates to see GENESYS 2.0 in action!

Vitech is announcing the next generation of insight. Faster and more powerful than before, GENESYS™ 2.0 delivers real out-of-the-box value. New diagrams and robust representations give you more control and faster response, while still utilizing the proven STRATA™ approach. Join Vitech’s systems engineer, Warren Smith, and VP of Sales and Marketing, Jim Obermayer, as they dive into the latest capabilities and innovations, highlighting many exciting new features of the next generation of the GENESYS™ software.

What's New?

  • Operate at think speed: Build diagrams on the fly with the ability to drag and create new constructs directly in your diagram.
  • Richer reports: The reporting framework that was already easy to build and customize is now even easier to exploit with an extremely rich, vastly capable toolbox to build your custom reports.
  • New diagrams: We’ve rounded out the diagram set with N2, Interface N2, and Physical N2.
  • Additional SysML representations: To round out the existing SysML diagram set, GENESYS™ 2.0 now includes the Use Case Diagram and the Package Diagram.
  • Added richness in an enhanced diagram framework: GENESYS™ 2.0 gives you the capability to drop constructs directly onto behavior diagrams, replacing icons with images, to make it easier to construct your model from the diagram views.
  • New major reporting formats: The SDD (System Design Document), SSS (System Segment Specification) in addition to the existing DoDAF artifacts, are now at your fingertips.

Adding System Analysis and Visualization to MBSE by Integrating AGI's Systems Tool Kit (STK) with GENESYS


Presented by:

Michael Bruchanski

Bio:

Michael Bruchanski is a Product Marketing Manager at Analytical Graphics, Inc. where his primary focus is visualization and analysis software for Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Prior to working for AGI he worked as a software engineer for The Boeing Company and Sikorsky aircraft on various helicopter programs. Michael holds a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and an M.S. in Computer Engineering from Villanova University.

Abstract

AGI’s flagship software product Systems Tool Kit (STK) is used to model, analyze and visualize space, defense and intelligence systems and evaluate their mission effectiveness. STK’s flexible data driven system models provide value throughout the lifecycle of an aerospace program. From initial concept development to detailed design through system test and into operations STK’s analysis and visualization framework is a critical part of the systems engineering process. Although STK is a standard tool in the aerospace industry a direct interface between the executable models provided by STK and Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) tool like those created by Vitech has yet to be developed.

This presentation will discuss an integration example between STK and Vitech’s GENESYS software. Beginning with the use of a custom schema within GENESYS we will examine how to align the data models to efficiently exchange data. Once the data model is set then we can examine how to utilize the various APIs to facilitate bi-directional communication between the two commercial software tools. This direct interface will allow the user to create a functional representation of their system in STK to preform engineering studies and provide a 2D and 3D visualization for communicating the results to stakeholders. GENESYS is used to take the data and apply the MBSE process and rigor required to complete the development of the system.

This direct interface adds value to the system engineering process in several ways. By automating data exchange we move closer to the ultimate goal of most system engineers, to have a truly integrated system model. We are also able to incorporate a detailed physical model of the system to produce a more accurate representation of system effectiveness. Finally using a very graphical depiction of the system and performance metrics allow us to communicate our system better to stakeholders who aren’t as familiar with systems engineering concepts.

Approximation Analytics for Model-Based Systems Engineering


Presented by:

William D. Miller

Bio:

Mr. Miller has forty years of experience at Bell Labs, AT&T, Innovative Decisions, Inc., and consulting in the conceptualization, modeling and engineering application of communications and information technologies, systems and services. This experience has addressed both commercial and government sectors. Mr. Miller has managed projects including positions as Chief Systems Engineer and Program Manager.

Abstract

A Primer for Model-Based Systems Engineering, 2nd Edition, describes a multi-layered paradigm to address requirements, behavior, architecture, and verification & validation domains. All four domains are addressed in a layer before proceeding to the next lower layer, expanding the level of detail, or granularity, with each layer. Conversely, higher-level layers have higher levels of abstraction than lower layers.

Top-down, unprecedented systems naturally start the top layer with a level of abstraction appropriate to only the information needed in each of the four domains to proceed to the next lower layer. However, few systems developments are unprecedented. The great majority of system developments are middle-out or reverse-engineered systems. In these cases, significant effort initially goes into identifying the as-is systems at the lower layers, which pose classic curse of dimensionality challenges. Rarely is the highly detailed information then abstracted for the highest layers. All development approaches can also suffer curse of dimensionality challenges in capturing the context system at any layer.

The INCOSE Systems Engineering Vision 2020 (2007) proposed MBSE analytics research topics: 1) multi-dimensional mathematical model manager employing graph theory and constraint theory; 2) evolutionary computation and genetic algorithms able to search vast trade spaces for satisfying designs; 3) quantitative risk management computations based on decision theory to seek balance of cost, performance, and risk preferred by stakeholders; and 4) value and preference model to translate stakeholder requirements and risk assessments for verification and acceptance. Significant work has proceeded in Systems Modeling Language (SysML) parametrics, but often in the lower-level realm of Model-Based Engineering (MBE), e.g., parametric model of a flange. Recently, DARPA has sponsored research in systems engineering analytics for complex systems with the META program, part of the Adaptive Vehicle Make program, to achieve system developments that are correct by design.

