Difference between pages "System Integration" and "Governance and Editorial Boards"

From SEBoK
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Robot improving glossary links)
 
m (Text replacement - "<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.0, released 1 June 2019'''</center>" to "<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.1, released 31 October 2019'''</center>")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Term|Integration (glossary)|System integration}} consists of taking delivery of the implemented {{Term|System Element (glossary)|system elements}} which compose the {{Term|System-of-Interest (glossary)|system-of-interest (SoI)}}, assembling these implemented elements together, and performing the {{Term|Verification and Validation Action (glossary)|verification and validation actions}} (V&V actions) in the course of the assembly. The ultimate goal of system integration is to ensure that the individual system elements function properly as a whole and satisfy the design properties or characteristics of the system. System integration is one part of the realization effort and relates only to developmental items. Integration should not to be confused with the assembly of end products on a production line. To perform the production, the assembly line uses a different order from that used by integration.  
+
__NOTOC__
 +
==BKCASE Governing Board==
 +
The three SEBoK steward organizations – the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer Society (IEEE-CS), and the Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) provide the funding and resources needed to sustain and evolve the SEBoK and make it available as a free and open resource to all. The stewards appoint the BKCASE Governing Board to be their primary agents to oversee and guide the SEBoK and its companion BKCASE product, GRCSE.  
  
==Definition and Purpose==
+
The BKCASE Governing Board includes:
System integration consists of a process that “''iteratively combines implemented system elements to form complete or partial system configurations in order to build a product or service. It is used recursively for successive levels of the system hierarchy''.” (ISO/IEC 15288 2015, 68). The process is extended to any kind of {{Term|Product System (glossary)|product system}}, {{Term|Service System (glossary)|service system}}, and {{Term|Enterprise System (glossary)|enterprise system}}. The purpose of system integration is to prepare the SoI for final validation and transition either for use or for production. Integration consists of progressively assembling aggregates of implemented elements that compose the SoI as architected during design, and to check correctness of static and dynamic aspects of interfaces between the implemented elements.
+
*'''The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)'''
 +
**Art Pyster (Governing Board Chair), Paul Frenz 
 +
*'''Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC)'''
 +
**Jon Wade, Cihan Dagli
 +
*'''IEEE Computer Society (IEEE CS)'''
 +
**Andy Chen, Rich Hilliard
  
The U.S. Defense Acquisition University (DAU) provides the following context for integration: ''The integration process will be used . . . for the incorporation of the final system into its operational environment to ensure that the system is integrated properly into all defined external interfaces. The interface management process is particularly important for the success of the integration process, and iteration between the two processes will occur'' (DAU 2010).
+
Past INCOSE governors Bill Miller, Kevin Forsberg, David Newbern, David Walden, Courtney Wright, Dave Olwell, Ken Nidiffer, Richard Fairley, Massood Towhidnejad, and John Keppler. The governors would also like to acknowledge John Keppler, IEEE Computer Society, who has been instrumental in helping the Governors to work within the IEEE CS structure.  
  
The purpose of system integration can be summarized as below:
+
The stewards appoint the BKCASE Editor in Chief to manage the SEBoK and GRCSE and oversee the Editorial Board.
* Completely assemble the implemented elements to make sure that the they are compatible with each other.
 
* Demonstrate that the aggregates of implemented elements perform the expected functions and meet measures of performance/effectiveness.
 
* Detect defects/faults related to design and assembly activities by submitting the aggregates to focused V&V actions.  
 
  
Note: In the systems engineering literature, sometimes the term ''integration'' is used in a larger context than in the present topic. In this larger sense, it concerns the technical effort to simultaneously design and develop the system and the processes for developing the system through concurrent consideration of all life cycle stages, needs, and competences. This approach requires the "integration" of numerous skills, activities, or processes.
+
==Editorial Board==
 +
The SEBoK Editorial Board is chaired by an Editor in Chief, supported by a group of Associate Editors.  
  
==Principles==
+
{| style="width:100%"
 +
! colspan="2" |SEBoK Editor in Chief
 +
|-
 +
| style="background-color: #ffffff" |
 +
[[File:Rob_Sm for Web.jpg|center|150px]]
 +
| style="background-color: #ffffff" |
 +
'''Robert J. Cloutier'''
  
===Boundary of Integration Activity===
+
''University of South Alabama''
Integration can be understood as the whole bottom-up branch of the Vee Model, including the tasks of assembly and the appropriate verification tasks. See Figure 1 below:
 
 
[[File:Limits_of_integration_activities.png|thumb|300px|center|'''Figure 1. Limits of Integration Activities.''' (SEBoK Original)]]
 
  
The assembly activity joins together, and physically links, the implemented elements. Each implemented element is individually verified and validated prior to entering integration. Integration then adds the verification activity to the assembly activity, excluding the final validation.
+
[mailto:rcloutier@southalabama.edu rcloutier@southalabama.edu]
 +
 
