Systems Engineers - Solving Problems In The Spotlight

Systems Engineers face many problems which may have several different resolutions.

Some problems have more than one solution. The Systems Engineer at times must make the best decision utilizing the available resources to achieve the main objective. Having stated this here are my responses to the research project titled “Weeding out a Solution” which provides a scenario of problems brought upon by various departments, that a Systems Engineer might face in the course of a workday in regards to a UAV weight design issue. A UAS is to be designed for precision crop-dusting. In the middle of the design process, the system is found to be overweight.

·         Two subsystems – 1) Guidance, Navigation & Control [flying correctly] and 2) Payload delivery [spraying correctly] have attempted to save costs by purchasing off-the-shelf hardware, rather than a custom design, resulting in both going over their originally allotted weight budgets. Each team has suggested that the OTHER team reduce weight to compensate.

·         The UAS will not be able to carry sufficient weight to spread the specified (Marketing has already talked this up to customers) amount of fertilizer over the specified area without cutting into the fuel margin. The safety engineers are uncomfortable with the idea of changing the fuel margin at all.

What are the considerations? The considerations that I would take into account are that of the overall design objective meeting the customers’ requirements. The expenditures for the off the shelf hardware has been completed. But, rather than delving immediately into who is or was responsible for approving this course of action, (which will be addressed at another date and time) I would focus on meeting the customers’ expectations of our product and delivery deadlines. Consideration must be given to staying in budget unless it was communicated initially that the UAV and its application would entail designing an entirely new product (not initially offered in our UAV product line) and would therefore have the possibility of presenting unforeseen costs ranging from initial design activity, materials development and system and payload testing and approvals etc.

Another consideration would be taking into account a weight comparison between the current vehicle (assembled with the off-the-shelf hardware) and the in house hardware used on current UAV lines to see if the reduction in weight would meet both weight budget allotments. 

Another factor to consider would be to view our engine offerings to see if one could be provided that would drop the weight within specified limits yet still be able to handle the payload capacity required by the customer. The engine would more than likely be a smaller version which would perform for a longer duration due to not reducing the UAV’s fuel cell configuration. The engine offering would probably be constructed of a lighter aluminum alloy rather than iron. The weight reduction provided by the engine swap may offset the weight issue caused by the off-the-shelf hardware.

What are the priorities? Priorities would be meeting the customers’ expectations based on our initial product capability and offerings, while maintaining budgetary and delivery constraints. The priority would further focus on the overall effectiveness of the departments working, communicating and synchronizing processes of the project. The thought patterns must result in departments which think and perform at a micro level, (all the while having the mindset) the decisions that are made (great or small) effect the project as a whole at a macro level.

Once a weight comparison was performed between both off-the-shelf hardware, and in-house hardware to determine budgetary constraints, the priority would be to reconfigure the UAV with the new hardware in order to meet customer deadlines. If the hardware is still an issue we could seek an outside supplier to produce the necessary hardware (this may be a situation in which the supplier may already have hardware in inventory which meets our pre-determined weight requirements), once we have determined the time it would take to design, test and manufacture new hardware, this information would be communicated to the customer if the on-time delivery schedule needs to be adjusted and pushed out to a later date.

What do you think about the future prospects for the “next generation, enhanced” version of the system as a result of your approach? The “next generation, enhanced version” will definitely exceed the already produced UAV models in a number of categories. The weight reduction requirement would be met and expectations exceeded due to the new developments which have taken place as a result of the above noted situation. Processes would be updated with roles and scope requirements clearly defined in order to prevent the noted scenario from happening again. Such changes will prevent any deviation from the main goal or objective from re-occurring as any design changes would have to be communicated and approved via a revision enhancement program. The newly designed and lightweight variant could also be advertised by the marketing department which in turn may produce more business opportunity for the company.

From the above scenario we can take away a number of important lessons. Systems Engineers have to solve problems and most often remind all departments (involved in engineering a product) about the overall “big picture” and that each department plays a small yet important role in achieving the ultimate goal. The Systems Engineer wears many different hat such as described by Baer “a systems engineer is involved in the creation, design and ultimately the manufacturing of the product” (Baer, 2012). The Systems Engineer does not just focus on aspect of the entire goal or project but rather the whole project, while keeping in mind that there may be times the job may entail focusing on one aspect instead of the whole.

Another important aspect is one that is offered by Loewen “Presently, more UAV manufacturers than ever have come to realize structured design processes are essential if they intend to develop reliable products” (Loewen, 2013). Loewen’s statement is strongly supported by the actions which have taken place in our example scenario. The design processes and approval protocols were clearly not in place which led to the overall deviation from the primary objective. Although, the Systems Engineer did have alternative courses of action to take, it would be most beneficial for any organization to not have to undertake a course of action such as the one described in our example scenario.

                                                            

References

Baer, T. (2012, Oct 15) Systems Engineering: Thoughts From a Leading Analyst, IBM Dev Ops.

            Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XuQt7azohM

Loewen, H. (2013). Requirements-based UAV Design Process Explained. Micro Pilot.

            Retrieved from https://www.micropilot.com/pdf/requirements-based-uav.pdf