1. A framework to assess project technical progress

2.  General Engineering Maturity Measure ◦ A practical measure for Technical development activities ◦ Based on Systems Engineering principals ◦ Provide independent and unambiguous measure of progress  Not subjective estimate of completion  Not CMMI ◦ Measures the activity, not the business

3. ◦ A practical and pragmatic measure for projects and programmes ◦ Scalable across technical problems  With modest tailoring ◦ Easy to deploy  Little training burden  Obvious and intuitive  Driven by existing or easily derived data  From PLM, MBSE and other common SE tools

4.  An evidence based measure of programme maturity ◦ For technical development activities ◦ Provides Evidence based decision making for:  Risk reduction  Resource management  Any programme ◦ Supports unambiguous P3M measures ◦ Great value on large complex programmes  In the context of broader business processes

5.  Widely Applicable ◦ Broader engineering processes ◦ Built on Systems Engineering principals  Reduce dependence on high levels of SE knowledge ◦ Straight forward application against familiar document set ◦ Naturally available from SE tools and techniques  Controlled review points ◦ Unambiguous objective measures ◦ Against planned expectations  Potential for Automation

6.  Derived from the Principals of EPaRT ◦ (Became GEAR)  EPaRT = Engineering Planning and Review Tool ◦ Planning and Review ◦ Status Audit ◦ Progress reporting  GEAR – Guidance to Engineering Activity and Review ◦ Focussed on Engineering artefacts ◦ In a procurement context

7. Objective & Blue-Print Organisation & Governance Stakeholder management Data Management Resource Management Uncertainty (Risk) Management Culture Communication Commercial Management Financial Management Schedule Management Requirements & Acceptance Technology Management Architecture Interfaces Supply Management Safety & Security Production Integration Sustainment & Environment Verification & Validation Deliverables Decision Processes Customer Business Poj/Prog Man Engineering Development of business GEMM P3M BSM

8.  Enshrined experience of Systems Engineering ◦ A more objective basis of assessment ◦ With recognisable Systems Engineering taxonomy  Based on tangible outputs ◦ Defined metrics ◦ Defined documentation set  Robust, Tailorable and Scalable ◦ Dual Independent measures ◦ Loosely coupled sources ◦ Common Tailoring model

9.  Metrics ◦ That reflect progress against dimension ◦ That are unambiguously measureable ◦ Based on stability (not absolute value)  Documentation ◦ Document status – what documents are expected at reviews ◦ Document Content – how documents reflect to progress  Intuitive to progress ◦ Graphically and logically Open Stable Chilled Frozen Locked

11. Technology and Architecture is more stable than Requirements

17.  Specific Review Agendas ◦ Clarity of expectation at all review ◦ In the same form  Common graphical presentation ◦ Supports immediate planning ◦ Supports trend analysis ◦ Project to project comparison  Connects to Project and Programme Management ◦ Support to Earned Value Management

18.  Unambiguous input to EVM/P3M processes  Traceable evidence based reviews ◦ Removes anecdotal and subjective maturity assessment ◦ Helps identify risks early  Relates to wider business context ◦ Communications… Data Management… Decision Making…

20. Dr Kevin Howard is Engineering Director at Optima Systems Consultancy providing strategic guidance to the business in its application of Systems Engineering across defence and civilian consultancy. He has been Vice President for Systems Engineering at AGT based in Zurich and head of Systems and Sensors for Thales. Kevin is Member of IET and INCOSE, Visiting fellow at Bristol University and a Guest lecturer at Cranfield University. He has reached this position through a practical engineering route in positions of Chief Engineer for various major programmes across defence and civilian world including armoured fighting vehicle, space borne radars, and software data fusion engines. GEMM is based on this pragmatic and practical backdrop to systems engineering approach that is underpinned by a deep understand across a range of technologies from automotive mechanics, through electronics, RF and antennas to pure software. He is a strong proponent of Model Based Systems Engineering and GEMM is closely aligned to a Model Based approach. This is supported by a PhD in optimising complex systems by minimising their entropy.