Systems Engineering has become synonymous with the office of Chief Engineer throughout the Department of Defense (DOD). This recognizes the breadth of influence that system level attributes have on the ultimate suitability and effectiveness for the completed system. The Chief Engineer acts as a conductor to orchestrate the coordination, communication, and design maturity across subsystems. He must assume the role of system architect and engineering program manager to ensure work packages and resources are correctly scheduled to support efficient development of the complete product design. The Chief Engineer will adapt and translate his technical management of the developing system into the program manager's business environment. The progressive architecting of the system needs to be documented in a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) owned by both engineering and management. The Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) should not contain "long-bar" representations of design tasks, but a more detailed critical path that documents the serial and parallel engineering tasks to complete the design. This paper will discuss the application of a strong Systems Engineering Technical Review (SETR) process which supports technical oversight of the program. The SETR process is an integrated, disciplined framework to monitor translation of capabilities to engineering requirements, system and software architecting, detailed design, engineering and operational test, and the fielding of systems. The individual reviews which constitute the SETR process are conducted by senior engineers with the experience to identify approaches which contain inherently high risk. The SETR process is adaptive, flexible, and tailorable to the system and management constraints which are unique to the individual program. Proper application of the SETR to individual programs provides an efficient framework for oversight yielding an objective evaluation of program risk.The constituent reviews of the SETR process are identified and described in the context of the maturing design. Initial reviews are designed to translate required capabilities into the world of technology. This requires an understanding of the current state of technology andthe pace of technology development. Since major system development can take years to decades, baselining system development to current technology results in the fielding of conservatively achievable design that potentially imbeds obsolete architecture when finally fielded. Early reviews are used to define the realm of the possible in engineering language while keeping pace with a reasonable rate of developing technology. Once the performance at delivery is properly defined, Human-Systems Integration (HIS), a fundamental and essential function of engineering, is pursued. Functional identification within a defined concept of operations (CONOPS) translates capabilities to functions. Finally, these functions are assigned to the physical world and a system is completed architected and ready for detailed design. Too often, the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) which is used to evaluate the work done culminating in a physical design is incomplete. A virtual design that is unbalanced or unachievable within technological and programmatic constraints is allowed to proceed to detail design. The eventual result is performance shortfalls, cost and schedule growth, or both.A failure to understand the true nature of the SETR process, especially the initial reviews culminating in PDR, fosters an environment that encourages program management to disregard the fundamental pursuit of knowledge and risk characterization provided by the process. An improper characterization of SETR reviews as burdensome, time consuming and rigid leads to an undisciplined process with improper tailoring of review criteria. The worst possible situation is when subsystem reviews are substituted for a complete system review. In this popular tailoring method, a complete look supported by underlying system level analysis is not achieved.Finally, an improper use of the SETR process as a gating mechanism forcing all elements of design to proceed in lockstep degrades the usefulness and effectiveness of the reviews.This paper will explain the correct understanding and the use of SETR reviews to support efficient program management. As a tool to evaluate design maturity and risk identification, the SETR process supports program management of complex weapon systems.
展开▼
