GS1 Assessment

8/14/2019 GS1 Assessment

1/28

Y4856647

1.1 - For the turbofan FADEC, what price does the manufacturer have to charge, per FADEC, inorder to break even on a build of 100 units?

NRE = 36M 36,000,000RE=40K per controller 40,000 / controller

( )

( )

( )0.4M)400,000Price

40,000360,000Price

40,000100

36,000,000Price

100

36,000,00040,000-Price

36,000,00010040,000-Price

NREsoldNumberRE-PricepriceevenBreak

=

+=

+=

=

=

=

If the manufacturer wishes to make a net profit of 10%, i.e. to achieve an income of 110% of NREplus total RE, what sales price should be used per FADEC?

For this question it has been assumed that: Net profit of 10% = 110% (NRE + Total RE).( )

( )( )

( )0.44M440,000Price

44,000396,000Price

39,600,000Price

1.140,0001.136,000,000

Price

REsoldNumber

NREPrice

NREsoldNumberRE-Price

=

+=

+=

+

=

+=

=

000,44100

100

At this price, what is the break-even point, assuming the engines and FADECs are sold at an

average rate of ten per annum, over a ten year sales life?

( )

( )

90soldNumber

400,000

36,000,000soldNumber

36,000,000soldNumber

NREsoldNumberRE-Price

:soldNumberfindTo

440,000UnitPrice

=

=

=

=

=

000,40000,440

Therefore, with an average sales rate of 10 FADECs per year:

For this question, the exact date of sale in each year is unknown so I am suggesting that by the end ofyear 9, 90 FADECs will have been sold. The Break even point = 9 Years.

1.2 - Calculate the initial NRE for the modular design.

For this question it has been assumed that - Initial validation and flight certification = 18M. Initial otherdesign costs = 18M. Modular other design costs are 33% higher than bespoke other design costs, 33%has been assumed to be 1/3, i.e. 6M.

00)(42,000,042M

24M18MdesignmodulartheforNREinitialtotalThe

=

+=

Calculate the total development and manufacturing costs for both the bespoke and modularapproaches if the units face obsolescence problems on average once every ten years.

Assumptions - I am assuming that in service for 30 years and FADECs are sold at an average rate often per annum, over a ten year sales life means that the programme needs support for 40 years as some

1


2/28

Y4856647

of the FADECs will start a 30 year service life towards the end of this 10 year sales life period. I will alsoassume that when it states 10% of the design needs to be re-worked, means 10% of the other designcosts, i.e. 10% of 18M in the case of the bespoke design. There will need to be 4 tranches of design, aninitial design plus 3 re-designs. Each FADEC will need to be manufactured 3 times, initial plus 2 re-manufacture. Also assume that a FADEC breaks once every 10 years and needs re-manufacturing.

2


3/28

Y4856647

For bespoke design (10 years re-fresh):NRE:

( )

( )

( )

00)(95,400,095.4MNRE

19.8M336MNRE

00)(19,800,019.8Mdesign-ReofCost

18M0.118Mdesign-ReofCost

cost'designother'of10%ionCertificatEngineandnValidatiodesign-ReofCost

design-Re3DesignInitialNRE

=+=

=+=

+=

+=

RE:

( )

( )

0)(8,000,008Munits100for

Unitper80KRE

20K240KRE

eManufactur-Re2eManufacturInitialRE

==

+=+=

000)(103,400,103.4MdesignbespokeofcostTotal

8M95.4MdesignbespokeofcostTotal

=

+=

For modular design (10 years re-fresh):NRE:

( )

( )

( )

000)(110,400,110.4MNRE

22.8M342MNRE


4.8M18Mdesign-ReofCost




=+=

=+=

+=+=

+=

RE:( )

( )

( )

0)(5,600,005.6Munits100for

Unitper56KRE

8K240KRE

8K40Kof20%emanufactur-ReofCost


=

=

+=

==

+=

000)(116,000,116.MdesignbespokeofcostTotal

5.6M110.4MdesignbespokeofcostTotal

=+=

Repeat the calculations assuming that the units need to be replaced every five years, makingsimilar assumptions.

Assumptions - I am assuming that in service for 30 years and FADECs are sold at an average rate often per annum, over a ten year sales life means that the programme needs support for 40 years as someof the FADECs will start a 30 year service life towards the end of this 10 year sales life period.I will also assume that when it states 10% of the design needs to be re-worked, means 10% of the otherdesign costs, i.e. 10% of 18M in the case of the bespoke design.There will need to be 8 tranches of design, an initial design plus 7 re-designs.Each FADEC will need to be manufactured 6 times, initial plus 5 re-manufacture.Also assume that a FADEC breaks once every 5 years and needs re-manufacturing.For bespoke design (5 years re-fresh):NRE:

3


4/28

Y4856647

( )

( )

( )000)(174,600,174.6MNRE

19.8M736MNRE





=+=

=+=

+=

+=

RE:

( )

( )

00)(14,000,014Munits100for

Unitper140KRE

20K540KRE


==

+=+=

000)(188,600,188.6MdesignbespokeofcostTotal


=

+=

For modular design (5 years re-fresh):NRE:

( )

( )

( )

000)(201,600,201.6MNRE

22.8M742MNRE


4.8M18Mdesign-ReofCost




=+=

=+=

+=+=

+=

RE:

( )

( )

( )

0)(8,000,008Munits100for

Unitper80KRE

8K540KRE

8K40Kof20%emanufactur-ReofCost


=

=

+=

==

+=

000)(209,600,209.6.MdesignbespokeofcostTotal


=

+=

10 Yrs 5 Yrs

Bespoke

NRE 95.4M 174.6RE 8M 14M

RE/Unit 80K 140KTotal 103.4M 188.6M

Modular

NRE 110.4M 201.6MRE 5.6M 8M

RE/Unit 56K 80KTotal 116M 209.6M

Table 1 Cost Breakdowns

Which is the most cost effective way of dealing with obsolescence? Do the assumptions aboutrefresh rates alter the comparison?

Bespoke design is by far the most cost effective.

4


5/28

Y4856647

The comparisons do not change with a change in refresh rates.In both instances of refresh rate, i.e. 10 years and 5 years, the cost of re-manufacture for the modulardesign is much lower. I would suggest that modular design would be worth using if the number ofFADECs were much greater.For example:If the number of units sold were 100 per year for 10 years, i.e. 1000 units in total.

10 Years refresh: Bespoke = 95.4M + (80K x 1000)= 175.4MModular = 110.4M + (56K x 1000)

= 166.4M5 Years refresh: Bespoke = 174.6M + (140K x 1000)

= 314.6MModular = 201.6M + (80K x 1000)

= 281.6MThe above calculations show that when built in sufficient numbers the modular design works out to be themost cost effective method. The point at which it becomes beneficial is when the number of FADECs soldis as follows: Let number of FADECs = N, Let bespoke design = B, Let modular design = M

For 10 year refresh:

( ) ( )

( )

625FADECsN

15M24KN

56KN110.4M80KN95.4M

MMBB RENRERENRE

=

=

+=+

+=+

For 5 year refresh:

( ) ( )

( )

FADECs450N

27M60KN

80KN201.6M140KN174.6M

MMBB RENRERENRE

==

+=++=+

Therefore if the 10 year refresh strategy is used, modular design becomes worthwhile if more than 625FADECs are sold. For the 5 year refresh strategy this number is reduced to 450 FADECs.

Assume that 20% of the validation and certification costs, i.e. 10% of the initial NRE, is concerned

with ground based tests, e.g. EMC, etc. If it were necessary to repeat only these ground-basedtests with the modular design, i.e. the design was such it was possible to avoid flight tests, etc.How does this affect the costs for that option?

Validation and flight certification costs are 18M,therefore 20% of validation and flight certification = 0.2 x 18M = 3.6M.For Modular design with the 10 Year Refresh strategy:

( )

[ ]( )

( )

( )072,800,0072.8McostTotal

5.6MsametheremainsRE

67.2MNRE

8.4M342MNRE

4.8M3.6M342MNRE

design-Re3designInitialNRE

=

=

=

+=

++=

+=

5 Year Refresh strategy:

( )

[ ]( )

( )

( )00108,800,0108.8McostTotal

8MsametheremainsRE

100.8MNRE

8.4M742MNRE

4.8M3.6M742MNRE

design-Re7designInitialNRE

=

=

=

+=

++=

+=

To summarise:10 Yr Refresh 5 Yr Refresh

Bespoke 103.8M 188.6MModular 72.8M 108.8MTable 2 20% Validation + Cert Cost Summaries

5


6/28

Y4856647

Clearly, modular design now becomes the best choice for design regardless of which refresh strategy isused. The greater the number of re-designs that are required, the more money is saved through the useof modular design.

Cost of rework of the changed element of the design to, say, one tenth of the cost by manualmeans, what impact might it have if used with the modular design approach?

Model-based design can be used to guarantee the functionality of a system in terms of real-timeconstraints before much time and resources are invested for its actual implementation, (Nicolescu, 2010).As such, the cost of rework can be reduced by 90%. If this is used with the modular design approach, thiswould further reduce the re-design cost to 4.08M.Overall this would impact the total cost, assuming 100 FADECs built with a service life of 30 years, asfollows:With reduced validation and flight certification costs:

( )

59.84MCostTotal

5.6M54.25MCostTotal

RENRECostTotal

5.6MRE

54.25MNRE

4.08M342MNRE

:strategyrefreshYear10For

=

+=

+=

=

=

+=

( )

78.56MCostTotal

8M70.56MCostTotal

RENRECostTotal

8MRE

70.56MNRE

4.08M742MNRE


=+=

+=

=

=+=

This now makes modular design less than half the cost of bespoke design.With full validation and flight certification costs:

[ ]( )

103.04MCostTotal

5.6M97.44MCostTotal

RENRECostTotal

5.6MRE97.44MNRE

0.48M18M342MNRE


=

+=

+=

=

=

++=

[ ]( )

179.36MCostTotal

8M171.36MCostTotal

RENRECostTotal

8MRE171.36MNRE

0.48M18M742MNRE


=

+=

+=

=

=

++=

This now makes modular design almost the same cost as bespoke design (0.36M cheaper) when usingthe 10 year refresh strategy and 9.25M cheaper than bespoke design when using the 5 year refreshstrategy.

1.3 - What is a sensible daily charge under an MFOPS contract, for the manufacturer to recover all

FADEC-related costs, assuming no re-engineering to deal with obsolescence?

I have assumed the following when answering this question:A typical operating regime is as detailed in Exercise: Cost and Price, GS1: Systems Engineering 1. Theoperating regime is for the aircraft to fly for 15 hours per day, 350 days of the year. A typical 24 hourperiod comprises 3 x 5 hour flights, 2 x 1 hour intervals between flights, and 1 x 7 hour overnight restinterval. The aircraft is out of action for 15 days per year for scheduled maintenance, 1 day per month andan annual 4 day overhaul period. The service life of the engine is 30 years.The following needs to be calculated:Number of hours in flight.

Total cost per FADEC for 30 years service life.

hours157500Hrs

years30days350hours15Hrs

=

=The price of a FADEC, assuming NRE costs aresplit over 100 FADECs)

= 400,000 (360,000 NRE + 40,000 RE).

6


7/28


8/28

Y4856647

hourper46.20

4.6210RateOut-chargeAircraft

==

Over the 30 year life-time of an engine:

(7.28M)7,276,500

s157500Hour46.2IncomeLifetime

==

What is the likely net income for the manufacturer, with each of three proactive replacementschedules of 5, 10 and 15 years respectively?

There are 4 engines per aircraft:

(29.1M)029,106,00

7,276,5004IncomeTotal

==

With regard to the failure costs, it has been assumed that the probabilities shown are per engine,


9/28

Y4856647

so its definitely worth leaving a FADEC on engine past scheduled replacement if it has already beenreplaced during the 5 year period.Replacing every 5 years rather than 10 years would cost an extra 96K (4 engines with an extra 3FADECs each @8K per FADEC assuming modular re-manufacture cost). This cost would come aboutas part of the obsolescence management. 96K is not a lot of money, especially when shared out over a30 year period (0.15 per engine, per hour). A poor reputation for quality could lead to the loss of future

sales/contracts so this might be a wise strategy.The 15 year replacement strategy is definitely not worth using as this would cost the company lots ofmoney and give them a bad reputation.

What is the most cost-effective proactive approach to deal with obsolescence, using a scheduledupgrade strategy, under an MFPOS commercial regime?

The following assumptions have been made for this question:Modular re-design is used with the cheaper validation and flight certification costs.The 15 year refresh strategy is not considered as a viable option as it would ruin the companysreputation and almost certainly have major issues with obsolescence that would end up costing more dueto the fire fighting involved in clearing up the problems.

For a 10 year refresh strategy:

Hourper157.7024.838MIncomeNet

1.35MlityUnavailabiofCost

2.912M728,0004CostFADEC

29.1MIncome

===

=== For a 5 year refresh strategy:

Hourper156.7824.694MIncomeNet

0.054MlityUnavailabiofCost

4.352M1.088M4CostFADEC

29.1MIncome

===

===

The 10 year refresh strategy gets the company 0.91 per hour more, i.e. an extra 144,000 over the 30year service life.As mentioned previously, passenger compensations and extra administrative costs for bookings,advertising and passenger lounge incurred due to cancelled flights were not factored into the calculations.Therefore I would state that it is most cost effective to go with the 5 year strategy. If the extra costs were

factored into the calculations, the 10 year replacement strategy would undoubtedly end up costing more.Company perception and reputation would suffer and as such the FADEC manufacturer would makefewer sales in the future.There is also less chance of getting caught out by obsolescence issues, a 30 year service life is a longtime and electronics move at such rapid pace that a 10 year replacement strategy might prove to beunsustainable.

1.4 - How does inflation and discounted cash flow impact the costs of the approaches toobsolescence management?

Inflation, an increase in the total purchasing power of the community, (Stareck, 1979), and discountedcash flow are both terms used when describing the effects of a value being worth less (or more in thecase of deflation) as time passes by. Inflation is the term given to the monetary phenomenon thatessentially has the ability to devalue a product or service. In society, in general over the last century we

have experienced year on year inflation. That is to say that as time has progressed, the value of a fixedamount decreases. On the whole, it is correct to assume that inflation will occur, that level of this inflationhowever is unknown.This can have massive implications if a pricing strategy is being developed thatcould run for the next 30 40 years. The declining cost factor is used as a way of calculating thisdevaluation into the future.For the case of obsolescence management; So far in these calculations we have always assumed that adesign activity carried out in year 5, taking, for example 3000 man hours labour will cost the same aswhen carried out in year 20 or year 25. This is not the case. Due to inflation, the cost per man hour couldrise dramatically over such a time period. Therefore, when we plan for a redesign activity to take place wehave to factor in inflation and calculate how much more the same activity will cost in 20 or 25 years time.DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) is the method employed to calculate how to account for this cost difference.DCF uses the rate of inflation to calculate how much a fixed value will be worth in n years time andtherefore increase the amount to a true value.

9


10/28

Y4856647

Does it make any difference to the preferred approach to managing obsolescence whetherthe engines are paid for up front or they are paid for on a power by the hour basis?

If the engines are paid for upfront, the currently determined costs will be assumed to be valid and the costto the customer will be the cost calculated previously depending on the strategy decided upon.If the payment method chosen is Power by the Hour there are a number of ways of dealing with theissues of inflation and discounted cash flow.

1. The supplier of the FADEC may estimate the rate of inflation is likely to be over the next 30 years andtherefore increase the power by the hour hourly rate each year.2. Suppliers may be given a firm price per hour for the next 30 years etc but have an additional cost thatincreases each year in line with CPI (Consumer Price Index) or RPI (Retail Price Index), or a mixture ofboth.

2

The following sources were used to provide background information when answering question 2:(Weilkiens, 2007), GS1: Systems Engineering 1 lecture notes, Example answers from previous yearsassessment, ()

2.1 - Describe the requirements to be met by the CSII.

Optative statements describe the environment as we would like it to be and as we hope it will be when the

machine is connected to the environment, the following are all optative statements: There must be both manual and automatic insulin delivery methods. The patient must be able to set-up a basal rate pattern. The basal rate must deliver insulin at a set rate over a period of time. The patient must be able to deliver a bolus dose when required. The bolus dose must be controllable over time, there being 3 types, standard, extended and

combined. There must be a method of storing insulin on the body. The insulin store must be refillable. The system must provide insulin to the blood stream when required (either through manual or

automatic signals). The system must be capable of constantly delivering the correct level of insulin to the blood

stream without patient input.

There must be a warning to the patient of low blood glucose level. There must be a warning to the patient of low battery level of the systems power supply. There must be a warning to the patient of low insulin container level. Delivery records must be able to be transferred to a PC. Diabetes management software must be able to be used. The system must have a user interface.

2.2

For this question the following has been assumed - The CSII includes all components mentioned otherthan the PC and sensor. The re-chargeable battery has some sort of connection point and that the cableis able to be plugged into the CSII to charge the battery whilst the patient is wearing the CSII.

10


11/28

Y4856647

Bdd CSII

blockCSII

block

Pump

P

1

1

block

Needle

N

1

1

blockReservoir

R

1 1

blockPorts

Prt

1

2

blockUSB Port

blockAudio Component

blockLED

blockInternal Memory

IM

1

1

blockController

C

1

1

blockRemote Control

blockTouch Screen

blockPower Port

1 Prt2

blockWarning Devices

WD

1

2

1 WD1 1 WD2

blockUser interfaces

1UI1 1UI2

UI

1

2

blockBattery B

11

1 Prt1

blockRF Sender / Receiver

RF

1

1

Figure 1

2.3

For this question, it has been assumed that The programming of the CSII, including the operation of thesensor, is carried out using the CSIIs touch screen or a remote control means that the controller canvary parameters of the sensor and as such has 2 way communication with the sensor. The remote controloperates on RF. There is no feedback signal on the pump, reservoir level and blood glucose levels aremonitored. The user can program some parameters of the sensor such as frequency of transmission.This is assumed to be a one way signal, i.e. the controller informs the sensor of the required frequency ofsignal sending but cannot read the current frequency setting, although the controller would be able tocalculate this due to the frequency of results obtained.

11


12/28


13/28


14/28

Y4856647

2.4

For manual operation I have produced 2 sequence diagrams, one for the basal rate and one for the bolusdose.I have also made the following assumptions:

There is no sensor present when the CSII is operating in manual mode.For setting the basal rate:

The touch screen is being used to set the basal rate pattern. Basal rate is set from some form of chart or recommended dosage, not by looking at information

gathered by the sensor. The dosage rate is once per minute. When the reservoir is low, the warning issued is the LED to be activated.

For setting the bolus dose: The bolus dose is determined by looking at the information found on food packaging and other

charts etc provided by a doctor. Current blood glucose level is also determined through traditional means, i.e. not using the

sensor.

14


15/28

Y4856647

S4:LED

F3: Insulin

D7: TS

sd CSII Manual Operation Basal Rate

UI2: TouchScreen

C: Controller P: PumpR: Reservoir N: Needle

Patient Input

Send Signal

Sequence Calculated

S2:Pump Rate

Pump Insulin fromreservoir to needle

Insulin DeliveredTo Pump

Insulin DeliveredTo Blood Stream

par

S1: Reservoir Level

F4: Insulin

Loop (t=n)

F5: Insulin

Signal sequence for a 24hour period iscalculatedt = 0:01, 0:02, 0:03 ....t=n

The pumpdelivers all 3flows, all

occurring at thesame time.

Loops everyminute for a 24hour pe riod.The pump ratevaries accordingto the sequence.

Loop ()

Loops every 24hours, no endlimit.

Determine if low reservoirwarning is required

WD1: LED

Send Signal n, n+1, n+2, ....

Send Signal

Opt (vol < req)

LED on

Send signal to turn on LED

LED turned on ifreservoir level islower than lowwarning level.

If the next reservoir leveldetermines the level still tobe low it activatesthe LEDagain, giving a constantLED until the reservoir is re-filled.

S5: Pump StatusSend Pumpstopped signal

15


16/28


17/28


18/28

Y4856647

F3: Insulin

D7: TS

sd CSII Manual Operation Bolus Dose

UI2: TouchScreen


Patient Input (bolus dose)

Send Signal

Single dose Calculated

S2:Pump Rate




par F4: Insulin F5: Insulin

The pump

delivers all 3flows, alloccurring at thesame time.

Send Signal

S5: Pump Status

The bolus dose

overrides thebasal rate. Thecalculation also

takes intoaccount the basalrate that the CSII

Providesnotification thatthe pump hasstopped.

Send Pumpstopped signal

18


19/28


20/28

Y4856647

20


21/28

Y4856647

F3: Insulin

D7: TS

sd CSII Automatic Operation

RF: RF Sender /Receiver


Receive Glucoselevel from sensor

Send Signal

Single Dose Calculated

S2:Pump Rate




par F4: Insulin F5: Insulin

The pumpdelivers all 3flows, alloccurring at thesame time.

Send Signal

S5: Pump Status

Providesnotification thatthe pump hasstopped.

Send Pumpstopped signal

Loop ()

Loops everyminute constantly

S1: Reservoir Level

Determine if low reservoirwarning is required

Send Signal

Send signal to turn on LED

S5: Pump Status

WD1: LED

LED on

S4:LED

Opt (vol < req)

LED turned on ifreservoir level islower than lowwarning level.

21


22/28


23/28


24/28

Y4856647

3.1 - Describe 3 or more suitable methods for obtaining customer requirements.

The following reference has been used to answer this question, (Easterbrook), (Easterbrook, 2000)I have picked 3 types of elicitation techniques to discuss:1. Traditional techniques2. Collaborative techniques

3. Cognitive techniquesTraditional TechniquesTraditional techniques are those that rely on generic data gathering techniques such as:Reading existing documentation that that relates to the subject matter, these are things such as companyreports, technical manuals, organisational charts.Collecting hard data relating to the product, thing like facts and figures, decision making documents andfinancial information.Interviews and meetings with key people within the organisation to ascertain pertinent bits of informationthat could be used in the generation of the requirements.Questionnaires and survey based information collection activities.Advantages:By reading existing documentation many ball park facts will be known and the reader will have a broadunderstanding before tying down specific details.

The company may have detailed requirements already written, albeit for the current product or system.This could then be used as a basis to form the new requirements document.Hard data will be good to provide voltages and such like. It will also enable a cost comparison whenlooking at various design proposals.Interviews are good to get detail in specific areas of interest and can get peoples opinions.Meetings are good to discuss results and confirm that the requirements engineer is on the right track.Disadvantages:Written documentation doesnt always give the true picture. It often notes the ideal state and not many ofthe work-a-rounds that often exist.The researcher can often end up trawling through masses of irrelevant information.Interviews can go bad if the wrong questions are asked and key points can easily be missed. It is alsohard to compare the results of a number of independent interviews.Collaborative Techniques:These techniques are used to get buy in from the stakeholder and achieve a deeper understanding ofwhat is required due to team-working.These are techniques such as focus groups and brainstorming activities along with rapid applicationdevelopment (RAD) and joint application development (JAD) workshops. These workshops use visualaids and a number of well organised, rational processes. At the end of the workshop a document iscreated to provide results and is agreed by all group members. The key to these workshops is the use ofan un-biased facilitator.Advantages:Individual and group reactions to visual aids can be gauged.Often, a more natural response to questions is achieved due to the group dynamic.Disadvantages:It is always very hard to pick a good group.Key information from particular experts may be missed.Quieter individuals might not put their opinions/ views across in the same way that they might on a one to

one basis.A high level of detail might not be gathered on specific technical matters.Cognitive Techniques:These are techniques such as protocol analysis and knowledge acquisition techniques.Protocol analysis is to do with thinking aloud, A rigorous methodology for eliciting verbal reports ofthought sequences, ().There are many different knowledge acquisition techniques, some of which are:Proximity scaling techniques, such as the pair wise comparator, enabling various aspects of the system tobe compared against one another.Card sorting, this is where cards with objects written on them are sorted into groups coupled withexplanations on what the criterion was for each group and what the groups were.Laddering, using a set of probing questions the questioner is able to learn the structure and content of thestakeholders knowledge.

The Delphi Technique, best used when it is hard to get experts together to discuss design issues. Allexperts detail their opinions which are then circulated anonymously to everyone else. They in turn submitrevised opinion and this continues until all opinions converge.

24


25/28

Y4856647

Focus groups, used when multiple experts can meet to discuss design issues.Advantages:Protocol analysis is good at revealing interaction problems that occur in present systems.Proximity scaling techniques are good for getting tacit knowledge.Card sorting and laddering techniques are both very simple techniques and are suitable for automation.Laddering enables knowledge to be represented in a pre-defined, standard form.

When dealing with multiple experts, the Delphi Technique and focus groups enable one set ofrequirements to be agreed upon rather than many conflicting opinions.Disadvantages:No performance knowledge is gained using both proximity and card sorting.Protocol analysis can be unreliable.

Explain how these requirements could be validated.

Firstly I will specify what is meant by validation. Validation is the process of establishing that therequirements and models elicited provide an accurate account of stakeholder requirements,(Easterbrook, 2000).The process of validation takes place to ensure that the individual requirements dont contradict oneanother, (). Validation of the requirements takes place before the design stage of the project and as such,ensures that unexpected rework late in the development cycle isnt needed, ().

A method of validation would be the use of a number of questions designed to pull out the requiredinformation.Questions such as these could be used: Does the requirement meet a stakeholder need? Does the requirement preserve the products competitiveness? Is the requirement both necessary and sufficient? Is the requirement understandable without having to analyze the meanings of words? Does the requirement have a unique interpretation? Do all project participants interpret the requirement in the same way? If assumptions were made during project definition, is the requirement consistent with those

assumptions? Is the requirement redundant? Does the requirement conflict with any other requirement? Are any factual errors contained within the requirement? Is it possible to meet the requirement using existing technologies? Can the requirement be met within the approved schedule and budget? Is the statement of the requirement expressed only in terms of what and why, rather than how?()The checklist can be classed as an inspection technique, these along with formal analysis concentrate onthe coherence of the requirements description. Many errors can occur when developing a list ofrequirements and it needs to be double checked that they are both structurally complete and consistent,(Easterbrook, 2000).In the case of a FADEC system, the requirements also have to be separated and allocated. There aregenerally 2 types of requirements, system/product requirements and project requirements. The projectrequirements deal with the managerial aspects and can often be subjective. The system/productrequirements detail the specific deliverables of the FADEC. These requirements are then allocated toeither Systems, Hydro Mechanical, Hardware, Software, (Byrne, 2009).This allows requirements to be

grouped into specialist areas and helps to ensure that relevant specialists are used to validate therequirements most suited to their specialism.There also might be a need for specialists in the technology department or the next generation productsdepartments to be involved in the generation of requirements. Once a company has a standardrequirements template, question lists etc, this gets used over and over. As technology develops andcustomer expectation increases, there may need to be some additional fields or areas added. Thesemight even need to be added before they have been proved.The generation of questions, however is not the end of the validation process. When dealing with groupsof stakeholders there will always exist a difference of opinion on many matters. An important part of thevalidation process is the art of agreeing requirements. There are many ways in which these negotiationsare handled, but the underlying theory is that you must identify the most important goals of eachparticipant, and ensure that these goals are met, (Easterbrook, 2000).

25


26/28

Y4856647

3.2 - Describe the purpose of the SQCs and the attributes that you would expect each SQC topossess.

When developing requirements, Voice of the Customer (VOC) data that has been collected throughwhichever form of elicitation technique is called customer attributes. These are the customer needs.Customers often use unclear terminology to express what they want a product to do and can often referto many dimensions simultaneously, (Yang, 2008). The QFD, quality function deployment uses the

terminology to determine What the customer wants. These are more often than not, generalised ideasthat require more detail putting into the definitions, (Yang, 2008).This extra detail then needs to be added in order to specify how these customer needs will be met. TheQFD terminology uses the term how to describe substitute quality characteristics (SQCs). SQCs convertthe whats into the hows, these being what an organisation has to implement to satisfy the whats,(Berk, 2000). One such way of this is by using the four-phase approach, as popularised by the AmericanSupplier Institute (ASI),here the four phases link the VOC to the production process requirements.

Figure 7 The four phases, (ReVelle, 2000)

Essentially, defining the SQCs is determining overall requirements that can be measured and controlled,(Yang, 2008). These should be developed by not worrying about the method of implementation, rathernoting what specific parameters the design must produce. These requirements often overlap and theabsence of a one to one relationship means that tools such as a relationship matrix needs to be used toidentify the cause and effect relationships between customer needs and substitute quality characteristicsand shows the strength of these relationships, (Yang, 2008). This is a very useful tool for identifyingdeficiencies in the SQCs that have been generated. For example, a customer need (what) showing nostrong relationship with any of the SQCs (how) shows that a customer need has not being met. This alsoworks the other way, for example a blank column shows that a SQC has been inserted that doesntsatisfy any of the customer needs, (Berk, 2000).

Figure 8 A Relationship Matrix

The following is a list of key points that can be taken from the relationship matrix: Blank or weak column - Indicate hows that dont strongly relate to any customer attribute. Blank or weak rows - Customer attributes that are not being strongly addressed by a how

26


27/28

Y4856647

Conflicts - These are technical competitive assessments that are in conflict with customercompetitive assessments

Significant points - These are hows that relate to many customer attributes, safety/ regulatory,and internal company requirements

Eye Opener opportunities - These are areas where the teams company and competitors aredoing poorly. The QFD project team should seize the opportunity to deliver on these sales points,

which may initially be treated as delighters in the Kano Model.(Yang, 2008).

What attributes would you expect each SQC to possess?

The following are Attributes that I would expect

AccurateAttainableClearCompleteConsistentCorrect

Free from implementation

Has no undesirable side effectsIndependentModifiableNecessaryNo duplicates

Prioritisable

Readable

Results-orientatedTraceableUnambiguousVerifiable

(Byrne, 2009)

Develop a suitable checklist or procedure for their selection.

The following is a procedure to follow when selecting SQCs: Define customer requirements. Add unspoken requirements. Add unrecognised features. Create a list of SQCs. Put SQCs and customer requirements into a relationship matrix. Analyse findings from the relationship matrix. Assign an importance rating to the SQCs. This is achieved through the use of:

Pair wise comparator

Customer surveysEngineering analysisCustomer specifications

Determine any conflicts that may exist and the level of the conflict. Do this through the use of acorrelation matrix, the roof of the house of quality.

Conflicts are then resolved through a trade off process. Here compromises of the customerrequirements or expectations, and the engineering requirements are made. This is done throughmanagement intervention and discussions with the customer.

Benchmarking then takes place. This compares the product or design to other competing productsor designs to determine its comparative strength or weakness. This activity may be carried out bythe company itself or by its customers, or both.

(Berk, 2000), (Yang, 2008)

3.3 - What factors should be considered when setting the design targets?

Essentially there are two things that should be considered when setting the design targets, these are thevoice of the customer and the engineering characteristics, (Lee, 2008).The engineering characteristics have been compared with those of other similar and/ or competingproducts. It isnt always necessary to beat all of these competitor levels of performance etc. The VOCneeds to be used in the right way here.The VOC can be used to clarify which of the competitor product variables are important to meet orexceed, some may be costly to beat when there is no actual need.The house of quality has already determined both the technical bench marking and product rating socombined with more VOC information a good set of design targets should be captured.

What weakness (es) exist in this method of assessment?

The trouble with this method is that it is inherently subjective.

The technical benchmarking is done by a chosen group of people. The product rating is done by a chosen group of people. The VOC is communicated, again through a select group or maybe 1 person.

27


28/28

Y4856647

If the wrong people are chosen in any or all of these areas there is the potential to end up providinga very weak set of design targets. Woodside picked out six weaknesses with the use of the QFDprocess, (Woodside, 2003):

Targets based entirely on information generated through the use of a HOQ are unrealistic, resultingin targets that can never be achieved in practice.

The description of the coupling between the design variables in the HOQ cant be described well

enough due to the high complexity, therefore the real life situation wont be mimicked quite so well.This can lead to highly inappropriate and undesirable designs. The use of subjective ratings for customer and technical requirements may not represent the reality

of the situation. The interrelationship between customer requirements and technical requirements is too subjective. Large matrices make the methodology cumbersome and complex. Other product risks such as market share, contribution margin or profit are not considered.

Bibliography(n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2009, from OMG Systems Modeling Language: http://www.omgsysml.org/(n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2009, from http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.proto.thnk.html(n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2009, from http://xmlbasedsrs.tigris.org/guide/x74.htm(n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2009, from www.devicelink.com:http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/02/01/004.htmlBerk, J., & Berk, S. (2000). Quality Management for the Technology Sector. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann.Byrne, D. J. (2009, September). Requirements Standard (Aero Engine Controls internal procedure).Easterbrook, S. (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2009, from www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/CSC2106S/Slides/04-elicitation-techniques.pdfEasterbrook, S., & Nuseibeh, B. (2000). Requirments Engineering: A Roadmap. International Conference onSoftware Engineering(pp. 35 - 46). New York: ACM.Lee, S., Choo, H., Ha, S., & Shin, I. C. (2008). Computer - Human Interaction: 8th Asia-Pacific Conference, APCHI2008, Seoul, Korea, July 2008 Proceedings. Berlin: Springer.Nicolescu, G., & Mosterman, P. J. (2010). Model-Based Design for Embedded Systems. Florida: CRC Press - Taylorand Francis Group.ReVelle, J. B. (2000). Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices: an innovation, productivity, and quality focus. BocaRaton: CRC Press.Stareck, M. (1979). World Finance 1914 - 1935. Arno Press Inc.

Weilkiens, T. (2007). Systems Engineering with SysML/UML. Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America:Morgan Kaufman.Woodside, A. G. (2003).Advances in Business Marketing & Purchasing Volume 12: Evaluating Marketing Actionsand Outcomes. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.Yang, K. (2008). Voice of the Customer: Capture and Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Documents

GS1 Assessment