218
Engineering Systems Integration
investment positions for high profits. For governments, specifically, the U.S.
government DoD, acquisitions of large, complex systems often signify a
“grab for gusto” mentality. Pushing for the incorporation of new, immature
technology into system or system of systems designs (supposedly as production or manufactured items) is nonsensical. Production and manufacturing
are designed to take a product or service and make more of them, not fix
problems that are within the domain of product or service development. The
province of production and manufacturing is to take the integrated product
or service and to replicate the interactions in finished goods. Immature technology might offer the promise of new performance and exciting functionality; however, that promise is only realized through research and development.
A production product or service will not (and does not) function or perform
any better than the initial protoproduct or protoservice. Without extensive
rework, or redesign for production or manufacturing, a development product or service is just that—development. Limiting production to a few number of “demonstration” products or services is often a means to begin
improving reliability. Working together, engineering developers and systems engineers mature the engineering embodiments of technology, all the
time improving the system reliability. For example, the Hubble Space
Telescope case study (Chapter 1) emphasized the lesson learned from having
to delay the launch to orbit. That time spent was integration time to mature
and achieve the requisite interactions on a sustained, reliable basis. Had
the Hubble Space Telescope been pushed into operational status on orbit
according to its intended launch schedule, NASA would have an unreliable, crippled system that would most likely have had to be returned to the
development environment for retrofits, improvements, and upgrades
(Mattice 2005). In other words, the integral set of ideas embodied in the system design, concept of operations, and architecture is no better than the
reliability and maintainability of the constituent components. Integration is
the aspect that wraps all the systems engineering, engineering, and management efforts into the product or service and the product or service into the
operational environment.
Nature of Systems Engineering
The cognitive functioning of the systems engineer is unique and as distinguishable from all other disciplines or fields as buyers are to sellers. As
the topic of the product or service may be the same for all parties, the
methods, approach, and tools are different. Systems engineering is distinguishable from all others by its emphases on three aspects of providing
solutions to problems: (1) the product or service as an enabler of the desired
user behaviors, (2) satisfying the stakeholders’ needs can be done in one of
Engineering Systems Integration
investment positions for high profits. For governments, specifically, the U.S.
government DoD, acquisitions of large, complex systems often signify a
“grab for gusto” mentality. Pushing for the incorporation of new, immature
technology into system or system of systems designs (supposedly as production or manufactured items) is nonsensical. Production and manufacturing
are designed to take a product or service and make more of them, not fix
problems that are within the domain of product or service development. The
province of production and manufacturing is to take the integrated product
or service and to replicate the interactions in finished goods. Immature technology might offer the promise of new performance and exciting functionality; however, that promise is only realized through research and development.
A production product or service will not (and does not) function or perform
any better than the initial protoproduct or protoservice. Without extensive
rework, or redesign for production or manufacturing, a development product or service is just that—development. Limiting production to a few number of “demonstration” products or services is often a means to begin
improving reliability. Working together, engineering developers and systems engineers mature the engineering embodiments of technology, all the
time improving the system reliability. For example, the Hubble Space
Telescope case study (Chapter 1) emphasized the lesson learned from having
to delay the launch to orbit. That time spent was integration time to mature
and achieve the requisite interactions on a sustained, reliable basis. Had
the Hubble Space Telescope been pushed into operational status on orbit
according to its intended launch schedule, NASA would have an unreliable, crippled system that would most likely have had to be returned to the
development environment for retrofits, improvements, and upgrades
(Mattice 2005). In other words, the integral set of ideas embodied in the system design, concept of operations, and architecture is no better than the
reliability and maintainability of the constituent components. Integration is
the aspect that wraps all the systems engineering, engineering, and management efforts into the product or service and the product or service into the
operational environment.
Nature of Systems Engineering
The cognitive functioning of the systems engineer is unique and as distinguishable from all other disciplines or fields as buyers are to sellers. As
the topic of the product or service may be the same for all parties, the
methods, approach, and tools are different. Systems engineering is distinguishable from all others by its emphases on three aspects of providing
solutions to problems: (1) the product or service as an enabler of the desired
user behaviors, (2) satisfying the stakeholders’ needs can be done in one of