TT_Vol3 Issue2 - Raytheon

Fellows Profile
18
Ron Carsten
Chief Engineer.
Missile Systems
As Chief Engineer for
Raytheon Missile
Systems, Ron Carsten
spends his days providing
technical advice to
help the business’ many missile programs succeed.
He has the tools and experience for the
job. He’s been making missiles for 34 years as a
designer, a functional manager and project
leader. “I’ve seen a lot of what can go right and
wrong in engineering design, development and
manufacturing programs,” he says.
Carsten wasn’t always the expert he is today. In
1969, he was just out of The Cooper Union in
New York City with specialties in digital design
and control theory, and he found himself testing
analog power circuits for SAM-D — a forerunner
of the Patriot program — in Raytheon’s Bedford,
Massachusetts, labs. “I wasn’t very good at it,”
he recalled. “I still remember the charity and
patience of Stan Geddes, my first supervisor. He
mentored me through the trauma of my first job
and turned me into a decent circuit designer.”
In 1974, Carsten was asked to join a special
engineering group that was transitioning Patriot
to production at Raytheon’s recently opened
Andover manufacturing facility. “Joining that
team was one of my key career moves,” he said.
“It taught me to appreciate how little things
can count in a big way. I learned what it takes
to make a good design that’s successful in the
field and producible in the factory. Now I know
it in my gut.”
This visceral understanding has served Carsten
well as he progressed through the company’s
ranks, rising through management, and serving
as chief engineer on several programs. “One of
the most important lessons I’ve learned is that
we must all think like system engineers, no matter
what assignments we have,” he notes. “If
you don't understand how your design affects
everyone else’s, or how the overall system functions,
you can’t do your job well. You must have
the discipline and interest to explore beyond
your immediate design responsibility.”
“The whole process should be a journey that will
open up a whole new world of technological and
problem-solving opportunities,” Carsten
explained. “That’s how I’ve honed my skills over
the years. As professionals, we need to stay interested
and curious all the time. We should never
settle for conventional solutions or accept
received knowledge.”
When asked why he’s stayed with the same company
so long, Carsten quickly responded that
Raytheon is an incredibly broad company, and he
has never been bored. “The talented people I work
with are open to new approaches and ideas, and
there are so many opportunities to learn,” he
said. “They also focus on helping each other succeed.
How could you leave a place like that?”
Human Factors
Engineering
One of the more difficult aspects of system
architecture, design and integration is
in designing the system for the human end
user. Why is this task difficult? Well, for one
thing, humans are unpredictable in how
they think, feel, and respond to the end
system. In addition, it is difficult to fully
design for stressful environments in which
the system will be used, such as temperature
extremes, peace/combat situations,
and chemical warfare environments.
Because such factors are often not taken
into account, customers may refer to developed
systems as “user hostile” rather than
“user friendly.”
Figure 1. Designing for the Human
Raytheon addresses human needs by incorporating
best practices from within the
Company, as well as using knowledge
based on academic research. Raytheon’s
primary areas of interest for addressing the
human factor include the Human Computer
Interface (HCI) and Hardware/Workstation
Ergonomics for both single user and crew
environments.
System HCI components often include a
multiplicity of individual subsystems, each
developed with its own look and feel.
These often use object-oriented designs
that are less difficult to code and test
(Figure 1). Although such designs meet
requirements, an interface designer’s perspective
can be quite different from the
perspective of a user in a stressful combat
situation. Training, maintenance, and operational
crew requirements are addressed
through innovations being applied through
Human Factors in new systems, such as
Theater High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) and the DD(X) Future Surface
Combatant Program.
Human Factors practices, in designing HCI
for usability by the human, involve the
following:
• Creation of Style Guides, which help
ensure commonality between HCI
subcomponents through recommendations
for HCI design in terms of colors,
fonts, window styles, navigation
methods, and screen components
(e.g., push buttons, pull down menus)
• Task Analysis to help define system
interaction and information require-
ments to meet the mission or task.
Critical Task Analysis focus on which
tasks can be automated and which
must be reserved for the human end
user. Human-centered functional
allocation decisions early in the system
engineering process can profoundly
affect the effort and staff required to
operate the objective system
• Rapid Prototyping of HCI concepts,
which help mature software design
and analysis. This gives the customer
a window into the design “vision” of
the overall HCI
• Usability Testing of HCI concepts with
representative end users, helping to
validate human interaction in a variety
of situations. Usability testing will
primarily analyze performance in
terms of decision/action time and
accuracy of decisions/actions. These
testing results then drive recommendations
for screen design.
Additionally, usability results can