1. Systems Engineering Case Studies
Charles M. Garland
Air Force Center for Systems Engineering
(937) x3368
Dr John Colombi
Dept of Systems and Engineering Mgt
Air Force Institute of Technology
October 3, 2008

2. Agenda Air Force Center for Systems Engineering Case Studies
Case Framework/ Approach
Learning Principles
Teaching Systems Engineering Cases

3. Air Force Center for
Systems Engineering

4. AF CSE Vision and Mission
Vision: Become a national center of excellence for systems engineering, from theory to application, for the defense community.
Mission: Shape the future of systems engineering in the AF and DoD to improve our ability to deliver war-fighting capabilities. We will accomplish this by conceptualizing new processes, practices, tools, and resources for the SE workforce through research, education, and consultation.

5. for Systems Engineering
AF CSE Leadership
Director
Mr. George Mooney
Deputy Director
Technical Director
Col. John Camps
Mr. G. Richard Freeman
Education &
Training Division
Applications &
Development Division
Curriculum Chair
for Systems Engineering
Maj. Jeffrey Havlicek
Mr. Mike Ucchino
Dr. David Jacques

6. Systems Engineering Case Studies
Began under the academic oversight of a Subcommittee on Systems Engineering to the Air University Board of Visitors
Chaired by Air Force Chief Scientist Dr. Alex Levis
Selected four programs for initial case studies (Hubble Space Telescope, Theater Battle Management Core System, F-111, and C-5)
AF CSE Strategic Plan for Case Studies
Five year plan updated every three years
Identified, evaluated, and prioritized candidate programs

7. Completed Case Studies
Hubble Space Telescope
GPS (Global Positioning System)
F-111 Aardvark
The first 4 covered various domains of applying systems engineering and perhaps captured the unique characteristics of those domains
C-5 large mobility aircraft
F-111 Joint Navy and Air Force multi-role fighter
TBMCS is a Command and Control software-intensive systems
Hubble examined a precision electronic-optical space systems
B-2
C-5 Galaxy
TBMCS (Theater Battle Management Core Systems)
Peacekeeper Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
A-10

8. International Space Station
Ongoing & Future
Case Studies
International Space Station
MH-53J/M Helicopter
E-10
on contract
underway
FY09 Option
FY10 Option
Global Hawk
KC-135 Simulators
T-6A Texan II
Other domains include commercial aircraft, rotorary wing, simulators and unmanned air vehicles
on contract
underway
FY09 Option
underway

9. Friedman-Sage Framework
Based on student heuristics, developed by:
Dr George Friedman: University of Southern California
Dr Andy Sage: George Mason University
Comprised of 9 concept domains (rows) & 3 responsibility domains (columns)
Rows represent phases in SE life cycle & necessary process and systems management support
Columns depict responsibilities from both sides of the program (industry and government)
Derived into matrix - Identifies learning principles
Used to organize the case writing
First 6 concept domains (rows) deal w/ life cycle, last 3 with SE processes.
* Case Studies of Systems Engineering and Management in Systems Acquisition.
Systems Engineering, Vol.7, No. 1, 2004

10. Friedman-Sage Framework

11. Peacekeeper Learning Principles

12. Peacekeeper LP1
Development commands must manage their technology base to optimize progress over several programs.
Ballistic Missile Office (BMO) developed and managed a technology base that spanned several programs
Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, Peacekeeper and Small ICBM
This matured technologies such as:
Solid rocket propellants
Nozzle manufacture
Liquid fueled engines
Guidance systems
During this period of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) development, Ballistic Missile Office (BMO) was able to develop and manage a technology base that spanned several programs. BMO and its predecessors began developing technologies with the Atlas system that continued through the Titan, Minuteman, Peacekeeper and Small ICBM. This included technologies such as:
solid rocket propellants,
nozzle manufacture,
liquid fueled engines,
and guidance systems.

13. GPS Learning Principles
The 4 GPS learning principles are mapped in the matrix.

14. GPS Learning Principle 2
The systems integrator must rigorously maintain program baselines
Joint Program Office (JPO) retained the role of managing and controlling the systems specification
This allowed control of functional baseline
JPO derived and constructed an “agreed-to” set of systems requirements that became the program baseline
Performance/Risk/Cost trade studies against functional baseline
Interface Control Working Group managed the functional requirements of the allocated baseline
Processes gave JPO first-hand knowledge and insight into risks at lowest level
JPO had resources to be the system integrator. That might not be the case in today’s environment.
Some government programs do not have the staff to be the system integrator. In the case of the prime (or FFRDC) contractor serving as the system integrator, the government must maintain control of the system baseline. It is incumbent upon the government to have keen insight (not just oversight) into the contractor'

