National Defense Industrial Association Research Articles

Visual and passive acoustic observations of blue whale trios from two distinct populations

Visual and passive acoustic observations of blue whale trios from two distinct populations

Version 0.5 of the Proposed INCOSE Systems Engineering Competency Framework

AbstractThis paper presents Version 0.5 of the proposed INCOSE Systems Engineering (SE) Competency Framework. This paper also presents the newly developed competency framework tables along with notional examples and provides a working example of a framework derived competency model for Systems Security Engineering. The competency framework is being developed as an evolution of the current INCOSE United Kingdom (UK) SE Competencies Framework (INCOSE, 2010). The INCOSE Competency Working Group (CWG) is conducting this project in collaboration with the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), SE Division, Education and Training Committee in order to develop a common approach to the definition of an SE Competency Framework.

Differentiating System Architectures: Applying Architecture Measures

AbstractHaving the right system architecture can facilitate system development and help manage life‐cycle costs. The wrong system architecture can make these more challenging because there may be missing program activities to address the key features of the selected architecture. For example, integrated architectures may require more design integration and analysis compared with federated (modular) architectures because of the tight coupling among subsystems. In the extreme case, the wrong architecture can lead to failure to satisfy all the requirements or obviate the possibility of future enhancements.How do we select the right system architecture? Can we differentiate a “good” from a “bad” system architecture, or a “better” vs. a “worse” one? When or why should we prefer “modular”, “open”, “service‐oriented”, or “integrated” as an architecture approach? The answers to such questions can help us with the system design of aircraft, space systems, networks, and other complex systems.This paper applies recent work of the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) and International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) to evaluate examples of system architectures for different life‐cycle criteria. The paper reviews industry standard definitions of “architecture”, identifies the latest industry work on system architecture measurement, and applies the measurements to specific examples of system architectures. From this analysis an analyst can identify “acceptable” and “better” system architectures. It is shown that there is no universal statement of a “better” architecture because most selection criteria are program‐specific.

7.2.2 Developing the Next Generation of the INCOSE Systems Engineering Competency Framework

AbstractThis paper describes the proposed development of an INCOSE Systems Engineering (SE) Competency Framework. This framework will be developed as an evolution of the current INCOSE United Kingdom (UK) SE Competencies Framework (INCOSE, 2010). The INCOSE Competency Working Group (CWG) is conducting this project in collaboration with the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), SE Division, Education and Training Committee to develop a common approach to the definition of an SE Competency Framework.

4.6.1 Affordability Considerations: Cost Effective Capability

AbstractThis paper examines how best to determine the contextual and dynamic attributes of an affordable system. The complexity of the problem cannot be overstated. The affordability trade space is composed of a relational set of attributes that are contextually sensitive; once this set is bounded, the need arises for an implicit comparison to other systems, sub‐systems and components. The problem may be embedded in how systems are designed, how they are governed, and how they are evolved. Considerations are provided to help resolve the complexities involved in identifying and evaluating what an affordable system is.Most of the existing literature is focused on cost comparison or performance comparison of systems separately; the literature which addresses a perspective of how cost and capability of systems can be integrated is found under the disciplines of Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV) and Value Engineering (VE), but appears insufficient in providing an encompassing framework in which to develop a design for affordability trade space. Both of these disciplines may not adequately address the life cycle or temporal dimensions of systems.To address this deficiency, INCOSE and National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) have worked to define affordability, and identify related concerns, through ongoing working groups since late 2009. Both organizations have developed definitions for use in this context. Even though affordability has been defined by NDIA, INCOSE and Military Operations Research Society (MORS), in discussions at the recent MORS Special Meeting on Affordability Analysis – How do we do it? (Oct.2012), the Development Planning Working Group discovered that affordability analysis was contextually‐sensitive, often leading to misunderstanding and fragmented perspectives. Various industry working groups have recommended developing and formalizing affordability analysis processes, including recognizing the difference between cost and affordability analyses… Key insights include the need to consistently define an affordability context, and establish a framework for the appropriate analytic process. They also have determined that accountability for affordability needs to be assigned across the life cycle.System Engineers must understand that the affordability trade space is fluid, an ever changing set of boundaries that evolve as mission needs evolve, and recognize that any affordable solution is essentially a “snapshot” within that trade space at any point in the life of the system.

