Systems Engineering Transformation

Systems Engineering with System Models
An Introduction to Model-Based Systems Engineering

NAVAIR Public Release 2017-514. Distribution Statement A - "Approved for public release; distribution unlimited."

[vrindakandel]

Amazing presentation. That deep voice definitely helps to stick with it for 1 whole hour....

[JasonTurk]

This is the best presentation I've seen on MBSE. Nice work. Hope to see more like this.

[Dkji]

This is a very good overview of MBSE and SysML. Also it clarifies the myth about MBSE and how the organization can approach to MBSE to make it sustainable product development and management practice based on standards and methods. Kudos to team to create and present such important content.

[ZunityB]

This is a very good presentation on MBSE! Don't miss a minute!

[davea]

This is a very good overview of what MBSE is intended to be. But it only shows the perceived benefits and ignores hurdles which might cause as many problems as MBSE claims to solve.
@~55:27 mark: Step 1: "Define mission level requirements, including the ... architecture."
This is where significant problems will occur. For any real time system in a rapidly changing environment, where every microsecond is important to a successful outcome, the architecture design MUST be driven by performance requirements. To do otherwise is to put the cart before the horse.
The original use of the principle "Form Follows Function" (FFF) was in the architecture of buildings, but it also applies to complex, real time systems in dynamic environments. A significant risk of the MBSE approach will be trying to design a system using a pre-conceived architecture that is ill-suited to optimal performance. On top of that add the constantly changing mission requirements that always happen and you will find a lot of work will need to be redone because 'mission need' will require a change to the architecture, and a rework of everything that is driven by the original architecture presumption(s). If the top level requirements cannot be captured accurately, the entire process will be overly wasteful. The FFF principle applies as much today as it did in 1896 when it was first coined.
As a productivity enhancing tool, I can see how timelines and costs can be reduced via the use of an overarching toolset tying the entire system design process together. But true highly capable performance will require designing the architecture AFTER operational requirements are established. Not before, and not simultaneously. At best it could be an iterative approach, provided the operational requirements are well defined to begin with. Any significant change of requirements in the PDR timeframe can send you back to square one.
As a Systems Engineer of 35 years who has dealt with complex, high performance systems as challenging as anything mentioned in this overview I can see where the weak premise lies. I have reviewed the DoDAF v 2.0 and it appears to me that, like the Ada mandate of the 1990s, MBSE is unlikely to generate all the benefits currently being attributed to it. Time will tell.

[CandyHam]

incredible presentation quality. thank you for being so good

[eugeneleroux]

A brilliant explanation, and five star presentation. Well done.

[fredchen]

This presentation answers all questions!

[hunter]

Very Impressive video Thank YOU!
Can we have a latest version of the same subject covering advancement in System Engineering? I appreciate if you share one more video on this subject. Thank YOU!

[joseantoniojose]

Thank you so much, it was a helpful and interesting video which have explained in a very good way things about Systems engineering. Great.

[jti]

this is a fantastic and concise explanation!

[colkurtz]

SAMSO standard 77-6 forms the basis for System Requirements Analysis that has proven to be very effective across the system lifecycle. When the government decided to "save" money by throwing out MIL-STDs and "going commercial" they pulled the rug out from under the Systems Engineering discipline in government procurements. There was a period of several years where software development and hardware development models were advanced significantly while SE was not valued and either not included in the scope of procurements or grossly underfunded. Tools that were developed to support SE were piecemeal commercial attempts to solve segments of the SE process but none addressed the lifecycle. SE as a discipline regressed significantly. Architecture Based Design and now DoDAF are attempts to reinvigorate SE as a discipline, but if you go back to fundamentals, 77-6 and SRA worked well and form the conceptual progenitor for both ABD and DoDAF. The advantage of DoDAF is it uses an integrated tool set that better enables enforcing consistency. Having said that, DoDAF is a modern implementation of Mission Analysis, Operational Requirements Analysis, Logistics Support Analysis and Test Planning Analysis that were fully defined in the SAMSO standard. Having said that, "Model Based System Engineering" has been a key element of systems engineering since the 1970s when I first began performing MA and ORA.

[jctots]

This is the video I always show to colleagues when they ask why I prefer to work on Rhapsody than DOORS.

[JosephKasser]

A good defence of MBSE. However it fails to mention that the underlying integrated project database that joins the models and other elements is just a computerized requirements traceability matrix.

[JoseRamos-efhe]

BUEN..DIAS..ELMANO

CON.DIOS.DELANTE..NOTEDMO
DIOS..ES.LUS..IBIDA..AMOL

[TalytahCumi]

Congratulations for every TIMES🆔ℹ🚀🆗🌠❇✨☝

[surjandogra]

Lots of generic mumbo jumbo. No specific examples to compare mbsr versus se and clearly see the benefits.