The paper highlights the significance of applying system engineering in R&D projects. The research shows that system engineering in R&D projects not only facilitates the management process but also enhance the project performance in terms of requirements development and management, technical solution, system design development and testing, planning and monitoring of system engineering activities along with system engineering reviews and audits. This paper investigates the effectiveness of system engineering in R&D projects by focusing on different public sector R&D organizations. The research examines the knowledge and understanding of the working professionals in system engineering domain and its value addition in managing R&D projects for achieving better performance. The research is based on a survey in the form of a system engineering questionnaire. Project managers and team members involved in 15 projects of different R&D organizations participated in this survey. Results of this survey indicate a strong relationship between system engineering processes and the overall success or failure of the project in terms of satisfaction of the organization, user/customer, technical requirements, budget and schedule.
Figures - uploaded by Umar Hamid
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Umar Hamid
Content may be subject to copyright.
Discover the world's research
- 20+ million members
- 135+ million publications
- 700k+ research projects
Join for free
Abstract—The paper highlights the significance of applying
system engineering in R&D projects. The research shows that
system engineering in R&D projects not only facilitates the
management process but also enhance the project performance
in terms of requirements development and management,
technical solution, system design development and testing,
planning and monitoring of system engineering activities along
with system engineering reviews and audits. This paper
investigates the effectiveness of system engineering in R&D
projects by focusing on different public sector R&D
organizations. The research examines the knowledge and
understanding of the working professionals in system
engineering domain and its value addition in managing R&D
projects for achieving better performance. The research is
based on a survey in the form of a system engineering
questionnaire. Project managers and team members involved in
15 projects of different R&D organizations participated in this
survey. Results of this survey indicate a strong relationship
between system engineering processes and the overall success or
failure of the project in terms of satisfaction of the organization,
user/customer, technical requirements, budget and schedule.
Index Terms—System engineering, project management,
R&D projects.
I. INTRODUCTION
Boarder has established a framework that defines system
engineering. System engineering is a goal directed process
addressing the issues of purpose, performance, product, and
process with respect to customer requirements and end-user
needs. It requires extensive engineering knowledge and skills
[1]. Lightfoot identified the major phases of the system
engineering process and highlighted its tools and techniques.
The main milestones in system engineering are Systems
Requirements Review, Preliminary Design Review, Critical
Design Review, and System Integration Review. He
suggested system engineering tools such as WBS, Gantt and
PERT Charts, Configuration Management Plan, Integrated
Logistic Support plan, System Test Plan, Acceptance Test
Plan and System Engineering Management Plan. These tools
help in overcoming the challenges of system engineering and
to undertake the project in an orderly manner in which
resources are used effectively in the development of a
solution which meets the user needs [2]. Hayward has
emphasized on requirements management in order to handle
technical and performance risks. The process of
Manuscript received June 17, 2012; revised July 11, 2012. The research
was conducted as a case study to fulfill requirements of research work for
Masters level program.
U. Hamid, M. K. Raza and F. R. Naqvi are with the CASE, Pakistan,
(e-mail: alwaysumar@gmail.com,frz2k@hotmail.com, imreza@yahoo.com ).
requirements management includes defining performance
requirements, functional requirements, safety requirements,
and requirements traceability in the context of a railway
project. He defined system engineering as a disciplined
application of processes and tools to specify, document and
manage the delivery of a system [3]. Burks highlighted some
generic capabilities that are required by most system
engineers such as requirement traceability, functional and
detail design capture, design validation, documentation of
results, and dynamic response to changes. According to
Burks, the transformation of customer requirements into
working requirements is essential to drive the whole system.
System engineers are responsible for continuous refinements
until all ambiguities are resolved to their satisfaction [4].