15. Hubble Learning Principles
The 4 GPS learning principles are mapped in the matrix.

16. Hubble Learning Principle
For complex programs, the number of players (government and contractor) demands that the program be structured to cope with high risk factors in many management and technical areas
Contractors Lockheed (LMSC) and Perkin-Elmer (P-E) “owned” very significant and unique program risk areas
LM was the overall integrator
P-E was the technical expert in the critical optical system
Lack of insight into quality assurance led directly to the primary mirror defects, in spite of substantial evidence otherwise
JPO had resources to be the system integrator. That might not be the case in today’s environment.
Some government programs do not have the staff to be the system integrator. In the case of the prime (or FFRDC) contractor serving as the system integrator, the government must maintain control of the system baseline. It is incumbent upon the government to have keen insight (not just oversight) into the contractor'

17. Synopsis of Learning Principles
Created as a reference tool for practitioners
Categorizes LPs
Consider adopting the approach highlighted
Problem to be avoided
Will be updated as more case studies are completed

18. Learning Principle Distribution

19. Case Study Availability

20. Case Study Audience?
Support teaching of Systems Engineering principles
Systems engineering/ programmatic decisions
Operational effectiveness
Processes, principles, tools
Decision material
Highlight the importance of skills from multiple functional areas, including multiple engineering disciplines
Audience – students in a classroom?
Audience – practitioners (engineers/management) throughout the organization?
Can a single case address both?

21. SE Case Study Format Format is different for the audience Students
Typical Harvard Business School case
Chronologic story emphasizing decision making
Shorter length of typically pages
No “answers”, guided discussion and personal discovery
Practitioners
Executive Summary
Detailed treatment of Systems Engineering activity
What to avoid - What to emphasize/apply
We attempt to blend both

22. SE Case Study Format For Practitioners (Part 1)
Executive Summary
Description of the Learning Principles
Students (Case Body Part 2)
Systems Engineering Intro/ Appropriate guidance
System Description
Detailed Chronology
Insightful Questions
Appendix Material -Trade studies, reviews,
Requirements, architecture, other analysis

23. Case Study Scope Need to understand scope as key controlling factor
Time/ Schedule
Total Resources
Outline/ Page Allocation
Scope! Focus on 4-6 LP
Apply a framework
Assessment
Reference

24. Success
Don’t confuse operational system success with systems engineering success
C-5 example:
Heavy-lift aircraft capable of carrying multiple tanks and related equipment
Maximum take-off Gross Weight over 764,000 lbs!
Unique front and aft ramps facilitate easy drive-on, drive-off loading of military vehicles and equipment
Accomplishes tasks that no other military aircraft can

25. C-5 Success Synopsis
So while a very successful operational aircraft, but
LP #2. Total Package Procurement Concept (TPPC) was a fixed-price, incentive fee contract strategy for the design, development, and production of 58 aircraft.
Invented to control cost growth – underlying cause for overruns
LP #3. A Weight Empty Guarantee was included in the specification and in the contract as a cost penalty for each delivered overweight aircraft.
Contract Penalty: $10,000 per pound per delivered aircraft
Dominated the traditionally balanced requirements resulting in a major shortfalls in wing and pylon fatigue life
Negative effects of forcing (out-of-balance) one system parameter
Trend in forcing an aircraft from “nominal” weight
LP #1. Systems requirements need to integrate the User (warfighter), planners, developers, and technologists in a coordinated, well-balanced, well-understood set of requirements, which remain unchanged throughout the program.
LP #2. Total Package Procurement Concept (TPPC) employed by the Gov’t was a fixed-price, incentive fee contract for the design, development, and production of 58 aircraft. This contract strategy was invented to control costs but it was the underlying cause for the overrun.
LP #3. A Weight Empty Guarantee was included in the specification as a performance requirement and in the contract as a cost penalty for each delivered overweight aircraft. This aircraft Weight Empty Guarantee dominated the traditional balanced aircraft performance requirements and resulted in a major shortfalls in the wing and pylon fatigue life.
LP #4, Independent Review Teams (IRTs). The Air Force C-5 Systems Program Office employed Independent Review Teams (IRTs) to assemble the national experts to examine the program and provide recommendations to the government. These problem-solving teams were convened to garner the best advice in particular technical areas; structures design, structures technology, and designs to achieve useful service life.

26. Insight into TPM (Weight)
Expected weight trend

27. Teaching* How best to teach (Systems Engineering)?
Wrong question
How best do students learn?
Student centered
Discussion based
Active Learning
*Participant Centered Learning and the Case Method, Harvard Business School Publishing

28. Participant Centered Learning
Harvard Business School Participant-Centered Learning and the Case Method
Typically a class will cover a 2-3 key points (LPs)
No Lecturing
Students don’t have the LPs… need to discovery as a class
Students must apply course material together with experience
Listen to other students
Professor will elicit student participation
“How do you know that …?”
“What do you think about …?” “Why?”
Professor questions, listens and responds
Organize responses, ask more questions, summarize

29. Summary
Feedback suggests these can be very effective to support Graduate and Continuous Learning courses
Provide real-world, well-known examples
Target an organization / domain
DoD examples for DoD students
NASA examples for NASA students
Provide for practitioners and resident students
Use a student-led Case Study pedagogical approach