1. Weeding Out a Solution,
Case Scenario: A UAS is to be designed for precision crop-dusting. In the middle of the design process, the systemis found to be
overweight. Two subsystems – 1) Guidance, Navigation & Control [flying correctly] and 2) Payload delivery [sprayingcorrectly]
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 thespecified (Marketing has already talked this up to customers)
amount of fertilizer over thespecified area without cutting into the fuel margin. Thesafety engineers are uncomfortable with the
idea of changing the fuel margin.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The above fictional case scenario presents a failure in the engineering design processes which as
we can clearly view this scenario compromise the UAV aerial system capabilities. The fault in this case
was the purchase of regular hardware off- the shelf to save costs,but it acted as a double edge knife for
the whole team, prior to purchase the team should have come forward and informed the management
design team so they could look into it. Any design must rely on the quality and reliability of the parts used
in any type of aircraft,these parts must comply with a minimum standard known as the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) recalling the scenario those parts were off-the shelf parts which means
they must be checked and analyzed by Quality Control (QC) if they are going to be used in an aircraft.
My main priorities as the systems design engineer should be to meet the customer requirements
within a previously approved budget and a set delivery time. It is obvious that both teams played a part on
the overweight issue, there was an undetected failure in the system methodology that passed all the
checks and needs to be identified. At this time I need to review each process from both teams until we
find the fault, then we can focus on the best possible solution for the overweight issue. “Kadish started by
declaring his shock at the panel title. He was shocked because,as he explained, most of the time people
don’t talk about failure; they talk about how to avoid failure”. (Slegers, Kadish, 2011) Once we
recognized the fault an alternative must be presented, this optimal agreement must have the lowest
monetary and time table impact on the project and at the same time hold the customer and company
requirements.
Figure 1. An example of integrated team structure. Adapted from Systems Management College (2001).(n.d.).
2. Let’s pretend that our fictional scenario problem was solved after severalteam meetings that
analyzed every used step in the system design engineering methodology. The teams found the alleged
failure in the system and started working in a solution to the overweight problem and fixed it. This failure
information in the system will ensure the success of the next design generation by providing a rock-solid
foundation for the next design.
Figure 2. An example of Engineering Design Process. Adapted from Shisko,R.(n.d.).
Once again communication within the engineering design team is key and fundamental to avoid conflicts
and to minimize time usage during the project. Planning, system design and management verification
practices must be implemented and followed after a failure to prevent reoccurrences.
References:
Nathan J. Slegers, Ronald T. Kadish, (2011, March). Learning fromFailure in Systems Engineering
[Scholarly project]. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from
Https://www.boozallen.com/content/dam/boozallen/media/file/Learning_From_Failure_Final.pd
Shisko, R. (2013, November). NASA systems engineering handbook. Retrieved September 22, 2016,
from
https://archive.org/stream/nasasystemsengin00shis#page/6/mode/2up
Systems Management College (2001). Systems engineering fundamentals. Department of Defense.
Defense Acquisition University Press. Retrieved Sept 20, 2016, from
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-
2005/readings/sefguide_01_01.pdf
![Weeding Out a Solution,
Case Scenario: A UAS is to be designed for precision crop-dusting. In the middle of the design process, the systemis found to be
overweight. Two subsystems – 1) Guidance, Navigation & Control [flying correctly] and 2) Payload delivery [sprayingcorrectly]
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 thespecified (Marketing has already talked this up to customers)
amount of fertilizer over thespecified area without cutting into the fuel margin. Thesafety engineers are uncomfortable with the
idea of changing the fuel margin.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The above fictional case scenario presents a failure in the engineering design processes which as
we can clearly view this scenario compromise the UAV aerial system capabilities. The fault in this case
was the purchase of regular hardware off- the shelf to save costs,but it acted as a double edge knife for
the whole team, prior to purchase the team should have come forward and informed the management
design team so they could look into it. Any design must rely on the quality and reliability of the parts used
in any type of aircraft,these parts must comply with a minimum standard known as the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) recalling the scenario those parts were off-the shelf parts which means
they must be checked and analyzed by Quality Control (QC) if they are going to be used in an aircraft.
My main priorities as the systems design engineer should be to meet the customer requirements
within a previously approved budget and a set delivery time. It is obvious that both teams played a part on
the overweight issue, there was an undetected failure in the system methodology that passed all the
checks and needs to be identified. At this time I need to review each process from both teams until we
find the fault, then we can focus on the best possible solution for the overweight issue. “Kadish started by
declaring his shock at the panel title. He was shocked because,as he explained, most of the time people
don’t talk about failure; they talk about how to avoid failure”. (Slegers, Kadish, 2011) Once we
recognized the fault an alternative must be presented, this optimal agreement must have the lowest
monetary and time table impact on the project and at the same time hold the customer and company
requirements.
Figure 1. An example of integrated team structure. Adapted from Systems Management College (2001).(n.d.).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/weedingoutasolution-160923195845/85/Weeding-out-a-solution-1-320.jpg)
![Let’s pretend that our fictional scenario problem was solved after severalteam meetings that
analyzed every used step in the system design engineering methodology. The teams found the alleged
failure in the system and started working in a solution to the overweight problem and fixed it. This failure
information in the system will ensure the success of the next design generation by providing a rock-solid
foundation for the next design.
Figure 2. An example of Engineering Design Process. Adapted from Shisko,R.(n.d.).
Once again communication within the engineering design team is key and fundamental to avoid conflicts
and to minimize time usage during the project. Planning, system design and management verification
practices must be implemented and followed after a failure to prevent reoccurrences.
References:
Nathan J. Slegers, Ronald T. Kadish, (2011, March). Learning fromFailure in Systems Engineering
[Scholarly project]. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from
Https://www.boozallen.com/content/dam/boozallen/media/file/Learning_From_Failure_Final.pd
Shisko, R. (2013, November). NASA systems engineering handbook. Retrieved September 22, 2016,
from
https://archive.org/stream/nasasystemsengin00shis#page/6/mode/2up
Systems Management College (2001). Systems engineering fundamentals. Department of Defense.
Defense Acquisition University Press. Retrieved Sept 20, 2016, from
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-
2005/readings/sefguide_01_01.pdf]()