Lann found out that real causes of failure of the Ariane 5
flight 501 are the faults in capturing application/environment
requirements, in design and dimensioning of the on-board
computing system. These faults result from not following a
rigorous System Engineering approach [5]. Project managers
can reduce the chances of software project failure with the
help of comprehensive planning, adequate requirements and
proper documentation, user involvement at low level, team
members with good technical and communication skills, and
reliable resource estimation [6]. A project manager is
responsible for failure factors such as unclear requirements,
scope changes during project, lack of reviews at the end of
each phase, and aggressive schedule [7]. Requirements
engineering and reviews mentioned above can help in
reducing the chances of failure factors. The study in [8]
revealed some important project management issues related
to project success such as proper planning, estimating,
project life cycle, clear requirements and documentation,
deliverables at each stage, and availability of skillful team
members. It also presents a positive relationship between
project success and project planning and scheduling
techniques [8]. Lightfoot in [2] has suggested tools and
techniques for planning and scheduling the system
engineering activities and can facilitate project managers for
better planning. Three common success factors related to
project success are technical performance, schedule
performance, and budget performance. Moreover level of
satisfaction of the organization and customer/end-user should
also be taken into consideration [9]. The study in [9] revealed
that system engineering processes showed positive
relationship with overall project success. The results came
from surveys conducted for NASA space flight hardware
projects. Results of study in [10] revealed that projects
having highest overall system engineering capabilities have
shown best performance for both low challenge and high
challenge projects. In addition it pointed out that system
Umar Hamid, Muhammad Kashif Raza, and Raza Faisal Naqvi
Impact of System Engineering Practices on the
Performance of R&D Projects – Initial Results
DOI: 10.7763/IJCTE.2013.V5.668 158
Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, February 2013
engineering practices such as requirements development and
management, product architecture, and trade studies have
shown strong relationship with overall project success [10].
System engineering includes both scientific and engineering
processes and tools to ensure that optimum system is
designed and developed which meets all the requirements
within cost and schedule. The study in [11] showed that
application of system engineering in UK automatic light
railway systems has proven to be a success. Project
management requires inputs from the system engineering for
planning, monitoring and controlling along with
management of risks, configuration, and quality. System
engineering is responsible for requirements definition and
analysis, design implementation, integration and
maintenance needs collaboration of project management
throughout the project life cycle. System engineering is
considered costly and is given less importance before the
contract which leads to many problems at later [12]. Project
management is a sequential process focused on planning,
execution, delivering of the requested outputs. It also
concentrates on reducing deviation from the plan, getting the
things done, and is accountable for the success of the entire
program. System engineering is an iterative process that
focuses on requirements, design, and verification. It is about
doing the right things, delivering what is required and is
responsible for the technical success of the program [13].
According to Kostek and TekSci, use of both system
engineering and project management tools and techniques
can be key to the success of a project [14]. Project
management and system engineering processes need to be
combined for managing highly technical and complex
projects [15]. To be successful, project management and
system engineering shall be well integrated in technical, cost
and schedule factors. This approach will have a very positive
impact on project performance as well [16].
II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research is based on a survey in the form of a system
engineering questionnaire. The questionnaire has been
developed with the help of two requirement engineering
questionnaires and the system engineering literature. One
requirement engineering questionnaire is by Sari Kujala,
2003 [17] and the other by Stuart Anderson and Massimo
Felici, 2001 [18]. The purpose is to investigate the
effectiveness of system engineering in R&D projects by
focusing on different public sector R&D organizations.
The survey questionnaire consists of 80 items. 72 out of 80
items address 08 system engineering dimensions such that
there are 15 items for requirements development, 08 items for
requirements management, 07 items for technical solution,
10 items for subsystem design development and testing, 08
items for system integration and testing, 06 items for
planning of system engineering practices, 06 items for
monitoring of system engineering activities, and 12 items for
system engineering reviews and audits. Project performance
in terms of success or failure has been measured in various
dimensions such as organizational satisfaction,
user/customer satisfaction, technical requirements
satisfaction, budget, and schedule satisfaction. There are 08
items that address project performance. We have asked
respondents to answer the questions based on the project in
which they participated in system engineering. We have also
asked the respondents to answer whether they consider the
project success or failure.
All 80 items have been assigned scores ranging from 1 to 5
point scale which shows the presence or absence of system
engineering processes. Score 1 to 4 represents „strongly
disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree‟ respectively.
Score 5 represents „no opinion‟ and has been assigned zero
value in data analysis. We assured respondents that data
collected from received responses will be kept confidential
and is anonymous and not attributable to an individual
organization or respondent which is a necessary requirement
for obtaining maximum participation.