For the top and possibly lower level MBSE layers, the application of approximation, or back-of-the-envelope, analytics are proposed for estimating and bounding system attributes for the three types of system development approaches. Approximation is appropriate in the following circumstances: 1) lack of time, 2) data is unavailable, 3) data is unknowable, and 4) inherent uncertainty does not warrant precision. There is a substantial body of application of approximation analytics in the literature, including 1) order of magnitude estimation and 2) classic Fermi problems, e.g., estimate the number of piano tuners in New York City. Big data and data mining are being promoted to redress the lack of data, but there are examples showing that good data does not guarantee good decisions. Approximation analytics examples are illustrated for complex infrastructure, aerospace/defense, and consumer electronics systems.

Risky Business - How They REALLY Do It: Results of Sysenex Inc. Risk Management Market Survey


Presented by:

Laurie Wiggins

Bio:

Laurie Wiggins is an engineer and an entrepreneur. She has 25 years of experience in engineering, program management, and business development. She is currently the president and founder of Sysenex Inc., a systems engineering services company. Sysenex is currently engaged in the development of a risk identification tool, Program Risk MD®.

Abstract

The results of a recently completed market survey provide insights into risk identification and risk management attitudes and practices for large, medium and small businesses predominantly in the aerospace domain. Responses to questions will be discussed to include risk methods and tools used and their strengths and weaknesses, and risk management attitudes and practices of organizations.

Risk management is a key process for helping a program to achieve cost, schedule, performance and safety objectives. Common risks across programs and risks unique to a given program and/or domain are discussed. Risks learned through past experience and taken from lessons learned are also addressed.

come See What's New in CORE 9!


Presented by:

Vitech Corporation

The much-anticipated release of CORE 9 delivers improved speed, agility, and integration in CORE’s well-established model-centric environment. CORE’s unique full design accountability and traceability capabilities haven’t changed – but we have added many new features to give users more control and faster response time.

What's New

  • Unprecedented model management through cross-project relationships gives you virtually infinite flexibility to partition your team’s effort along process, contractual, baselining, and IT boundaries.
  • Seamlessly interface with IBM® DOORS® through the new DOORS Connector.
  • Enriched representations, including the state transition diagram and further enhancements, allow you to generate presentation-ready graphics directly from the engineering repository.
  • Systematic identification, management, and use of critical design parameters make it easy to reduce risk and increase efficiency.
  • Enhanced capabilities to monitor and exploit your system design.

Stand on Standards


Presented by:

John O. Clark

Bio:

John O. Clark is a Chief Engineer and the Corporate SE Instructor at Northrop Grumman Corporation (NGC) with over 47 years’ experience applying Systems Engineering (SE) and Software Engineering. He is an internationally recognized Subject Matter Expert in SE and a founder and member of several NGC and International Council of Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Working Groups (WGs). For NGC, John is the founder of the SE Handbook WG, the Agile Community of Practice (CoP), and the INCOSE CoP; a key member of the Process WG, Training WG, and Requirements WG; the SE Associates (SEA) SE instructor; and the lead SE developer of SE101. For INCOSE, he is the Training WG founder and leader, Process Improvement WG leader, SE Handbook tutorial project leader, SE Fundamentals and Certified SE Professional (CSEP) courses developer and instructor, and is a CSEP.

Abstract

Clarity of language and a common understanding of desired results are vital to any successful engineering effort. Different disciplines within the engineering world have developed different standards and models that define their processes and terms. These different views have been instantiated through professional organizations and governing bodies associated with different disciplines and constituents. Understanding the differences between standards, models, processes, and terms used by various engineering disciplines is vital to successful inter-disciplinary efforts. Multiple views provide a comprehensive view.

This presentation will discuss the fundamentals of systems engineering from the perspective of the standards and governing bodies that developed those standards. The presentation will discuss the definitions of systems engineering terms and how the various definitions developed by EIA, IEEE, and ISO differ. We will explore the various SE processes and system life-cycle models developed by EIA, IEEE, and ISO, and the requirements and relationships of a successful systems engineering effort.

A the conclusion of this presentation, the attendee should have a clear understanding of the differences, commonalities, and relationships between various common systems engineering terms, processes, and life-cycle models, and a framework for enabling projects among co-operating organizations.

Experiencing the Systems Engineering Process as a Serious Game


Presented by:

Nick B. Szirbik

Bio:

Nick Szirbik teaches Systems Engineering at the University of Groningen. He obtained his computer engineering degree and his PhD in Artificial Intelligence at the Technical University of Timisoara, Romania. He worked previously as a teacher and researcher at both the Free University of Amsterdam and the Technical University Eindhoven in the Netherlands.

