The requirements analysis process “reverse-engineers” the subsystems and the components that the Contractor wants to incorporate into the design. From there, they allocate these requirements to Development Specifications and trace the Development Specifications back to the SyRS. This gives the Customer the illusion of a “top-down” process without jeopardising the preferred detailed design.

. Requirements analysis is only required if there is developmental technology involved in the design. Off the shelf technology already exists therefore there is no need to worry about analysis of the requirements for these subsystems. For developmental subsystems, requirements analysis and allocation generates a Development Specification to support detailed design for that subsystem.

Requirements analysis (during Preliminary Design) is conducted by the Customer in order to determine which parts of the design are to be allocated to the Contractor and which parts of the design will be developed in-house by the Customer. This is known as requirement allocation. The requirements allocated to the Customer are placed in the SyRS and the requirements allocated to the Contractor are placed in the relevant development specification.

. Requirements analysis takes the requirements in the SyRS and analyses them further to derive the requirements relevant at the subsystem-level. These requirements are then allocated to one or more of the subsystems via a requirements allocation matrix or equivalent. The result is a collection of subsystem specifications called “Development Specifications” that are traceable to and from the SyRS and upon which preliminary design decisions can be based.

Requirements analysis commences just prior to Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and usually forms an entry criterion for that review. PDR investigates how the requirements have been allocated to design space within the design to justify the selection and use of off the shelf technology. Requirements analysis must be completed prior to the end of preliminary design.

There are two broad categories of audits conducted in a standard systems engineering process - functional configuration audit (FCA) and physical configuration audit (PCA). We perform audits to confirm that the as-built system is accurately described by its technical documentation. These audits are typically conducted by the customer during the acceptance process.

Configuration audits in general confirm the correct operation of our configuration management system. Physical configuration audits make use of activities like inspections during construction and production to confirm alignment between as-built systems and their technical documentation. This becomes critical during the sustainment period.

Function and physical audits (FCA and PCA) are a critical part of the systems engineering design process and support development of the Functional Architecture and Physical Architecture respectively. Change to these architectures becomes increasing difficult with time which is why FCA and PCA are important parts of the earliest design reviews.

Functional and Physical Configuration Audits (FCA and PCA) are certainly critical parts of a robust systems engineering and configuration management process. Both types of audits are applicable to system developments involving "hardware" (structures, computer hardware, mechanical systems and so on). They are, however, not applicable to software because software does not have a physical form.

There are two broad categories of audits conducted in a standard systems engineering process - functional configuration audit (FCA) and physical configuration audit (PCA). We perform audits to confirm that the as-built system is accurately described by its technical documentation. With this in mind, audits commence after the system is completely constructed or produced.

Following release of the RFT and receipt of the responses, the customer checks the proposed costs first and tends to accept the lowest cost option. They then begin negotiation on issues such as technical compliance. In this way, the customer not only ends up with the cheapest option but also ends up with the greatest level of technical compliance.

When a customer issues an RFT, it is automatically open to any entity in the world who believes they have a compliant solution. Customers therefore often receive a large number of responses to RFTs. This can create evaluation problems for the customer who is often inundated with compliant offers from all over the world but restricting an RFT is illegal.

When responding to an RFT, companies state that they are compliant to the draft contract even if their solution is non-compliant in some areas. Stating non-compliance with the draft contract is avoided as this will make them uncompetitive in the tender process. Once at the negotiating table, areas of non-compliance can be raised and removed from the contract.

The RFT normally includes a draft Contract and solicits sufficient information for the customer to evaluate the responses. Responses are expected to vary in terms of compliance (against the draft Contract), costs, schedules, and levels of risk exposure. The customer generally selects a preferred tenderer based on the preferred blend of these variables.

When a company receives an RFT from a potential customer, they are legally required to respond. If they do not want to respond, they will provide the just the customer with the minimum amount of information and include a large price premium to indicate a lack of interest in the contract.

