ENGLISH ESSAY
Leila@
assignment__5.zipATT00001
ATT00002
ATT00003
ATT00004
ATT00005
Clarence_Eder_Biography_(Jan_2015) (1).pdf
BIOGRAPHY: CLARENCE L. EDER (January 2015)
Clarence Eder is a retired United States Air Force officer and is currently working as Principal Acquisition
Associate and Senior Systems Engineer for Quantech Services, Inc. in El Segundo, California. He leads a team
of systems engineers and acquisition professionals in the development of strategies and documents to start the
new Air Force Weather Systems Follow-On (WSF) program. Clarence has over 18 years of acquisitions,
engineering, and operational experience in space, intelligence, missile defense, and aircraft programs.
Clarence was raised in Honolulu, Hawaii. He graduated with a Mechanical Engineering degree from the
University of Hawaii and was commissioned into the Air Force in 1996. As a second lieutenant, he was
assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. He worked to improve Air Force flying training
systems, and then became a project manager to improve T-37 aircraft engines and A-10 aircraft engines.
In 1999, he was assigned to Space and Missiles Systems Center in Los Angeles, California. He worked as an
Acquisition Support manager to implement Department of Defense (DoD) processes and policies to major space
programs. As a captain, he became a Mission Integration Manager for launch vehicles. He led teams to
integrate Global Positioning System (GPS), weather, and intelligence satellites into the newly acquired $18.8B
Air Force rockets. He also worked Ground systems integration issues.
In 2003, he was assigned to the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) in Reston, Virginia to be Chief
of Tactical Imagery Dissemination. He led a team to develop, test, and deploy a $17M imagery system. He
trained Navy Seals and Special Forces deployed worldwide to use the system. As a major, he became a
Contacting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) for the $2B Geoscout program, NGA’s top acquisition
program. He implemented over $123M engineering change proposals.
In 2007, he was assigned to Boulder, Colorado to be Chief of Mission Operations for the $5.8B Space Based
Infrared Systems (SBIRS) satellites. He was the crew commander for successful launch, early on-orbit testing,
collection and reporting for strategic missile warning. He then became the Chief of SBIRS Integration and
Transition Planning, in which he led joint teams to deliver certified SBIRS intelligence data, update ground
systems, and resolve systems integration issues.
In 2011, he was assigned to Huntsville, Alabama to become the Systems Engineering Operations Director for
the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System at the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). He led
integration baseline reviews for the 528-person GMD $3B development and sustainment contract. He led all
acquisitions and operations for the 109-person Systems Engineering and Integration Directorate.
Clarence retired from active duty military in August 2014 and moved his family to Southern California. He
currently lives in Redondo Beach with his wife Stacy and 2 children, Haley (6) and Colin (3).
EDUCATION
• Doctoral Candidate in Systems Engineering, Anticipated Completion Date: Spring 2016
George Washington University, Washington D.C.
• Graduate Certificate in Systems Engineering, 2006
George Washington University, Washington D.C.
• Masters in Business Administration, with concentration in Information Systems, 1999
Wright State University, Dayton, OH
• Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, 1996
University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI
Eder,_Sys_Eng_DoD_Examples_(LMU,_26_Feb_15) (2).pdf
A View in Systems Engineering
Using Department of Defense Examples
By: Clarence Eder
26 February 2015
OUTLINE
My Background
Department of Defense (DoD) Acquisitions
Systems Engineering Organization
Systems Engineering Applications in Weapon
Systems Acquisitions
A look into Systems Integration
Stakeholders and Coordination
Questions
2
BACKGROUND Current Status:
Retired United States Air Force Officer in 2014
Currently work as a Principal Acquisition Associate for Quantech Services Inc.
PhD Candidate for Systems Engineering at George Washington University
Raised in Honolulu, Hawaii
Graduated with Mechanical Engineering degree at University of Hawaii
Commissioned in the Air Force and coded as an Acquisitions Officer/Program Manager
Aeronautical Systems Center (Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, OH) working future planning for aircraft training/simulators; next job was project manager to improve two aircraft engines (T-38 and A-10)
Space and Missiles Systems Center (Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA) working in space operations acquisitions policies; next job was mission integration manager for EELV rockets
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency or NGA (Reston, VA) working tactical imagery; next job was working as tech rep for Contracts of NGA’s largest Acquisitions program
Space Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) Directorate (Boulder, CO) working as a space operations crew commander; next job was Chief of Integrations of Grounds systems and Systems Engineering
Missile Defense Agency or MDA (Huntsville, AL) working as the Operations Director for Systems Engineering and Integration Directorate
Education: BS in ME at University of Hawaii; MBA at Wright State University; Systems Engineering Graduate Certificate at GWU; PhD Candidate at GWU
3
OBJECTIVES
To provide some examples of systems
engineering applications in Department of
Defense (DoD) Acquisition programs
To provide some examples of how one can
evolve to become an effective systems
engineer in DoD
To provide a potential option into improving
System of Systems Integration process
4
Department of Defense Programs
There are several hundred programs in Department of Defense (DoD) procuring weapon systems Army
Navy
Air Force
Others (Intelligence, Logistics etc.)
