| 09:00 – 09:15 | Welcome by INCOSE Sverige | |
| 09:15 – 10:00 | Annika Meijer Henriksson (Saab) | Large Scale Systems Engineering in practice – a chief engineers’ perspective |
| 10:00 – 10:30 | Coffee Break and Networking | |
| 10:30 – 11:15 | Stephanie Chiesi (Stevens Institute of Technology) | Realizing the Desired Outcomes of Digital Engineering Implementation |
| 11:15 – 12:00 | Ellen Bergseth, David Williamsson and Rakesh Jayaprakas (KTH, Scania) | Teaching Systems Engineering to a large class of second level students |
| 12:00 – 13:15 | Lunch and Networking | |
| 13:15 – 13:45 | Paul Schreinemakers and Tom Strandberg (INCOSE) | Realizing the Systems Engineering Vision 2035; We need your participation!! |
| 13:45 – 14:30 | Jasper Bussemaker, Pina Donelli and Luca Boggero (German Aerospace Center) | An MBSE Process with Architecture Design Space Exploration and Value-based Decision Making |
| 14:30 – 15:15 | Coffee Break and Networking | |
| 15:15 – 16:00 | Alexander Efremov (GfSE) | Managing changes in a part of one German automotive engineering centre: The fortunate failure |
| 16:00 – 16:15 | Famous Last Words | |
| 08:30 – 09:00 | Registration | |
| 09:00 – 09:15 | Welcome by INCOSE Denmark | |
| 09:15 – 10:00 | Annika Meijer Henriksson (Saab) | Large Scale Systems Engineering in practice – a chief engineers’ perspective |
| 10:00 – 10:30 | Coffee Break and Networking | |
| 10:30 – 11:15 | Stephanie Chiesi (Stevens Institute of Technology) | Realizing the Desired Outcomes of Digital Engineering Implementation |
| 11:15 – 12:00 | Jasper Bussemaker, Pina Donelli and Luca Boggero (German Aerospace Center) | An MBSE Process with Architecture Design Space Exploration and Value-based Decision Making |
| 12:00 – 13:15 | Lunch and Networking | |
| 13:15 – 13:45 | Tom Strandberg, Jonas Larsson and Per Vikkelsøe | Systems Engineering Capability Development, using the Green and Blue Track Approach |
| 13:45 – 14:30 | Alexander Efremov (GfSE) | Managing changes in a part of one German automotive engineering centre: The fortunate failure |
| 14:30 – 15:15 | Coffee Break and Networking | |
| 15:15 – 16:00 | Paul Schreinemakers and Tom Strandberg (INCOSE) | Realizing the Systems Engineering Vision 2035; We need your participation!! |
| 16:00 – 16:15 | Famous Last Words | |
| 09:00 – 09:15 | Welcome by GfSE (INCOSE Germany) | |
| 09:15 – 10:00 | Annika Meijer Henriksson (Saab) | Large Scale Systems Engineering in practice – a chief engineers’ perspective |
| 10:00 – 10:45 | Alexander Efremov (GfSE) | Managing changes in a part of one German automotive engineering centre: The fortunate failure |
| 10:45 – 11:15 | Coffee Break and Networking | |
| 11:15 – 12:00 | Jasper Bussemaker, Pina Donelli and Luca Boggero (German Aerospace Center ) | An MBSE Process with Architecture Design Space Exploration and Value-based Decision Making |
| 12:00 – 13:00 | Lunch | |
| 13:00 – 13:45 | Stephanie Chiesi, Stevens Institute of Technology | Realizing the Desired Outcomes of Digital Engineering Implementation |
| 13:45 – 14:30 | Philipp Helle, Airbus | Scalable multidisciplinary-analysis in a heterogeneous tool landscape using an extended SysML |
| 14:30 – 15:00 | Coffee Break and Networking | |
| 15:00 – 16:00 | Paul Schreinemakers and Tom Strandberg (INCOSE) | Realizing the Systems Engineering Vision 2035; We need your participation!! |
| 16:00 – 16:15 | Famous Last Words | |
Abstracts
Large Scale Systems Engineering in practice – a chief engineers’ perspective
Annika Meijer Henriksson, Saab AB
There is chasm between the tidy published descriptions of Systems Engineering and the actual reality of realizing a complex heterogeneous system, e.g., a fighter aircraft. Don’t get me wrong, there is high value in the published material, but when applied adaptations must be made to manage the realities of systems development. This talk will start out from Systems Engineering theory and discuss adaptations made in recent development programs, e.g., Gripen E and T-7.
Managing changes in a part of one German automotive engineering centre: The fortunate failure
Alexander Efremov, GfSE
In the realm of modern enterprises, comprehensive and manageable changes are often necessary. Incremental improvements facilitated by continuous improvement processes, which predominantly enable bottom-up changes, are no longer sufficient. This is due to the significant and rapid shifts in the business environment, including emerging competition from new market players unburdened by legacy approaches, evolving customer needs, and the emergence of new materials and products.
Even established automotive industry giants face the challenge of competition from agile companies like Tesla, the demand for sustainability, and the advent of software-intensive products and electric vehicles.
In response to these new realities, enterprises embark on transformation or change initiatives, involving both internal and external personnel in their management and execution.
This report focuses on a specific case within such an initiative: a change management project in the chassis department of a prominent German automotive OEM, overseen by the author.
The author provides a multi-dimensional perspective on the project, covering five distinct viewpoints:
- Scope definition (accompanied by a crash course in systems thinking for the project team)
- Culture and strategy (addressing obstacles and fostering collaboration within the team)
- Minimal viable product (highlighting the importance of gaining management support)
- Interaction with the environment (learning from others’ mistakes and disregarding less useful inputs)
- Implementing changes (describing processes and methods and their practical application in real projects)
The intended audience will delve into the project from each viewpoint, exploring three levels of depth: beginning with a relatable example, progressing to the tools and concepts employed, and concluding with relevant literature and references for further research.
The author hopes that readers will recognize analogous situations in their own contexts, apply basic tools and concepts, and know where to seek further guidance when faced with more complex challenges.
An MBSE Process with Architecture Design Space Exploration and Value-based Decision Making
Jasper Bussemaker, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
Pina Donelli, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
Luca Boggero, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
The model-based systems engineering approach developed in the AGILE4.0 project features all conceptual design stages from requirements to design space exploration. This presentation presents some details of the system architecture design space exploration and value-based decision-making steps. Designing a system architecture is not trivial as it involves taking important decisions early in the design process. This challenge combined with the large combinatorial design spaces present in complex system design problems necessitates a more automated way to explore architecture alternatives. Architecture optimization aims to improve the system architecting process by formulating the architecting process as a numerical optimization problem with formally defined decision variables and quantifiable design objectives.
The presented framework uses the Architecture Design Space Graph (ADSG): a function-based formulation that does not require system engineers to be experts in formulating optimization problems. System architecture alternatives are evaluated by Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) techniques in order to get system-level performance estimates. After the design space has been explored and a Pareto-front of optimal architectures has been found, the value-based decision-making method can be used to find the design option that best meets stakeholder needs.
Realizing the Desired Outcomes of Digital Engineering Implementation
Stephanie Chiesi, Stevens Institute of Technology
Digital Transformation changes how we perform engineering tasks in the product development lifecycle to reduce the time to market. This concept is at the heart of the US Department of Defense Digital Engineering Strategy as a means of rapid delivery for increased capabilities to the warfighter, though it is a desire in many industries. As we implement Digital Engineering and connect data in our digital ecosystems as part of our engineering practices, this also changes the data available to decision makers. Changing the barriers of data accessibility, timeliness, pedigree, and relevance means that decision makers have a different dataset to inform their choices than previously encountered. This increase in data may not lead to improved capabilities or shorter delivery times depending on the training and background of those using the new data and making the decisions. This presentation will review how engineering decision making may be impacted as Digital Engineering is implemented in the product lifecycle and how further adaptations may be needed to realize the desired benefits of reduced cycle time and improved capabilities. This presentation will also introduce a surrogate model approach to advancing fundamental research in decision making in a digital engineering environment to realize the desired outcome of reduced product lifecycle time.
Realizing the Systems Engineering Vision 2035; We need your participation!!
Paul Schreinemakers, INCOSE
Tom Strandberg, INCOSE
Digital Transformation changes how we perform engineering tasks in the product development lifecycle to reduce the time to market. This concept is at the heart of the US Department of Defense Digital Engineering Strategy as a means of rapid delivery for increased capabilities to the warfighter, though it is a desire in many industries. As we implement Digital Engineering and connect data in our digital ecosystems as part of our engineering practices, this also changes the data available to decision makers. Changing the barriers of data accessibility, timeliness, pedigree, and relevance means that decision makers have a different dataset to inform their choices than previously encountered. This increase in data may not lead to improved capabilities or shorter delivery times depending on the training and background of those using the new data and making the decisions. This presentation will review how engineering decision making may be impacted as Digital Engineering is implemented in the product lifecycle and how further adaptations may be needed to realize the desired benefits of reduced cycle time and improved capabilities. This presentation will also introduce a surrogate model approach to advancing fundamental research in decision making in a digital engineering environment to realize the desired outcome of reduced product lifecycle time.
Systems Engineering Capability Development, using the Green and Blue Track Approach
Tom Strandberg, CAG Syntell AB
Jonas Larsson, CAG Syntell AB
Per Vikkelsøe, Novo Nordisk
Ever wondered how to build a lasting SE capability in your company or team? While Systems Engineering nowadays is well described in several standards, handbooks and tool guides, there is little documentation on how to build an SE capability in the organization. SE, by its nature, includes a wide range of processes, methods, tools, roles, etc. Where do you start? Too often SE initiatives are started in a piecemeal fashion and without a strategic plan. What is needed is a systemic, systematic and pragmatic approach.
This presentation describes an approach that is:
- systemic, in that it recognizes that an enterprise SE capability is built up by a balanced set of Governance, Organisation (incl People), Processes, Information and Tools&Infrastructure;
- systematic in that is provides a strategic direction for the enterprise capability (the Green Track) and uses ongoing projects to apply and learn from (the Blue Track); and
- pragmatic in that it prioritize building the capability incrementally to support needs of ongoing projects.
A case is presented on how the approach is being applied to develop the SE capability in a large medtech company.
The presentation will summarize intended benefits as well as those achieved and the lessons learned so far.
Per Vikkelsøe, Principal Systems Engineer at Novo Nordisk. Per brings 25 years of experience in software and systems engineering, gained through working in both large enterprises and small startups. His focus over the last decade and a half has been in the MedTech industry, where he has worked with software and systems engineering of medical devices – navigating the complexities of balancing technical engineering with stringent regulatory requirements.
Jonas Larsson, CAG Syntell AB, CSEP. 25 years’ experience in the Defence-, Aerospace-, public transportation- and telecommunication sector at various operational and management positions. Have worked with product development in different product lifecycle stages from concept to support. Has tailored Systems Engineering methods as well as coached organizations in implementing Systems Engineering, Systems Architecture and Product Line Engineering.
Teacher at Syntell Academy in Systems Engineering, Systems Architecture and at Syntell Summer School for the course Systems Architecting Fundamentals.
Presenter at INCOSE International Symposium and Best Paper Award 2016.
Tom Strandberg is a Principal Systems Engineering Consultant at CAG Syntell AB, based in Stockholm, Sweden. Over the last 25 years, Tom has successfully built the Systems Engineering business at Syntell and contributed to an active SE community in the Nordic countries. He is an active member of INCOSE since 1998 and has held different leading
Syntell AB I Box 100 22 I 100 55 Stockholm I Sweden I Tel +46(0)8 660 02 80 I info@syntell.se I www.syntell.se
positions. He is the lead for the INCOSE Future of Systems Engineering (FuSE) stream on SE Application Extensions. As a CSEP and consultant, Tom has worked with many different international companies and authorities within aerospace and defense, automotive, healthcare/MedTech, transportation, and the process industry. Tom is also a trainer in SE and the manager of Syntell Academy, which provides training courses including the yearly Scandinavian Summer School Week on SE.
Teaching Systems Engineering to a large class of second level students
Ellen Bergseth, KTH Royal Institute of Technology
David Williamsson, Scania CV AB
Rakesh Jayaprakas, Scania CV AB
The Systems Engineering course, in Swedish Systemkonstruktion, at the Department of Engineering Design at KTH has yearly about 60 students from three different master programs. The students have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, Design and Product Realisation, or equivalent. About 25 percent of the students are international students. The primary purpose of the course is to introduce technical complexity and uncertainty, balancing desired and undesired effects when developing a system or product. The students must apply theoretical knowledge in a more practical and bigger picture context. Project work constitutes the main part of the course and is based on an analysis and redesign of an existing technical system. The whole class is one project group with one common goal divided into several subgroups of 4-6 students. That makes it possible to solve problems with a higher degree of complexity. One member of each development group will also be a member of a system integration group responsible for architecture definition, systems model updating, interface flaw detections, system performance verification etc. A stage-gate process and the V-model support the project development progress. Students should put in 240 hours in total, with 60 hours scheduled.
The projects have, up till now, been linked to the energy or the ground transport sector, for example, redesigning a wave energy harvester system or creating a conceptual design of an autonomous heavy-duty truck. The 2023s task was to redesign an old train into a new conceptual metro train running on electricity in the Stockholm metro system. Work is mixed with lectures and seminars involving researchers and industry representatives to support the project’s progress. The industry involvement is appreciated, and the quality of the course is highly dependent on this. Having the course as one large project brings the main challenge of handling the integration difficulties. Since there is no single authority in the class, the system integration group has more than ten members; this is a shortcoming. Another challenge is pushing the students to work with limited information and better communicate the main requirements early without the need for detailed subtask knowledge. The project work requires high demands on planning and communication within the group and makes all subgroup members use their unique skills and be brave enough to act in the group. This paper discusses mitigating these challenges, the actions taken to improve the course, and the newly introduced topic threats and hazard evaluation.
Scalable multidisciplinary-analysis in a heterogeneous tool landscape using an
extended SysML
Philipp Helle, Airbus
For Model-based Systems Engineering (MBSE) to reach its full potential it is important to
take the step from descriptive modeling to re-using the system models for analytical
purposes beyond simple model execution. SysML’s strength is to describe and capture many
aspects of complex systems, their parts and their interdependencies. When it comes to
modeling, simulating and optimizing the details in various disciplines, specialized
domain-specific tools do this job better and are already well-established in the industry. In
order to enable the selection of the best tool for each discipline, domain-specific tools have
to be integrated into a computational chain, where data is sent from one tool to another to
provide an overall analysis. To benefit from the strength of modeling, e.g., to make
hidden/implicit knowledge explicit and reviewable, this kind of computational chain or
analysis is best captured in a model as well.
This presentation describes an extension of the Systems Modeling Language (SysML) called
Parametric Analysis Model (PAM) for explicitly modeling flow-based analysis processes that
integrate discipline-specific models. To enable execution and visualizing the results of the
PAM, a supporting tool infrastructure has been implemented. The tool infrastructure follows
the microservice paradigm, i.e., a software architecture for building applications by the
orchestration of small, independent services. The presentation provides details about this
supporting tool infrastructure for automatic execution of different kinds of analyses in a
heterogeneous tool landscape that is deployed in a cloud environment. Additionally,the
presentation exemplifies this approach with a small case study from the aeronautic domain.
Presentation time: 30 or 45 minutes
Presenter bio: Philipp Helle joined Airbus in 2003 and is currently a researcher in the domain Virtual
Product Engineering of the Airbus Central R&T organization and an Airbus Expert for “Digital
Technologies for MBSE”. He studied linguistics and computer science and received his MA
from the University of Hamburg. Since 2005, he has been actively involved in research
concerning model-based systems engineering and its deployment in the Airbus Group
business units. Philipp is also a guest lecturer at the Hamburg University of Applied
Sciences (HAW Hamburg) for the module “Systems Engineering” in the master program
“Aeronautical Engineering”. Philipp is a member of GfSE, the German INCOSE chapter, and
a certified Project Management Professional (PMP).