Kaitlin Henderson, T. McDermott, E. V. Aken, A. Salado
{"title":"Towards Developing Metrics to Evaluate Digital Engineering","authors":"Kaitlin Henderson, T. McDermott, E. V. Aken, A. Salado","doi":"10.1002/sys.21640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Model‐based systems engineering (MBSE) is an increasingly accepted practice in the Systems Engineering (SE) community, however, little has been done to empirically show that MBSE provides value. Furthermore, as the industry continues in the direction of digital transformation, MBSE will become a critical component of the larger Digital Engineering (DE) approach. This paper presents a measurement framework for selecting and developing appropriate metrics to assess the value/benefits of MBSE and subsequently DE. Utilizing expected benefits identified in a review of MBSE literature, a causal map was hypothesized to show how expected benefits (potential metrics) influence and relate to each other. This was done in order to systematically determine which benefits would be the most impactful to measure. The hypothesized causal model was presented for feedback to subject‐matter experts from a working group developing the first DE measurement framework. This group is a joint effort with industry, academia, and the USA government to develop DE metric standards. Once the causal map was finalized, a case study was used to partially validate the causal model. Based on the causal map and subsequent analysis, we can recommend the first metrics to be employed for DE/MBSE based on the most influential nodes of the causal model. The potential metric candidates include: system quality, defects, time, rework, ease of making changes, system understanding, Effort, accessibility of information, collaboration, project methods/processes, and use of DE/MBSE tools. We believe a concerted effort across the industry to focus on measuring these variables is the most effective way to establish proof of the value of MBSE and DE.","PeriodicalId":54439,"journal":{"name":"Systems Engineering","volume":"26 1","pages":"3 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systems Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21640","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Model‐based systems engineering (MBSE) is an increasingly accepted practice in the Systems Engineering (SE) community, however, little has been done to empirically show that MBSE provides value. Furthermore, as the industry continues in the direction of digital transformation, MBSE will become a critical component of the larger Digital Engineering (DE) approach. This paper presents a measurement framework for selecting and developing appropriate metrics to assess the value/benefits of MBSE and subsequently DE. Utilizing expected benefits identified in a review of MBSE literature, a causal map was hypothesized to show how expected benefits (potential metrics) influence and relate to each other. This was done in order to systematically determine which benefits would be the most impactful to measure. The hypothesized causal model was presented for feedback to subject‐matter experts from a working group developing the first DE measurement framework. This group is a joint effort with industry, academia, and the USA government to develop DE metric standards. Once the causal map was finalized, a case study was used to partially validate the causal model. Based on the causal map and subsequent analysis, we can recommend the first metrics to be employed for DE/MBSE based on the most influential nodes of the causal model. The potential metric candidates include: system quality, defects, time, rework, ease of making changes, system understanding, Effort, accessibility of information, collaboration, project methods/processes, and use of DE/MBSE tools. We believe a concerted effort across the industry to focus on measuring these variables is the most effective way to establish proof of the value of MBSE and DE.
期刊介绍:
Systems Engineering is a discipline whose responsibility it is to create and operate technologically enabled systems that satisfy stakeholder needs throughout their life cycle. Systems engineers reduce ambiguity by clearly defining stakeholder needs and customer requirements, they focus creativity by developing a system’s architecture and design and they manage the system’s complexity over time. Considerations taken into account by systems engineers include, among others, quality, cost and schedule, risk and opportunity under uncertainty, manufacturing and realization, performance and safety during operations, training and support, as well as disposal and recycling at the end of life. The journal welcomes original submissions in the field of Systems Engineering as defined above, but also encourages contributions that take an even broader perspective including the design and operation of systems-of-systems, the application of Systems Engineering to enterprises and complex socio-technical systems, the identification, selection and development of systems engineers as well as the evolution of systems and systems-of-systems over their entire lifecycle.
Systems Engineering integrates all the disciplines and specialty groups into a coordinated team effort forming a structured development process that proceeds from concept to realization to operation. Increasingly important topics in Systems Engineering include the role of executable languages and models of systems, the concurrent use of physical and virtual prototyping, as well as the deployment of agile processes. Systems Engineering considers both the business and the technical needs of all stakeholders with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs. Systems Engineering may be applied not only to products and services in the private sector but also to public infrastructures and socio-technical systems whose precise boundaries are often challenging to define.