Panel Sessions

2.3 PANEL: The Status and Future of EIA632, ISO/IEC 15288, EIA731 and the CMMI
3.4 PANEL: Formal Methods
3.5 PANEL: Model Driven System Design [1]: Where We Are, Where Were Going
3.6 PANEL: International Forum: Systems Engineering Cultures and Practices in Different Countries
5.7 PANEL: Risk Management
6.1 PANEL: Integrated Process Improvement and Acquisition Reform at the FAA
6.4 PANEL: Scenarios for System Requirements Engineering: the CREWS Approach
7.1 PANEL: Systems Engineering in Public and Private Sectors
7.4 PANEL: SE Aspects of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
7.5 PANEL: Software and Systems - Are we on the same team?
8.1 PANEL: Systems Engineering and Project Management Forum
8.5 PANEL: Expanding Systems Engineering using the Internet
8.7 PANEL: Systems Engineering in Rail Transport Applications

2.3 PANEL: The Status and Future of EIA632, ISO/IEC 15288, EIA731 and the CMMI

Moderator: Bill Schoening, The Boeing Company

Panelists:

James Martin, Raytheon TI,
Roger Bate, Software Engineering Institute
Kerinia Cusick, SECAT
Stuart Arnold, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

The four panelists will give short presentations on the status of each of the four initiatives. INCOSE involvement in each, and future directions, will be addressed. In particular the work of the newly-formed INCOSE Standards Technical Committee and the lively Capability Assessment Working Group (CAWG) will be presented and future directions debated. The panelists will debate issues of compatibility, applicability of the standards to current and future business activities, and independent accreditation. There will be plenty of opportunity for questions and answers from the floor, and to stimulate debate amongst the panelists on attendees concerns.

Panellist Biographies:

Bill Schoening is a member of the CMMI author team, a member of the INCOSE Capability Assessment WG, and, (during the review and approval cycle of EIA-632 and EIA/IS-731) a member of the INCOSE Technical Board and President of INCOSE. For Boeing he pursues process implementation and improvement in the concept exploration phase of projects.

James Martin works with the Raytheon Systems Company as a lead systems engineer on airborne and satellite communications networks. He led the working group responsible for developing ANSI/EIA-632, a US national standard that defines the processes for engineering a system. Mr. Martin is an INCOSE Fellow and leader of the Standards Technical Committee.

Roger Bate, of the Software Engineering Institute, is a chief architect of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Integration Product Suite, a responsibility also held during the development of the Systems Engineering CMM, and the Integrated Product Development CMM. Mr. Bate has an extensive background in leading the development of software intensive systems for Texas Instruments, and was the head of the department of astronautics and computer science for the United States Air Force Academy.

Kerinia Cusick, a co-founder of SECAT LLC, has contributed to the development of many CMMs, both as an author and key reviewer. She has also seen the problems companies have using CMMs effectively, both as a consultant and the person responsible for CMM deployment within a company. Her background includes flight control system design, systems engineering and project management in the aerospace industry.

3.4 PANEL: Formal Methods

Moderator: R. Sam Alessi, US Department of Energy

Panelists:

Dr. Wendy Gregory, University of Hull
Dr. Wayne Wymore, University of Arizona
Dr. Gerard Le Lann, INRIA
Dr. Dennis Buede, George Mason University
Mr. Eric Honour, Honourcode Inc.
Dr. Mick Mayhew, St Cloud State University

Cost over-runs on complex projects due to inadequate specifications, unpredicted performance shortfalls and unexpected behaviours are giving Engineering a bad name in todays increasingly risk-averse society. Safety and security issues are also impacting on a wider variety of Engineering projects. Increasing pressure to deliver systems that function satisfactorily and predictably, have led to the need for more rigorous system engineering methods. Formal design methods have emerged as one answer to this demand and panelists will consider how this growing specialisation within Systems engineering can and should contribute to the advancement of the discipline as a whole.

