223
Integration in Systems Engineering Context
plop down their money on last year’s story or yesterday’s technology. If there
is no sizzle, there is no sale. For the military planners in the United States,
there is perceived to be no choice. To secure project or program funding, the
new product or service must have significantly more performance than is
currently available, satisfy needs that look into the future, and technical
dominance that is the envy of the best dreamers. Consequently, military
acquisition professionals and planners expect to have overruns in both
schedule and budget. They also expect to fall short of the lofty set of requirements, but still take delivery of a product or service that will engender pride
and esprit de corps. The landscape of the future military means offering pretty
cool things to attract talent and interest. Unlike the start-up entrepreneur
whose goals might include fame and fortune, the military planners must
envision tools to prevail in conflict. Those tools mean products, services, and
competent military personnel. For the commercial developers, the “litmus
test” is different. The determination of the correct set of requirements is market acceptance leading to revenues and profitability. Each product or service
does not need to be a major success, nor does each product or service require
a built-in or implied synergy with other product and service offerings by the
same company. Comparing the commercial products and services with military products and services is more than just competitive issues in operational or marketplace environments. The results of a bad day are quite
different—there is no comparison between a few sales lost to competition
and lives lost. Systems engineering and systems integration are active
enablers in all three situations: the entrepreneur pushes technology into prototype form, and then develops full-up working systems that are then
worked over by manufacturing engineers before going into production or
manufacturing. A problem in the marketplace with a one-product company
is disastrous for the company and they most likely will go out of business.
Commercial companies fare better with multiple products and services than
entrepreneurs. Commercial products and services can be ventured into markets to try out various functions, to determine buying habits, and establish
pricing. But unlike entrepreneurial and commercial ventures, military planners can ill afford to be wrong in functionality or performance, but they can
spend more than expected and take longer time than projected (as long as
the product or service is available when needed). Following recommendations by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the U.S. military needs
to incorporate systems engineering into the early planning stages of new
products and services (GAO 2001) and adopt an incremental, capabilitiesbased view of adding capability and achieving product and service objectives for functionality and performance (GAO 2001, 2005, 2008). In the words
of General George S. Patton, Jr., “Never tell people how to do things. Tell
them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity,” as cited in
the United States Naval Institute Proceedings (Christie 2006).
Supporting evidence that systems engineering is quite effective in delivering requisite performance, within schedule and budget limitations, has been
Integration in Systems Engineering Context
plop down their money on last year’s story or yesterday’s technology. If there
is no sizzle, there is no sale. For the military planners in the United States,
there is perceived to be no choice. To secure project or program funding, the
new product or service must have significantly more performance than is
currently available, satisfy needs that look into the future, and technical
dominance that is the envy of the best dreamers. Consequently, military
acquisition professionals and planners expect to have overruns in both
schedule and budget. They also expect to fall short of the lofty set of requirements, but still take delivery of a product or service that will engender pride
and esprit de corps. The landscape of the future military means offering pretty
cool things to attract talent and interest. Unlike the start-up entrepreneur
whose goals might include fame and fortune, the military planners must
envision tools to prevail in conflict. Those tools mean products, services, and
competent military personnel. For the commercial developers, the “litmus
test” is different. The determination of the correct set of requirements is market acceptance leading to revenues and profitability. Each product or service
does not need to be a major success, nor does each product or service require
a built-in or implied synergy with other product and service offerings by the
same company. Comparing the commercial products and services with military products and services is more than just competitive issues in operational or marketplace environments. The results of a bad day are quite
different—there is no comparison between a few sales lost to competition
and lives lost. Systems engineering and systems integration are active
enablers in all three situations: the entrepreneur pushes technology into prototype form, and then develops full-up working systems that are then
worked over by manufacturing engineers before going into production or
manufacturing. A problem in the marketplace with a one-product company
is disastrous for the company and they most likely will go out of business.
Commercial companies fare better with multiple products and services than
entrepreneurs. Commercial products and services can be ventured into markets to try out various functions, to determine buying habits, and establish
pricing. But unlike entrepreneurial and commercial ventures, military planners can ill afford to be wrong in functionality or performance, but they can
spend more than expected and take longer time than projected (as long as
the product or service is available when needed). Following recommendations by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the U.S. military needs
to incorporate systems engineering into the early planning stages of new
products and services (GAO 2001) and adopt an incremental, capabilitiesbased view of adding capability and achieving product and service objectives for functionality and performance (GAO 2001, 2005, 2008). In the words
of General George S. Patton, Jr., “Never tell people how to do things. Tell
them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity,” as cited in
the United States Naval Institute Proceedings (Christie 2006).
Supporting evidence that systems engineering is quite effective in delivering requisite performance, within schedule and budget limitations, has been