presentation from april 10, 2007 dinner meeting

8/9/2019 Presentation from April 10, 2007 Dinner Meeting

1/18

2006 Strategic e-Business Solutions, Inc.1

INCOSE Washington DC

Meeting PresentationStandard Approach to

Trade Studies

Strategic e-Business Solutions, Inc.Delivering innovative solutions to business

challenges that impede performance

Art FelixLean Six Sigma Black Belt

April 10, 2007


2/18


Informed decision-making comes from along tradition of guessing and then blaming

others for inadequate results.

Scott Adams

Standard Approach to Trade Studies


3/18


Standard Approach - Advantages

Transform a subjective decision-making process toa more objective decision-making process

Advantages to a Standard Approach Understood with confidence.

Repeated at a later date

Remove blind dependence on commercially available decisionmaking packages

Provide flexibility to accommodate informal decisions


4/18


Problems and Thoughts on Trade Studies

Problems associated with previous Trade Studies Pre-designated winner

Process used, or lack thereof

Management involvement or lack thereof

Criteria used and Alternatives evaluated are questioned

Conflict in evaluation of Cost and Risk

Additional thoughts on Trade Studies

Who is the Trade Study customer? Documenting thinking process

Varying complexity due to information/resources

CAIV


5/18


Basic steps in previous Trade Studies Get a copy of a previously approved Trade Study and

duplicate the steps.(or)

Customization individual preferences and/or individualLessons Learned

Alternatives use baseline if available Criteria use costs and risk as tradable criteria Weighting the criteria

Summary Matrix Sensitivity Study

(and add the eventual)Sample Summary Matrix - Used to tabulate the weighted criteria scoring for each

Viable Alternative

Alternative A Alternati ve B Alternati ve C Alt ernative D

Criteria Sub-Criteria

Weigh ti ng RawScore

WeightedScore

RawScore

WeightedScore

RawScore

WeightedScore

RawScore

WeightedScore

Performance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -speed 3.0acceleration 3.0payload 2.0fuel consumption 1.0ceiling 1.0

Reliability - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -MTBF 1.0

Safety - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Safety 1.0

Logistics - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Supply Lines 1.0Spare Parts 1.0Crew Training 2.0

TOTAL - - - #1 Score - - - #2 Score - - - #3 Score - - - #4 Score

Summary MatrixCost $____ Cost $____ Cost $____ Cost $____

Sample Summary Matrix - Used to tabulate the weighted criteria scoring for eachViable Alternative

Alternative A Alternati ve B Alternati ve C Alt ernative D

Criteria Sub-Criteria

Weigh ti ng RawScore

WeightedScore

RawScore

WeightedScore

RawScore

WeightedScore

RawScore

WeightedScore

Performance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -speed 3.0acceleration 3.0payload 2.0fuel consumption 1.0ceiling 1.0

Reliability - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -MTBF 1.0

Safety - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Safety 1.0

Logistics - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Supply Lines 1.0Spare Parts 1.0Crew Training 2.0

TOTAL - - - #1 Score - - - # 2 Score - - - #3 Score - - - #4 Score

Summary MatrixCost $____ Cost $____ Cost $____ Cost $____


6/18


7/18


Trade Study Steps

AlternativesCriteriaBaselineSummary Matrix

Priorities/WeightingSensitivity Study

Trade Study Subsets

Pros / Cons Pros / Cons

Trade Study Steps

AlternativesCriteriaBaseline /Summary Matrix

Priorities/WeightingSensitivity Study

Trade Study Subsets

Trade Study Process(Framework and Structure)1

Cost Risk22

OptimumSolution

3

Uncertainty / Lackof Confidence

4

Cost Benefit

chart

5 Risk Benefitchart

6

That MeetsCMMILevel 3!!!!


8/18


1. Framework and Structure (basic)Program Development:

Requirements Design and Validation & DeploymentDefinition Development Verification

P u r p o

s e / N e e

d s

S t a t e

m e n t

Gate 1Review

Gate 2Review

Gate 3Review

SummaryMatrixReview

A l t e r n a t

i v e s ,

C r i t e

r i a ,

C r i t e

r i a w e i g h t i n

g s

S u m m

a r y

M a t r i x

( e s ) E v a l u a t e

t h e

S u m m a

r y M a

t r i x

a n d d

e v e l o p

R e c o m m e n

d a t i o

n s

E x e c u t e

A l t e

r n a t i v

e

s e l e c

t i o n o r

r e - p l a

n

m a j o r

r e - w o

r k e f f

o r t s

Trade Study Development:

Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV

Initiate the Develop the Evaluate the Course of Trade Study Summary Matrix Results Action


9/18


10/18


2. Cost and Risk; 3. Baseline & Optimum

Cost and Risk Loose importance as tradable criteria

Revisited in final review (part of eventual customization)

Proposition: Remove Cost and Risk as tradable criteria andevaluate both in the Cost-Benefit and Risk-Benefit chart

Establish Baselineand Optimumsolution for eachtradable criteria

Criteria (n) - Utility Curve

987654321

Min Max

C r i

t e r i a

S c o r i n g

Alternative Grade

Optimum Solution

Baseline Solution

C r i

t e r i a

S c o r i n g

Alternative Grade

Optimum Solution

Baseline Solution


11/18


4. Uncertainty

Identify uncertainty boundaries for each evaluationcriteria in the grading process

Note: Do not forget to establish uncertainty boundariesfor the total costs of each alternative!

