Systems Integration Case Study Paper We will be focusing on systems integration and test aspects of these case studies. Write a short paper highlighting yo

Systems Integration Case Study Paper We will be focusing on systems integration and test aspects of these case studies. Write a short paper highlighting your views on the case with respect to shortfalls in integration and/or test efforts. Do not forget to look at systems engineering processes (planning, requirements management, configuration management, risk analysis, etc) with respect to and how they support integration and test. Do not just regurgitate the case study back to me, I have already read it; I am looking for your views. One last thing, don’t give me a monolithic block of text, make sure I can clearly delineate the answers to the questions.

Papers should be no more than two pages. Address the following questions:

In systems engineering terms describe the fundamental problem (s) encountered.
Example: “This appears to be a case where requirements were not clearly defined, analyzed and documented. No configuration management process was implemented and interfaces were not adequately defined…”
What do you think the program did right?
Based on what you have learned in class to date, what would YOU have done differently and why?
Have you experienced any problems or successes similar to that in the paper, if so what was it?
What were your top 3 “takeaways”? Why?

We will spend some time analyzing the problem and discussing the case via discussion board. Discussion board participation is mandatory and will be part of your grade.

PreviousNext GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
CASE STUDY
Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (AFIT/SY)
Air Force Institute of Technology
2950 Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765
-1-
Preface
In response to Air Force Secretary James G. Roche’s charge to reinvigorate the systems
engineering profession, the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) undertook a broad spectrum of initiatives that included creating new and innovative instructional and practitioner
support materials. The materials included case studies of past programs to teach the principles of
systems engineering via “real world” examples and to readily share these lessons learned with
acquisition professionals.
Four case studies, the first set in a planned series, were developed with the oversight of
the Subcommittee on Systems Engineering to the Air University Board of Visitors. The
Subcommittee included the following distinguished individuals:
Chairman
Dr. Alex Levis, AF/ST
Members
Tom Sheridan, Brigadier General
Dr. Daniel Stewart, AFMC/CD
Dr. George Friedman, University of Southern California
Dr. Andrew Sage, George Mason University
Dr. Elliot Axelband, University of Southern California
Dr. Dennis Buede, Innovative Decisions Inc
Dr. Dave Evans, Aerospace Institute
Dr. Levis and the Subcommittee on Systems Engineering crafted the idea of publishing
these case studies, reviewed several proposals, selected four systems as the initial cases for study,
and continued to provide guidance throughout their development. The Subcommittee members
have been a guiding force to charter, review, and approve the work of the authors. The four case
studies produced in that series were the C-5A Galaxy, the F-111, the Hubble Space Telescope,
and the Theater Battle Management Core System. The second series of case studies produced
were the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber and the Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM).
This third series includes the Global Positioning System (GPS).
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
The views expressed in this Case Study are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the
official policy or position of the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the
United States Government
-2-
Foreword
At the direction of the Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. James G. Roche, the Air Force
Institute of Technology (AFIT) established the Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (CSE)
at its Wright Patterson AFB, campus in 2003. With academic oversight by a Subcommittee on
Systems Engineering, chaired by Air Force Chief Scientist Dr. Alex Levis, the CSE was tasked to
develop case studies focusing on the application of systems engineering principles within various
Air Force programs. The committee drafted an initial case outline and learning objectives, and
suggested the use of the Friedman-Sage Framework to guide overall analysis.
The Department of Defense is exponentially increasing the acquisition of joint complex
systems that deliver needed capabilities demanded by our warfighter. Systems engineering is the
technical and technical management process that focuses explicitly on delivering and sustaining
robust, high-quality, affordable solutions. The Air Force leadership, have collectively stated the
need to mature a sound systems engineering process throughout the Air Force. Gaining an
understanding of the past and distilling lessons learned that are then shared with others through
our formal education and practitioner support are critical to achieving continuous improvement.
Beginning work in 2003 four case studies published in the initial series which addressed
the; C-5A, F-111, Hubble Telescope, and Theater Battle Management Core System. Two
additional case studies have since been added to this series for the B-2 and Joint Air-to-Surface
Standoff Missile (JASSM).
All case studies are available on the CSE website