5
Department of Defense Programs
In the Office of the Secretary of Defense, there is an acquisition office that facilitates all acquisition activities within DoD
These organizations work closely with the different Services (Army, Air Force, Navy, Others)
These organizations help with the distribution of $ to all the programs
6
DoD Acquisition Categories (ACAT)
ACATs are established to determine the level of management review, decision authority, and applicable requirements for a program
ACAT I Programs
ACAT I programs are Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP). An MDAP is defined as a program estimated by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)
Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) of more than $365 million
ACAT II Programs
ACAT II programs are defined as those acquisition programs that do not meet the criteria for an ACAT I program, but do meet the criteria for a Major System. The Milestone Decision Authority for ACAT II programs is the CAE.
Research, development, test, and evaluation of more than $140 million
ACAT III Programs
ACAT III programs are defined as those acquisition programs that do not meet the criteria for an ACAT I or ACAT II.
7
DoD Acquisitions
Pre-Milestone A: Requirements Analysis & Develop Acquisition Strategy
Milestone A: Entering Tech Maturation & Risk Reduction Phase
Milestone B: Entering Engineering & Start Developing System
Milestone C: Entering Production Phase
8
DoD Acquisitions Organizations
(notional example)
Organization of typical Weapon Systems Program Office, usually referred to as System Program Office (SPO):
Program Management
Decisions on cost, schedule, and performance
Program Manager (PM), Assistant or Deputy PM, Administrative Support
Finance
Budget Planning and Execution
Cost Estimating
Contracts
Engineering
Technical Advisors
Requirements, Test & Integration, Design, Integration, Test, Analysis, Operations
Implementation and execution of technical processes
Business Operations (Schedulers, Personnel, Administrative, Human Resources, Security)
Division Leads for each part of the program (Subsystems Lead)
Operations (Deployment of Systems)
Logistics
Quality
9
Systems Engineering “V”
(Shapes some Engineering Organizations)
10
Systems Engineering in DoD
Systems Engineering Definition (INCOSE):
Systems Engineering is an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful systems. It focuses on defining customer needs and required functionality early in the development cycle, documenting requirements, then proceeding with design synthesis and system validation while considering the complete problem
Systems Engineering integrates all the disciplines and specialty groups into a team effort forming a structured development process that proceeds from concept to production to operation. Systems Engineering considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs.
Systems Engineering (my interpretation): Systems Engineering provide the process and the means develop/improve systems successfully. Systems Engineering is NOT to fix the systems after breaking; instead it is a process applied so that the system will likely not break/fail
The goal for Systems Engineering organizations in DoD Program Offices is to provide technical advice and analyses to help Program Managers make decisions on the system
11
Employing Systems Engineering
Typical cost projections for DoD programs
12
Employing good SE processes
Change in Requirements
Requirements Creep (changes in requirements from Stakeholders based on mission change, technology updates, etc.)