 +
Responsible for the appointment of SEBoK Editors and for the strategic direction and overall quality and coherence of the SEBoK.
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
{| style="width:100%"
 +
! colspan="1" |SEBoK Managing Editor
 +
|-
 +
|<center>|'''Nicole Hutchison'''
  
The final validation performs operational tests that authorize the transition for use or the transition for production. Remember that system integration only endeavors to obtain pre-production prototypes of the concerned product, service, or enterprise. If the product, service, or enterprise is delivered as a unique exemplar, the final validation activity serves as acceptance for delivery and transfer for use. If the prototype has to be produced in several exemplars, the final validation serves as acceptance to launch their production. The definition of the optimized operations of assembly which will be carried out on a production line relates to the manufacturing process and not to the integration process.
+
''Stevens Institute of Technology''
  
Integration activity can sometimes reveal issues or anomalies that require modifications of the design of the system. Modifying the design is not part of the integration process but concerns only the design process. Integration only deals with the assembly of the implemented elements and verification of the system against its properties as designed. During assembly, it is possible to carry out tasks of finishing touches which require simultaneous use of several implemented elements (e.g., paint the whole after assembly, calibrate a biochemical component, etc.). These tasks must be planned in the context of integration and are not carried out on separate implemented elements and do not include modifications related to design.
+
[mailto:nicole.hutchison@stevens.edu nicole.hutchison@stevens.edu]
  
===Aggregation of Implemented Elements===
+
Responsible for the the day-to-day operations of the SEBoK and supports the Editor in Chief.</center>
The integration is used to systematically assemble a higher-level system from lower-level ones (implemented system elements) that have been implemented. Integration often begins with analysis and {{Term|Simulation (glossary)|simulations}} (e.g., various types of prototypes) and progresses through increasingly more realistic systems and system elements until the final product, service, or enterprise is achieved.
+
|}
  
System integration is based on the notion of an {{Term|Aggregate (glossary)|aggregate}} - a subset of the system made up of several implemented elements (implemented system elements and physical interfaces) on which a set of V&V actions is applied. Each aggregate is characterized by a configuration which specifies the implemented elements to be physically assembled and their configuration status.  
+
Each Editor has his/her area(s) of responsibility, or shared responsibility, highlighted in the table below.
  
To perform V&V actions, a {{Term|Verification and Validation Configuration (glossary)|V&V configuration}} that includes the aggregate plus {{Term|Verification and Validation Tool (glossary)|V&V tools}} is constituted. The V&V tools are enabling products and can be simulators (simulated implemented elements), stubs or caps, activators (launchers, drivers), harness, measuring devices, etc.
+
{| style="width:100%"
 +
! colspan="1" |SEBoK Part 1 SEBoK Introduction
 +
|-
 +
|<center>'''Robert J. Cloutier'''
  
===Integration by Level of System===
+
''University of South Alabama''
According to the Vee Model, system definition (top-down branch) is done by successive levels of decomposition; each level corresponds to the physical architecture of systems and system elements. The integration (bottom-up branch) takes the opposite approach of composition (i.e., a level by level approach). On a given level, integration is done on the basis of the physical architecture defined during {{Term|System Definition (glossary)|system definition}}.
 
  
===Integration Strategy===
+
[mailto:rcloutier@southalabama.edu rcloutier@southalabama.edu]
The integration of implemented elements is generally performed according to a predefined strategy. The definition of the integration strategy is based on the architecture of the system and relies on the way the architecture of the system has been designed. The strategy is described in an integration plan that defines the minimum configuration of expected aggregates, the order of assembly of these aggregates in order to support efficient subsequent verification and validation actions (e.g., inspections and/or testing), techniques to check or evaluate interfaces, and necessary capabilities in the integration environment to support combinations of aggregates. The integration strategy is thus elaborated starting from the selected verification and validation strategy. See the [[System Verification]] and [[System Validation]] topics.
 
  
To define an integration strategy, there are several possible integration approaches/techniques that may be used individually or in combination. The selection of integration techniques depends on several factors; in particular, the type of system element, delivery time, order of delivery, risks, constraints, etc. Each integration technique has strengths and weaknesses which should be considered in the context of the SoI. Some integration techniques are summarized in Table 1 below.
+
Responsible for Part 1 </center>
 +
|}
  
{|
+
{| style="width:100%"
|+'''Table 1. Integration Techniques.''' (SEBoK Original)
+
! colspan="2" |SEBoK Part 2: Systems
!Integration Technique
 
!Description
 
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Global Integration'''
+
| width="50%" |'''Rick Adcock'''
|Also known as ''big-bang integration''; all the delivered implemented elements are assembled in only one step.
+
 
* This technique is simple and does not require simulating the implemented elements not being available at that time.
+
''Cranfield University''
* Difficult to detect and localize faults; interface faults are detected late.
+
 
* Should be reserved for simple systems, with few interactions and few implemented elements without technological risks.
+
[mailto:r.d.adcock@cranfield.ac.uk r.d.adcock@cranfield.ac.uk]
 +
 
 +
| width="50%" |'''Dov Dori'''
 +
 
 +
''Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA) and Technion Israel Institute of Technology (Israel)''
 +
 
 +
[mailto:dori@mit.edu dori@mit.edu]
 +
 
 +
Responsible for the [[Representing Systems with Models]] knowledge area
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Integration "with the Stream"'''
+
|'''Duane Hybertson'''
|The delivered implemented elements are assembled as they become available.
+
 
* Allows starting the integration quickly.
+
''MITRE (USA)''
* Complex to implement because of the necessity to simulate the implemented elements not yet available. Impossible to control the end-to-end "functional chains"; consequently, global tests are postponed very late in the schedule.
+
 
* Should be reserved for well known and controlled systems without technological risks.
+
[mailto:dhyberts@mitre.org dhyberts@mitre.org]
 +
 
 +
Jointly responsible for the [[Systems Fundamentals]], [[Systems Science]] and [[Systems Thinking]] knowledge areas
 +
 
 +
|'''Janet Singer'''
 +
 
 +
''UC Santa Cruz (USA)''
 +
 
 +
[mailto:jsinger@soe.ucsc.edu jsinger@soe.ucsc.edu]
 +
 
 +
Jointly responsible for the [[Systems Fundamentals]], [[Systems Science]] and [[Systems Thinking]] knowledge areas
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Incremental Integration'''
+
|'''Peter Tuddenham'''
|In a predefined order, one or a very few implemented elements are added to an already integrated increment of implemented elements.
+
 
* Fast localization of faults: a new fault is usually localized in lately integrated implemented elements or dependent of a faulty interface.
+
''College of Exploration (USA)''
* Require simulators for absent implemented elements. Require many test cases, as each implemented element addition requires the verification of the new configuration and regression testing.
+
 
* Applicable to any type of architecture.
+
[mailto:Peter@coexploration.net Peter@coexploration.net]
 +
|'''Cihan Dagli'''
 +
 
 +
''Missouri University of Science & Technology (USA)''
 +
 
 +
[mailto:dagli@mst.edu dagli@mst.edu]
 +
 
 +
Responsible for the [[Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems]] knowledge areas
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
{| style="width:100%"
 +
! colspan="2" |SEBoK Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Subsets Integration'''
+
| width="50%" |'''Barry Boehm'''
|Implemented elements are assembled by subsets, and then subsets are assembled together (a subset is an aggregate); could also be called "functional chains integration".
+
 
* Time saving due to parallel integration of subsets; delivery of partial products is possible. Requires less means and fewer test cases than integration by increments.
+
''University of Southern California (USA)''
* Subsets shall be defined during the design.
+
 
* Applicable to architectures composed of sub-systems.
+
[mailto:boehm@usc.edu boehm@usc.edu]
 +
 
 +
Jointly responsible for the [[Systems Engineering Management]] and [[Life Cycle Models]] knowledge areas
 +
 
 +
| width="50%" |'''Kevin Forsberg'''
 +
 
 +
''OGR Systems''
 +
 
 +
[mailto:kforsberg@ogrsystems.com kforsberg@ogrsystems.com]
 +
 
 +
Jointly responsible for the [[Systems Engineering Management]] and [[Life Cycle Models]] knowledge areas
 +
 
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Top-Down Integration'''
+
|'''Gregory Parnell'''
|Implemented elements or aggregates are integrated in their activation or utilization order.
+
 
* Availability of a skeleton and early detection of architectural faults, definition of test cases close to reality, and the re-use of test data sets possible.
+
''University of Arkansas (USA)''
* Many stubs/caps need to be created; difficult to define test cases of the leaf-implemented elements (lowest level).
+
 
* Mainly used in software domain. Start from the implemented element of higher level; implemented elements of lower level are added until leaf-implemented elements.
+
[mailto:gparnell@uark.edu gparnell@uark.edu]
|-
+
 
|'''Bottom-Up Integration'''
+
Responsible for [[Systems Engineering Management]] knowledge area.
|Implemented elements or aggregates are integrated in the opposite order of their activation or utilization.
+
 
* Easy definition of test cases - early detection of faults (usually localized in the leaf-implemented elements); reduce the number of simulators to be used. An aggregate can be a sub-system.
+
|'''Garry Roedler'''
* Test cases shall be redefined for each step, drivers are difficult to define and realize, implemented elements of lower levels are "over-tested", and does not allow to quickly detecting the architectural faults.
+
 
* Mainly used in software domain and in any kind of system.
+
''Lockheed Martin (USA)''
|-
 
|'''Criterion Driven Integration'''
 
|The most critical implemented elements compared to the selected criterion are first integrated (dependability, complexity, technological innovation, etc.). Criteria are generally related to risks.
 
* Allow testing early and intensively critical implemented elements; early verification of design choices.
 
* Test cases and test data sets are difficult to define.
 
|}
 
  
Usually, a mixed integration technique is selected as a trade-off between the different techniques listed above, allowing optimization of work and adaptation of the process to the system under development. The optimization takes into account the realization time of the implemented elements, their delivery scheduled order, their level of complexity, the technical risks, the availability of assembly tools, cost, deadlines, specific personnel capability, etc.
+
[mailto:garry.j.roedler@lmco.com garry.j.roedler@lmco.com]
  
==Process Approach==
+
Responsible for the [[Concept Definition]] and [[System Definition]] knowledge areas.
  
===Activities of the Process===
+
|-
 +
|'''Phyllis Marbach '''
  
Major activities and tasks performed during this process include
+
''Incose LA (USA)''
  
*'''Establishing the integration plan''' (this activity is carried out concurrently to the design activity of the system) that defines:
+
[mailto:prmarbach@gmail.com prmarbach@gmail.com]
** The optimized integration strategy: order of aggregates assembly using appropriate integration techniques.
 
** The V&V actions to be processed for the purpose of integration.
 
** The configurations of the aggregates to be assembled and verified.
 
** The integration means and verification means (dedicated enabling products) that may include {{Term|Assembly Procedure (glossary)|assembly procedures}}, {{Term|Assembly Tool (glossary)|assembly tools}} (harness, specific tools), V&V tools (simulators, stubs/caps, launchers, test benches, devices for measuring, etc.), and {{Term|Verification and Validation Procedure (glossary)|V&V procedures}}.
 
* '''Obtain the integration means''' and verification means as defined in the integration plan; the acquisition of the means can be done through various ways such as procurement, development, reuse, and sub-contracting; usually the acquisition of the complete set of means is a mix of these methods.
 
* '''Take delivery''' of each implemented element:
 
** Unpack and reassemble the implemented element with its accessories.
 
** Check the delivered configuration, conformance of implemented elements, compatibility of interfaces, and ensure the presence of mandatory documentation.
 
* '''Assemble the implemented elements''' into aggregates:
 
** Gather the implemented elements to be assembled, the integration means (assembly tools, assembly procedures), and the verification means (V&V tools and procedures).
 
** Connect the implemented elements on each other to constitute aggregates in the order prescribed by the integration plan and in assembly procedures using assembly tools.
 
** Add or connect the V&V tools to the aggregates as predefined.
 
** Carry out eventual operations of welding, gluing, drilling, tapping, adjusting, tuning, painting, parametering, etc.
 
* '''Verify each aggregate''':
 
** Check the aggregate is correctly assembled according to established procedures.
 
** Perform the verification process that uses verification and validation procedures and check that the aggregate shows the right design properties/specified requirements.
 
** Record integration results/reports and potential issue reports, change requests, etc.
 
  
===Artifacts and Ontology Elements===
+
|'''Ken Zemrowski'''
  
This process may create several artifacts such as
+
''ENGILITY''
  
* an integrated system
+
[mailto:kenneth.zemrowski@incose.org kenneth.zemrowski@incose.org]
* assembly tools
 
* assembly procedures
 
* integration plans
 
* integration reports
 
* issue/anomaly/trouble reports
 
* change requests (about design)
 
  
This process utilizes the ontology elements discussed in Table 2.
+
Responsible for the [[Systems Engineering Standards]] knowledge area.
 +
|}
  
{|
+
{| style="width:100%"
|+'''Table 2. Main Ontology Elements as Handled within System Integration.''' (SEBoK Original)
+
! colspan="2" |SEBoK Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering
!Element
 
!Definition
 
----
 
Attributes
 
|-
 
|'''Aggregate'''
 
|An aggregate is a subset of the system made up of several system elements or systems on which a set of verification actions is applied.
 
----
 
Identifier, name, description
 
|-
 
|'''Assembly Procedure'''
 
|An assembly procedure groups a set of elementary assembly actions to build an aggregate of implemented system elements.
 
----
 
Identifier, name, description, duration, unit of time
 
|-
 
|'''Assembly Tool'''
 
|An assembly tool is a physical tool used to connect, assemble, or link several implemented system elements to build aggregates (specific tool, harness, etc.).
 
----
 
Identifier, name, description
 
|-
 
|'''Risk'''
 
|An event having a probability of occurrence and a gravity degree on its consequence onto the system mission or on other characteristics (used for technical risk in engineering). A risk is the combination of vulnerability and of a danger or a threat.
 
