Why Systems Fail (Viewed From Hindsight)

Abstract. To alleviate problems in performing the definition of requirements, it is necessary to review and understand the practice of requirements definition (RD). Refinement of RD is necessary in order to improve the processes and effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to present some results of research performed to refine the RD concept in System Development. The objectives were to obtain an organized, coherent and unified representation of RD. Results of this research will enhance communication among the engineering communities, provide guidance in the effective development and management of requirements and provide the avenue for comparison, measurement, and improvement. Development of the RD representation consisted of identifying the areas of RD, primary functions of each area, and interfaces. The first step, identifying the RD areas, is presented in this paper. Documented RD representations were analyzed to determine a preliminary set of RD areas. A total of five areas were determined. Further research was performed to find evidence to reinforce the five areas determined. The procedures for developing the RD areas are presented. The RD areas identified were:

Refinement of the Requirements Definition (Rd) Concept in System Development: Development of the Rd Areas

White

Lacy²,

O’Hair

1996

1.1.2 Using Patterns to Share Best Results ‐ A proposal to codify the SEBOK

Haskins

2003

INCOSE has been making good progress in the compilation of a Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBOK). The committee struggles now with an abundance of literature augmented by over a decade of symposia proceedings and other material collected in the INSIGHT and the Journal of SE. Specifically, INCOSE struggles with the question of how to share this wealth with the world as the organization and its members attempt to communicate the value of SE to the international community, engineers and product developers.

3.8.1 Repeating Design Errors or “Where's The History?”

Bennett

Sloan

2003

Abstract. The Oliver Hazard Perry class of frigates and the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers, the US Navy's newest combatants, share a common design fault despite, or perhaps because of, a 20-year difference in design time. This paper describes the fault and links the underlying cause of the error to a lack of readily available historical knowledge. A solution is proposed to prevent the recurrence of error repetition by increasing the visibility of corrective maintenance actions to designers and of the status of material condition throughout the fleet to the maintenance managers and operations planners. The results of the process include better design, elimination of repetitive design errors, and true depictions of fleet readiness as a systems engineering solution.