Change is constant in large programs, but the program office needs to understand impacts through risk analysis (usually cost increase and schedule delays)
13
Systems Engineering Organization (ref. MDA)
Systems Engineering & Integration Director
SE&I Deputy Director
Operations Director and Operations Division (Contracts, Finance, System
Deployment, Schedule, Security, Sustainment, Risks Analysis, Baseline Reviews,
Contractor Assessments---the glue of SE&I Directorate)
Enterprise Engineering Division (Concept Exploration, Systems Architecture)
Requirements Division (Requirements Development & Analysis, CONOPS
Development)
Models & Simulation Division (Design Activities, Pre-test analysis)
Integration Division (Integrating sub-systems and/or other systems that impact
the current system)
Test Division (Develop test procedures, Conduct HW/SW tests)
Analysis Division (Verification and Validation of design based on test results)
14
Aircraft Engines
A-10 Engine Improvement: improve it’s reliability, maintainability, availability (RMA)
SE Tools: Test & Analysis process; Model & Simulation; Test data evaluation and redesign components
T-37 Engine Sustainment: understanding operational life prior to retiring aircraft
SE Tools: Test & Analysis process
Officially retired in 2009 after 52 yrs (11 years after we made tech recommendations to improve sustainment processes)
15
Rocket Integration Delta IV and Atlas V rockets SE Tools:
Systems Integration (booster to spacecraft; spacecraft to ground stations)
Models & Simulation
Requirements Analysis
Verification and Validation (V&V) to ensure HW/SW match requirements
Spacecraft Integration: DMSP (Weather), GPS (defense and commercial use), and NPOESS (future weather) planning
16
Tactical Imagery Dissemination Tactical Imagery System on the field of battle SE Tools:
Systems Integration (laptop to antenna to data distributor)
Requirements Analysis
V&V (HW/SW match requirements)
Design considerations with user
User Training
17
Notional Graphics due to
Security Classification
SBIRS Operations
Space Based Infrared Systems (Launch and Operations) SE Tools:
Systems Integration (Spacecraft to booster; Spacecraft to Ground Systems; Spacecraft to Data Center)
Requirements Analysis
Test & Analysis (test Command links to spacecraft; test data collection and distribution)
V&V (HW/SW match requirements)
18
Missile Defense System
Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System SE Tools:
Systems Architecture (System of Systems Integration)
Systems Integration (Kill Vehicle to booster; Kill vehicle to Ground Systems)
Requirements
Model & Simulation (many simulation tests due to costly operational tests)
Test & Analysis (test Command links to spacecraft; test data collection and distribution)
V&V (HW/SW match requirements)
19
DoD Acquisitions (system readiness)
Post-Milestone A is Tech Maturation
Preliminary designs are identified and given a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) value to be used with that design
During Technology Risk Assessment (TRA) process, DoD adopted TRL to understand the maturity of the technology being used for the design of the system
Reduce program risks (cost, schedule, technical) through continued risk analyses tools and processes
20
Systems Integration Research
During Technology Maturation process, there are significant number of
integration planning and execution that need to take place between
different systems and subsystems
DoD Acquisitions adopted Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) to help
identify the availability of technology; however, integration readiness have
not been officially integrated into DoD acquisition process
Integration Readiness Level (IRL) has been identified as a tool to facilitate
integration of systems but the current definitions does not allow it to be an
effective tool
With the right architectural framework and expanding beyond the IRL
notional identified levels allows it to be a powerful tool to help Program
Managers with integration decisions
21
TRL & IRL Level Notional Definitions (based on Sauser et.al., 2011)
Level TRL IRL
1 Basic Principles observed and reported An interface between technologies has been identified
with sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
relationship
2 Technology concept and/or application
formulated
There is some level of specificity to characterize the
interaction between technologies through their interface
3 Analytical and experimental critical function
and/or characteristic proof of concept
There is compatibility between technologies to orderly
and efficiently integrate and interact
4 Component and/or breadboard validation in
laboratory environment
There is sufficient detail in the quality and assurance of
the integration between technologies
5 Component and/or breadboard validation in
relevant environment
There is sufficient control between technologies
necessary to establish, manage, and terminate the
integration
6 System/subsystem model demonstration in
relevant environment
The integrating technologies can accept, translate, and
structure information for its intended application
7 System prototype demonstration in relevant
environment
The integration of technologies has been verified and
validated with sufficient detail to be actionable
8 Actual system completed and qualified through
test and demonstration
Actual integration completed and mission qualified
through test and demonstration in the system
environment
9 Integration is mission proven through successful
mission operations
Execute a support program that meets operational
support performance requirements and sustains the
system in the most cost-effective manner over its total life
cycle
22
Draft High Level System of Systems Integration Architecture using Integration Tools:
Materiel (Hardware,
Software, Tools, Facilities, etc.)
Processes, Policies, Contracts,
Agreements, Relationships, etc.
Stakeholders (Decision Makers,
Operators, Mangers Engineers, Organizations, etc.)
Compatibility/Interface Assessment; Use of IRL Tool; Weighted Scores
Integration Gaps/Risks (Technology, Language/Semantics, processes, policies)
Solution Alternatives
S c
o p
e
System Level Tests & Assessments In te
g ra
te d
S y s
te m
N
o C
u rr
e n
t S
o lu
ti o
n
23 C. Eder
DRAFT INTERFACE VARIABLES TO SUPPORT IRL* ASSESSMENT
INTERFACES
System (1)
System (2)
…System (n)
Need Date Interface
Dependencies
IRL* assessment
(results using
additional variables)
Weight Complexity
• IRL assessment could be expanded beyond the notional identified level to help
facilitate its use in practice
• Some interface variables that could impact the integration readiness level
assessment include:
• Need Date: Delivery schedule of system once the interface is complete
• Interface Dependencies: Impacted by other system interface(s), policies, and
processes
• Weight: Level of Significance/Priority (based on stakeholders’ inputs)
• Complexity: Available tools and technology to perform interface; man-hours
needed to perform interface
24
C. Eder
Current Integration Example
Current job is Principal Acquisition Associate for Quantech Services
Inc.
Lead a team of 12 acquisition experts, systems engineers, scheduler,
logisticians, and administrative support to Weather Systems Follow-On
(WSF) program in Space & Missiles Systems Center
WSF is a pre-milestone A program that requires a lot of planning to
meet the requirements of stakeholders (warfighters, NOAA, Navy
ships etc.); and the development of the Acquisition Strategy
Integration is a large part in the WSF planning due to the
requirements to build a new payload (sensor) with a commercially
available spacecraft, current Ground Systems (communicate with
the sensor and spacecraft), and launch vehicle/process
Collaboration and coordination with stakeholders (military
personnel, government civilian personnel, and several government
contractors) is critical to making progress with the program
25
Stakeholders and Coordination
Some of the biggest systems engineering challenges in DoD programs:
Stakeholders buy-in, Communication/Coordination, and Funding
Most engineers think they’re right because of their analyses without
understanding the politics/relationships behind every decision
Understanding who the right stakeholders that need to make the
decisions and learning to work with them can significantly improve
program coordination
In my experience, the more successful systems engineers are the ones
who are usually:
Good communicators (must be able to communicate technical work
at a high level)
Thinking Strategically (understand how one decision will impact the
entire system)
Playing well with others (team player)
Willing to learn other stakeholders’ motives and willing to adapt
Understanding lowest technical requirements and processes
26
Program Management and Systems Engineering
As a program manager, you get to make the final decisions on the
program’s cost, schedule, and performance
As a systems engineer, the PM is dependent on your technical
inputs and the facilitation of technical processes. Some of the better
PMs (in my experience) worked previously as Systems Engineers.
Both are very important to have a successful organization along with
other disciplines. According to the INCOSE definition, Systems
Engineering consider all aspects of the program (not just technical)
Personally, having an engineering background enabled me to be a
better program manager. Having program management background
enabled me to be a better systems engineer and vice versa.
When you have an opportunity to work in other parts of the program
(i.e. finance, contracts, security etc.), it improves your understanding
of the total system and enable you to apply lessons learned to your
systems engineering processes
27
QUESTIONS?
28
“Don’t just be an engineer, be a systems engineer”
-- C. Eder
LMU_SELP_694_Memo_Sample_(1).docx
MEMO
<indicate, First Submission, Second Submission, or Final Submission>
FROM: <insert student name>
TO: Professor Poladian, Instructor SELP 694, LMU
DATE: <insert date>
SUBJECT: Memo on <insert speaker name>, <insert title of speaker’s presentation in quotes>
On February XX, 2015 in the SELP 694 Seminar Class, Mr. XYZ presented a lecture entitled “Systems Engineering LMU SE Seminar Class.” Mr. XYZ is currently the Vice President of ABC Corp. Mr. XYZ graduated from XYZ University and joined the US Navy to work in various intelligence positions and travelled throughout the world.
Mr. XYZ described the typical career path for a systems engineer including the expectations and responsibilities of the various positions. Furthermore, Mr. XYZ shared the different aspects of business sizes and how to develop new business in both the commercial and government arenas.
Mr. XYZ started off the seminar with a concept called “MATTESS,” which stands for “Money, Advancement, Travel, Training, Experience, Satisfaction, and Security.” The concept states that an employee is motivated to do their best work by at least one of the aforementioned items. System engineers usually promote themselves out of a job, which includes the transition to engineering management, then managing engineering, then program management, and finally business development. Transitioning to engineering management requires good communication and motivational skills. In addition, transitioning to managing engineering requires the understanding of corporate goals as well as management of budgets, schedules, requirements, and business strategy development. Furthermore, transitioning to program management requires successful budget, schedule, requirements, and new business development as well as providing key interactions with the customer. Lastly, transitioning to business development requires a good understanding of how business is generated, engaging customers and competitors, helping the customer sell the solution, find funding, and finally keeping the program sold. Mr. XYZ described the different business sizes including the large-sized businesses such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, medium-sized businesses such as Honeywell and Rockwell Collins, and finally small-sized businesses, which are the largest growing market segments relied upon by the government and large-sized businesses.
Mr. XYZ’s presentation made me realize that satisfaction is what motivates me to do my best work as a subcontracts manager at my company. Furthermore, my position allows me to transition into my company’s business development area and I found Mr. XYZ’s presentation useful in helping me achieve my promotion goal into this new area.
