The document outlines various questions related to internal environmental analysis, value chain, and Six Sigma in healthcare organizations, as well as a biography of Clarence L. Eder, a retired U.S. Air Force officer with extensive experience in systems engineering and acquisitions. Eder's career highlights include significant roles in military aerospace operations and his subsequent work with Quantech Services, where he leads development of new Air Force programs. The content also discusses insights on systems engineering applications in defense acquisitions and the importance of stakeholder coordination in program management.

1. · Question 1
·
·
How does internal environmental analysis help health care
organizations sustain competitive advantage? As a health care
leader, what are some of the key aspects that you will assess in
conducting your own internal environmental analysis?
Question 2
· How does the “value chain” relate to health care
organizations? What is the role of the value chain in the
strategic planning process?
Question 3
· How can the value chain be used to identify organizational
strengths and weaknesses in health care organizations?
· Question 4
·
Read the Perspective 4-3–LEAN Six Sigma on page 140 in your
textbook Discuss the Ottawa Ankle Rules as an example of
Six Sigma utilization. How was Six Sigma beneficial in this

2. case example? Think about your own health care organization or
one which you hope to lead. How might Six Sigma be utilized in
your own facility, as our colleagues in Ottawa did a few years
ago?
ATT00001
ATT00002
ATT00003
ATT00004
ATT00005
Clarence_Eder_Biography_(Jan_2015) (1).pdf
BIOGRAPHY: CLARENCE L. EDER (January 2015)
Clarence Eder is a retired United States Air Force officer and is
currently working as Principal Acquisition
Associate and Senior Systems Engineer for Quantech Services,
Inc. in El Segundo, California. He leads a team
of systems engineers and acquisition professionals in the
development of strategies and documents to start the
new Air Force Weather Systems Follow-On (WSF) program.
Clarence has over 18 years of acquisitions,
engineering, and operational experience in space, intelligence,

3. missile defense, and aircraft programs.
Clarence was raised in Honolulu, Hawaii. He graduated with a
Mechanical Engineering degree from the
University of Hawaii and was commissioned into the Air Force
in 1996. As a second lieutenant, he was
assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio.
He worked to improve Air Force flying training
systems, and then became a project manager to improve T-37
aircraft engines and A-10 aircraft engines.
In 1999, he was assigned to Space and Missiles Systems Center
in Los Angeles, California. He worked as an
Acquisition Support manager to implement Department of
Defense (DoD) processes and policies to major space
programs. As a captain, he became a Mission Integration
Manager for launch vehicles. He led teams to
integrate Global Positioning System (GPS), weather, and
intelligence satellites into the newly acquired $18.8B
Air Force rockets. He also worked Ground systems integration
issues.
In 2003, he was assigned to the National Geospatial Intelligence
Agency (NGA) in Reston, Virginia to be Chief
of Tactical Imagery Dissemination. He led a team to develop,

4. test, and deploy a $17M imagery system. He
trained Navy Seals and Special Forces deployed worldwide to
use the system. As a major, he became a
Contacting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) for the
$2B Geoscout program, NGA’s top acquisition
program. He implemented over $123M engineering change
proposals.
In 2007, he was assigned to Boulder, Colorado to be Chief of
Mission Operations for the $5.8B Space Based
Infrared Systems (SBIRS) satellites. He was the crew
commander for successful launch, early on-orbit testing,
collection and reporting for strategic missile warning. He then
became the Chief of SBIRS Integration and
Transition Planning, in which he led joint teams to deliver
certified SBIRS intelligence data, update ground
systems, and resolve systems integration issues.
In 2011, he was assigned to Huntsville, Alabama to become the
Systems Engineering Operations Director for
the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System at the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA). He led
integration baseline reviews for the 528-person GMD $3B
development and sustainment contract. He led all

5. acquisitions and operations for the 109-person Systems
Engineering and Integration Directorate.
Clarence retired from active duty military in August 2014 and
moved his family to Southern California. He
currently lives in Redondo Beach with his wife Stacy and 2
children, Haley (6) and Colin (3).
EDUCATION
• Doctoral Candidate in Systems Engineering, Anticipated
Completion Date: Spring 2016
George Washington University, Washington D.C.
• Graduate Certificate in Systems Engineering, 2006
George Washington University, Washington D.C.
• Masters in Business Administration, with concentration in
Information Systems, 1999
Wright State University, Dayton, OH
• Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, 1996
University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI
Eder,_Sys_Eng_DoD_Examples_(LMU,_26_Feb_15) (2).pdf

