Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide, Version 1.0

The Systems Engineering Leading Indicators guide set reflects the initial subset of possible indicators that were considered to be the highest priority for evaluating effectiveness before the fact. A leading indicator is a measure for evaluating the effectiveness of a how a specific activity is applied on a program in a manner that provides information about impacts that are likely to affect the system performance objectives. A leading indicator may be an individual measure, or collection of measures, that are predictive of future system performance before the performance is realized. Leading indicators aid leadership in delivering value to customers and end users, while assisting in taking interventions and actions to avoid rework and wasted effort. The Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide was initiated as a result of the June 2004 Air Force/LAI Workshop on Systems Engineering for Robustness, this guide supports systems engineering revitalization. Over several years, a group of industry, government, and academic stakeholders worked to define and validate a set of thirteen indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of systems engineering on a program. Released as version 1.0 in June 2007 the leading indicators provide predictive information to make informed decisions and where necessary, take preventative or corrective action during the program in a proactive manner. While the leading indicators appear similar to existing measures and often use the same base information, the difference lies in how the information is gathered, evaluated, interpreted and used to provide a forward looking perspective

Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide, Version 2.0

The Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide editorial team is pleased to announce the release of Version 2.0. Version 2.0 supersedes Version 1.0, which was released in July 2007 and was the result of a project initiated by the Lean Advancement Initiative (LAI) at MIT in cooperation with: the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), Practical Software and Systems Measurement (PSM), and the Systems Engineering Advancement Research Initiative (SEAri) at MIT. A leading indicator is a measure for evaluating the effectiveness of how a specific project activity is likely to affect system performance objectives. A leading indicator may be an individual measure or a collection of measures and associated analysis that is predictive of future systems engineering performance. Systems engineering performance itself could be an indicator of future project execution and system performance. Leading indicators aid leadership in delivering value to customers and end users and help identify interventions and actions to avoid rework and wasted effort. Conventional measures provide status and historical information. Leading indicators use an approach that draws on trend information to allow for predictive analysis. By analyzing trends, predictions can be forecast on the outcomes of certain activities. Trends are analyzed for insight into both the entity being measured and potential impacts to other entities. This provides leaders with the data they need to make informed decisions and where necessary, take preventative or corrective action during the program in a proactive manner. Version 2.0 guide adds five new leading indicators to the previous 13 for a new total of 18 indicators. The guide addresses feedback from users of the previous version of the guide, as well as lessons learned from implementation and industry workshops. The document format has been improved for usability, and several new appendices provide application information and techniques for determining correlations of indicators. Tailoring of the guide for effective use is encouraged. Additional collaborating organizations involved in Version 2.0 include the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), US Department of Defense Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC), and National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Systems Engineering Division (SED). Many leading measurement and systems engineering experts from government, industry, and academia volunteered their time to work on this initiative

Effective Systems Engineering Training

The need for systems engineering training is steadily increasing, as both the defense and commercial markets take on more complex "systems of systems" work. A variety of universities and commercial training vendors have assembled courses of various lengths, format, and content to meet this need. This presentation looks at the requirements for systems engineering training, and discusses techniques for increasing its effectiveness. Several format and content options for meeting these requirements are compared and contrasted, and an experience-based curriculum is shown

Practicum of Systems Integration in Engineering Education

This project asked engineering students to develop a multi-subsystem design that would produce electricity. Students over the duration of this project learned how to simulate and design systems theoretically using computer tools. Furthermore, students were expected to produce a prototype of their model, thereby self-analyzing the practicality levels and enhancing learning. With the technology available to students advancing, systems integration techniques become more efficient learning experiences to the students. The benefits of systems integration can also be expanded to the professional world these students will soon step into. Therefore, teaching these techniques now will give students a better further insight on real world experience in a classroom setting. When students make the expected leap into the job market, it is important for them to have a solid understanding of system integration and multi-system design. It is this understanding that will make students more desirable to top end employers and set them apart form their peers.Cockrell School of Engineerin

Engineering Crowdsourced Stream Processing Systems

A crowdsourced stream processing system (CSP) is a system that incorporates crowdsourced tasks in the processing of a data stream. This can be seen as enabling crowdsourcing work to be applied on a sample of large-scale data at high speed, or equivalently, enabling stream processing to employ human intelligence. It also leads to a substantial expansion of the capabilities of data processing systems. Engineering a CSP system requires the combination of human and machine computation elements. From a general systems theory perspective, this means taking into account inherited as well as emerging properties from both these elements. In this paper, we position CSP systems within a broader taxonomy, outline a series of design principles and evaluation metrics, present an extensible framework for their design, and describe several design patterns. We showcase the capabilities of CSP systems by performing a case study that applies our proposed framework to the design and analysis of a real system (AIDR) that classifies social media messages during time-critical crisis events. Results show that compared to a pure stream processing system, AIDR can achieve a higher data classification accuracy, while compared to a pure crowdsourcing solution, the system makes better use of human workers by requiring much less manual work effort

Variability and Evolution in Systems of Systems

In this position paper (1) we discuss two particular aspects of Systems of Systems, i.e., variability and evolution. (2) We argue that concepts from Product Line Engineering and Software Evolution are relevant to Systems of Systems Engineering. (3) Conversely, concepts from Systems of Systems Engineering can be helpful in Product Line Engineering and Software Evolution. Hence, we argue that an exchange of concepts between the disciplines would be beneficial.Comment: In Proceedings AiSoS 2013, arXiv:1311.319

Collaborative Verification-Driven Engineering of Hybrid Systems

Hybrid systems with both discrete and continuous dynamics are an important model for real-world cyber-physical systems. The key challenge is to ensure their correct functioning w.r.t. safety requirements. Promising techniques to ensure safety seem to be model-driven engineering to develop hybrid systems in a well-defined and traceable manner, and formal verification to prove their correctness. Their combination forms the vision of verification-driven engineering. Often, hybrid systems are rather complex in that they require expertise from many domains (e.g., robotics, control systems, computer science, software engineering, and mechanical engineering). Moreover, despite the remarkable progress in automating formal verification of hybrid systems, the construction of proofs of complex systems often requires nontrivial human guidance, since hybrid systems verification tools solve undecidable problems. It is, thus, not uncommon for development and verification teams to consist of many players with diverse expertise. This paper introduces a verification-driven engineering toolset that extends our previous work on hybrid and arithmetic verification with tools for (i) graphical (UML) and textual modeling of hybrid systems, (ii) exchanging and comparing models and proofs, and (iii) managing verification tasks. This toolset makes it easier to tackle large-scale verification tasks