Which of the following is not one of the three general guidelines for system development?

9.1.1.2 Process organization of the system development level

The system development process is the organization of the system development target implementation process, and is also the basis of the system testing process, verification process, and conformance verification. The system development practice process and system implementation target results are built for the system development goal realization and system verification process. The system development process organization is aimed at system development objective level classification, and builds corresponding development process organization of T0 application level, T1 system level, T2 subsystem level, T3 equipment component level, and T4 software and hardware module level. The development process of each level of the system is based on the target requirements and operating environment of different levels of development of the system, and constructs the development process of different levels of development for the development content of different levels of development. System development activities are also cascaded, decomposed, and refined. That is, each level of system development process is based on the requirements of the upper level development process. The scope of development, the environment, and the procedures for the development level are used to form the development process of this level through development and activity organization. For example, the T0 application level system development process is aimed at the development goal of this level, and constructs the system application development process organization based on the specified application mode and the related application logic. The system development process from the T1 system level is the application logic requirement for the T0 development process. According to the function domain decomposition and development model, the system domain development process organization is constructed according to the relevant development environment and operating conditions. For the T2 subsystem level, the system development process is aimed at the discipline processing and scope requirements of the T1 development process. Based on the discipline function definition, processing capabilities, and the related function processing logic and quality, the subsystem development process organization is constructed. T3 equipment and component level system development process is for the T2 development process of the functional logic processing process requirements, according to the operating equipment or component resource hosted application operating mode, according to the support system operating quality of the resource operation and status, and build equipment processing development process organization. T4 hardware and software level system development process is aimed at the T3 development process operation and operating status requirements, constructing the software and hardware development process based on the host application of software processing logical organization, and the resource operation of the hardware processing logical organization.

1.3.2.2.1 What Is Systems Development?

Systems development is the art and science of creating man-made systems to satisfy predetermined needs. It is a problem-solving process where we bring to bear appropriate elements of mankind's knowledge base to create new knowledge specific to the problem and, as a result, define a solution to the problem. In this book, we refer to organizations that accomplish this work as system development enterprises, developers, or contractors that may, at any one time, be in the process of developing several systems, each through the exercise of an organizational structure called a program. When the problem is very complex, involving a knowledge base that is both wide and deep, and the customer wishes delivery within a constraining time period and cost limit, these enterprises find it necessary to employ many people in the development effort, leading to a need to manage the development effort well in terms of the capabilities of the evolving product, the number of billable hours accumulating, and the amount of schedule time consumed relative to a plan and contract.

The author is a devotee of the matrix organizational structure, in which a functional department structure is responsible for providing programs with the resources they need and each program organizational structure is responsible for managing the development work for one program using cross-functional teams assigned responsibility for specific product entities that will compose the system. Some enterprises are not large enough to make this structure serve their needs well and have to apply some combination of project and/or functional departments. There are also upper size limitations that are most often solved by an enterprise forming divisions, each focused on a particular product line functioning within a matrix structure.

In order for system development to be effectively accomplished, there are several casts of characters who must cooperate within an enterprise, and this is seldom achieved in practice at the level of intensity and duration needed, resulting in some loss of efficiency and profit. The enterprise must field a team of specialists for each program that can act as one against a common enemy of ignorance with the same intensity that a winning sports team does for their season. In order for this to occur in an enterprise employing a matrix organizational structure, functional department managers must be prepared to deploy to each program the best possible resources (personnel, practices, document templates, and tools), progressively improved over time based on program lessons learned and coordinated across the functional departments. In addition, the managers of programs must organize and manage these resources with great skill to achieve customer needs consistent with also meeting enterprise goals, including a profit. Program managers should also bring to bear on program and product problems experts in dealing with complexity, called system engineers, early in the program so that their skills can be most effectively applied while leverage remains most advantageous against future risk.

Other people must, of course, cooperate in the development effort from the many specialized disciplines or domains. These may include mechanical, electrical, fluid, and chemical engineers, but today they will also almost always include computer software domain specialists because software is an ever-increasingly important element of systems that solve very complex problems. While software is an intellectual entity, it can be developed for use in a computer to accomplish tremendously complex goals that will be very difficult to accomplish in hardware alone. It is true that a little more than half a century ago there was little software, and system engineers were hardware people because that is all there was. Many system engineers have remained hardware focused and some may even remain in denial that software exists. Anyone left in this situation today must expand their outlook to embrace software or perish as a system engineer. The reality is that everyone needed on a program provides a necessary service and the result will be less complete and satisfactory if they are omitted, but the author is a system engineer and this is a book about an important part of the system engineering workload on a program. So, perhaps the author can be forgiven what may appear to some readers as an unreasonable acceptance of the importance of the work of system engineers.

Warnier-Orr Diagrams

Structured Systems Development, with Warnier-Orr diagrams, is designed to start the design at the end of the program, with the Outputs and Subroutine Calls. The construction of the Warnier-Orr diagrams is to be worked backward and horizontally; bottom up. These diagrams can be generated quite quickly, when using handwritten diagrams. On templates, such as those provided for flowcharting by IBM, there are braces for Warnier-Orr diagrams on the right outer edge of the template. The author is not familiar with any adequate tool used to construct these diagrams in a computerized form. Smart draw does have some very basic provisions for Warnier-Orr diagrams.

Generate Warnier-Orr diagrams, as with flowcharts, by working backward from the Outputs and Subroutine calls for each ordered list generated (Figs. 7.5–7.8).

1.2.1 A System Development Process

The development of successful systems to solve complex problems is a difficult chore often involving access to multiple technologies each mastered by a different collection of human employees of the development enterprise. As noted in the previous section, many people are necessarily involved because each must specialize fairly tightly in a small subset of the aggregate knowledge base necessary to develop the particular system. The mental power that the program must apply to the problem space is thus partitioned into many parts and integration and optimization work must be applied to realize the equivalent of one great mind. Today in industry this process is primarily accomplished using human communications involving heavy use of spoken and written natural language. Every system engineer working in industry has had a lifetime of experience reaching back to their childhood in the difficulty of communicating in this fashion with the precision needed in system development.

When developing an unprecedented system there is no existing predecessor system that can be observed functioning and little or no available descriptive information on what it might do or how it might be created. Somehow we must move through what is often a period of several years from an operator recognizing an unfulfilled need to a condition where the system is available to a user where there was no preexisting physical reality at hand. The way we begin this process is through a series of models of the system we are creating.

A model, according to the dictionary, is a standard or example for imitation or comparison, a representation, generally in miniature, to show the construction or appearance of something. The models of interest in the system definition work on a program tend to be built from simple line drawings but each of the artifacts that are illustrated have a precise meaning encouraging a more precise means of communicating ideas about complex problems than is possible solely with a natural language like English. As we move into system synthesis the models tend to become more complex and specific reflecting the increased knowledge about the system being developed.

The system development process can be thought of as a series of transformations as suggested in Figure 1.5 that have been found by many development enterprises to be effective on past development programs:

Transform the problem space into a set of models that represent the problem space and from which essential characteristics that a design solution must possess can be derived and included in a set of specifications applying to the entities and interfaces of the system. The product entities and interfaces are modeled in a set of solution space models along with specialty engineering or quality characteristics and environmental influences from which the final set of requirements are derived to complete the specification development work.

Transform the modeling work into a set of requirements for each entity identified in the product entity model and interface defined in an interface model.

Transform the content of the specifications into design solutions that respect the content of those specifications. This is the creative design process accomplished by teams of specialists.

Transform knowledge of the design solution into procurement sources, manufacturing planning, and quality assurance planning.

Transform sets of plans, procedures, and materials into physical product including the procurement and/or manufacture of computer software as well as hardware entities.

Transform specification content into a set of comprehensive plans and procedures to guide verification that a product design satisfies its requirements.

Transform the verification plans and procedures into the accomplishment of the related tasks on product entities that produce evidence of the relationship between the product requirements and the features of the product design and audit that evidence supporting a conclusion that the product does or does not satisfy the requirements.

Transform the availability of physical product into delivery of that product to customers, collect revenue, and logistically sustain the system over its life.

This book focuses on the subset of the complete description for a system involving the data created in the work to the left of the boundary on Figure 1.5 related to transforms 1 and 2. The related work involves modeling of the problem spaces as a basis for determining what the system must accomplish, how this functionality shall be represented in a series of solution space models in terms of how the needed functionality will be packaged into entities and identification of the interfaces that must exist between them and the system environment, identification of needed specialty engineering characteristics, and identification of a particular environment within which the system shall be employed. This work is accomplished best through modeling and the derivation of requirements from that modeling work that are documented in a set of specifications for the entities and relationships between them.

The results of this work is improved if predesign concept development work, the beginning of synthesis, is accomplished concurrently and progressively paced with the other problem space modeling work such that higher-tier entity concepts have the effect of influencing lower-tier functionality. Success is further encouraged in the process if executable models including simulations derived from the problem space models are employed to further understand the problem space and suitable solution space features.

The design work should be based on the content of the specifications that result and we should attempt to prove that the design created satisfies the content of the specifications. This is the traditional framework of system development that describes the current system development plateau. Some of these aspects are being challenged in the work that is taking place on programs developing solutions to very complex problems today. Some of these challenges may result in significant changes in the system development process over the next few years. Those challenges will be discussed in Chapter 10.

Sources of further information and background

Since advanced KMS development for radioactive waste management is a recent initiative, there is little specific documentation available at the moment, although more general nuclear KM is an area that is expanding rapidly, with a particular focus on nuclear energy (http://www.inderscience.com/jhome.php?jcode=ijnkm, https://www.iaea.org/nuclearenergy/nuclearknowledge/nkm-publications.html). Additionally, there is an extensive literature on AMs, KM, development of KMS, etc., in other sectors. Following is a brief list of references particularly relevant to points covered in this chapter.

3.4.1 Two ways of development process

A systematic Smart PSS development process is of paramount importance to the final success of smart product-service provision, of which the main approaches are outlined in Table 3.7. One can find that the focus lies in two aspects: (1) data-driven platform-based process; (2) value-driven cocreation process, as depicted in Fig. 3.3.

Table 3.7. Examples of Smart PSS development process.

For the prior one, it is conducted from a product-service provision generation perspective (Hagen, Kammler, & Thomas, 2018, pp. 87–99; Maleki, Belkadi, & Bernard, 2018), where massive user-generated and product-sensed data are collected mainly through SCPs and further analyzed in the service platform for Smart PSS provision generation. For example Zheng et al. (2018a) addressed a data-driven digital twin-enabled servitization process, and Scholze, Correia, and Stokic (2016) extended the scope with the consideration of knowledge management, context modeling, and security configuration, improving the quality and reliability of the generated product-service provision.

For the latter one, it is investigated from a value-driven perspective, where the interactions among stakeholders for value generation plays a dominant role. For instance, Liu et al. (2018) proposed a four-stage value co-creation process, of which both service providers and users are actively engaged in the so-called interactive activity diagrams. Meanwhile, Parida, Sjödin, and Reim (2019) articulated the components of value creation, value delivery, and value capture in the digital servitization process to reveal its significance in ensuring the success.

It is claimed that both approaches are considered in the Smart PSS development process in the following Chapters 4–9Chapter 4Chapter 5Chapter 6Chapter 7Chapter 8Chapter 9 consistently.

2.6 Implementation

This phase of system development includes the actual implementation and coding of the system. It includes defining the methodology adopted for system development and other implementation issues.

Implementation of the system is done by using the system requirements. This project is implemented using three basic models. The mobile application is developed using NetBeans software in J2ME, while desktop server application is developed using Eclipse software in J2ME. The database used is MySQL. The scripting language used is PHP. The information server used is Wamp Server, and the message server is Ozeki server. The project is developed such that it acquires all the specified features with efficiency and reliability to achieve the objectives of the system.

43.5 Function Allocation

In any system development, the issue of allocation of function between the machine components and the human elements in the system is a key development phase. In the development of an expert system, the designer usually brings to the table a proposal about exactly what the expert system will do, and such a proposal implies an allocation of function between the mechanized part and the human part of the system. As the development proceeds, however, often the boundary becomes fuzzy for several reasons:

Recognition that not all the functions originally envisioned are capable of being converted successfully to algorithmic form.

Ambiguity about the depth to which explanation is required in order for the user to take advantage of the advice. How much can you expect the user to understand through training and how much depends on the expert system being able to explain its output.

Need to provide the user with the capability to input parameters or modify assumptions. Experience suggests that a user typically will not be satisfied with a “canned” solution unless he or she has had a chance to influence the way the solution was constrained.

Political realities about decisions that will be reserved for the system users. A doctor is not likely to abdicate his or her responsibility for a diagnosis nor is a power plant supervisor likely to let an expert system inform the local authorities of an impending hazard to the public without intervention.

These are examples of issues that should be addressed early in the development because they seriously impact the architecture of the system and the design of the human interface. They can be thought of an allocation of function issues.

25.3.1 The Training Development Process

A systematic instructional system development process (Figure 25.29) is followed for the development of spaceflight training. Systematic development of training ensures that crews and flight control personnel be certified to perform their respective onboard and on the ground operations safely and efficiently. Certification of flight readiness is declared on the basis of successful performance as assessed through a formal evaluation.

The instructional system development process consists of five phases, of which the last step ensures the transfer of lessons learned into future training, as well as into systems operations (NASA 1997; ESA 2000a):

Analysis. During this phase it is important to establish what is to be learned, by whom, and with what previously existing skills. The space systems and operations are analyzed to identify those areas requiring training. The profiles of the trainees are analyzed to determine the skills they either have or must have prior to the start of training.

Design. Once training requirements and learner characteristics have been identified, it is necessary to map out how the material to be learned can be best presented, practiced, and tested. Learning objectives are derived from the requirements, and strategies are developed with regard to how to best facilitate learning. Evaluation strategies are derived from the objectives to allow validation. Training media and facilities are selected. Training curricula containing catalogs of lessons and specific flows with associated qualifications for each job or position are created.

Development. Only after the overall curriculum has been designed solidly can real training development begin. Lessons, training media, and facilities are developed. Instructors are certified. Small group tests, called dry runs, are performed to obtain feedback from system developers, operations personnel, and the crew. Training is reviewed and validated. Issues identified with the hardware and operations are fed back to the developers.

Implementation. At this point, the training is ready to be delivered to participants. Plans and schedules are created. Performance of trainees is assessed. Training records are stored and reports created. Training models for hardware and software and training materials are maintained.

Evaluation. Once training has been delivered, the actual performance of the trained personnel on tests and on the job, as well as any feedback received during training, is analyzed to evaluate the outcome and quality of training. Qualitative and quantitative data are collected, adequacy of training is assessed against trainee feedback, and actual job performance is analyzed. Changes to training systems and operations are recommended as required.

New Developments at MTU Onsite Energy

Different new system developments were elaborated or are under progress now at MTU Onsite Energy based on the HotModule design:

HotModule 310 on the basis of the former HotModule, named HM300,

HotModule 320, new design, and

Adapted system for synthesis gases.

General layout, performances, and efficiencies

The general layout is given in Figure 12. The gasifier delivers hot fuel gas (>500 °C) free of tar according to the specifications. The gas then will be cooled down to 40–50 °C by cooling air in a counter flow heat exchanger in such a way that the cooling air will be heated up to 400 °C in order to be utilized within the heat utilization system together with the depleted air from the HotModule. Within the fuel treatment system the fuel gas will be cleaned down to the values, which have to be obeyed for the entrance of the gas to the fuel cell, heated up again and humidified simultaneously to 450 °C and a steam/carbon ratio of about 2–2.5. Then it enters the isothermal preconverter, where it will be equilibrated, which means, that a composition will be reached, where the gas will contain roughly 10% of methane. Then the gas streams to the HotModule, where the normal reactions take place and power and heat will be generated.

Figure 12. General design of wood gas-fed HotModule Plant. DC, direct current; AC, alternating current.