6. A View in Systems Engineering
Using Department of Defense Examples
By: Clarence Eder
[email protected]
26 February 2015
OUTLINE
Systems Acquisitions
ration

7. 2
BACKGROUND
Quantech Services Inc.
tems Engineering at George
Washington University
of Hawaii
Officer/Program
Manager
l Systems Center (Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton,
OH) working future
planning for aircraft training/simulators; next job was project
manager to
improve two aircraft engines (T-38 and A-10)
Base, CA) working in
space operations acquisitions policies; next job was mission
integration

8. manager for EELV rockets
VA) working tactical
imagery; next job was working as tech rep for Contracts of
NGA’s largest
Acquisitions program
CO) working as a
space operations crew commander; next job was Chief of
Integrations of
Grounds systems and Systems Engineering
or MDA (Huntsville, AL) working as
the Operations
Director for Systems Engineering and Integration Directorate
Wright State University;
Systems Engineering Graduate Certificate at GWU; PhD
Candidate at GWU
3
OBJECTIVES
engineering applications in Department of
Defense (DoD) Acquisition programs

9. evolve to become an effective systems
engineer in DoD
System of Systems Integration process
4
Department of Defense Programs
of Defense (DoD) procuring weapon systems
e
5

10. Department of Defense Programs
acquisition
office that facilitates all acquisition activities within DoD
with the different Services
(Army, Air Force, Navy, Others)
programs
6
DoD Acquisition Categories (ACAT)
review, decision
authority, and applicable requirements for a program
(MDAP). An MDAP
is defined as a program estimated by the Under Secretary of
Defense
(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)
more than $365
million

11. that do not meet
the criteria for an ACAT I program, but do meet the criteria for
a Major
System. The Milestone Decision Authority for ACAT II
programs is the CAE.
$140 million
that do not
meet the criteria for an ACAT I or ACAT II.
7
DoD Acquisitions
-Milestone A: Requirements Analysis & Develop
Acquisition
Strategy
Phase
& Start Developing
System

12. 8
DoD Acquisitions Organizations
(notional example)
usually referred to as
System Program Office (SPO):
Management
Administrative Support

13. Analysis,
Operations
Human
Resources, Security)
each part of the program (Subsystems
Lead)
9
Systems Engineering “V”
(Shapes some Engineering Organizations)
10
Systems Engineering in DoD
(INCOSE):

14. means to enable
the realization of successful systems. It focuses on defining
customer needs
and required functionality early in the development cycle,
documenting
requirements, then proceeding with design synthesis and system
validation
while considering the complete problem
specialty groups into
a team effort forming a structured development process that
proceeds from
concept to production to operation. Systems Engineering
considers both the
business and the technical needs of all customers with the goal
of providing
a quality product that meets the user needs.
Engineering provide the
process and the means develop/improve systems successfully.
Systems
Engineering is NOT to fix the systems after breaking; instead it
is a process
applied so that the system will likely not break/fail
ing organizations in DoD
Program Offices is to
provide technical advice and analyses to help Program
Managers make
decisions on the system
11

15. Employing Systems Engineering
12
processes
Change in Requirements
Stakeholders based on mission change, technology updates,
etc.)
needs to understand impacts through risk analysis (usually
cost increase and schedule delays)
13

16. Systems Engineering Organization (ref. MDA)
Finance, System
Deployment, Schedule, Security, Sustainment, Risks Analysis,
Baseline Reviews,
Contractor Assessments---the glue of SE&I Directorate)
Systems Architecture)
n (Requirements Development &
Analysis, CONOPS
Development)
-test
analysis)
-systems and/or other
systems that impact
the current system)
(Develop test procedures, Conduct HW/SW
tests)
based on test results)

17. 14
Aircraft Engines
-10 Engine Improvement: improve it’s reliability,
maintainability, availability
(RMA)
Tools: Test & Analysis process; Model & Simulation;
Test data evaluation
and redesign components
-37 Engine Sustainment: understanding operational life
prior to retiring aircraft
after 52 yrs (11 years after we made
tech
recommendations to improve sustainment processes)
15
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems
/images/tf34-image01.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A-10_Thunderbolt_II_In-
flight-2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Teledyne-Continental_J69.jpg

18. Rocket Integration
ground stations)
nalysis
requirements
commercial use),
and NPOESS (future weather) planning
16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Delta_IV_Medium_Rocket_DS
CS.jpg
http://www.spaceflight101.com/uploads/6/4/0/6/6406961/16204
13_orig.jpg?391
Tactical Imagery Dissemination
Requirements Analysis

19. 17
Notional Graphics due to
Security Classification
SBIRS Operations
Tools:
Ground Systems;
Spacecraft to Data Center)
collection and
distribution)
ch requirements)

20. 18
http://www.gizmag.com/sbirs-geo-1-missile-warning-
satellite/19160/picture/137490/
Missile Defense System
Systems Integration (Kill Vehicle to booster; Kill vehicle to
Ground Systems)
operational tests)
collection and
distribution)
19
DoD Acquisitions (system readiness)

21. -Milestone A is Tech Maturation
Readiness Level
(TRL) value to be used with that design
adopted TRL to
understand the maturity of the technology being used for the
design of the
system
continued risk
analyses tools and processes
20
Systems Integration Research
number of
integration planning and execution that need to take place
between
different systems and subsystems
Technology Readiness Levels
(TRLs) to help

22. identify the availability of technology; however, integration
readiness have
not been officially integrated into DoD acquisition process
tool to facilitate
integration of systems but the current definitions does not allow
it to be an
effective tool
the IRL
notional identified levels allows it to be a powerful tool to help
Program
Managers with integration decisions
21
TRL & IRL Level Notional Definitions
(based on Sauser et.al., 2011)
Level TRL IRL
1 Basic Principles observed and reported An interface between
technologies has been identified

23. with sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
relationship
2 Technology concept and/or application
formulated
There is some level of specificity to characterize the
interaction between technologies through their interface
3 Analytical and experimental critical function
and/or characteristic proof of concept
There is compatibility between technologies to orderly
and efficiently integrate and interact
4 Component and/or breadboard validation in
laboratory environment
There is sufficient detail in the quality and assurance of
the integration between technologies
5 Component and/or breadboard validation in
relevant environment
There is sufficient control between technologies
necessary to establish, manage, and terminate the

24. integration
6 System/subsystem model demonstration in
relevant environment
The integrating technologies can accept, translate, and
structure information for its intended application
7 System prototype demonstration in relevant
environment
The integration of technologies has been verified and
validated with sufficient detail to be actionable
8 Actual system completed and qualified through
test and demonstration
Actual integration completed and mission qualified
through test and demonstration in the system
environment
9 Integration is mission proven through successful
mission operations
Execute a support program that meets operational
support performance requirements and sustains the

25. system in the most cost-effective manner over its total life
cycle
22
Draft High Level System of Systems Integration Architecture
using Integration Tools:
Materiel
(Hardware,
Software, Tools,
Facilities, etc.)
Processes, Policies,
Contracts,
Agreements,
Relationships, etc.
Stakeholders
(Decision Makers,
Operators,
Mangers Engineers,
Organizations, etc.)
Compatibility/Interface Assessment; Use of IRL Tool; Weighted
Scores
Integration Gaps/Risks (Technology, Language/Semantics,
processes,

26. policies)
Solution
Alternatives
S
c
o
p
e
System Level Tests & Assessments
In
te
g
ra

27. te
d
S
y
s
te
m
N
o
C
u
rr
e
n
t
S

28. o
lu
ti
o
n
23
C. Eder
DRAFT INTERFACE VARIABLES TO SUPPORT IRL*
ASSESSMENT
INTERFACES
System (1)
System (2)
…System (n)

29. Need Date
Interface
Dependencies
IRL* assessment
(results using
additional variables)
Weight Complexity
• IRL assessment could be expanded beyond the notional
identified level to help
facilitate its use in practice
• Some interface variables that could impact the integration
readiness level
assessment include:
• Need Date: Delivery schedule of system once the interface is
complete

30. • Interface Dependencies: Impacted by other system
interface(s), policies, and
processes
• Weight: Level of Significance/Priority (based on stakeholders’
inputs)
• Complexity: Available tools and technology to perform
interface; man-hours
needed to perform interface
24
C. Eder
Current Integration Example
ion Associate for Quantech
Services