III. DATA ANALYSIS
We distributed the questionnaires in different public sector
R&D organizations. We received completed questionnaires
describing 15 R&D projects. Project managers and team
members participated in this survey. 12 out of 15 projects
have been reported a success whereas only 3 projects as
failure. We received 47 complete survey responses and used
them for data analysis. Each project included at least two
respondents. Most of the sample (N = 47) are males which
consist (91%) of the sample where the females consist only
(9%) of the sample. In case of work experience of the project
team members, the high portion went to (5 – 10 years) which
consist (53%), (less than 5 years) consist (36%), and (above
10 years) consist (11%) of the sample. The sample size is
small but adequate and exhibits sufficient variation that is
required for identifying the statistical relationships between
variables.
Fig. 1. System engineering and project performance dimensions
We have defined 08 variables for 08 system engineering
dimensions mentioned above. Each variable is computed as
the mean of the items corresponding to a particular
dimension. System engineering has been defined as a
separate variable which is the mean of the 08 variables
corresponding to 08 dimensions mentioned above. Project
performance has been defined as a separate variable which is
the mean of the 08 items given in the questionnaire.
Fig. 1 shows the two most important variables of this
research i.e. system engineering and project performance
Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, February 2013
159
Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, February 2013
160
along with their dimensions. In this paper, system
engineering has been taken as the independent variable and
project performance (in terms of success or failure) as the
dependent variable.
IV. SURVEY RESULTS
A. Reliability Test
The reliability test has been carried out for all 80 items in
the questionnaire. The value of Cronbach's Alpha is 0.958.
This shows that the survey questionnaire is highly reliable.
B. Descriptive Statistics
System engineering variable has values i.e. Min = 1.91,
Max = 3.46, Mean = 2.93, and Std. deviation = 0.44. Project
performance variable has values i.e. Min = 1.50, Max = 3.75,
Mean = 2.86, and Std. deviation = 0.45.
Fig. 2. Regression plot showing linear relationship between system
engineering and project performance variables
Fig. 3. Scatter plot showing residuals statistics
The skew ness and kurtosis values for system engineering
are -1.04 and 0.036 respectively. The skew ness and kurtosis
values for project performance are -0.771 and 1.3
respectively. These values have been calculated for satisfying
the initial conditions required for regression.
C. Regression
Fig. 2 below shows that there is a linear relationship
between system engineering and project performance.
The value of Pearson Correlation between system
engineering and project performance is 0.804 which shows a
strong positive relationship. The value of R-Square
(coefficient of determination) is 0.647 which means that
64.7% variation in project performance is because of system
engineering.
ANOVA shows that significance is 100%. Coefficient
analysis was carried out which results in the following
equation for linear regression:
where pp = project performance
se = system engineering
Fig. 3 above shows the residuals statistics in terms of a
scatter plot around the mean value of 0.0. All the outliers are
within the acceptable regression value of ± 3.
D. Correlations
Correlation matrix was developed for the 08 system
engineering dimensions. A strong correlation exists among
all dimensions.
E. Factor Analysis
Factor analysis was carried out for all 08 dimensions of
system engineering. This test explained the total variance for
the 08 dimensions using principal component analysis. A
single component was identified that represents the 08
dimensions in a manner as shown in Table I below:
TABLE I: THE 08 DIMENSIONS IN A MANNER
Component 1
Requirements Development 0.722
Requirements Management 0.750
Technical Solution 0.859
Sub System Design Development and Testing 0.884
System Integration and Testing 0.844
Planning of System Engineering Practices 0.737
Monitoring of System Engineering Practice 0.732
System Engineering Reviews and Audits 0.785
V. LIMITATIONS
There are certain limitations to our study. The first was the
relatively limited number of R&D projects that were reported.
Secondly, survey based research is usually based on
self-reported data which reflects people's perceptions, not
what might have actually happened. We surveyed engineers
and scientists working in different public sector R&D
organizations, hence our results are limited to their
knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding the projects and
project managers with whom they were involved. The items
in our questionnaire are based on both the literature and some
standard questionnaires that highlight important day-to-day
activities on real projects.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The system engineering activities described in this paper
provide the systems engineer with an approach for moving a
pp = (0.817 ×se) + 0.460
Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, February 2013
161
project from problem definition through design to
implementation in an effective and orderly manner. System
engineering ensures the delivery of the optimum system that
best meets all requirements and provides the proper balance
of technical performance with cost and schedule. This study
has been designed to explore the relationship between project
performance and system engineering and it shows that the
success of the project is influenced by the use of system
engineering processes . The survey data clearly shows that
projects with better system engineering capabilities have an
increased likelihood of delivering better project performance.
There exists a strong relationship between overall project
success and system engineering. This demands an early
application of system engineering practices in the project.
This research serves as a starting point in motivating
continuing research related to system engineering for large
and complex technical projects and project performance
factors. We intend to continue with this research in the future
to investigate more R&D projects.
REFERENCES
[1] J. C. Boarder, "The system engineering process," presented at IEEE
International Engineering Management Conference, 1995.
[2] R. S. Lightfoot, "Systems engineering: the application of processes and
tool in the development of complex information technology solutions,"
presented at International Conference on Engineering and Technology
Management, 1996.
[3] C. Hayward-Williams, "Management of technical and performance
risk... system engineering," presented at International Conference on
Developments in Mass Transit Systems, 1998.
[4] H. L. Burks, "System Engineering Tools," R& M CAE in Concurrent
Engineering Workshop, 1991.
[5] G. L. Lann, "An analysis of the Ariane 5 flight 501 failure-a system
engineering perspective," Workshop on Engineering of
Computer-Based Systems (ECBS '97), 1997.
[6] M. Tarawneh, H . AL -Tarawneh, and A. Elsheikh, "Software
Development Projects: An Investigation into the Factors that Affect
Software Project Success/Failure in Jordanian Firms," presented at 1st
IEEE International Conference on the Applications of Digital
Information and Web Technologies, 2008.
[7] Ver ner J, Sampson J, Cerpa N, "What factors lead to software project
failure?" presented at 2nd IEEE International Conference on Research
Challenges in Information Science, 2008.
[8] A. Iman and S. H. Ow, "Project Management Practices: Success versus
Failure," presented at IEEE International Symposium on Information
Technology, 2008.
[9] J. Paul, D. Alisha, R. Dawn, and A. Phillip, "Assessing the
Relationships between Project Success and System Engineering
Processes," presented at DoD Systems Engineering Research Center
SERC – Internal Kickoff Tasks Workshop, Davidson Conference
Center, USC 2009.
[10] J. P. Elm, "A Study of Systems Engineering Effectiveness - Initial
Results," presented at 2nd Annual IEEE Systems Conference, 2008.
[11] C. Hayward-Williams, "System Engineering Process - Six Key
Phases," presented at IEEE Colloquium on Systems Engineering on
Large Railway Projects, 1997.
[12] D. Watt and K. Willey, "The Project Management – Systems
Engineering Dichotomy," presented at IEEE Engineering Management
Conference, 2003.
[13] V. Considine, "System Engineering and Strategic Management,"
presented at IEEE Half-Day Colloquium on Systems Engineering in
Strategic Management Planning, 1997.
[14] J. Paul, Kostek, and TekSci, "Project Success: The System Engineering
and Project Management Connection," presented at IEEE Northcon,
1996.
[15] J. E. Gorski, D. J. Harrell, and F. H. Southworth, "A Project
Management and System Engineering Structure for a Generation IV
Very High Temperature Reactor," presented at ICSE & INCOSE Joint
Conference, 2004.
[16] H. Mooz and K. Forsberg, "Visualizing Project Management and
System Engineering as an Integrated Process," Center for Systems
Management, 1997.
[17] S. Kujala, Requirements Engineering Questionnaire, Software
Business and Engineering Institute, Helsinki University of Technology,
Finland, 2003
[18] S. Anderson and M. Felici, Requirements Engineering Questionnaire ,
Division of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, UK, 2001
Umar Hamid was born in Sialkot, Pakistan. He
received BSc degree in Electrical Engineering from
University of Engineering and Technology Taxila,
Pakistan, in 2003. At present he is pursuing Masters
degree in Engineering Management from CASE,
Pakistan. His current interests are project
management, problem solving and decision making,
and system engineering practices.
Muhammad Kashif Raza was born in Sargodha,
Pakistan. He has done Masters in Computer Scienc
from National University of Science & Technology,
Pakistan, in 2003. At Present he is pursuing Masters
degree in Engineering Management from CASE,
Pakistan. His current research interests include
project management, software engineering, and
requirement engineering.
Syed Raza Faisal Naqvi was born Hyderabad,
Pakistan. He completed his Masters in Electronic
Scie nces for University of Peshawar, Pakistan in 2000.
After doing Fiber Optic System Specialization (FOSS)
he started his job from a leading telecom company.
Currently he is pursuing his Masters degree in
Management Sciences from CASE, Pakistan with his
research work.
