Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

“A Systems Engineering Approach For Balancing Powered Trailer Requirements” Dana Peterson (CSEP Acq) (314) 553-4599.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "“A Systems Engineering Approach For Balancing Powered Trailer Requirements” Dana Peterson (CSEP Acq) (314) 553-4599."— Presentation transcript:

1 “A Systems Engineering Approach For Balancing Powered Trailer Requirements” Dana Peterson (CSEP Acq) (314) 553-4599

2 Illustrate a sample of Systems Engineering tools used on the Powered Trailer project to: –Resolve requirement issues –Understand relationships between requirements –Prioritize requirements –Get consensus on the best technology options –Provide the best “balanced” overall solution Purpose of Presentation 2 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

3 Improve combined truck and trailer grade climbing and mobility in soft soil terrain conditions Provide cargo and health status reporting over the C4I network Provide limited trailer self-mobility for climbing aircraft/ship ramps under operator control Provide on-board DC/AC export power for powering shelters and other equipment Powered Trailer Project Goals Powered Trailer Focus is on Trailer Drive Technologies 3 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

4 Requirements Traceability/ Rationale Matrix (RTRM)Requirements Traceability/ Rationale Matrix (RTRM) N 2 DiagramN 2 Diagram Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Quality Function Deployment (QFD)Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Morphological Analysis (MA)Morphological Analysis (MA) Architecture ViewsArchitecture Views Trade StudyTrade Study Sensitivity AnalysisSensitivity Analysis Affinity Diagram Tree Diagram Fishbone Diagram Digraph Blueprinting Arrow Diagram Matrix Diagram Relations Diagram Process Decision Program Chart Flow Diagram Context Diagram Pugh Matrix Specification Sample SE Tools 4 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

5 Systems Engineering Approach Performance Spec User Requirements Traceability/ Rationale Matrix (RTRM) Requirement Prioritization QFD House Of Quality Power Trailer Design Alternatives Mobility Analysis Trade Studies -Performance -Payload -C-130 Transport -R&M -Cost -Schedule Technology Options Sensitivity Analysis Preferred Solution AHPMA Legend AHP = Analytical Hierarchy Process QFD = Quality Function Deployment MA = Morphological Analysis An Iterative Hierarchical Process That Provides the Best Overall Requirements Balance

6 Many requirements in diverse functional areas A lot of stakeholders involved Tools are needed to balance requirements and validate concept prior to project execution Cost and schedule are receiving a lot more attention Multi-Attribute Criteria Problem Performance Cost Schedule 6 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

7 Solution Synthesis is Becoming More Challenging Design for Adaptability Performance Cost Schedule Design for Dynamic Value Open Architecture Modular Systems Approach Design To Cost Spiral Development Rapid Response Eco-Consciousness People Resources Company Mergers Reorganization Economic Political Cultural Technology Advances Part Obsolescence Robust Design Techniques Six Sigma Agile Design Security 7 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

8 Prioritizing Requirements: –Spiral 1, 2, 3 Evolution –Threshold Vs Objective –Key Performance Parameters Vs Key System Attributes Vs Additional Attributes –Tier Levels 1, 2, 3, 4 Asking: –What Is Possible? –What Can Be Done Within Program Constraints and Current Technology? –What Are The Tradeoffs? Customers Now: Provide Me With The Best Balanced Solution! 8 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

9 RTRM Sample Sheet (Transport & Trailer Requirements) Statistics: - Number of Requirement Paragraphs: 135 - Number of Stated Requirements: 250 - Requirements Needing Clarification: 20 (8%) - Number of Requirement Disconnects: 12 (5%) Total Requirement Issues: 32 (13%) RTRM Helps To Identify & Resolve Requirement Issues 9 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

10 The N 2 diagram illustrates interfaces and relationships between system requirements, parameters, and metrics System functions or elements are listed in the diagonal boxes Interfaces and relationships are identified in the off-diagonal boxes. Data flows in a clockwise direction between functions or elements The next example illustrates a modified form of N 2 where requirements have been listed in the diagonal boxes System N 2 Diagram Helps To Surface Interface Issues N 2 Helps To Identify Interface Issues 10 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