31. Inc.
scheduler,
logisticians, and administrative support to Weather Systems
Follow-On
(WSF) program in Space & Missiles Systems Center
-milestone A program that requires a lot of
planning to
meet the requirements of stakeholders (warfighters, NOAA,
Navy
ships etc.); and the development of the Acquisition Strategy
requirements to build a new payload (sensor) with a
commercially
available spacecraft, current Ground Systems (communicate
with

32. the sensor and spacecraft), and launch vehicle/process
personnel, government civilian personnel, and several
government
contractors) is critical to making progress with the program
25
Stakeholders and Coordination
programs:
Stakeholders buy-in, Communication/Coordination, and Funding
without

33. understanding the politics/relationships behind every decision
the
decisions and learning to work with them can significantly
improve
program coordination
the ones
who are usually:
work
at a high level)
impact the
entire system)

34. adapt
rocesses
26
Program Management and Systems Engineering
the
program’s cost, schedule, and performance
inputs and the facilitation of technical processes. Some of the
better

35. PMs (in my experience) worked previously as Systems
Engineers.
along with
other disciplines. According to the INCOSE definition, Systems
Engineering consider all aspects of the program (not just
technical)
be a
better program manager. Having program management
background
enabled me to be a better systems engineer and vice versa.
program
(i.e. finance, contracts, security etc.), it improves your
understanding

36. of the total system and enable you to apply lessons learned to
your
systems engineering processes
27
QUESTIONS?
28
“Don’t just be an engineer, be a systems engineer”
-- C. Eder
LMU_SELP_694_Memo_Sample_(1).docx
MEMO
<indicate, First Submission, Second Submission, or Final
Submission>
FROM: <insert student name>

37. TO: Professor Poladian, Instructor SELP 694, LMU
DATE: <insert date>
SUBJECT: Memo on <insert speaker name>, <insert title of
speaker’s presentation in quotes>
On February XX, 2015 in the SELP 694 Seminar Class, Mr.
XYZ presented a lecture entitled “Systems Engineering LMU
SE Seminar Class.” Mr. XYZ is currently the Vice President of
ABC Corp. Mr. XYZ graduated from XYZ University and
joined the US Navy to work in various intelligence positions
and travelled throughout the world.
Mr. XYZ described the typical career path for a systems
engineer including the expectations and responsibilities of the
various positions. Furthermore, Mr. XYZ shared the different
aspects of business sizes and how to develop new business in
both the commercial and government arenas.
Mr. XYZ started off the seminar with a concept called
“MATTESS,” which stands for “Money, Advancement, Travel,
Training, Experience, Satisfaction, and Security.” The concept
states that an employee is motivated to do their best work by at
least one of the aforementioned items. System engineers usually
promote themselves out of a job, which includes the transition

38. to engineering management, then managing engineering, then
program management, and finally business development.
Transitioning to engineering management requires good
communication and motivational skills. In addition,
transitioning to managing engineering requires the
understanding of corporate goals as well as management of
budgets, schedules, requirements, and business strategy
development. Furthermore, transitioning to program
management requires successful budget, schedule, requirements,
and new business development as well as providing key
interactions with the customer. Lastly, transitioning to business
development requires a good understanding of how business is
generated, engaging customers and competitors, helping the
customer sell the solution, find funding, and finally keeping the
program sold. Mr. XYZ described the different business sizes
including the large-sized businesses such as Lockheed Martin
and Northrop Grumman, medium-sized businesses such as
Honeywell and Rockwell Collins, and finally small-sized
businesses, which are the largest growing market segments
relied upon by the government and large-sized businesses.
Mr. XYZ’s presentation made me realize that satisfaction is
what motivates me to do my best work as a subcontracts
manager at my company. Furthermore, my position allows me to
transition into my company’s business development area and I

39. found Mr. XYZ’s presentation useful in helping me achieve my
promotion goal into this new area.
I found the speaker very engaging and I appreciated his
openness with his personal life which allowed the audience to
connect more with him on a personal level. I also appreciated
the information he shared about the current and future financial
situation of the nation that allowed us to remain optimistic
about our future business and security.
SELP_694_Guidelines_(2).docx
Memo Guidelines
· Memos should summarize the content of the lecturer’s
presentation. Pretend you are writing to a boss or colleague
when you write about the contents of the speech.
· Use proper grammar and mechanics. By the time you submit
the final draft to the professor, there should be no grammar,
spelling, or mechanical mistakes. It is both your job and mine to
make sure that you are submitting a coherent, intelligent, and
well-written paper after each speaker.
· Before you turn in the final copy, you will email the first two
rough drafts of your memo to me.
Memo Timeline

40. · 1. The first draft you will turn in will be due the Saturday at 5
pm following the presentation to [email protected]. If you turn
it in even a minute late, I will only give you one round of edits
rather than two. This will affect your grade!
· 2. I will return your papers back to you by Monday morning
with my suggested edits.
· 3. You will revise your paper again with my edits and send it
to me by Tuesday at 5 pm. I will give you one more round of
edits by Wednesday at 5 pm, and then you will have to edit your
paper one more time before you submit it to the professor on
Thursday.
Grading Criteria
· Proper spelling
· Subject-verb agreement
· Word choice—did you use the correct word and demonstrate
that you have a grasp on tone and language?
· Format
· All papers must be in Times New Roman font, size 12.
· One inch margins
· Approximately 500-750 words
· Professionalism.
· Avoid slang and colloquial phrases

41. SELP_694_Tamim_Alajlan_Assignment_Number
4_first_Submission.docx
First Submission
FROM: Tamim Alajlan
TO: Professor Poladian, Instructor SELP 694, LMU
DATE: 12th February 2015
SUBJECT: John Muratore’s Presentation on System
Engineering: A Traditional Discipline in a Non-traditional
Organization
12th February 2015, I had the valuable opportunity to attend a
presentation by John Muratore on the aforementioned subject.
The speaker is a veteran aerospace engineer with thirty years
experiences in the field. A brief look into his biography reveals
nothing but his unrelenting passion for aerospace engineering.
John Muratore started his career as an Air Force Officer at the
Air Force Base in Vandenberg. He also worked for the Cape
Canaveral as a conductor in charge of vehicle testing and as a
software developer. He later moved to Houston NASA Base,
where he worked as a flight controller for the various shuttles at
the base. John has headed software production for space shuttle
programs and served as a flight director. He has led four main

42. flights to the space one in which involved repair missions for
the Hubble. John has also served in different leadership
capacities within the sector. He has led the mission that changed
the Apollo main frame control system to an international
airspace station. John then provided leadership to the X-38
project and played an important role in the transformation of the
Space Shuttle Systems after the accident in Columbia. These are
some of the most important events that exhibit the speaker’s
experience and leadership abilities in the field.
Other than his own personal journey in Systems Engineering,
the speaker also focused on issues associated with SpaceX. He
revealed that the entity was established with the key objective
of offering reliable and effective space transportation. It is an
organization that operates in a tech-style approach, it has over
three thousand employees, and its launch sites are located at
Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral. The organization is one of the
fastest growing ventures in the space industry that operates in a
very competitive market. Its profitability continues to increase
as it signs new clients from a diverse base. The major customers
include the international governments, commercial
organizations, and the American government. The organization
has invested in large scale development of different variety of
spacecraft. For instance, it has more than three varieties of the
Falcon type. Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 share similar architectural
features and have similar engines. However, Falcon Heavy is an

43. improvement of the two models that will come with advanced
features.
Specific areas of operations that the company covers include
manufacturing, designing, testing, and developing complex
operating systems. The speaker revealed that for the twelve
years in which SpaceX has been in operation, it has
implemented the Merlin 1D, D rocket engines, and the Kestrel.
It has built launch pads, manufacturing facilities, and a cargo
spacecraft. Some of the current projects include the
development of a new launch vehicle, the Raptor engine, Falcon
Heavy, and the Crew Dragon.
Based on the presenter’s conclusion, I learnt that Systems
Engineering is a sector of scientific development that protects
the investments made in the sector by expecting and eliminating
integration problems. This objective matches with the ideals of
SpaceX, which has a system-based culture that strives to
integrate safe and effective systems. The company’s philosophy
is anchored on the doctrine of responsibility so as to develop
reliable and efficient systems. It aims at eliminating system
risks and develops systems at very low costs. For instance, in
house design for most parts of Falcon 9 has enabled the
company to reduce the traditional cost structures that are
inherent in the aerospace industry. In this way, the company
develops the best products at the lowest cost possible.