THE SINGAPORE ENGINEER - Institution of Engineers Singapore

an additional burden. The main benefits of good Requirements
Management come from the process - any tool should help
execute the process more efficiently and effectively
To this end, deployment of the above process has not included
mandating the use of a formal tool. The only mandating was that
only one tool would be approved if the tool route was chosen.
In the case of Rolls-Royce, the approved tool is DOORS. The use
of DOORS on a project is fully supported with a deployment
guide including roles, training etc.
The achievement of something simple then made deployment
an ‘easier’ challenge.
To ensure the success of deployment, the principles of change
leadership were followed.
Stakeholders - who needs to go on the journey and
to where?
Stakeholders who need influencing for a formalised process to
be deployed span a company, from the highest management
to anyone developing a solution. All have different wants/needs
ranging from maximising profit, on-time delivery and reputation
to just having an ‘easier life’. All of which sounds remarkably like
the ‘vertical axis’ of a QFD.
Motivation for change
Clearly, many different motivational strategies were needed for
the many stakeholders, ranging from business cases for DOORS
licences, case studies for Senior Management, to full support
structures for the practitioners.
Support structure - help along the way
The support for the practitioners was probably the most
extensive of the strategies aimed at motivating change. It
consisted of the above-mentioned formal Quality Procedure, a
website containing guides, awareness material, support network,
templates, Best Practices and useful links. Acknowledging the
benefits of a formal tool necessitated development of a DOORS
support structure of deployment plan, customised training
courses, documentation and templates. Process training was
also undertaken. Additionally, targeted one-to-one mentoring
was undertaken.
Continuing the deployment and extending
the Influence
The appetite for undertaking Best Practice Requirements
Management at Rolls-Royce has been generally very good,
which has resulted in a large increase in the number of projects
undertaking good Requirements Management, but now in
the above described standardised way. Clearly, the continual
deployment eventually exceeds the capacity of a small support
resource. To enable the deployment to continue requires the
individual corporate sectors to be enabled to guide, mentor,
organise training etc themselves. To this end, support has to
switch to that of a ‘train-the-trainer’ type of support. This entails
negotiating with the various sectors as to who these people
should be and then establishing the necessary strategies to raise
their capabilities to the level whereby they can be self-sufficient
in supporting themselves.
CONCLUSIONS
The article has shown that recent proposals presented in papers
for improvements to Requirements Management are worthy of
consideration and can be incorporated into the Quality process
of a major, complex organisation designing and producing
complex, high value add products.
The article has also shown that Requirements Management
can be simplified as a ‘fractal’ that can be scaled both across a
complex organisation and to the varying levels of the traditional
Systems Engineering V.
It has also shown that the traditional Systems Engineering V fits
very well to the design process, with the recognition that Design
Verification is different from Product Verification in that the very
early Design Verifications are in fact, generally the compliant
iterations that generate the requirements for the next level
down. Also, the Design Verifications are conducted on a ‘virtual’
product whereas the Product Verifications are conducted on a
‘real’ product.
Furthermore, it has shown that, by following the principles of
change leadership, a complex organisation can be motivated to
adopt a better way of working.
REFERENCES
1. Williams R. 2007. Requirements for Systems and Cabin
Item Designers. Airbus ABD0200.2.3 Issue G. Validation
and Verification.
2. Hull E, Jackson K, and Dick J. 2004. Requirements Engineering.
2 nd Edition.
3. Briggs C and Sampson M. 2006. Tying Requirements to
Design Artifacts. Systems Engineering: Shining Light on the
Tough Issues. INCOSE 2006 - 16 th Ann Intl Proceedings.
4. Dick J. 2008. Using Requirements Tracing to Create an
Assurance Case. UK INCOSE Autumn assembly, Nov 2008.
5. Pickard A, Nolan A, Beasley R. 2010. Certainty, Risk and
Gambling in the Development of Complex Systems.
Presented at the 20 th INCOSE International Symposium in
Chicago.
(This article is based on a paper presented by Mr Lee Glazier, Chief
of World Class Systems, Rolls-Royce plc, UK, at ASEC 2011, the
Annual Systems Engineering Conference, organised by INCOSE UK
and held from 9 to 10 November 2011 in the UK).
April 2012 THE SINGAPORE ENGINEER
27