- Rini S. John
-
![Louwrence D Erasmus]()
The objective of this study was to analyse the development of radar systems in a government research and development environment from a systems engineering perspective and identify which, if any, systems engineering tools and methods are used. The practical portion of the research took a mixed methods approach where both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques were used. The quantitative portion of the research assessed aspects of systems engineering in the context of the research environment the participant is working in using categories of the Systems Engineering Capability (SECM) EIA/IS 731 model. Analysis of the data indicated that, in principle, systems engineering methods and tools are supposed to be applied in this research area, however this was not done consistently across projects. Some of the challenges in this research area included eliciting clear customer requirements, resource constraints and budget and schedule overruns. Recommendations were made based on the findings from a systems engineering perspective.
-
![Gerard J Le Lann]()
The report issued by the Inquiry Board in charge of inspecting the Ariane 5 flight 501 failure concludes that causes of the failure are rooted into poor S/W Engineering practice. From the failure scenario described in the Inquiry Board report, it is possible to infer what, in our view, are the real causes of the 501 failure. We develop arguments to demonstrate that the real causes of the 501 failure are neither S/W specification errors nor S/W design errors. Real causes of the failure are faults in the capture of the overall Ariane 5 application/ environment requirements, and faults in the design and the dimensioning of the Ariane 5 on-board computing system. These faults result from not following a rigorous System Engineering approach, such as applying a proof-based System Engineering method. What is proof-based System Engineering for Computing Systems is also presented.
- Harold Mooz
- Kevin Forsberg
In many project environments System Engineering and Project Management are managed separately. This situation is aggravated by the discipline segregation by universities and by the corresponding professional organizations. The International Council on System Engineering (INCOSE) and Project Management Institute (PMI) operate independently and usually don't participate in each others' conferences. Project Management and System Engineering tools are rarely integrated. INCOSE members are usually not members of PMI and vice versa. Project Management, the integration of business management and technical management into systems management, requires discipline and informed implementation. The process model explained here and detailed in our recent book, Visualizing Project Management (Wiley & Sons), is a significant step to visualizing and applying these inseparable processes.
Demand for improved functionality in modern aerospace systems has resulted in increased project complexity. Managers are finding it even more difficult to balance cost, schedule, and performance. Often, system engineering is proposed as a means to balance these demands; however, guidance on tailoring system engineering and team organization to effectively deploy team assets is often incomplete. This paper reports on the development and testing of a methodology to assess the relationship between project success, system engineering, and team organization. The initial work is showing promise in revealing correlations. Data is currently being gathered and analyzed on additional projects, relative to the initial project requirements as well as other similar projects. It is hoped that there will be sufficient data to statistically evaluate these relationships. The longterm goal of this project is to look at statistical relationships so that a project team can effectively tailor their system engineering processes.
-
![Mohammad Tarawneh]()
- Haroon AL-Tarawneh
- Asim Elsheikh
Software project management is one of the most challenging in software development. Proper project planning and control is not possible without a sound and reliable management. Therefore project manager must be aware of risks or inherent risks affecting the software projects. This paper presents empirical finding on the software success/failure factors that significantly contribute to software project success/failure and frequency of it occurrence in Jordanian firms. The findings demonstrate that Userpsilas misunderstanding of needed requirements is one of the reasons that lead to imperfection of requirements and changing them during working on the system, User involvement process minimizing resistance change for new system that is the user who intended to be involved within teamwork should have a positive role to protect the project and tries to convince the others with the importance of the project for the institution in all.
Often, software managers have to monitor and manage many projects concurrently. Unfortunately, some projects were completed successfully but some were not completed on time, over budget or being cancelled. Some of the reasons of this project failure are: lack of user involvement, lack of planning, incomplete requirements, lack of resources, incorrect cost estimation, etc. There are many project planning and scheduling techniques to manage and help to ensure project success. Some of these techniques, however, may not be suitable for specific types of projects and thus, cause projects to fail. This paper discusses the issues involved in project success and failure, and presents the results of seven projects undertaken by the undergraduate students taking the course project management.