Scenarios are an important part of the Stakeholder Requirements Specification. They are developed using formal language and constructs to ensure they are a suitable basis for both system design and system verification. Scenarios are used by both the customer and the contractor to better understand stakeholder requirements.

Scenarios form an important attachment to the System Requirements Specification and therefore the functional baseline of the system. They are written in such a way as to "tell a story" about what the stakeholders want to achieve with the system. Scenarios are used by both the customer and the contractor to better understand stakeholder requirements.

Scenarios are developed by key customer stakeholders to explain what they want to achieve with the new system without requiring them to be systems engineering experts. The scenarios are then used by systems engineers to develop a more formal set of requirements in the form of the System Requirements Specification.

Scenarios are developed by potential contractors to help explain (to customer stakeholders) exactly what their proposed solution will be able to deliver in terms of capability. Scenarios are written in "customer's language" to help non experts to understand the proposed function and performance of the new system.

Scenarios are written by customer stakeholders to explain what they need from the new or improved capability. When a contract is eventually established with a contractor, the scenarios are attached to the contract in a section appropriately called the "Statement of Requirement" (SOR).

These baselines roughly correspond to system-level, subsystem-level, and component-level detailed design. Establishing the baselines is only part of the process. Configuration audits check each baseline against one another to discover any conflicts between the different baselines. If there is a conflict, the product baseline takes priority because it supports production.

These baselines roughly correspond to system-level, subsystem-level, and component-level detailed design. Establishing the baselines is only part of the process. Configuration audits check each baseline against one another to discover any conflicts between the different baselines. If there is a conflict, the allocated baseline takes priority because it supports the CI identification process.

These baselines roughly correspond to system-level, subsystem-level, and component-level detailed design. Establishing the baselines is only part of the process. Configuration audits (normally conducted during the production and integration process) compare as-built systems against the relevant baselines to confirm completeness and accuracy.

These baselines are established to support the contract management of the system development and roughly correspond to prime-contract level, sub-contract level, and equipment supplier level of design respectively. The term “allocated” gets its name from the fact that requirements are being allocated to a sub-contractor. The term “product” gets its name from the fact that it is defining a product or part.

These baselines are established to support the project management of the system development. The product baseline represents the function and performance of the system at the system level and is often used as the Statement of Requirement (SOR) on a contract. The functional baseline is derived from the product baseline and is used to describe the function and performance of the individual configuration items (CIs) within the design.

The PLCD defines the need to key lifecycle issues such as spares, training, test equipment and support facilities. If these issues are not accounted for, we may be left with a system that fails to deliver a capability to stakeholders. This is an extension of the POSTED concept introduced in this course.

The PLCD is developed early in the conceptual design stage as a way of modelling the life cycle cost (LCC) of the system. In this way, key LCC drivers associated with the system can be identified with a view to minimising LCC. One of the benefits of systems engineering is that it aims to minimise LCC

The PLCD identifies and describes the conceptual approaches to the key lifecycle stages such as operations, acquisition, deployment, sustainment and retirement. It is important to do this early as key stakeholders may have life-cycle related preferences that will influence and/or constrain the subsequent systems engineering effort.

Systems engineering is a lifecycle discipline and the the PLCD supports this by specifying the through-life support requirements for the system. It is critical to have the through-life support requirements specified as early as possible because research shows that the earlier our requirements are established, the better.

The PLCD is written by strategic stakeholders within the customer's organisation in order to describe the critical relationship between systems engineering processes and the other related processes such as project management, operations and sustainment. This assists with the systems engineering effort because systems engineering has an "interdisciplinary" focus.

Subsystem-level interfaces must be identified and documented as they place additional requirements/constraints on our interfacing subsystems. Interface requirements can be captured in the relevant Development Specifications or in a dedicated Interface Control Document, but they need to be mutually agreed between the “design owners” of the respective subsystems.