[http://www.afit.edu/cse].
These cases support academic instruction on systems engineering (SE) within military
service academies and at both civilian and military graduate schools and are used by those
practicing SE in the field. Each of the case studies is comprised of elements of success as well as
examples of SE decisions that, in hindsight, were not optimal. Both types of examples are useful
for learning. Plans exist for future case studies focusing on various space systems, additional
aircraft programs, munitions programs, Joint service programs, logistics-led programs, science
and technology/laboratory efforts, and a variety of commercial systems.
As we uncovered historical facts and conducted key interviews with program managers
and chief engineers, both within the government and those working for the various prime and
subcontractors, we concluded that systems engineering principles, effects of communication and
the environment continue to challenge our ability to provide balanced technical solutions. We
look forward to your comments on this GPS case, our other Air Force CSE published studies,
and future case studies.
GEORGE E. MOONEY, SES
Director, Air Force Center for Systems Engineering
Air Force Institute of Technology
http://www.afit.edu/cse
-3-
-4-
Acknowledgements
To those who contributed to this report:
The authors would like to acknowledge the special contributions of people who dedicated
their time and energy to make this report accurate and complete. We offer our sincere appreciation
to all people listed in Appendix 3 who volunteered their time and insight during the interviews,
especially Col. (ret.) Rick Reaser. He identified an extensive list of potential interviewees at the
Joint Program Office (JPO), other government agencies and contractors, and also provided
several early reference documents that allowed the authors to gain significant insight into the
systems engineering process when the “well appeared dry.” Capt. Steaven Meyer, GPS JPO,
helped set up the capability to obtain limited access to the GPS website, which provided muchneeded program baseline documents. We send a special thanks to Mr. Frank Smith, Ms. Vicki
Hellmund, Andrea Snell, and Ms. Niki Maxwell from the University of Dayton Research
Institute. Mr. Smith helped “in a pinch” to conduct research and interviews and provide insight
into the GPS program in order to keep the study on track. Our apologies and thanks to Doug
Robertson who, “being within arm’s reach”, was pestered with GPS trivia questions for
clarification.
We also thank our Air Force CSE Project Leaders, Maj. Eileen Pimentel and Mr. Randy
Bullard, who provided guidance to the authors, along with continuous motivation. And a special
thank you and note of appreciation to Mr. G. Richard Freeman, Air Force CSE Technical
Director, and Professor LtCol John Colombi who provided extensive editing support and assured
accuracy of the technical content.
To those who made GPS work:
We would also like to take this opportunity to express gratitude to all the people in the
program, especially the systems engineers and design engineers at Rockwell, IBM, Rockwell
Collins, Magnavox, General Dynamics, the vendors, the Naval Research Laboratory, the US
Naval Observatory, Aerospace Corporation, the GPS Joint Program Office and the many other
supporting agencies. They took the glimmer of an idea and delivered an outstanding, precise
navigation capability that has not only served the US military, but militaries internationally and
the commercial world, spanning so many other applications beyond navigation.
We owe the people of the GPS Program a great deal of gratitude. They made sacrifices
in time, some in careers, and dedicated themselves as a team to bring a vision to reality. They
worked in anonymity, never asking for credit. And without fanfare, they changed everything.
Thanks.
Patrick J. O’Brien
John M. Griffin
-5-
Table of Contents
Preface ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
Foreword……………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………….5
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………………6
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………………..8
1. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES ……………………………………………10
1.1 General Systems Engineering Process …………………………………………………………………. 10
1.1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
1.1.2 Case Study…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
1.1.3 Framework for Analysis………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
1.2 GPS Friedman-Sage Matrix………………………………………………………………………………… 15
2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION …………………………………………………………………….16
2.1 Mission ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
2.2 Features……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
2.3 System Design…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
2.3.1 Space Vehicle ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
2.3.2 User Equipment …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
2.3.3 Control Segment…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
2.3.4 Nuclear Detection System (NDS)……………………………………………………………………… 21
2.3.5 “NAVSTAR/GPS” ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
3. GPS PROGRAM EXECUTION …………………………………………………………….22
3.1 Early Programs ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
3.2 Establishment of a Joint Program……………………………………………………………………….. 27
3.3 Concept/Validation Phase (Phase I) …………………………………………………………………….. 30
3.3.1 Objectives……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