Criteria (n) - Utility Curve

987654321

Min Max

C r i

t e r i a

S c o r i n g

Alternative Grade

Nominal

C r i

t e r i a

S c o r i n g

Alternative Grade

Maximum

Minimum


12/18


5. Cost-Benefit Chart Example:

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Benefit

C o s

t(Maximum allowable costs)

( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e )

Alternative B

Low

(Least Desirable Quadrant)(High Cost Low Benefit) (High Cost High Benefit)

(Low Cost Low Benefit)

Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e )

Low Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e )

Alternative B

Low



Benefit

C o s


( A c c e p

t a b l e S o

l u t i o n

)

Low

( I d e a

l S o

l u t i o n

)

90%50% 60% 70% 80%10% 20% 30% 40%

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e )

Alternative B

Low



Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e )

Low Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e )

Alternative B

Low



Benefit

C o s


( A c c e p

t a b l e S o

l u t i o n

)

Low

( I d e a

l S o

l u t i o n

)

90%50% 60% 70% 80%10% 20% 30% 40%

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e )

Alternative B

Low



Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e )

Low Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e )

Alternative B

Low



Benefit

C o s


( A c c e p

t a b l e S o

l u t i o n

)

Low

( I d e a

l S o

l u t i o n

)

90%50% 60% 70% 80%10% 20% 30% 40% 90%50% 60% 70% 80%10% 20% 30% 40%

Alternative B Alternative B

Alternative A

Alternative D

Alternative C

Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B

Alternative A

Alternative D

Alternative C


Alternative A

Alternative D

Alternative C


Alternative A

Alternative D

Alternative C

Alternative B Alternative B


13/18


5. Cost-Benefit Chart (continued) Example:

HighBenefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e

)

Alternative B

Low

Low

High



Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e

)

Low

Low

High

Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e

)

Alternative B

Low

Low

High



Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e

)

Low

Low

High

E a s y D e c i s i o n

HighBenefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e

)

Alternative B

Low

Low

High



Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e

)

Low

Low

High

Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e

)

Alternative B

Low

Low

High



Benefit

C o s


( B a s e

l i n e

S c o r e

)

( M a x p o s s

i b l e S c o r e

)

Low

Low

High

E a s y D e c i s i o n H a r d

D e c i s

i o n

H a r d

D e c i s

i o n


14/18


6. Risk-Benefit Chart

Risk Assessment

Severity

P r o b a b i l i t y 9 (High Risk - Bad)

876

(Low Risk - Good) 1 2 3 4 5

Risk Assessment

Severity

P r o b a b i l i t y 9 (High Risk - Bad)

876

(Low Risk - Good) 1 2 3 4 5

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

LowLowLow Benefit

R i s k

Low

90%50% 60% 70% 80%10% 20% 30% 40%

1

5

4

3

2

9

8

7

6

( A c c e p

t a b l e S o

l u t i o n

)

( I d e a

l S o

l u t i o n

)

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

LowRisk

HighRisk

LowLowLow

R i s k

Low

1

5

4

3

2

9

8

7

6

( A c c e p

t a b l e S o

l u t i o n

)

( I d e a

l S o

l u t i o n

)

Alternative B

Alternative A

Alternative D

Alternative C

Alternative B

Alternative A

Alternative D

Alternative C

Alternative B

Alternative A

Alternative D

Alternative C

Alternative B

Alternative A

Alternative D

Alternative C


15/18


Types or Subsets of Trade Studies

Single CriterionChoice

Pros/ConsTrade Off Study

MultipleCriteria Selection

Pugh Controlled

Convergence Relative Comparison

(Basic)

Relative Comparison(Advanced)

Complete Trade Study

Single Criterion

Pros/Cons (Unique and Common),Single CriterionSingle CriterionSingle Criterion

Multiple Criteria with priority,Pros/Cons (Unique and Common)Pros/Cons (Unique and Common)Pros/Cons (Unique and Common)

Baseline / Optimum Solution, MultipleCriteria with priority

Baseline / Optimum Solution, MultipleCriteria with priority

Criteria Scoring, Criteria Weighting,Sensitivity Study, Baseline / Optimum Solution,Multiple Criteria with prioritywith prioritywith priority

Uncertainty/Confidence, two-tier criteria,Sensitivity Study,Sensitivity Study,Sensitivity Study, Criteria Scoring, CriteriaWeighting, Baseline / Standard, Multiple Criteria

O B J E C T I V E

S U B J E C T I V E


16/18


17/18


Summary CMMI Level III compliant Decision Analysis and Problem

Resolution

Six unique features are introduced to enhance Trade Studies 14 th INCOSE International Symposium

Paper presentation directed to engineers

15 th INCOSE International Symposium Paper presentation directed to program managers and customers

Four hour tutorial on Trade Studies

Patent Pending 10/890,838 filed 12 July for this process

DAU is developing on line class for DAU students. Part of systems engineering

Soon to be part of Program Management series

Plan to develop class for industry based on these concepts.


18/18


Contact Information

StrategicStrategic ee --Business Solutions, Inc.Business Solutions, Inc.3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 7003 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 700 --1A1ABethesda, Maryland 20814, USABethesda, Maryland 20814, USA

(877) NOW(877) NOW --SeBSSeBS

Email:Email: [email protected]@Sebsolutions.com

Web site:Web site: www.SeBSolutions.comwww.SeBSolutions.com

Art Felix, LSS Black [email protected]

(805) 914-4482

presentation from april 10, 2007 dinner meeting

Documents