TT_Vol3 Issue2 - Raytheon

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VAN DAM INTERVIEW 24 Continued from page 23 A There is a saying that goes like this, “When you develop critical SW out-ofhouse, you get out-house results.” The key here being critical. Employers need to get a better handle on the management of distributed teams that continues to plague project managers in systems development even within the confines of their own company. The outsourcing of SW development to overseas firms, where the communication, background and vernacular is strained and severely limited, further exacerbates this. Higher-educational systems and professional training organizations can assist in filling the void and closing the communication and cultural divides. But there is a potential for this to escalate to being a horrendous problem where “out-house” results will unfortunately be realized. We must accept that outsourcing is here to stay, including outsourcing overseas. It is critical that outsourcing be successful, especially given its criticality to the survival of the foreign companies and their supporting culture. We need to develop better techniques and approaches to secure successful results that are mutually beneficially to all involved. Q Following up on your comments and concerns associated with the increasing complexity of today’s and tomorrow’s systems, can you expand on the concept of developing reliable software? A Fielded systems are exposed to all kinds of external problems. The potential exists for our systems to be infected by viruses, time bombs, and the like of which are not yet known, and for which the existing virus eradication programs are no match. We’re in a fool’s paradise if we don’t address this in earnest today. Cyberterrorism is a critical challenge we must tackle head-on in order to have an impact. The cost to the economy for an attack is immeasurable. We haven’t yet seen the extent and severity of such an attack to a critical component of the U.S. Infrastructure or national DoD asset. There are technical, political, educational, social and financial challenges that must be addressed in order to realize a process for safeguarding our development processes. Safeguarding our systems must be engineered-in and not engineered after the fact. � Leadership Perspective PETER PAO Vice President of Technology Systems and Software Engineering and Mission System Integration As our customers are transforming into the Network Centric Operation era, the integration of information and systems becomes one of the most challenging tasks. Mission System Integration (MSI) is at the heart of the solution. It is critical to our nation’s ability to defend itself. At Raytheon, we have the required domain knowledge and integration expertise to succeed in this market. MSI is a growing business opportunity for us and an important part of our growth strategy. Recently, a small internal team conducted a study on Raytheon’s capabilities for pursuing the MSI business. The team identified our strengths as well as areas that needed improvement. Here are their findings and the actions we are taking in Engineering and Technology to move forward on this path: 1. The key to the MSI business is systems engineering capability, especially architecture and modeling & simulation. 2. Common mistakes are: •Misunderstanding customers’ needs •Late system engineering and architecture participation •Inconsistent architecture skills, methodologies and applications I believe they are right on target. Technology is important to all of our programs but, in MSI, the key discriminators are system engineering and architecture capabilities. Architecture is not only the blueprint of how parts are put together to form a system, it is also the recipe on how the system is to be operated throughout its life. A good architecture needs to meet the customer’s immediate requirements. It also needs to address their future challenges, such as requirement changes and technology migrations. This can only be achieved by working with our customers from the very beginning and gaining a thorough understanding of their problems and constraints. In the last ten years, major progress has been made in architecture. A common accepted definition and methodology has emerged. It is gradually becoming an engineering discipline. We need to establish a company-wide architecture methodology and apply it in all of our programs. This will enable us to speak the same language, enhance our communications so they are clear and concise, and learn from our experiences so we can continually improve our architecture processes and skills. CMMI® has been one of our focuses to improve our system engineering capabilities, and we are doing well. Most, if not all, of our businesses have achieved CMMI Level 3. Some businesses are even at Level 5. We need to continue this journey. To this end, I am pleased to announce a four-column “MSI Initiative,” which focuses on Architecture and Modeling & Simulations. The four columns are: Modeling & Simulation (M&S) — M&S is an effective tool to communicate with our customers. We use it to help us understand their problems, and to try out candidate solutions. A company-wide M&S framework has been developed to assure reuse and interoperability for all the M&S tools we have built throughout the company. Reference Architecture — We need to develop reference architecture for our Strategic Business Areas (SBAs), including Network Centric Operations and our major product lines, such as service radars, airborne radars and air-to-air missiles. These reference architectures guide our individual program pursuits and product/technology developments. With these common frameworks, our programs and products will be interoperable and synergistic. Only then can we talk about meaningful product and technology reuse. Process and Tools — Combining DoDAF, Zachman, TOGAF and ATAM, we have developed a company-wide architecture process called Raytheon Enterprise Architecture Process (REAP). We must all use it. I agree that today’s REAP still needs work, but I believe, as in most everything we do, there is always room for improvement. Only through using REAP can we can make it the best in the industry. Only by using the same process can we can pool our resources to build an effective toolset. People — We are developing a set of system engineering and architecture training classes, such as the System Engineering Technical Development Program (SETDP). For architecture, we will have an introduction course, an advanced course and an architect certification program for accomplished Raytheon architects. You are our greatest asset, and we are committed to developing your skills. You will find that much of this issue of technology today is dedicated to discussing these four topics in detail. Systems engineering, architecture, and modeling and simulation are core competencies we must possess to grow our business and meet our customers’ future challenges. Our people are what will pull it all together and, in turn, enable our success. I strongly urge you to participate in the MSI Initiative. Take the challenge and support our efforts in becoming an integrator of mission solutions.