3.3.2 Requirements…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31
3.3.3 Acquisition Strategy ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
3.3.4 Trade Studies ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
3.3.5 Risk Mitigation………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37
3.3.6 System Integration …………………………………………………………………………………………. 40
3.3.7 Systems Engineering ………………………………………………………………………………………. 45
3.3.8 DSARC II ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 48
3.4 System Development (Phase II, Block I)………………………………………………………………. 48
3.4.1 Objectives……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 48
3.4.2 Systems Engineering (JPO) …………………………………………………………………………….. 49
3.4.3 Interface Requirements …………………………………………………………………………………… 49
3.4.4 Budgetary Impacts to Functional Baseline………………………………………………………… 50
3.4.5 Rockwell International Systems Engineering …………………………………………………….. 51
3.4.6 Atomic Clocks ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 54
3.4.7 Control Segment…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 56
3.4.8 User Equipment …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 57
3.4.9 Design Reviews ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 59
3.4.10 System Integration ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
-6-
3.4.11 ICWG …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 59
3.5 Production and Deployment (Phase III, Block II/IIA) ………………………………………….. 60
3.5.1 Objective ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 60
3.5.2 Acquisition Strategy ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 60
3.5.3 Nuclear Detection System ……………………………………………………………………………….. 60
3.5.4 Shuttle Impact to Functional Baseline………………………………………………………………. 62
3.5.5 User Equipment (UE) Development Testing Effects……………………………………………. 66
3.5.6 Control Segment…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67
3.5.7 Requirements Validation & Verification …………………………………………………………… 70
3.6. Replenishment Program Block IIR…………………………………………………………………….. 70
3.6.1 Objective ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 70
3.6.2 Acquisition Strategy ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 71
3.6.3 Requirements…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 71
3.6.4 Critical Design Reviews………………………………………………………………………………….. 71
3.6.5 User Equipment …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 72
3.7 Full Operational Capability ………………………………………………………………………………… 73
4. SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………………….75
5. REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………76
6. LIST OF APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………80
Appendix 1 – Complete Friedman-Sage Matrix for GPS ……………………………….81
Appendix 2 – Author Biographies ………………………………………………………………..82
Appendix 3 – Interviews………………………………………………………………………………84
Appendix 4 – Navigation Satellite Study……………………………………………………….85
Appendix 5 – Rockwell’s GPS Block 1 Organization Chart ………………………… 135
Appendix 6 – GPS JPO Organization Chart ……………………………………………… 136
Appendix 7 – Operational Performance Requirements ………………………………. 137
-7-
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. The Systems Engineering Process, Defense Acquisition University ……………………….. 11
Figure 2-1. 24-Spaced-Based Satellite Constellation (Ref. 46)………………………………………………. 17
Figure 2-2. Navigational Technology Satellite (Ref. 23) ……………………………………………………… 18
Figure 2-3. Block I GPS Satellite …………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Figure 2-4. Block IIA GPS Satellite …………………………………………………………………………………. 18
Figure 2-5. Block IIR GPS Satellite………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Figure 2-6. Block IIF GPS Satellite………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Figure 2-7. Rockwell Collins Precision Lightweight GPS Receiver (PLGR) (left) and Defense
Advanced GPS Receiver (DAGR) (right) a later version of the PLGR (Ref. 48, 45) ………………. 19
Figure 2-8. Magellan Marine Receiver (Ref. 46) ……………………………………………………………… 20
Figure 2-9. Control Segment (Ref. 42) ……………………………………………………………………………. 21
Figure 2-10. NDS System Segments (Ref. 49)…………………………………………………………………… 21
Figure 3-1. Program Schedule (Ref. 13) …………………………………………………………………………. 29
Figure 3-2. System Interfaces (Ref. 28) …………………………………………………………………………… 32
Figure 3-3. Rockwell Collins GDM (Ref. 47) …………………………………………………………………… 34
Figure 3-4. Planned Constellation Development before 1974. Proof of Concept has 6 Block I
satellites in 2 planes. Build up to 24 Block II satellites in 3 planes (Ref. 18) ………………………… 36
Figure 3-5. NTS-2 Command and Telemetry Links (Ref. 1) ……………………………………………….. 38
Figure 3-6. NTS-2 Satellite (Ref. 23) ………………………………………………………………………………. 39
Figure 3-7. Phase 1 YPG Test Results (Ref. 51)……………………………………………………………….. 40
Figure 3-8. GPS JPO Agency/Contractor Interfaces ………………………………………………………… 42
Figure 3-9. Phase I Specification Tree (Ref. 28) ………………………………………………………………. 43
Figure 3-10. Phase II Specification Tree (Ref. 41)……………………………………………………………. 43
Figure 3-11. Interface Control Documents (chart from 2005 JPO SE briefing that captures the
breadth of some 200 ICDs) (Ref. 29) ……………………………………………………………………………….. 45
Figure 3-12. GPS Functional Flow Diagram (Ref. 28)……………………………………………………… 46
Figure 3-13. Block II Cesium Atomic Clock (Ref. 50)……………………………………………………….. 55
Figure 3-14. Block IIA Satellite ……………………………………………………………………………………… 62
Figure 3-15. Space Segment System Relationship (Ref. 44)……………………………………………….. 63
Figure 3-16. Delta II Launch …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment