Mod J

CC04264140.ppt
Module J
Trade Study Process
Mod J
CC04264141.ppt
Trade Study Objectives
Support the decision needs of the system
engineering process
Evaluate alternatives (requirements, functions,
configurations)
Integrate and balance all considerations (cost,
performance, producibility, testibiity,compatibility,
supportability, etc)
Develop and refine a system concept
Determines if additional analysis, synthesis, or
trade-off studies are required to make a selection
Trade studies support selection of the
best or most balanced solution
Mod J
CC04264142.ppt
Purposes of Trade Study
Trade studies - General
Identify and execute trade-offs among requirements, design, schedule, and cost
Support decision needs of system engineering process
Level of study commensurate with cost, schedule, performance, and risk impact
Requirements analysis trade studies
Establish alternative performance and functional requirements
Resolve conflicts between requirements
Functional analysis/allocation trade studies
Support functional analysis and allocation
Determine preferred set of requirements for function interface
Determine requirements for lower-level functions
Evaluate alternative architectures
Synthesis trade studies
Establish system/CI configurations
Assist in selecting system concepts and design
Select HW/SW, make or by, examined proposal changes, etc.
System/cost effectiveness analysis
Develop MOEs hierarchy
Identify critical MOEs as TPMs
Mod J
CC04264143.ppt
Trade Study Guidelines
Boeing Systems Engineering Manual
Disciplined process
Fair and consistent evaluations
All affected aspects of program participate
Trade study leader to help focus and coordinate
DSMC Systems Engineering Fundamentals
Formal decision analysis method
Solve complex problems with more than one
selection criterion
Provide documented decision rationale
Best
balanced
solution
Integrate and
balance all
requirements
Mod J
CC04264144.ppt
Value of Trade Study Process
Systemization of thought
Clarification of options, problem structure, and
available trade-offs
Improved communication of ideas and professional
judgement within the organization
Improved communication of rationale for action to
others outside the organization
Confidence that all available information has been
accounted for in a decision
Mod J
CC04264145.ppt
Trade Study Functions in Each
Acquisition Phase
Trade study emphasis areas change
throughout the acquisition process
Compare alternative sets of requirements to see how
they meet general customer needs
Compare technologies and approaches
Evaluate concepts for meeting mission needs
Select alternate system configurations
Select preferred technologies
Reduce alternatives to a testable number
Select component/part designs
Select testing methods
Select support processes
Examine advantages of proposed design changes
Evaluate new mission requirements
Assess incorporation of new technologies
Pre-Concept Exploration
Concept Exploration
and Definition
Program Definition
& Risk Reduction
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
Production &
Deployment
Acquisition phase Trade study emphasis
Mod J
CC04264146.ppt
Trade Study Process Key Elements
Scope of application of any one step will vary
depending on a programs current acquisition phase
Define the
problem
Establish
evaluation
criteria
Develop
alternative
solutions
Screen
alternatives
Prepare Trade
Study Report
Order alternatives
relative to criteria
Quantify downselected
alternatives
Performance
Weight
Reliability
Producibility
Safety
Etc
Mod J
Develop costing
functions
CC04264147.ppt
Trade Study Process Flow
Weigh the
criteria
Prepare utility
functions*
Define objectives
and requirements
Identify alternative
Select configurations
Formulate
evaluation criteria
Evaluate
alternatives
Perform
sensitivity checks
Execute
decisions
Quantify
evaluation criteria
* Software tool is available
Mod J
CC04264148.ppt
QFD Identifies and Supports Trade Studies
The correlation matrix identifies the
relationship between the HOWs
IPTs identify the conflicts or synergies between
each of the HOWs in the roof of the house of quality
Correlation Matrix
HOW vs HOW
Strong positive
Positive
No relation
Negative
Strong negative
Mod J
CC04264149.ppt
Establishment of Effective
Evaluation Criteria
Must reflect all technical requirements
Must reflect business objectives
Must be closely linked to TPMs
Effective screening/evaluation criteria must:
Differentiate meaningfully between alternatives without bias
Relate directly to the purpose of the trade study, i.e., they are
requirements based
Be broadly based to ensure coverage of all decision factors
Be independent of each other to the greatest degree possible
Be universally understood by all trade study participants
Mod J
CC04264150.ppt
Example of Evaluation Criteria
Life Cycle Cost
Supportability
Performance
Formulate Quantify
a. Weight
b. Power
c. Accuracy
d. Size
e. Cost
f. Schedule
g. Risk
h. Testability
i. Supportability
j. Complexity
k. Reliability
l. Maintainability
m. Safety
a. Weight = 565 lb
b. Power = 32 kW
c. Accuracy = 2 m
d. Size = 2 ft
3
e. Cost = $1.2M
f. Schedule = 3.5 yr
g. Risk = Medium
h. Testability = 99% FD/FI
i. Supportability = 3 tools
j. Complexity = Medium
k. Reliability = 500 hr MTBF
l. Maintainability = 0.5 MMH/FH
m. Safety = 99.999%
Mod J
CC04264151.ppt
Sources of Design Trade Study Decision Criteria
Program management business plan
Service mission roles
Mission area plans (MAPS)
Voice of the customer
Justification for major system new start -Mission Need
Statement (MNS)
System performance requirements
Acquisition decision memorandum
Operational requirements Document (ORD)
System specification
Test and evaluation master plan
Technical Performance Measurements (TPMs)
Planning, programming, and budgeting system documentation
Configuration Item Specifications (CIS)
Requirements Allocation Document (RADs)
TPMs
Integrated program Summary
Planning, programming, and budgeting system documentation
Existing technical manuals
Logistics plan
Production plan
Fielding plan
Business Objectives
Mission Area Analysis
Concept Exploration
Program Definition
& Risk Reduction
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
Production & Deployment
Mod J
CC04264152.ppt
Identification of Alternatives
Reflect widest range of different solutions
Sources include:
Predetermined, competitive bids
Developed
Customer
Synthesis
Brainstorming, all disciplines
QFD
Experience
Suppliers
Mod J
CC04264153.ppt
Identification of Alternatives
Minimum
acceptable
effectiveness
Cost
Cost
target
(goal)
Most tradeoffs
occur in this region
where decisions
are difficult
Maximum limit
of affordability
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
goal
Mod J
CC04264154.ppt
Screen Alternatives
Eliminate alternatives which do not appear to meet
requirements (go/no-go tests or killer trades)
Eliminate alternatives with low probability of
successful implementation
Eliminate alternatives which are expected to exceed
cost and schedule constraints
Mod J
CC04264155.ppt
Example of Uncoupling and Killer Trades
Type
Speed
Altitude
Range, NM
Meets reqt
Uncoupling allowed looking at propulsion subsystem only
Killer trade reduced concepts from 10 down to 3 for more
detailed analysis
Low
1,200
No
High
1,600
No
Low
1,600
No
High
2,000
Yes
Low
2,100
Yes
High
2,600
Yes
High
500
No
High
800
No
High
200
No
High
300
No
Subsonic Supersonic Hypersonic...
Turbojet Turbofan Propfan Rocket Rocket Ramjet Scramjet
Propulsion subsystem
Evaluate and select propulsion subsystem for long
range conventional cruise missile
Range 2,000 NM
Launcher-ship VLS, be compatible and maintain
commonality
All other requirements held constant (e.g. lethality)
SOW Task:
System Reqts:
Mod J
CC04264156.ppt
Quantify Downselected Alternatives
Performance
Weight
Reliability
Producibility
Safety
Affordability
Schedule
Risk
Etc
Mod J
CC04264157.ppt
Sample Criteria Weighting
Mission
capability
Speed &
endurance
Logistics/
R&M
Safety
Cargo
capability
Cargo
capacity
Speed at
max power
Endurance
at 27 kts
Max tank
condition
Max helo
condition
Pierside
No. of
tanks
No. of
vehicles
No. of
containers
No. of
helos
No. of
vehicles
No. of
containers
In-stream
0.16 0.09 0.33 0.06 0.36
0.05 0.24 0.09 0.27
0.11 0.17 0.06 0.09
0.05 0.02
0.02 0.01
Mod J
CC04264158.ppt
Sample Prioritization Input Sheet
MISSION ATTRIBUTE MISSION ATTRIBUTE
CARGO CAPACITY 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CARGO CAPACITY
CARGO CAPACITY 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SPEED & ENDURANCE
CARGO CAPACITY 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LOGISTICS/R&M
CARGO CAPACITY 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SAFETY
CARGO CAPABILITY 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SPEED & ENDURANCE
CARGO CAPABILITY 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LOGISTICS/R&M
CARGO CAPABILITY 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SAFETY
SPEED & ENDURANCE 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SPEED & ENDURANCE
SPEED & ENDURANCE 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SAFETY
LOGISTICS/R&M 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SAFETY
SL-7 CLASS CONVERSION TRADE-OFF STUDIES
PRIORITIZATION SURVEY
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION AS TO WHICH MISSION
CAPABILITY ATTRIBUTE IS MORE IMPORTANT
TO MISSION SUCCESS?