Abstract

Creativity in engineering design is impossible to teach or convey in a traditional manner to students. We (at University of Groningen) have experimented in teaching design in the engineering of systems with techniques borrowed from serious gaming, which is a methodological approach which already made successful inroads in various business domains or school teaching. In such a design game, teams of three students play simultaneously the roles of customers, designers, and design auditors. CORE™ is used as a communication and design tool in this game.

Theatre of Operations: An Entertaining Problem


Presented by:

Tommie Liddy

Bio:

Tommie Liddy is a mechatronic engineer completing his Ph.D. in Robotics at the University of Adelaide while working as part of the Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) team at Aerospace Concepts. His academic study has focused on navigation control for Ackermann vehicles and uses vector fields as control schemes. Development of this work was achieved through simulation of vital concepts then a physical implementation of the final system. As part of the MBSE team at Aerospace Concepts Tommie is developing MBSE tools for operational analysis and capability definition.

Abstract

Effective needs analysis requires complete understanding of the users and how they act as operational performers, their roles, and the organisations to which they belong. This presentation provides an entertaining yet rigorous example and uses colloquial language to describe in readily understood terms a robust needs analysis methodology that is effective, efficient and also complaint with the Australian Defence Architecture Framework (DAF). The example demonstrates the application of a model-based approach to concept engineering and, in particular, how a better understanding the ‘performers’ leads to a solid basis on which to design a solution.

Modeling the Management of Systems Engineering Projects


Presented by:

Daniel Spencer

Bio:

Daniel Spencer works as a systems engineer for Aerospace Concepts Pty Ltd. He has over a decade of experience in design and development of systems solutions across a broad range of industries, both in Australia and the United Kingdom. Dan holds a Bachelor of Engineering in Information Technology and Telecommunications from the University of Adelaide. He has been working with Australian Defence clients developing and refining tools and methods for a repeatable and comprehensive MBSE method, while using this approach for real-world capability definition and development projects.

Abstract

As described in the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, systems engineering is an interdisciplinary, holistic approach to realise successful systems. It often involves a combined effort of a team of professionals from different disciplines and backgrounds.

The primary role of the Systems Engineering Manager (SEM) of a complex project is to ensure that the technical conduct of the project and the technical products achieve the required quality. The SEM performs this role by defining the technical processes, documentation and output products within the engineering lifecycle of a project through systems engineering management. These aspects of a project are not brought together through any other single management process. Furthermore, systems engineering management supports the other business systems such as project management, engineering management and quality management.

Particularly in early concept development phases of a project, it is important for those involved in Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) to not lose sight of systems engineering management as an enabler of engineering rigour. Engineers can overlook systems engineering management amongst the MBSE methods and technical activities they are conducting.

In his paper at the 2004 INCOSE International Symposium[1], Eric Honour concludes that systems engineering effort improves development quality, cost and schedule compliance, and that systems engineering management is known to be an important part of the systems engineering process. Further to this, improved quality of the systems engineering activity increases these benefits.

The key document used to guide all technical aspects of the project is the Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP). The SEMP is now often referred to as a Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), and defines systems engineering organisation, process and products, and also describes speciality engineering integration in a project.[2]

A SEMP is an evolving document that captures a project’s current systems engineering strategy and its relationship with the overall project management effort. The purpose of the SEMP is to describe the detailed operational plan for executing systems engineering. It also describes how a project organisation will manage technical activities in accordance with partners, clients and contractors. All other engineering control documents, such as the Test and Evaluation Master Plan, Configuration Management Plan and Risk Management Plan, are subordinate to the SEMP and must be consistent with it.[3] The SEMP should be established early in the project and updated as necessary to ensure its effectiveness.

This presentation will outline an example of how a model-based systems engineering approach in Vitech’s CORE product can be taken to represent the systems engineering management aspects of a project, and how the resulting engineering management model can be interrogated to produce the outputs required for a quality SEMP. After describing the underlying structure of the systems engineering management model, an example will demonstrate its use, with a focus on activities taking place in Concept Engineering phases of a project.

This modelling of the project from the point of view of the SEM provides the benefits inherent in the application of MBSE; consistency, traceability, reuse and information sharing. Further to the benefits inherent in the MBSE method, benefits can be gained by facilitating the interface between the management system model and the various engineering models of the project.

Modelling systems engineering management and utilising this model to produce a robust Systems Engineering Management plan has a number of benefits that can improve product cost, schedule and quality when used appropriately. By having an approach tailored to the project, and interfacing this in a useful way, the likelihood of its use and the benefits of this use greatly increase.

A robust, complete and consistent SEMP provides clear and unambiguous guidance to systems engineers and technical staff, improves efficiency of the project effort and likelihood of project success. Using a model-based approach to systems engineering management, particularly in a model-based development environment closely couples the systems engineering process and product, allowing clear definition of responsibilities and improved ability for assurance that these responsibilities have been carried out.