Systems engineering can be difficult to implement if the words and framework are not clearly understood by all parties involved. INCOSE has adopted a definition of systems engineering; yet a debate continues over what systems engineering is and how to do it. The authors have developed over a period of many years the FRAT framework for describing the process used to implement systems engineering for any task, the name for which is derived by the first letters of the series of words function, requirement, answer, and test. FRAT is based on the hypothesis that four views of a system are needed to completely define any system. These views are what it does (functions), how well the functions are performed (requirements), a physical or actual description of the system (answers), and verification and validation of the system when completed (tests). The FRAT framework has been validated by reviewing all the papers published at INCOSE proceedings. It is important to recognize that the system of interest (a product) is produced by another system (a production system). Both of these systems can be described by the four FRAT views when developing a shared vision of the development process as well as the product that is developed.

Product development processes are driven by a tradeoff between customer, developer and market forces. Commercial consumer product development is very sensitive to market conditions and efforts to increase market share. Defense and aerospace product development is more sensitive to the government customer desire to manage cost, time and schedule of the development effort and to advance the technology. This paper examines the lessons learned from both the commercial and defense product development experiences and presents a unified approach that will respond to any combination of product development issues.

This paper presents an approach to introducing the Systems Engineering Paradigm into a culture that was previously oriented to production. The Westinghouse Hanford Company, the Operations and Management Contractor for the Hanford Site of the Department of Energy (DOE), was directed by the Department to change from a mission of supporting the nuclear weapons production program to one that would eliminate the threats to the environment and hazards to the public that have resulted from this production. Because of the requirement for continuing management of stored wastes, a strong Stakeholder involvement, and the objective to use the cleanup of the Hanford site as a model for the cleanup of other hazardous and toxic waste sites, the DOE strongly emphasized that systems engineering should be used to develop the cleanup program. This paper will also make recommendations based upon the Hanford experience that may be applied to other instances where changing the organizational culture is necessary to support a change in the mission.

The systems engineering process as described in many books, however many minor variations may exist, is perceived by most members of INCOSE as an obvious way to pursue the development of solutions to complex problems. At the same time, most members are aware and concerned that few companies practice its precepts with total success. This paper makes the claim that sound system engineering knowledge exists but is not often well applied in practice as a premise of a study to seek out the reasons for this schism with the goal being an eventual closure of it. This paper, therefore, is an introduction to an extended activity planned by the authors.

No abstract