----
 
Identifier, name, description, status
 
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Rationale'''
+
| width="50%" |'''Judith Dahmann'''
|An argument that provides the justification for the selection of an engineering element.
 
----
 
Identifier, name, description (rational, reasons for defining an aggregate, assembly procedure, assembly tool)
 
|}
 
  
Note: verification and validation ontology elements are described in the [[System Verification]] and [[System Validation]] topics.
+
''MITRE Corporation (USA)''
  
The main relationships between ontology elements are presented in Figure 2.
+
[mailto:jdahmann@mitre.org jdahmann@mitre.org]
  
[[File:SEBoKv05_KA-SystRealiz_Integration_relationships.png|thumb|600px|center|'''Figure 2. Integration Elements Relationships with Other Engineering Elements.''' (SEBoK Original)]]
+
Jointly responsible for [[Product Systems Engineering]] and [[Systems of Systems (SoS)]] knowledge areas
  
===Checking and Correctness of Integration===
+
|'''Michael Henshaw'''
The main items to be checked during the integration process include the following:
 
  
* The integration plan respects its template.
+
''Loughborough University (UK)''
* The expected assembly order (integration strategy) is realistic.
 
* No system element and physical interface set out in the system design document is forgotten.
 
* Every interface and interaction between implemented elements is verified.
 
* Assembly procedures and assembly tools are available and validated prior to beginning the assembly.
 
* V&V procedures and tools are available and validated prior to beginning the verification.
 
* Integration reports are recorded.
 
  
===Methods and Techniques===
+
[mailto:M.J.d.Henshaw@lboro.ac.uk M.J.d.Henshaw@lboro.ac.uk]
Several different approaches are summarized above in the section [http://sebokwiki.org/1.0.1/index.php?title=System_Integration#Integration_Strategy Integration Strategy] (above) that may be used for integration, yet other approaches exist. In particular, important integration strategies for intensive software systems include: vertical integration, horizontal integration, and star integration.
 
  
====Coupling Matrix and N-squared Diagram====
+
Jointly responsible for [[Product Systems Engineering]] and [[Systems of Systems (SoS)]] knowledge areas
One of the most basic methods to define the aggregates and the order of integration would be the use of N-Squared diagrams (Grady 1994, 190)
 
  
In the integration context, the coupling matrices are useful for optimizing the aggregate definition and verification of interfaces:
+
|-
  
* The integration strategy is defined and optimized by reorganizing the coupling matrix in order to group the implemented elements in aggregates, thus minimizing the number of interfaces to be verified between aggregates (see Figure 3).
+
| colspan="2" |<center>'''James Martin'''
  
[[File:JS_Figure_9.png|thumb|600px|center|'''Figure 3. Initial Arrangement of Aggregates on the Left; Final Arrangement After Reorganization on the Right.''' (SEBoK Original)]]
+
''The Aerospace Corporation''
  
* When verifying the interactions between aggregates, the matrix is an aid tool for fault detection. If by adding an implemented element to an aggregate an error is detected, the fault can be either related to the implemented element, to the aggregate, or to the interfaces. If the fault is related to the aggregate, it can relate to any implemented element or any interface between the implemented elements internal to the aggregate.
+
[mailto:james.martin@incose.org james.martin@incose.org]
  
===Application to Product Systems, Service Systems, and Enterprise Systems===
+
Responsible for the [[Enterprise Systems Engineering]] knowledge area.</center>
As the nature of implemented system elements and physical interfaces is different for these types of systems, the aggregates, the assembly tools, and the V&V tools are different. Some integration techniques are more appropriate to specific types of systems. Table 3 below provides some examples.
+
|}
  
{|
+
{| style="width:100%"
|+'''Table 3. Different Integration Elements for Product, Service, and Enterprise Systems.''' (SEBoK Original)
+
! colspan="2" |SEBoK Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering
!Element
 
!Product System
 
!Service System
 
!Enterprise System
 
 
|-
 
|-
|'''System Element'''
+
| width="50%" |'''Emma Sparks'''
|Hardware Parts (mechanics, electronics, electrical, plastic, chemical, etc.)
 
  
Operator Roles
+
''Cranfield University''
  
Software Pieces
+
Jointly responsible for the [[Enabling Individuals]]<nowiki/>and[[Enabling Teams]] knowledge area
|Processes, data bases, procedures, etc.
 