Hardware interfaces are the main concern during Preliminary Design and must be documented in the relevant hardware Development Specifications. Software interfaces are much simpler to deal with due to advanced software development environments and methodologies. Accordingly, software interfaces are normally addressed during the writing of code (in the Construction/Production phase)

Subsystem-level interfaces are managed differently depending on the acquisition concept determined by the Customer. If the system is being developed in-house, subsystem interfaces do not need to be addressed because a single design team is doing the whole design. If the system is being developed by a single contractor, it is the same. If, however, subcontractors are involved, subsystem-level interfaces must then be considered.

Systems engineering promotes a top-down process where requirements drive design, but when it comes to interfaces, the opposite is true. We design the subsystems (using top-down systems engineering) and then we integrate them together to highlight interfacing issues. Integration normally works but, if it does not work, interface issues that are addressed in the next iteration of design.

Subsystem-level interfaces are a concern for developmental subsystems because they need to be designed from “the ground up”. There is nothing we can do about the interfaces of off the shelf items so there is no need to identify or consider interface requirements associated with off the shelf technology.

The outputs of the detailed design process will be a collection of designs, parts/materials lists, and fabrication processes. These are reviewed and approved at the Preliminary Design Review and then added to the acquisition contract via a contract change proposal (CCP).

In a classic “waterfall” process, the outputs of detailed design and development are reviewed at the Critical Design Review (CDR), after which design continues until it is sufficiently complete to support the production/construction process. Design is "frozen" when the initial production process commences and is proven via verification activities.

It is likely that every design organisation we encounter will have different ways of performing detailed design and development. Despite the differences, we would expect the process to be iterative - involving a repeating process of design, prototyping, review, and redesign until the design is considered complete.

The detailed design process is a standard process in systems engineering and is comprehensively described in classic standards such as IEEE1220 and EIA632. The customer typically uses these standards to mandate the process in the contract to ensure that the process is largely independent of technology, industry or organisational processes.

Detailed design and development is a critical part of the systems engineering process that is typically conducted by the customer to ensure that the information provided to the contractors is appropriately focussed on the optimal system-level solution with a demonstrated traceability back to system-level requirements.

The SNR is the result of the standard systems engineering (analysis-synthesis-evaluation) loop and is used to develop an unambiguous understanding of the system-level requirements for the new system. In terms of the POSTED construct used in this course, the SNR is very much "E"quipment focused

The SNR is independent of the BNR. It is put together by operationally-focused stakeholders without reference to the BNR. In this way, it is an independent "error check" on the BNR prior to the more technically-focused systems engineering process.

The SNR (building on the BNR) contains detailed System Requirements Specification (SyRS), a proposed System Design Description (SDD) and a draft Statement of Work (SOW) as a preliminary form of the Functional Baseline. This is then able to support processes like Requests for Tender (RFTs).

The SNR is a refinement and development of the Business Needs and Requirements (BNR) and takes the strategic guidance in the BNR to develops more refined life-cycle concepts (in the LCD) and more detailed stakeholder requirements and scenarios (in the StRS).

The SNR (building on the BNR) captures the needs of all of the stakeholders associated with new system. It is important that all stakeholders who are affected by the new system are consulted during this process to ensure that all needs are captured

Production planning relates to the specialised plant, facilities and equipment that we need to produce our design. The parts and materials needed are a logistics issue so the systems engineering effort does not need to worry about these. The specialised skills required from production personnel are a human resource problem so the systems engineering effort does not need to help identify specialised skills required.

The production system drives the design process (not the other way around). Production specialists attend design reviews and if the current production system cannot cope with the proposed design, the design is rejected and changed. This way we can stick with an existing production system for long periods of time (which is much more cost-effective).

Our evolving design is a key input to the production planning process to ensure that our production system can accommodate our design. However, our current (or projected) production capability must be a key input into our design process to ensure that our design options not only meet requirements, but can also be cost-effectively produced using our expected production capability.

Our evolving design is a key input into the production planning process because design is a higher priority than production. In this way, the design drives the production system (not the other way around). Production specialists are involved in our later design reviews to make sure that they understand the priority and understand what production systems will be required to produce the system.

Production planning is only required if we are going to use an external production capability or subcontractor. If production is to be done “in-house”, we can save a lot of time and effort by not worrying about production planning until the design has been finalised. In this way, we can take advantage of the “just in time”

Risk severity is a function of both impact and probability. As an example of risk mitigation, we could use design diversity in our system design to reduce the impact of "common mode failures". Design diversity therefore reduces the risk severity by reducing imact.

Risk severity is a function of both impact and probability. As an example of risk mitigation, we could design redundancy into our system to reduce the risk of system failure. Redundancy aims to reduce the impact of failure and therefore reduce the risk severity

Risk avoidance is the most effective way to manage risks but it is generally also the most expensive.

We can "transfer" risks to other parties (via mechanisms such as contracts and insurance policies). There are two things to keep in mind with this treatment option: risks should be transferred to the appropriate party; and even after transfer, the transferred risk still exists.

Of the 4 treatment options, risk transfer is generally considered to be the preferred option for the most severe risks. We use contracts or insurance policies to transfer risks. In this way, another party will be legally responsible if something catastrophic happens.

Modifying COTS subsystems to perfectly meet our requirements is the “best of both worlds” approach. COTS subsystems tend to be designed to be very easy to modify, including availability of extensive design documentation available. The time/effort/cost associated with the modification process is almost always negligible compared to developmental engineering.

Sometimes we come across COTS subsystems that have more functionality than is required and/or perform at higher levels than required (by their Development Specifications). In these cases, this makes the decision to select the COTS subsystems easier and more compelling because over-performing at the subsystem level always provides benefits at the system level.

COTS tends to be available with known lead times, known costs, and demonstrated function and performance. COTS products also generally have logistics support arrangements in place. Technical data associated with COTS may not be at the required level to support integration, they may not have been qualified in all environments (such as military environments), and they may represent obsolescence risks.

Using COTS subsystems should be a last resort approach to design because developmental approaches are generally preferred by project management as a lower risk alternative to using COTS subsystems. Involving COTS in the design tends to increase the number of organisations involved and the administrative overhead.

It is best to design our subsystems from scratch because this will result in subsystems that perfectly meet our requirements. COTS subsystems tend to be a compromise in terms of requirements compliance. Verifying developmental subsystems is also less onerous than COTS subsystems because the subsystems have been designed to meet our requirements.

The BRS will containt a clear identification of the senior stakeholders, their specific interest in the project, and their opinions about feasible system alternatives. The BRS will also clearly state that these stakeholders have organisational authority to influence the direction of the new or improved system

The BRS will contain high-level constraints that must be imposed on the new system, system missions/goals/objectives, some key preliminary operational scenarios, and validation criteria (often in the form of Critical Issues and Critical Operational Issues).

The BRS is the draft contract between the "customer" and the "contractor" in a typical complex system development contact. The BRS therefore contains legal terms and conditions, statements of work (SOW), and statements of requirement (SOR).

The BRS allows key strategic stakeholders to identify of the preferred system-level designs that they believe will meet business requirements. Additionally, the BRS usually contains a short list of potential system design contractors who may be invited to submit a tender.

The BRS contains the critical information that forms the "functional baseline" of the required system. The BRS is a structured engineering specification and explains what the system needs to be able to do, how well it should function and the conditions under which it needs to operate.

Although a lot of work has gone into development of the SyRS and then the development of the corresponding SDD, preliminary design effort remains focussed on delivering a design against the StRS as this is the key stakeholder description. Unless this is the focus, the contractor risks delivering something that does not meet the stakeholders’ expectations.

During early preliminary design, the contractor continues refining their understanding of the subsystems identified in their proposed SDD. Requirements analysis contiunes, using the SyRS as the basis. Derived requirements from the SyRS are allocated to each of the subsystems. Interface requirements are an important part of this process.

Once into preliminary design, the contractors work from the SDD reviewed at the previous design review. They start engineering the subsystems based on the physical descriptions contained in the SDD. Whilst the customer uses the SyRS as the basis of their understanding, the contractor is guided primarily by the design architecture contained in the SDD.