11 Example N 2 Diagram MobilityPayloadProtectionTransportabilityC4ISR/EWElec Power SupportabilityGVWCurb Weight Height Mobility%NO-GO <25 45-50 mph on 5% Grade Payload: GVW- CW- Crew 24” Ground Clearance Desired Turning Radius of 25’SA (FBCB2, MTS) Engine Gen/ Alternator Fuel Specifics Diesel 80 gm/kWh JP8 88 gm/kWh Pwr to Weight Ratio > 30 bhp/ton See GVWt/2h ≥ 1.20 for Stability PayloadSuspensionMax Payload at 5100 lbs Weight Trades Essential Combat Configuration (ECC) C2 Equip Med Equip Weight Trades Sustainment Supplies for 3 Days Weight Trades Payload to Curb Weight Ratio ≥ 0.5 H=76” for MPF 102” C-130 ProtectionProtection for Crew Vs. Weight KE, MINE, IED, Overhead Ease of B-Kit Armor R/R Threat Types & Locations Active Armor Protection Armor Repair Costs Weight Trades Integral Armor GPK, CROWS, Weapons Transportability(2) C-130, CH-47, CH-53, MPF Operator Remote Control Climbing Ramps Trailers18,000 lbs (2) On C-130 12,000 lbs Desired H=76” for MPF 102” C-130 C4ISR/EWObstacle Avoidance Net-ready, C2, FBCB2, MTS Silent Watch (2 Hours) RFIDC2 Equip Weight C2 Equipmen t Weight Antennas Elec PowerHybrid Drive Option 15 kW OB 10 kW Exp Exp PowerWeight Trades A-Kit Vs B-Kit SupportabilityFuel Efficiency 60 ton-mpg 400 mile range Stowage Items BII Health Mgt. CBM + A 0 =95% MMBF=10,000 for Production GVWAcceleration13,000 lbs Max. Axel Loading Not Specified GVW: CW + Payload + Crew Height Impacts Weight Curb WeightWeight Trades 13,000 lbs Max. Axel Loading Not Specified Height Impacts Weight HeightSuspension< 157.5” for Berne Tunnel

12 Proven, effective means to deal with complex decision making involving multiple criteria Captures both subjective and objective evaluation measures A hierarchal decomposition of requirements or goals is accomplished Pair wise comparisons of requirement attributes are made and relative scores computed for each leaf of the hierarchy Scores are then synthesized yielding the relative weights at each leaf as well as for the overall model A coherent assessment is reached when Inconsistency Ratio < 0.1 ( Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) AHP Helps to Determine Relative Importance 12 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

13 Model Level 1 MobilityTransportabilitySurvivabilityC4IRS/EW Power Management SupportabilityPayload Model Level 2  GVW  Driver Vision  Stability  Speed  HP/ton  Operational Range  CW  Height 76in  Axle Loading  30 min Ready  CREW2.1  SD Weapon  CBRNE  Signature Mgt  Ballistics Protection  C3  SA  Net Security  Bus Architect  Power Buses  OB Power  Export Power  Electrical Storage  RAM  Health Mgt  HFE  O&S Cost  Commonality  Flatrack (3,200 lb)  Cargo (22,000 lb) Model Level 3  Fuel efficiency (ton-mpg)  Fuel Capacity  Armor Protection  LVOSS  Visual signature  Thermal signature  EM signature  Direct Fire  IED  Mine  Anti-tank  Blast Protection Seats  Crush resistant roof Model Level 4  Fuel Specifics  ECU Map Legend: GWV =Gross Vehicle Weight, CW = Curb Weight, C3 = Command, Control, Communications, SD = Self-Defense, SA = Situational Awareness, OB = On- Board, DVE = Driver Vision Enhancer, CBRNE = Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear Effects, IED =Improvised Explosive Device, LVOSS = Light Vehicle Obscuration Smoke System, LCC = Life Cycle Cost, UPC = Unit Production Cost Requirements Model Breakdown 13 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

14 Combinatorial Trade Study- Requirements Importance Level 1 Requirements – Per Customer Attribute Weights (weights can be modified for tradeoff purposes) Mobility0.14 Payload0.20 Transportability0.20 Survivability0.10 C4ISR/EW0.13 Power Mgt0.07 Supportability0.16 Total1.00 Notes:If Row and Column are of equal importance then 1; minimize use of 1 If Row more important than Column then 2 If Column more important than Row then 0 Only need to assess White pairs; Gray pairs are diagonal or self-calculated Level 2 Requirements- Mobility GVWDriver VisionRoll StabilityTop SpeedHp/tonOperating RangeWeightingNormalizedGlobal GVW10020030.0830.012 Drive Vision21121290.2500.035 Roll Stability211222100.2780.039 Top Speed00010010.0280.004 Hp/ton21021170.1940.027 Operating Range20021160.1670.023 Totals3610.140 Level 3 Requirements- Operating Range Fuel EfficiencyFuel CapacityArmor ProtectionWeightingNormalizedGlobal Fuel Efficiency10230.3330.0078 Fuel Capacity21250.5560.0130 Armor Protection00110.1110.0026 Totals91.0000.023 Level 4 Requirements- Fuel Efficiency Fuel SpecificsECU MapWeightingNormalizedGlobal Fuel Specifics1230.7500.0058 ECU Map0110.2500.0019 Totals410.0078 Analytical Hierarchy Process Snapshot 14 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

15 There are many customers There are stated and unstated requirements QFD helps to prioritize requirements and their tradeoffs QFD makes invisible requirements and strategic advantages visible QFD helps to define which improvements provide the most gain QFD promotes Team Consensus QFD provides a documented audit trail for decisions Quality Function Deployment (QFD) The “House of Quality” Captures the Voice of the Customer 15 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

16 “House of Quality” Interrelationships between Technologies Technologies (Voice of the Company) Requirements/Desires (Voice of the Customer) Planning Matrix -Requirements Importance -Percent Improvement Desired -Marketing Competition Assessment Relationships between Requirements and Technologies Prioritized Technologies 16 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

17 Two meetings were conducted with shareholders to get consensus on the Powered Trailer “House of Quality” Body of Matrix –Common definition/scope for each requirement and technical attribute agreed to –Reinforced relationship values - by convention: (0-none, 1-weak, 3-moderate, 9-strong) –Recognized the most important associations –Segregated positive and negative correlations, ensured they were mutually exclusive –Achieved Consensus, Consensus, Consensus QFD was finalized via (2) additional WebEx conferences Powered Trailer QFD Analysis 17 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

18 Powered Trailer “House of Quality”

19 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies19

20 (Excludes Technical Difficulty and Cost Factors) QFD Relative Ranking 20 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

21 Combining individual preferences to form a group utility function presents a problem The use of averaged group preference data in product design optimization can lead to erroneous results This problem may not always be self- evident in the analysis of complex systems and products Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem (A Word of Caution!) Provides a Hierarchical Model For Doing Tradeoffs Group Consensus Must Be Reached To Avoid This Problem 21 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

22 Designed for multi-dimensional, non- quantifiable problem complexes Explores boundary conditions Investigates the total set of possible relationships and “configuration” alternatives Rules out alternatives that are inconsistent or incompatible using cross-consistency assessment Morphological Analysis MA Ensures No Alternative is Overlooked 22 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

23 Morphological Field Example: 75 cells or configurations (Zwicky, 1969, p. 118.) 3-Parameters: color, texture, size Color: 5 discrete values: red, green, blue, yellow, brown Texture: 5 discrete values: smooth, serrated, rough, grainy, bumpy Size: 3 discrete values: large, medium, small 23 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

24 MA-Trailer Drive Alternatives No.Vehicle Output Energy Form Trailer DriveConsistency? YES/NO 1Mechanical YES 2MechanicalElectricalNO 3MechanicalHydraulicNO 4MechanicalICENO 5ElectricalMechanicalNO 6Electrical YES 7ElectricalHydraulicNO 8ElectricalICENO 9HydraulicMechanicalNO 10HydraulicElectricalNO 11Hydraulic NO 12HydraulicICENO 13NoneMechanicalNO 14NoneElectricalNO 15NoneHydraulicNO 16NoneICEYES 17NoneHybrid ElectricYES 18NoneHybrid HydraulicYES (5) Drive Alternatives Remain in Trade Space Vehicle Output Energy Form Trailer Drive Type Mechanical Electrical Hydraulic NoneInternal Combustion Engine (ICE) Hybrid Electric Hybrid Hydraulic 24 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies Number of Configurations or Alternatives 4 X 6 = 24 Ruled out Combinations of Output Energy and Hybrid 3 X 2 = 06 18 Alternatives to Investigate→

25 ALT #1 Electric PTO -Electrical Power Take Off provided by the transport ALT #2 HEV -Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle with ICE, generator, and battery pack ALT #3 HHV -Hybrid Hydraulic Vehicle with hydraulic power provided by an ICE driven power pack ALT #4 Mechanical PTO -Mechanical Power Take Off provided by the transport ALT #5 ICE Drive -ICE (210 HP with 340 ft-lb torque) with conventional drive train Powered Trailer Design Concepts ICE = Internal Combustion Engine 25 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

26 395/85 R20 XZL tires Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS) Pneumatic Anti-Lock Brake System (ABS) Serial communications with transport –Control of mobility assist and CTIS –Receipt of trailer health and cargo load status Independent Suspension Trailer bed basic design Features Common To All Concepts 26 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

27 ALT #1 Elect PTOALT #2 HEV ALT #3 HHV ALT #4 Mech PTO ALT #5 ICE Drive Architectural Views for all Five Alternatives Concepts 27 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

28 Physical Characteristics 28 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

29 ALT #1 Elect PTO Components Detail Needed for Credible Cost & Schedule Estimates 29 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

30 Cost Vs Key Requirements Met 30 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

31 Trade Parameters Requirement Weightings Alt #1 Elect PTO Alt #2 HEV Alt #3 HHV Alt #4 Mech PTO Alt #5 ICE Drive Mobility Assist5 | 535435 Self Mobility3 | 305404 Payload4 | 454454 Complexity (RAM) 2 | 442253 Interoperability4 | 434124 Maturity2 | 443255 Commonality3 | 244112 Unit Prod Cost4 | 441153 Weighted Score91 |10398 |10467 | 7486 |105103 |117 Normalized Score 1.36 |1.391.46 |1.411 | 11.28 |1.421.54 |1.58 Comparison of Alternatives Weighting/Scoring 0-5 with 5 Best 31 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

32 Understanding requirements; their relationships, and relative importance: –Tools: RTRM, N2 Diagram, AHP Getting consensus on the best technology options for meeting customer needs: –Tools: QFD (House of Quality) Evaluating alternatives: –Tools: AHP, MA, Architectural Views Selecting the best alternative: –Tools: Trade Study, Sensitivity Analysis SE Tool Usage Summary 32 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

33 SE Process Critical for Providing Best Balanced Solution SE Tools Assist in: –Understanding requirements and their relationships –Getting consensus on which technology options provide the greatest benefits –Assuring no viable alternative is overlooked –Performing meaningful tradeoffs and sensitivity analysis –Making decisions involving multiple attribute criteria Conclusions Capturing the Results in the Requirements Set Reduces Program Execution Risks Go to: for more 33 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

34 Questions ? 34 INCOSE BRIEF @ DRS Technologies

Download ppt "“A Systems Engineering Approach For Balancing Powered Trailer Requirements” Dana Peterson (CSEP Acq) (314) 553-4599."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google