  
Operator Roles
+
| width="50%" |'''Rick Hefner'''
  
Software Applications
+
''California Institute of Technology''
|Corporate, direction, division, department, project, technical team, leader, etc.
+
 
 +
[mailto:Rick.Hefner@ngc.com Rick.Hefner@ngc.com]
  
IT components
 
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Physical Interface'''
+
| width="50%" | '''Tim Ferris'''
|Hardware parts, protocols, procedures, etc.
+
''Cranfield University''
|Protocols, documents, etc.
+
 
|Protocols, procedures, documents, etc.
+
[mailto:Timothy.Ferris@cranfield.ac.uk Timothy.Ferris@cranfield.ac.uk]
|-
+
 
|'''Assembly Tools'''
+
| width="50%" | '''Bernardo Delicado'''
|Harness, mechanical tools, specific tools
+
 
 +
''MBDA / INCOSE''
 +
 
 +
[mailto:bernardo.delicado@mbda-systems.com bernardo.delicado@mbda-systems.com]
  
Software Linker
+
|}
|Documentation, learning course, etc.
 
|Documentation, learning, moving of office
 
|-
 
|'''Verification Tools'''
 
|Test bench, simulator, launchers, stub/cap
 
|Activity/scenario models, simulator, human roles rehearsal, computer, etc.
 
  
Skilled Experts
+
{| style="width:100%"
|Activity/scenario models, simulator, human roles rehearsal
+
! colspan="2" |SEBoK Part 6 Related Disciplines
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Validation Tools'''
+
| width="50%" |'''Alice Squires'''
|Operational environment
 
|Operational environment
 
|Operational environment
 
|-
 
|'''Recommended Integration Techniques'''
 
|Top down integration technique
 
  
Bottom Up Integration technique
+
''Washington State University (USA)''
|Subsets integration technique (functional chains)
 
|Global integration technique
 
  
Incremental integration
+
[mailto:alice.squires@wsu.edu alice.squires@wsu.edu]
|}
 
  
===Practical Considerations===
+
| width="50%" |'''Paul Phister'''
Key pitfalls and good practices related to system integration are described in the next two sections.
 
  
===Pitfalls===
+
''MANIAC Consulting''
Some of the key pitfalls encountered in planning and performing SE Measurement are provided in Table 4.
 
  
{|
+
[mailto:phisterp@juno.com phisterp@juno.com]
|+'''Table 4. Major Pitfalls with System Integration.''' (SEBoK Original)
 
!Pitfall
 
!Description
 
 
|-
 
|-
|'''What is expected has delay'''
+
| colspan="2" |<center>'''Clif Baldwin'''
|The experience shows that the implemented elements always do not arrive in the expected order and the tests never proceed or result as foreseen; therefore, the integration strategy should allow a great flexibility.
+
 
 +
''FAA Technical Center''
 +
 
 +
[mailto:cliftonbaldwin@gmail.com cliftonbaldwin@gmail.com]
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
{| style="width:100%"
 +
! colspan="2" |SEBoK Part 7 Systems Engineering Implementation Examples
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Big-bang not appropriate'''
+
| width="50%" |'''Dick Fairley'''
|The "big-bang" integration technique is not appropriate for a fast detection of faults. It is thus preferable to verify the interfaces progressively all along the integration.
+
 
|-
+
''Software & Systems Engineering Associates (USA)''
|'''Integration plan too late'''
 
|The preparation of the integration activities is planned too late in the project schedule, typically when first implemented elements are delivered.
 
|}
 
  
===Good Practices===
+
[mailto: dickfairley@gmail.com dickfairley@gmail.com]
Some good practices, gathered from the references are provided in Table 5.
 
  
{|
+
Jointly responsible for [[Systems Engineering Implementation Examples|Part 7: Systems Engineering Implementation Examples]], which includes [[Case Studies]] and examples.
|+'''Table 5. Proven Practices with System Integration.''' (SEBoK Original)
 
!Practice
 
!Description
 
|-
 
|'''Start earlier development of means'''
 
|The development of assembly tools and verification and validation tools can be as long as the system itself. It should be started as early as possible as soon as the preliminary design is nearly frozen.
 
|-
 
|'''Integration means seen as enabling systems'''
 
|The development of integration means (assembly tools, verification, and validation tools) can be seen as enabling systems, using system definition and system realization processes as described in this SEBoK, and managed as projects. These projects can be led by the project of the corresponding system-of-interest, but assigned to specific system blocks, or can be subcontracted as separate projects.
 
|-
 
|'''Use coupling matrix'''
 
|A good practice consists in gradually integrating aggregates in order to detect faults more easily. The use of the coupling matrix applies for all strategies and especially for the bottom up integration strategy.
 
|-
 
|'''Flexible integration plan and schedule'''
 
|The integration process of complex systems cannot be easily foreseeable and its progress control difficult to observe. This is why it is recommended to plan integration with specific margins, using flexible techniques, and integrating sets by similar technologies.
 
|-
 
|'''Integration and design teams'''
 
|The integration responsible should be part of the design team.
 
|}
 
  
==References==
+
| width="50%" |'''Clif Baldwin'''
  
===Works Cited===
+
''FAA Technical Center''
DAU. February 19, 2010. ''Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG)''. Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
 
  
Faisandier, A. 2012. ''Systems Architecture and Design''. Belberaud, France: Sinergy'Com.
+
[mailto:cliftonbaldwin@gmail.com cliftonbaldwin@gmail.com]
  
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015.''[[ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288|Systems and Software Engineering - System Life Cycle Processes]].''Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.[[ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288]]:2015.
+
Jointly responsible for [[Systems Engineering Implementation Examples|Part 7: Systems Engineering Implementation Examples]], which includes [[Case Studies]] and examples.
  