Developing a Business Case for Systems Engineering

This discusses two efforts to provide quantitative evidence of the impact of Systems Engineering (SE) on project performance. The Previous Study - The NDIA SE Effectiveness Study section presents the results of the 2007 SE Effectiveness Study performed by the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA). The Current Effort - Business Case for Systems Engineering (BCSE) Study section discusses the Business Case for Systems Engineering (BCSE) Study that is currently being performed by NDIA, the IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Society (AESS), and the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) of Carnegie Mellon University.

3.2.1 A Study of Systems Engineering Effectiveness: Building a Business Case for SE

AbstractUnderstanding the value of Systems Engineering (SE) is necessary to justify a project's investment in SE resources and activities. To identify the value of SE, the Systems Engineering Effectiveness Committee (SEEC) of the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), in collaboration with the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), developed and executed a survey of defense industrial contractors. The survey analyzed the relationships between the SE activities applied to individual projects, and performance of those projects. Results of this survey, published in 2007 and 2008[1], indicated strong relationships between many SE efforts applied early in the project and the overall success of the project. Today, NDIA, in collaboration with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Aerospace and Electronic Systems Society (IEEE‐AESS) and SEI, is engaged in extending that study to build a stronger business case for the application of effective SE to product development projects.

NDIA ROI

AbstractThe purpose of the SE Effectiveness Working Group (SEEWG) is to promote effective systems engineering by collecting and analyzing quantitative data on the impact of specific SE processes and practices on project performance. This data will contribute to the development of a stronger business case for systems engineering. The SEEWG is currently collaborating with the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), the IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Society (IEEE‐AESS) and the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) on the “Business Case for SE (BCSE)” project. The BCSE project is conducting a survey of projects across multiple industries and multiple countries to Identify principles and practices PROVEN to provide benefit to projects and programs. The knowledge gained will be used to develop guidance, training, and tools to assist SE practitioners in applying these principles and practices and to assist system acquirers in ensuring that these principles and practices are applied to their projects.

The International Symposium on Ballistics

The International Symposium on Ballistics

National Defense Industrial Association distributed netted anti-submarine warfare systems study

The NDIA Undersea Warfare Division was tasked by the US Navy, Director Sea Shield, OPNAV, N87 to formulate new DNS concepts to hold enemy forces at risk, to secure a friendly maneuver area, and to assure access world‐wide. The new DNS concepts are focused on the Port Egress and Sea Base scenarios, end‐points in the spectrum of ASW operations. The threat comprises a large number of widely dispersed, quiet, diesel‐electric, AIP, and nuclear submarines in the year 2015. The study team established that new DNS concepts derive advanced capability from expansion of four critical DNS functions: Deployment, sensing, communications, and C2. Seven Port Egress and five Sea Base concepts are each described including: An operating concept, identification of critical components, description of capabilities that each concept offers, and a functional binning diagram. The new DNS concepts were ranked and scored on a set of ASW utility attributes specific to either the port egress or sea base scenario. Concepts were evaluated for potential reductions in the detect to engage sequence and enabling technologies were identified. The study summary, conclusions, and recommendations were presented to the Chairman, ASW Cross‐Functional Board, RADM C. Van Mauney on 5 June 2007.

Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMISM): A view from the sponsors

AbstractThe Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMISM) Project is a joint Industry—Government—Software Engineering Institute collaborative effort to develop an enterprise‐wide process improvement product suite based on existing capability models and methods. The Project is sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense as well as by the National Defense Industrial Association Systems Engineering Committee. The first completed CMMISM product suite was released to the public for adoption in December 2000. This paper will describe the origins and rationale for the CMMISM Project, providing significant and detailed background information as well as a snapshot of current status and future plans. It will highlight some of the documented benefits of Capability Maturity Models, with specific focus on software engineering since this is the discipline where the greatest savings have been documented as a result of implementation of process improvement in engineering development. The paper will describe the CMMISM product suite components, and delineats some of the anticipated benefits from CMMISM adoption. Finally, the paper will discuss the CMMISM Version 1.1 update. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Syst Eng 5: 3–6, 2002; DOI 10.1002/sys.10011

Encroachment Impacts on Army Installations and How to Deal with Them

AbstractAt the 27th Environmental Symposium and Exhibition, held recently in Austin, Texas, by the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), Major General Van Antwerp gave a clear and comprehensive presentation on the challenges to Army training and readiness posed by encroachment. This presentation was in line with Army testimony provided to the House Government Reform Committee and the House and Senate committees on the armed services. What follows are the slides and accompanying notes used by General Van Antwerp in his NDIA presentation. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.