Systems Engineering Capability Model Research Articles

2.3.1 Systems Engineering Process Improvement in a Multi‐Model Environment

AbstractThis paper reviews the major steps in the successful effort in reaching Level 3 maturity at Raytheon Falls Church, against the EIA/IS‐731 Systems Engineering Capability Model. This effort was conducted at the same time as other improvement efforts at Raytheon Falls Church, adding to the complexity of the task while providing the opportunity for synergy as well. Key elements associated with process improvement are discussed, including change management activities and their relation to other models for improvement. Finally, these elements are evaluated for application to other process improvement efforts in a multi‐model environment, such as the use of CMMI® and Lean or Six Sigma.

A new approach to generic attributes

AbstractGeneric Attributes (GAs) are measures of process performance introduced by the systems engineering capability model, EIA/IS 731. The systems model defines two GAs—Effectiveness and Value. While the concept of GAs is generally accepted as valid, they have been used very little, due to difficulties in interpretation and appraisal. Revised definitions and a new approach for appraising and using GAs have been developed for the Federal Aviation Administration Integrated Capability Maturity Model® v2.0 (FAA‐iCMM®). The improved approach to Generic Attributes provides the needed clarity and measurement objectivity. Definitions of the iCMM® GAs and their relationship to process model concepts are described in this paper, along with a practical approach to appraising GAs. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 6: 301–308, 2003

2.4.2 New Approach to Generic Attributes

AbstractGeneric Attributes (GAs) are measures of process performance introduced by the systems engineering capability model, EIA/IS 731. The systems model defines two GAs – Effectiveness and Value. While the concept of GAs is generally accepted as valid, they have been used very little, due to difficulties in interpretation and appraisal.Revised definitions and a new approach for appraising and using GAs have been developed for the Federal Aviation Administration Integrated Capability Maturity Model® v2.0 (FAA‐iCMM®). The improved approach to Generic Attributes provides the needed clarity and measurement objectivity. Definitions of the iCMM GAs and their relationship to process model concepts are described, along with a practical approach to appraising GAs.

2.3.2 Lessons Learned for Systems Engineering Capability Assessments

AbstractLockheed Martin Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems‐Akron (NE&SS) has completed a continuous assessment against the Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM), EIA/IS‐731. This assessment was conducted in three stages: Quick Look, Incremental and Final. The Quick Look took several days to conduct. The two year Incremental assessment established the processes to assure compliance with them in the organization. The one week Final assessment validated the Level 3+ capability of the organization. Lessons learned at each assessment stage are applicable to all engineering assessments when evaluated against any type of assessment model. This paper summarizes our assessment process and discusses our lessons learned.Setting out to conduct an assessment and improvement process can be confusing, especially for an organization at lower levels of capability maturity. This paper is focused on planning future assessments by organizations with limited prior assessment experience.

2.3.1 The Impact of CMMI Maturity on Innovation

AbstractThis paper analyzes the impact that increased process maturity has on innovation. The Process Areas (PAs) and Generic Practices (GPs) of the Capability Maturity Model Integration for Systems Engineering / Software Engineering / Integrated Product and Product Development / Supplier Sourcing (CMMI‐SE/SW/IPPD/SS) were each individually assessed for their impact against six key characteristics associated with innovation.The analyses suggest that, on balance, increasing an organization's process maturity in the areas covered by the CMMI has a positive effect on the ability to innovate. Most PAs are either neutral to or have a positive influence on innovation. A few PAs have a negative influence on innovation. The results of this analysis are consistent with a similar analysis that used the EIA/IS‐731 Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM).

EIA IS 731 compared to CMMISM‐SE/SW

AbstractThis paper provides the reader with a high‐level comparison between the Electronic Industries Association (EIA) Interim Standard (IS) 731, the Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM) [G47 Systems Engineering Committee, 1999], and the Capability Maturity Model IntegrationSM (CMMISM) for Systems Engineering (SE) and Software Engineering (SW) [CMMISM Product Development Team, 2000a]. A brief background of the SECM and its contents is provided, followed by a comparison of Focus Areas of the SECM to Process Areas of the CMMISM. Also compared are the Capability Levels and Generic Practices of the two models, and the scoring rules associated with the two respective appraisal methods. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 5: 62–72, 2002; DOI 10.1002/sys.10013

CMMISM transition experiences from an integrated product and process development (IPPD) perspective

