Part of the book series: Space Technology Library ((SPTL,volume 41))

  • 653 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the basic principles of the systems engineering discipline and explains its relevance and importance to successfully execute a project in the foreseen time span and allocated budget which meets all its requirements. Whereas the definition of terms and terminology follows the standard of the International Council of Systems Engineering (INCOSE), a comparisons to space tailored standards defined by NASA and ESA is provided. The basic concepts of project planning are introduced, describing the statement of work, statement of compliance, work breakdown structure, and organisational breakdown structure. These are highly relevant tools for the proper definition of the contractual framework of a project that clearly defines the expectations and obligations. The initial project schedule is introduced as an important means to estimate the overall project duration prior to its start. It is then replaced by the working schedule which monitors the actual state and reflects potential delays accrued during the project execution. The early detection of delays and the understanding of the underlying reasons allow the project responsible to take early corrective actions. This helps to recover or at least minimise potential negative implications on the project (e.g., a budget overrun). The precedence diagramming is presented as a method to put the various activities into the required sequence of execution. The identification of the critical path is needed to identify all those work packages that could potentially delay the overall project duration which is demonstrated using the example of a TT&C antenna deployment. The need to identify potential risk factors for a project and to describe and track them in a risk register, is emphasised. The definition of system hierachies allows to decompose a system into subsystems and trace specific functions and requirements to them which simplifies the development, verification, and integration activities. The definition of life cycle stages decomposes a project into different phases that are characterised by a set of mile stones and gates, at which it must be decided whether to proceed from one stage to the next one. The Vee model being one of the most prominent life cycle models in SE is explained in more detail. Whereas plan-driven or waterfall models adhere to a strict sequence of how the life-cycle stages and processes are executed, incremental and iterative development methods are described as an alternative approach that allow to adjust the system design based on intermediate user inputs, before delivering the final product. Furthermore, the main concepts of model based systems engineering (MBSE) and other agile SE methods are outlined. Finally, the need for quality assurance is explained which defines the set of standards used for the specification, development, reviews, and testing in a project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 85.59
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 106.99
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 149.79
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The INCOSE standard is based on the ISO/IEC/IEE15288:215 standard.

  2. 2.

    Especially in larger sized projects the latency in cash flow between contractual layers can introduce additional delays and could even cause existential problems for small size companies that have limited liquidity.

  3. 3.

    Schedule slack is an important feature that can improve schedule robustness by absorbing delays caused by unpredictable factors like severe weather conditions, logistics problems (e.g., strikes or delay in high sea ship**), or problems with LLI procurement.

  4. 4.

    The reason is that the implementation of the site security related installations (e.g., fire detection and alarm, fences) can be performed in parallel to the other activities and need to be finalised only at the end of the project.

  5. 5.

    If the impact of an event is desirable, it is termed opportunity.

  6. 6.

    Larger scale NASA space projects with development times spanning several years can be adversely affected by the annual (fiscal year) budget approval by the United States Congress.

  7. 7.

    This heuristic rule suggests that at each level any component in a system should not have more than 7 ± 2 subordinates.

  8. 8.

    This implies that any further change needs to follow the applicable configuration control process.

  9. 9.

    Guidance for the organisation and conduct of reviews can be found in existing standards (see e.g., ECSS-M-ST-10-01C [10]).

  10. 10.

    An example for this is the failure of the Ariane 5 maiden flight on 4 June 1996 which could be traced to the malfunctioning of the launcher’s inertial reference system (SRI) around 36 s after lift-off. The reason for the SRI software exception was an incorrect porting of heritage avionic software from its predecessor Ariane 4 which was designed for flight conditions that were not fully representative for Ariane 5 (see ESA Inquiry Board Report [13]).

  11. 11.

    In the agile Scrum framework, increments are also referred to as “sprints”.

  12. 12.

    The product backlog is defined in [20] as an emergent, ordered list of what is needed to improve the product and is the single source of work undertaken by the scrum team.

  13. 13.

    Pair programming (also known as collaborative programming) is a coding methodology that involves two developers collaborating side-by-side as a single individual on the design, coding and testing of a piece of software: one controls the keyboard/mouse and the other is an observer aiming to identify tactical defects and providing strategic planning [22].

  14. 14.

    E.g., all code must undergo successful unit testing prior to release.

  15. 15.

    The traditional SE approach is therefore also sometimes referred to as textual based SE approach.

  16. 16.

    The DO-178B standard was actually developed by the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) in the 1980s and has more recently been revised (refer to DO-178C [29]) in order to consider modern development and verification techniques used in model-based, formal, and object-oriented development [30].

  17. 17.

    This can either be the OS of the host computer or a the one from a Virtual Machine (VM).

  18. 18.

    The detection of dead code can be achieved by either source code inspection or is the outcome of structural coverage measurement campaign.

  19. 19.

    The term ship** her refers to any kind of transfer, be it an electronic file transfer, postal transfer of media, transfer via road or railway, or even a container ship crossing the ocean.

  20. 20.

    For dust sensitive components like a satellite certain clean room facilities at the receiving end might be necessary and need to be ready.

  21. 21.

    Candidate documents for this could be the configuration status accounting report (CSAR) or the software configuration file (SCF).

  22. 22.

    A possible intermediate state is the so called qualified pass (QP) which can be used if a non expected behaviour or anomaly has occurred during the test execution which however does not degrade the actual functionality being tested.

  23. 23.

    Some readers might strongly disagree with this statement but the author still dares to express this as his personal view.

  24. 24.

    In some projects the term product assurance (PA) is used instead.

References

  1. International Organization for Standardization. (2015). Systems and software engineering — System life cycle processes. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015(en)

    Google Scholar 

  2. International Council of Systems Engineering. (2015). Systems Engineering Handbook. A guide for system life cycle processes and activities. INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04.

    Google Scholar 

  3. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2016). NASA systems engineering handbook. NASA SP-2016-6105, Rev.2.

    Google Scholar 

  4. European Cooperation for Space Standardization. (2017). System engineering general requirements. ECSS-E-ST-10C, Rev.1.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Belvoir, F. (1993). Committed life cycle cost against time. Belvoir: Defense Acquisition University.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (7th edn.). ANSI/PMI 99-001-2021, ISBN: 978-1-62825-664-2.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ruskin, A. M., & Eugene Estes, W. (1995). What every engineer should know about Project Management (2nd edn.). New York: Marcel Dekker. ISBN: 0-8247-8953-9.

    Google Scholar 

  8. European Cooperation for Space Standardization. (2009). Space engineering, Technical requirements specification. ECSS-E-ST-10-06C.

    Google Scholar 

  9. European Cooperation for Space Standardization. (2009). Space project management, project planning and implementation. ECSS-M-ST-10C.

    Google Scholar 

  10. European Cooperation for Space Standardization. (2008). Space management, Organization and conduct of reviews. ECSS-M-ST-10-01C.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Forsberg, K., & Mooz, H. (1991). The relationship of systems engineering to the project cycle. In Proceedings of the National Council for Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Conference, Chattanooga, pp. 57–65.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Forsberg, K., Mooz, H., & Cotterman, H. (2005). Visualizing project management (3rd edn.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  13. European Space Agency. (1996). Ariane 5, Flight 501 Failure. Inquiry Board Report. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/esa-x-1819eng.pdf

  14. Douglas, B. P. (2016). Agile systems engineering. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN: 978-0-12-802120-0.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Scaled Agile Incorporation. (2022). Achieving business agility with SAFe 5.0. White Paper. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.scaledagileframework.com/safe-5-0-white-paper/

  16. Womach, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Toyota Motor Corporation. (2009). Just-in-time - Productivity improvement. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from www.toyota-global.com

  18. Scaled Agile Incorporation. (2022). Agile teams. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.scaledagileframework.com/agile-teams/

  19. Scaled Agile Incorporation. (2022). Agile release train. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.scaledagileframework.com/agile-release-train/

  20. Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2022). The definitive guide to scrum: The rules of the game. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://scrumguides.org/docs/scrumguide/v2020/2020-Scrum-Guide-US.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  21. Beck, K. (2004). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change (2nd edn.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lui, K. M., & Chan, K. (2006). Pair programming productivity: Novice-novice vs. expert-expert. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 915–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Scaled Agile Incorporation. (2022). System team. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.scaledagileframework.com/system-team/

  24. Scaled Agile Incorporation. (2022). Team Kanban. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.scaledagileframework.com/team-kanban/

  25. Object Management Group®. (2019). OMB systems modeling language (OMG SysML®), Version 1.6. Doc Number: formal/19-11-01. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.6/

  26. Object Management Group®. (2022). Official website. Retrieved March 5, 2022 from https://www.omg.org/

  27. European Cooperation for Space Standardization. (2018). Space product assurance: Quality assurance, Rev. 2. ECSS-Q-ST-20C.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA). (1992). Software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification. Doc DO-178B.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA). (2011). Software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification. Document DO-178C.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Youn, W. K., Hong, S. B., Oh, K. R., & Ahn, O. S. (2015). Software certification of safety-critical avionic systems and its impacts. IEEE A&E Systems Magazine, 30(4), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAES.2014.140109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Galileo Project Office. (2016). Galileo software standard for ground (GSWS-G). GAL-REQ-ESA-GCS-X/0002, Issue 1.0.

    Google Scholar 

  32. European Cooperation for Space Standardization. (2018). Space product assurance, nonconformance control system. ECSS-Q-ST-10-09C.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bobby Nejad .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nejad, B. (2023). Systems Engineering. In: Introduction to Satellite Ground Segment Systems Engineering. Space Technology Library, vol 41. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15900-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15900-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15899-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15900-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Navigation