===Primary References===
+
|}
INCOSE. 2010. ''[[INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook|Systems Engineering Handbook]]: A Guide for Systems Life Cycle Processes and Activities''. Version 3.2. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.
 
  
NASA. 2007. ''[[NASA Systems Engineering Handbook|Systems Engineering Handbook]].'' Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), NASA/SP-2007-6105.
+
{| style="width:100%"
 +
! colspan="1" |''Graduate Reference Curriculum for Systems Engineering (GRCSE)''
 +
|-
 +
|<center>''' David H. Olwell '''
  
===Additional References===
+
''St. Martin's University (USA)''
Buede, D.M. 2009. ''The Engineering Design of Systems: Models and Methods.'' 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
 
  
DAU. 2010. ''Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG)''. Ft. Belvoir, VA, USA: Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense. February 19, 2010.
+
[mailto:dolwell@stmartin.edu dolwell@stmartin.edu]
  
Gold-Bernstein, B. and W.A. Ruh. 2004. ''Enterprise integration: The essential guide to integration solutions''. Boston, MA, USA: Addison Wesley Professional.
+
Associate Editor for SEBoK''.''</center>
  
Grady, J.O. 1994. ''System integration''. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Inc.
+
|}
  
Hitchins, D. 2009. "What are the General Principles Applicable to Systems?" INCOSE ''Insight'' 12(4):59-63.
+
==Interested in Editing?==
 +
The Editor in Chief is looking for additional editors to support the evolution of the SEBoK. Editors are responsible for maintaining and updating one to two knowledge areas, including recruiting and working with authors, ensuring the incorporation of community feedback, and maintaining the quality of SEBoK content. We are specifically interested in support for the following knowledge areas:
  
Jackson, S. 2010. ''Architecting Resilient Systems: Accident Avoidance and Survival and Recovery from Disruptions''. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
+
*[[System Deployment and Use]]
 +
*[[Product and Service Life Management]]
 +
*[[Enabling Businesses and Enterprises]]
 +
*[[Systems Engineering and Software Engineering]]
 +
*[[Procurement and Acquisition]]
 +
*[[Systems Engineering and Specialty Engineering]]
  
Reason, J. 1997. ''Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents.'' Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.  
+
If you are interested in being considered for participation on the Editorial Board, please visit the BKCASE website http://www.bkcase.org/join-us/ or contact the BKCASE Staff directly at [mailto:bkcase.incose.ieeecs@gmail.com bkcase.incose.ieeecs@gmail.com].
----
 
<center>[[System Implementation|< Previous Article]] | [[System Realization|Parent Article]] | [[System Verification|Next Article >]]</center>
 
  
<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.0, released 1 June 2019'''</center>
 
  
[[Category: Part 3]][[Category:Topic]]
+
<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.1, released 31 October 2019'''</center>
[[Category:System Realization]]
 

Revision as of 04:55, 19 October 2019

BKCASE Governing Board

The three SEBoK steward organizations – the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer Society (IEEE-CS), and the Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) provide the funding and resources needed to sustain and evolve the SEBoK and make it available as a free and open resource to all. The stewards appoint the BKCASE Governing Board to be their primary agents to oversee and guide the SEBoK and its companion BKCASE product, GRCSE.

The BKCASE Governing Board includes:

  • The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
    • Art Pyster (Governing Board Chair), Paul Frenz
  • Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC)
    • Jon Wade, Cihan Dagli
  • IEEE Computer Society (IEEE CS)
    • Andy Chen, Rich Hilliard

Past INCOSE governors Bill Miller, Kevin Forsberg, David Newbern, David Walden, Courtney Wright, Dave Olwell, Ken Nidiffer, Richard Fairley, Massood Towhidnejad, and John Keppler. The governors would also like to acknowledge John Keppler, IEEE Computer Society, who has been instrumental in helping the Governors to work within the IEEE CS structure.

The stewards appoint the BKCASE Editor in Chief to manage the SEBoK and GRCSE and oversee the Editorial Board.

Editorial Board

The SEBoK Editorial Board is chaired by an Editor in Chief, supported by a group of Associate Editors.

SEBoK Editor in Chief
Rob Sm for Web.jpg

Robert J. Cloutier

University of South Alabama

rcloutier@southalabama.edu

Responsible for the appointment of SEBoK Editors and for the strategic direction and overall quality and coherence of the SEBoK.

SEBoK Managing Editor
Nicole Hutchison

Stevens Institute of Technology

nicole.hutchison@stevens.edu

Responsible for the the day-to-day operations of the SEBoK and supports the Editor in Chief.

Each Editor has his/her area(s) of responsibility, or shared responsibility, highlighted in the table below.

SEBoK Part 1 SEBoK Introduction
Robert J. Cloutier

University of South Alabama

rcloutier@southalabama.edu

Responsible for Part 1
SEBoK Part 2: Systems
Rick Adcock

Cranfield University

r.d.adcock@cranfield.ac.uk

Dov Dori

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA) and Technion Israel Institute of Technology (Israel)

dori@mit.edu

Responsible for the Representing Systems with Models knowledge area

Duane Hybertson

MITRE (USA)

dhyberts@mitre.org

Jointly responsible for the Systems Fundamentals, Systems Science and Systems Thinking knowledge areas

Janet Singer

UC Santa Cruz (USA)

jsinger@soe.ucsc.edu

Jointly responsible for the Systems Fundamentals, Systems Science and Systems Thinking knowledge areas

Peter Tuddenham

College of Exploration (USA)

Peter@coexploration.net

Cihan Dagli

Missouri University of Science & Technology (USA)

dagli@mst.edu

Responsible for the Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems knowledge areas

SEBoK Part 3: Systems Engineering and Management
Barry Boehm

University of Southern California (USA)

boehm@usc.edu

Jointly responsible for the Systems Engineering Management and Life Cycle Models knowledge areas

Kevin Forsberg

OGR Systems

kforsberg@ogrsystems.com

Jointly responsible for the Systems Engineering Management and Life Cycle Models knowledge areas

Gregory Parnell

University of Arkansas (USA)

gparnell@uark.edu

Responsible for Systems Engineering Management knowledge area.

Garry Roedler

Lockheed Martin (USA)

garry.j.roedler@lmco.com

Responsible for the Concept Definition and System Definition knowledge areas.

Phyllis Marbach

Incose LA (USA)

prmarbach@gmail.com

Ken Zemrowski

ENGILITY

kenneth.zemrowski@incose.org

Responsible for the Systems Engineering Standards knowledge area.

SEBoK Part 4: Applications of Systems Engineering
Judith Dahmann

MITRE Corporation (USA)

jdahmann@mitre.org

Jointly responsible for Product Systems Engineering and Systems of Systems (SoS) knowledge areas

Michael Henshaw

Loughborough University (UK)

M.J.d.Henshaw@lboro.ac.uk

Jointly responsible for Product Systems Engineering and Systems of Systems (SoS) knowledge areas

James Martin

The Aerospace Corporation

james.martin@incose.org

Responsible for the Enterprise Systems Engineering knowledge area.
SEBoK Part 5: Enabling Systems Engineering
Emma Sparks

Cranfield University

Jointly responsible for the Enabling IndividualsandEnabling Teams knowledge area

Rick Hefner

California Institute of Technology

Rick.Hefner@ngc.com

Tim Ferris

Cranfield University

Timothy.Ferris@cranfield.ac.uk

Bernardo Delicado

MBDA / INCOSE

bernardo.delicado@mbda-systems.com

SEBoK Part 6 Related Disciplines
Alice Squires

Washington State University (USA)

alice.squires@wsu.edu

Paul Phister

MANIAC Consulting

phisterp@juno.com

Clif Baldwin

FAA Technical Center

cliftonbaldwin@gmail.com

SEBoK Part 7 Systems Engineering Implementation Examples
Dick Fairley

Software & Systems Engineering Associates (USA)

[mailto: dickfairley@gmail.com dickfairley@gmail.com]

Jointly responsible for Part 7: Systems Engineering Implementation Examples, which includes Case Studies and examples.

Clif Baldwin

FAA Technical Center

cliftonbaldwin@gmail.com

Jointly responsible for Part 7: Systems Engineering Implementation Examples, which includes Case Studies and examples.

Graduate Reference Curriculum for Systems Engineering (GRCSE)
David H. Olwell

St. Martin's University (USA)

dolwell@stmartin.edu

Associate Editor for SEBoK.

Interested in Editing?

The Editor in Chief is looking for additional editors to support the evolution of the SEBoK. Editors are responsible for maintaining and updating one to two knowledge areas, including recruiting and working with authors, ensuring the incorporation of community feedback, and maintaining the quality of SEBoK content. We are specifically interested in support for the following knowledge areas:

If you are interested in being considered for participation on the Editorial Board, please visit the BKCASE website http://www.bkcase.org/join-us/ or contact the BKCASE Staff directly at bkcase.incose.ieeecs@gmail.com.


SEBoK v. 2.1, released 31 October 2019