Armand J. Chaput

1. Practical application of Systems Engineering fundamentals to aircraft design – What should our TC do? • Armand J. Chaput • Adjunct Professor, Unmanned Air System (UAS) Design, University of Texas at Austin • Emeritus, Senior Tech Fellow, LM Aero • 15 April 2011  Armand J. Chaput 2011

2. Somewhere around mid-career I finally got it - System Engineering had value for design engineers I started carrying Mil-Std 499 around in my design notebook and advocated SE as something that my design engineers needed to know  Armand J. Chaput 2011

3. Somewhere south of mid-career Systems Engineering took off in another direction The MIL-STD 499 focus on engineering principles drifted off into territory that had more in common with program and business principles – hard-nosed engineering lost focus at the system level  Armand J. Chaput 2011

4. About the same time Aerospace and Defense (A&D) program performance started going south And we have to at least consider the possibility that loss of engineering discipline at the system level was a contributor  Armand J. Chaput 2011

5. Because we are a well-documented contributor to the problem And Aerospace Engineering does not get an exemption  Armand J. Chaput 2011

6. A systems engineering perspective1 1 From Figure 1: Project Performance Versus Systems Engineering Capability, Executive Summary, A Survey of Systems Engineering Effectiveness - Initial Results, SPECIAL REPORT, Revision 1,CMU/SEI-2007-SR-014November 2007 Systems engineering (SE) enhances PSuccess but PFailure remains uncomfortably high  Armand J. Chaput 2011

7. More data behind the Issue From Figure 59: Relationship Between Overall Systems Engineering Capability and Project Performance (Perf Versus SEC) controlled by Project Challenge (PC), Executive Summary, A Survey of Systems Engineering Effectiveness - Initial Results, SPECIAL REPORT, Revision 1,CMU/SEI-2007-SR-014November 2007 Too many “High Challenge” aerospace and defense (A&D) projects perform poorly and the cause is not SE capability  Armand J. Chaput 2011

8. Systemic issues Most assessments focus on programmatic issues, e.g.2 • Move Forward Without Proper Knowledge of Requirements, Technology, Design, and Manufacturing Processes • Don’t Match Product Requirements with Resources • Move into System Demonstration and Production without Achieving Design Stability • Enter Production without Demonstrating Acceptable Manufacturing Processes and Weapon System Performance • Absence of Disciplined Systems Engineering Practices • Unexecutable Business Cases, etc. I think there is something else – an educational deficiency • Too many Design Engineers don’t understand SE • Too many SEs don’t understand Design Engineering • Too many design engineers lack multi-discipline knowledge 2 Michael J. Sullivan, Director Acquisition and Sourcing Management, GAO, April 2008 If so and if we don’t bridge the educational gaps, A&D “Project Performance” will stay in the cellar  Armand J. Chaput 2011

9. Personal assessment – Most AE graduates are clueless about Systems Engineering Not part of most curricula - Most professors don’t teach it - Most professors don’t understand it AE undergraduates get top-level exposure • Pictures (SE “V”, etc.) and buzzwords • Little substance - like how you technically deal with and manage requirements; the difference between “Test and Evaluation” and the euphoria of first flight AE graduate programs aren’t much better - Most leave with little more understanding of SE than they had as undergraduates When graduates report to work, many go straight to projects • The days when entry level engineers went to functional groups to learn the ropes are gone (from my experience) • What they used to learn about SE from Engineering Chiefs and mentors is now packaged as compliance training  Armand J. Chaput 2011

10. Example – SE integrated with air vehicle design(2 semester approach) Systems Engineering fundamentals (basic knowledge) - Requirements - development, documentation and management • System integration - Configuration control, Interface definition, Trade studies, Risk assessment - Test and Evaluation - Flight test planning, flight testing and data analysis - Technical management - Program planning, task/schedule assignment and tracking, budget management and tracking, technical decision making Air Vehicle Design fundamentals (deeper knowledge) - Vehicle requirements - Parametric design/analysis - Aero - Propulsion • Mass properties • Airframe structures • Stability and control • Configuration design and integration - Vehicle performance - Trade studies and vehicle optimization  Armand J. Chaput 2011

11. Example – SE integrated with air vehicle design System Design fundamentals (basic knowledge) - System requirements - Overall system architecture • Mission design and analysis • Sortie rate assessment • Sensor sizing and performance • Communication sizing and performance - Air vehicle integration (from system perspective) • Trade studies and system optimization • Reliability (requirements) and Maintainability (e.g. MMH/FH) • Overall system performance (Psuccess) Other ? - How would you (or your organization) rate the importance of in these subjects for entry level AEs? - What’s missing  Armand J. Chaput 2011

12. What could TC members do?  Armand J. Chaput 2011

13. What else TC members could do  Armand J. Chaput 2011