Mod J
MTBF
15
MTTR
5
Demo
15
IOC
10
CC04264159.ppt
Sample Multi-Attribute System
Effectiveness Model
System
Schedule Availability Performance
Life cycle
cost
30 20 20 30
FOC
5
RDT & E
5
Prod
10
O & M
5
CEP
10
Lethality
10
Range
5
Response
time
5
100
Mod J
CC04264160.ppt
Sample Utility Curves
10
8
6
4
2
0
Score
10
8
6
4
2
0
Score
1000 500 0
MTBF (hr)
0 0.5 1.5 1.0
Air alignment time (hr) IOC
98 99 00
98 97
1
st
prod del
0 Max
Nuclear hardness
0.5 1.5 1.0 2.5 2.0 3.0
In-flight accuracy
(CEP drift rate, NM/hr)
Mod J
CC04264161.ppt
Sample Weighted Summary Table
Criteria
[weight]
Score
Weighted
score
46.5-52.5
78.0-92.0
52.0-60.0
315.0-332.5
100.0-134.0
591.5-671.0
3.1-3.5
3.9-4.6
5.2-6.0
9.0-9.5
5.0-6.7
Score
Weighted
score
Score
Weighted
score
Score
Weighted
score
Score
Weighted
score
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Alternatives
A [15]
B [20]
C [10]
D [35]
E [20]
Total
4.2-5.9
7.8-8.2
4.3-6.0
7.0-7.3
3.5-4.5
6.0-6.5
8.9-9.2
7.0-8.2
8.5-9.0
5.0-6.0
3.5-5.2
6.4-6.9
7.3-8.5
9.7-9.9
6.9-7.2
4.5-5.0
7.6-8.1
9.2-9.5
6.7-7.2
7.8-8.2
63.0-88.5
156.0-164.0
43.0-60.0
245.0-255.5
70.0-90.0
577.0-658.0
90.0-97.5
178.0-184.0
70.0-82.0
297.5-315.0
100.0-120.0
735.5-798.5
52.5-78.0
128.0-138.0
73.0-85.0
339.5-346.5
138.0-144.0
731.0-791.5
60.0-82.5
152.0-162.0
92.0-95.0
234.5-252.0
156.0-164.0
694.5-755.5
Mod J
CC04264162.ppt
Trade Study Report
Ref Boeing Systems Engineering Process Manual
1. Introduction
Problem description
Ground rules/assumptions
Constraints
2. Concepts
Range of options
Procedure used
Drawings/data sheets
3. Downselected alternatives
Screening/downselection
process
Evaluation criteria
Weighting factors
Results of screening
4. Quantified technical impact
Detailed studies
Additional assumptions
Additional analysis
5. Conclusions and
recommendations
Reasoning
Additional recommendations
Mod J
CC04264163.ppt
Trade Study Product Characteristics
In order to meet customer quality requirements, each Trade Study
conducted within Product Definition is expected to be characterized
by a consistent set of elements which include . . .
Clear problem statement
Identification of requirements that must be achieved
Ground rules and assumptions
Decision criteria
Resource requirements statement (source/man hrs reqd)
Schedule to accomplish (proposed and actual)
Potential solutions and screening matrix
Comprehensive array of feasible alternatives
Comparisons of alternatives using decision criteria
Technical recommendation of trade study leader
Documentation of decisions leading to recommendation
Mod J
CC04264164.ppt
Why Do Trade Studies?
Have all the alternatives been considered?
Mod J
CC04264165.ppt
The Name of the Game - Trade-Offs
Performance
requirements
Reliability
Schedule
Maintainability
Cost
Technical
parameters
Producibility