Model Based Mission Assurance: NASA's Assurance Future

Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is seeing increased application in planning and design of NASAs missions. This suggests the question: what will be the corresponding practice of Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA)? Contemporaneously, NASAs Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) is evaluating a new objectives based approach to standards to ensure that the Safety and Mission Assurance disciplines and programs are addressing the challenges of NASAs changing missions, acquisition and engineering practices, and technology. MBSE is a prominent example of a changing engineering practice. We use NASAs objectives-based strategy for Reliability and Maintainability as a means to examine how MBSE will affect assurance. We surveyed MBSE literature to look specifically for these affects, and find a variety of them discussed (some are anticipated, some are reported from applications to date). Predominantly these apply to the early stages of design, although there are also extrapolations of how MBSE practices will have benefits for testing phases. As the effort to develop MBMA continues, it will need to clearly and unambiguously establish the roles of uncertainty and risk in the system model. This will enable a variety of uncertainty-based analyses to be performed much more rapidly than ever before and has the promise to increase the integration of CRM (Continuous Risk Management) and PRA (Probabilistic Risk Analyses) even more fully into the project development life cycle. Various views and viewpoints will be required for assurance disciplines, and an over-arching viewpoint will then be able to more completely characterize the state of the project/program as well as (possibly) enabling the safety case approach for overall risk awareness and communication

Model Based Mission Assurance in a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Framework: State-of-the-Art Assessment

This report explores the current state of the art of Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) in projects that have shifted towards Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). Its goal is to provide insight into how NASA's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) should respond to this shift. In MBSE, systems engineering information is organized and represented in models: rigorous computer-based representations, which collectively make many activities easier to perform, less error prone, and scalable. S&MA practices must shift accordingly. The "Objective Structure Hierarchies" recently developed by OSMA provide the framework for understanding this shift. Although the objectives themselves will remain constant, S&MA practices (activities, processes, tools) to achieve them are subject to change. This report presents insights derived from literature studies and interviews. The literature studies gleaned assurance implications from reports of space-related applications of MBSE. The interviews with knowledgeable S&MA and MBSE personnel discovered concerns and ideas for how assurance may adapt. Preliminary findings and observations are presented on the state of practice of S&MA with respect to MBSE, how it is already changing, and how it is likely to change further. Finally, recommendations are provided on how to foster the evolution of S&MA to best fit with MBSE

Software for Optimizing Quality Assurance of Other Software

Software assurance is the planned and systematic set of activities that ensures that software processes and products conform to requirements, standards, and procedures. Examples of such activities are the following: code inspections, unit tests, design reviews, performance analyses, construction of traceability matrices, etc. In practice, software development projects have only limited resources (e.g., schedule, budget, and availability of personnel) to cover the entire development effort, of which assurance is but a part. Projects must therefore select judiciously from among the possible assurance activities. At its heart, this can be viewed as an optimization problem; namely, to determine the allocation of limited resources (time, money, and personnel) to minimize risk or, alternatively, to minimize the resources needed to reduce risk to an acceptable level. The end result of the work reported here is a means to optimize quality-assurance processes used in developing software

Enabling Assurance in the MBSE Environment

A number of specific benefits that fit within the hallmarks of effective development are realized with implementation of model-based approaches to systems and assurance. Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) enabled by standardized modeling languages (e.g., SysML) is at the core. These benefits in the context of spaceflight system challenges can include: Improved management of complex development, Reduced risk in the development process, Improved cost management, Improved design decisions. With appropriate modeling techniques the assurance community can improve early oversight and insight into project development. NASA has shown the basic constructs of SysML in an MBSE environment offer several key advantages, within a Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA) initiative

Fusing Quantitative Requirements Analysis with Model-based Systems Engineering

A vision is presented for fusing quantitative requirements analysis with model-based systems engineering. This vision draws upon and combines emergent themes in the engineering milieu. “Requirements engineering” provides means to explicitly represent requirements (both functional and non-functional) as constraints and preferences on acceptable solutions, and emphasizes early-lifecycle review, analysis and verification of design and development plans. “Design by shopping” emphasizes revealing the space of options available from which to choose (without presuming that all selection criteria have previously been elicited), and provides means to make understandable the range of choices and their ramifications. “Model-based engineering” emphasizes the goal of utilizing a formal representation of all aspects of system design, from development through operations, and provides powerful tool suites that support the practical application of these principles. A first step prototype towards this vision is described, embodying the key capabilities. Illustrations, implications, further challenges and opportunities are outlined

A Framework for Reliability and Safety Analysis of Complex Space Missions

Long duration and complex mission scenarios are characteristics of NASA's human exploration of Mars, and will provide unprecedented challenges. Systems reliability and safety will become increasingly demanding and management of uncertainty will be increasingly important. NASA's current pioneering strategy recognizes and relies upon assurance of crew and asset safety. In this regard, flexibility to develop and innovate in the emergence of new design environments and methodologies, encompassing modeling of complex systems, is essential to meet the challenges

IMAGINE—IMpact Assessment of Guidelines Implementation and Education : The Next Frontier for Harmonising Urological Practice Across Europe by Improving Adherence to Guidelines

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 European Association of UrologyAdherence to national and international clinical practice guidelines is suboptimal throughout Europe. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office project “IMAGINE” (IMpact Assessment of Guidelines Implementation and Education) has been developed to measure baseline adherence to urological guideline recommendations across Europe and to identify issues that drive nonadherence.Non peer reviewe

Optimizing the Design of Spacecraft Systems Using Risk as Currency

Abstract-Treating risk as a "currency" has proven to be key in systematically optimizing the design of spacecraft systems. This idea has been applied in the design of individual components of spacecraft systems, and in the end-to-end design of such systems. The process, called "Defect Detection and Prevention" (DDP), its tool support, and applications, are described in We are now extending this process to include consideration of architectural alternatives, qualification of components, fabrication and assembly, integration and test, and mission operation. The results of applying this extended process in the pre-formulation, formulation and implementation phases of various NASA and other government agency missions will be discussed. This paper will also discuss the results of developing optimized technology development and qualification plans

Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Assessment

The Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Project requested the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) conduct an independent evaluation of the Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) models used in the latest JPSS MMOD risk assessment. The principal focus of the assessment was to compare Orbital Debris Engineering Model version 3 (ORDEM 3.0) with the Meteoroid and Space Debris Terrestrial Environment Reference version 2009 (MASTER-2009) and Aerospace Debris Environment Projection Tool (ADEPT) and provide recommendations to the JPSS Project regarding MMOD protection. The outcome of the NESC assessment is contained in this report

A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials

Objective: To develop a core outcome set (COS) applicable for effectiveness trials of all interventions for localised prostate cancer. Background: Many treatments exist for localised prostate cancer, although it is unclear which offers the optimal therapeutic ratio. This is confounded by inconsistencies in the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials. Subjects and methods: A list of 79 outcomes was derived from a systematic review of published localised prostate cancer effectiveness studies and semi-structured interviews with 15 prostate cancer patients. A two-stage consensus process involving 118 patients and 56 international healthcare professionals (HCPs) (cancer specialist nurses, urological surgeons and oncologists) was undertaken, consisting of a three-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face consensus panel meeting of 13 HCPs and 8 patients. Results: The final COS included 19 outcomes. Twelve apply to all interventions: death from prostate cancer, death from any cause, local disease recurrence, distant disease recurrence/metastases, disease progression, need for salvage therapy, overall quality of life, stress urinary incontinence, urinary function, bowel function, faecal incontinence, sexual function. Seven were intervention-specific: perioperative deaths (surgery), positive surgical margin (surgery), thromboembolic disease (surgery), bothersome or symptomatic urethral or anastomotic stricture (surgery), need for curative treatment (active surveillance), treatment failure (ablative therapy), and side effects of hormonal therapy (hormone therapy). The UK-centric participants may limit the generalisability to other countries, but trialists should reason why the COS would not be applicable. The default position should not be that a COS developed in one country will automatically not be applicable elsewhere. Conclusion: We have established a COS for trials of effectiveness in localised prostate cancer, applicable across all interventions which should be measured in all localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials