Trans RINA, Vol 153, Part A1, Intl J Maritime Eng, Jan-Mar 2011
MARINE REQUIREMENTS ELUCIDATION AND THE NATURE OF PRELIMINARY SHIP DESIGN
D Andrews, University College London, UK (DOI No: 10.3940/rina.ijme.2011.a1.202)
SUMMARY
In 2003 the author produced a paper, entitled “Marine Design – Requirements Elucidation rather than Requirements Engineering”, for the 8th International Marine Design Conference. This was intended to follow on from van Griethuysen’s 2000 IMDC paper “Marine Design – Can Systems Engineering Cope?”, while drawing on the author’s recent experience in, firstly, directing and then being the MoD Future Surface Combatant (FSC) IPT Team Leader in the concept phase for that programme, where the intentions of Smart Procurement were applied. Since leaving the MoD in 2000, the author’s academic endeavours, at UCL, have both refined the ideas in the 2003 paper and, through a diverse range of ship design studies, provided further substantial evidence in favour of that paper’s argument. The current paper was originally presented to the first Institution conference on systems engineering. This is a revised version in the light of the discussion at that conference on the applicability of systems engineering practice to initial ship design and presents the arguments of both papers to a wider audience.
The current paper looks at the origins of the concept of Requirements Engineering, within systems engineering, when specifically applied to naval engineering acquisition practice. This is contrasted with consideration of the actual nature of the initial design of physically large and complex systems, typified by modern naval vessels. This is followed by drawing specific insights from a series of design studies undertaken by the UCL Design Research Centre, under the direction of the author. These diverse and wide ranging initial design studies can be seen as examples of the sophistication of Requirements Elucidation, exemplifying how systems engineering practice can be applied to the critical early stages of naval ship design. The paper concludes by looking at the characteristics of the initial or concept design process by seeing Requirements Elucidation, as the strategy to tackle the inherently “wicked problem” of determining what is really wanted of a naval vessel and what can be afforded.
1. INTRODUCTION
Requirements Engineering”, for the 8th International Marine Design Conference [1]. This was intended to follow on from van Griethuysen’s 2000 IMDC paper “Marine Design – Can Systems Engineering Cope?” [2], while drawing on the author’s
In 2003 the author produced a paper, entitled “Marine Design
– Requirements Elucidation rather than recent experience in
directing and then being the MoD Future Surface Combatant (FSC) IPT Team Leader in the concept phase for that programme, where the intentions of Smart Procurement were applied [3]. As indicated by the 2003 paper’s title, it concluded that the practice of
a) Systems engineering can be seen as a design discipline separate from domain specific disciplines, such as naval architecture, in the field of ship design. This then leads on to the view that S.E. can be regarded as more than a methodology, whose primary function is to ensure best practice project management principles are adopted by project teams [5];
b) Physically Large and Complex (PL&C) systems, like warships, can be designed in a manner akin to software led systems, such as air traffic control systems or warship combat systems. This then assumes the physical architecture of the combat system can be left not
just until the abstract first
investigating, in considerable depth and importantly in non-material specific terms, the requirements for a major naval programme was
a) not appropriate for major warships – such as the FSC;
b) bad Systems Engineering practice – corroborated, at that
time, by the views of a senior engineering theorist [4].
With such clear conclusions, it might be questioned as to why the issue merits revisiting? This is seen to be necessary because the practice of such “Requirements Engineering” still seems to be prevalent and underlies, despite all the evidence to the contrary, two further misapprehensions, namely that:
The paper commences with a consideration of the origin of Requirements Engineering and why it was conceived as being the
appropriate process to adopt when
considering the need for a new complex system and to do so in non-material specific terms. Next the nature of pre- feasibility or initial/concept design studies, as practiced for the acquisition of major naval vessels, is outlined in order to appreciate just how diverse this is and how, in
©2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects A-23 systems
requirement statement has been finalised but also subsequent to producing the functional data flow system design [6].
Thus the current paper revisits both the issue of
Requirements Engineering and what is argued to be the preferable process of Requirements Elucidation, in the hope that the appropriate practice is adopted in future warship design.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74