The main mission of this session is to explore the idea that Systems Engineering must move beyond anecdotal evidence and individual experience, and embrace more formal rigorous approaches to uncovering its guiding principles, unifying its methods and gaining intellectual acceptance.

Whether it be philosophical, sociological, logical or computational, rigor needs to be a central means to furthering SE.

Dr Gregory will give a keynote address considering recent trends in the philosophy of science and technology, and its relevence to Systems development theories and methods. The other panellists will add their experiences and interpretations of formal approaches to Systems Engineering, and the panel will debate the need for formalism and theory in the future of SE. A facilitated audience discussion will follow

3.5 PANEL: Model Driven System Design [1]: Where We Are, Where Were Going

Moderator: Robert Cohen, United Technologies Research Centre

Panelists:

Dave Oliver, Model-Based Systems, Inc.
Harry Crisp, U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center
Ralf Hartmann, Dornier Satellitensysteme
Michael Dickerson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

The integrated use of executable and interrogable models in the systems engineering process is the trend of the future. This panel is the first part of a two-part event to address model driven system design (MDSD). The purpose of the panel is to illustrate and motivate MDSD. It will begin with a definition of MDSD, and follow with a characterization of an unprecedented naval application. This application illustrates the need for sophisticated modeling methods to address a diverse set of concerns and perspectives. The panel will conclude with the presentation and discussion of two successful state-of-the-practice uses of MDSD in space exploration and the automotive industry.

The panel speakers represent a cross-section of international, defence, and commercial perspectives and experiences.

All attendees of the panel are invited to participate in the second event, Model Driven System Design [2]: User Experiences and Needs, a 1½ hour workshop at 08:30 Thursday morning.

Attendees of this workshop will share their experiences and concerns related to MDSD and hopefully leave with a broader perspective on this topic. Specific objectives of the workshop are to:

1. Serve as a forum for participants to discuss their experiences and needs related to MDSD

2. Assess the state of modeling practice among INCOSE members

3. Help participants identify how they can improve the use of MDSD in their own organizations

4. Contribute to establishing a research agenda for INCOSE in the area of MDSD.

Panellist Biographies:

Bob Cohen is a Senior Project Analyst in the Systems Engineering Technology Group at United Technologies Research Centre (UTRC). He currently works in the areas of system requirements methodology, system/software reuse and testing strategies, and web-based collaborative environments. His previous work includes intelligent computer-based assistance in expert decision-making, and knowledge-based design. Prior to working at UTRC, he was an assistant professor in MIS at the Boston University School of Management. Dr. Cohen co-chairs the INCOSE Model-Driven System Design Interest Group and was founding president of the Constitution Chapter of INCOSE

Dr. David Oliver retired from GE-Corporate Research and Development after thirty-two years in science and management. He is currently consulting on model based Systems Engineering methodology and tools. At GE he led the development of Systems Engineering tools and processes, the Teamwork Ada CASE tool, and an X-Ray tomographic inspection system for turbine blades.

Harry E. Crisp, II has been employed at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) since 1971. He has performed research in digital control systems; served as Naval Sea Systems Command chief engineer for the MK 86 fire Control System; been the program manager for the MK 86 Research and Development Program; head of the NSWC Weapons Control Technology Branch; head of the NSWC Information and Control Technologies Branch; Director of the NSWC Independent Exploratory Development Program; and Head of the NSWC Technology Base Program Office. He is currently the NSWC program manager for Engineering of Complex Systems. Dr. Crisp is currently a member of the INCOSE Board of Directors, serving as a Director for INCOSE Region V.

Mike Dickerson is presently a Manager at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He currently works as the System Architect for the Design Build, Assemble and Test Process as part of JPL moving to process-based management. The scope includes the tools, the process and the people across the entire enterprise that effect sub-system engineering through test of a given sub-system. In particular he is interested in ways to use collaborative teams using Model Driven System Design to complete tasks Faster Cheaper and Better.