DESIGN FOR SIX SIGMA - CRITICAL PARAMETERS MANAGEMENT – DESIGNING WHAT THE CUSTOMER WANTS Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) is proactively and aggressively using Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) as an important new method of managing the performance parameters most important to our customers. Since many engineers don’t have frequent contact with customers, how can they ensure that their designs really meet customer needs? Skip Creveling, author of Design for Six Sigma in Technology and Product Development states: “Few things focus a team on the most important customer needs, product requirements, design parameters, performance metrics and deliverables for a product’s success better than Critical Parameter Management (CPM)”. What is CPM? How does it relate to DFSS? CPM is the process of defining and managing the performance parameters most important to the customer in a predictive, proactive and robust manner. Design for Six Sigma focuses on improving product cost and performance, driven by customer needs. The three areas of DFSS are Affordability, Producibility and Performance. Affordability includes Cost As an Independent Variable (CAIV), Life Cycle Costs (LCC) and Design to Cost (DTC) to ensure that the customer’s short and longterm cost requirements are met. The Producibility area emphasizes Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) principles, statistical tolerance allocation and other methods to ensure the design can be produced with no “surprises”. The Performance area focuses on determining the performance goals the customer needs and then robustly designing a product to meet those goals. The key to success is actively managing all three areas in an integrated fashion. How is that done? Typically, performance, producibility and affordability are managed by different processes, databases, tools and people. The skill sets and information needed in each area are different. The challenge of DFSS is not to have a common skill set for all engineers, but to integrate the knowledge and information from these three areas. All DFSS areas have the same focal point — the customer. Everyone must be aligned with the customer’s needs, concerns and desires. But how can an engineer designing a component for a subsystem in a system that is integrated with other systems know what the customer wants? CPM is a robust, structured method that helps us understand and actively manage the relationship of lower level design parameters to customer needs. Critical Parameters, called Key Performance Parameters (KPP) in IPDS, are the performance parameters that are most important to the customer. The Department of Defense states, “A key performance parameter is that capability or characteristic so significant that failure to meet the threshold can cause the concept or system selection to be reevaluated or the program to be reassessed or terminated” (DoD Integrated Product and Process Development Handbook). The first step is asking the right questions and listening to the customer. Once the KPPs are defined, they must be managed to ensure customer success, which implies oversight, organization and reporting. CPM includes all these aspects, and is referenced in IPDS as a method for managing KPPs. The deliverables of CPM are the “root causes”, the Key Product Characteristics (KPC), that affect the KPPs. Transfer functions define the quantitative or mathematical relationship between a KPP and the KPCs. Also, defining the KPCs by probability distributions enables statistical prediction of the performance of these KPPs most important to the customer. In IDS, the selected CPM tool is the Six Sigma Cockpit® from Cognition Corporation. This tool provides CPM functions and also generates the functional performance tree from the QFD. A good cost model is critical, and ideally would be linked to performance and producibility models. IDS is working with Cognition to develop this linkage between the cost model tool, Enterprise Cost Management®, used for CAIV and the performance/producibility model tool, Six Sigma Cockpit®. CPM can highlight supplier components that do not have robust, predictive performance data, and other components that do have easily-defined transfer functions. If the performance of a component or subsystem drives customer satisfaction, we must know how it affects the customer, and how much it varies. Without this understanding, customer success is not ensured. CPM is a structured way to help ensure all the bases are covered, and in the words of Skip Creveling, “CPM lies at the heart of DFSS… The data it produces is the lifeblood of DFSS.” - Wayne Risas, Rich Schiele 25
Page 1 and 2: technology today HIGHLIGHTING RAYTH
Page 3 and 4: TECHNOLOGY TODAY technology today i
Page 5 and 6: Model Driven Computing Leveraging E
Page 7 and 8: Cognitive Computing A Renaissance i
Page 9 and 10: • Sea Power 21: NCO’s Vision fo
Page 11 and 12: Organizing Knowledge Figure 2. Onto
Page 13 and 14: product; an integrated dictionary m
Page 15 and 16: Integrated Object-Oriented database
Page 17 and 18: A new process must emerge whereby a
Page 19 and 20: Figure 2. Human Factors in the Desi
Page 21 and 22: equired for a robust systems archit
Page 23: An interview with Dr. Andries van D
Page 27 and 28: Capability Maturity Model Integrati
Page 29 and 30: As a technology-driven company, Ray
Page 31 and 32: U.S. Patents Issued to Raytheon At

TT_Vol3 Issue2 - Raytheon

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?