AbstractLockheed Martin Systems Integration‐Owego (hereafter referred to as Owego) formalized implementation of Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) in 1994 with the issuance of a policy requiring use of concurrent engineering on every program over $5 million. Since that date, the organization has focused on improving and institutionalizing integrated processes, integrated teams, and integrated tools. Beginning in June 2000, Owego initiated its transition to CMM®IntegrationSM(CMMISM) using the CMMISM‐SE/SW V1.0 model. Transition efforts expanded to include the CMMISM‐SE/SW/IPPD V1.02 model with its release in late 2000. In May 2001, Owego conducted a Standard CMMISM Assessment for Process Improvement (SCAMPISM) as part of the CMMISM Phase II Pilot Program. This paper will detail Owego's journey in deploying IPPD and experiences in transitioning from the Software Capability Maturity Model®(SW−CMM®) and the Systems Engineering Capability Model, Electronics Industries Alliance Interim Standard 731 (EIA/IS‐731) to CMMISM. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Syst Eng 5: 41–51, 2002; DOI 10.1002/sys.10005

7.4.2 EIA/IS‐731 to CMMI – A Guide for Transition

AbstractThe Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMISM) project has integrated the Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW‐CMM®) version 2C, Electronics Industry Alliance (EIA/IS‐731) Systems Engineering Capability Model version 1.0, and the Integrated Product Development Capability Maturity Model (IPD‐CMM) v0.98a. For the systems engineering community that has been using EIA/IS‐731, this integration of CMMs has resulted in many changes to the practices and amount of information contained in the model. The purpose of this paper is to provide guidance for transition to CMMI by describing differences in the models that should be considered in making the transition.

3.5.1 The Taxonomy of Systems Engineering Competency for the New Millennium

AbstractThis paper provides notable results of the continued development The Taxonomy Of Systems Engineering Competency, which is aligned with the EIA/IS 731.1 Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM). The INCOSE Corporate Advisory Board has set a high priority on the development of this Taxonomy, which complements the use of the standard. For an organization to grow in systems engineering capability when implementing the EIA/ IS 731.1 SECM, individuals within that organization must also grow in increasing levels of competency. Key features of the EIA/IS 731.1 SECM, to which the taxonomy is to be aligned, are summarized. A foundation is presented for the development of the taxonomy's architecture, which is comprised of three highly aligned models. Each model is described in terms of its purpose, functions, inputs, and outputs. The basis of the Systems Engineering Competency Model is described in detail. The Taxonomy is linked closely to elements of the EIA/IS 731.1 SECM. An example demonstrates the application of the taxonomy to the development of a set of enabling skills for the conduct of quality management per the EIA/IS 731.1 SECM. The paper concludes with a description of future activities and a clarification of the relationship of this Taxonomy to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge being developed by INCOSE. An appendix at the end of the paper provides a completed example of a set of enabling skills for the conduct of risk management per the EIA/IS 731.1 SECM.

3.5.4 Systems Engineering Capability Model and the Systems Engineering Management Planning Environment

ABSTRACTIntroductionExisting Systems Engineering Tool Environments can be used to automate the systems engineering management planning process compliant with the Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM) contained in EIA‐731.1 and other necessary standards and practices. This paper describes how 3SL's Cradle tool is being used to integrate the planning process, using multiple modeling techniques, while maintaining traceability to IEEE‐1220‐1998, EIA‐632‐1999, the EIA‐731.1 & EIA‐731.2 SECM practices and DoD 5000.2. The result is a management plan that is useful for facilitating the processes in an Integrated Product Team (IPT) environment and foster continuous process improvement.Systems Engineering tool environments are available to create and maintain both the Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) and integrated project databases. Typically, the SEMP and database development activities are disjoint.TopicsThis presentation discusses the dynamics of inserting Systems Engineering Processes into an unstructured IPT environment and how a model‐based SE process was embraced to introduce rigor, improve communications, and enforce design consistency. How this integrated SEMP provides traceability into common capability model practices and Government acquisition practices and results is presented.