It has been suggested that there is more than one reason for a software development project to fail. However, most of the literature that discusses project failure tends to be rather general, supplying us with lists of risk and failure factors, and focusing on the negative business effects of the failure. Very little research has attempted an in-depth investigation of a number of failed projects to identify exactly what are the factors behind the failure. In this research we analyze data from 70 failed projects. This data provides us with practitionerspsila perspectives on 57 development and management factors for projects they considered were failures. Our results show that all projects we investigated suffered from numerous failure factors. For a single project the number of such factors ranges from 5 to 47. While there does not appear to be any overarching set of failure factors we discovered that all of the projects suffered from poor project management. Most projects additionally suffered from organizational factors outside the project managerpsilas control. We conclude with suggestions for minimizing the four most common failure factors.
- Joseph P. Elm
An understanding of the value of systems engineering (SE) is necessary to justify a project's investment in SE resources and activities. To identify the value of SE, the Systems Engineering Effectiveness Committee (SEEC) of the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) systems engineering division, in collaboration with the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), developed and executed a survey of defense industrial contractors (i.e., suppliers to the government). The survey analyzed the relationships between the SE capabilities (SECs) applied to individual projects, and performance of those projects. Postulating that SE was not the only factor influencing project performance, the survey also examined the relationship between project performance and other factors such as project challenge (PC), project environment, and acquirer capability. Results of this survey indicated relatively strong relationships between many SE efforts applied early in the project and the overall success of the project.
- D. Watt
-
![Keith Willey]()
Considerable attention has been drawn by many researchers toward the System Development Life Cycle and how best to manage the development of a Large Scale Systems within a competitive environment. The success in developing these systems is dependent upon many factors of influence both within the organisation delivering the system, and the market sector within which that organisation operates. These factors alone create an environment of extreme competition and uncertainty. Coupled to this is the uncertainty associated with the overall project objectives in understanding explicitly what is to be delivered and when. Technology may further complicate this situation, particularly when it is unprecedented. Given the high levels of uncertainty, the dynamic environments, and the competitive pressures within which organisations have to operate, there is a continued practice to accept contracts based on pre-defined cost, schedule, and ill defined specifications. In doing so, enormous commitment in terms of expected cost, anticipated effort, required resources, and agreed design solution is undertaken at great risk. This approach is perceived as being one of necessity in order to remain competitive. However, it fails to appreciate the causes and consequences of uncertainty and attempts to manage it through standard risk management practices. This creates enormous tension within the contracting organisation after contract award and effectively establishes a dichotomy between the program management and System Engineering functions. The perception of value, as viewed from the program office functional domain is another contributing factor. There are several important issues associated with establishing and managing the development of Large Scale Systems. Important among these is an environment of extreme uncertainty and the competing viewpoints from which the client and contracting organisations perceive value. This paper provides the foundation for continued research that will focus on developing models that better reflect the determination of perceived value across the life cycle of Large Scale Complex Engineering Systems.
- C. Hayward-Williams
The critical step in the introduction of new technology to a railway system is the integration of signalling, vehicles, wayside equipment, civil works, operating plans and maintenance procedures to meet the performance and safety requirements. Booz-Allen and Hamilton Ltd., vis a leading transit system integrator, providing system design, operations, maintenance and safety expertise to deliver transit systems which are competitive in today's economic environment. In order to deliver a transit system which meets the defined system performance and safety requirements, Booz-Allen follows a systematic system engineering process, which is based on the USA MIL STD 499a. This process addresses the need to manage the many risks of ever expanding railway system complexity. The central aspects of our approach are to: transform operational needs into a description of system performance parameters and a system configuration through an iterative process; integrate technical parameters and ensure compatibility of all interfaces, including physical, functional and program, to optimize total system definition and design; and integrate other factors into the total engineering effort to meet cost, schedule and technical performance objectives, including reliability, maintainability, safety, survivability and human factors. This paper discusses in detail our approach to system engineering, utilising our work as Prime Contractor for the Docklands Light Railway (London, UK) as a case study. This paper also summarises the application of our system engineering approach to several new railway projects in the Far East and North America
- C. Hayward-Williams
System engineering ensures the delivery of the optimum system that best meets all requirements and provides the proper balance of performance, cost, schedule and risk. System engineering has now been applied to the transit industry, forming the backbone of the technical management of the Docklands System Prime Contract. There are six key phases. This paper describes how there is really no magic, just the disciplined application of process and tools to specify, document and manage the delivery ofa system
Posted by: wyattwyattwoodsmalle0270813.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272912462_Impact_of_System_Engineering_Practices_on_the_Performance_of_RD_Projects_-_Initial_Results
