April: INCOSE WMA Newsletter

8/9/2019 April: INCOSE WMA Newsletter

1/4

INCOSE WMA NewsletterApril 2010

I N S I D E T H I S I S S U E

1 Presidents Word

1 Upcoming Events

1-2 Language the Program

3 Whats in it for You

4 May Overview

4 Building your CONOPS

Presidents Word

First, I would like to extend my apology for missing

the meeting. I care too much for our members

health and well-being to attend the meeting under

the weather. However, I did hear that everything

went well and that we were able to over the

challenges from the previous month. Now it is

official, Experiment Trial #2 was a success.

I look forward to seeing everyone at the next

meeting.

Sincerely,

Steven H. Dam

INCOSE WMA President

Upcoming Events

May

May 11th: Monthly Meeting @ Brio

Join Lesley Painchaud for a presentation on

Implementing the Net-Ready Key PerformanceParameter. Defense programs that need to

connect to the network are required to meet net-

readiness requirements, to include Net-Ready Key

Performance Parameter (NR-KPP) compliance.

6:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. @ the Brio Tuscan Grille

Banquet Room, 7854L Tysons Corner Center

McLean, VA.

Language the Program

Author: Jorg Largentwith inputs from James R. van

Gaasbeek

INCOSE Fellow Jack Ring has been cited as a

source of some insight into the challenge. An

observation attributed to Mr. Ring is that he has, on

several occasions, defined the systems engineers

job as:1. Language the program2. Define the problem3. Drive the development effort to a balanced

solution

4. Show the customer that what you delivered


2/4

2

is what he or she thought he or she was

buying.

The first item is critical to reduce the confusion

and babble when you have a multi-part customer

(joint programs) and numerous other

stakeholders. It is also critical within the contractor

community. Remember also that he who defines

the terms of the argument controls the argument.

Words have meaning, and it helps to have a

common understanding.

One of the INCOSE working groups, focusing on

how best to support a particular industry, is

addressing the language the program challenge

and is developing an answer tailored to the needs

of that industry. An inquiry for suggestions fromoutside that industrys community prompted a

response with two points of note:

1. Rather than looking to other systemsengineers to develop the message, perhaps

soliciting the input from those in the

community will yield a more compelling

one.

2. In order to be understood, the messageneeds to be in the language of thecustomer. The message should be based on

his or her needs and crafted in their

terminology.

Very little, if any, scientific data-gathering and

analysis are needed to recognize the vulnerability

any activity involving two or more people has to

misunderstanding due to a lack of mutual

understanding at the onset. The relationship is

axiomatic. Given that language the program is

important as the first step in communicating the

systems engineering process, the question

becomes, What does it look like?

The message should be crafted in thelanguage of the project.

The language should facilitate defining theproblem, driving the development effort

to a balanced solution, and managing

customer expectations.

So while the importance of language the

problem is axiomatic, the discussion above

provides no clear definition of the qualifications

of a systems engineer to meet the challenge, nor

does it include any metrics to measure the

challenge. For example: Would one metric be that

only those immersed in the community convey

the systems engineering message in the language

of the project? And if so, how would a systems

engineer qualify for the role on a complex projectinvolving multiple communities (manufacturing

facilities, operational facilities, training of

producers, users and maintainers, operations,

maintenance, et al).

The discussion above is not comprehensive.

Rather it is intended to provide a snapshot of one

of the challenges faced by those of us in the

systems engineering profession. Comments and

differing perspectives are welcome. Please sendyour comments to Jorg Largent at

[email protected].

Reprinted courtesy of the Los Angeles INCOSE

Chapter.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/4

3

Whats in It for You: to our Military and

Government MembersAuthor: L.Nasta, INCOSE-WMA Director

Therefore, we have shared feedback from last yearsmember survey with our members in the March Monthly

Meeting, and of course, your Board of Directors has been

busily working to try and figure out the best ways to make

chapter activities engaging for ALL our members. But what

many of you might not know is we also have metrics on the

makeup of our membership. While a large proportion

comes from the contracting/consulting community, and

from academia, there is a sizable contingent representing

most all branches of the services and of course government

civilians. However, we have noticed that among

participants at monthly meetings, and in tutorials, the

participation from this group is typically quite low. So I set

out to try and investigate why (in a perfectly non-scientificway), and add some theories of my own based on my many

years in the chapter and general observations as a

contractor working for government and military clients

(again non-scientific).

Therefore, I decided to interview a government civilian

staffer at one of our Intelligence Agencies who is a dues-

paying member, and ask him whats up? (his identify will

remain a secret just to keep you guessing). I uncovered no

real deep dark secret as to why his participation was low to

non-existent to date, with the possible exception of the

fact that he has had no real incentive from his employer(i.e. the government agency) to engage in INCOSE or

INCOSE-related training. As this individual was a contractor

for a number of years before he went government, he

noted his association with INCOSE actually predated his

government hire. However, he was able to identify that his

former employer (Northrop Grumman) actively promoted

participation in INCOSE and in becoming certified as a

systems engineer. (Northrop Grumman has an active

training program to encourage their staff to get the CSEP,

as does other contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton.) He

noted he was encouraged to take courses at DAU (for

DAWIA certification), and participate in college

cohort/master program for SE but that INCOSE was not

noted as a training resource. On a more personal note, he

did indicate he lived in MD and was more likely inclined not

to participate due to timing/location than anything else.

His former points seem to align more with my own

observations, to wit:

private employers are much more likely toencourage/require their staff members to

participate in INCOSE and INCOSE activities such

as the meetings and tutorials because: 1) CSEPs

help them win proposals; 2) tutorials offered by

INCOSE cover relevant SE topics and are typically

significantly less expensive then commercial

courses.

While government managers/supervisors knowabout DAU and DAWIA certification, they know

less about the content/basis for the INCOSE

certifications because it is not publicized or

socialized enough in the government spaces or

even by DAU. (Did you know that government staff

who has successfully passed the CSEP-Acquisition

exam can waive two required DAU courses

towards DAWIA certification?)

Many military services and government agenciesdevelop their own in-house training and mandateit for staff rather then utilize training/education

that may already be readily

available andaffordable and (potentially) more

leading edge then what they offer internally.

Maybe this could even save taxpayer dollarsheh,

maybe someone should do a study?

We (the collective INCOSE we and the Chapterwe) need to communicate the value

proposition ofINCOSE-WMA Monthly Meetings

and Tutorials better and using other

communication methods and modes to our

military and government members.

I hope that this article is a step in the right direction, and it

will garner your attention (if not a chuckle here and there).

We would love to hear from you. Therefore, it is your turn;

please feel free to send the Board your comments in reply

to this article.


4/4

4

For more information on INCOSE WMA, please visitwww.incose-wma.org

Building your Concept of Operations

Author: Dr. Steven H. Dam, WMA Chapter President

One of the lost arts in Systems Engineering is the

development and use of the Concept of Operations

(CONOPS). Dr. Steven Dam along with Dr. DineshVerma authored a chapter on this subject in a recent

Joint DoD/NASA-sponsored book entitled Applied

Space Systems Engineering.

Dr. Dam will use this text and recent experience in

developing CONOPS for the Department of Defense to

discuss how to develop a CONOPS using architectures

and scenarios.

This tutorial will discuss how to:

1) Validate the mission scope and the systemboundary;

2) Describe the operational environment, andprimary constraints and drivers;

3) Develop key operational scenarios, andassociated timelines;

4) Synthesize, analyze, and assess keyimplementation concepts;

5) Validate and baseline the operationalarchitecture for the system of interest; and

6) Document and iterate through Architectureand the DoD Architecture Framework.

Come participate in this dynamic and interesting

tutorial.

May Presentation OverviewImplementing the Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter

Presenter: Lesley Painchaud, CV Chapter President

Defense programs that need to connect to the networkare required to meet net-readiness requirements, to

include Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-

KPP) compliance. Programs have generally had

difficulty in developing derived requirements from the

NR-KPP Compliance Statement.

The Navys Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-

KPP) Implementation Guidebook, developed by the

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN)

(Research, Development, and Acquisition (RDA)) Chief

Systems Engineer (CHSENG), clarifies the definitions of

net-readiness and the NR-KPP. It also describes arefined NR-KPP Compliance Statement that programs

can use as a template for their derived NR-KPP

requirements. This Guidebook provides Program

Managers, Systems Engineers, and Test Engineers with

a methodology for decomposing the NR-KPP

Compliance Statement into measurable and testable

derived requirements that they can address using their

normal Systems Engineering Process. The Four-Step

Process includes the following activities:

A Mission Analysis (MA) to determine derived NR-KPPOperational Requirements in terms of missions, mission

activities, and associated Mission Effectiveness and

Operational Performance Measures.

An Information Analysis (InA) to determine the derived

Operational Information Requirements in terms of

required networks, mission thread Information

Elements, and associated Operational Performance

Measures.

Systems Engineering (SE) to decompose the derived

requirements defined in the MA and InA into System

Performance Requirements for use during System

Design and Realization.

Documentation of the Four-Step Process according to

engineering best practices and Compliance Measures in

the NR-KPP Compliance Statement.
http://www.incose-wma.org/http://www.incose-wma.org/http://www.incose-wma.org/http://www.incose-wma.org/

Documents

April: INCOSE WMA Newsletter