I found the speaker very engaging and I appreciated his openness with his personal life which allowed the audience to connect more with him on a personal level. I also appreciated the information he shared about the current and future financial situation of the nation that allowed us to remain optimistic about our future business and security.
SELP_694_Guidelines_(2).docx
· Memos should summarize the content of the lecturer’s presentation. Pretend you are writing to a boss or colleague when you write about the contents of the speech.
· Use proper grammar and mechanics. By the time you submit the final draft to the professor, there should be no grammar, spelling, or mechanical mistakes. It is both your job and mine to make sure that you are submitting a coherent, intelligent, and well-written paper after each speaker.
· Before you turn in the final copy, you will email the first two rough drafts of your memo to me.
Memo Timeline
· 1. The first draft you will turn in will be due the Saturday at 5 pm following the presentation to [email protected]. If you turn it in even a minute late, I will only give you one round of edits rather than two. This will affect your grade!
· 2. I will return your papers back to you by Monday morning with my suggested edits.
· 3. You will revise your paper again with my edits and send it to me by Tuesday at 5 pm. I will give you one more round of edits by Wednesday at 5 pm, and then you will have to edit your paper one more time before you submit it to the professor on Thursday.
Grading Criteria
· Proper spelling
· Subject-verb agreement
· Word choice—did you use the correct word and demonstrate that you have a grasp on tone and language?
· Format
· All papers must be in Times New Roman font, size 12.
· One inch margins
· Approximately 500-750 words
· Professionalism.
· Avoid slang and colloquial phrases
SELP_694_Tamim_Alajlan_Assignment_Number 4_first_Submission.docx
First Submission
FROM: Tamim Alajlan
TO: Professor Poladian, Instructor SELP 694, LMU
DATE: 12th February 2015
SUBJECT: John Muratore’s Presentation on System Engineering: A Traditional Discipline in a Non-traditional Organization
12th February 2015, I had the valuable opportunity to attend a presentation by John Muratore on the aforementioned subject. The speaker is a veteran aerospace engineer with thirty years experiences in the field. A brief look into his biography reveals nothing but his unrelenting passion for aerospace engineering. John Muratore started his career as an Air Force Officer at the Air Force Base in Vandenberg. He also worked for the Cape Canaveral as a conductor in charge of vehicle testing and as a software developer. He later moved to Houston NASA Base, where he worked as a flight controller for the various shuttles at the base. John has headed software production for space shuttle programs and served as a flight director. He has led four main flights to the space one in which involved repair missions for the Hubble. John has also served in different leadership capacities within the sector. He has led the mission that changed the Apollo main frame control system to an international airspace station. John then provided leadership to the X-38 project and played an important role in the transformation of the Space Shuttle Systems after the accident in Columbia. These are some of the most important events that exhibit the speaker’s experience and leadership abilities in the field.
Other than his own personal journey in Systems Engineering, the speaker also focused on issues associated with SpaceX. He revealed that the entity was established with the key objective of offering reliable and effective space transportation. It is an organization that operates in a tech-style approach, it has over three thousand employees, and its launch sites are located at Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral. The organization is one of the fastest growing ventures in the space industry that operates in a very competitive market. Its profitability continues to increase as it signs new clients from a diverse base. The major customers include the international governments, commercial organizations, and the American government. The organization has invested in large scale development of different variety of spacecraft. For instance, it has more than three varieties of the Falcon type. Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 share similar architectural features and have similar engines. However, Falcon Heavy is an improvement of the two models that will come with advanced features.
Specific areas of operations that the company covers include manufacturing, designing, testing, and developing complex operating systems. The speaker revealed that for the twelve years in which SpaceX has been in operation, it has implemented the Merlin 1D, D rocket engines, and the Kestrel. It has built launch pads, manufacturing facilities, and a cargo spacecraft. Some of the current projects include the development of a new launch vehicle, the Raptor engine, Falcon Heavy, and the Crew Dragon.
Based on the presenter’s conclusion, I learnt that Systems Engineering is a sector of scientific development that protects the investments made in the sector by expecting and eliminating integration problems. This objective matches with the ideals of SpaceX, which has a system-based culture that strives to integrate safe and effective systems. The company’s philosophy is anchored on the doctrine of responsibility so as to develop reliable and efficient systems. It aims at eliminating system risks and develops systems at very low costs. For instance, in house design for most parts of Falcon 9 has enabled the company to reduce the traditional cost structures that are inherent in the aerospace industry. In this way, the company develops the best products at the lowest cost possible.