Once we enter preliminary design, the influence of systems engineering is drastically reduced and the key work effort now shifts to project management issues such as determining the work breakdown structure (WBS), schedule management and budget management.

The contractor determines which subsystems in the SDD are likely to be off the shelf items (or items that only need minor modifications) and proceeds straight to purchasing these. Requirements analysis is only relevant to the developmental subsystems in the design.

The SyRS is a formal, structured requirements artefact that captures the various requirements associated with the new or improved system. The specification should also contain some indication about how the requirements should be validated. It generally forms the Statement of Requirement in a classic contract structure.

The SyRS is a formal, structured requirements artefact that captures the various requirements associated with the new or improved system. The specification should also contain some indication about how the requirements should be verified. It is drafted by the contractors during a classic tendering process.

The SyRS is a formal, structured requirements artefact that captures the various requirements associated with the new or improved system. The specification should also contain some indication about how the requirements should be verified. It generally forms the Statement of Requirement in a classic contract structure.

The SyRS is a formal, structured design artefact that captures the top-level system architecture for the system. Whilst the StRS describes what the system needs to be able to do, the SyRS describes how the system will be designed to meet those requirements.

The SyRS is a formal, structured, requirements artefact that is drafted by the customer and then negotiated with the contractor before forming a critical part of the contractual relationship. The SyRS typically contains requirements that a mandatory, important, or desirable to give the contractor maximum flexibility.

A description of the system development processes required to pass certification as an effective project management organisation.

A description of the processes to develop a system using the systems engineering approach.

A description of a subset of project management practice that is generally recognised as good practice for most projects, most of the time.

A routinely updated description of the state-of-the-art of project management practice informed by the very latest research

A detailed project management methodology that most project-based organisations should adopt

A process of significant scope that implements a plan

A significant activity undertaken by an organisation that is inherently temporary in nature.

An assemblage of largely precedented components to provide a required business function.

An endeavour, which is planned, executed, and controlled; performed by people; and constrained by limited resources.

A temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service or result.

Project management and functional management use the same skills, disciplines and processes except projects are temporary and operations are ongoing.

Systems engineering and project management always work hand-in-glove – every project must have its associated system engineering effort

An effective project management organisation must employ consistent and repeatable processes and practices across all projects

A mature project management organisation allows each project manager to use their own discretion as to the management and reporting processes used on their projects.

Once a project has been duly authorised by a business sponsor it must be completed no matter what.

Projectised organisation.

Program-focused organisation.

Matrix organisation.

Two-hatted organisation.

Function-orientated organisatio

The monitoring and Control Process Group applies only in the monitoring and control phase of a project.

Process Groups are same as Project Phases.

Process Groups are not Project Phases

Each Process Group is mapped to a particular Project Phase.

Whether a process group is applied or not will depend on the type of industry or application area that a project is in.

Cost management.

Risk management.

Stakeholder management

Resource management.

Procurement management.

Schedule management

Scope management

Communications management.

Quality management.

Integration management.

Organisational environmental factors

The organisational quality system.

Organisational process assets.

Fundamental inputs to the project.

The project charter gives you, as the project manager, unambiguous authority to establish the business needs for the project.

Any shortcomings in the project charter can be used as the basis for a scope change request to cover up or excuse project performance issues

The project charter ensures you have senior management buy-in for your project management approach.

The project charter gives you unambiguous authority to use organisational resources to accomplish the objectives of the project

The project charter ensures that you are given a detailed budget and schedule to work within

Assumptions might prove to be incorrect. Analysis of the assumptions is a key technique to identify project risks

The scope of a project is always uncertain. By documenting assumptions, the whole scope of the project is sufficiently firm to commence detailed planning.

The documentation of assumptions will identify those responsible for the schedule or budget overruns that may occur.

Assumptions might prove to be incorrect. Identifying these assumptions early in the project allows you to automatically adjust the scope of the project if the project hits problems due to the assumptions.

A formal, approved document used to guide project execution, monitoring, and control.

A narrative description of products or services to be supplied.