3.5.2 Continuous Appraisal Method (CAM)… A New Paradigm for Benchmarking Process Maturity

ABSTRACTThe publication of EIA/IS 731.1 Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM) establishes a standard against which an organization determines its level of process maturity for systems engineering. EIA/IS 731.2 SECM Appraisal Method provides guidance on the conduct of an appraisal using the SECM. The EIA/IS 731.2 method of derterming the process maturity level is based upon the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI) CMM® (Capability Maturity Model) Based Assessment for Internal Process Improvement (CBA IPI) that has been the engineering process maturity appraisal method of choice since its first use in 1994. This paper presents an alternative method for appraising an orgnaization's engineering maturity level—the Continuous Appraisal Method (CAM). CAM provides a significant advantage over the CBA IPI in three areas. First the cost of using CAM is significantly lower than using CBA IPI. Second, CAM allows considerable felexability in scheduling program time during the appraisal. Third, CAM becomes an integral part an organization's process improvement initiative by providing timely feedback on process improvement opportunities.

2.5.1 Tailoring the EIA/IS‐731.2 Questionnaire

AbstractA tailored EIA/IS‐731.2 assessment was performed on an organization responsible for oversight management. This project presented the assessment team with an opportunity to learn more about the EIA/IS‐731.2 Systems Engineering Capability Model Appraisal Method while performing an assessment with limited resources. EIA/IS‐731.2 emphasises tailoring the appraisal method to meet the objectives of the organization being assessed. However, with regard to tailoring the questionnaire, EIA/IS‐731.2 only discusses the selection of the appropriate Focus Areas and the method in which the questionnaire is administered. It is apparent that other types of tailoring could be just as productive to the assessment process. With regard to tailoring the questionnaire, our main objectives were: 1) to make the assessment process more efficient and less cumbersome by decreasing the time spent interpreting questions, and 2) to allow participants to better focus on the real issues by using language familiar to the participants. Tailoring the EIA/IS‐731.2 assessment questionnaire proved to be important to the success of this project. We increased customer satisfaction, decreased the time required for the participants to respond to the questions, and enhanced participant focus during the interview phase of the assessment. This paper discusses several areas in which the questionnaire was tailored for this assessment and the affect the modifications had on the questionnaire and the assessment. Additionally, this paper addresses other areas in which the quesitonnaire can be further tailored in order to increase clarity and succinctness.

9.1 Extending EIA‐731 Systems Engineering Capability Model Appraisal Method for Safety and Tailoring the Method to Yellowstone National Park

AbstractIntegrated safety management requires that safety be integrated with basic management and engineering practices. The objective of this work was to add safety to the EIA‐731 Systems Engineering Capability Model Appraisal Method and thereby gain simultaneous and integrated findings. Safety appraisal information was gleaned from the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior, the Private Sector, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and other sources. This information was cast as a series of maturity‐oriented questions and added to EIA‐731. The integrated questionnaire was then tailored for application at Yellowstone National Park and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Results are not available at this writing due to delays in the scheduling of the appraisal, but will be included in a follow‐up paper. The integrated Safety Systems Engineering Capability Model Appraisal incorporates general safety principles that are applicable to any industry interested in project management, systems engineering and safety.

1 Development of a Skills and Knowledge Taxonomy Aligned with the EIA/IS 731–1 Systems Engineering Capability Model

AbstractThe INCOSE Corporate Advisory Board has set a high priority on the generation of a skills and knowledge taxonomy aligned with the EIA/IS 731–1 Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM). For an organization to grow in systems engineering capability when implementing the EIA/IS 731‐1 SECM, individuals within that organization must also grow in increasing levels of competency. This paper describes the establishment within the INCOSE Technical Board of a special team to generate the needed taxonomy and presents preliminary results of their efforts. A brief account is provided on the general importance of capability models, which establishes a background for this high priority task. Key features of the EIA/IS 731‐1 SECM, to which the taxonomy is to be aligned, are summarized. The development approach for the taxonomy is described. A foundation is presented for the taxonomy's architecture, which is comprised of three highly congruent models. The paper closely ties the taxonomy to elements of the EIA/IS 731‐1 SECM. An example demonstrates the application of the taxonomy to the development of a set of enabling skills for the conduct of risk management per the EIA/IS 731‐1 SECM. The paper concludes with a description of future activities. The completed document will be entitled The Taxonomy Of Systems Engineering Competency, with subtitle Enabling Growth In Systems Engineering Capability Aligned With The EIA/IS 731‐1 Systems Engineering Capability Model.

2 Lessons Learned in Transitioning to EIA/IS 731 from INCOSE SECAM

AbstractIn 1995, Honeywell's Air Transport Systems division began using the INCOSE Systems Engineering Capability Assessment Model (SECAM) as a tool for facilitating Systems Engineering process improvement. The Key Focus Areas of the SECAM were used as a template for organizing the division's standard Systems Engineering process and Systems Engineering Capability Assessments were conducted to measure the completeness and effectiveness of this process. In 1998, the Electronic Industry Alliance released EIA/IS 731, the Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM). Honeywell made the decision to transition to this new standard and conducted a Systems Engineering Capability Assessment using EIA/IS 731. This paper describes the similarities and differences between the two models from the perspective of the user, as well as, the lessons learned in executing the transition.

3 CMMI and Systems Engineering

AbstractIn late 1999 the systems engineering community will be presented with a new process maturity model produced by the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) project. The immediate significance to systems engineers is that the new model offers, for the first time, strong integration and consistency with the Software CMM (SW‐CMM v2). Organizations can choose to use one or more of several highly integrated models – a Systems Engineering CMM, a Software CMM and a Systems + Software CMM.Organizations can further choose to use a continuous or a staged version of each model and be assured of equivalent content. This paper describes the relationship of the new CMMI models to the recently completed EIA/IS 731, Systems Engineering Capability Model, and the potential impacts to systems engineering process appraisal and improvement. An overview of the CMMI models and terminology is provided as a basis for describing the relation to the EIA/IS 731

4 The Impact of Systems Engineering Capability Maturity on Innovation

AbstractThis paper analyzes the impact that increased Systems Engineering process maturity has on innovation. The 19 Functional Areas (FAs) of the EIA/IS‐731.1 Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM) standard were each individually assessed for their quantitative impact against six key characteristics associated with innovation.The results of this analysis suggest that, on balance, increasing one's Systems Engineering maturity has a positive effect on one's ability to innovate. Most FAs are either neutral to or have a positive influence on innovation. A few FAs have a negative influence on innovation. The paper also includes recommendations for standard setting bodies to consider for both process definition and capability assessment.

Managing in an Environment with a Level 1 Customer

AbstractFrequently, a systems development organisation encounters a customer that can be characterised in terms of the Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM) as a Level 1 organisation. The developer must identify that customer as Level 1 early in the project development cycle and manage the project accordingly. Agreement must be reached with the customer as to what is to be built and how the system will be accepted. Requirements and acceptance criteria must be clearly defined and negotiated with the customer.

3.5.4 An Economical Approach to Conducting Assessments of Systems Engineering Capability

ABSTRACTThe INCOSE SECAM and EPIC SE‐CMM have been used to measure systems engineering process or capability maturity within industry and Government. Both models have been the subject of a “merger” effort that resulted in the release in August 1997 of EIA/IS 731–1 Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM), draft Version 0.5; Version 1.0 is expected to be released in the first half of 1998. The “standard” methods of conducting assessments using the first two models (the “merged” model assessment method has not yet been released) is usually of four or five days duration, depending upon the model selected. This length of time presents an economic hardship to many business entities and perturbs the activities of the programs involved for approximately a week. This paper describes a structured, economical approach to conducting assessments in two days. Specific cost savings are presented based upon previously conducted “standard” assessments and more recently conducted “mini‐assessments”, termed “Progress Measures”, using this economical approach. The “mini‐assessment” method, termed a “Progress Measure Assessment Method”, can be used with any of the above three models of systems engineering capability, or concurrently with two or more of them should a business entity desire to assess their systems engineering capability in different ways.

2.5.2 Key Features of the “Merged” EIA/IS 731–1 Systems Engineering Capability Model

ABSTRACTIn the past few years, several models have been developed to measure systems engineering process or capability maturity. Two models, the INCOSE SECAM and EPIC SE‐CMM, have gained a great deal of attention and have been used as source models, along with their application methods, to create a US standard, comprised of a single “merged” model and application method, for measuring and improving systems engineering capability. The “merger” effort has been conducted by the EIA SECM Working Group, which has representation from the EIA, INCOSE, and EPIC and was formed under the auspices of the Electronic Industries Association (EIA). This paper provides key features of the “merged” model, a synopsis of each of the two source models, and relationships between the “merged” model and its two source models. A description is provided of some significant factors affecting the merger effort. The information provided should assist in gaining an understanding of, and in transitioning to, the “merged” model, which is the EIA/IS 731–1 Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM).