{"title":"国防项目质量-成本-延迟优化:架构框架,项目管理和系统工程之间的桥梁","authors":"Lorraine Brisacier‐Porchon, Omar Hammami","doi":"10.1002/sys.21720","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Military program management and system engineering re quire the expression of costs and delay trade‐off with respect to system architecture. If architecture frameworks (AF) such as NATO (NAF) were designed to fill this common need, their current state is essentially descriptive. As it turns out, building defense systems architectures using those frameworks in a properly anticipated cost/delay budget envelope would require to have all system engineering already solved, because the architecture frameworks are designed to provide an explicit representation of the operational domain that can be used in analysis, for articulation of issues and requirements, as support to planning, and as a means of solution design and validation, among other things. Thus Quality‐Resource‐Time optimality in a regularly evolving environment cannot be represented in acceptable delay without automated optimization assistance. Our contribution in this article explores coupling architecture framework with operation research (OR) models to enable computer assisted design and evaluation of heterogeneous views in NATO Architecture Framework (NAF). Our illustrative example is a Linear Programming based bridge between program management and system engineering to anticipate optimal trade‐offs. This article presents promising results, with which we hope to show how OR and AF will be indivisible in architecture evaluation process.","PeriodicalId":54439,"journal":{"name":"Systems Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defense program quality‐cost‐delay optimization: architecture framework, a bridge between program management and system engineering\",\"authors\":\"Lorraine Brisacier‐Porchon, Omar Hammami\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/sys.21720\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Military program management and system engineering re quire the expression of costs and delay trade‐off with respect to system architecture. If architecture frameworks (AF) such as NATO (NAF) were designed to fill this common need, their current state is essentially descriptive. As it turns out, building defense systems architectures using those frameworks in a properly anticipated cost/delay budget envelope would require to have all system engineering already solved, because the architecture frameworks are designed to provide an explicit representation of the operational domain that can be used in analysis, for articulation of issues and requirements, as support to planning, and as a means of solution design and validation, among other things. Thus Quality‐Resource‐Time optimality in a regularly evolving environment cannot be represented in acceptable delay without automated optimization assistance. Our contribution in this article explores coupling architecture framework with operation research (OR) models to enable computer assisted design and evaluation of heterogeneous views in NATO Architecture Framework (NAF). Our illustrative example is a Linear Programming based bridge between program management and system engineering to anticipate optimal trade‐offs. This article presents promising results, with which we hope to show how OR and AF will be indivisible in architecture evaluation process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systems Engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systems Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21720\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systems Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21720","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}
Defense program quality‐cost‐delay optimization: architecture framework, a bridge between program management and system engineering
Military program management and system engineering re quire the expression of costs and delay trade‐off with respect to system architecture. If architecture frameworks (AF) such as NATO (NAF) were designed to fill this common need, their current state is essentially descriptive. As it turns out, building defense systems architectures using those frameworks in a properly anticipated cost/delay budget envelope would require to have all system engineering already solved, because the architecture frameworks are designed to provide an explicit representation of the operational domain that can be used in analysis, for articulation of issues and requirements, as support to planning, and as a means of solution design and validation, among other things. Thus Quality‐Resource‐Time optimality in a regularly evolving environment cannot be represented in acceptable delay without automated optimization assistance. Our contribution in this article explores coupling architecture framework with operation research (OR) models to enable computer assisted design and evaluation of heterogeneous views in NATO Architecture Framework (NAF). Our illustrative example is a Linear Programming based bridge between program management and system engineering to anticipate optimal trade‐offs. This article presents promising results, with which we hope to show how OR and AF will be indivisible in architecture evaluation process.
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.