A document issued by senior management that provides the project manager with the authority to apply organisational resources to project activities.

A detailed picture of how each work element is positioned in time in relation to other work elements.

A document describing the organisational breakdown structure of the company as it pertains to the project.

Is a bundle of cost items used to estimate the cost of a WBS element.

Is sufficiently detailed for each person on the project team to manage their day-to-day activities.

Is the lowest level of each branch of the WBS.

Is detailed enough for costs and activity durations to be definitively estimated.

Can be assigned to a single perform organisation.

It is an atomistic activity that will be conducted on the project

It can be assigned to one perform group to take responsibility for its completion.

. It is at a suitable level for the posting of actual costs and the monitoring of performance.

It is at a level where its cost and duration can be definitively estimated.

Minus 50% to plus 300%

Minus 5% to plus 10%.

Minus 25% to plus 75%.

Minus 10% to plus 30%

Analogous estimation

Engineering estimation

Parametric estimation

Feasibility estimation.

Bottom up estimation

Bottom up estimation

Analogous estimation.

Engineering estimation.

Feasibility estimation.

Parametric estimation

Engineering estimation

Bottom up estimation.

Feasibility estimation

Parametric estimation.

Analogous estimation.

Minus 25% to plus 75%.

Minus 20% to plus 50%.

Minus 5% to plus 10%.

Minus 10% to plus 30%

Minus 50% to plus 300%

Minus 20% to plus 50%.

Minus 10% to plus 30%

Minus 25% to plus 75%.

Minus 50% to plus 300%.

Minus 5% to plus 10%.

A parameter in a parametric cost estimating model.

A type or category of cost (normally standardised within a company) that may apply to a particular work package.

Any sub-system, assembly or component of a system that has an associated cost.

A type or category of cost (normally standardised within a company) that may apply indirectly to a project.

A component of the performance management baseline.

The work breakdown structure.

The cost algorithm.

The project budget

The basis-of-estimate

The cost management plan

The cost of internal labour to develop the software modules of the system.

The cost of an external consultant to conduct an industrial design workshop to improve the attractiveness of the system.

The cost of running the payroll for the internal labour on the project.

The cost of hiring an external venue for the System Design Review

The cost of certifying the water and dust ingress protection level of the system.

The contingency reserve.

The uncertainty reserve.

The management reserve.

The sponsor's reserve

The scope-change reserve.

True

False

True

False

The longest sequence of work packages that therefore determines the end-date of the project.

The activity-on-node diagram that analyses the criticality of all work packages.

The sequence of the most technically risky work packages.

The sequence of work packages that provides the project manager with critical flexibility to mitigate schedule risks.

The sequence of work packages that have not been completed on-time or to-budget.

Altering the finish date of the project so that each resource type is used in the most efficient way.

Altering the start date or duration of a work package within its float, so that each resource team is the same, efficient size.

Altering the start date or duration of a work package within its float, so for each resource type, the demand is below a given constraint or is used in the most efficient way.

Altering the start date or duration of a work package within its float, so for each resource type, the demand is concentrated in bursts of high productivity.

Moving resources between work packages so there are no peaks of demand.

True

False

Market

Customer

Weather

Regulatory

Funding

Possibility and probability

Condition and consequence.

Rating, response and responsibility.

Likelihood, impact and response

Likelihood and impact.

The risk register.

The risk response plan

The risk monitoring and control tool.

The risk assessment.

The risk management plan.

Mitigate.

Avoid.

Transfer.

Accept.

Ignore.

True

False

Urgency.

Legitimacy

Power.

Personality

Interest.

True

False

Agile approach.

Waterfall approach.

Evolutionary approach.

Spiral approach.

Incremental approach.

Agile approach.

Spiral approach.

Incremental approach.

Waterfall approach.

Evolutionary approach.

Agile approach

. Incremental approach.

Waterfall approach.

Evolutionary approach

Spiral approach.

Evolutionary approach.

Spiral approach

Incremental approach.

Waterfall approach.

Agile approach

True

False