Prior to joining JPL he was Chief Engineer on the Milstar Satellite Processor for Teledyne System Company. He has a technical background in Automatic Controls, Vibration and Optimization.

Ralf Hartmann has been a Systems Engineer for twelve years at Dornier Satellitensysteme (DSS) in Germany, a subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler Aerospace. Currently he is a Senior Advisor for System Engineering Processes and the Team Leader for the implementation of the Satellite Design Office (SDO), an integrated concurrent engineering team at DSS. He is actively involved in multiple process improvement initiatives at DSS, such as the introduction of the Model Based Design and Verification Environment (MDVE).

Ralf is a member of the system engineering working group of the European Cooperation for Space Standardisation (ECSS) and of the ECSS engineering working group. He is a member of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), president of the German Chapter of INCOSE and Co-chair of the Standards Technical

3.6 PANEL: International Forum: Systems Engineering Cultures and Practices in Different Countries

Moderator: Heinz Stoewer, Delft University of Technology

Panelists:

Jim Sturges, Lockheed Martin
Ginny Lentz, Otis Elevator Corp
Bill Schoening, Boeing
Elliot Axelband, University of Southern California
Brij Agrawal, NRL/ Delft University
Angelo Atzei, ESA/ ESTEC
Tom Strandberg, Syntell AB

International cooperation often proves to be the best path to synergistic solutions, reduced cost to each partner, larger markets, and other benefits. Often however difficulties seem insurmountable at first when engineering approaches of multiple international partners are substantially different or far apart. This panel aims to illustrate through concrete examples engineering culture differences prevailing in various countries as evidenced in the pursuit of joint multi-national systems engineering projects. Panellists are among those who have gone through the pleasures and traumas of having to make complex systems work across national boundaries. They will address the value and problems associated with existing - or missing - international standards, note the impact of different tools and methodologies, and comment on the importance of personal relationships in overcoming real and perceived problems in international co-operation.

5.7 PANEL: Risk Management (slides also available 5.7 Panel - ppt 132kB )

Moderator: Louis Fussell, Futron Corporation

Panelists:

Dr Brian Mar, University of Washington
Richard Kitterman, Raytheon Corporation
Leslie Bordelon, USAF/SMC/AX
Dr David Hillson, PMP Services Ltd

Risk Management is a discipline that is establishing itself in the areas of project, business and other commercially driven ventures. However, previous applications of risk management in space and defence applications have been poor to non-existent, with little or no penalty for negligence. Ibbs, in a study for the Program Management Institute, leads us to the conclusion that of the project management processes having highest correlation to success, risk management is least practiced. In addition, government contracts are moving to completion form (firm-fixed-price), which not only exacerbates risk, but moves the onus of it onto the contractor.

With the benefits of the practice of risk management being clearly referenced in the literature, and with a greater need arising through process improvement initiatives, why are so many project managers reluctant to do any more than "check-the-box" risk management? The panel is structured to respond to some of the typical friction experienced between project managers and proponents of "real" quality risk management processes. The following contentious project management questions will be addressed:

* What will it cost me to implement Risk Management?

* We already do this! We have a good reliability process in place. How is what you are asking me to do any different?

* We already maintain a problems list and corrective actions, a managers issues list, and an areas of emphasis list. Isnt that good enough?

* OK, I have identified all my risks; the list is long; I cannot afford to mitigate them all. Now, What do I do?

Panellist Biographies:

Louis Fussell is the Director of the Houston Division of the Futron Corporation. In 1998, Mr. Fussell brought to Futron a disciplined approach to technology assessment and risk-based decision support. The approach allows the customer organization to adequately assess a great number of strategic opportunities and pursue those that increase the probability of meeting their long-term goals. Mr. Fussell began his career at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration where he spent 9 years as a knowledge engineer, MIS program manager, and technology planner.

Brian Mar is an emeritus professor at the University of Washington retiring after 30 years of service and now is a Distinguished Professor at Portland State University helping create a web based MS systems engineering degree program. Before joining the University of Washington he worked for Boeing for 10 years. He was the INCOSE president in 1993 and was the driver to create INCOSE. He has published books and over 100 papers related to systems engineering applications. David Hillson is Manager of Consultancy with PMP Services Limited, with responsibility for all aspects of the companys consultancy, with special interest in risk management. He also provides specialist training in risk and project management in the UK and Europe. Dr Hillson was founding Editor of the International Journal of Project & Business Risk Management, and has published several papers in the field

Dick Kitterman is currently Technical Area Manager for Aeronautics and Space with Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services at NASA Ames Research Center in California. He has been responsible for systems engineering, risk management and program management functions in aviation, aerospace, and space over the past 16 years. Prior to that, Dick's experience, spanning 19 years, is in the computer peripheral and semiconductor component areas.

Leslie L. Bordelon is currently Director of Systems Acquisition, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA. As director, he serves as the program management, engineering, logistics, security, and system safety functional manager directly responsible for the formulation, evaluation, and implementation of policy, processes, procedures, training, and resources for the development, production, and deployment of advanced space and missile systems.

6.1 PANEL: Integrated Process Improvement and Acquisition Reform at the FAA

Moderator: Art Pyster, Acting Deputy, FAA CIO

Panelists:

Don Gantzer, FAA
Dr. Linda Ibrahim, FAA Lead for Process Engineering
Kerinia Cusick, SECAT

FAA has a goal to improve its own government processes for acquisition of systems that are safer, more efficient and effective, and of better quality. Integrating process improvement across the enterprise is critical to the success of this program. The FAA-iCMM [Integrated Capability Maturity Model] is at the heart of improving the management and engineering of systems throughout the acquistion lifecycle. Related specific efforts address streamlining software safety-critical systems, prototyping a spiral engineering management methodology, maturing the National Airspace System [NAS] technical architecture, and improving the competencies of the FAA organization in performing its systems and software engineering functions. The Panel will comprise presentations from the leading players in the FAA involved with the initiative to be followed by an open discussion session.

Panellist Biographies:

Dr. Arthur Pyster is the Deputy Chief Information Officer and Deputy Assistant Administrator for Information Services at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He is a member of the Joint Advisory Committee that oversees the Software Engineering Institute. Dr. Pyster has been working in systems and software engineering for nearly 25 years. For the past two years, he was the FAAs Chief Scientist for Software Engineering. He chaired the group that produced the Systems Engineering CMM and he published the popular text "Compiler Design and Construction." He is a senior member of the IEEE, Past President of the WMA Chapter of INCOSE, and Past Co-Chair of the INCOSE Capability Assessment Working Group.

Dr. Linda Ibrahim is the process improvement lead at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). She is the Project Leader, architect, and lead author on the FAAs CMM Integration Project (FAA-iCMM) which developed the maturity model and its appraisal method. She is a member of the Steering Group for the government-industry-SEI CMM Integration (CMMI) effort. Linda has been working in software engineering for more than 30 years. She is a member of IEEE, IEEE Computer Society, INCOSE, and ACM.

6.4 PANEL: Scenarios for System Requirements Engineering: the CREWS Approach

Moderator: David Corrall, GEC Marconi Research Centre

Panelists:

Matthias Jarke, RWTH Aachen
Carine Souveyet, Universite de la Sorbonne, Paris
Neil Maiden, City University, London
Pierre-Yves Schobbens, Universite de Namur

This forum is organized around the European ESPRIT long-term research project 21903 'CREWS' (Co-operative Requirements Engineering With Scenarios). CREWS is concerned with systematic support for using and managing scenarios in the development of complex systems. The forum will discuss how systems engineering practitioners can improve their processes through the use of scenario-based techniques. The forum will make attendees aware of the significant research findings from the CREWS project, give attendees a basic understanding of the CREWS solutions, and offer attendees possible exploitation routes to ensure that the results of CREWS have a significant impact on systems engineering practice.

Panellist Biographies:

Matthias Jarke is professor of Information Systems and chairman of the computer science department at Aachen University of Technology. His research interests focus on information systems support for design processes in business and engineering. Related to requirements engineering, he has been co-ordinator of three European ESPRIT projects, DAIDA, NATURE, and CREWS.

Carine Souveyet works at the Universite de la Sorbonne in Paris. She has extensive research experience and interests in information systems and data base modelling.

Neil Maiden is a Senior Lecturer in the Centre for HCI Design at City University, London. His research interests include frameworks for requirements acquisition and negotiation, scenario-based systems development, component-based software engineering, requirements reuse and more effective transfer of academic research results into software engineering practice.

Pierre-Yves Schobbens is a Professor at the University of Namur. His research interests are on elicitation and validation of requirements and on formal languages for specifying real-time, distributed systems.

7.1 PANEL: Systems Engineering in Public and Private Sectors

Moderator: Eliot Axelband, University of Southern California and The RAND Corporation

Panelists:

Don Clausing, Xerox Fellow, MIT
Mary Simpson, The Boeing Company
Werner Huss, Euromissile
Peter Brook, Director of Systems Engineering, DERA, UK
John Anderson, British Aerospace

Systems Engineering is practised in both the public and private sectors. The methods employed are different - a reflection of the underlying differences in products, product development cycles and customer requirements - and these have brought about two distinctly different systems engineering cultures. Despite this, these cultures on occasion borrow from one another. Private Sector System Engineering, in some instances, uses product assurance, safety and software management techniques originating from the public sector, and Public Sector System Engineering is adopting COTS and commercial systems engineering techniques from the private sector to meet the dicta of "faster, better cheaper", where such apply.

This panel seeks to contrast the Systems Engineering techniques of the public and private sectors while discussing their applicability to both sectors to foster improved product evolution. Speakers will address the dynamics of market forces versus the dominance of customer requirements and address the product cycles of the two worlds. The panel will also attempt to assess the emerging trends in some government agencies to adopt commercial procurement practices and in granting industry broader freedom in applying "commercial" industry standards.

Review:

GENERAL:

The panel was attended by an audience of 35 who stayed throughout and actively participated in the open interactive discussions which followed the panelists opening comments.

OPENING REMARKS:

The moderator, in his opening remarks, pointed out that in the US 75% of the gross national product is in the private sector, and of the 25% which is the public sector (governments of various levels) only 16%, or 4% of the gross national product, is funded by the DoD. Yet in INCOSE the dominant interest in systems engineering is DoD related. Excellent innovative complex systems are developed in both sectors under different practices stemming from different applicable regulations, and clearly each sector can learn from the other sector's system engineering practices - the purpose of this panel. Interestingly too, DoD systems engineering is supposed to be becoming more commercial like as a consequence of Acquisition Reform, although that initiative has yet to achieve a profound impact, and some DoD practices have been introduced into commercial practice as well.

Mary Simpson, in her opening remarks, spoke to an overall notional representation of systems engineering and the importance of agreeing upon where SE fits in the overall system before embarking upon specific implementation considerations. She then noted that there are discernable differences in the way SE is practiced between the public (or military/DoD) and private (commercial/industrial) sectors. Two primary reasons were identified for these differences. One reason identified is the presence of different underlying values to which the respective environments subscribe:
(1) technological (capability), (2) economic structure (profit/loss,
quality/benefit/utilitarian) and distribution of resources, (3) natural,
ecological, (4) cultural, behavioral, person (5) political, legal, policy,
and (6) utility (individual need versus public interest).

The second reason identified - at least for the US DoD environment - is the extensive infrastructure that is already in place before 'systems engineering' is introduced and/or practiced (that may or may not be in place on the commercial side): (1) determination of 'mission need', (2) initial validation of 'mission need' (3) initial process and schedule, (4) initial life-cycle cost estimate, (5) initial acquisition strategy, (6) initial affordability assessment, (7) comprehensive decision-making process, and (8) initial operational requirements. These two factors - values and existing infrastructure - contribute to drive different implementation decisions regarding the use of SE, the extent of its use, and the way SE should be organized to be most effective.

Don Clausing, in his opening remarks, stressed that the drivers in the public sector produce a product constrained environment, which inherently leads to different products and different practices, than those of the private sector. A tape recorder designed for the public sector must be system engineered in an environment where contract compliance, government oversight and the requirement of a long life cycle have significant roles and therefore impact. Just focusing, for example, on long product life, implies a relatively early technology freeze, large stocks of spare parts, and subsequent P3I programs. A commercial tape recorder must address the needs of a fast moving public market and is likely to have a short product life, less need for spares, and to be replaced by a new model in a comparatively few years. Werner Huss reminded us that many firms producing for the public market also produce for the private market and have profit motives. This will induce some blending of the systems engineering cultures. For example, a public market program manager who manages her/his program in a way that jeopardizes company profit is not likely to hold that job long.

Peter Brook, in reviewing the evolution of thinking at DERA ( The UK Defense Research Establishment) noted the growing trend in adopting private sector practices throughout, including systems engineering. His view was that the need for the public sector to operate efficiently would cause it to become private sector like in many of its processess.

Heinz Stower in his opening remarks, relating to his experience in both the public and private space sectors, stressed that:
- Space has seen enormous public investments during the past decades
- These public investments have created a large and growing commercial market, especially in the communications / informations and the launch fields
- Investments in the commercial part of the space business are beginning to overtake the public spending; 1998 saw more commercial spacecraft built than governement sponsored ones
- The growth of the commercial sector has brought new companies into the business
- These companies are governed by business plans and driven by "return on investment" and "time to market" considerations
- Their practices, incl for SE, are inducing changes in the public sector acquisition processes, and are forcing traditional aerospace companies to reengineer their processes and business approaches
- In time the public sector of the space business will have to adopt a growing measure of commercial practices in order to survive in a market which is more than other industrial sectors open to global competition

CONCLUSSIONS OF THE PANAL/AUDIENCE INTERACTIVE DISCUSSIONS

In the end the group did not reach agreement on how these two fields of systems engineering might merge. Opinions varied all over the map. One view was that systems engineeering is driven by the same fundamental forces where ever it is used (reward/punishment for the failure/success of the practitioners, defining requriements, and getting good product out efficiently), and as a result it is inevitable that the two practices will merge. In fact this view holds that Acquisition Reform and (in the UK) Smart Procurement, will hasten that. At the other extreme was the position that the Public Sector is fundamentally product constrained stemming from the need for public oversight, and as a result will produce its own unique brand of of products unsuitable in most instances for private consumption. The commercial dicta of minimizing time to market and maximizing commercial profit are not and will not work their way into the public sector. As an example of the fundamentally different views held in these sectors, it was pointed out that in the public sector there is a great emphasis on
reliability prediction achieved by extensive tests on fixed equipment configurations, whereas in the private sector configuration stability was less important than rapidly changing the configuration to improve reliability. The middle ground held that there is increasing emphasis on ROI at companies dealing in the public sector which will make such companies and their systems engineering more commercial like. In addition there are innovations like Public Private Partnerships - as exemplified by the commercial space business, and Other Transactions - as practiced by DARPA, which will bring the two sectors into a greater degree of conformance.

Like any good novel, we all look forward to the next chapter. As systems engineers, we are dedicated to improving the practice of systems engineering in our fields of endeavour, and benefit from exposure to new knowledge and practice.

7.4 PANEL: SE Aspects of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Moderator: Sam Rindskopf, TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc.

Panelists:

Sam Alessi, US Dept of Energy
Joe Simpson
Mick Mayhew, St. Cloud state University
Ronald Fayfich, Westinghouse
John Clouet, TRW Environmental Safety Systems

The objective of this panel session is to discuss application of Systems Engineering to fields of Environmental Restoration & Waste Management. The panel will be made up of representatives from industry, government and education. These panelists are recognized experts in their fields, and knowledgeable of the application of Systems Engineering. The focus of the discussion will be on the Systems Engineering Life Cycle and with an emphasis on the requirements identification and development phase of a project. The discussion will address stakeholder influences, political, legal, licensing, environmental and other issues that the system engineer must contend with in this phase of development. The panel will provide the audience with a short overview of their experience in Environmental Restoration and/or Waste Management prior to responding to and debating requirements related questions. At the end of the session, the audience will be offered an opportunity to ask questions of the panelists.

Panellist Biographies:

The panel moderator will be Sam Rindskopf who is the Chairman of the U.S. Department of Energy Systems Engineering Applications Interest Group and Co-Chair for the INCOSE Chapters Committee. Sam is currently a Senior Systems Engineer for TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc. with over 20 years of systems engineering experience. He led the development and maintenance of the Yucca Mountain Projects Exploratory Studies Facility requirements and the proposed deep geologic nuclear waste repository requirements. As a member of INCOSE, Sam was a founding member of the DOE Interest Group and took over the leadership shortly after its formation.

Dr. Mick Mayhew is currently an Assistant Professor at St.Cloud University. Dr. Mayhew has served as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the design and development of a whole-farm on-farm system software. Dr. Mayhew brings a unique perspective to the panel discussion.

Ronald Fayfich has over 27 years total experience in engineering consisting of over 17 years in the commercial nuclear power industry with the Westinghouse Electric Corporation and 10 years at the Department of Energy Savannah River Site with the Westinghouse Savannah River Company. In recent years, Mr.Fayfich has been actively involved in the practical application of systems engineering in the development and justification of site programs and projects.

John Clouet of TRW Environmental Safety Systems is also the INCOSE Region II director, and past president of the Silver State Chapter.

Dr. Sam Alessi of the U.S. Department of Energy is also the INCOSE Region I Director

7.5 PANEL: Software and Systems - Are we on the same team?

Moderator: Randall Wright, Hill AFB, USAF

Panelists:

Two software representatives:

- Jack Ferguson, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University
- Dave Castellano, Commander of Army TACOM-ARDEC

Two systems representatives:

- Dr Brian Mar, University of Washington, INCOSE Past-President
- Dr Brian McCay, Quality Systems and Software, Inc.

This tongue-in-cheek title leads to some tough questions. Is software engineering just a subset of, or even subservient to, systems engineering? Should they both be on an equal footing? In some areas, for example in the setting of standards, is systems engineering following softwares lead? Are they two names for essentially the same function?

The panel will open with four 15-minute presentations by the panelists on their perceptions of the battle lines, similarities and differences, and where they stand. A moderated debate on contentious issues will be followed by a Q&A session from the floor.

8.1 PANEL: Systems Engineering and Project Management Forum

Moderator: R. Sam Alessi, U.S. Department of Energy

Panelists:

Robert Johnston, Assistant Technical Director, Marconi Electronic Systems
Randy Zittel, Professor of Systems Engineering, DSMC
Bill Schoening, The Boeing Company
Harold Reeve, Chairman of the Board, Project Management Institute
Andrew Farncombe, Technical Director, Ultra Electronics

Many folk perceive that the ongoing debate between project management and system engineering disciplines has failed to produce tangible results. Others believe the quest to be of doubtful value. Yet project managers and systems engineers must surely work together if we are to improve our performance at putting systems together and delivering them to expectations time, performance, cost, faster, better, cheaper. The panelists will consider how to take this debate forward as we approach the new millennium.

Our mission is to uncover the nature of the interface between project management and systems engineering. Statements by the panelists will be followed by a facilitated gourd discussion with the panel

8.5 PANEL: Expanding Systems Engineering using the Internet

Moderator: Bill Mackey, Computer Sciences Corporation

Panelists:

Mark Austin, UMD, Institute for Systems Research
Tom Bagg, TCB III Inc.
Scott Jackson, Boeing
Joe Kasser (remotely from College Park, MD, USA), UMD University College
Brian Brady, Mesa Systems Guild Inc.
Bill Mackey outlined the format of the panel and introduced the panellists. He then went on to describe the Working Groups and Interest Groups of the SE Applications Technical Committee of INCOSE, and where relevant their web-based work.

Bill then gave an overview of the SE Applications Profiles web-based documents with a domain example. Mark Austin continued by describing the University of Maryland program in creating the SE Applications Profiles website. After an introduction to the web design task set to his students, Mark talked about the human factors implementing efficient and user-friendly links between contextual chunks of information, and how to engage the attention of the browsing viewer to turn information into knowledge. The use of Java Object Library Toolkit (JOLT) was recommended, with a phased approach to integration of an application on a website.

Tom Bagg gave a condensed version of his paper on systems and legal issues involved in publishing on the web. This took the form of a set of questions you should ask yourself before publishing on the web, followed by useful guideline answers based on NASAs experiences.

The panel then watched and listened to Joe Kasser, who gave his presentation remotely from College Park, MD, via a CD! In it he described his web-based virtual conferencing tool. His presentation slides have been published, but a better view of the content can be obtained by trying it out for real, by visiting www.umuc.com/~jkasser and following the links to the virtual web conference. The follow-up featured a live phone-over-the-web question and answer session with Joe in his office in College Park, via the PhoneFree software downloaded from the web. Joe told us that the audio files for his whole 25 minute presentation compressed down to 3 Megabytes via Real Audio, another free download from the web, but stressed that the virtual webconference means of communication was definitely intended to be asynchronous. Despite the audio-visual set-up being somewhat tortuous in the conference room, overall this worked very well.

Scott Jackson then initiated participation in the SE Applications Profiles Project, and described the levels of participation.

Brain Brady gave an overview of the Mesa Vista tool. Again a visit to www.mesasys.com/mv_am/pm_home.html , and taking the guided tour, is recommended. This could well be the future for distributed integrated systems engineering management support. For demonstration applications, try http://demo.mesasys.com , and enter as vistaguest, password tryvista. There is also an emerging INCOSE site, INCOSE.mesasys.com, user-ids and passwords will be available on request for those who wish to follow this up.

Session report by : Paul Davies, INCOSE 99 Panels Co-ordinator,

8.7 PANEL: Systems Engineering in Rail Transport Applications

Moderator: John Williams, University of Birmingham

Panelists:

Dr Rob Davis, Railtrack
Andy Bourne, London Underground Ltd
Graham Wheeler, London Underground Ltd
Simon Wills, SEA

Certainly in Europe, one of the first domains outside of Defence and Aerospace to embrace Systems Engineering is the railway sector of the transport Industry. The effective operation of a modern railway depends on the ability to economically meet a rising demand in terms of passengers and freight whilst also satisfying increasingly stringent safety and environmental requirements. New railways and railway renewals require the synthesis of a variety of technologies and operational techniques in order to achieve this. The renewals place particular demands since they are a particular example of systems engineering in an operational context, i.e. operation of the system needs to continue whilst the new system is implemented. The panel will be exploring these challenges and the various ways in which shared experience is, can and will benefit the industry. Key areas of application will be presented by Panelists and subsequent discussions will cover the immediate needs of the Industry for better SE practices - including the tricky questions of how to sift the best out of established practices whilst avoiding being swallowed up by the worst.